First, at the time, Sony only understood electronics. Sony's management didn't (and still) don't get entertainment--and for five years the Japanese board of directors attempted to micromanage Sony's entertainment devisions like they did Sony's electronics division. And they floundered. Eventually Sony so screwed up the entertainment divisions that they had to divest themselves of some of the entertainment assets, and re-hire the American corporate heads they originally canned during the merger. So while today Sony still owns Sony Pictures, creates a few television shows, and are present in a big way in the music industry, they do so in fairly independant divisions who compete with each other as much as they cooperate.
I don't about anyone else but I think Japan has figured out the entertainment market.
I think them articles are a little one-sided. Linus choose to implement a monolithic kernal.
But I do not think that Hurd is *just* a microkernal. The ability to modify the kernal without rebooting and by unprivilaged users is unique to the Hurd. As is translators and a whole host of other features that even other microkernal-based system cannot do. Other microkernal systems are NT and BeOS, I think. Note that BeOS supposedly has great performance so it is feasable that the Hurd's performance can be improved as well.
Well, I have found a satisfactory definition of "geek" that applies not only to software people. When someone asks aloud "Who cares!", the geek is the one in the back of the room who raises his hand.
And quite frankly, I find the one who *doesn't* care really disturbing. It is as if nothing is important than their own bailiwick, or worse, their pesky social life. The difference is that caring about computers doesn't seem fun until you are *into* it. While everyone likes the life of the party or the class clown. While I have nnothing against the "popular" people as long as they don't treat me derogatorily for caring. Even worse are the many wannabees who do nothing more than *trying* to be like the popular ones.
I would really like to make a statement to the remaining high schoolers reading this (which I am one). If you spend an abnormal amount of time at the computer... don't give it up or lie about it for anything. I know there is a lot of pressure to comform but its not worth it. In fact, pretending to be something you aren't makes the rest of us look back.
We may be geeks, we may be obsessed, but we are not wannabees. A wannabee is the saddest type of human being.
Oh, and one more thing. Be secure about yourself. It takes a while but beleive me, it is well worth it.
"When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib, and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The XFree86 group does an important job for the community in maintaining these programs, and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm done by a fork in development. So it is better to work with the XFree86 group and not copyleft our changes on these programs. Likewise for utilities such as xset and xrdb, which are close to the core of X, and which do not need major improvements. At least we know that the XFree86 group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as free software."
So if even RMS advises against GPLing the X Windows System then it is probably not a good idea;)
(by the way, I was the AC you are responding to. I couldn't get slashdot to log me.)
"If this were true, then why do they go to such pains to disparage and denigrate *ALL* other Free Software licenses?"
They don't. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html for their official position. Note in particular what they say about the modified BSD license, the BSD license without the advertising clause. "It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem."
"If the FSF truly believed that software should not have owners, then they would not copyright their software. They should make up their minds one way or the other. Either software should not be owned and all of GNU becomes public domain, or that they keep the GPL/copyrights and merely remove that article."
I think they are talking about a different kind of ownership. With free software, the author no longer has control of his/her software. While conventionally the owner has exlusive control over his property. In this sense, the FSF does not own GNU because they do not control it. This makes a lot of sense. Most people do not think of FSF owning GNU or of Linus owning Linux, simply because they grant so much freedom by licensing with the GPL.
"I am not against any individual belonging to the FSF or GNU Project. However, I am against their philosophy. This is a much different thing."
You are against granting users freedom with their software?
Substitute freedom for unrestrictiveness. Even RMS said he could find no more suitable word. The problem with the word unrestrictiveness is the same as with GNU/Linux: too many syllables.
If you compare bleeding edge Gnome with 1-year-old KDE 1.1x, this may sound sensible, but with KDE 2 technology, this is absolutely ridiculous.
This is a sensable thing to say. Both desktops are pretty equal if you compare similar releases (if you substitute October GNOME instead of GNOME 1.0.x). GNOME 2, IIRC, will sport much of things KDE has. It isn't as far developed though but look for some things in GNOME 2 that KDE won't have for a while.
It is pretty clear that KDE is more Windows-like, I think it has also borrowed some UI from the Mac and OS/2... but it is still heavily Windows like. GNOME gets its UI from NEXT, Motif, CDE, and some Windows influence as well.
Overall, I like the GTK widget set better than QT. This has nothing to do with theming either. I use GTK's default theme. The buttons are a little larger. The gray is a little lighter. The widgets are spaced apart a little more. I think GTK has a more pleasant feel to it.
But, really now. The differences betweek KDE and GNOME isn't much more than personal preference.
(I won't comment on the untrue comments about CORBA.)
Or someone who begins or ends their post with something like "I know someone is going to moderate me down because of my unorthodox position [boo hoo, boo hoo]... but I do not beleive in conformity so, therefore, I will speak my mind!" even though the rest of their post is a lot of rubbish.
Christmas already? Gee. It comes faster every year. I remember when I was like 10 counting down the days... 14 days... 13 days... 12 days... Now it's like: Hey, where did Christmas Eve go?
But I'm just 17 so I am still on the receiving end. I have another year of being a bum so I'm making the best of it.
Right now I am feeling awfully proud of this free software revolution... of what it has accomplished since 1986 (or whenever the exact year is). If there is anything like Christmas it would be the Free Software Movement. Sharing and caring for geek toys: software.
Santa has been good to me this year. With gnu/linux systems going mainstream and all... Hey, I used some of my Christmas money and bought a gnu/linux distribution... at Wal-Mart of all places. Especially in my town out in the middle of no where. A linux distribution in Wal-Mart... there may be hope of World Domination yet.
Well, these are my Christmas wishes for next season:
That software developers consider how their project integrates with other projects to give GNU/Linux that gloss; the whole is greater than the some of their parts
That the Linux-hype dies. Come on! These Press Releases that have nothing to do with LINUX putting LINUX in their PR just to increase their stock price is silly.
That GNU/Linux becomes a serious competitor for the Desktop without relying on propietary software.
For a hard drive big enough to compile Berlin and all its dependencies.
For a stable very usable Mozilla browser that remains competitive to Internet Explorer.
For the Mozilla Team to NOT rush their browser despite the pressure who want their browser *now*. Once it is stable and usable and you consider it a full release, call it BETA and freeze it for 6 months. Those of us find it usable will use it whether or not it is an *Official* release.
For me to contribute in many ways to the development of Free Software. I'll learn to code and modify some programs to fill my needs. I'll contribute documentation and other things until I can code.
World Domination
Merry Christmas everyone. I hope all of your Christmas wishes come true. I certainly hope so for mine.
Forgive me if sometimes it is difficult to tell between someone's technical judgement and anti-Windows bias.
I would like you to separate the concept of a registry from its implementation on Windows 9x. What is "wrong" with the concept? The idea of the registry is a good idea, I think. One place to change settings throughout the system instead of the zillions of unsimilar configuration formats in a files that are usually in/var, perhaps/etc, or maybe that file is superseded in ~.
The implementation is another thing. Microsoft made an operating system that is less than stable. That doesn't mean all operating systems are unstable. IIRC, the GNOME people are developing a registry program called GConf but it seems to be entirely unlike the Windows implementation. Instead of a binary database, GCong will be based on XML. [This is all AFAIK]
The truth is, users *want* one place to change settings throughout the system. Microsoft has achieved this (even though it leads to problems with security (easy to access registry on any Windows 9x system and unlockout the control panel, etc.) and most of the information is undecipherable to humans). Registries are a good idea if done right.
Not everything Microsoft comes up with is a bad idea.
Your bias is very clear (you use BSD, right? now how did I figure that out?)
The Linux-everywhere philosophy is a dumb idea in my opinion and I am sure that a majority of Linux-users feel the same
Linux has all the hype right now. Sorry. Didn't mean to. Please forgive and forget.
Some of us beleive that a propietary operating system for the desktop is unacceptable.
The copyleft is a good idea. Lack of the copyleft may be why BSD is inferior on the desktop and hence, is why BSD users "realize and accept that Windows is good on the desktop."
GNU/Linux is very viable as both a server and desktop platform. Almost all free software (even evil copylefted software that you can always port no matter who added their two-cents to the code) has been ported to other Unix-like operating systems. BSD deserves a lot of respect as an operating system.
Why can't we all just "get along"?
Re:The road to hell ...
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 2
The road to hell... is paved with good intentions.
Not entirely, I don't think. Besides, I doubt the road to heaven has anything to do with money.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 2
I am growing more and more of the opinion that the name does not matter too much. My biggest fear is that people will end up *forgetting* GNU and its philosophy. I think this is why RMS is stubborn about the name.
But your reasoning depends on whether we are talking about one operating system or many different operating system. Your reasoning assumes the later. That Red Hat Linux is different enough from Debian GNU/Linux, and Debian GNU/Linux is different enough from SuSe Linux. This means we shouldn't call any of them Linux either. It is either Red Hat Linux or simply Red Hat. But if the above operating systems are not different enough to be considered separate then we need a generic name that is the superset of Red Hat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux and SuSe Linux. So we are back to the GNU/Linux vs Linux debate.
One other thing. I have heard many reasonings why the OS shouldn't be called GNU/Linux (including the GNU/BSD/X/MyMom/Linux argument) but I haven't found any good reason's it should be called just Linux. Of all the components on a typical Linux-based system, why just Linux? And please don't tell me we should call it just Linux because everyone else does.
I think this why Knuth didn't win. TeX is an integral part of the GNU system but isn't as important as GNOME. As far as all of Knuth's other accomplichments, well, I don't think the award is about that.
I personally feel that Knuth should have gotten the award but I can understand why Miguel got it. Just look at everything he has done with GNOME:
Lead the entire project despite all the scorn directed at GNOME and at *him* personally (as you will find evident elsewhere in this forum)
Ports Midnight Commander to GNOME for their file manager
Develops the leading spreadsheet application in the GNU/Linux world
Of course he is responsible for much of the code in the GNOME support libraries
Develops the GNOME component framework (Bonobo)
A number of other things I am surely missing
So it makes sense really. But still, developing TeX and making it free... a difficult thing to compete with.
Congratulations to Miguel and the finalists... and thanks.
(I sincerely hope there is no political hocus-pocus going on... I don't think so but...)
There are a few vocal Anonymous dick heads who don't even know a person but insist on denouncing them every chance they get. I would be anonymous too because even they must know that what they are saying DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
Instead of having anything tangible to say they go off shouting thier mouths by putting him down personally. They don't care about RMS's message about ethics, freedom, and software because that would REQUIRE THEM TO THINK and that is TOO HARD FOR THEM.
If you disagree with him for any VALID reason, then please go ahead and offer us your opinion. I may disagree with you but that is that and the same can be said vice-versa. But putting down someone and thinking that has anything to do with their beliefs is ONE OF THE MOST IMMATURE THINGS YOU CAN DO.
So, please, go along now. RMS has contributed much of his life to me, you, and millions of others. And all you can do is insult him.
(After sitting there for the last 4 hours clicking refresh you may find my comment suddenly pop up. You first reaction may be to say something imflamotory to me in reply or say I am self-rightious, but with a moment's thought you would find that is not true. But unfortunately you don't have that much thought so hurry up and click that REPLY button so you can go back to clicking refresh)
If I have an idea for some small software program that might make enough money to support me and a few other programs, if it's any good RMS will swoop in an destroy my company
First of all RMS can't and hasn't destroyed any company.
Second RMS is indifferent about people making money off of software and has even done it himself to make a living.
Third people usually don't want to "just make a living" they are looking to get rich like Bill Gates. But there is nothing wrong with getting rich but no one has "the right to get rich".
This is really the problem I think. Too many people dislike free software because they don't think they can rich off it. Well, maybe you can't. Also, maybe if you are into software for the money then maybe you are into software for the wrong reason.
Don't let money get in the way of what you really want to do. Money is a means; never the end.
In some sense it is laizzez faire (however its called). AFAIK, that means hands off economy without government intervention. If you s/economy/development and s/government/company then you understand how I can say this. It also means that people are motivated by self interest rather than altruism. I would like to say that free software developers are into it for their own benefit more than for charity. I know I would be programming right now if GNU never happened but it would probably be propietary and it would probably be shareware. Now there is a philosophy I beleive in that lets me contribute to the world.
I think the references to communism spring up from thinking of software as a product rather than information. Now, which it is up to debate but I am inclined to think the latter. Also communism only happens when there is depression or human suffering. People don't advocate communism when everything is cheery.
Now how did I know this would be yet another license war?:)
Now let me say something that seems to be very misunderstood. I am a free software advocate. Now, most people who like free software have nothing against using software under the BSD, X, AL or any other free software license. The important part is that it is free, that is the rights of redistribution, modification, and use. Free Software does not equate to GPL-only.
Now when you are developing things are different. A lot of people don't want to contribute to propietary software. Just as many propietary software developers don't want their code to end up in free software. There are also people who want their code in either free or propietary software. Hence the copy-centered (thanks for the word, some AC) licenses. Now copy-centered software can be either copy-lefted or copy-righted (turned into propietary software I mean in this context). The problem is, when either happens, the code gets stuck. So you end up with at least three forks eventually, a copy-lefted that always demands complete openness, a copy-righted that always demands complete closedness, and a lesser copy-centered fork that continually gets sucked into the other two.
The real irony here is that you'd think that authors of copy-centered software wouldn't care about what license is used. Yet there are advocates everywhere.
My main point here is that the user should only be concerned that it is free software he using. I, for instance, will have no problem using KDE 2 and qt 2. If it is great software then I will use it because it is free. But the developer of that software is the only one who may choose the license. Contributers remember must choose to reuse the developers code. Just as I may choose not to develop qt because of the restrictions in its licensing. There are many people who do not mind the restrictions and code it any. Since qt is not the only choice, it is not a huge problem.
But remember folks. The issue is freedom. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with any free software license. Remember, developers must reuse his/her code.
Slashdot Mirror
First, at the time, Sony only understood electronics. Sony's management didn't (and still) don't get entertainment--and for five years the Japanese board of directors attempted to micromanage Sony's entertainment devisions like they did Sony's electronics division. And they floundered. Eventually Sony so screwed up the entertainment divisions that they had to divest themselves of some of the entertainment assets, and re-hire the American corporate heads they originally canned during the merger. So while today Sony still owns Sony Pictures, creates a few television shows, and are present in a big way in the music industry, they do so in fairly independant divisions who compete with each other as much as they cooperate.
I don't about anyone else but I think Japan has figured out the entertainment market.
Get ready for wave 2 of Pokemon.
I think them articles are a little one-sided. Linus choose to implement a monolithic kernal.
But I do not think that Hurd is *just* a microkernal. The ability to modify the kernal without rebooting and by unprivilaged users is unique to the Hurd. As is translators and a whole host of other features that even other microkernal-based system cannot do. Other microkernal systems are NT and BeOS, I think. Note that BeOS supposedly has great performance so it is feasable that the Hurd's performance can be improved as well.
Wow. Content from a Troll!
I am now waiting for pigs to fly.
Well, I have found a satisfactory definition of "geek" that applies not only to software people. When someone asks aloud "Who cares!", the geek is the one in the back of the room who raises his hand.
And quite frankly, I find the one who *doesn't* care really disturbing. It is as if nothing is important than their own bailiwick, or worse, their pesky social life. The difference is that caring about computers doesn't seem fun until you are *into* it. While everyone likes the life of the party or the class clown. While I have nnothing against the "popular" people as long as they don't treat me derogatorily for caring. Even worse are the many wannabees who do nothing more than *trying* to be like the popular ones.
I would really like to make a statement to the remaining high schoolers reading this (which I am one). If you spend an abnormal amount of time at the computer... don't give it up or lie about it for anything. I know there is a lot of pressure to comform but its not worth it. In fact, pretending to be something you aren't makes the rest of us look back.
We may be geeks, we may be obsessed, but we are not wannabees. A wannabee is the saddest type of human being.
Oh, and one more thing. Be secure about yourself. It takes a while but beleive me, it is well worth it.
"Evidence of this can be found by looking at the Reverend's IE 5.0 bookmarks."
:)
Internet Explorer has Favorites. There are no Bookmarks in Internet Explorer.
Or did I miss the entire point of the post?
The FSF advises against it. See The X Windows Trap. I quote:
So if even RMS advises against GPLing the X Windows System then it is probably not a good idea
Hypocrisy is never a virtue.
(by the way, I was the AC you are responding to. I couldn't get slashdot to log me.)
.html for their official position. Note in particular what they say about the modified BSD license, the BSD license without the advertising clause. "It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem."
"If this were true, then why do they go to such pains to disparage and denigrate *ALL* other Free Software licenses?"
They don't. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list
"If the FSF truly believed that software should not have owners, then they would not copyright their software. They should make up their minds one way or the other. Either software should not be owned and all of GNU becomes public domain, or that they keep the GPL/copyrights and merely remove that article."
I think they are talking about a different kind of ownership. With free software, the author no longer has control of his/her software. While conventionally the owner has exlusive control over his property. In this sense, the FSF does not own GNU because they do not control it. This makes a lot of sense. Most people do not think of FSF owning GNU or of Linus owning Linux, simply because they grant so much freedom by licensing with the GPL.
"I am not against any individual belonging to the FSF or GNU Project. However, I am against their philosophy. This is a much different thing."
You are against granting users freedom with their software?
Substitute freedom for unrestrictiveness. Even RMS said he could find no more suitable word. The problem with the word unrestrictiveness is the same as with GNU/Linux: too many syllables.
If you compare bleeding edge Gnome with 1-year-old KDE 1.1x, this may sound sensible, but with KDE 2 technology, this is absolutely ridiculous.
This is a sensable thing to say. Both desktops are pretty equal if you compare similar releases (if you substitute October GNOME instead of GNOME 1.0.x). GNOME 2, IIRC, will sport much of things KDE has. It isn't as far developed though but look for some things in GNOME 2 that KDE won't have for a while.
It is pretty clear that KDE is more Windows-like, I think it has also borrowed some UI from the Mac and OS/2... but it is still heavily Windows like. GNOME gets its UI from NEXT, Motif, CDE, and some Windows influence as well.
Overall, I like the GTK widget set better than QT. This has nothing to do with theming either. I use GTK's default theme. The buttons are a little larger. The gray is a little lighter. The widgets are spaced apart a little more. I think GTK has a more pleasant feel to it.
But, really now. The differences betweek KDE and GNOME isn't much more than personal preference.
(I won't comment on the untrue comments about CORBA.)
Or someone who begins or ends their post with something like "I know someone is going to moderate me down because of my unorthodox position [boo hoo, boo hoo] ... but I do not beleive in conformity so, therefore, I will speak my mind!" even though the rest of their post is a lot of rubbish.
But the original poster is not such a critter.
Every first person shooter is almost the same. Go and shoot everything you see. What fun can there be in that?
And can someone explain to me the difference between Quake 1 and Quake 3? What more monsters and better hardware acceleration? You pay money for this?
Ayee. No wonder the gaming industry makes so much money.
But I'm just 17 so I am still on the receiving end. I have another year of being a bum so I'm making the best of it.
Right now I am feeling awfully proud of this free software revolution... of what it has accomplished since 1986 (or whenever the exact year is). If there is anything like Christmas it would be the Free Software Movement. Sharing and caring for geek toys: software.
Santa has been good to me this year. With gnu/linux systems going mainstream and all... Hey, I used some of my Christmas money and bought a gnu/linux distribution... at Wal-Mart of all places. Especially in my town out in the middle of no where. A linux distribution in Wal-Mart... there may be hope of World Domination yet.
Well, these are my Christmas wishes for next season:
Merry Christmas everyone. I hope all of your Christmas wishes come true. I certainly hope so for mine.
Forgive me if sometimes it is difficult to tell between someone's technical judgement and anti-Windows bias.
/var, perhaps /etc, or maybe that file is superseded in ~.
I would like you to separate the concept of a registry from its implementation on Windows 9x. What is "wrong" with the concept? The idea of the registry is a good idea, I think. One place to change settings throughout the system instead of the zillions of unsimilar configuration formats in a files that are usually in
The implementation is another thing. Microsoft made an operating system that is less than stable. That doesn't mean all operating systems are unstable. IIRC, the GNOME people are developing a registry program called GConf but it seems to be entirely unlike the Windows implementation. Instead of a binary database, GCong will be based on XML. [This is all AFAIK]
The truth is, users *want* one place to change settings throughout the system. Microsoft has achieved this (even though it leads to problems with security (easy to access registry on any Windows 9x system and unlockout the control panel, etc.) and most of the information is undecipherable to humans). Registries are a good idea if done right.
Not everything Microsoft comes up with is a bad idea.
GNU/Linux is very viable as both a server and desktop platform. Almost all free software (even evil copylefted software that you can always port no matter who added their two-cents to the code) has been ported to other Unix-like operating systems. BSD deserves a lot of respect as an operating system.
Why can't we all just "get along"?
The road to hell ... is paved with good intentions.
Not entirely, I don't think. Besides, I doubt the road to heaven has anything to do with money.
I am growing more and more of the opinion that the name does not matter too much. My biggest fear is that people will end up *forgetting* GNU and its philosophy. I think this is why RMS is stubborn about the name.
But your reasoning depends on whether we are talking about one operating system or many different operating system. Your reasoning assumes the later. That Red Hat Linux is different enough from Debian GNU/Linux, and Debian GNU/Linux is different enough from SuSe Linux. This means we shouldn't call any of them Linux either. It is either Red Hat Linux or simply Red Hat. But if the above operating systems are not different enough to be considered separate then we need a generic name that is the superset of Red Hat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux and SuSe Linux. So we are back to the GNU/Linux vs Linux debate.
One other thing. I have heard many reasonings why the OS shouldn't be called GNU/Linux (including the GNU/BSD/X/MyMom/Linux argument) but I haven't found any good reason's it should be called just Linux. Of all the components on a typical Linux-based system, why just Linux? And please don't tell me we should call it just Linux because everyone else does.
I think this why Knuth didn't win. TeX is an integral part of the GNU system but isn't as important as GNOME. As far as all of Knuth's other accomplichments, well, I don't think the award is about that.
I personally feel that Knuth should have gotten the award but I can understand why Miguel got it. Just look at everything he has done with GNOME:
So it makes sense really. But still, developing TeX and making it free... a difficult thing to compete with.
Congratulations to Miguel and the finalists... and thanks.
(I sincerely hope there is no political hocus-pocus going on... I don't think so but...)
GO TO HELL
There are a few vocal Anonymous dick heads who don't even know a person but insist on denouncing them every chance they get. I would be anonymous too because even they must know that what they are saying DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
Instead of having anything tangible to say they go off shouting thier mouths by putting him down personally. They don't care about RMS's message about ethics, freedom, and software because that would REQUIRE THEM TO THINK and that is TOO HARD FOR THEM.
If you disagree with him for any VALID reason, then please go ahead and offer us your opinion. I may disagree with you but that is that and the same can be said vice-versa. But putting down someone and thinking that has anything to do with their beliefs is ONE OF THE MOST IMMATURE THINGS YOU CAN DO.
So, please, go along now. RMS has contributed much of his life to me, you, and millions of others. And all you can do is insult him.
(After sitting there for the last 4 hours clicking refresh you may find my comment suddenly pop up. You first reaction may be to say something imflamotory to me in reply or say I am self-rightious, but with a moment's thought you would find that is not true. But unfortunately you don't have that much thought so hurry up and click that REPLY button so you can go back to clicking refresh)
If I have an idea for some small software program that might make enough money to support me and a few other programs, if it's any good RMS will swoop in an destroy my company
First of all RMS can't and hasn't destroyed any company.
Second RMS is indifferent about people making money off of software and has even done it himself to make a living.
Third people usually don't want to "just make a living" they are looking to get rich like Bill Gates. But there is nothing wrong with getting rich but no one has "the right to get rich".
This is really the problem I think. Too many people dislike free software because they don't think they can rich off it. Well, maybe you can't. Also, maybe if you are into software for the money then maybe you are into software for the wrong reason.
Don't let money get in the way of what you really want to do. Money is a means; never the end.
In some sense it is laizzez faire (however its called). AFAIK, that means hands off economy without government intervention. If you s/economy/development and s/government/company then you understand how I can say this. It also means that people are motivated by self interest rather than altruism. I would like to say that free software developers are into it for their own benefit more than for charity. I know I would be programming right now if GNU never happened but it would probably be propietary and it would probably be shareware. Now there is a philosophy I beleive in that lets me contribute to the world.
I think the references to communism spring up from thinking of software as a product rather than information. Now, which it is up to debate but I am inclined to think the latter. Also communism only happens when there is depression or human suffering. People don't advocate communism when everything is cheery.
Now how did I know this would be yet another license war? :)
Now let me say something that seems to be very misunderstood. I am a free software advocate. Now, most people who like free software have nothing against using software under the BSD, X, AL or any other free software license. The important part is that it is free, that is the rights of redistribution, modification, and use. Free Software does not equate to GPL-only.
Now when you are developing things are different. A lot of people don't want to contribute to propietary software. Just as many propietary software developers don't want their code to end up in free software. There are also people who want their code in either free or propietary software. Hence the copy-centered (thanks for the word, some AC) licenses. Now copy-centered software can be either copy-lefted or copy-righted (turned into propietary software I mean in this context). The problem is, when either happens, the code gets stuck. So you end up with at least three forks eventually, a copy-lefted that always demands complete openness, a copy-righted that always demands complete closedness, and a lesser copy-centered fork that continually gets sucked into the other two.
The real irony here is that you'd think that authors of copy-centered software wouldn't care about what license is used. Yet there are advocates everywhere.
My main point here is that the user should only be concerned that it is free software he using. I, for instance, will have no problem using KDE 2 and qt 2. If it is great software then I will use it because it is free. But the developer of that software is the only one who may choose the license. Contributers remember must choose to reuse the developers code. Just as I may choose not to develop qt because of the restrictions in its licensing. There are many people who do not mind the restrictions and code it any. Since qt is not the only choice, it is not a huge problem.
But remember folks. The issue is freedom. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with any free software license. Remember, developers must reuse his/her code.
Point taken. But no one can reuse the code of either.
As opposed to propietary software?
What is the point you are making? Notice that propietary programming languages aren't too successful either.