"He wants to have control over his own life in a way that fits with his personal ethical philosophy."
The problem is that he doesn't keep "his personal ethical philosophy" to himself. Keep in mind that any individual's ethical philosophy doesn't necessarily correspond to any well-accepted code of ethics.
You may wish everybody agreed with and followed your philosophy, but they shouldn't have to and they won't.
Why not just write the text "our javascript is licensed under the GPL" on a website? If you want to use only "free" javascript then only borrow javascript from those sites.
There's no reason for modifying browsers just to satisfy RMS and his followers.
"Could you elaborate on this a little more? This linking issue really gives me headaches. Sure the mechanism is different, but I don't really that much of a difference between linking or shared memory or sockets for the same purpose."
Ultimately it depends on how a court might define it. Even RMS's opinion won't matter in that case. What is a reasonable interpretation in the context of the profession. If you pipe the output of a non-free "ls" to a GPL'd "sort", isn't that "linking" in a very broad sense?
So in order to avoid generalizing "linking" until it's nearly undefined, a court might very well limit it's scope to it's consensus definition.
It's not that there's anything wrong with having FLOSS web pages. The problem is trying to get browsers to add a Javascript licensing feature and thinking that the feature is going to solve vendor lock-in issues.
If someone wants to create a web site with a F/OSS license, they should just display it promenantly on their home page. There is no reason why this should require browser changes.
Thanks funny, but they are selling a lot of them. We learned during the dot-com bubble that bad ideas can make a lot of money if you don't get too greedy.
"Linked" has a specific meaning in the programming world, and it doesn't mean "interact with" or "download", or "run". Unless the GPL has specific language covering the interaction of browsers and servers, it can't restrict that interaction.
Many of the costs you list are also there for F/OSS. It's not as if I can just call a member of the Apache team and have them fix a bug. In fact, a few years ago the Apache team was dishonest about their support. Trying to contact them was like trying to see the Magician Humpfrey in Xanth, accept they don't tell you how many challenges you have to face.
"Except he's saying we need to pay attention to licenses on Javascript now before heavy-handed enforcement happens, rather than just reacting."
But RMS is making this scenario more likely by pressing this issue. I think he'd be pleased if companies started enforcing javascript copyright, so he can fight over it.
"Stallman is perfectly happy avoid using your service and resources. His issue is that he doesn't have an easy way to tell whether or not he *should* avoid you."
I suppose if my job were simply to "explain, exhort and encourage", I wouldn't need any services or resources either. Unfortunately, most of us have a real job and not getting done because it involves using non-"free" software isn't an excuse our employers tolerate.
If a software vendor wants to lock you in, he isn't going to cooperate by making his web app easier to work around. There is also the server side that you know nothing about, so if he ever goes out of business you'd have some nice javascript that interacts with a phantom server.
Even if you're a die-hard F/OSS fan, you should spend your energy on initiatives that really make sense.
While an argument shouldn't be cast aside just because someone uses M$, I don't agree that it is "a concise, efficient and - IMO - accurate moniker". It's really just an irrelevant and off-topic device unless the conversation is specifically about cost of software.
It would be like constantly referring to RMS as "The Great Unwashed Guru" in a discussion that had nothing to do with personal hygiene or delusions of Godhood.
"That said, don't learn lisp unless you want to curse at every other language out there. Ignorance is bliss sometimes."
All you need to know about Lisp is that you must agree that it's the greatest language ever. Anytime there is an argument about a programming language feature just say "Lisp had that years ago". It doesn't matter if it's true or not - most of your coworkers are faking it too.
"This is why software companies have to resort to trivia games, quizzes on software minutiae, fizzbuzz and goddamn *riddles* to find out if someone is actually capable of doing the job"
Actually, the don't have to and they shouldn't. The hiring process has become rather self-delusional. It isn't really possible to determine if someone is capable of doing a particular job unless the skills required are simple enough that a real-world trial can be performed in a few minutes (e.g. pick up that heavy box).
You would think that a person with a scientific approach wouldn't waste their time with a process that has no evidence of success.
Slashdot Mirror
"He wants to have control over his own life in a way that fits with his personal ethical philosophy."
The problem is that he doesn't keep "his personal ethical philosophy" to himself. Keep in mind that any individual's ethical philosophy doesn't necessarily correspond to any well-accepted code of ethics.
You may wish everybody agreed with and followed your philosophy, but they shouldn't have to and they won't.
"But he's also *right*. History has proved this, time and again."
Right about what?
Why not just write the text "our javascript is licensed under the GPL" on a website? If you want to use only "free" javascript then only borrow javascript from those sites.
There's no reason for modifying browsers just to satisfy RMS and his followers.
"Could you elaborate on this a little more? This linking issue really gives me headaches. Sure the mechanism is different, but I don't really that much of a difference between linking or shared memory or sockets for the same purpose."
Ultimately it depends on how a court might define it. Even RMS's opinion won't matter in that case. What is a reasonable interpretation in the context of the profession. If you pipe the output of a non-free "ls" to a GPL'd "sort", isn't that "linking" in a very broad sense?
So in order to avoid generalizing "linking" until it's nearly undefined, a court might very well limit it's scope to it's consensus definition.
It's not that there's anything wrong with having FLOSS web pages. The problem is trying to get browsers to add a Javascript licensing feature and thinking that the feature is going to solve vendor lock-in issues.
If someone wants to create a web site with a F/OSS license, they should just display it promenantly on their home page. There is no reason why this should require browser changes.
Are you saying more enforcement of Javascript copyrights is a good thing? Because that was my point.
Thanks funny, but they are selling a lot of them. We learned during the dot-com bubble that bad ideas can make a lot of money if you don't get too greedy.
"Color backlighted multitouch LCD 320x240 or better."
Sure, because putting numbers in a box requires at least 320x240 resolution.
"Linked" has a specific meaning in the programming world, and it doesn't mean "interact with" or "download", or "run". Unless the GPL has specific language covering the interaction of browsers and servers, it can't restrict that interaction.
At least you said "may be".
Many of the costs you list are also there for F/OSS. It's not as if I can just call a member of the Apache team and have them fix a bug. In fact, a few years ago the Apache team was dishonest about their support. Trying to contact them was like trying to see the Magician Humpfrey in Xanth, accept they don't tell you how many challenges you have to face.
"Except he's saying we need to pay attention to licenses on Javascript now before heavy-handed enforcement happens, rather than just reacting."
But RMS is making this scenario more likely by pressing this issue. I think he'd be pleased if companies started enforcing javascript copyright, so he can fight over it.
I think making Emacs a web app would be a great project to keep RMS busy. It's a bit like having church Bingo to keep grandma busy.
Google isn't entirely free of evil, but no, the lack of 100% purity has nothing to do with F/OSS.
"Stallman is perfectly happy avoid using your service and resources. His issue is that he doesn't have an easy way to tell whether or not he *should* avoid you."
I suppose if my job were simply to "explain, exhort and encourage", I wouldn't need any services or resources either. Unfortunately, most of us have a real job and not getting done because it involves using non-"free" software isn't an excuse our employers tolerate.
If a software vendor wants to lock you in, he isn't going to cooperate by making his web app easier to work around. There is also the server side that you know nothing about, so if he ever goes out of business you'd have some nice javascript that interacts with a phantom server.
Even if you're a die-hard F/OSS fan, you should spend your energy on initiatives that really make sense.
While an argument shouldn't be cast aside just because someone uses M$, I don't agree that it is "a concise, efficient and - IMO - accurate moniker". It's really just an irrelevant and off-topic device unless the conversation is specifically about cost of software.
It would be like constantly referring to RMS as "The Great Unwashed Guru" in a discussion that had nothing to do with personal hygiene or delusions of Godhood.
Nobody said that the code was "free as in redefined by GNU".
In other words, the GP is right.
Well, done!
"If you're doing it in java, the multi-threading is essentially free - it's built in."
I wouldn't call it free, but it is built in. In the sense that all java-based GUI apps are multi-threaded whether you want them to be or not.
"That said, don't learn lisp unless you want to curse at every other language out there. Ignorance is bliss sometimes."
All you need to know about Lisp is that you must agree that it's the greatest language ever. Anytime there is an argument about a programming language feature just say "Lisp had that years ago". It doesn't matter if it's true or not - most of your coworkers are faking it too.
"This is why software companies have to resort to trivia games, quizzes on software minutiae, fizzbuzz and goddamn *riddles* to find out if someone is actually capable of doing the job"
Actually, the don't have to and they shouldn't. The hiring process has become rather self-delusional. It isn't really possible to determine if someone is capable of doing a particular job unless the skills required are simple enough that a real-world trial can be performed in a few minutes (e.g. pick up that heavy box).
You would think that a person with a scientific approach wouldn't waste their time with a process that has no evidence of success.
On the other hand, most kernel programmers don't know how to put up a decent user interface and may be clueless about relational databases.
It doesn't matter either way. There are all kinds of skills needed for a project and it's meaningless to try to rank them.
"Uh... use HTTP for what it was designed for?"
You mean delivering static pages? You can use HTTP for web services, but it certainly wasn't designed for that purpose.
"HTML and the javascript browser API should never have become the basis of a UI standard."
Amen. The problem is that some people believe that their work doesn't count unless they do it the hard way.