Get off your self-righteous high horse and rethink what you just wrote!
Not only is it possible under the BSD license, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE UNDER THE GPL or any other license. Licenses do not grant permissions and conditions upon the author, only upon the user.
The Linux desktop, Gnome, has some odd features...
GNOME is not the Linux Desktop(tm)! This can be easily refuted by the presence of other equally popular desktops, and the fact that GNOME runs under non-Linux systems as well.
What is needed is a simple, easy to learn and intuitive UI
Yeah, GNOME is working on it. They're getting closer. (they may already be there, I haven't used GNOME in a while...) But in the meantime, look at KDE/Qt. All the applications have the same UI, hotkeys, menu structure, etc. (unless the developer chooses otherwise). Even a vanilla Qt application looks and feels like a KDE application.
I thought the old BSD license...was somewhat evil as well.
Well, if evil is defined as obnoxious or moderately onerous, then you may be right. But I prefer a bit more villiany and wickedness in my definition of "evil".
That clause in the BSDL was all that stopped it from being shareable with the GPL.
The GPL/BSD compatibility issue is still being argued over. I think the BSD is compatible, but some other respectable types don't. The argument has now shifted to the clause "license as a whole". I would have no problem at all if someone used my BSD code within their GPL package. But it would upset me greatly if they changed my license.
First off, the "obnoxious advertising clause", a phrase with originated with RMS also was included with BSD. And RMS called the BSDL a free license (he thought it was *too* free).
Second, there's a lot of free software licenses that don't allow me the permission to modify any way I like. The GPL is one of these. There are numerous conditions within the GPL that I must follow before I can modify GPL code.
The FSF definitions of Free Software no not include the terms "unconditional and absolute freedom". If you're bitching that the license in question does not give you unconditional permissions, why not bitch at other licenses that don't either, like the GPL, the LGPL, the AL, the QPL, the MPL, etc.
Yes, it is problematic that you can't use the Jet3D engine in a web browser. But it's also problematic that you can't use the emacs editing engine within KDevelop. The Jet3d license is discriminatory towards the application it is used in while the GPL is discriminatory towards the library it is linked to. I don't see much difference between the two. When one favors the unrestricted licenses of MIT and BSD, all the restricted licenses start looking the same.
"But you don't understand!" thou protesteth, "They baptize by sprinkling and not by immersion, and will surely go to hell!"
your web browser should be configurable to use your text editor for textfields
How do I do that? AFAIK, neither Netscape, Exploder, kfm, Konqueror or Opera do this. I don't know if NS6 does or not, but there's no way I'm going to use that bloated pre-alpha crap they released yesterday. If there is a way, let me know.
Okay, Lynx probably can. But I'm guessing that with the pics and icons and layout, that Slashdot wasn't meant to be used with Lynx.
Hardly! They spent a great deal of time creating this, and all they're asking for in return is credit. That's no different from the old BSD license.
but everyone would still be bound by the original license agreement?
Of course. It's the same with every free software license I have ever seen. Only the copyright holder can alter the license terms.
Re:A classic application for the "Overrated" mod
on
Jet3d Game Engine
·
· Score: 2
Under the GPL, if you start a GPL'd product and someone else contributes to it, you no longer have the right to re-license it
Sorry, bud. The copyright holder can relicense their stuff however they want. If you contribute code to gcc, it is no longer yours, it belongs to the FSF. You have no sayso over it anymore. If you submit a contribution with the proviso that you keep the copyright to it, they will reject it, and rightfully so. The law specifically states that any single holder of copyright can relicense the whole without permission from the others. So keep the copyright holders to one, or create a legal entity as an umbrella.
Why do you need someone else's opinion? Think for yourself. Read the license and read the OSS definition and the Free Software definition and make your own conclusion. You don't need someone else to tell you your opinion.
I'm leaning towards the opinion that it fails the GPL test
GPL test? What GPL test? Why should any other license be tested against another?
I would hazard a guess that if such a test were found, every license except the GPL (and the LGPL which can convert into GPL) would fail.
Why not? Which of the following four definitions of Free Software taken from the FSF pages, does this license not meet?
1) freedom to use the software for any purpose 2) freedom to copy and redistribute the software 3) freedom to modify the software 4) freedom to distribute the modifications
Any license that meets the OSD is also free software.
If it's still there (it was in 5.0), the PGP documentation recounts several uses of crytography in a positive vien, such a freedom fighters, online transactions, etc. This would be a good starting point to go off an explore.
Hey! I take great offense at that! Most times, the QA engineer has a lot more common sense than the software engineer does.
"I found this bug" "It's not a bug, I challenge it" "But it crashes the system" "Not crashing wasn't spec'd"
Or another...
"I found this bug" "Not a bug, it's user error" "What?! It's a standard function for the system" "They didn't do step 47.5b first"
An a final one...
"My group has no bugs" "But those groups that use your code have the highest number of bugs" "They're bad programmers, we're not" "I have here a list of 58 bugs you assigned to out of your group and into their group" "We don't have any bugs, so they must be theirs"
Wrong! Killing someone with your car does not make the car illegal. Only actions are illegal (objects can only be banned). The *act* of killing someone with your car is the crime, not the car itself. The *act* of cracking into a corporate network is the crime, not the possession of LOphtcrack itself (see next para).
Of course, a lot of laws don't follow legal principles. It is entirely possible to have a law that is against the law, and this has happened all too often. That's why you have appeals, higher courts and constitutions.
It's interesting to note that for the most part, the BSD community considers Darwin to be one of their own. If you look at www.daemonnews.org, you'll see link buttons at the bottom of the page for all the BSDs, including BSDi and MAC OSX.
even for linux, it's $1550 up front, no gui builder, just a set of libraries.
Just a set of libraries? Of course it "just a set of libraries"!
Troll Tech doesn't need to sell a gui builder, as there are already several excellent ones already available, either for a price or for free. Qt is Troll's product, and it's a good product. It would be absurd to relegate it to the level of a loss leader for yet another gui builder.
As for the matter of pricing, the price they chose reflects the value they place on their own product. They consider it a high end cross platform tool for professional firms and developers. Apparently, the market agrees with them, as they haven't lowered their price yet. This is NOT a library for shareware authors who want to write closed source crap. It's for real world programmers who make their living off of cross platform development. And the license is per developer, not per site, so you don't have to pay extra to take your work home at night, like you do with MS stuff.
Given the GUI nature of Windows I'd assume that C++ is out of the question
You assume wrong. OO languages shine when the problem set involve objects. GUIs have objects. Windows, controls, events, etc. Pushbuttons are derived from buttons which derive from windows. Windows have parents and children.
There's a beautiful streamlined, compact language within C++, and it's called C.
True. It's another way of saying "the heart of C++ is beauty".
C++ is just layers of bureaucracy to wade through
Huh? You're right. Stuff like function prototypes have to go! Disorganization is the only way to create code.
God only knows what some new class will inherit in a really big project.
Well, if you looked at the class definition, you would know. Are you arguing against inheritance here? I know which side I would bet on.
There's nothing C++ can do that C cannot.
BFD. There's nothing in C that you can't do in assembly. Why aren't you using assembly?
No language should require a multi-hundred paged book to explain.
"C A Reference Manual", Harbison and Steele, 392 pages. I guess it depends upon what you want in a book. The K&R book is pretty short, but that's because it only tells you, but does not explain, about C. Stroustrup's book does a lot of explaining.
He should've started anew when creating his OO dream rather than trying to maintain backward compatibility.
He could have done that, but he would have lost the backward compatibility, which was a very important goal. If you don't like C++, try Eiffel or Python instead. Oh wait! You don't like OO to begin with. Too bad.
Look at the K&R book. A good language needs little explanation.
If you *already* know C, the K&R is adequate. But if you don't know it, K&R is a serious roadblock.
New C code will still be being written 20 years from now. Can you say the same for C++
He can't help it. Miguel is a member of GNU/FSF, and as such, probably has no choice of terms. "Linux" deeply offends RMS, and MDI has to work with RMS. If he didn't call it GnuLiX, or whatever else this weeks politically correct term is, he would be out on his ass.
Qt is an excellent crossplatform library for C and C++. One caveat (before everyone else mentions it) is that it is not free for Windows. Run time libraries are freely redistributable. If your project is already commercial, then this should not be a big hassle. The qt-interest@trolltech.com mailing list is quite active with a good mix of both Unix and Windows developers.
There is a free evaluation copy that you can download to try it out on Windows, or just try out the free X version that's probably already on your distro.
The embedded Qt is right around the corner, and a Mac version is being planned.
The Qt classes blow away those jokes offered up by MFC and make OWL look puny. From what I understand, Qt will be the GUI component of Kylix.
Yes, it's unfortunate that Trolltech charges for the Windows version regardless of whether your project is open or closed source. I wish they had the X pricing structure for all platforms (free for free software, closed for closed source).
How do you reconcile these two statements: Not to sound like a prick, but it sounds like user error to me. and In response: Don't run Linux on "weird" or shitty hardware.?
Yes, I think you are a prick. The fact that you call the guy inept for not being able to install Linux on hardware that you say it won't run on anyway proves it.
Umm, I thought the big problem with Windows was the company behind it forcing its software around everyone's throats.
Despite rumours to the contrary, Microsoft has never tried to force Windows down my throat. As I recall, the only people who have ever told me to use Windows were the hardware vendors. When they did so, I just didn't use their hardware.
Windows users have just as much choice with their computers as you do with yours. Don't let the word "free" in Free Software confuse you into thinking that everyone else is enslaved. That's just orwellian gnuspeak.
there are two herds: one that supports Free Software, and one that despises it.
You're forgetting the third "herd", by far larger than the other two put together. And those are the people who like Free Software but don't worship it, those that like Free Software but don't like copyleft, those who run Linux or BSD but don't despise Windows, and those who don't like Linux but have no beef against Free Software.
Before you start talking about the death penalty, realize what a corporation really is. It is your grandmother, your neighbor, your friend's neighbor. Anyone who owns stock in the corporation is an owner of the corporation. And that includes small time investors, pensioners, your church, your local Boy Scouts. Should they be held accountable for the corporation's actions in proportion to their ownership? Maybe. But they don't deserve the death penalty for actions they did not commit.
A better method is to just to take away personhood. No, I don't know where a movement to do this is. I'll let you know when I find one. Without personhood, the actual human perpetrators of "corporate" crimes and misdemeanors will be held liable.
Errk! Does no one get it yet? I want to make an honest living as an Open Source developer. I don't want to be support tech or man the call center or have my stuff be a loss leader for closed source.
But I won't beg either. I don't need your charity so I won't accept it. Instead, give it to those who really do need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Get off your self-righteous high horse and rethink what you just wrote!
Not only is it possible under the BSD license, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE UNDER THE GPL or any other license. Licenses do not grant permissions and conditions upon the author, only upon the user.
The Linux desktop, Gnome, has some odd features...
GNOME is not the Linux Desktop(tm)! This can be easily refuted by the presence of other equally popular desktops, and the fact that GNOME runs under non-Linux systems as well.
What is needed is a simple, easy to learn and intuitive UI
Yeah, GNOME is working on it. They're getting closer. (they may already be there, I haven't used GNOME in a while...) But in the meantime, look at KDE/Qt. All the applications have the same UI, hotkeys, menu structure, etc. (unless the developer chooses otherwise). Even a vanilla Qt application looks and feels like a KDE application.
I thought the old BSD license...was somewhat evil as well.
Well, if evil is defined as obnoxious or moderately onerous, then you may be right. But I prefer a bit more villiany and wickedness in my definition of "evil".
That clause in the BSDL was all that stopped it from being shareable with the GPL.
The GPL/BSD compatibility issue is still being argued over. I think the BSD is compatible, but some other respectable types don't. The argument has now shifted to the clause "license as a whole". I would have no problem at all if someone used my BSD code within their GPL package. But it would upset me greatly if they changed my license.
First off, the "obnoxious advertising clause", a phrase with originated with RMS also was included with BSD. And RMS called the BSDL a free license (he thought it was *too* free).
Second, there's a lot of free software licenses that don't allow me the permission to modify any way I like. The GPL is one of these. There are numerous conditions within the GPL that I must follow before I can modify GPL code.
The FSF definitions of Free Software no not include the terms "unconditional and absolute freedom". If you're bitching that the license in question does not give you unconditional permissions, why not bitch at other licenses that don't either, like the GPL, the LGPL, the AL, the QPL, the MPL, etc.
Yes, it is problematic that you can't use the Jet3D engine in a web browser. But it's also problematic that you can't use the emacs editing engine within KDevelop. The Jet3d license is discriminatory towards the application it is used in while the GPL is discriminatory towards the library it is linked to. I don't see much difference between the two. When one favors the unrestricted licenses of MIT and BSD, all the restricted licenses start looking the same.
"But you don't understand!" thou protesteth, "They baptize by sprinkling and not by immersion, and will surely go to hell!"
your web browser should be configurable to use your text editor for textfields
How do I do that? AFAIK, neither Netscape, Exploder, kfm, Konqueror or Opera do this. I don't know if NS6 does or not, but there's no way I'm going to use that bloated pre-alpha crap they released yesterday. If there is a way, let me know.
Okay, Lynx probably can. But I'm guessing that with the pics and icons and layout, that Slashdot wasn't meant to be used with Lynx.
That's somewhat evil.
Hardly! They spent a great deal of time creating this, and all they're asking for in return is credit. That's no different from the old BSD license.
but everyone would still be bound by the original license agreement?
Of course. It's the same with every free software license I have ever seen. Only the copyright holder can alter the license terms.
Under the GPL, if you start a GPL'd product and someone else contributes to it, you no longer have the right to re-license it
Sorry, bud. The copyright holder can relicense their stuff however they want. If you contribute code to gcc, it is no longer yours, it belongs to the FSF. You have no sayso over it anymore. If you submit a contribution with the proviso that you keep the copyright to it, they will reject it, and rightfully so. The law specifically states that any single holder of copyright can relicense the whole without permission from the others. So keep the copyright holders to one, or create a legal entity as an umbrella.
Can you please give your opinion on this?
Why do you need someone else's opinion? Think for yourself. Read the license and read the OSS definition and the Free Software definition and make your own conclusion. You don't need someone else to tell you your opinion.
I'm leaning towards the opinion that it fails the GPL test
GPL test? What GPL test? Why should any other license be tested against another?
I would hazard a guess that if such a test were found, every license except the GPL (and the LGPL which can convert into GPL) would fail.
Why not? Which of the following four definitions of Free Software taken from the FSF pages, does this license not meet?
1) freedom to use the software for any purpose
2) freedom to copy and redistribute the software
3) freedom to modify the software
4) freedom to distribute the modifications
Any license that meets the OSD is also free software.
If it's still there (it was in 5.0), the PGP documentation recounts several uses of crytography in a positive vien, such a freedom fighters, online transactions, etc. This would be a good starting point to go off an explore.
Or get a job in QA.
Hey! I take great offense at that! Most times, the QA engineer has a lot more common sense than the software engineer does.
"I found this bug"
"It's not a bug, I challenge it"
"But it crashes the system"
"Not crashing wasn't spec'd"
Or another...
"I found this bug"
"Not a bug, it's user error"
"What?! It's a standard function for the system"
"They didn't do step 47.5b first"
An a final one...
"My group has no bugs"
"But those groups that use your code have the highest number of bugs"
"They're bad programmers, we're not"
"I have here a list of 58 bugs you assigned to out of your group and into their group"
"We don't have any bugs, so they must be theirs"
Wrong! Killing someone with your car does not make the car illegal. Only actions are illegal (objects can only be banned). The *act* of killing someone with your car is the crime, not the car itself. The *act* of cracking into a corporate network is the crime, not the possession of LOphtcrack itself (see next para).
Of course, a lot of laws don't follow legal principles. It is entirely possible to have a law that is against the law, and this has happened all too often. That's why you have appeals, higher courts and constitutions.
It's interesting to note that for the most part, the BSD community considers Darwin to be one of their own. If you look at www.daemonnews.org, you'll see link buttons at the bottom of the page for all the BSDs, including BSDi and MAC OSX.
even for linux, it's $1550 up front, no gui builder, just a set of libraries.
Just a set of libraries? Of course it "just a set of libraries"!
Troll Tech doesn't need to sell a gui builder, as there are already several excellent ones already available, either for a price or for free. Qt is Troll's product, and it's a good product. It would be absurd to relegate it to the level of a loss leader for yet another gui builder.
As for the matter of pricing, the price they chose reflects the value they place on their own product. They consider it a high end cross platform tool for professional firms and developers. Apparently, the market agrees with them, as they haven't lowered their price yet. This is NOT a library for shareware authors who want to write closed source crap. It's for real world programmers who make their living off of cross platform development. And the license is per developer, not per site, so you don't have to pay extra to take your work home at night, like you do with MS stuff.
Given the GUI nature of Windows I'd assume that C++ is out of the question
You assume wrong. OO languages shine when the problem set involve objects. GUIs have objects. Windows, controls, events, etc. Pushbuttons are derived from buttons which derive from windows. Windows have parents and children.
There's a beautiful streamlined, compact language within C++, and it's called C.
True. It's another way of saying "the heart of C++ is beauty".
C++ is just layers of bureaucracy to wade through
Huh? You're right. Stuff like function prototypes have to go! Disorganization is the only way to create code.
God only knows what some new class will inherit in a really big project.
Well, if you looked at the class definition, you would know. Are you arguing against inheritance here? I know which side I would bet on.
There's nothing C++ can do that C cannot.
BFD. There's nothing in C that you can't do in assembly. Why aren't you using assembly?
No language should require a multi-hundred paged book to explain.
"C A Reference Manual", Harbison and Steele, 392 pages. I guess it depends upon what you want in a book. The K&R book is pretty short, but that's because it only tells you, but does not explain, about C. Stroustrup's book does a lot of explaining.
He should've started anew when creating his OO dream rather than trying to maintain backward compatibility.
He could have done that, but he would have lost the backward compatibility, which was a very important goal. If you don't like C++, try Eiffel or Python instead. Oh wait! You don't like OO to begin with. Too bad.
Look at the K&R book. A good language needs little explanation.
If you *already* know C, the K&R is adequate. But if you don't know it, K&R is a serious roadblock.
New C code will still be being written 20 years from now. Can you say the same for C++
Yes I can say the same. Why shouldn't it?
He can't help it. Miguel is a member of GNU/FSF, and as such, probably has no choice of terms. "Linux" deeply offends RMS, and MDI has to work with RMS. If he didn't call it GnuLiX, or whatever else this weeks politically correct term is, he would be out on his ass.
Oh, way before then! Try Babylonia.
Qt is an excellent crossplatform library for C and C++. One caveat (before everyone else mentions it) is that it is not free for Windows. Run time libraries are freely redistributable. If your project is already commercial, then this should not be a big hassle. The qt-interest@trolltech.com mailing list is quite active with a good mix of both Unix and Windows developers.
There is a free evaluation copy that you can download to try it out on Windows, or just try out the free X version that's probably already on your distro.
The embedded Qt is right around the corner, and a Mac version is being planned.
The Qt classes blow away those jokes offered up by MFC and make OWL look puny. From what I understand, Qt will be the GUI component of Kylix.
Yes, it's unfortunate that Trolltech charges for the Windows version regardless of whether your project is open or closed source. I wish they had the X pricing structure for all platforms (free for free software, closed for closed source).
How do you reconcile these two statements: Not to sound like a prick, but it sounds like user error to me. and In response: Don't run Linux on "weird" or shitty hardware.?
Yes, I think you are a prick. The fact that you call the guy inept for not being able to install Linux on hardware that you say it won't run on anyway proves it.
Umm, I thought the big problem with Windows was the company behind it forcing its software around everyone's throats.
Despite rumours to the contrary, Microsoft has never tried to force Windows down my throat. As I recall, the only people who have ever told me to use Windows were the hardware vendors. When they did so, I just didn't use their hardware.
Windows users have just as much choice with their computers as you do with yours. Don't let the word "free" in Free Software confuse you into thinking that everyone else is enslaved. That's just orwellian gnuspeak.
there are two herds: one that supports Free Software, and one that despises it.
You're forgetting the third "herd", by far larger than the other two put together. And those are the people who like Free Software but don't worship it, those that like Free Software but don't like copyleft, those who run Linux or BSD but don't despise Windows, and those who don't like Linux but have no beef against Free Software.
Before you start talking about the death penalty, realize what a corporation really is. It is your grandmother, your neighbor, your friend's neighbor. Anyone who owns stock in the corporation is an owner of the corporation. And that includes small time investors, pensioners, your church, your local Boy Scouts. Should they be held accountable for the corporation's actions in proportion to their ownership? Maybe. But they don't deserve the death penalty for actions they did not commit.
A better method is to just to take away personhood. No, I don't know where a movement to do this is. I'll let you know when I find one. Without personhood, the actual human perpetrators of "corporate" crimes and misdemeanors will be held liable.
Let us know if you do find such a business model.
I'm not the one who has to find that model, since I am not the one claiming that all existing developers can make money writing Open Source.
Errk! Does no one get it yet? I want to make an honest living as an Open Source developer. I don't want to be support tech or man the call center or have my stuff be a loss leader for closed source.
But I won't beg either. I don't need your charity so I won't accept it. Instead, give it to those who really do need it.