tons of internal apps that were developped either with.Net or massive ACtiveX and other MS-only stuff,
You know, if Microsoft ever does get a clue and fix the real security holes that let these spyware apps in in the first place, you'll have to rewrite all that stuff... because there's no way to fix Windows properly without changing the API.
EARTH TO MICROSOFT: get rid of the whole incestuous Active-X/Active-Desktop/HTML Control/Security Zones approach to security, and do what every other browser out there does: implement a security model that's default-closed and requires an obvious and intrusive operation (installing a plugin, usually restarting the browser) to grant additional privileges to some component.
Oh, and the same foul-up fairy is lurking in.NET, I'll warrant.
if you get beyond the surface of the data issues, what do you think?
I'm not sure I see what's different between this and other incremental wizard-type interfaces like the one at ATI's website for figuring out the model of video card you have and what drivers you need... other than the audio effects I can't here.:)
No, the attirbution clause has proven to be an annoyance that in the end defeats the actual purpose of using the BSD license in the first place- to get the code out there. A legal department at a corporation won't let you use code with that license, the risk of missing one person and being sued is too great. Thats why even Berkley no longer uses it. It was a failed idea.
This is revisionist history.
The attribution clause never prevented companies from using BSD-based software. There's BSD software in every major commercial OS out there, INCLUDING Windows NT, and it all went in before the attribution clause was removed. There's BSD code still using the attribution clause, and it's still being used commercially.
Berkeley doesn't use it because the FSF whined too loudly and too long for them to put up with. That's it.
Anyone who's told you different is just plain making stuff up.
Part of the ideals of open source is that the code be used in any way the reciever wants.
Then any software using the GPL isn't Open Source.
Every new license is an additional chance of incompatibilities and of making it difficult to move code between projects- one of the main advantages of open source.
And yet, every place I have heard of where this issue has actually proven a problem... it's been the GPL that was the problem. Not any of the other licenses.
Basically, the proliferation of licenses is a non-problem, and the only license that's proven a problem is one of the ones they want to retain. I don't see this as being anything but a game of political chairs.
For 3, is there anyone who really feels they need the advertising clause? AIUI it's viewed by pretty much everyone as an unnecessary encumberance.
The precursor to the attribution (not advertising, that's only part of it and a much misunderstood part) clause was the attribution clause in the contract between UCB and AT&T, and that clause was essential in forcing AT&T to settle and allow the 4.4-Lite-derived BSD variants to go forward.
I think that "unnecessary encumbrance" turned out to work pretty well for the free software community.:)
$50 is the standard price for just about any game out there that's relatively new
$40 or less is more typical, at least it was last night when I was looking for a new game at CompUSA.
So $50 would normally be "a bit high", $35, if you were actually buying a game, would be OK... not a bargain, but reasonable.
But for an online game, where you're paying every month you want to keep playing it, charging more than a nominal fee for the install package (that you're going to overwrite completely with updates the first time you get on, if the game's been out any time at all) is outrageous.
I still support blizzard's hardline stance.
I might, if they didn't state in their EULA that the end-user has a right to transfer the game and all associated rights to a new user. If that's not true, then they're violating their own license agreement. If the EULA means anything (and it should), then it applies to Blizzard as well as their customers. If it doesn't apply to Blizzard, then they're basically saying it's OK to break the EULA, that there should be no consequences for pirating their games, reverse-engineering them, writing cheat modules, and so on. Which is of course silly... but that's what Blizzard's saying.
The message to Blizzard has to be: "Put the hardline stance in the contract, or stand by your mistakes."
I'm not worried about the strength of inflatable modules: any space station is basically an inflated balloon and if it gets a puncture bad enough to effect rigidity you've got bigger problems than wobbly walls... like learning to breathe vacuum in a hurry.
No, I'm worried about this sudden indtroduction of inflatable technology from the future. Doctor Schlock from Sluggy Freelance isn't involved, is he?
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Well, um, it doesn't say:
2. You have to include this whole boilerplate in every text file right at the top just to be stupid and obnoxious.
I could see yo being miffed if it did that, but this isn't really any different than the requirement that GPL-ed software come with a copy of the GPL (unless, as I implied above, the author is being stupid and obnoxious).
Hmmm...
I think I'll go check on my files, make sure I'm not being stupid and obnoxious.:)
I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL.
Um, let's goback to the message I was responding to, which started off, "What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals,...". If someones goals include self-promotion, the attribution clause fits those goals.
YOU may disapprove of that goal, but that's irrelevant: if that's someone's goal, they will use that version, and so either you say "well, uh, that's not really open-source" and have everyone laugh at you, or you accept that some people's goals don't match yours and move on to problems that really matter.
We don't need no commercial use variations, its totally against the ideals of Free and Open Source software.
If someone wants to be paid for commercial use of their software, or they want to get some company that wants to use their software to cut a deal with them (such as, say, demanding that a protocol or library be open-sourced before you'll release a commercial-friendly version of your software), then a non-commercial-use license fits those goals.
If you don't share those goals, don't use it, but claiming that it's not "open source" enough will just get you laughed at.
We don't need non-transitive GPL alikes, thats what BSD is.
Um, no, not even vaguely.
Not knowing Qmail or Aladdin, I won't comment on them.
Good plan.
What we don't need is future code built on 50 gadzillion licenses.
Your options are... accept the licenses, or do without the code. Pick one. Personally, I think claiming that software isn't open because you don't like some aspect of the license, when someone's gone to the trouble of cleaning it up and releasing it, is just plain churlish and unmannerly. And that's what denying those licenses are "open source" amounts to.
I think the problem is companies like Sun with their silly, free-till-we-get-our-hooks-in-you licenses. They need OSI certification for PR purposes, and OSI has been a bit too eager to give it to them.
OSI has no more power than people are willing to give them, and certification has no more meaning than people are willing to give it.
None of this really has much more meaning than people are willing to give it. For example, I have now and then run into formerly-GPL projects that have been abandoned (usually by going commercial and failing) but the developer managed to pull all copies of the code offline, so the fact that they were once GPL is meaningless.
As the original developer, they have the right to do so, I suppose. But it's still annoying.
What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals, rather than creating your own possibly incompatible license.
That's great , but that's not going to get anywhere NEAR three licenses. At the very least you'll need:
This kind of rhetoric could very well reduce the licence to a nuisance in the future. BSD advocates, please take note. Before you know it, software under the BSD licence could be viewed as 'encumbered' and will be avoided like the plague.
The current BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. How the [extremely juicy explietive deleted] can it be considered "encumbered"?
If the OSI told me that I couldn't use the "Really Free Software License", or they woudln't "certify" it, why should I give a flying [expletive] about it? What's the downside, I couldn't be listed on Freshmeat? Whoa. Scary.
And I'm a pussycat next to some of the people in the free/open software community.
When DJB's next big program is being blocked from freshmeat because they don't like its license, do you think DJB will be the one to back down?
Selling of characters is a really annoying thing in MMO games
Read the original article. He's not trying to re-use the characters, he's trying to set up a new account.
He bought the game at full price from a friend
He hasn't explicitly said whether he bought it from a friend, or what he paid for it. I have no idea where you dragged this scenario from, or why you think it matters.
This guy bought the game used for a discount, because the full $50 was too steep.
Quite likely. $50 is pretty steep. You think he didn't "save enough" to make it worthwhile. That may be true, or it may be just your opinion based entirely on what you think happened (and you didn't read the original article, or you'd know that your other ideas were invalid), but if Blizzard says that you can re-sell the game they should make it possible. If they won't do that, then they need to put that in the license.
Either way, he's got a legit gripe. It's not a case of someone "exploiting the game": there's absolutely no evidence of that... AS you would know if you'd read the whole article. At least the OP read the whole EULA.
Now if the rest of the big "true free speech" uncensored free providers went away, and Usenet became something that you got access to by running your own server because you cared enough to...... maybe Usenet would come back to life.
Slashdot Mirror
Background processing isn't a "sense".
If this is a "sixth sense", then I claim my "sense of outrage" and "sense of fair play" as seven and eight.
Changing a few lines in some existing code and a complete rewrite is a totally different thing.
I can't envision a small change in the API that would actually fix the problem.
tons of internal apps that were developped either with .Net or massive ACtiveX and other MS-only stuff,
You know, if Microsoft ever does get a clue and fix the real security holes that let these spyware apps in in the first place, you'll have to rewrite all that stuff... because there's no way to fix Windows properly without changing the API.
Bite the bullet already.
EARTH TO MICROSOFT: get rid of the whole incestuous Active-X/Active-Desktop/HTML Control/Security Zones approach to security, and do what every other browser out there does: implement a security model that's default-closed and requires an obvious and intrusive operation (installing a plugin, usually restarting the browser) to grant additional privileges to some component.
.NET, I'll warrant.
Oh, and the same foul-up fairy is lurking in
if you get beyond the surface of the data issues, what do you think?
:)
I'm not sure I see what's different between this and other incremental wizard-type interfaces like the one at ATI's website for figuring out the model of video card you have and what drivers you need... other than the audio effects I can't here.
So I click on Baroque, click on J.S.Bach, and...
Wait. There isn't any, oh well, I guess they have a really small playlist. Trundling on, let's open Classical...
First entry is Bach.
And not C.P.E.Bach, either. J.S.Bach.
I guess this is an attempt to illustrate "I may not know much about Classical Music, but I Know what I like when I hear it."
Right?
I tried sending them some mail but got a bounce.
The Hindenburg burned [...] so intensely because the skin was waterproofed with a chemical later used for rocket fuel.
Indeed.
It was basically painted with thermite.
No, the attirbution clause has proven to be an annoyance that in the end defeats the actual purpose of using the BSD license in the first place- to get the code out there. A legal department at a corporation won't let you use code with that license, the risk of missing one person and being sued is too great. Thats why even Berkley no longer uses it. It was a failed idea.
This is revisionist history.
The attribution clause never prevented companies from using BSD-based software. There's BSD software in every major commercial OS out there, INCLUDING Windows NT, and it all went in before the attribution clause was removed. There's BSD code still using the attribution clause, and it's still being used commercially.
Berkeley doesn't use it because the FSF whined too loudly and too long for them to put up with. That's it.
Anyone who's told you different is just plain making stuff up.
Part of the ideals of open source is that the code be used in any way the reciever wants.
Then any software using the GPL isn't Open Source.
Every new license is an additional chance of incompatibilities and of making it difficult to move code between projects- one of the main advantages of open source.
And yet, every place I have heard of where this issue has actually proven a problem... it's been the GPL that was the problem. Not any of the other licenses.
Basically, the proliferation of licenses is a non-problem, and the only license that's proven a problem is one of the ones they want to retain. I don't see this as being anything but a game of political chairs.
For 3, is there anyone who really feels they need the advertising clause? AIUI it's viewed by pretty much everyone as an unnecessary encumberance.
:)
The precursor to the attribution (not advertising, that's only part of it and a much misunderstood part) clause was the attribution clause in the contract between UCB and AT&T, and that clause was essential in forcing AT&T to settle and allow the 4.4-Lite-derived BSD variants to go forward.
I think that "unnecessary encumbrance" turned out to work pretty well for the free software community.
$50 is the standard price for just about any game out there that's relatively new
$40 or less is more typical, at least it was last night when I was looking for a new game at CompUSA.
So $50 would normally be "a bit high", $35, if you were actually buying a game, would be OK... not a bargain, but reasonable.
But for an online game, where you're paying every month you want to keep playing it, charging more than a nominal fee for the install package (that you're going to overwrite completely with updates the first time you get on, if the game's been out any time at all) is outrageous.
I still support blizzard's hardline stance.
I might, if they didn't state in their EULA that the end-user has a right to transfer the game and all associated rights to a new user. If that's not true, then they're violating their own license agreement. If the EULA means anything (and it should), then it applies to Blizzard as well as their customers. If it doesn't apply to Blizzard, then they're basically saying it's OK to break the EULA, that there should be no consequences for pirating their games, reverse-engineering them, writing cheat modules, and so on. Which is of course silly... but that's what Blizzard's saying.
The message to Blizzard has to be: "Put the hardline stance in the contract, or stand by your mistakes."
I can't figure out why he would buy a used MMO unless he was trying to buy a character
I think "the startup package is exorbitantly priced" is more than enough to explain it, really.
If he got it for "half price", or $25, then he's still saving ten bucks. And ten bucks is ten bucks. That's two cups of coffee even at Starbucks.
I'm not worried about the strength of inflatable modules: any space station is basically an inflated balloon and if it gets a puncture bad enough to effect rigidity you've got bigger problems than wobbly walls ... like learning to breathe vacuum in a hurry.
No, I'm worried about this sudden indtroduction of inflatable technology from the future. Doctor Schlock from Sluggy Freelance isn't involved, is he?
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
:)
Well, um, it doesn't say:
2. You have to include this whole boilerplate in every text file right at the top just to be stupid and obnoxious.
I could see yo being miffed if it did that, but this isn't really any different than the requirement that GPL-ed software come with a copy of the GPL (unless, as I implied above, the author is being stupid and obnoxious).
Hmmm...
I think I'll go check on my files, make sure I'm not being stupid and obnoxious.
I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL.
:)
Well, that's kind of the point.
BSD isn't that great an example of a truly free license, as it requires credit.
That's the old version. Personally, I kind of like that one... it doesn't lead to the ludicrous slippery-slope scenario the FSF complained about.
We don't need two BSD forks (one will do).
...". If someones goals include self-promotion, the attribution clause fits those goals.
Um, let's goback to the message I was responding to, which started off, "What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals,
YOU may disapprove of that goal, but that's irrelevant: if that's someone's goal, they will use that version, and so either you say "well, uh, that's not really open-source" and have everyone laugh at you, or you accept that some people's goals don't match yours and move on to problems that really matter.
We don't need no commercial use variations, its totally against the ideals of Free and Open Source software.
If someone wants to be paid for commercial use of their software, or they want to get some company that wants to use their software to cut a deal with them (such as, say, demanding that a protocol or library be open-sourced before you'll release a commercial-friendly version of your software), then a non-commercial-use license fits those goals.
If you don't share those goals, don't use it, but claiming that it's not "open source" enough will just get you laughed at.
We don't need non-transitive GPL alikes, thats what BSD is.
Um, no, not even vaguely.
Not knowing Qmail or Aladdin, I won't comment on them.
Good plan.
What we don't need is future code built on 50 gadzillion licenses.
Your options are... accept the licenses, or do without the code. Pick one. Personally, I think claiming that software isn't open because you don't like some aspect of the license, when someone's gone to the trouble of cleaning it up and releasing it, is just plain churlish and unmannerly. And that's what denying those licenses are "open source" amounts to.
I think the problem is companies like Sun with their silly, free-till-we-get-our-hooks-in-you licenses. They need OSI certification for PR purposes, and OSI has been a bit too eager to give it to them.
OSI has no more power than people are willing to give them, and certification has no more meaning than people are willing to give it.
None of this really has much more meaning than people are willing to give it. For example, I have now and then run into formerly-GPL projects that have been abandoned (usually by going commercial and failing) but the developer managed to pull all copies of the code offline, so the fact that they were once GPL is meaningless.
As the original developer, they have the right to do so, I suppose. But it's still annoying.
What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals, rather than creating your own possibly incompatible license.
That's great , but that's not going to get anywhere NEAR three licenses. At the very least you'll need:
1. Something like QMAIL's license.
2. The Aladdin license.
3. The two main forks of the BSD license.
4. The GPL.
5. The LGPL.
6. The non-transitive GPL-alikes.
7. No commercial use variations.
That's just off the top of my head.
This kind of rhetoric could very well reduce the licence to a nuisance in the future. BSD advocates, please take note. Before you know it, software under the BSD licence could be viewed as 'encumbered' and will be avoided like the plague.
The current BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. How the [extremely juicy explietive deleted] can it be considered "encumbered"?
If the OSI told me that I couldn't use the "Really Free Software License", or they woudln't "certify" it, why should I give a flying [expletive] about it? What's the downside, I couldn't be listed on Freshmeat? Whoa. Scary.
And I'm a pussycat next to some of the people in the free/open software community.
When DJB's next big program is being blocked from freshmeat because they don't like its license, do you think DJB will be the one to back down?
This is supposed to be funny, right?
Selling of characters is a really annoying thing in MMO games
Read the original article. He's not trying to re-use the characters, he's trying to set up a new account.
He bought the game at full price from a friend
He hasn't explicitly said whether he bought it from a friend, or what he paid for it. I have no idea where you dragged this scenario from, or why you think it matters.
This guy bought the game used for a discount, because the full $50 was too steep.
Quite likely. $50 is pretty steep. You think he didn't "save enough" to make it worthwhile. That may be true, or it may be just your opinion based entirely on what you think happened (and you didn't read the original article, or you'd know that your other ideas were invalid), but if Blizzard says that you can re-sell the game they should make it possible. If they won't do that, then they need to put that in the license.
Either way, he's got a legit gripe. It's not a case of someone "exploiting the game": there's absolutely no evidence of that... AS you would know if you'd read the whole article. At least the OP read the whole EULA.
He's calling their internet delivery of movies a "classic disruptive technology"?
Good god, THAT bit's already here. Intel's New World Order DRM is just a last ditch attempt to hold back the tide.
Now if the rest of the big "true free speech" uncensored free providers went away, and Usenet became something that you got access to by running your own server because you cared enough to... ... maybe Usenet would come back to life.