How is Apple taking freedom from me by not showing me their changes to FreeBSD code? The original FreeBSD code is there for me to see and there is no way that Apple would have used GPL code. There is no net loss.
With the GPL corps are free to profit without giving back. They are only prevented from profiting through a distributed proprietary derivative. Corps all over the world have been able to save billions by not having to pay for proprietary Unix licenses.
You make it sound like code can only exist in an open or proprietary state.
Apple used FreeBSD code and the FreeBSD team was not "less free" because of it. What exactly did they lose? Are they slaves? This really doesn't make any sense. The GPL "freedoms" are just Stallman's demands. He wants to be able to peer into any downstream software project and parades this demand as a "freedom" even though his license could be described more accurately as anti-proprietary.
You do realize that the GPL allows corporations to make billions from GPL software without contributing, right? If the goal is to stop corporations from profiting without giving back then the GPL is a lousy license. It only prevents derivative products that are distributed. Corps are free to make billions from web applications and internal use.
You're not restricting the original code. It doesn't disappear if someone creates a proprietary derivative. Stallman & co just want a "right" to peer into downstream derivatives. That isn't freedom, that's just demanding access to someone else's derivative project. Stallman just parades the whole thing in "freedoms" to grandstand.
Who is being locked out? Yes you can be locked out from derivatives but not the original code. If I make a proprietary FreeBSD I am not preventing anyone from working on FreeBSD. I'm not making my changes available but there isn't a net loss to FreeBSD. I haven't added or taken away anything.
The GPL protects the *freedom of the code*, not the freedom of developers. Hence the term free software. The BSD allows you to lock the code down, and release binaries only and so is not as good at protecting the freedom of the code.
How has the original code been restricted? It's still there for anyone to use. The BSD allows proprietary derivatives but it does not allow you to restrict access to the original code. The GPL would be better described in what it prevents, not what it protects. In fact it could be described without getting into semantic debates about freedom. It prevents proprietary derivatives, where or not that is "freedom" is subjective.
Do you really think MS has tried their best with IE? They are successful at operating systems, databases, development software, game consoles and office suites but browser standards just happen to be their weak point?
The PNG transparency bug in IE6 could have been fixed overnight. The CSS bugs could have been fixed in a week. You're naive if you think the slow progress of IE was unintentional.
And Konqueror was ahead of IE in the area of browser standards for years. That's the area where the IE team gets criticized the most and it has nothing to do with ability or resources. Like I said before it is intentional incompetence. It hasn't been in their financial interest to support browser standards.
I can't believe it is due to a lack of talent or resources. It must be for some other reason and I suspect it has to do with backward compatibility and possibly even maintaining the appearance that "all other browsers are broken" as users seem to perceive.
The main reason has been to prevent the web from becoming a software platform. That's why IE6 was left on the market for so long. It's not a coincidence that they have been slow as molasses with IE but have been able to get out two xboxes. MS loves the idea of IE only websites and has been dragged kicking and screaming into supporting browser standards. Playing slow poke has been part of their game. Governments should have required standards-complaint browsers early on to disrupt their strategy.
1. Yes it does if you have enough of it. MS has enough cash to build a dozen browser teams. They've built software that is far more complex in the past five years, a browser isn't a big deal in comparison.
2. Sites sniff for specific versions of IE. IE9 renders closer to FF 3.5 than IE8. Additional components like Asian fonts could be added. You make it sound like browser development requires extraordinary talent and resources. There are plenty of browsers like Konqueror that have small teams and early on were ahead of IE.
IE has always been held back on purpose. IE6 was filled with easy to fix bugs but they let it render in a quirky manner to discourage the web as a platform. It's incompetence as a strategy. They have moved away from that strategy with IE9 but only because of pressure from alternative browsers.
They have clearly been dragging their feet on IE, probably because they don't want to encourage the web as a software platform. It has nothing to do with talent or resources. They have plenty of money to afford either and they can also make use of Webkit or Gecko.
It's a nerd religion. I think it is pretty obvious that expecting FOSS everywhere is unrealistic but much like creationists they already picked their world view and will now defend it even as the evidence against it piles up. FOSS doesn't have enough solutions for paying the bills, especially for desktop software. Gosling came out and said this recently but the FOSS crowd still wants to follow St. Stallman around even though he clearly doesn't have all the answers.
So it's ok to not honor the spirit on the basis that one of your competitors is doing the same thing? I think following the GPL is the important part and all this spirit talk is just bitterness at Oracle.
The world has a hard time admitting this since Mugabe was supposed to lead the country away from evil white rule. He's not only a psycho thug but a total idiot when it comes to economics. He doesn't seem to get that printing money for government workers is bad in the long run and that inflation cannot be controlled through price fixing. It's like watching a freshmen who hasn't taken econ 101 run an economy. Milk is too expensive? Well then machete anyone who charges more than $2. Problem solved.
Anti-white, pro-white, pro-black whatever I don't care just please admit this guy is one of the worst leaders Africa has come up with. Just awful.
Slashdot Mirror
How is Apple taking freedom from me by not showing me their changes to FreeBSD code? The original FreeBSD code is there for me to see and there is no way that Apple would have used GPL code. There is no net loss.
With the GPL corps are free to profit without giving back. They are only prevented from profiting through a distributed proprietary derivative. Corps all over the world have been able to save billions by not having to pay for proprietary Unix licenses.
You make it sound like code can only exist in an open or proprietary state.
Apple used FreeBSD code and the FreeBSD team was not "less free" because of it. What exactly did they lose? Are they slaves? This really doesn't make any sense. The GPL "freedoms" are just Stallman's demands. He wants to be able to peer into any downstream software project and parades this demand as a "freedom" even though his license could be described more accurately as anti-proprietary.
You do realize that the GPL allows corporations to make billions from GPL software without contributing, right? If the goal is to stop corporations from profiting without giving back then the GPL is a lousy license. It only prevents derivative products that are distributed. Corps are free to make billions from web applications and internal use.
To Stallman the GPL is the most moral. He compared proprietary developers to criminals after all. What a loon.
You're not restricting the original code. It doesn't disappear if someone creates a proprietary derivative. Stallman & co just want a "right" to peer into downstream derivatives. That isn't freedom, that's just demanding access to someone else's derivative project. Stallman just parades the whole thing in "freedoms" to grandstand.
We grant you Freedoms, not just carefully follow all these rules to get those Freedoms.
Sounds like something a cult would come up with. It's a Freedom club, now follow the Leader's rules.
Bullshit. Freedom fries have more freedom than Freedom pancakes.
I rest my case.
Who is being locked out? Yes you can be locked out from derivatives but not the original code. If I make a proprietary FreeBSD I am not preventing anyone from working on FreeBSD. I'm not making my changes available but there isn't a net loss to FreeBSD. I haven't added or taken away anything.
Free for whom?
The GPL protects the *freedom of the code*, not the freedom of developers. Hence the term free software. The BSD allows you to lock the code down, and release binaries only and so is not as good at protecting the freedom of the code.
How has the original code been restricted? It's still there for anyone to use. The BSD allows proprietary derivatives but it does not allow you to restrict access to the original code. The GPL would be better described in what it prevents, not what it protects. In fact it could be described without getting into semantic debates about freedom. It prevents proprietary derivatives, where or not that is "freedom" is subjective.
Do you really think MS has tried their best with IE? They are successful at operating systems, databases, development software, game consoles and office suites but browser standards just happen to be their weak point?
The PNG transparency bug in IE6 could have been fixed overnight. The CSS bugs could have been fixed in a week. You're naive if you think the slow progress of IE was unintentional.
And Konqueror was ahead of IE in the area of browser standards for years. That's the area where the IE team gets criticized the most and it has nothing to do with ability or resources. Like I said before it is intentional incompetence. It hasn't been in their financial interest to support browser standards.
I can't believe it is due to a lack of talent or resources. It must be for some other reason and I suspect it has to do with backward compatibility and possibly even maintaining the appearance that "all other browsers are broken" as users seem to perceive.
The main reason has been to prevent the web from becoming a software platform. That's why IE6 was left on the market for so long. It's not a coincidence that they have been slow as molasses with IE but have been able to get out two xboxes. MS loves the idea of IE only websites and has been dragged kicking and screaming into supporting browser standards. Playing slow poke has been part of their game. Governments should have required standards-complaint browsers early on to disrupt their strategy.
1. Yes it does if you have enough of it. MS has enough cash to build a dozen browser teams. They've built software that is far more complex in the past five years, a browser isn't a big deal in comparison.
2. Sites sniff for specific versions of IE. IE9 renders closer to FF 3.5 than IE8. Additional components like Asian fonts could be added. You make it sound like browser development requires extraordinary talent and resources. There are plenty of browsers like Konqueror that have small teams and early on were ahead of IE.
IE has always been held back on purpose. IE6 was filled with easy to fix bugs but they let it render in a quirky manner to discourage the web as a platform. It's incompetence as a strategy. They have moved away from that strategy with IE9 but only because of pressure from alternative browsers.
They have clearly been dragging their feet on IE, probably because they don't want to encourage the web as a software platform. It has nothing to do with talent or resources. They have plenty of money to afford either and they can also make use of Webkit or Gecko.
Because some of us are not Stallmanologists?
That doesn't make any sense. Google could not have built Chrome as a proprietary browser? Why not?
Dangerous how? Unlike Firefox it is sandboxed. I'm a Chrome user but the /. hatred towards anything from MS is ridiculous.
Most of their articles are crap so they go for the cheap hits.
Linux is user friendly until it needs to be updated.
even if they were proprietary. People do not run them because they are open source. The open source religion is really getting old.
It's a nerd religion. I think it is pretty obvious that expecting FOSS everywhere is unrealistic but much like creationists they already picked their world view and will now defend it even as the evidence against it piles up. FOSS doesn't have enough solutions for paying the bills, especially for desktop software. Gosling came out and said this recently but the FOSS crowd still wants to follow St. Stallman around even though he clearly doesn't have all the answers.
So it's ok to not honor the spirit on the basis that one of your competitors is doing the same thing? I think following the GPL is the important part and all this spirit talk is just bitterness at Oracle.
The world has a hard time admitting this since Mugabe was supposed to lead the country away from evil white rule. He's not only a psycho thug but a total idiot when it comes to economics. He doesn't seem to get that printing money for government workers is bad in the long run and that inflation cannot be controlled through price fixing. It's like watching a freshmen who hasn't taken econ 101 run an economy. Milk is too expensive? Well then machete anyone who charges more than $2. Problem solved.
Anti-white, pro-white, pro-black whatever I don't care just please admit this guy is one of the worst leaders Africa has come up with. Just awful.
No actually colonialism was traded for Mugabe. Carter was for anything but white rule and let the country go under a dictator.
life doesn't always work out as planned.