Before the printing press and written law, people could claim ignorance of the law, and that was a defense.
Then the printing press came along, and laws were written down and widely disseminated, and ignorance of the law was no longer a defense.
Now that laws have owners (apparently), we get to go back to step one... since laws can't be freely disseminated, ignorance could become a valid defense again.
Here are two apropos quotes:
"History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes" -- Mark Twain.
quid est quod fuit ipsum quod futurum est quid est quod factum est ipsum quod fiendum est
nihil sub sole novum -- Ecc. 1:9-10
The only obstacles to accurate prophecy are the vested interests, which may retard progress for economic reasons, tradition, conservatism, labor-union policies and legislation.
Sounds like he predicted the DMCA, RIAA vs Napster, MPAA vs DeCSS, etc
Well, the problem is that "open source" started to be used for things that are not free, and so became more broad in scope than "free software". That's why we need to start distinguishing between the two, since "open source" is now a superset of "free software".
Nobody ever competes on equal terms. I'm stronger than you, therefore I'll win the bench press competition. I'm smarter than you, therefore I'm going to get higher grades on the exam.
This is life. Not all are equal.
They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.
Sounds like they've figured something out that you didn't. Too bad.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
Gee, that's too bad. Such is the free market: if you can't compete, you go out of business.
I cannot see how this is a good thing,
If you cannot see how lower prices + superior products are a good thing, then you need to brush up on some basic economics.
Some of my potential customers then come to me and try to get my software for practically no cost. Indirectly referring to or threatening with the "free software on the internet".
Well, I don't know anything about PHP scripts, and maybe this response doesn't apply to you... if not, sorry.
In the C/C++ world Doxygen is getting a lot of attention as a standard documentation tool.
Anyways, like another poster has said, look around: that's the great thing about Free Software. Check out what KDE does (I think they use DocBook, but don't quote me). Check out how the GNOME guys keep themselves on the same page (no pun intended). It's all transparent and readily available for you to check out.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Tell us what we want to know!
on
Tractor Beam?
·
· Score: 2
What's the upper bound?
Well, according to the article, it's all on the "microscopic level"... so my guess would be the upper bound and the lower bound are of the same order of magnitude.
This effectively makes it impossible for commercial software companies to include source code that is licensed under the GPL into their products, since by doing so, they are constrained to give away the fruits of their labor.
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.
If you don't like the license, don't use the code. It couldn't be any more simple.
I think MS should just stick to "stealing" (I know, not the right word, but I can't think of a better one) BSD code and never mind the GPL.
This guy also seems to think that the GPL "destroys" IP... I guess he's never read the Preamble to the GPL, which talks a lot about protecting rights and preserving them for others.
Also, comparing the GPL to the recent.com bubble-burst is quite laughable: The GPL, as well as Cygwin and other companies that make their money (yes! it can be done!) on GPLed software were around well before the.com's were.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL.
That's funny: one the one hand the GPL is "the most successful", on the other it's "doomed to failure".
The phrase "freedom of speech" is in the 1st ammendment.
Fine. If you prefer "freedom of code", so be it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... snip
I fail to see what this has to do with anything.
Anyways, if you look closely, the constiturion provides for but does not require copyright and patents.
. In that world, granting end-users the right to modify code is like granting penguins the right to fly.:)
What incredible myopism. I am a know-nothing mechanic. I wouldn't know how to fix my car if my life depended on it. But I'm sure glad I can hire people who do know about cars and who are able to fix them. The analogy to code, I believe, is quite clear.
Hopefully this becomes a viable alternative to stem cells from embryos. As the article points out, that is frought with ethical problems.
I believe we really need to find a good supply of stem cells somewhere in the body which we can use to treat diseases like Alzheimer's. It seems to be the most promising solution proposed yet.
Hopefully cells from cadavers works well enough to make this a reality.
That's why the GPL is such bolix. Code can't be free in the "libre" sense. It's not even sentient. Only people can be Free.
Would you argue that speech can't be Free in the "libre" sense? Why or why not?
Anyway, you miss the point. While we may say "the code is Free", that's just for convenience: what we really mean is "the end-user has the freedom to inspect, modify, etc". Free software is about people's freedoms.
As is the GPL... the difference is that while the BSD may be free, it doesn't promote freedom, while the GPL does.
All depends what your goals are... if it is free software without promoting free software, then the BSD is for you... if promoting freedom is a goal of yours, then the GPL is for you.
Come on! Evidence is not equal to proof, whatever the dictionary says.
As some have pointed out in this discussion, I don't think you quite grasp the nature of scientific work. science =/ maths (not equal to.)
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Too often people assume the dictionary is the end-all and be-all of word meanings. It isn't. The dictionary gives popular definitions, but when it comes to specific jargon, it is often plain wrong.
In philosophy of science, "evidence" has a specific meaning, and "proof" has a specific meaning, and evidence != proof.
Even funnier is the fact that you're gettting karma for being, well, just plain wrong. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Before the printing press and written law, people could claim ignorance of the law, and that was a defense.
Then the printing press came along, and laws were written down and widely disseminated, and ignorance of the law was no longer a defense.
Now that laws have owners (apparently), we get to go back to step one... since laws can't be freely disseminated, ignorance could become a valid defense again.
Here are two apropos quotes:
Ryan T. Sammartino
(Shameless plug: like my doxymacs project.)
At first, I didn't "get" LISP. But like Prolog, one day I got that big "Aha!", and it all fell into place... and now I'm with you: LISP is beautiful.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Sounds like he predicted the DMCA, RIAA vs Napster, MPAA vs DeCSS, etc
Ryan T. Sammartino
That's not true. I used xdelta on two ~180 MB binary files that were quite different, and it made a ~500K patch.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
Where are you... 1980s Soviet Union?
My competitors do not compete on equal terms.
Nobody ever competes on equal terms. I'm stronger than you, therefore I'll win the bench press competition. I'm smarter than you, therefore I'm going to get higher grades on the exam.
This is life. Not all are equal.
They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.
Sounds like they've figured something out that you didn't. Too bad.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
Gee, that's too bad. Such is the free market: if you can't compete, you go out of business.
I cannot see how this is a good thing,
If you cannot see how lower prices + superior products are a good thing, then you need to brush up on some basic economics.
Ryan T. Sammartino
That's called "competition in a free market".
Deal with it.
Ryan T. Sammartino
I guess, by your reasoning, that since I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, I don't have freedom of speech.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
In the C/C++ world Doxygen is getting a lot of attention as a standard documentation tool.
Anyways, like another poster has said, look around: that's the great thing about Free Software. Check out what KDE does (I think they use DocBook, but don't quote me). Check out how the GNOME guys keep themselves on the same page (no pun intended). It's all transparent and readily available for you to check out.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Well, according to the article, it's all on the "microscopic level"... so my guess would be the upper bound and the lower bound are of the same order of magnitude.
Ryan T. Sammartino
How about "code that will be around forever"?
Ryan T. Sammartino
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. If you don't like the license, don't use the code. It couldn't be any more simple.
I think MS should just stick to "stealing" (I know, not the right word, but I can't think of a better one) BSD code and never mind the GPL.
This guy also seems to think that the GPL "destroys" IP... I guess he's never read the Preamble to the GPL, which talks a lot about protecting rights and preserving them for others.
Also, comparing the GPL to the recent .com bubble-burst is quite laughable: The GPL, as well as Cygwin and other companies that make their money (yes! it can be done!) on GPLed software were around well before the .com's were.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL.
That's funny: one the one hand the GPL is "the most successful", on the other it's "doomed to failure".
I could go on and on and on ripping this apart...
Ryan T. Sammartino
I even went so far as to Ask Slashdot:
* 2001-04-29 23:19:38 What's up with the moderating? (askslashdot,slashdot) (rejected)
I guess we'll never know.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Fine. If you prefer "freedom of code", so be it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ... snip
I fail to see what this has to do with anything.
Anyways, if you look closely, the constiturion provides for but does not require copyright and patents.
. In that world, granting end-users the right to modify code is like granting penguins the right to fly. :)
What incredible myopism. I am a know-nothing mechanic. I wouldn't know how to fix my car if my life depended on it. But I'm sure glad I can hire people who do know about cars and who are able to fix them. The analogy to code, I believe, is quite clear.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Yes, it is fair. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game (if you don't like the license, don't use the code).
A *good* licence which is similar to the GPL is the POVray licence, which states that the ORIGINAL source (i.e. the POVray)...
Again, one of the goals of the GPL is to promote freedom/spread itself. If you are not in agreement with that goal, so be it.
Ryan T. Sammartino
I believe we really need to find a good supply of stem cells somewhere in the body which we can use to treat diseases like Alzheimer's. It seems to be the most promising solution proposed yet.
Hopefully cells from cadavers works well enough to make this a reality.
Ryan T. Sammartino
The original developer is free to relicense his code.
Johnny-come-lately developers are not, as that wouldn't promote freedom, which is one of the points of the GPL.
Or are freedom and choice mutually exclusive?
Not at all.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Would you argue that speech can't be Free in the "libre" sense? Why or why not?
Anyway, you miss the point. While we may say "the code is Free", that's just for convenience: what we really mean is "the end-user has the freedom to inspect, modify, etc". Free software is about people's freedoms.
Ryan T. Sammartino
How so?
what happens if u want to add someshit into a gpl project for your own company to sell? u gotta release the entire source.
Right... bestowing unto others the freedoms you got when you took the GPL... thus promoting freedom.
(Normally I don't reply to such nearly incoherent posts, but the moderators decided this was "Insightful"... huh. Go figure).
Ryan T. Sammartino
All depends what your goals are... if it is free software without promoting free software, then the BSD is for you... if promoting freedom is a goal of yours, then the GPL is for you.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Too often people assume the dictionary is the end-all and be-all of word meanings. It isn't. The dictionary gives popular definitions, but when it comes to specific jargon, it is often plain wrong.
In philosophy of science, "evidence" has a specific meaning, and "proof" has a specific meaning, and evidence != proof.
Even funnier is the fact that you're gettting karma for being, well, just plain wrong. Oh well.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Uh... "provides evidence for" != proof.
Ryan T. Sammartino
This is what I used as a basis for my contract with my employer and it has worked out great so far.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Haven't we all already adopted it?
Most (all?) GPL code says somethig to the effect of "This is licensed under GPL 2.2 or later"
Ryan T. Sammartino