"It guarantees the right of It guarantees the right of recipients to reuse code."
Which is exactly what the BSD license does without the restriction.
Oh, I see. You were talking about the right of recipients to reuse code that the original GPL'd code writer didn't write and has no claim to. Yes, the GPL restricts the licensing rights of an author who extends GPL'd code. That's OK, because he agreed to the GPL license, but its absurd to claim that the restriction doesn't exist, it's right there in the GPL text.
Other people don't want to control the destiny of code they didn't write even if it's an extension of their own code. Those people choose the less restrictive BSD license.
"Yes, the IBM PC was 8088, but that was just Intel's 8-bit bus version of its existant 8086 processor. Either way, IBM started the x86 line of PCs."
Yes, the 8088 was 8-bit bus version of the 8086, but no, it is not an X86 processor.
"I'd like to see you try to run any of Windows NT/200/XP on an 8088-based IBM PC!"
I don't know why you'd like me to try it since I already explained why it couldn't be done.
The point of my post was that even if a Unix "lookalike" OS could be written for the 8088, it wouldn't have the key attributes that an OS like Linux has and the responsible party would be IBM, not MS. If your point was that if not for MS we would have been using an unstable and insecure Unix-like OS than I can see your point.
I think you might be right if you'd said "if it hadn't been for IBM, we'd probably have been using something Unix-like a lot sooner." The 8088 (the term "X86" was coined much, much later) that IBM chose for the PC didn't have any privilege levels so it's not possible (even today) to run a stable and secure Unix OS on it. In addition because of the 8088's 64K memory segmentation, it's much more difficult to write a large program for it.
That's not to say that you couldn't write a Unix-like OS for it, but the security and stablity of such an OS would be far less than Windows NT/2000/XP.
"Ho my. That just proved you don't have much experience with actual FOSS development from the inside."
Well, you haven't identified anything in your post that uniquely applies to OSS (except the sysadmins part, I never worked at a company where they performed SW development).
"communicate effectively with peers from the projects, getting informal support from these peers"
People in the software industry have been communicating with their peers both inside and outside their companies for years. This isn't something that OSS movement invented.
"CMM isn't a development methodology, just like ISO9000... CMM is a way to ensure processes, but it's up to you which ones."
CMM doesn't address low-level details of software development the way XP does, but it still qualifies as a methodology IMHO. For example, to be certified an organization has to have adopted a company-wide software development process that every project follows. Requiring a single process for all projects is a methodological decision.
"And maybe I'm wrong but isn't Agile a part of XP philosophy?"
I think Agile is the more general term. I was a bit sloppy since I couldn't think of another Agile methodology besides XP. One guy said "Asking for "the difference between XP and Agile" sounds a bit like asking for the main differences between apples and fruit."
"Maybe he's just worried that those guys don't know CVS, Eclipse framework and so on."
Perhaps he could have been more specific. I would expect a lot OSS folks would know CVS (along with a lot of non-OSS folks). I could also imagine a lot of OSS folks have never used Eclipse (to say nothing of RCP).
"In response to our ads we see people with industrial experience who know every proprietary product in existence, but almost none who are steeped in open source development"
It sounds like you're letting your philosphy interfere with your business goals. What specific skills do you believe are unique to Open Source development that people with proprietary product experience lack?
It seems to me that Open Source is more of a licensing philosphy than a development methodology. Are you developing using a waterfall, CMM, XP, Agile or some other approach? For example if you use XP, proprietary developers who have used it will probably be a better match than open source developers who haven't.
Political Correctness was alive and well in the 60's. It just didn't have a name and the rules varied from group (as is true today).
In some circles you'd be shunned if you suggested that pot wasn't the answer to all the devine questions, while in others you'd be shunned if you suggested it wasn't the devil's weed.
It's really the anti-political correctness idea that's new. The concept that bad manners and hurting someone's feelings is a good thing.
"No, your question did presuppose something, which makes it the same kind of question as the "beat your wife" one. Yours was just a weak example of it."
You still don't understand it. It's about asking a yes or no question where both "yes" and "no" imply the same claim that hasn't yet been proven.
"Okay, then what is the obvious solution to the "locked door" of hardware manufacturers using DRM? Boycotting them? Cracking the DRM? Blowing up the factories that make TPMs? Lobbying Congress to make DRM illegal?"
Actually several of your examples are significantly more obvious than what the GPLv3 is trying to do. I'm not proposing a solution to the FSF, I'm just pointing out the flaws in their current strategy.
"No, it only assumes some device makers think GPL'd code gives them enough of an advantage to be worth using... Sure, it's not all of them, but it's enough to be significantly better than nothing at all. That's a success!"
You set the bar very low for success.
"I never said that your name absolutely indicated that you're a troll..."
Wow. I can't believe you wrote 2 paragraphs of BS to try to justify your argument.
I'll let you have the last word if you want. We're going in circles and I don't want to waste any more of my time or yours.
The article claims that the magnetic disk was the first mass storage with random access, but that's not true. Magnetic drums were also random access and were available a few years earlier.
Actually, I think the overwelming evidence is that the vast majority of consumers choose the less expensive brand over a name brand with similiar features. The name brands are successful because they charge a premium to the minority who can afford them. The less popular brands are successful because they sell a lot more product.
Of course, hard-disk-based muisic players like the Pod are in a premium class already given that you can buy a portable CD player for $10. So it might appear that the iPod breaks the rule, but it really doesn't.
First of all, it's obvious that you don't understand the "beat your wife question". If I wanted to present that sort of question I'd ask something like "Will GPL v.3 continue to destroy the software industry?".
In the context of the discussion, (that you quoted but apparently didn't understand) it was reasonable to ask my question because GPLv3 was being presented as some sort of solution to hardware makers using technology "to stop you".
Your explanation above makes it clear that GPLv.3 cannot stop hardware makers from using the technology. It's a bit like a group of burglers saying that an adverstising campaign to convice people to keep their doors unlocked is "necessary" to stop people from locking them out (Note: I'm not comparing OSS folks to burglers, it's just an example). It's not the obvious solution to a locked door IMHO.
This is a flawed strategy that is going to fail because it assumes that device makers think GPL'd code is critical to their success. Given the many, many years of succesfull products that didn't have a single line of GPL'd code in them, this is just wishful thinking.
I like your final "logical argument" that somehow the name I selected for Slashdot can be used to predict my "trollness". Feel free to continue to extend this well thought out analysis to the rest of Slashdotters.
Well, first of all we have to agree on whose freedom we are talking about. Is it the author's, the user's, or developers that want to extend it. Sometimes #'s 2 and 3 are the same.
But taking your comment at face value (i.e "a user's ability"), the GPL restricts his freedom to change and improve the software by requiring that the source code for those improvements be made available and licensed under the GPL. A restriction is not in any way consistent with "freedom". Note that the lack of such a requirement in no way limits the freedom of any others who want to use the orginal GPL'd software.
So clearly if the GPL is just about "a user's ability" it isn't totally committed to freedom, it has the additional agenda of controlling the behavior of those who modify GPL'd code.
The most likely result will be that vendors who have no interest in DRM may or may not embed GPLv.3 code in their devices and vendors who do care about it will avoid any GPLv.3 code. So there probably won't be any net effect on DRM.
So I guess that prevents you from making your own games.
So based on the prior answers I've received (to a different question than the one I asked) my guess is that GPLv3 would make it impossible for those vendors to do this in the future if they want to include "free" software in their consoles and that some believe this will deter them. I'm not saying for sure that you believe it.
I don't believe this would have any effect. It's convenient to put something like Linux in a console because programmers are comfortable with it, it's trendy, etc, but it's not really necessary.
"There is no moral or ethical reason, and there should be no legal right, for the company which created a piece of hardware to try to stop the legitimate use of that hardware."
Well, of course the definition of "legitimate" is in disagreement with respect to this issue. It seems to me that both sides are trying to protect "property rights" in one form or another, but I wouldn't endow those "rights" with any great moral or ethical weight. Historically propery rights have been invoked to "sanitize" the behavior of capturing land others live on by use of force.
Had you read the thread carefully you would have seen that my use of the term "damn" was to echo the poster I was replying to. So your ironic comment on that word actually applied to somebody who agrees with you.
"Yes, if they have not agreed to the GPL, they are not bound in any way to follow it. However, in not agreeing to the GPL, they are also preventing themselves from using the software."
That's OK because they don't really need the software.
Slashdot Mirror
"It guarantees the right of It guarantees the right of recipients to reuse code."
Which is exactly what the BSD license does without the restriction.
Oh, I see. You were talking about the right of recipients to reuse code that the original GPL'd code writer didn't write and has no claim to. Yes, the GPL restricts the licensing rights of an author who extends GPL'd code. That's OK, because he agreed to the GPL license, but its absurd to claim that the restriction doesn't exist, it's right there in the GPL text.
Other people don't want to control the destiny of code they didn't write even if it's an extension of their own code. Those people choose the less restrictive BSD license.
"Yes, the IBM PC was 8088, but that was just Intel's 8-bit bus version of its existant 8086 processor. Either way, IBM started the x86 line of PCs."
Yes, the 8088 was 8-bit bus version of the 8086, but no, it is not an X86 processor.
"I'd like to see you try to run any of Windows NT/200/XP on an 8088-based IBM PC!"
I don't know why you'd like me to try it since I already explained why it couldn't be done.
The point of my post was that even if a Unix "lookalike" OS could be written for the 8088, it wouldn't have the key attributes that an OS like Linux has and the responsible party would be IBM, not MS. If your point was that if not for MS we would have been using an unstable and insecure Unix-like OS than I can see your point.
I think you might be right if you'd said "if it hadn't been for IBM, we'd probably have been using something Unix-like a lot sooner." The 8088 (the term "X86" was coined much, much later) that IBM chose for the PC didn't have any privilege levels so it's not possible (even today) to run a stable and secure Unix OS on it. In addition because of the 8088's 64K memory segmentation, it's much more difficult to write a large program for it.
That's not to say that you couldn't write a Unix-like OS for it, but the security and stablity of such an OS would be far less than Windows NT/2000/XP.
"the GNU utilities you use every day"
Aren't you making a big assumption here? Plenty of developers have never used the GNU utilities and never will.
"Ho my. That just proved you don't have much experience with actual FOSS development from the inside."
Well, you haven't identified anything in your post that uniquely applies to OSS (except the sysadmins part, I never worked at a company where they performed SW development).
"communicate effectively with peers from the projects, getting informal support from these peers"
People in the software industry have been communicating with their peers both inside and outside their companies for years. This isn't something that OSS movement invented.
"CMM isn't a development methodology, just like ISO9000... CMM is a way to ensure processes, but it's up to you which ones."
CMM doesn't address low-level details of software development the way XP does, but it still qualifies as a methodology IMHO. For example, to be certified an organization has to have adopted a company-wide software development process that every project follows. Requiring a single process for all projects is a methodological decision.
"And maybe I'm wrong but isn't Agile a part of XP philosophy?"
I think Agile is the more general term. I was a bit sloppy since I couldn't think of another Agile methodology besides XP. One guy said "Asking for "the difference between XP and Agile" sounds a bit like asking for the main differences between apples and fruit."
"Maybe he's just worried that those guys don't know CVS, Eclipse framework and so on."
Perhaps he could have been more specific. I would expect a lot OSS folks would know CVS (along with a lot of non-OSS folks). I could also imagine a lot of OSS folks have never used Eclipse (to say nothing of RCP).
Does this mean that they won't let you cancel AOL unless you buy from an advertiser?
Interesting, but I thought "deadwood" was the name for people who stayed at the same company forever.
I'm just kidding, but it's funny that Joel really can't define the qualities of "the best", but he knows they always have work.
"In response to our ads we see people with industrial experience who know every proprietary product in existence, but almost none who are steeped in open source development"
It sounds like you're letting your philosphy interfere with your business goals. What specific skills do you believe are unique to Open Source development that people with proprietary product experience lack?
It seems to me that Open Source is more of a licensing philosphy than a development methodology. Are you developing using a waterfall, CMM, XP, Agile or some other approach? For example if you use XP, proprietary developers who have used it will probably be a better match than open source developers who haven't.
Political Correctness was alive and well in the 60's. It just didn't have a name and the rules varied from group (as is true today).
In some circles you'd be shunned if you suggested that pot wasn't the answer to all the devine questions, while in others you'd be shunned if you suggested it wasn't the devil's weed.
It's really the anti-political correctness idea that's new. The concept that bad manners and hurting someone's feelings is a good thing.
I think HST was a lot like the Grateful Dead. Worshipped by a small but dedicated group of fans, mostly irrelevent to everybody else.
"No, your question did presuppose something, which makes it the same kind of question as the "beat your wife" one. Yours was just a weak example of it."
You still don't understand it. It's about asking a yes or no question where both "yes" and "no" imply the same claim that hasn't yet been proven.
"Okay, then what is the obvious solution to the "locked door" of hardware manufacturers using DRM? Boycotting them? Cracking the DRM? Blowing up the factories that make TPMs? Lobbying Congress to make DRM illegal?"
Actually several of your examples are significantly more obvious than what the GPLv3 is trying to do. I'm not proposing a solution to the FSF, I'm just pointing out the flaws in their current strategy.
"No, it only assumes some device makers think GPL'd code gives them enough of an advantage to be worth using...
Sure, it's not all of them, but it's enough to be significantly better than nothing at all. That's a success!"
You set the bar very low for success.
"I never said that your name absolutely indicated that you're a troll..."
Wow. I can't believe you wrote 2 paragraphs of BS to try to justify your argument.
I'll let you have the last word if you want. We're going in circles and I don't want to waste any more of my time or yours.
The article claims that the magnetic disk was the first mass storage with random access, but that's not true. Magnetic drums were also random access and were available a few years earlier.
Actually, I think the overwelming evidence is that the vast majority of consumers choose the less expensive brand over a name brand with similiar features. The name brands are successful because they charge a premium to the minority who can afford them. The less popular brands are successful because they sell a lot more product.
Of course, hard-disk-based muisic players like the Pod are in a premium class already given that you can buy a portable CD player for $10. So it might appear that the iPod breaks the rule, but it really doesn't.
"I think you're underestimating the market and an entire generation of people. Young, the desire to be hip, and lots of disposable income"
An entire generation of young people with lots of disposable income. What country are you refering to? Certainly not the US.
Nice summary, wrong conclusions.
First of all, it's obvious that you don't understand the "beat your wife question". If I wanted to present that sort of question I'd ask something like "Will GPL v.3 continue to destroy the software industry?".
In the context of the discussion, (that you quoted but apparently didn't understand) it was reasonable to ask my question because GPLv3 was being presented as some sort of solution to hardware makers using technology "to stop you".
Your explanation above makes it clear that GPLv.3 cannot stop hardware makers from using the technology. It's a bit like a group of burglers saying that an adverstising campaign to convice people to keep their doors unlocked is "necessary" to stop people from locking them out (Note: I'm not comparing OSS folks to burglers, it's just an example). It's not the obvious solution to a locked door IMHO.
This is a flawed strategy that is going to fail because it assumes that device makers think GPL'd code is critical to their success. Given the many, many years of succesfull products that didn't have a single line of GPL'd code in them, this is just wishful thinking.
I like your final "logical argument" that somehow the name I selected for Slashdot can be used to predict my "trollness". Feel free to continue to extend this well thought out analysis to the rest of Slashdotters.
Well, first of all we have to agree on whose freedom we are talking about. Is it the author's, the user's, or developers that want to extend it. Sometimes #'s 2 and 3 are the same.
But taking your comment at face value (i.e "a user's ability"), the GPL restricts his freedom to change and improve the software by requiring that the source code for those improvements be made available and licensed under the GPL. A restriction is not in any way consistent with "freedom". Note that the lack of such a requirement in no way limits the freedom of any others who want to use the orginal GPL'd software.
So clearly if the GPL is just about "a user's ability" it isn't totally committed to freedom, it has the additional agenda of controlling the behavior of those who modify GPL'd code.
The most likely result will be that vendors who have no interest in DRM may or may not embed GPLv.3 code in their devices and vendors who do care about it will avoid any GPLv.3 code. So there probably won't be any net effect on DRM.
So I guess that prevents you from making your own games.
So based on the prior answers I've received (to a different question than the one I asked) my guess is that GPLv3 would make it impossible for those vendors to do this in the future if they want to include "free" software in their consoles and that some believe this will deter them. I'm not saying for sure that you believe it.
I don't believe this would have any effect. It's convenient to put something like Linux in a console because programmers are comfortable with it, it's trendy, etc, but it's not really necessary.
Actually, what you're doing is called an ad hominem argument.
I honestly don't know the nature of the lock-in since I haven't purchased a game console since 1983. Explain to me how it works, and I'll comment.
My Atari 2600 doesn't have vendor lock-in, does that mean I can play Playstation and XBox games on it?
I guess I don't understand the relevance of your questions to the GPL issue.
"There is no moral or ethical reason, and there should be no legal right, for the company which created a piece of hardware to try to stop the legitimate use of that hardware."
Well, of course the definition of "legitimate" is in disagreement with respect to this issue. It seems to me that both sides are trying to protect "property rights" in one form or another, but I wouldn't endow those "rights" with any great moral or ethical weight. Historically propery rights have been invoked to "sanitize" the behavior of capturing land others live on by use of force.
Had you read the thread carefully you would have seen that my use of the term "damn" was to echo the poster I was replying to. So your ironic comment on that word actually applied to somebody who agrees with you.
Nope.
"Yes, if they have not agreed to the GPL, they are not bound in any way to follow it. However, in not agreeing to the GPL, they are also preventing themselves from using the software."
That's OK because they don't really need the software.