so a bunch of functions are sitting at a bar. and they get word that the DIFFERENTIAL IS COMING! so they're all like, "OH NO!!! HIDE!!!" and they all run off except for ONE!!! e^x. he sits there, acting all tough. and when the differential comes in he's like you can't differentiate me. I'm E TO THE X!!!! and the differential gives it an evil grin and sez whoever said that I differentiate with respect to x?
I for one would not mind having some advertisement sponsored open source software, as long as the original author does not mind some people removing the ad display functionality. I imagine that it is not overly difficult to implement an ad-based program that has a compile-time or run-time option for including the advertisement code, so that it is largely painless for those who want to support the project to do so.
And for those who can care less, the option of having no-adds is readily accessible without resorting to creating an ad-free fork.
I find this day to be much less sad than most people seem to find it. Was the Vidomi case a failure? Not really. Despite never having been tested in court, the GPL has (once again) stood its ground against a commercial company (albeit not too powerful/influential) and the commercial company in violation of the license has now released compliant software. Is that not the goal of the GPL--to keep open software open? It seems that whatever code which had been taken is now open, and that the modifications made to it have been released under the GPL. Is that not enough?
The "viral" quality of the GPL (a quality which I happen to love) cannot and should not be forced in every case. If a company wants to keep part of its software proprietary, it should have the right, as long as the software does not violate the terms of the GPL. If the author of the original software (in addition to the FSF) finds nothing wrong with the usage of his/her code, then the case against the company should be considered a victory.
Slashdot Mirror
so a bunch of functions are sitting at a bar. and they get word that the DIFFERENTIAL IS COMING! so they're all like, "OH NO!!! HIDE!!!" and they all run off except for ONE!!! e^x. he sits there, acting all tough. and when the differential comes in he's like you can't differentiate me. I'm E TO THE X!!!! and the differential gives it an evil grin and sez whoever said that I differentiate with respect to x?
I for one would not mind having some advertisement sponsored open source software, as long as the original author does not mind some people removing the ad display functionality. I imagine that it is not overly difficult to implement an ad-based program that has a compile-time or run-time option for including the advertisement code, so that it is largely painless for those who want to support the project to do so.
And for those who can care less, the option of having no-adds is readily accessible without resorting to creating an ad-free fork.
Oh... a sad day.
I find this day to be much less sad than most people seem to find it. Was the Vidomi case a failure? Not really. Despite never having been tested in court, the GPL has (once again) stood its ground against a commercial company (albeit not too powerful/influential) and the commercial company in violation of the license has now released compliant software. Is that not the goal of the GPL--to keep open software open? It seems that whatever code which had been taken is now open, and that the modifications made to it have been released under the GPL. Is that not enough?
The "viral" quality of the GPL (a quality which I happen to love) cannot and should not be forced in every case. If a company wants to keep part of its software proprietary, it should have the right, as long as the software does not violate the terms of the GPL. If the author of the original software (in addition to the FSF) finds nothing wrong with the usage of his/her code, then the case against the company should be considered a victory.
--