Hey, I payed for windows 3.11, I want to use that with out constraint too (no, not really, just trying to make a point). Well, I'm not a u.s. citizen anyway so that leaves me out of this discussion I guess.
The reason they never complained is because Microsoft can freely use/abuse public domain software, incorporate it into their products or take ideas from it, and nobody can complain (after all, it's public domain).
If they try those same stunts with GPL, suddenly they're in violation of a license.
In other words, they don't have free reign over other people's inventions/work.
Which were paid by our taxes, so we should be able to use them without constraint.
This has already been mentioned in this context, but I haven't seen it yet in this discussion. Gandhi's four steps to victory are as follows:
1. They ignore you.
2. They laugh at you.
3. They fight you.
4. You win.
Doesn't this also apply to Microsoft?
MS has spent some time at step 1 (OSS community ignoring them).
Then, the OSS community has spent a lot of time laughing at Microsoft for it not being 'stable'.
Now, the OSS community is fighting Microsoft, trying to ensure it has replacements for EVERYTHING Microsoft does (GUI - KDE/Gnome, Office Suite - KOffice/Star Office... MS Money - Gnucash etc etc etc).
GPL is proprietory, in a sense; it preserves the intention of the original programmer, and allows a large group of people with better than average morals , breeding and manners to fight off the parasites of the world.
As long as they are not copying the code, it should be perfectly legal, right?
Probably not -- read this:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
"Either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language" is the kicker -- it's very loose phrasing. And it could indeed be taken that modifications and translation are the same as reading, digesting, and writing your own based on it.
The GPL also repeatedly uses the term 'based on' later in the license. So it's probably not legal to do so.
So herein lies the problem: GPL Inc. is a massive international corporation. They just might write more software and have more programmers than even MS does. They write some of the best software in the world and people are starting to realize it. They have partnerships with all the big players in the industry, with the obvious exception.
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
Or price-fixing and collusion.
I thought everyone jumps up and down because Microsoft released IE for free, and 'killed Netscape' in the process?
But it's OK for GPL Inc. to do it? Hmm... don't go too far with that logic chain. Eventually you reach Monopoly Power arguments (no-one can write software without it being released under GPL), and GPL Inc. ends up going to court for Antitrust hearings.
So, don't refer to the GPL as a corporation. Because if it was one, eventually it'd be screwed.
NET a good idea? Man you must have ate to many paint chips or something. Do you see any company trusting M$ to hold all of their documents, and data? Now when the network goes down, you dont check email, but can still work, with.net when the network goes down you take a nap, as none of your *needed* M$ apps will work.
Funny... most people I've talked to will be using.NET for back-end server stuff (eg. server scripting) and front-end client stuff. Not for Application Service Provider stuff.
You've just managed to get the stock price back over $70 a share for the first time since Jackson nailed your corporate balls to the wall. You just managed to put out a pretty damn good operating system in the form of Windows 2000. And you're just getting started with.NET, which, yeah, is a Java ripoff, but it's at least a fairly solid idea.
.NET a Java ripoff?
I thought that Java was a SmallTalk ripoff. Or a Pascal ripoff. Or a C++ ripoff.
Heck, take the three above and mix - you get Java.
Ohhh! I'd been wondering how they solved their inability to do it in-house. (Out-house code??)
What inability to do it? Does your using Linux prove your inability to write an operating system? Does using a fork instead of your hands to eat food prove that you're unable to eat with your hands? Does using someone else's already available source code to do something and save yourself having to write it mean that you couldn't write it yourself?
"It's very clever of them," said Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative. "Instead of attacking the entire open-source movement they've singled out the one license that is in a sense politically controversial."
Well, duh! The GPL license is the only one which forces people who use the software to release their software under the GPL license as well. Why don't Microsoft have anything against the BSD license? The same reason I don't -- because the BSD license doesn't have a hidden agenda. The BSD license is a way of releasing source in a manner that is free for anyone to use -- and then the people who use that software then have the choice of whether they release their software under that license or not.
GPL isn't altruistic at all. The way I feel about it is like this:
"I'm releasing my software for free! But if you want to use my source, I'm going to make you release your software for free too, so that I can use your modifications."
Versus:
"I'm releasing my software for free. I don't mind what you do with it -- it's free, it's out there, and what you do with it is your choice. Just give me a credit, and everything's kosher"
Which is more altrustic to you? Which gives everyone more freedom?
It is the BSD license, it is perfectly legal. Everyone already knows that MS uses BSD code, and that is perfectly legal as well. The problem is the BSD license, which allows them to do it in the first place.
I don't like Apple or MS, but there is nothing to scream bloody murder about here. The BSD license allows these leaches to take their code, modify it and charge for it without giving a single dime back to the community.
So let's see... just because the BSD folks wanted it to be that people could use their stuff with no conditions other than a credit, you're saying that the BSD license has a problem?
What about their wishes? Don't they count for anything?
Perhaps they have not yet had the joy of dealing with the bits of embrace and extend that Microsoft added to their work. Perhaps they haven't notice yet that Microsoft took their nice standards and perverted them.
And which 'standards' did Microsoft take BSD code from and 'pervert'?
They released it under the BSD license. As far as they're concerned, you can wipe your ass with it for all they care -- as long as you keep that copyright notice in there.
This is what's known as *true* Free Software. Software with no viral stipulations. Software that is altruistically given to the community in its *entirety* with no demands that anything be given back.
It's called running a webserver, and a few other public services. It's also called not wanting to pay for a Windows liscense. And I won't buy a box (especially a Microsoft one, just one more industry for them to destroy) just for gaming. Seems like a waste of money to me.
The Robocop Arcade game being -- oddly -- based on the Sinclair Spectrum version of Robocop. Which spawned the Amiga & Atari version... and so on and so on...
All documents distributet from or to other government agencies should be in open formats. That will leave ASCII, HTML and PDF formats as the only viable options. As you know, making PDF from postscript is extremly simple.
Okay... now what if you want to be able to cut & paste that document, edit it, or something else?
Well, that means PDF/PostScript are out of the running.
So we're left with ASCII and HTML. Cool. Why don't you throw LaTex in there while you're at it, or SGML?
I took the opportunity to ask her what she really liked doing, and what she thought were the exciting things happening in Java... and she didn't have an answer. All she mentioned was how Java's lack of pointers and garbage collection makes it more forgiving than C++. Because of her lack of real interest in the technology I really couldn't recommend her.
What exciting things happening in Java? Its (a) all been done before, and (b) doesn't live up to its own hype.
Besides that though, I've had a candidate that I couldn't recommend because the answer to every question I had went something like this:
* You say on your resume that you did X, Y and Z... how did that work out? Was it a good project? What did you learn?
"Well, I worked hard, and learned a few things"
* Ok... well.... which kind of code do you like to work on?
"Oh, I'll work on anything you tell me to. I'll enjoy it."
* Yes... ok... (maybe he didn't understand me)... but given a preference, what kind of code do you prefer? Are you a user interface programmer? Or a database programmer at heart? Do you like visible instant feedback, or are you at home writing the guts and plumbing of a system?
"Oh, I like all of that. Just tell me what to work on, and I'll do a good job".
WARNING BELLS START RINGING
... and after a few more questions (which ended up along the same lines), I passed him onto the next guy in the queue, did a write up, and the upshot was that there was no way in hell that I was going to hire this guy.
Why?
Well, he was applying for a senior engineer position. At that level, you should pretty much have your preferences worked out. Some people do well on integration. Some people live for UI (it's the feedback). Others like doing the guts of an app, and don't mind writing test harnesses until they're blue in the face. Still others are script hackers and admins.
And then, you've got the quiet ones who literally can do anything and everything -- but even they will express a preference on the kind of code they like to write, and even if they don't have one, they'll tell you explicitly that they're at home working on different things, and like to learn about new areas. Or they'll hype up their strengths.
Anyone who tells you "Oh, it's fine, I'll do anything" -- without expounding on it, without explaining anything (and especially if you've already probed, poked and prodded and gotten the same answer to whatever you asked) -- is someone you have to be wary of. Because something's rotten there.
I get similar chills down my spine when a Producer or Marketing guy looks at the latest specs, schedules and demos and says "Yes, everything looks absolutely great! That's all I wanted to see. Good work! Keep going!" and doesn't want to change anything. -- they're either (a) asleep and don't want you to catch them at it, (b) late for a lunch meeting, or (c) braindead.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I payed for windows 3.11, I want to use that with out constraint too (no, not really, just trying to make a point). Well, I'm not a u.s. citizen anyway so that leaves me out of this discussion I guess.
There's a big difference.
Simon
If Microsoft was so ignorant of the Internet, then why was it a node on Usenet in 1981?
(See the map - here)
Simon
The reason they never complained is because Microsoft can freely use/abuse public domain software, incorporate it into their products or take ideas from it, and nobody can complain (after all, it's public domain).
If they try those same stunts with GPL, suddenly they're in violation of a license.
In other words, they don't have free reign over other people's inventions/work.
Which were paid by our taxes, so we should be able to use them without constraint.
Simon
This has already been mentioned in this context, but I haven't seen it yet in this discussion. Gandhi's four steps to victory are as follows:
1. They ignore you.
2. They laugh at you.
3. They fight you.
4. You win.
Doesn't this also apply to Microsoft?
MS has spent some time at step 1 (OSS community ignoring them).
Then, the OSS community has spent a lot of time laughing at Microsoft for it not being 'stable'.
Now, the OSS community is fighting Microsoft, trying to ensure it has replacements for EVERYTHING Microsoft does (GUI - KDE/Gnome, Office Suite - KOffice/Star Office... MS Money - Gnucash etc etc etc).
When does step 4 happen again?
Simon
GPL is proprietory, in a sense; it preserves the intention of the original programmer, and allows a large group of people with better than average morals , breeding and manners to fight off the parasites of the world.
So it's not about freedom at all then.
Simon
Probably not -- read this:
"Either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language" is the kicker -- it's very loose phrasing. And it could indeed be taken that modifications and translation are the same as reading, digesting, and writing your own based on it.
The GPL also repeatedly uses the term 'based on' later in the license. So it's probably not legal to do so.
Simon
So herein lies the problem: GPL Inc. is a massive international corporation. They just might write more software and have more programmers than even MS does. They write some of the best software in the world and people are starting to realize it. They have partnerships with all the big players in the industry, with the obvious exception.
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
Or price-fixing and collusion.
I thought everyone jumps up and down because Microsoft released IE for free, and 'killed Netscape' in the process?
But it's OK for GPL Inc. to do it? Hmm... don't go too far with that logic chain. Eventually you reach Monopoly Power arguments (no-one can write software without it being released under GPL), and GPL Inc. ends up going to court for Antitrust hearings.
So, don't refer to the GPL as a corporation. Because if it was one, eventually it'd be screwed.
Simon
NET a good idea? Man you must have ate to many paint chips or something. Do you see any company trusting M$ to hold all of their documents, and data? Now when the network goes down, you dont check email, but can still work, with .net when the network goes down you take a nap, as none of your *needed* M$ apps will work.
.NET for back-end server stuff (eg. server scripting) and front-end client stuff. Not for Application Service Provider stuff.
Funny... most people I've talked to will be using
Simon
You've just managed to get the stock price back over $70 a share for the first time since Jackson nailed your corporate balls to the wall. You just managed to put out a pretty damn good operating system in the form of Windows 2000. And you're just getting started with .NET, which, yeah, is a Java ripoff, but it's at least a fairly solid idea.
.NET a Java ripoff?
I thought that Java was a SmallTalk ripoff. Or a Pascal ripoff. Or a C++ ripoff.
Heck, take the three above and mix - you get Java.
Simon
I think he's reffering to the fact that they first TRIED AND FAILED to write their own tcp stack.
Any chance of any kind of reference to back this up?
Simon
Ohhh! I'd been wondering how they solved their inability to do it in-house. (Out-house code??)
What inability to do it? Does your using Linux prove your inability to write an operating system? Does using a fork instead of your hands to eat food prove that you're unable to eat with your hands? Does using someone else's already available source code to do something and save yourself having to write it mean that you couldn't write it yourself?
Hell no.
Simon
Well, duh! The GPL license is the only one which forces people who use the software to release their software under the GPL license as well. Why don't Microsoft have anything against the BSD license? The same reason I don't -- because the BSD license doesn't have a hidden agenda. The BSD license is a way of releasing source in a manner that is free for anyone to use -- and then the people who use that software then have the choice of whether they release their software under that license or not.
GPL isn't altruistic at all. The way I feel about it is like this:
"I'm releasing my software for free! But if you want to use my source, I'm going to make you release your software for free too, so that I can use your modifications."
Versus:
"I'm releasing my software for free. I don't mind what you do with it -- it's free, it's out there, and what you do with it is your choice. Just give me a credit, and everything's kosher"
Which is more altrustic to you? Which gives everyone more freedom?
Simon
Actually, no, they didn't pay in Apple stock.
Steve Jobs *allowed* Xerox to invest $1.6MM in Apple in *return for which* he got the red-carpet tour.
Xerox divested their interest in Apple before Apple went public, and as a result didn't get anything out of the deal.
Try reading:
Fumbling The Future
Dealers in Lightning
... if you want the real story, as garnered by interviewing Xerox employees.
Simon
It is the BSD license, it is perfectly legal. Everyone already knows that MS uses BSD code, and that is perfectly legal as well. The problem is the BSD license, which allows them to do it in the first place.
I don't like Apple or MS, but there is nothing to scream bloody murder about here. The BSD license allows these leaches to take their code, modify it and charge for it without giving a single dime back to the community.
So let's see... just because the BSD folks wanted it to be that people could use their stuff with no conditions other than a credit, you're saying that the BSD license has a problem?
What about their wishes? Don't they count for anything?
Simon
Perhaps they have not yet had the joy of dealing with the bits of embrace and extend that Microsoft added to their work. Perhaps they haven't notice yet that Microsoft took their nice standards and perverted them.
And which 'standards' did Microsoft take BSD code from and 'pervert'?
They released it under the BSD license. As far as they're concerned, you can wipe your ass with it for all they care -- as long as you keep that copyright notice in there.
This is what's known as *true* Free Software. Software with no viral stipulations. Software that is altruistically given to the community in its *entirety* with no demands that anything be given back.
Simon
It's called running a webserver, and a few other public services. It's also called not wanting to pay for a Windows liscense. And I won't buy a box (especially a Microsoft one, just one more industry for them to destroy) just for gaming. Seems like a waste of money to me.
So you run games on your webserver? Intelligent.
Simon
Robocop (arcade)
The Robocop Arcade game being -- oddly -- based on the Sinclair Spectrum version of Robocop. Which spawned the Amiga & Atari version... and so on and so on...
Simon
All documents distributet from or to other government agencies should be in open formats. That will leave ASCII, HTML and PDF formats as the only viable options. As you know, making PDF from postscript is extremly simple.
Okay... now what if you want to be able to cut & paste that document, edit it, or something else?
Well, that means PDF/PostScript are out of the running.
So we're left with ASCII and HTML. Cool. Why don't you throw LaTex in there while you're at it, or SGML?
Simon
Which part of the sentence below:
The important part is the ability to examine all of the content.
... didn't you understand?
By definition, this means that the content must be provided in a manner that anyone can read it.
Simon
Yep - that's why I panic when I hear them. It doesn't happen often, but whenever it does, it means something is about to screw up big-time.
Simon
I took the opportunity to ask her what she really liked doing, and what she thought were the exciting things happening in Java... and she didn't have an answer. All she mentioned was how Java's lack of pointers and garbage collection makes it more forgiving than C++. Because of her lack of real interest in the technology I really couldn't recommend her.
What exciting things happening in Java? Its (a) all been done before, and (b) doesn't live up to its own hype.
Besides that though, I've had a candidate that I couldn't recommend because the answer to every question I had went something like this:
* You say on your resume that you did X, Y and Z... how did that work out? Was it a good project? What did you learn?
"Well, I worked hard, and learned a few things"
* Ok... well.... which kind of code do you like to work on?
"Oh, I'll work on anything you tell me to. I'll enjoy it."
* Yes... ok... (maybe he didn't understand me)... but given a preference, what kind of code do you prefer? Are you a user interface programmer? Or a database programmer at heart? Do you like visible instant feedback, or are you at home writing the guts and plumbing of a system?
"Oh, I like all of that. Just tell me what to work on, and I'll do a good job".
WARNING BELLS START RINGING
... and after a few more questions (which ended up along the same lines), I passed him onto the next guy in the queue, did a write up, and the upshot was that there was no way in hell that I was going to hire this guy.
Why?
Well, he was applying for a senior engineer position. At that level, you should pretty much have your preferences worked out. Some people do well on integration. Some people live for UI (it's the feedback). Others like doing the guts of an app, and don't mind writing test harnesses until they're blue in the face. Still others are script hackers and admins.
And then, you've got the quiet ones who literally can do anything and everything -- but even they will express a preference on the kind of code they like to write, and even if they don't have one, they'll tell you explicitly that they're at home working on different things, and like to learn about new areas. Or they'll hype up their strengths.
Anyone who tells you "Oh, it's fine, I'll do anything" -- without expounding on it, without explaining anything (and especially if you've already probed, poked and prodded and gotten the same answer to whatever you asked) -- is someone you have to be wary of. Because something's rotten there.
I get similar chills down my spine when a Producer or Marketing guy looks at the latest specs, schedules and demos and says "Yes, everything looks absolutely great! That's all I wanted to see. Good work! Keep going!" and doesn't want to change anything. -- they're either (a) asleep and don't want you to catch them at it, (b) late for a lunch meeting, or (c) braindead.
Simon
Not really... they're not much for editing.
When you want to do editing - whether it's sound files or graphics, you want to use a mouse, rather than a command line. Unless you're a masochist.
Simon
QT/KDE vs MFC
Real Windows Developers use raw Win32 with ATL.
Simon
I wish... there's a drought here at the moment, believe it or not...
Si
Some people have realized that a GUI is castration, sure the usage is obvious.. but whats the point if it isn't powerful enough to be useful?
Ok sparky - come up with a graphics package that uses nothing but the CLI.
Simon