the implication is that uses not explicitly allowed are forbidden.
What a load of bull! The license means only what it says, and is absolutely silent on what it does not say. Gee, is that concept so hard to grasp?
Copyright law does not restrict usage, so any usage not specifically addressed by a license is allowable. A license only needs to address the actions that copyright law restricts.
Re:I thought that was settled ages ago...
on
RMS On 'Open' Motif
·
· Score: 2
Do you guys even know how to read? Let alone think for yourselves.
The QPL is indeed an official Open Source license. In fact, it was declared Open Source long before the OSI got lazy about licenses. Check it out at www.opensource.org.
Furthermore, the FSF and RMS consider the QPL to be a Free Software license. Don't believe me, read about it at www.gnu.org.
If you are so skeptical that you won't even believe RMS, ESR and BP, then get yourself a copy of the OSS definition, the Free Software definition, and a copy of the QPL, and READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
The QPL does not restrict what you do with Qt in private. Section 6 clearly states that it only comes into effect when the software is distributed. In fact, the whole reason for section 6 is to prevent "private" distributions.
The QPL's restrictions on distributing come into play when I give a copy to a coworker. On the other hand, the GPL's apply when I give a copy to my friend!
Anything which is Open Source is also Free Software. Don't believe me, read the definitions for yourself. The OSD is an expanded and clarified definition of the Free Software definition which can be seen at the FSF pages. Any license or software that meets the definitions of Open Source will also meet those enumerated by the FSF, without exception.
"I fail to see how the issue could have been "cleared up" there."
The debian-legal list has the curious habit of revisting topics again and again. Of course the matter was not cleared in everyone's mind, such things never are. But when an issue gets hashed to death in that forum to the point that people start quibbling over the meaning of "is", some shmuck always comes along with "Hey! What about clause 13c?", and off it goes into another direction. One will not see this with a casual perusal of the list. It is a pattern only seen over a period of time.
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program
KDE and Qt are not distributed as a whole. And Qt is not a work based on KDE (the Program). Just prior to your quote, it states "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works" The only parts of KDE which actually include QPLd files as part of the package are licensed under the LGPL instead of the GPL.
Don't you think we have enough slamming on other people's views, without such volatile language?
I have been much nicer and far politer here than most (not all) Debian developers have ever been to me. The debian-legal list is the only mailing list I have *ever* been on where vitriolic and vulgar hostilities have spilled over into my private mail. I have had to quit the debian-legal list simply because I want to keep the discussions on the list where they belong instead of spilling over into my mail box.
I didn't mean to be hostile in my post. I may have been snide and sarcastic, but I didn't intend hostility.
If you reread the GPL, you'll see that the clause in question refers to components distributed with the major components of the operating system.
Qt does not have to be a system library or a standard component. It only has to be distributed along with the operating system. The rational for the clause is quite easy to understand: the user does not need to purchase extra software in order to use the GPLd package.
The actions restricted by copyrights are only those actions that directly related to the owner's work. It is completely unconcerned with what you do with your own or someone else's work.
If you don't believe that information should be a form of property, then fine. But at least have the courtesy of living up to your own standards by using the public domain instead of the GPL. The GPL may have fewer restrictions upon its users actions than the typical proprietary license, but it STILL restricts the users, something that you yourself just called immoral.
It is only withholding freedom if you first redefine freedom. There may be hundreds or thousands of good reasons not to write proprietary software, but freedom is not one of them. Freedom entails choice. If one is not free to choose a license for one's own software creation, then one do not have freedom, let alone free speech. Likewise, one is perfectly free to choose to use either closed or open source software. There are no restrictions put upon the user except those he freely imposes on himself through his choices.
Free Software is neither "free beer" nor "free speech". It is "free use", a much different thing.
Dynamically linked libraries are considered part of the program.
Not under copyright law. And the GPL falls under copyright law. Deriving an application from a library in the programming sense is a very different thing from the copyright sense.
If, and only if, a library can be... considered a part of the operating system,
That is not what the GPL says. The clause in question refers to "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system." It does not have to be an actual part of the operating system.
"Now, could someone explain to me again why conflict between the QPL and GPL is a life and death issue, but copying and redistributing Metallica albums is an inalienable human right?"
Certainly. There's no conflict at all. We will support the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. We will also decry the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. I can't imagine you see this as a problem. Law, morality and rights have nothing to do with it. Only our own personal needs and wants are important.
Now go away, you're making me think, you reprobate.
Geez, how can such obvious and blatant untruths get moderated up so high?
Qt version 2.0 and above are 100% verifiably Free Software! Don't take my word for it, take the word of Richard Stallman. And if you don't trust his word, then actually look at the definition of 'Free Software'. The QPL license grants its users the freedom to use the software, the freedom to redistribute the software, the freedom to modify the software, and the freedom to distribute modifications of the software. It meets every point in the definition.
This continuing instance that Qt2+ is not free is bigotry, pure and simple.
Debian is not including KDE because of any licensing issue. They are not including it because they don't want to! The compatibility issue was long laid to rest on the debian-legal list over a year ago. Some people just keep bringing it up.
Let's actually look at the GPL and see what it says, instead of letting Debian tell us what it means. First off, section 0 of the GPL clearly states that it operates under copyright law. This is important, and I'll return to it.
Section 2b is sometimes cited as a reason against Qt compatibility. It requires that derivations of KDE be licensed under the GPL. But Qt is not derived from KDE. So there is no requirement to license Qt under the GPL. This one is a no-brainer, and even the most virulant of Debian developers have long since abandoned this approach. The GPL even has a clarification on this point at the end of section 2: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program... then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Section 3 is where most of the arguments come from. It includes the statement: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains..." For some strange reason, a lot of people assume that Qt is a module of KDE. But remember section 0. The GPL is governed by copyright law, and not by the common idioms of hackers and developers. In a programmatic sense, Qt might be considered a module of KDE. But under copyright law it is not. It is not even considered a derivative work.
But just in case people still viewed certain libraries as modules or the Program as their derivatives, the GPL goes on to make an exception: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." Qt, which is normally distributed with all distributions of Linux and GNU/Linux (Debian distributes Qt2), falls under this exception.
The phrase "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" trips up a lot of people. Whether or not Qt is actually accompanies KDE, or is merely aggregated with it in the same Debian directory is beside the point. The requirement is only that "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2". First, the source code to Qt is available to users of KDE. Second, sections 1 and 2 include exceptions for stuff that is not derivative of the Program (KDE). All that needs doing is ensuring that the source code to Qt is available. It is.
If it is legal to distribute a GPLd program based on proprietary Motif, then it should be just as legal to distribute KDE based on Free Software Qt.
Section 6 is the "compatibility" clause. It says in part " Each time you redistribute the Program... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." But Qt is not the Program. KDE is! Copyright law does not allow anyone to impose restrictions on third parties. Any interpretation of this clause to mean that the GPL imposes restrictions on Qt is contrary to law.
Hopefully I have cleared up some confusion. In any case, don't take my word for it. Read the GPL for yourself, from top to bottom. If all else fails, rely on your common sense. The KDE Core Team has already given Debian permission to legally distribute KDE. That fact that they are still arguing over its legality seems to indicate that they simply don't want KDE, and would find yet another excuse not to distribute it even if Qt were to be made LGPL.
I didn't say I hated OpenBSD. Read my post again. Like Debian, it's developership *tends* towards extreme arrogance, but that does not detract from the OS.
If you want to use a computer then learn how to use the computer
You truly don't understand users, do you?
The typical user, be it the leading research clinician at the Mayo Clinic or merely your mom, doesn't want to use the computer, they want to read their email! Demanding technical savvy of users is akin to demanding that drivers know how to tune up their car's engine. I used to know how to tune my old '66 Dodge. But my new '96 Dodge is completely beyond me with the new smog stuff and computerized gadgetry. I am unable to tune it. BUT I STILL KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!
Of course the Microsoft-Free office is possible! The only reason you don't see many of them is that a lot of office workers want Microsoft.
Where I work, the engineering department is almost completely Microsoft free. The only exceptions are for *customer* compatibility (some DICOM applications work under Windows only), and some newbie upper management. All of our day to day office type stuff are be done using Unix applications, primarily FrameMaker, WingZ, and Netscape. And I'm not just talking about software engineers. I'm also talking about hardware hackers, chip cowboys, UI interface design, and product development. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to imagine the department completely MS free.
Our business department, on the other hand, seem totally Microsoft dependant. They are incapable of converting Word documents to plain text before broadcasting them to the whole company. It thus becomes the self-imposed responsibility of certain engineers to convert these docs to Frame or text. I have a very strong suspicion that the front office dependance on Microsoft lies not because Microsoft demands they use their products, but because they are computer illiterate. No matter how much we scream, beg and threaten, HR just cannot grasp the concept of sending out email text only. If even the simple concept of ascii format is beyond them, trying to use a non-MS product would probably send them over the edge into shivering incoherence.
It wasn't that long ago when a nation of secretaries said "give me WordPerfect 5.1 or give me death". I know several that quit and started their own businesses rather than use the fledgling Word their bosses wanted. Nowadays, even typing the name of an application on a command line is a lost skill. But since it's been done before, it can be done again. All we have to do is demand that business schools teach general computing instead of offering certificates in specific applications. A friend of mine is majoring in computer science at a junior college. I asked him what he was taking. He replied, Windows 95/98, Autocad, and HTML. His utter sincerity open my eyes to the fact that they problem isn't Microsoft, it's illiteracy.
Who the hell moderated Bruce's post down? Get a clude dudes! It was a valid opinion, on topic and insightful. Who cares if it was wrong? Anyway...
I don't see some of these distros co-existing very well at all. Sorry to say, your distro is the worst offender in the "getting along" department. I quick trip through your mailing lists will give you ample evidence. (When will you guys quit spilling over into the opensource and kde lists? Geez, it's like the ending scene of Blazing Saddles when the barroom brawl breaks through the wall and into the sedate lounge) Unlike your distro, FreeBSD does not consider itself the One True OS or a haven of indignant moral superiority. True, the BSD community has a splinter as rancorous and self-righteous as Debian, namely OpenBSD, so I guess licensing doesn't have much to do with it after all.
"given a choice between a license that is friendly to big companies and a license that is friendly to me, I'll go with option #2."
Okay folks, I'm getting tired of this, so I'll flame a bit...
If you would stop kissing Stallman's but for just one minute, you will see that those are NOT your two choices! Have you even read the BSD license? Do you even know how to read?
Here are your two choices: a) a license that is friendly to big companies and also friendly to you b) a license that is friendly only to you. Now, RMS may have loaded your head with spurious definitions of fairness, but in my book you can only be fair when you treat everyone the same. There is a reason why Lady Justice is portrayed blindfolded.
"em>Although I suppose that another merger between two internet companies is the best example of competition."
It isn't competition that causes mergers, buyouts and takeovers. It publically traded corporations. When you put your business up for sale to any and all comers, don't be surprised or angry when it's gets purchased. And that's what a public corporation is, a company perpetually up for sale.
Hmm, Covad, Speedstream, 608/128, sounds just like what I got hooked up last week. Except I'm getting the service from a third party. In my case I'm getting 540Kbps and I'm 5,000 feet from the telco. My phone line is ancient and runs 100 feet to the demarcation (I'm in an apartment).
I double checked with my provider on the minimum guarantees, and double checked the contract. They can't guarantee the 608 'cause of noisy lines, etc., but they do firmly guarantee 128 down. No best effort. You either get at least that or you don't pay.
This ageism doesn't exist everywhere. It's only entrenched in the internet startups, and sporadic outside of there.
Where I work, Acuson, the average age for a developer is 40. We've got developers over 60. I don't know their exact ages, 'cause I don't ask. We can't afford the inexperienced because when our software fails, it's not just a website going down, it's medical (life and death) equipment.
It's amazing what we see while recruiting. Guys taking their first programming class ever applying to be a developer. You call them the next day to say they're not needed, and they shrug telling you they already got a job with the latest startup.
We're doing stuff that makes the industry's idea of cutting edge look old hat. We don't do webpages or handhelds. We save lives and improve the world.
"My only problem was that the installer bombed out if you tried to add packages from within it..."
This was a bug in the initial cut of 3.4. If you read the errata at www.freebsd.org, they explain it, and how to get around it. 4.0 does not have this problem.
In my remembrance of the myth, the Sheriff was injust, the Abbot was injust, and Sir Guy was a toady to the injust. The villagers taxed into poverty were the oppressed. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the rich and poor, as those who had any cash (stealable) wealth in that time period were not involved in the dispute (which was between the feudal lords and the peasant serfs)
I utterly reject the Dennis Moore philosophy of making sure everyone has precisely the same number of lupins.
Imagine the hell we'd live in, if the only art we were able to see was someone's expression of emotion.
You missed the entire point of the previous post! Most art in today's commercial art world is the result of expressing emotion. When an artist can get paid for being an artist, he will produce more art. When that same artist is not allowed to sell his work, but wait on tables ten hours a day, he's going to be exhausted when he gets home and will produce less art.
I like good art. I like freedom. By restricting what the artist can do with his works, I reduce both art and freedom. But by letting the artist choose whether he will wait on tables or sell his works instead, I am promoting both. Your sensibilities are irrelevant to both freedom and art.
Slashdot Mirror
the implication is that uses not explicitly allowed are forbidden.
What a load of bull! The license means only what it says, and is absolutely silent on what it does not say. Gee, is that concept so hard to grasp?
Copyright law does not restrict usage, so any usage not specifically addressed by a license is allowable. A license only needs to address the actions that copyright law restricts.
Do you guys even know how to read? Let alone think for yourselves.
The QPL is indeed an official Open Source license. In fact, it was declared Open Source long before the OSI got lazy about licenses. Check it out at www.opensource.org.
Furthermore, the FSF and RMS consider the QPL to be a Free Software license. Don't believe me, read about it at www.gnu.org.
If you are so skeptical that you won't even believe RMS, ESR and BP, then get yourself a copy of the OSS definition, the Free Software definition, and a copy of the QPL, and READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
The QPL does not restrict what you do with Qt in private. Section 6 clearly states that it only comes into effect when the software is distributed. In fact, the whole reason for section 6 is to prevent "private" distributions.
The QPL's restrictions on distributing come into play when I give a copy to a coworker. On the other hand, the GPL's apply when I give a copy to my friend!
Anything which is Open Source is also Free Software. Don't believe me, read the definitions for yourself. The OSD is an expanded and clarified definition of the Free Software definition which can be seen at the FSF pages. Any license or software that meets the definitions of Open Source will also meet those enumerated by the FSF, without exception.
"I fail to see how the issue could have been "cleared up" there."
The debian-legal list has the curious habit of revisting topics again and again. Of course the matter was not cleared in everyone's mind, such things never are. But when an issue gets hashed to death in that forum to the point that people start quibbling over the meaning of "is", some shmuck always comes along with "Hey! What about clause 13c?", and off it goes into another direction. One will not see this with a casual perusal of the list. It is a pattern only seen over a period of time.
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program
KDE and Qt are not distributed as a whole. And Qt is not a work based on KDE (the Program). Just prior to your quote, it states "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works" The only parts of KDE which actually include QPLd files as part of the package are licensed under the LGPL instead of the GPL.
Don't you think we have enough slamming on other people's views, without such volatile language?
I have been much nicer and far politer here than most (not all) Debian developers have ever been to me. The debian-legal list is the only mailing list I have *ever* been on where vitriolic and vulgar hostilities have spilled over into my private mail. I have had to quit the debian-legal list simply because I want to keep the discussions on the list where they belong instead of spilling over into my mail box.
I didn't mean to be hostile in my post. I may have been snide and sarcastic, but I didn't intend hostility.
Dependency is not derivation. Copyright law is only concerned with derivation, and then only in the legal sense.
If you reread the GPL, you'll see that the clause in question refers to components distributed with the major components of the operating system.
Qt does not have to be a system library or a standard component. It only has to be distributed along with the operating system. The rational for the clause is quite easy to understand: the user does not need to purchase extra software in order to use the GPLd package.
The actions restricted by copyrights are only those actions that directly related to the owner's work. It is completely unconcerned with what you do with your own or someone else's work.
If you don't believe that information should be a form of property, then fine. But at least have the courtesy of living up to your own standards by using the public domain instead of the GPL. The GPL may have fewer restrictions upon its users actions than the typical proprietary license, but it STILL restricts the users, something that you yourself just called immoral.
It is only withholding freedom if you first redefine freedom. There may be hundreds or thousands of good reasons not to write proprietary software, but freedom is not one of them. Freedom entails choice. If one is not free to choose a license for one's own software creation, then one do not have freedom, let alone free speech. Likewise, one is perfectly free to choose to use either closed or open source software. There are no restrictions put upon the user except those he freely imposes on himself through his choices.
Free Software is neither "free beer" nor "free speech". It is "free use", a much different thing.
Dynamically linked libraries are considered part of the program.
... considered a part of the operating system,
... with the major components ... of the operating system." It does not have to be an actual part of the operating system.
Not under copyright law. And the GPL falls under copyright law. Deriving an application from a library in the programming sense is a very different thing from the copyright sense.
If, and only if, a library can be
That is not what the GPL says. The clause in question refers to "anything that is normally distributed
"Now, could someone explain to me again why conflict between the QPL and GPL is a life and death issue, but copying and redistributing Metallica albums is an inalienable human right?"
Certainly. There's no conflict at all. We will support the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. We will also decry the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. I can't imagine you see this as a problem. Law, morality and rights have nothing to do with it. Only our own personal needs and wants are important.
Now go away, you're making me think, you reprobate.
Geez, how can such obvious and blatant untruths get moderated up so high?
Qt version 2.0 and above are 100% verifiably Free Software! Don't take my word for it, take the word of Richard Stallman. And if you don't trust his word, then actually look at the definition of 'Free Software'. The QPL license grants its users the freedom to use the software, the freedom to redistribute the software, the freedom to modify the software, and the freedom to distribute modifications of the software. It meets every point in the definition.
This continuing instance that Qt2+ is not free is bigotry, pure and simple.
Debian is not including KDE because of any licensing issue. They are not including it because they don't want to! The compatibility issue was long laid to rest on the debian-legal list over a year ago. Some people just keep bringing it up.
... then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Let's actually look at the GPL and see what it says, instead of letting Debian tell us what it means. First off, section 0 of the GPL clearly states that it operates under copyright law. This is important, and I'll return to it.
Section 2b is sometimes cited as a reason against Qt compatibility. It requires that derivations of KDE be licensed under the GPL. But Qt is not derived from KDE. So there is no requirement to license Qt under the GPL. This one is a no-brainer, and even the most virulant of Debian developers have long since abandoned this approach. The GPL even has a clarification on this point at the end of section 2: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program
Section 3 is where most of the arguments come from. It includes the statement: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains..." For some strange reason, a lot of people assume that Qt is a module of KDE. But remember section 0. The GPL is governed by copyright law, and not by the common idioms of hackers and developers. In a programmatic sense, Qt might be considered a module of KDE. But under copyright law it is not. It is not even considered a derivative work.
But just in case people still viewed certain libraries as modules or the Program as their derivatives, the GPL goes on to make an exception: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." Qt, which is normally distributed with all distributions of Linux and GNU/Linux (Debian distributes Qt2), falls under this exception.
The phrase "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" trips up a lot of people. Whether or not Qt is actually accompanies KDE, or is merely aggregated with it in the same Debian directory is beside the point. The requirement is only that "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2". First, the source code to Qt is available to users of KDE. Second, sections 1 and 2 include exceptions for stuff that is not derivative of the Program (KDE). All that needs doing is ensuring that the source code to Qt is available. It is.
If it is legal to distribute a GPLd program based on proprietary Motif, then it should be just as legal to distribute KDE based on Free Software Qt.
Section 6 is the "compatibility" clause. It says in part " Each time you redistribute the Program... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." But Qt is not the Program. KDE is! Copyright law does not allow anyone to impose restrictions on third parties. Any interpretation of this clause to mean that the GPL imposes restrictions on Qt is contrary to law.
Hopefully I have cleared up some confusion. In any case, don't take my word for it. Read the GPL for yourself, from top to bottom. If all else fails, rely on your common sense. The KDE Core Team has already given Debian permission to legally distribute KDE. That fact that they are still arguing over its legality seems to indicate that they simply don't want KDE, and would find yet another excuse not to distribute it even if Qt were to be made LGPL.
I didn't say I hated OpenBSD. Read my post again. Like Debian, it's developership *tends* towards extreme arrogance, but that does not detract from the OS.
If you want to use a computer then learn how to use the computer
You truly don't understand users, do you?
The typical user, be it the leading research clinician at the Mayo Clinic or merely your mom, doesn't want to use the computer, they want to read their email! Demanding technical savvy of users is akin to demanding that drivers know how to tune up their car's engine. I used to know how to tune my old '66 Dodge. But my new '96 Dodge is completely beyond me with the new smog stuff and computerized gadgetry. I am unable to tune it. BUT I STILL KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!
Of course the Microsoft-Free office is possible! The only reason you don't see many of them is that a lot of office workers want Microsoft.
Where I work, the engineering department is almost completely Microsoft free. The only exceptions are for *customer* compatibility (some DICOM applications work under Windows only), and some newbie upper management. All of our day to day office type stuff are be done using Unix applications, primarily FrameMaker, WingZ, and Netscape. And I'm not just talking about software engineers. I'm also talking about hardware hackers, chip cowboys, UI interface design, and product development. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to imagine the department completely MS free.
Our business department, on the other hand, seem totally Microsoft dependant. They are incapable of converting Word documents to plain text before broadcasting them to the whole company. It thus becomes the self-imposed responsibility of certain engineers to convert these docs to Frame or text. I have a very strong suspicion that the front office dependance on Microsoft lies not because Microsoft demands they use their products, but because they are computer illiterate. No matter how much we scream, beg and threaten, HR just cannot grasp the concept of sending out email text only. If even the simple concept of ascii format is beyond them, trying to use a non-MS product would probably send them over the edge into shivering incoherence.
It wasn't that long ago when a nation of secretaries said "give me WordPerfect 5.1 or give me death". I know several that quit and started their own businesses rather than use the fledgling Word their bosses wanted. Nowadays, even typing the name of an application on a command line is a lost skill. But since it's been done before, it can be done again. All we have to do is demand that business schools teach general computing instead of offering certificates in specific applications. A friend of mine is majoring in computer science at a junior college. I asked him what he was taking. He replied, Windows 95/98, Autocad, and HTML. His utter sincerity open my eyes to the fact that they problem isn't Microsoft, it's illiteracy.
Who the hell moderated Bruce's post down? Get a clude dudes! It was a valid opinion, on topic and insightful. Who cares if it was wrong? Anyway...
I don't see some of these distros co-existing very well at all. Sorry to say, your distro is the worst offender in the "getting along" department. I quick trip through your mailing lists will give you ample evidence. (When will you guys quit spilling over into the opensource and kde lists? Geez, it's like the ending scene of Blazing Saddles when the barroom brawl breaks through the wall and into the sedate lounge) Unlike your distro, FreeBSD does not consider itself the One True OS or a haven of indignant moral superiority. True, the BSD community has a splinter as rancorous and self-righteous as Debian, namely OpenBSD, so I guess licensing doesn't have much to do with it after all.
"given a choice between a license that is friendly to big companies and a license that is friendly to me, I'll go with option #2."
Okay folks, I'm getting tired of this, so I'll flame a bit...
If you would stop kissing Stallman's but for just one minute, you will see that those are NOT your two choices! Have you even read the BSD license? Do you even know how to read?
Here are your two choices: a) a license that is friendly to big companies and also friendly to you b) a license that is friendly only to you. Now, RMS may have loaded your head with spurious definitions of fairness, but in my book you can only be fair when you treat everyone the same. There is a reason why Lady Justice is portrayed blindfolded.
"em>Although I suppose that another merger between two internet companies is the best example of competition."
It isn't competition that causes mergers, buyouts and takeovers. It publically traded corporations. When you put your business up for sale to any and all comers, don't be surprised or angry when it's gets purchased. And that's what a public corporation is, a company perpetually up for sale.
Hmm, Covad, Speedstream, 608/128, sounds just like what I got hooked up last week. Except I'm getting the service from a third party. In my case I'm getting 540Kbps and I'm 5,000 feet from the telco. My phone line is ancient and runs 100 feet to the demarcation (I'm in an apartment).
I double checked with my provider on the minimum guarantees, and double checked the contract. They can't guarantee the 608 'cause of noisy lines, etc., but they do firmly guarantee 128 down. No best effort. You either get at least that or you don't pay.
This ageism doesn't exist everywhere. It's only entrenched in the internet startups, and sporadic outside of there.
Where I work, Acuson, the average age for a developer is 40. We've got developers over 60. I don't know their exact ages, 'cause I don't ask. We can't afford the inexperienced because when our software fails, it's not just a website going down, it's medical (life and death) equipment.
It's amazing what we see while recruiting. Guys taking their first programming class ever applying to be a developer. You call them the next day to say they're not needed, and they shrug telling you they already got a job with the latest startup.
We're doing stuff that makes the industry's idea of cutting edge look old hat. We don't do webpages or handhelds. We save lives and improve the world.
"My only problem was that the installer bombed out if you tried to add packages from within it..."
This was a bug in the initial cut of 3.4. If you read the errata at www.freebsd.org, they explain it, and how to get around it. 4.0 does not have this problem.
What's this about BSDi dollars being put to good use? I thought osOpinion didn't pay their authors...
In my remembrance of the myth, the Sheriff was injust, the Abbot was injust, and Sir Guy was a toady to the injust. The villagers taxed into poverty were the oppressed. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the rich and poor, as those who had any cash (stealable) wealth in that time period were not involved in the dispute (which was between the feudal lords and the peasant serfs)
I utterly reject the Dennis Moore philosophy of making sure everyone has precisely the same number of lupins.
Imagine the hell we'd live in, if the only art we were able to see was someone's expression of emotion.
You missed the entire point of the previous post! Most art in today's commercial art world is the result of expressing emotion. When an artist can get paid for being an artist, he will produce more art. When that same artist is not allowed to sell his work, but wait on tables ten hours a day, he's going to be exhausted when he gets home and will produce less art.
I like good art. I like freedom. By restricting what the artist can do with his works, I reduce both art and freedom. But by letting the artist choose whether he will wait on tables or sell his works instead, I am promoting both. Your sensibilities are irrelevant to both freedom and art.