First, off, whether or not things are still bad, trending towards a broader definition of fair use is still good. Not only in-and-of-itself, but it provides another wedge to start undoing all the other bad stuff and overcoming the factors that lead to abuse.
Second, let's not make the mistake of focusing too much on hosting and take downs. Maybe the RIAA can still force a take down of a mashup, but if the accepted law is that my copy of the Grey Album is legit, my iPod is less likely to be seized at the border.
I was going to dissagree with you, but I'm not even sure what your arguments are. Do you have any reason to believe that the solution for the problem discussed in the article is inelegant or innefficient, or did you just get a bad grade in your AI class?
It's fairly obvious to me that the falling sales are both proof that the business model is failing (due to a change in the market environment) and that it will also provide ammunition for the RIAA's anti-P2P argument.
The RIAA is, I believe, misunderstanding the situation in that they would lose sales regardless, but the reality of any situation rarely intrudes on the legalities.
I think patterns are very valuable, but I still say that they are no more than renaming what skilled people already know. It does help the knowledge transfer to have regular names, no doubt, but it does not create the knowledege, and this is the mistake that many in the field (who probably shouldn't be there) have made. Those I speak of act as if every system must now be redisegned to use patternss, yet this shows they don't know what they're talking about since every system in existence probably uses patterns already, they just weren't called that at the time.
As for being elitist, depends. Do I know more than the average programmer? Almost certainly. I also believe that just about anyone could learn what I know, however, so consider it an accident of fate and hard work rather than destiny or something, so I'll let you be the judge.
I don't disagree with you at all on that point. Renaming things to a consistent name is a good thing, but still, that's all it is.
And if everyone in programming deserved to be there, that would be fine. The problem is, however, that while I'm trying to explain how to fix a problem, I've got to politely fend off five fools who just read about the "delegation pattern" and want to show how much they know about it when that pattern is probably neither ideal, nor even applicable.
The fact is that we've always used patterns forever, the fact that so many people believe that systems can be fixed or designs improved by "using design patterns" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what design patterns are and what the naming convention has done. It did not create anything new, and the existing design uses them extensively, guaranteed. It may use the wrong ones, and it may not name them, or it may present them in non-canonical forms, but they're there.
All in all, I'd much rather lose the 20 seconds it takes me to communicate to my skilled peers what I'm talking about than the many, many hours I've lost to explaining why a "facade" or a "factory" doesn't help the problem at all.
Design patterns themselves are just renaming something every skilled programmer already used, and now every unskilled programmer bandies about like so many Microssoft Certifications.
I'd say that logically, it's about the same thing, but the AOP model does have one thing going for it in that it provides actual tools instead of just a lot of talk. I don't see any sort of revolution here, but I think it's much more useful than patterns for that reason alone.
I don't condone it because it couldn't help but be bad or boring. Hacking, for whatever purpose, is tedious if anything, and tedium rarely makes for exciting stuff. Having a technical discussion afterward might be neat, doing it as a demonstration, but mixing in DJ's and scantily clad women just comes off as silly. You might as well hold your next math convention at a strip club.
As far as terrorism goes... please! There's nothing illegal or "black hat" about breaking into a box you've been told to break into. What better way to find bugs or flaws, so that you can then close them? I'd be a lot more worried about gun shows before I worried about hacker conventions cause last I checked, the gun to computer related death factor was still INFINITE.
The more people banned (or are bullied) into stopping completely legal and (possibly) worthwhile activities, the more I'll seriously consider moving to Canada... or running for office. Neither of which I'd really enjoy, BTW.
Oh... got me for oversimplifying again. Man... you guys like to play with semantics, don't you? You can charge for the expense of copying and transferring, but you cannot charge for the license to the work or dervied works (section 1, PP 2 and section 2.b). Since you cannot charge more than the cost of the copy itself, you cannot charge for your value add, which is the only part I'm really concerned about charging for anyway.
The problem with protecting source, say if I publish all my source on my website with a notice to the effect of: "Don't copy, use, or derive anything from this" (which would be cool) is that I could never hope to bear the cost of prosecuting any claims I may have, even assuming I could ever find any but the most foolish of violators. Even if I did, I'd have a hard time proving that they got the idea from me, and didn't already have it before. There really is no good legal solution, the only way something like this would work would be for the world to be honorable. Which would be great, but I'm not going to stake my livelyhood on it. Even if 99.9% of the readers were good guys (tm) (which I think is probably not too far off the mark), 1 in a hundred would be enough to ruin me.
But I never said anything about having problems with restrictions. I agree that releasing a binary only, proprietary licenses is very restrictive, more so than the GPL (well, most likely). My problem is not with GPL restrictions, or APSL restrictions, or any restrictions at all. My only problem is with GPL proponents complaining about the restrictions of other licenses when their own licenses impose restrictions of their own. (If BSD or Apache proponents wanted to complain, that would be a different matter.
As for context, maybe you couldn't get it from this post... my thinking was actually the three (original, not the replies to the replies) posts in the thread. Not that I'd expect you to have read them all... my point being not so much that you "should have read it this way," but more by the way of supporting my assertion that my rewritten version was the original intent.
Anyway...
I still don't understand how saying the GPL places restrictions on software derived from it is stupid. I'm not saying restrictions are bad, I'm not saying the GPL is bad. I'm just saying the it places restrictions on derived software, which seems to me, not only reasonable, but factually true.
I agree that there is a lot of fuzzy thinking and such around GPL and coypiright law, and IP law in general. In fact, my entire reaction was to the common mistake that GPL==free software. What incensed me in the GNU-Darwin point, and, to a lesser extend, GNU's web page, is their explicit and implicit claim they and they alone can define what free software is and what a good license is.
To a large part, they have been successful. Much common media equates GPL with free software without understanding the implications or the foolishness of such a conclusion. GPLed software is a subset of free software, and though important, and even large, is dwarfed (in terms of users) by BSD/Apache style software.
If anything, BSD/Apache style free software should be considered the archtypical. Not only does it have fewer restrictions (in that it has practically none), but it's usage is huge. There's BSD software in Windows, Apache is the biggest web server, the most used Java libraries/frameworks are Apache style, etc.
As for you divergence, I agree. I personally wish that I could share my code without fear of having it stolen. To be able to do so would be a great value to myself, and, I like to believe, others as well.
You are an excitable one! Maybe you should work for a political campaign, I bet you'd be great a smear ads.:)
If you take my comment completely out of context, you are completely correct. Read the rest of my post, though. It is clear in context that the meaning of the sentence is:
The GPL places severe restirictions on what I can and cannot do with [GPL derived software developed by myself] by requiring me to provide source.
Other than your openning remark, I agree completely with everything you've said, which, if you'd read my posts on this subject, would be clear to you. I'm a huge fan of using licenses and contracats to restrict people in their actions and define what they may and may not do.
I never said that the GPL takes away my freedom. I merely state that there are restrictions on using GPL software. There is no question on that. I am perfectly free *not* to use GPL code, which I rarely do, to develop that is. Please try to respond to what I write.
What I said is:
The fact that GNU is complaining about freedom to do what you want with software is both laughable and hipocritical.
And this is true. With GNU, I am not free to add value and then charge for that value. Technically, it is true, I can, but since I must also provide that value free of charge, the fact is sort of obviated. Yet this does not restrict my freedom, it just restircts me from using GPL software in my own development projects, which is how I earn a living. There are very clear and strong restrictions on what I can do with GPL software, and that is the hippocrisy, that they complain about restrictions on APSL software simple because those restrictions are incompatible with their own restrictions.
I respect the GPL and what they are doing, and I understand what the GPL is about very well. As to whether the restrictions are "severe" or not, you seem to miss the point that it's all about context. In the context that I develop code and need to distribute it (and charge for my distribution) in order to survive, then the GPL is very restrictive indeed. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, they can be restrictive if they want, it's their license, but restrictive it is none-the-less.
Let me clarify: I have problems with the APSL too. I also have problems with the GPL. I wouldn't develop (and distribute) code under either (the latter because I don't want to send Apple my changes, the former because I need to charge for my code to make a living). I understand GNU's problems with the APSL... it's not their stance that I have a problem with, it's their phrasing.
The language, both on the GNU site, and the GNU-Darwin site, read to me as if they are angry or judgmental of the APSL license. The GNU-Darwin site says that the APSL license cannot be free software *because* it's not compatible. So, I think I more or less agree with you, and my problem is that the sense I get from GNU is that they define "goodness" as "compatible with us." To me, that seems both morally dangerous in general, and specifically inimical the idea of a free and vibrant open source movement.
Well... okay, I was using developers in the sense of developer/distributor since I, for one, need to make a living and don't have a trust fund that allows me to code-masturbate all day. I think the meaning was rather clear in context, though your correction is well taken and I'll be sure to spell it out in the future.
I don't really see how the GCC example is a parallel, though. Here, we are talking about some GPL developers being mad at Apple, not Apple being mad at the GPL. Let me know if I'm missing something.
I think what happenned with GCC, BTW, is perfectly correct and good. If you use something that has a license that says such and such (unless superceded by local or federal law), then you must respect that license. Next didn't, got in trouble, and complied.
You're correct, you can use GPL stuff all you want without any worry, if all you do is use it (in it's original and unmodified form... oh, and don't statically link to it either... maybe...). But, Apple is trying to develop new products, and so has to have some sort of value add. That's where the problem comes in. To do that value add, you *must* modify the source. Now, if you want to get paid for that value you added through the traditional means of selling the software (a very reasonable expectation), you're out of luck. That's what I, and others, mean when they say "viral nature."
Now, you cannot sell that new value that you've added. The GPL has "infected" (though I wouldn't use that term, it follows the "viral" metaphor) your new code. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the price you pay for basing your stuff on GPL software, but it's also viral in nature, and the reason why Apple was (more or less) forced to BSD (and the fact that Next used BSD stuff as well... which might be for the same reasons).
Oh, and just to clarify that I do understand, you can sell your software, but the fact that you also have to give it away, under the GPL, sorta obviates the fact that you *can* charge for it.
Err... of coures it has, because it's a good argument, and, as evidenced by the actions of the GNU-Darwin people, still a necessary argument. I will be very glad not to make it once it is no longer necessary. In fact, I'd rather not make the argument.
Second, APSL is languishing, and it is unacceptable to the free
software community. It is now time for an APSL revision, which brings
the license in line with the free software definition in accordance
with the expectations of GNU Project.
Since when did GNU define what "free software" is? I don't mind GNU, and I respect their goals, but certainly BSD and Apache software is far more free than GPL. GPL is highly restrictive. They have their social and political goals, which are well and good, but why is it that they expect everyone to agree or support them?
I really don't see any difference between this and myself whining the GM and MicroSoft don't support my personal political views or send my their source code for free, because I want them too. In my opinion, it's arrogant, petulant crap that this that tarnishes OSS more than anytihng else.
The reason Apple didn't use the GPL is that they felt they couldn't, and I for one think their choice has plenyt of merit. The viral nature of the GPL and the severe restrictions it places on developers are an impedement to both it's adoption and support. Apple will not, because it cannot, embrace the GPL.
And why should they? The GPL's stated political and social agenda may be respectable, but the form that the GPL takes to further those goals is inimical to the standard economical model and way of doing business. I've got no problem with the GPL, but to cry foul because Apple doesn't want to support GPL efforts is ludicrous. The GPL is about very specific political and social goals. These are fine goals, but they are not Apple's goals. I don't whine about the fact that some random company doesn't support my personal political or social ambitions.
GNU is free to have their opinion, and I agree that the "we can stop you from using your stuff at any time" is a little silly and makes software licensed under earlier versions of questionable value, but after 1.2, I don't see the big deal. So what if they require you to send back your changes? The fact that GNU is complaining about freedom to do what you want with software is both laughable and hipocritical. The GPL places severe restirictions on what I can and cannot do with my software by requiring me to provide source. I've got no problem with the fact that they require me to, nor would I have a problem with the fact that Apple requires me to send them changes. If I accept the license and use the software, that is the cost of doing so. They created the software and can put whatever license they please on it, that's their right.
However, for the creators of one highly restrictive license to call foul on another is nothing less than pathetic. The APSL does not "disrespect privacy" any more than the GPL disrpespects freedom. Each is a license with a purpose.
Why would you be wearing a computer that broedcasts your personal information? Sure, they'll be commercial things that do this, but not all will, and if nothing else, carry a linux install (or whatever) in your pocket.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. A custom house is not an open source house. In open source, I get to use another's designs and plans for free. The further implication, as I understand by "modular," is that I can mix and match vendors with very little need to coordinate between various fabricators because of certain standards (housing protocols, I suppose). So, I can by a bathroom unit from builder X, have my living room built as a variation of plan Y that I downloaded from the Internet, and have my kitchen trucked in in from fabricator Z.
The fact that semi-custome housing has become more affordable is great, but is only vaguely related to the idea of an open source plans and widely adopted standards.
The MIT site itself, as oppossed to the post, seems mostly focused on well designed, people centered (as oppossed to materials, builder centered) houses. Again, though, a custom designed house is a separate issue from a *well* designed house. You can have a well designed factory built home, a crappy custom home, or a well designed custom home. It's an orthogonal question.
Indeed, most "custom" houses (for the upper middle class) that I've seen are really just mix n' match builder houses that draw on their proprietary plans and storehouse of plans, but they are neither open source, nor necessarily good design.
Still, the increased flexibility of the builders and designers creates a more receptive atmosphere for the House_n and open source housing than if it wasn't there, but it is far from sufficient for what I, personally, would like to see.
In the stereotypical case, this is true, but you *can* develop software with minimal investment (pick up a used eMachine for sub-100 say). Indeed, if you're really cash strapped, you don't even need a computer to develop software. I can remember debugging and coding by hand when the power went out...
Most open source software did not start out by being funded by a company, it was done in someone's spare time, and at little or no cost (other than time) to the initial creators. The same is not true of a house.
Another great idea that will be decades in coming, if ever. Like open source software, something like this would be anathema to the housing industry. Like open source software, there will only be commercial support *after* it's already taken off. Unlike software, however, building a house requires significant capital investment.
I would love to see this model applied to housing (and many other things), but the economics make the realization highly infeasable without dedicated, zealous support and significant monetary investment.
Besides the question of how useful single sign of stuff is, security questions, and adoption rates, etc., this shows how nice it is to be one, large, powerful entity. In this case, MS says, "this is the way we'll go." No one else has the market share to do similar things without forming alliances and consortiums which, while they may have a better idea, usually falter for exactly this reason: they cannot agree on what it is they are doing or why.
The causes for this are interesting, but far to many, complicated, and inter-related to get into during a 5 minute work break. Too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
First, off, whether or not things are still bad, trending towards a broader definition of fair use is still good. Not only in-and-of-itself, but it provides another wedge to start undoing all the other bad stuff and overcoming the factors that lead to abuse.
Second, let's not make the mistake of focusing too much on hosting and take downs. Maybe the RIAA can still force a take down of a mashup, but if the accepted law is that my copy of the Grey Album is legit, my iPod is less likely to be seized at the border.
Neural networks != genetic algorithms
Slow Go player != inelegant solution
I was going to dissagree with you, but I'm not even sure what your arguments are. Do you have any reason to believe that the solution for the problem discussed in the article is inelegant or innefficient, or did you just get a bad grade in your AI class?
It's fairly obvious to me that the falling sales are both proof that the business model is failing (due to a change in the market environment) and that it will also provide ammunition for the RIAA's anti-P2P argument.
The RIAA is, I believe, misunderstanding the situation in that they would lose sales regardless, but the reality of any situation rarely intrudes on the legalities.
I think patterns are very valuable, but I still say that they are no more than renaming what skilled people already know. It does help the knowledge transfer to have regular names, no doubt, but it does not create the knowledege, and this is the mistake that many in the field (who probably shouldn't be there) have made. Those I speak of act as if every system must now be redisegned to use patternss, yet this shows they don't know what they're talking about since every system in existence probably uses patterns already, they just weren't called that at the time.
As for being elitist, depends. Do I know more than the average programmer? Almost certainly. I also believe that just about anyone could learn what I know, however, so consider it an accident of fate and hard work rather than destiny or something, so I'll let you be the judge.
I don't disagree with you at all on that point. Renaming things to a consistent name is a good thing, but still, that's all it is.
And if everyone in programming deserved to be there, that would be fine. The problem is, however, that while I'm trying to explain how to fix a problem, I've got to politely fend off five fools who just read about the "delegation pattern" and want to show how much they know about it when that pattern is probably neither ideal, nor even applicable.
The fact is that we've always used patterns forever, the fact that so many people believe that systems can be fixed or designs improved by "using design patterns" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what design patterns are and what the naming convention has done. It did not create anything new, and the existing design uses them extensively, guaranteed. It may use the wrong ones, and it may not name them, or it may present them in non-canonical forms, but they're there.
All in all, I'd much rather lose the 20 seconds it takes me to communicate to my skilled peers what I'm talking about than the many, many hours I've lost to explaining why a "facade" or a "factory" doesn't help the problem at all.
Design patterns themselves are just renaming something every skilled programmer already used, and now every unskilled programmer bandies about like so many Microssoft Certifications.
I'd say that logically, it's about the same thing, but the AOP model does have one thing going for it in that it provides actual tools instead of just a lot of talk. I don't see any sort of revolution here, but I think it's much more useful than patterns for that reason alone.
I don't condone it because it couldn't help but be bad or boring. Hacking, for whatever purpose, is tedious if anything, and tedium rarely makes for exciting stuff. Having a technical discussion afterward might be neat, doing it as a demonstration, but mixing in DJ's and scantily clad women just comes off as silly. You might as well hold your next math convention at a strip club.
As far as terrorism goes... please! There's nothing illegal or "black hat" about breaking into a box you've been told to break into. What better way to find bugs or flaws, so that you can then close them? I'd be a lot more worried about gun shows before I worried about hacker conventions cause last I checked, the gun to computer related death factor was still INFINITE.
The more people banned (or are bullied) into stopping completely legal and (possibly) worthwhile activities, the more I'll seriously consider moving to Canada... or running for office. Neither of which I'd really enjoy, BTW.
Oh... got me for oversimplifying again. Man... you guys like to play with semantics, don't you? You can charge for the expense of copying and transferring, but you cannot charge for the license to the work or dervied works (section 1, PP 2 and section 2.b). Since you cannot charge more than the cost of the copy itself, you cannot charge for your value add, which is the only part I'm really concerned about charging for anyway.
The problem with protecting source, say if I publish all my source on my website with a notice to the effect of: "Don't copy, use, or derive anything from this" (which would be cool) is that I could never hope to bear the cost of prosecuting any claims I may have, even assuming I could ever find any but the most foolish of violators. Even if I did, I'd have a hard time proving that they got the idea from me, and didn't already have it before. There really is no good legal solution, the only way something like this would work would be for the world to be honorable. Which would be great, but I'm not going to stake my livelyhood on it. Even if 99.9% of the readers were good guys (tm) (which I think is probably not too far off the mark), 1 in a hundred would be enough to ruin me.
But I never said anything about having problems with restrictions. I agree that releasing a binary only, proprietary licenses is very restrictive, more so than the GPL (well, most likely). My problem is not with GPL restrictions, or APSL restrictions, or any restrictions at all. My only problem is with GPL proponents complaining about the restrictions of other licenses when their own licenses impose restrictions of their own. (If BSD or Apache proponents wanted to complain, that would be a different matter.
As for context, maybe you couldn't get it from this post... my thinking was actually the three (original, not the replies to the replies) posts in the thread. Not that I'd expect you to have read them all... my point being not so much that you "should have read it this way," but more by the way of supporting my assertion that my rewritten version was the original intent.
Anyway...
I still don't understand how saying the GPL places restrictions on software derived from it is stupid. I'm not saying restrictions are bad, I'm not saying the GPL is bad. I'm just saying the it places restrictions on derived software, which seems to me, not only reasonable, but factually true.
I agree that there is a lot of fuzzy thinking and such around GPL and coypiright law, and IP law in general. In fact, my entire reaction was to the common mistake that GPL==free software. What incensed me in the GNU-Darwin point, and, to a lesser extend, GNU's web page, is their explicit and implicit claim they and they alone can define what free software is and what a good license is.
To a large part, they have been successful. Much common media equates GPL with free software without understanding the implications or the foolishness of such a conclusion. GPLed software is a subset of free software, and though important, and even large, is dwarfed (in terms of users) by BSD/Apache style software.
If anything, BSD/Apache style free software should be considered the archtypical. Not only does it have fewer restrictions (in that it has practically none), but it's usage is huge. There's BSD software in Windows, Apache is the biggest web server, the most used Java libraries/frameworks are Apache style, etc.
As for you divergence, I agree. I personally wish that I could share my code without fear of having it stolen. To be able to do so would be a great value to myself, and, I like to believe, others as well.
You are an excitable one! Maybe you should work for a political campaign, I bet you'd be great a smear ads. :)
If you take my comment completely out of context, you are completely correct. Read the rest of my post, though. It is clear in context that the meaning of the sentence is:
The GPL places severe restirictions on what I can and cannot do with [GPL derived software developed by myself] by requiring me to provide source.
Other than your openning remark, I agree completely with everything you've said, which, if you'd read my posts on this subject, would be clear to you. I'm a huge fan of using licenses and contracats to restrict people in their actions and define what they may and may not do.
I never said that the GPL takes away my freedom. I merely state that there are restrictions on using GPL software. There is no question on that. I am perfectly free *not* to use GPL code, which I rarely do, to develop that is. Please try to respond to what I write.
What I said is:
And this is true. With GNU, I am not free to add value and then charge for that value. Technically, it is true, I can, but since I must also provide that value free of charge, the fact is sort of obviated. Yet this does not restrict my freedom, it just restircts me from using GPL software in my own development projects, which is how I earn a living. There are very clear and strong restrictions on what I can do with GPL software, and that is the hippocrisy, that they complain about restrictions on APSL software simple because those restrictions are incompatible with their own restrictions.
I respect the GPL and what they are doing, and I understand what the GPL is about very well. As to whether the restrictions are "severe" or not, you seem to miss the point that it's all about context. In the context that I develop code and need to distribute it (and charge for my distribution) in order to survive, then the GPL is very restrictive indeed. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, they can be restrictive if they want, it's their license, but restrictive it is none-the-less.
Let me clarify: I have problems with the APSL too. I also have problems with the GPL. I wouldn't develop (and distribute) code under either (the latter because I don't want to send Apple my changes, the former because I need to charge for my code to make a living). I understand GNU's problems with the APSL... it's not their stance that I have a problem with, it's their phrasing.
The language, both on the GNU site, and the GNU-Darwin site, read to me as if they are angry or judgmental of the APSL license. The GNU-Darwin site says that the APSL license cannot be free software *because* it's not compatible. So, I think I more or less agree with you, and my problem is that the sense I get from GNU is that they define "goodness" as "compatible with us." To me, that seems both morally dangerous in general, and specifically inimical the idea of a free and vibrant open source movement.
Well... okay, I was using developers in the sense of developer/distributor since I, for one, need to make a living and don't have a trust fund that allows me to code-masturbate all day. I think the meaning was rather clear in context, though your correction is well taken and I'll be sure to spell it out in the future.
I don't really see how the GCC example is a parallel, though. Here, we are talking about some GPL developers being mad at Apple, not Apple being mad at the GPL. Let me know if I'm missing something.
I think what happenned with GCC, BTW, is perfectly correct and good. If you use something that has a license that says such and such (unless superceded by local or federal law), then you must respect that license. Next didn't, got in trouble, and complied.
You're correct, you can use GPL stuff all you want without any worry, if all you do is use it (in it's original and unmodified form... oh, and don't statically link to it either... maybe...). But, Apple is trying to develop new products, and so has to have some sort of value add. That's where the problem comes in. To do that value add, you *must* modify the source. Now, if you want to get paid for that value you added through the traditional means of selling the software (a very reasonable expectation), you're out of luck. That's what I, and others, mean when they say "viral nature."
Now, you cannot sell that new value that you've added. The GPL has "infected" (though I wouldn't use that term, it follows the "viral" metaphor) your new code. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the price you pay for basing your stuff on GPL software, but it's also viral in nature, and the reason why Apple was (more or less) forced to BSD (and the fact that Next used BSD stuff as well... which might be for the same reasons).
Oh, and just to clarify that I do understand, you can sell your software, but the fact that you also have to give it away, under the GPL, sorta obviates the fact that you *can* charge for it.
Err... of coures it has, because it's a good argument, and, as evidenced by the actions of the GNU-Darwin people, still a necessary argument. I will be very glad not to make it once it is no longer necessary. In fact, I'd rather not make the argument.
What the hell does this mean?
Since when did GNU define what "free software" is? I don't mind GNU, and I respect their goals, but certainly BSD and Apache software is far more free than GPL. GPL is highly restrictive. They have their social and political goals, which are well and good, but why is it that they expect everyone to agree or support them?
I really don't see any difference between this and myself whining the GM and MicroSoft don't support my personal political views or send my their source code for free, because I want them too. In my opinion, it's arrogant, petulant crap that this that tarnishes OSS more than anytihng else.
The reason Apple didn't use the GPL is that they felt they couldn't, and I for one think their choice has plenyt of merit. The viral nature of the GPL and the severe restrictions it places on developers are an impedement to both it's adoption and support. Apple will not, because it cannot, embrace the GPL.
And why should they? The GPL's stated political and social agenda may be respectable, but the form that the GPL takes to further those goals is inimical to the standard economical model and way of doing business. I've got no problem with the GPL, but to cry foul because Apple doesn't want to support GPL efforts is ludicrous. The GPL is about very specific political and social goals. These are fine goals, but they are not Apple's goals. I don't whine about the fact that some random company doesn't support my personal political or social ambitions.
GNU is free to have their opinion, and I agree that the "we can stop you from using your stuff at any time" is a little silly and makes software licensed under earlier versions of questionable value, but after 1.2, I don't see the big deal. So what if they require you to send back your changes? The fact that GNU is complaining about freedom to do what you want with software is both laughable and hipocritical. The GPL places severe restirictions on what I can and cannot do with my software by requiring me to provide source. I've got no problem with the fact that they require me to, nor would I have a problem with the fact that Apple requires me to send them changes. If I accept the license and use the software, that is the cost of doing so. They created the software and can put whatever license they please on it, that's their right.
However, for the creators of one highly restrictive license to call foul on another is nothing less than pathetic. The APSL does not "disrespect privacy" any more than the GPL disrpespects freedom. Each is a license with a purpose.
Why would you be wearing a computer that broedcasts your personal information? Sure, they'll be commercial things that do this, but not all will, and if nothing else, carry a linux install (or whatever) in your pocket.
Yeah... I can't count the number of homeless people I've met with state of the art networking and computer equipment.
Not that I'm not concerned for the social implications and rights and such, but:
So, they can't afford $20 a year? I think the other part of this story is why do Finnish cab driver's make such a crappy salary?
I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. A custom house is not an open source house. In open source, I get to use another's designs and plans for free. The further implication, as I understand by "modular," is that I can mix and match vendors with very little need to coordinate between various fabricators because of certain standards (housing protocols, I suppose). So, I can by a bathroom unit from builder X, have my living room built as a variation of plan Y that I downloaded from the Internet, and have my kitchen trucked in in from fabricator Z.
The fact that semi-custome housing has become more affordable is great, but is only vaguely related to the idea of an open source plans and widely adopted standards.
The MIT site itself, as oppossed to the post, seems mostly focused on well designed, people centered (as oppossed to materials, builder centered) houses. Again, though, a custom designed house is a separate issue from a *well* designed house. You can have a well designed factory built home, a crappy custom home, or a well designed custom home. It's an orthogonal question.
Indeed, most "custom" houses (for the upper middle class) that I've seen are really just mix n' match builder houses that draw on their proprietary plans and storehouse of plans, but they are neither open source, nor necessarily good design.
Still, the increased flexibility of the builders and designers creates a more receptive atmosphere for the House_n and open source housing than if it wasn't there, but it is far from sufficient for what I, personally, would like to see.
In the stereotypical case, this is true, but you *can* develop software with minimal investment (pick up a used eMachine for sub-100 say). Indeed, if you're really cash strapped, you don't even need a computer to develop software. I can remember debugging and coding by hand when the power went out...
Most open source software did not start out by being funded by a company, it was done in someone's spare time, and at little or no cost (other than time) to the initial creators. The same is not true of a house.
Another great idea that will be decades in coming, if ever. Like open source software, something like this would be anathema to the housing industry. Like open source software, there will only be commercial support *after* it's already taken off. Unlike software, however, building a house requires significant capital investment.
I would love to see this model applied to housing (and many other things), but the economics make the realization highly infeasable without dedicated, zealous support and significant monetary investment.
Besides the question of how useful single sign of stuff is, security questions, and adoption rates, etc., this shows how nice it is to be one, large, powerful entity. In this case, MS says, "this is the way we'll go." No one else has the market share to do similar things without forming alliances and consortiums which, while they may have a better idea, usually falter for exactly this reason: they cannot agree on what it is they are doing or why.
The causes for this are interesting, but far to many, complicated, and inter-related to get into during a 5 minute work break. Too bad.