The main problem I see with who? is that there is not a 1:1 mapping between accounts and people. I can create one account for every email address I can muster. If I am a sysadmin at a medium size installation, generating email addresses is trivial. Heuristics like "the first 2/3ds of all accounts" seem good, and may work, but are not as air-tight as they might be.
In general my rule is "accounts can gain, but not lose". If I can gain and lose, I'll just create two accounts. With one I'll do everything that will result in gain, and with the other I'll do everything that will result in loss. You can try to monkey around this, but it always boils down to the infinite-account posessor winning.
In tandem with that rule is "only trusted folks can grant gain." You can't be on both sides of the fence. You can't be a gain haver and a gain giver. Simple rules like "you can't give gain to yourself" are easily defeated by two-account holders. Complex rules like "n people must agree give you gain for you to have it" are defeated by n+1 account holders. A good way of granting and ensuring trust was developed in PGP, and in fact that self same technology can be used here...
OK. I'm going to leave it at that. Vague and brief.
I prefer licenses in which credit to the author must be preserved. This is how I release all of my music (http://www.mortmain.com). I don't think it is unreasonable to have an application screen with a couple of hundred lines of authors listed. I have talked with numerous GNU license users about this and they all think that is burdensome. BSD license users (the few I know) don't seem to think about it much. I have read Bruce's writings on the subject and his preferences definitely lean away from mandatory author credit.
Yet isn't that what RMS wants when he asks that we call it "GNU/Linux"?
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem I see with who? is that there is not a 1:1 mapping between accounts and people. I can create one account for every email address I can muster. If I am a sysadmin at a medium size installation, generating email addresses is trivial. Heuristics like "the first 2/3ds of all accounts" seem good, and may work, but are not as air-tight as they might be.
In general my rule is "accounts can gain, but not lose". If I can gain and lose, I'll just create two accounts. With one I'll do everything that will result in gain, and with the other I'll do everything that will result in loss. You can try to monkey around this, but it always boils down to the infinite-account posessor winning.
In tandem with that rule is "only trusted folks can grant gain." You can't be on both sides of the fence. You can't be a gain haver and a gain giver. Simple rules like "you can't give gain to yourself" are easily defeated by two-account holders. Complex rules like "n people must agree give you gain for you to have it" are defeated by n+1 account holders. A good way of granting and ensuring trust was developed in PGP, and in fact that self same technology can be used here...
OK. I'm going to leave it at that. Vague and brief.
Berkeley, MIT, etc. want to spread knowledge of their research efforts and the contributions *they* make to society. I still don't see the difference.
I call it "Linux", "emacs", or whatever.
I prefer licenses in which credit to the author must be preserved. This is how I release all of my music (http://www.mortmain.com). I don't think it is unreasonable to have an application screen with a couple of hundred lines of authors listed. I have talked with numerous GNU license users about this and they all think that is burdensome. BSD license users (the few I know) don't seem to think about it much. I have read Bruce's writings on the subject and his preferences definitely lean away from mandatory author credit.
Yet isn't that what RMS wants when he asks that we call it "GNU/Linux"?
I'm not sure I get it.
I priced a PSX development system at US$750. Of course, I already have a PC...
you can see the zapped posts by setting your threshold to -100000000
perhaps this should be the default for ACs
+is the rumor true that KDE and GNOME can run at the same time on the same DISPLAY= ?
if that is the case then we can all really shut up
seriously now
perhaps we should find a law firm or sympathetic legal expert who could evaluate all these zillion licenses, as well as their (in)compatibility
it's not that I don't trust Bruce, ESR, and RMS, but they all have the tendency to talk about the foundation before the concrete is poured
software licenses need more than peer review, they need legal examination
the artistic license especially underscores this
we need annotated versions of all of these licenses in a centralized place, managed by a real lawyer
otherwise people like myself are going to keep falling into the trap of believeing the first RMS or ESR who tries to explain it to us.
help
This is the great idea I've been waiting for.
Send email to Microsoft asking for Microsoft BOB for Linux? You bet!
u$office is not open source and therefore an evolutionary dead end
why should I suffer through learning to use software that I never really own in the first place?
(ask yourself that question about everything, especially if you are a business)
watch for u$ to move to control and corrupt what they call "core APIs"
it is a good thing the GPL protects us so well from that attack
but anyway now I need to think of something clever to send to linuxq
I'm making note of this in my palm III right now.
My karma thanks you.
btw, what utility is in calling it GNU/Linux other than to be an advertisement for the FSF, and isn't that counter to the higher purpose?
I second what jabbo said.
It's hard enough to be taken seriously without regular injections of this sort of cornball D&D fantasy.
thanks anyway
it will be free when I can manufacture and sell a macosx clone
I don't see that I can do that
somebody correct me
please
If Netscape got it right, why should we accept that Apple is screwing it up?
BE VERY CAREFUL
Apple may just want 10,000 developers for free but still be able to take the code and close it in a few years.
are you sure their license wouldn't allow that?
we sure as hell should criticize apple
the only thing worse than overtly closed software is software that is almost open
it is not better than what we had
I still can't fix it if it breaks
if I do I can't share my changes with my friends forever, that right is in jeapordy
so why fix it?
why not just tell apple to fix it instead?
that kinda kills the whole dang thing