For BSDL software, the common pattern is to adopt it, maintain a proprietary fork, realise that this is an expensive waste of resources, and upstream everything that isn't a core competitive advantage (which, in a lot of cases, means all of it - or, at least, all of the bits that are actually useful to other people).
Exactly. There is also one other problem. This can be happening at multiple vendors simultaneously each of which has added different core competitive advantages. They can fork to the point they can't upstream usefully with another. They just both evolved from some base product. The GPL mostly helps to prevent that problem.
Re:GPL is a valid option, but overrated
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
-- You can't take back a GPL release and make it closed source, once you've released it.
That's what many GPL companies do. Including Trolltech (Qt) and MySQL (when they existed). You most certainly can. Now that doesn't change the existing license on the existing codebase but new codebases can be any license you want. The parent was correct, if you own copyright you can relicense at will. Parent's post was incorrect on may points but not on this one. Not that it means much because this is true of any license... a wet water criticism.
Re:Only one side seems to be doing the 'pitting'
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
It isn't really ironic. The problem is that there is an asymmetry in the Free Software community. The GPL crowd can comfortably use BSD style code but the BSD community cannot use GPL code. Moreover the GPL movement was a response to and critique of historical failures in the BSD movement, particularly XWindows so they have felt attacked from day 1.
However the Apache foundation and the FSF worked together to make sure the Apache license and the GPLv3 were compatible. So while there is snipping there is also cooperation.
Huh? That's not true at all. The GPL style started having fights in the early 1980s as soon as it came into existence. This happened more or less at birth.
Because software exists in ecosystems. How the ecosystems evolve has a great deal to do with people who use or write free software. What authors choose matters a lot.
Re:Pro-copyright != pro-current-copyright
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
This is an important point.
a) Working with the law as it exists today to accomplish what you can. b) Working to change the law to something else
Since when has GPL ever claimed to be anti-copyright? The GPL is a software license whose form comes from copyright law, uses terms from copyright law and whose power of enforcement comes from copyright law.
Re:Yea- we need the GPL or we won't get sources
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
The FSF and RMS in particular never advocated for freedom for hardware. IP is infinitely reproducible for free and thus reproduction is prevented by law. Hardware reproduction requires expensive facilities and thus reproduction is easily preventable without intrusive law. The FSF have never considered the cases similar.
And yet Windows 10 on release day will have more users than Linux has gotten in 22 fricking years LOL.
Between embedded systems and servers Linux has about 10b systems running using it. Windows 10 total sales are likely to be in the order of a few hundred million over the course of the entire year, much less first day so well under 4% of the user base. First day you are at a fraction of that, so something like.1%. Moreover the user base for Linux during that time will skyrocket probably by a couple more billion which will knock the high point for Windows 10 to around 2% or so. Your statistics are BS.
The summary is completely confusing and decontextualized.
A few days ago at OSCON Shane Curcuru of Apache Foundation gave a talk: Why I don’t use the GPL which gave the standard BSD defense: I won’t use the GPL for new software, and you maybe shouldn’t either. “Heretic”, comes the cry from the back of the room! But no – I bleed and believe in open source and the public good as much as you do. The difference is, I want to share my code with everyone not just the believers.
Christopher Allan Webber is the creator of MediaGoblin. MediaGoblin is a free software media publishing platform that anyone can run. You can think of it as a decentralized alternative to Flickr, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc. http://mediagoblin.org/
He wrote an article in response to Corcuru's talk where he addressed the big failure of the BSD argument its now over 30 year track record including recently of creating platforms that are unfree using BSD software as a base. He also argued against pitting licenses against one another which is odd since he's defending a license. Webber's position is the standard GPL defense. Here is a longer article not specific to Curcuru. http://dustycloud.org/blog/fie...
Anyway the standard time tested argument but the summary was terribly unclear about who was talking to whom.
Which is exactly why sequestration actually worked and why we need more of it.
Yes I agreed with you during the George HW Bush time. I was at that time very much supportive of cutting government spending and was furious at the lack of cuts. This round of sequestration has also been a huge success for spending cuts. Congress is starting to freak because it has been so succesful on defense.
2) We will likely be even more a service economy having seen little growth in real wages
True. But corporate profits are huge so that's going to be easy to fix.
3) The Debt will be larger, meaning more borrowing will cost more
Huh? Interest rates are at record lows. If they stay low more borrowing by definition will cost little.
4) The once insatiable appetites for our bonds in foreign markets that is now gone will still be
Truncated. And my answer is possibly. But that translates into a very weak dollar. Which fixes problem #2.
5) Even if the dollar is still the reserve currency of many alternative currency markets for commodities like oil will probably exist.
Not sure why that matters except to borrow more.
6) Mandatory health insurance while having prevented a handful of personal bankruptcies will have further reduced the savings rate among the general population.
Savings are dropping off and direct investing is replacing it. That's just cutting out intermediaries. The USA economy doesn't need much saving as long as there is lots of investment. The traditional main purpose of savings is for banks to consolidate them into investments.
If you talk generally about spending cuts this has 70% approval / 30% disapproval If you talk specifically about any particular spending cut that has 30% approval / 70% disapproval.
The problem isn't the politicians it is the electorate being inconsistent and fantastical. As Russel Long put it, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!".
Remember the original article picked Google as their example I was just working their choice. As for your choice I'm having trouble digging up information but it seems to be
450,000 highway billboards in the USA about 425,000 are non-digital. Non digital generate $1000 / yr in taxes on average so let's guess the compensation is the $425m in highway funding the tax payers aren't covering.
Digital (say about 25k) average about $23k / yr in taxes so they are another $575m though much much higher distraction factor.
First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or compensation.
Which is nonsense. The entire model for advertising is providing compensation which outweighs the negatives of the advertising. To pick his example of Google: search, email, web browsers, phone operating systems, mapping, video viewing, news aggregation... are all very expensive services to provide. Google provides them for free in exchange for consuming advertising. That is the compensation.
Microsoft has always been a proponent of save and save often. Microsoft has never claimed Notepad is a reliable information store on reboot. Microsoft has never claimed to offer a no crash operating system.
Not rebooting is not using the product as the manufacturer intended.
I suspect a user knowledgeable enough to make choices about security updates will also know how to kill the service for updates or change the registry keys to trick the system into not pulling a particular update or...
Mostly I don't think it is to naive user's advantage to have the "it's my system not Microsoft's". Apple has been a pretty big proponent of pulling in the other direction and users have benefited tremendously.
The GGP was talking about the OS not having alternatives on a boot level. Once you start discussing applications with no replacement, i.e. a hard requirement for Windows the existence of alternatives ceases to be an issue because they are irrelevant to the task at hand.
Does autosave in OS X save my accidental large deletions and make it impossible for me to revert them?
No quite the opposite. For most user versions it maintains a multiple versioning system where you have recent versions, versions every hour since last explicit save and all explicit saves.
This btw does work with "untitled" documents which are saved to the default folder for the application as: untitled (number) until you give them an explicit name.
Windows has a recovery partition or external boot and it has restore points for updates from the last 7 days. A user who knows enough to decide which updates to install can work from there. Any user who knows enough to decide which updates to install should also be regularly backing up.
You have definitely been around long enough to know
a) You should have programs that autosave regularly. OSX incidentally which you are often critical of, has had this as the default for years now in their developer kit so that almost all OSX applications effective autosave. b) You should be manually saving.
This one I don't think you can blame on Microsoft. Though Microsoft should have saved your notepad data when they forced the shutdown.
What alternatives are impractical? Android is thriving. Mac is thriving. A variety of embedded and server OSes are thriving. Virtualization has made Linux easier than ever to try.... Virtualization. cloud and remote desktop have made the base OS ever less important.
How is this out of touch? Deciding that home users generally don't make the correct choices on security is not being out of touch. Unifying the ecosystem offers benefits for all, deciding those are more important than home users having choice is not out of touch, even if you don't agree. Deciding that only people who buy the professional product will be able to make such choices offers a reasonable way out for those users highly motivated enough to make an informed decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. There is also one other problem. This can be happening at multiple vendors simultaneously each of which has added different core competitive advantages. They can fork to the point they can't upstream usefully with another. They just both evolved from some base product. The GPL mostly helps to prevent that problem.
-- You can't take back a GPL release and make it closed source, once you've released it.
That's what many GPL companies do. Including Trolltech (Qt) and MySQL (when they existed). You most certainly can. Now that doesn't change the existing license on the existing codebase but new codebases can be any license you want. The parent was correct, if you own copyright you can relicense at will. Parent's post was incorrect on may points but not on this one. Not that it means much because this is true of any license... a wet water criticism.
It isn't really ironic. The problem is that there is an asymmetry in the Free Software community. The GPL crowd can comfortably use BSD style code but the BSD community cannot use GPL code. Moreover the GPL movement was a response to and critique of historical failures in the BSD movement, particularly XWindows so they have felt attacked from day 1.
However the Apache foundation and the FSF worked together to make sure the Apache license and the GPLv3 were compatible. So while there is snipping there is also cooperation.
Huh? That's not true at all. The GPL style started having fights in the early 1980s as soon as it came into existence. This happened more or less at birth.
Because software exists in ecosystems. How the ecosystems evolve has a great deal to do with people who use or write free software. What authors choose matters a lot.
This is an important point.
a) Working with the law as it exists today to accomplish what you can.
b) Working to change the law to something else
(a) and (b) don't conflict.
Since when has GPL ever claimed to be anti-copyright? The GPL is a software license whose form comes from copyright law, uses terms from copyright law and whose power of enforcement comes from copyright law.
The FSF and RMS in particular never advocated for freedom for hardware. IP is infinitely reproducible for free and thus reproduction is prevented by law. Hardware reproduction requires expensive facilities and thus reproduction is easily preventable without intrusive law. The FSF have never considered the cases similar.
Between embedded systems and servers Linux has about 10b systems running using it. Windows 10 total sales are likely to be in the order of a few hundred million over the course of the entire year, much less first day so well under 4% of the user base. First day you are at a fraction of that, so something like .1%. Moreover the user base for Linux during that time will skyrocket probably by a couple more billion which will knock the high point for Windows 10 to around 2% or so. Your statistics are BS.
The summary is completely confusing and decontextualized.
A few days ago at OSCON Shane Curcuru of Apache Foundation gave a talk: Why I don’t use the GPL which gave the standard BSD defense: I won’t use the GPL for new software, and you maybe shouldn’t either. “Heretic”, comes the cry from the back of the room! But no – I bleed and believe in open source and the public good as much as you do. The difference is, I want to share my code with everyone not just the believers.
Christopher Allan Webber is the creator of MediaGoblin. MediaGoblin is a free software media publishing platform that anyone can run. You can think of it as a decentralized alternative to Flickr, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc. http://mediagoblin.org/
He wrote an article in response to Corcuru's talk where he addressed the big failure of the BSD argument its now over 30 year track record including recently of creating platforms that are unfree using BSD software as a base. He also argued against pitting licenses against one another which is odd since he's defending a license. Webber's position is the standard GPL defense. Here is a longer article not specific to Curcuru. http://dustycloud.org/blog/fie...
Anyway the standard time tested argument but the summary was terribly unclear about who was talking to whom.
We had that. It was the Simpson-Bowles commission. It needed 14 out of 18 for supermajority to pass with amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes I agreed with you during the George HW Bush time. I was at that time very much supportive of cutting government spending and was furious at the lack of cuts. This round of sequestration has also been a huge success for spending cuts. Congress is starting to freak because it has been so succesful on defense.
___
Some comments:
1) Demographics will be further screwed older
True but health is rapidly improving. Also not as much as people imagine: http://www.crmtrends.com/image...
2) We will likely be even more a service economy having seen little growth in real wages
True. But corporate profits are huge so that's going to be easy to fix.
3) The Debt will be larger, meaning more borrowing will cost more
Huh? Interest rates are at record lows. If they stay low more borrowing by definition will cost little.
4) The once insatiable appetites for our bonds in foreign markets that is now gone will still be
Truncated. And my answer is possibly. But that translates into a very weak dollar. Which fixes problem #2.
5) Even if the dollar is still the reserve currency of many alternative currency markets for commodities like oil will probably exist.
Not sure why that matters except to borrow more.
6) Mandatory health insurance while having prevented a handful of personal bankruptcies will have further reduced the savings rate among the general population.
Savings are dropping off and direct investing is replacing it. That's just cutting out intermediaries. The USA economy doesn't need much saving as long as there is lots of investment. The traditional main purpose of savings is for banks to consolidate them into investments.
The problem is pretty simple.
If you talk generally about spending cuts this has 70% approval / 30% disapproval
If you talk specifically about any particular spending cut that has 30% approval / 70% disapproval.
The problem isn't the politicians it is the electorate being inconsistent and fantastical. As Russel Long put it, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!".
Remember the original article picked Google as their example I was just working their choice. As for your choice I'm having trouble digging up information but it seems to be
450,000 highway billboards in the USA
about 425,000 are non-digital. Non digital generate $1000 / yr in taxes on average so let's guess the compensation is the $425m in highway funding the tax payers aren't covering.
Digital (say about 25k) average about $23k / yr in taxes so they are another $575m though much much higher distraction factor.
Which is nonsense. The entire model for advertising is providing compensation which outweighs the negatives of the advertising. To pick his example of Google: search, email, web browsers, phone operating systems, mapping, video viewing, news aggregation... are all very expensive services to provide. Google provides them for free in exchange for consuming advertising. That is the compensation.
Microsoft has always been a proponent of save and save often. Microsoft has never claimed Notepad is a reliable information store on reboot. Microsoft has never claimed to offer a no crash operating system.
Not rebooting is not using the product as the manufacturer intended.
I suspect a user knowledgeable enough to make choices about security updates will also know how to kill the service for updates or change the registry keys to trick the system into not pulling a particular update or...
Mostly I don't think it is to naive user's advantage to have the "it's my system not Microsoft's". Apple has been a pretty big proponent of pulling in the other direction and users have benefited tremendously.
The GGP was talking about the OS not having alternatives on a boot level. Once you start discussing applications with no replacement, i.e. a hard requirement for Windows the existence of alternatives ceases to be an issue because they are irrelevant to the task at hand.
No quite the opposite. For most user versions it maintains a multiple versioning system where you have recent versions, versions every hour since last explicit save and all explicit saves.
This btw does work with "untitled" documents which are saved to the default folder for the application as: untitled (number) until you give them an explicit name.
Well I doubt a Windows update will break Hyper-V. And Hyper-V is excellent at running Linux instances of many (almost all?) sorts.
Windows has a recovery partition or external boot and it has restore points for updates from the last 7 days. A user who knows enough to decide which updates to install can work from there. Any user who knows enough to decide which updates to install should also be regularly backing up.
You have definitely been around long enough to know
a) You should have programs that autosave regularly. OSX incidentally which you are often critical of, has had this as the default for years now in their developer kit so that almost all OSX applications effective autosave.
b) You should be manually saving.
This one I don't think you can blame on Microsoft. Though Microsoft should have saved your notepad data when they forced the shutdown.
Microsoft has agreed to implement that right after end users start paying $5m per Windows license.
What alternatives are impractical? Android is thriving. Mac is thriving. A variety of embedded and server OSes are thriving. Virtualization has made Linux easier than ever to try.... Virtualization. cloud and remote desktop have made the base OS ever less important.
How is this out of touch? Deciding that home users generally don't make the correct choices on security is not being out of touch. Unifying the ecosystem offers benefits for all, deciding those are more important than home users having choice is not out of touch, even if you don't agree. Deciding that only people who buy the professional product will be able to make such choices offers a reasonable way out for those users highly motivated enough to make an informed decision.