If there is any value in this for either company, it's highly tactical.
Keeping all sorts of APIs around is a maintenance nightmare.
Strategically, byzantine designs become their own punishment.
Maybe a Brit can weigh in, but I think it's ironic that Apple's external emphasis on design doesn't seem to carry through at the API level, at least in this case.
Yeah, and also you probably have less spam and phishing due to transparency.
The US military is taking a step in this direction with Common Access Card (CAC) readers.
I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like/.
Dunno if credit cards/cash makes a good analogy for the two use-cases, but it least the analogy lacks wheels.
The shame is that he never let any woman domesticate him.
St. IGNUcious has some rather St. Paul aspects to him, and it's arguably unfortunate he never had some kids.
The GPL contains more restrictions, ergo it is more restrictive.
OK, that's an argument. I feel that I could as well say that the Straits of Malacca are more restrictive than the route around Java, but no one's forcing me to sail that way.
Irrelevant, as GCC has been the big bad brute of the open source compilers by virtue of being the first production open source compiler.
Irrelevant. GCC, by virtue of chronological precedence, is about as restrictive on the freedom of others to come up with a competitor as the GPL itself.
Name your believed benefits of the idea, please - if they fit reality, I'll agree that it is advertising for you, if I can show you they're misunderstood, you'll agree you're an offer of propaganda. Will you agree to this test?
We can bandy words about all day, but, by "test", I can't think of anything other than a survey. You could ask people online (/. poll?), survey SourceForge et al., comb the Gentoo.ebuild repository for licenses...
The opinion I'm floating here is that having Stallman "be himself" in the technology community has raised awareness in a way that is helpful overall. How to quantify that, I am unsure.
Maybe we're all human and given to false reasoning. I've been on the GPLite side. I've just changed sides after thinking really carefully through this and looking for what the benefits and drawbacks of this kind of licensing is. And the primary thing that scare me is that most of those that are in favor of the GPL make the choice based on an incorrect understanding of how things work with a less restrictive license.
If you read through my posts on this article, you'll see I'm by no means a rabid GPL zealot. It makes the most sense to me from a libertarian point of view; socialism, to me, is a quasi-religious faith of which I'm no adherent. Once I asked Bruce Momjian of the PostGreSQL project a highly personal question about licensing, and he replied that he preferred the BSD-style approach "because it assumes the least about others' motives". I'm happy with that, and actually buy OpenBSD releases, as well.
Maybe the GPL makes more sense for end-user applications, and, as you say "less restrictive" licenses are slightly better for infrastructure pieces like Apache.
GCC, with its special licensingg clauses, and the LGPL seem to hint at this possibility.
You can make all these points, but they remain highly subjective.
Compilers are complex beasts. Name another one with half the platform compatibility of GCC.
Propaganda, or advertising? It is my contention that Stallman has been as much an advertiser of a good idea as a demagogue.
Restrictive? It's a community with a clear boundary. If you were forced to use it, then the claim of "restrictive" might have more merit. But who has forced you? In fact, for those that like the BSD approach (and I've been buying OpenBSD releases since 3.8) the GNU project has done all the research.
Or maybe we're all just human and given to whining.
Putting it in capitalistic terms (which RMS himself may not choose to do) you have buyer => marketplace
The whole licensing tension is about managing the marketplace.
The free software community is about merging buyer and marketplace under the GPL, so that the seller is invited to play based upon support value added.
The opposing view is about giving the seller more control of the marketplace via source code control.
The "smith theory" is that both answers have their time and place, with the GPL being preferable, but neither answer having any "moral" or "ethical" superiority: how is the legal/technical question a moral/ethical one in the first place?
Right, but Stallman has never seen fit to publish such for review.
Apparently, the bulk of the audience is comfortable with jumps to assertions that certain viewpoints are "unethical" without seeing the development of the idea made explicit.
There is plenty of empirical evidence that proprietary software is teh sux0rz, but the fact is that few vendors of such view themselves as "unethical", so a bit more theoretical development would help to get past the finger pointing.
Yes and no. When the "others speak", it's often intending to subtly hijack RMSs ideas.
On the one hand, RMS is not perfect, and the recent GPLv3 tussle showed that there is copious room for people to disagree.
Still, when you're considering a problem, knowing the invariants is useful, and RMS provides them.
Yes, yes, my comparison was like an analogy that sucked.
We both seem to agree that RMS's work will (likely) stand as an inflection point in history, though.
More likely http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/StefanMonnier
and, with this post, I achieve some sort of dubious/. goal of having posted 24 comments to a single front page article.
Can't tell whether to be happy or do something unspeakable...
Emacs still has a lot more room to grow.
The Emacs Code Browser is a step in the direction of contemporary IDE tools.
I use Emacs Relay Chat quite a bit.
Now that you can do GMail over IMAP, I'm pondering going back to Gnus.
Slashdot Mirror
...but a Clearwater Revival does.
Sure, he said "Developers, developers, developers!!"
but are you familiar with the reply?
If there is any value in this for either company, it's highly tactical.
Keeping all sorts of APIs around is a maintenance nightmare.
Strategically, byzantine designs become their own punishment.
Maybe a Brit can weigh in, but I think it's ironic that Apple's external emphasis on design doesn't seem to carry through at the API level, at least in this case.
Your post would probably not have directed traffic to InfoWorld.
Embrace the CrAC. Feed your addiction. Self-will and individuality are so over-rated.
The LSD Church: fear!
Yeah, and also you probably have less spam and phishing due to transparency. /.
The US military is taking a step in this direction with Common Access Card (CAC) readers.
I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like
Dunno if credit cards/cash makes a good analogy for the two use-cases, but it least the analogy lacks wheels.
Emacs, though thought by some to be older than the Renaissance, could enter one...
Regarding the Obama ad served on this page: "It's a cookbook!!!"
The mean you mean?
Mean you the mean?
(Poetry taken to mediocre extreme).
Indeed, I see who owns the crap execution patent at the bottom of every pay stub, under the heading "Taxes".
The shame is that he never let any woman domesticate him.
St. IGNUcious has some rather St. Paul aspects to him, and it's arguably unfortunate he never had some kids.
The opinion I'm floating here is that having Stallman "be himself" in the technology community has raised awareness in a way that is helpful overall. How to quantify that, I am unsure. If you read through my posts on this article, you'll see I'm by no means a rabid GPL zealot. It makes the most sense to me from a libertarian point of view; socialism, to me, is a quasi-religious faith of which I'm no adherent. Once I asked Bruce Momjian of the PostGreSQL project a highly personal question about licensing, and he replied that he preferred the BSD-style approach "because it assumes the least about others' motives". I'm happy with that, and actually buy OpenBSD releases, as well.
Maybe the GPL makes more sense for end-user applications, and, as you say "less restrictive" licenses are slightly better for infrastructure pieces like Apache.
GCC, with its special licensingg clauses, and the LGPL seem to hint at this possibility.
You can make all these points, but they remain highly subjective.
Compilers are complex beasts. Name another one with half the platform compatibility of GCC.
Propaganda, or advertising? It is my contention that Stallman has been as much an advertiser of a good idea as a demagogue.
Restrictive? It's a community with a clear boundary. If you were forced to use it, then the claim of "restrictive" might have more merit. But who has forced you? In fact, for those that like the BSD approach (and I've been buying OpenBSD releases since 3.8) the GNU project has done all the research.
Or maybe we're all just human and given to whining.
Well, he is a geek, so he may now about the Chewbacca defense
No, I stand by my remark.
Yours is the Neville Chamberlain approach.
Putting it in capitalistic terms (which RMS himself may not choose to do) you have buyer => marketplace The whole licensing tension is about managing the marketplace.
The free software community is about merging buyer and marketplace under the GPL, so that the seller is invited to play based upon support value added.
The opposing view is about giving the seller more control of the marketplace via source code control.
The "smith theory" is that both answers have their time and place, with the GPL being preferable, but neither answer having any "moral" or "ethical" superiority: how is the legal/technical question a moral/ethical one in the first place?
Right, but Stallman has never seen fit to publish such for review.
Apparently, the bulk of the audience is comfortable with jumps to assertions that certain viewpoints are "unethical" without seeing the development of the idea made explicit.
There is plenty of empirical evidence that proprietary software is teh sux0rz, but the fact is that few vendors of such view themselves as "unethical", so a bit more theoretical development would help to get past the finger pointing.
Gah! You're right! How did the ) get onto the first line?
(total-humiliation)
Yes and no. When the "others speak", it's often intending to subtly hijack RMSs ideas.
On the one hand, RMS is not perfect, and the recent GPLv3 tussle showed that there is copious room for people to disagree.
Still, when you're considering a problem, knowing the invariants is useful, and RMS provides them.
Indeed, this is another way of stating my discomfort with putting RMS and Castro in the same sentence.
http://harrier.net/songbook/S/shorth.html
Yes, yes, my comparison was like an analogy that sucked.
We both seem to agree that RMS's work will (likely) stand as an inflection point in history, though.
More likely /. goal of having posted 24 comments to a single front page article.
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/StefanMonnier
and, with this post, I achieve some sort of dubious
Can't tell whether to be happy or do something unspeakable...
Clearly RMS doesn't /., and hasn't been enjoying my Burma Shave trolls.
Emacs still has a lot more room to grow.
The Emacs Code Browser is a step in the direction of contemporary IDE tools.
I use Emacs Relay Chat quite a bit.
Now that you can do GMail over IMAP, I'm pondering going back to Gnus.