I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it You understand that is a form of control right?
if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom Heck yes! True freedom is Anarchy! True freedom is bad! Welcome in the world! Did you just realize that? Freedom - in its absolute form - is a lack of any rules and guidelines, what did you think? Realize that freedom is a utopia in itself. A little like, say, communism. It works on the paper, but never with humans. As with everything else, it's all about finding the right balance between freedom and lockdown.
If you want control over your code, choose a proprietary license. True
If you want someone else to eventually control your code, choose BSD While you described the first one accurately - proprietary license is for retaining control - here you use one of the possible consequences of the BSD license as it's primary goal. I would have written that: If you don't care and want to give away your code to whomever might want to use it, choose BSD
If you want no one to control your code ever, choose GPL By specifying that you don't want anyone to lock it down, you do exercise some form of control on your code. You put some restrictions on your very code, to ensure it will always stay GPL. Nothing else.
Understand that I am not judging whether the GPL is better or worse than the BSD license. All I'm saying is that if you draw an horizontal axis with lockdown on the left and freedom on the right (kinda stupid you have to admit), the BSD license will be placed a little on the right hand side of the GPL, and just on the left of public domain. Note that it is not necessarily a good thing for the BSD license. It might make things worse for BSD development processes, and many other things.
But as far as free goes, BSD doesn't restrict or enforce anything. How can you be more free?
GPL (restricts profiteering but enables sharing for those who do not find the first way acceptable)
That's where I so strongly disagree. What you call "enables" is nothing but an obligation. Where "sharing" has an open connotation, GPL does nothing but oblige people to do things. An obligation is by no means a freedom.
As I said, most of the GPL pro-freedom guys argue that GPL ensure that the code is free. But this is just insane. One can only be free if it can enjoy the freedom, hence an inanimate virtual piece of code cannot be free. It's like if I said "This piece of code tastes good". It is just semantically incorrect. You are luring yourself in a license that is nothing but a lock-down license. It's called "open" because it is in the open, visible from everyone, but by no means is it "more free" than the public domain, by any definition of free.
You gave me two definitions of freedom (Freedom of the code, and freedom of knowing your code will be this or that way) and while the first one is just not a freedom per se, the second one is not a freedom either. It's just a peace of mind you are buying yourself by GPLing your code. Nothing to do with freedom, but with certainty of where your code is ever going to go.
Give me a definition of "freedom" (And not some made-up concept that you stick "freedom" on) where the GPL would allow more freedom that the public domain. Please do, I still don't understand this issue.
It looks to me as if people are confusing the combination of "anti-evil-corporation" x "open" with freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with the GPL. Heck! The simple fact that you have a license is a lack of freedom by itself!
Freedom of the code The code is not a person, it doesn't have rights. Whether it's a BSD license or a GPL license you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Except for GPL of course. Then you cannot do whatever you want. If I take a piece of BSD code and lock it down in my proprietary app, I don't steal anything, I don't remove any rights. The code is still BSD. What I myself add into the BSD piece, I decide to make it non-bsd. That is my freedom. If you tell me I have to give back, you put a restriction on my freedom. Hence this is not freedom anymore.
Freedom of businesses to use it Well, yes. Whether they decide to give back stuff or not is another problem. It's their choice, and in that regard they are free to make what they want. That's a proper use of the term freedom.
Freedom to not worry Let's not abuse the word freedom. It is not a word you can put at the beginning of any sentence. I assume you mean "Peace of mind" by these words, and that has nothing to do with freedom.
misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.
Define which "freedom" do you mean, because there are certainly more then one Well, freedom is being free. In other words, having no restrictions. GPL is having restrictions. Heck! Even BSD has some restrictions: You should retain the header with the copyright notice. That's a restiction, albeit obviously not too bad.
Freedom is not necessarily good though. A country governed by freedom would be anarchy. And that's obviously not good.
What you are trying to describe by "Freedom" is some kind of idea of "non-evil lock-down". And I agree with that, and I think it's nice and "non-evil". But it is not freedom.
With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched
WTF ???? Why would BSD code become more unmaintainable than GPL code???
I'd say that the BSD license competes with simply placing code in the public domain more than it does with the GPL And you still maintain that GPL is more free? How more free can you get than being in the public domain?
GPL is not "more free" than BSD. GPL forces people to make their contributions free (when redistributing). Something that forces someone can hardly be called free (at least not as in freedom). That's the f*%$^ing definition. Unless you mean free as in "no money";-)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin?
on
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
People who want responsiveness above everything would probably like an O/S task scheduler that always reserved CPU and time slice for UI processes, or refused to give more than X% of CPU to any process - never 100%, even if it means having unused resources. Voila, nearly the same fluidity you'd get with two CPUs of half the GHz.
Ok. Can you indicate me such an os task scheduler? So far I've tried SMP on linux and Win(NT, 2k, XP) and all three of them really are smoother, no matter how many pegged CPUs you have. IE: even with two 100% processes running in normal priority, the 2 cpu box feels more responsive than the same box with 1 cpu and only one 100% process running.
And if I believe this thread, the same trend can be observed on Mac.
So please indicate which OS you are referring to, cause I'd be interested.
You don't relinquish any copyright, you keep your copyright, but you distribute it with a specific license. Things are different: You are still the copyright owner.
In the business world, and a lot of artistic areas too, when you are hired to do a job you relinquish copyright almost every single time. Whatever I do for my company is owned by my company.
I still don't get why it has to be different with photography.
Yes, I asked you your view of my wedding. I'm f#$%ing paying you for it, so at the end it should be mine. Which doesn't mean you can't get credit for it.
When you hire a contractor, they don't leave with the furniture they built. When you hire a portrait painter, they leave you the frame. When you hire a software engineer, they don't leave with their code.
So why when we hire a photographer he leaves with the pictures!
There is a huge difference. 10 people sharing a cassette can - at best - hit 10 other people at once. Whereas one guy putting MP3s on BitTorrent can flood the entire world in hours.
The magnitude is quite different here, you must admit.
Completely offtopic, but you are pointing to "http://www.javascript-games.org/" as your website, but this domain name is not registered... Weird. Are you the seller?
Agreed. I would give up all my liberties for a device that would accurately tell me where my remote control is. Last time I found it in the refrigerator. Hopefully I was thirsty and I had beer, I could have left it in there for days...
They have to be unique, but they can be dynamic!!! I don't know of any Mac address that could be dynamic (Well, you can always write a little daemon that changes the Mac address of your router/nic, but you'd have to write it). So in that regard, identifying people by their Mac address makes more sense that by their IP. But I agree that both make a pretty weak identification anyways.
So you mean, you could get a cluster as powerfull as... a PII 3GHz, but only for 20x the space, 2x the cost (of your time setting up the thing) and 30x the power consumption.
You mean you don't have the "c:\deletealldata.bat" file on your harddrive in case the police knocks on your door to check on all those nice mp3s? Now that I'm thinking about it, I'll probably rename it something less obvious:-)
Guess what: I discovered a new exploit in Windows. Just double click on a program and it will be executed without any warning!!!. This is truly appalling and I am considering alternate OSes right now. I hope they don't have this 'security breach'.
No, I mean, if Mozilla asks Windows to execute a file, why is Windows responsible exactly? Responsible for executing it?
Why should it warn you? If you want an explorer open, that is one way to get it. Guess what: Windows Explorer is also insecure!!! As soon as I double click on an icon, the program runs without warning!!!
Even on unix I don't need an admin password to install a trojan. Everything can very easily be installed in the user space. Of course, that means that the admin can kill the process anytime... If he's watching.
All in all, a virus cannot destroy your unix machine and can destroy your windows machine. But not so many viruses do that anyways, so from that point of view, the whole thing is no more secure using unix/linux/BSD/Mac/Solaris/etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it
You understand that is a form of control right?
if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom
Heck yes! True freedom is Anarchy! True freedom is bad! Welcome in the world! Did you just realize that? Freedom - in its absolute form - is a lack of any rules and guidelines, what did you think?
Realize that freedom is a utopia in itself. A little like, say, communism. It works on the paper, but never with humans. As with everything else, it's all about finding the right balance between freedom and lockdown.
If you want control over your code, choose a proprietary license.
True
If you want someone else to eventually control your code, choose BSD
While you described the first one accurately - proprietary license is for retaining control - here you use one of the possible consequences of the BSD license as it's primary goal. I would have written that: If you don't care and want to give away your code to whomever might want to use it, choose BSD
If you want no one to control your code ever, choose GPL
By specifying that you don't want anyone to lock it down, you do exercise some form of control on your code. You put some restrictions on your very code, to ensure it will always stay GPL. Nothing else.
Understand that I am not judging whether the GPL is better or worse than the BSD license. All I'm saying is that if you draw an horizontal axis with lockdown on the left and freedom on the right (kinda stupid you have to admit), the BSD license will be placed a little on the right hand side of the GPL, and just on the left of public domain. Note that it is not necessarily a good thing for the BSD license. It might make things worse for BSD development processes, and many other things.
But as far as free goes, BSD doesn't restrict or enforce anything. How can you be more free?
GPL (restricts profiteering but enables sharing for those who do not find the first way acceptable)
That's where I so strongly disagree. What you call "enables" is nothing but an obligation. Where "sharing" has an open connotation, GPL does nothing but oblige people to do things. An obligation is by no means a freedom.
As I said, most of the GPL pro-freedom guys argue that GPL ensure that the code is free. But this is just insane. One can only be free if it can enjoy the freedom, hence an inanimate virtual piece of code cannot be free. It's like if I said "This piece of code tastes good". It is just semantically incorrect. You are luring yourself in a license that is nothing but a lock-down license. It's called "open" because it is in the open, visible from everyone, but by no means is it "more free" than the public domain, by any definition of free.
You gave me two definitions of freedom (Freedom of the code, and freedom of knowing your code will be this or that way) and while the first one is just not a freedom per se, the second one is not a freedom either. It's just a peace of mind you are buying yourself by GPLing your code. Nothing to do with freedom, but with certainty of where your code is ever going to go.
Give me a definition of "freedom" (And not some made-up concept that you stick "freedom" on) where the GPL would allow more freedom that the public domain. Please do, I still don't understand this issue.
It looks to me as if people are confusing the combination of "anti-evil-corporation" x "open" with freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with the GPL. Heck! The simple fact that you have a license is a lack of freedom by itself!
Freedom of the code
The code is not a person, it doesn't have rights. Whether it's a BSD license or a GPL license you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Except for GPL of course. Then you cannot do whatever you want.
If I take a piece of BSD code and lock it down in my proprietary app, I don't steal anything, I don't remove any rights. The code is still BSD. What I myself add into the BSD piece, I decide to make it non-bsd. That is my freedom.
If you tell me I have to give back, you put a restriction on my freedom. Hence this is not freedom anymore.
Freedom of businesses to use it
Well, yes. Whether they decide to give back stuff or not is another problem. It's their choice, and in that regard they are free to make what they want. That's a proper use of the term freedom.
Freedom to not worry
Let's not abuse the word freedom. It is not a word you can put at the beginning of any sentence. I assume you mean "Peace of mind" by these words, and that has nothing to do with freedom.
misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back
If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.
Define which "freedom" do you mean, because there are certainly more then one
Well, freedom is being free. In other words, having no restrictions. GPL is having restrictions. Heck! Even BSD has some restrictions: You should retain the header with the copyright notice. That's a restiction, albeit obviously not too bad.
Freedom is not necessarily good though. A country governed by freedom would be anarchy. And that's obviously not good.
What you are trying to describe by "Freedom" is some kind of idea of "non-evil lock-down". And I agree with that, and I think it's nice and "non-evil". But it is not freedom.
With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched
;-)
WTF ???? Why would BSD code become more unmaintainable than GPL code???
I'd say that the BSD license competes with simply placing code in the public domain more than it does with the GPL
And you still maintain that GPL is more free? How more free can you get than being in the public domain?
GPL is not "more free" than BSD. GPL forces people to make their contributions free (when redistributing). Something that forces someone can hardly be called free (at least not as in freedom). That's the f*%$^ing definition. Unless you mean free as in "no money"
+3, Informative
I say: Bravo!
Code migrates from BSD to Linux (but not Linux to BSD) because of GPL
That's why they say it's more free. Oh wait...
People who want responsiveness above everything would probably like an O/S task scheduler that always reserved CPU and time slice for UI processes, or refused to give more than X% of CPU to any process - never 100%, even if it means having unused resources. Voila, nearly the same fluidity you'd get with two CPUs of half the GHz.
Ok. Can you indicate me such an os task scheduler? So far I've tried SMP on linux and Win(NT, 2k, XP) and all three of them really are smoother, no matter how many pegged CPUs you have. IE: even with two 100% processes running in normal priority, the 2 cpu box feels more responsive than the same box with 1 cpu and only one 100% process running.
And if I believe this thread, the same trend can be observed on Mac.
So please indicate which OS you are referring to, cause I'd be interested.
You got closer though ;-)
Yes, he got closer. Closer than you that is.
Here it is.
I must tell you something. Please don't blame me I'm just the messenger:
Your sense of humour is inexistant.
Now there might be several reasons:
1. You never had one. This situation is not desperate, but will require some work.
2. You lost it. Go get it!
Cheers
Honestly? I wan some of the stuff you're smoking. Really!
You don't relinquish any copyright, you keep your copyright, but you distribute it with a specific license. Things are different: You are still the copyright owner.
In the business world, and a lot of artistic areas too, when you are hired to do a job you relinquish copyright almost every single time. Whatever I do for my company is owned by my company.
I still don't get why it has to be different with photography.
Yes, I asked you your view of my wedding. I'm f#$%ing paying you for it, so at the end it should be mine. Which doesn't mean you can't get credit for it.
When you hire a contractor, they don't leave with the furniture they built. When you hire a portrait painter, they leave you the frame. When you hire a software engineer, they don't leave with their code.
So why when we hire a photographer he leaves with the pictures!
There is a huge difference. 10 people sharing a cassette can - at best - hit 10 other people at once. Whereas one guy putting MP3s on BitTorrent can flood the entire world in hours.
The magnitude is quite different here, you must admit.
Time to change your sig ;-(
Completely offtopic, but you are pointing to "http://www.javascript-games.org/" as your website, but this domain name is not registered... Weird. Are you the seller?
Agreed. I would give up all my liberties for a device that would accurately tell me where my remote control is. Last time I found it in the refrigerator. Hopefully I was thirsty and I had beer, I could have left it in there for days...
They have to be unique, but they can be dynamic!!! I don't know of any Mac address that could be dynamic (Well, you can always write a little daemon that changes the Mac address of your router/nic, but you'd have to write it). So in that regard, identifying people by their Mac address makes more sense that by their IP. But I agree that both make a pretty weak identification anyways.
Yeah, but he still have a point: IPs are much worse that MAC addresses in that regard. Logging IPs to identify anything is a silly idea.
So you mean, you could get a cluster as powerfull as... a PII 3GHz, but only for 20x the space, 2x the cost (of your time setting up the thing) and 30x the power consumption.
Sounds like a good deal...
You mean you don't have the "c:\deletealldata.bat" file on your harddrive in case the police knocks on your door to check on all those nice mp3s? Now that I'm thinking about it, I'll probably rename it something less obvious :-)
Guess what: I discovered a new exploit in Windows. Just double click on a program and it will be executed without any warning!!!. This is truly appalling and I am considering alternate OSes right now. I hope they don't have this 'security breach'.
No, I mean, if Mozilla asks Windows to execute a file, why is Windows responsible exactly? Responsible for executing it?
Why should it warn you? If you want an explorer open, that is one way to get it. Guess what: Windows Explorer is also insecure!!! As soon as I double click on an icon, the program runs without warning!!!
I so much agree... I have this one small page that MSN bot has been crawling 5000 times since last month. This is just plain crazy.
Maybe it is fast, but it is definitely slower than Opera.
Perhaps it's IE4 I'm remembering. I *personally* switched at IE3, partly because of the price.
You mean you saved the price to install Netscape? Was your internet connection costly at that time?
Even on unix I don't need an admin password to install a trojan. Everything can very easily be installed in the user space. Of course, that means that the admin can kill the process anytime... If he's watching.
All in all, a virus cannot destroy your unix machine and can destroy your windows machine. But not so many viruses do that anyways, so from that point of view, the whole thing is no more secure using unix/linux/BSD/Mac/Solaris/etc...