I already read it, and I still stand at my point, which many people around here seem to have failed to understand.
If I create a product that everyone uses, and I become rich off of it, I deserve the wealth and power that comes along.
And about the posts above, I do see that people aren't FORCED to use the GPL/GNU, but..If anyone had bothered to read http://www.gnu.org, you can CLEARLY see that it is an anti-corporate communist, license that many sheep seem to follow blindly without actually bothering to see the consequences.
I would love to see a stable, standardized, version of linux, unlike the countless shitty distributions I have gone through within the last week.
BTW. Kylex dev edtion is only $199. With this compiler becoming more popular, you will start to see ALL BINARY versions of linux (because people are no longer forced to use the GNU license)
the idea of "STANDARD" libraries on a linux system, although needed, are against the ideals of the slashdot community, because linux is "freedom" and a standard set of libraries would mean "conformity".
1) you are not forced to BUY CDS/music. This is kind of like saying: mcdonalds is charging too much for their food, let's start robbing and looting their stores. Yeah...that kind of reasoning is going to work REAL well. (why not have some balls for once and start boycotting). This kind of reasoning is kinda like the riots of Los Angelos or Detroit. The blacks get pissed because they feel someone is being overly mistreated, so in response they rob and steal from stores that are owned by chinese,koreans,americans, and GASP blacks. (this isn't supposed to be against any race or religion, im just using the riots as an example)
2) artists are not FORCED to go with a company that rapes them. They choose to do so on their own. If they wanted their music to be "freely" givin to the hands of their beloved fans, they would start up an Internet site, or give it away on a napster like service. If you haven't already figured it out, recording artists do serve a purpose: promotion and advertising. They allow a band to get their music into the hands of the fans.
the real reason we should be against the RIAA is because of their control and monopoly over things like VCD,DVD,etc.,etc. and now burning CD's.
Could this be the beginning of Slashdot's demise to the corporate machine?
the cororate machine took slashdot long ago. Why do you think you see such interesting phrases as: "all your base belongs to us" in an advertisement? Because.. people from slashdot doesn't care about open source, they like the idea of open source because it brings together a large mass of people that can view their ads.
corporations such as mandrake are hardly turning a profit. It seems to me people are just bitter at the fact that money is involved at all. If open source is going to make it in the business world at all, its supporters are going to have to embrace ideas like this. How the hell is a company supposed to survive when advertisements, charging for service, charging money, and now donations are a bad idea?! I will answer this....They're not. Without some kind of money incentive, OpenSource will stay underground FOREVER.
Even funnier. But I keep forgetting, total government support, and programs such as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION need to be enforced in the united states.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
only to note that RedHat is making money
that is the biggest joke. All corporate redhat companies (including redhat) are losing money. Please I would like to hear of a REAL example, which I don't think actually exists.
What about ones freedom to MAKE MONEY? Or is that just another right that the GPL tramples
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
that just proves my point on how closed the GPL actually is, not for "free speech", as many think. It's even worse than a standard close source license
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Taken from the GPL FAQ:
1) Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
This is allowed, because the end-user is getting charged a fee under my own license (in addition to the GPL), which is solely for the purpose of tech support. The software and source is still given away FREE of CHARGE.
2) Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
giving the FSF copyright to a program is NOT placing it in the public domain. This is like giving all of your worldly possessions to a religious cult, and saying: "God owns my possessions now".
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Here is another problem with the slashdot's idealisms:
if they are not enforcing payment, advertisements are bad, and tech. support is optional, how does one make money?
realistically, they can't. In the FSF perfect world, money would be taken out of the equation (or placed into their own pockets). Corporations are BAD (except if it's about linux or something OPEN-Source related). Where would we be, without coporations?
1) WWW wouldn't have been invented.
2) the internet would consist of about 4 university computers
3) all the cool technologies that we see today would never have been invented
Money is the main reason many developers (not all) strive to create new technology. Do you actually think we would see a 1.4 GHZ without corporate involvement? I will answer this question for you: NO.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
that's why any corporation using the GPL has to give the software out for free, and require it's users to pay a monthly free for service. Getting a monthly free from everyone who gets your software is a lot better than a one time fee.
This is not a troll, just the voice of truth.
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
closed source software has always been as "free" as open source software. The fact that billy gates came into the industry has no effect. It's not like he created the idea.
On the other hand, the reason open source software will never become popular, in the corporate world, is because it doesn't bring in any $$$.
what about apple? They would have popularized an even more closed source model. Or IBM. Companies have always been around.
basically a slave. If im going to eat, sleep, and sometimes shit code, it sure as hell won't be for someone else. I take pride in releasing code that I can call my own, even if it doesn't make me any $$$.
if this is the case, why does it matter to you when a big company uses a piece of GPL'd code in their closed source products, without releasing their changes?
maybe because you believe your above post, but only in the favor of the OSS community.
remember....
Nobody can stop people from transferring and copying files
this includes corporations. If what you say is true, you shold have no trouble at all when a company useses GPL'd code in a commercial project.
My advice to Caldera is to stop being a cry baby and consider becoming a non-profit organization.
I give the same advice to the OSS community, stop being a cry-baby, your code will be used and abused by everyone, and there's nothing you can do.
the thing that scares me about AOL, is the fact that they have such a large percentage of internet users (read: monkey end users). They could start controlling things like e-mail, napster, etc.,etc., and even if we could get around such tactics , many of the end users would just take it, leading the internet into the direction where one company has almost total control (at least in the US).
here is a similarity: when enough large companies start using GNU software in their commercial, it makes it ok from then on for ANY company to do so. intellectual rights are intellectual rights. Whether it be protecting companies from using and abusing gnu source code, or people copying movies/music/other copyrighted material. If you believe in protecting in one, you cannot just trample on others' rights without being a hypocrite.
it seems there are too many people in the GNU community that are like this.
What you have hear is a known anti-social IP hording Corporation (sony) taking advantage** of the goodwill of GPL coders in order to take only for themselves, flatly violating the intent of the GPL and using it to horde cash for themselves...
we are getting a little bit bitter, aren't we.......
The reason a corporation even glances at workings of a piece of GPL'd code, is so they don't have to PAY for it.
without this fact, corporations would not even look at GPL code. (which seems to be the subject of many slashdot articles. IE: getting corporate america to use GNU software, which I might add will not turn them into free thinking people who love to give back to the software community).
using existing laws to go after companies and people by people who are against those existing laws is a bit hypocritical. I think the open source community should try this novel idea: Come out with something better then the existing closed source models...and I mean: it looks better, someone who doesn't code can use it, and each function isn't in it's own source file (i've noticed about 99% of software under the GNU license is like this, it makes it almost useless).
Even if you don't copy a piece of open-source software, you could still take the main ideas, radically change the code, and call it your own, without having any proof of where you got it. This problem lies in the very nature of open source.
one more thing: are all trolls people that think outside the box? That's what I mean by the real world. People that don't think and live inside your close-minded universe. How ironic...a close minded individual preaching open-source.
This sounds like the BSA coming after people with pirated software!
Think if evceryone was using the GPL. If it was violated (Ie. no source was given only binaries), there would be a police of sorts that would come after you.
I would much have the FREEDOM to choose whether I give back to the community or not. (that's also why you see 99% of big businesses using BSD licensed code on their systems)
People that get in trouble for violating a standard EULA IE: pirating software, are "fucking the man, getting back what they deserve from the companies". But companies that violate the GPL should be attacked with lawyers and forced to give out the source.
You guys can't have it both ways if you want to be taken seriuosly in the real world. If someone else's license is violated (IE: RIAA,Microsoft,insert a large company here) they deserve just as much justice as when the GPL/GNU license is violated.
Slashdot Mirror
Is a license that is anti-corporate and communist bad?
Yes, because if it was the only license in use, other people would make your choices for you. I like FREEDOM, rather than SLAVERY.
bzzzt sorry,
I already read it, and I still stand at my point, which many people around here seem to have failed to understand.
If I create a product that everyone uses, and I become rich off of it, I deserve the wealth and power that comes along.
And about the posts above, I do see that people aren't FORCED to use the GPL/GNU, but..If anyone had bothered to read http://www.gnu.org, you can CLEARLY see that it is an anti-corporate communist, license that many sheep seem to follow blindly without actually bothering to see the consequences.
then why have the GPL/GNU license??
bitter about what may I ask?
I would love to see a stable, standardized, version of linux, unlike the countless shitty distributions I have gone through within the last week.
BTW. Kylex dev edtion is only $199. With this compiler becoming more popular, you will start to see ALL BINARY versions of linux (because people are no longer forced to use the GNU license)
the idea of "STANDARD" libraries on a linux system, although needed, are against the ideals of the slashdot community, because linux is "freedom" and a standard set of libraries would mean "conformity".
you are all forgetting one important fact: the greed for ego and self-promotion can be JUST as bad as the greed for money
If an idea or a concept goes against their religion the religion demands that you silence it.
how about slashdot/gnu/linux community as an example of this? Open your eyes and you will see the truth
here are some problems with your reasoning:
1) you are not forced to BUY CDS/music. This is kind of like saying: mcdonalds is charging too much for their food, let's start robbing and looting their stores. Yeah...that kind of reasoning is going to work REAL well. (why not have some balls for once and start boycotting). This kind of reasoning is kinda like the riots of Los Angelos or Detroit. The blacks get pissed because they feel someone is being overly mistreated, so in response they rob and steal from stores that are owned by chinese,koreans,americans, and GASP blacks. (this isn't supposed to be against any race or religion, im just using the riots as an example)
2) artists are not FORCED to go with a company that rapes them. They choose to do so on their own. If they wanted their music to be "freely" givin to the hands of their beloved fans, they would start up an Internet site, or give it away on a napster like service. If you haven't already figured it out, recording artists do serve a purpose: promotion and advertising. They allow a band to get their music into the hands of the fans.
the real reason we should be against the RIAA is because of their control and monopoly over things like VCD,DVD,etc.,etc. and now burning CD's.
moderators are a bit bitter about the truth......
Could this be the beginning of Slashdot's demise to the corporate machine?
.. people from slashdot doesn't care about open source, they like the idea of open source because it brings together a large mass of people that can view their ads.
the cororate machine took slashdot long ago. Why do you think you see such interesting phrases as: "all your base belongs to us" in an advertisement? Because
corporations such as mandrake are hardly turning a profit. It seems to me people are just bitter at the fact that money is involved at all. If open source is going to make it in the business world at all, its supporters are going to have to embrace ideas like this. How the hell is a company supposed to survive when advertisements, charging for service, charging money, and now donations are a bad idea?! I will answer this....They're not. Without some kind of money incentive, OpenSource will stay underground FOREVER.
funny,
who would have been a better president then??
GORE??
Even funnier. But I keep forgetting, total government support, and programs such as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION need to be enforced in the united states.
only to note that RedHat is making money
that is the biggest joke. All corporate redhat companies (including redhat) are losing money. Please I would like to hear of a REAL example, which I don't think actually exists.
What about ones freedom to MAKE MONEY? Or is that just another right that the GPL tramples
that just proves my point on how closed the GPL actually is, not for "free speech", as many think. It's even worse than a standard close source license
Taken from the GPL FAQ:
1) Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
This is allowed, because the end-user is getting charged a fee under my own license (in addition to the GPL), which is solely for the purpose of tech support. The software and source is still given away FREE of CHARGE.
2) Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
giving the FSF copyright to a program is NOT placing it in the public domain. This is like giving all of your worldly possessions to a religious cult, and saying: "God owns my possessions now".
Here is another problem with the slashdot's idealisms:
if they are not enforcing payment, advertisements are bad, and tech. support is optional, how does one make money?
realistically, they can't. In the FSF perfect world, money would be taken out of the equation (or placed into their own pockets). Corporations are BAD (except if it's about linux or something OPEN-Source related). Where would we be, without coporations?
1) WWW wouldn't have been invented.
2) the internet would consist of about 4 university computers
3) all the cool technologies that we see today would never have been invented
Money is the main reason many developers (not all) strive to create new technology. Do you actually think we would see a 1.4 GHZ without corporate involvement? I will answer this question for you: NO.
that's why any corporation using the GPL has to give the software out for free, and require it's users to pay a monthly free for service. Getting a monthly free from everyone who gets your software is a lot better than a one time fee. This is not a troll, just the voice of truth.
closed source software has always been as "free" as open source software. The fact that billy gates came into the industry has no effect. It's not like he created the idea.
On the other hand, the reason open source software will never become popular, in the corporate world, is because it doesn't bring in any $$$.
what about apple? They would have popularized an even more closed source model. Or IBM. Companies have always been around.
basically a slave. If im going to eat, sleep, and sometimes shit code, it sure as hell won't be for someone else. I take pride in releasing code that I can call my own, even if it doesn't make me any $$$.
in response to MOBE2001
if this is the case, why does it matter to you when a big company uses a piece of GPL'd code in their closed source products, without releasing their changes?
maybe because you believe your above post, but only in the favor of the OSS community.
remember....
Nobody can stop people from transferring and copying files
this includes corporations. If what you say is true, you shold have no trouble at all when a company useses GPL'd code in a commercial project.
My advice to Caldera is to stop being a cry baby and consider becoming a non-profit organization.
I give the same advice to the OSS community, stop being a cry-baby, your code will be used and abused by everyone, and there's nothing you can do.
this is not a troll, im just stating my opinion
the thing that scares me about AOL, is the fact that they have such a large percentage of internet users (read: monkey end users). They could start controlling things like e-mail, napster, etc.,etc., and even if we could get around such tactics , many of the end users would just take it, leading the internet into the direction where one company has almost total control (at least in the US).
Do you actually believe this?
here is a similarity: when enough large companies start using GNU software in their commercial, it makes it ok from then on for ANY company to do so. intellectual rights are intellectual rights. Whether it be protecting companies from using and abusing gnu source code, or people copying movies/music/other copyrighted material. If you believe in protecting in one, you cannot just trample on others' rights without being a hypocrite.
it seems there are too many people in the GNU community that are like this.
What you have hear is a known anti-social IP hording Corporation (sony) taking advantage** of the goodwill of GPL coders in order to take only for themselves, flatly violating the intent of the GPL and using it to horde cash for themselves...
we are getting a little bit bitter, aren't we.......
The reason a corporation even glances at workings of a piece of GPL'd code, is so they don't have to PAY for it.
without this fact, corporations would not even look at GPL code. (which seems to be the subject of many slashdot articles. IE: getting corporate america to use GNU software, which I might add will not turn them into free thinking people who love to give back to the software community).
using existing laws to go after companies and people by people who are against those existing laws is a bit hypocritical. I think the open source community should try this novel idea: Come out with something better then the existing closed source models...and I mean: it looks better, someone who doesn't code can use it, and each function isn't in it's own source file (i've noticed about 99% of software under the GNU license is like this, it makes it almost useless).
Even if you don't copy a piece of open-source software, you could still take the main ideas, radically change the code, and call it your own, without having any proof of where you got it. This problem lies in the very nature of open source.
one more thing: are all trolls people that think outside the box? That's what I mean by the real world. People that don't think and live inside your close-minded universe. How ironic...a close minded individual preaching open-source.
This sounds like the BSA coming after people with pirated software!
Think if evceryone was using the GPL. If it was violated (Ie. no source was given only binaries), there would be a police of sorts that would come after you.
I would much have the FREEDOM to choose whether I give back to the community or not. (that's also why you see 99% of big businesses using BSD licensed code on their systems)
People that get in trouble for violating a standard EULA IE: pirating software, are "fucking the man, getting back what they deserve from the companies". But companies that violate the GPL should be attacked with lawyers and forced to give out the source.
You guys can't have it both ways if you want to be taken seriuosly in the real world. If someone else's license is violated (IE: RIAA,Microsoft,insert a large company here) they deserve just as much justice as when the GPL/GNU license is violated.