I love this line for a general catch all excuse for when the Pres. wants to vape a country.
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?
Your comment: "How about this: roll the license up in a ball and stuff it up your ass."
Your.sig: "All extremists should be shot."
CONGRATULATIONS! You've won the "who will spot the irony first" award! I knew some clever little wag would pipe up and comment on that. And not just on this post.
Telling someone to take the license and shove it seems pretty extreme to me...
Why? Microsoft has been trying to shove their license up MY ass for years.
considering they're ASKING for input.
And I gave them some.
I'm not supporting M$, but at least give them a chance before turning away the software/license.
Microsoft does not deserve "a chance". Their insincerity is plainly obvious, and even if they were sincere their history damns them. The open source / free software community cannot forget what Microsoft is. It would love nothing better than to stamp the movement into an unrecognizable little pile of goo.
They view us with contempt. The ONLY REASON they are here is to muddy the waters, and to try to co-opt a software development model that threatens their monopoly. This move - a combination of infiltration, deception, and misinformation - is just one front of an overall push to end this threat to their business. They will stop an nothing.
"Microsoft intends to provide very liberal non-commercial licensing terms and is interested in gathering community input on the design of the license."
How about this: roll the license up in a ball and stuff it up your ass.
Raise your hand in you develop software for a living. Now, keep your hand raised if your company never suggests that competing software products are not as good as yours.
Now, keep your hand raised if your company has enough money to buy every congressman on capitol hill, make them put on a sun-dress, lipstick and high heels, and pass out cocktails on a silver tray at your pool parties.
At this point there is only one evil, corpulent hand raised, and we all know whose that is.
What do you mean by 'commodity software'? I'd consider the product that my company makes a 'commodity', but I don't think the games companies of this world are going to be hurting for business any time soon.
Games are most definitely NOT a commodity. The software is simply a delivery means for entertainment. Now, the graphics engine the game uses might be commodity software. But the story, the artwork, structuring of the game play, etc - these are clearly not commodities.
In fact, I've seen very few instances in which anyone has made an OSS game that is of industry calibre
Sooo... You're saying that if the software that the company writes is something that is complicated enough that a bunch of volunteers CAN'T come up with it that it's ok for them to charge for it?
Yes. And?
Well, I'm pretty sure that fits under the definition of 'Not all software should be free' and 'Not all software should be commercial'. So you posted a somewhat inflamatory set of paragraphs which essentially attempted to flame the previous poster while agreeing with what he said. Wow, you're clever.
Clever enough. I was responding to the implicit point the OP made through his "raise your hand" visualization exercise.
Imagine the OP standing in front of an audience performing this exercise. He says "Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.". At this point, if 85% of the hands are still raised, he looks a bit foolish for using that particular means of communicating his idea, no?
You missed one small fact. Nothing is to complicated for a bunch of volunteers to cobbel together on there own. Its just a matter of how determined said volunteeres are.
I haven't missed that point at all, I assume it from the start. The operative phrase in your reply is "how determined". If the software you write is truly customized to your company's needs, then no one will be particularly determined to write open source GPL versions of it.
If it's general-purpose enough to give rise to a viable GPL community around it - great. Scratch that project off your list and turn your attention to your company's other needs. And while you're at it, set aside a couple hours a week to contribute to the GPL project. See, everyone wins!
Mundie's pathetic, hysterical sniveling about the threat to tax generation is really funny and scary. But there is another angle that bothers me.
What if Congress could some how interpret writing GPL code as a taxable activity? As in: open source code is in effect a massive, distributed barter transaction? That could have a devastating effect on GPL'd code just from the book-keeping overhead alone.
I know it's a perverse argument, but viewed through the prism of massive political campaign contributions, you can just make out the outlines of it.
Microsoft employees paid huge amounts of income tax, the sale of their products generated huge amounts of sales tax and their business operations are huge tax base (property, licenses, etc.) The revenue generated for the government from MS far exceeds that coming from VA Linux/Software, corporate tax or no.
I DON"T GIVE A RAT'S ASS. Microsoft does not deserve to exist because it's a tax generation mechanism. Companies do not exist to generate tax. They exist to provide value to others. GPL software is making some commercial comodity software obsolete. DEAL WITH IT.
I'm not sure if I'm right on this or not, but Mundie reminds me of the classic "misdirection" ploy.
No, it is not. Mundie spends A LOT of time in Washington stroking rule-makers' dicks. Ibelieve the "Unamerican", "Communist", "Intellectual property destroyer", "Tax drain" rhetoric is the visible tip of a very real iceberg-of-an-effort to destroy or gut the GPL through legislation or regulation.
Just who the fuck else could language like "but people will pay less taxes!" POSSIBLY be directed toward other than governments? Is paying more taxes "what's good for the consumer", whose interest Microsoft lives to serve (or so they incessantly blather)? (OK, governments and public universities - which introduces another obvious angle - universities being the home of much GPL work).
I will have lost my last shred of faith in our system if our rule-makers and Microsoft jointly crap all over the GPL.
Please raise your hand if you develop software for a living; that is, you support yourself and/or your family by developing software.
(hand raised)
Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.
(hmmm. hand STILL raised)
See, the vast majority of code written is not resold. It's written INTERNALLY to support an business or other organization that usually has nothing to do with software sales.
The point is - if your company's existence depends on selling software that a bunch of volunteers can cobble together themselves, just what the FUCK is your justification for existence? You're a leech on the ass of society.
So, if you work for a commercial software house, ask yourself that question. If the answer troubles you, you're company's in the wrong line of business.
Sorry to be so blunt, but them's the facts. If your company is writing commodity software, you're in trouble. Too bad. Next product idea. Move on. If you can't adapt, you die. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?
And you honestly don't think they have already?
Your comment: "How about this: roll the license up in a ball and stuff it up your ass." Your .sig: "All extremists should be shot."
CONGRATULATIONS! You've won the "who will spot the irony first" award! I knew some clever little wag would pipe up and comment on that. And not just on this post.
Telling someone to take the license and shove it seems pretty extreme to me...
Why? Microsoft has been trying to shove their license up MY ass for years.
considering they're ASKING for input.
And I gave them some.
I'm not supporting M$, but at least give them a chance before turning away the software/license.
Microsoft does not deserve "a chance". Their insincerity is plainly obvious, and even if they were sincere their history damns them. The open source / free software community cannot forget what Microsoft is. It would love nothing better than to stamp the movement into an unrecognizable little pile of goo.
They view us with contempt. The ONLY REASON they are here is to muddy the waters, and to try to co-opt a software development model that threatens their monopoly. This move - a combination of infiltration, deception, and misinformation - is just one front of an overall push to end this threat to their business. They will stop an nothing.
So, should I arrange the shooting?
Get in line. :-)
wrong
brain dead
wrong
zealot.
wrong
You and your drug-happy
wrong (and prejudically stereo-typed)
brethren
wrong
are the prime reason open source is going nowhere fast.
oh so wrong
with your brain instead of your liver.
wrong (and perplexing)
Maybe then you'll gape in wonder at the reality of the world you live in.
You're hardly in a position to lecture anyone on reality, or the world we live in.
You're not doing so well in the accuracy department. Fuck-wit.
SHARED SOURCE is to NAIVE DEVELOPERS
as
JOE CAMEL is to KIDS
"DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (cough) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (sweat sweat) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (wheeze sweat) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (froth at mouth) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (polish head) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS (re-sign contract with satan) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS ..."
Incredible, the convoluted rabbit-warrens of reason people follow as they try to redefine language to suit their purposes.
War is peace freedom is slavery blah blah blah...
Glad to oblige. Plenty more where that came from.
Hey, an interesting quote popped into my mind. Remember when Tariq Aziz was described as "genius in the service of evil?"
Oh well, never mind.
It doesn't matter what kind of license it is. It comes from Microsoft. DANGER.
How about this: roll the license up in a ball and stuff it up your ass.
Now all we need is a Unix command named "spooge" and your sig would be complete.
Now, keep your hand raised if your company has enough money to buy every congressman on capitol hill, make them put on a sun-dress, lipstick and high heels, and pass out cocktails on a silver tray at your pool parties.
At this point there is only one evil, corpulent hand raised, and we all know whose that is.
Oops, sorry.
Games are most definitely NOT a commodity. The software is simply a delivery means for entertainment. Now, the graphics engine the game uses might be commodity software. But the story, the artwork, structuring of the game play, etc - these are clearly not commodities.
In fact, I've seen very few instances in which anyone has made an OSS game that is of industry calibre
Exactly. :-)
Yes. And?
Well, I'm pretty sure that fits under the definition of 'Not all software should be free' and 'Not all software should be commercial'. So you posted a somewhat inflamatory set of paragraphs which essentially attempted to flame the previous poster while agreeing with what he said. Wow, you're clever.
Clever enough. I was responding to the implicit point the OP made through his "raise your hand" visualization exercise.
Imagine the OP standing in front of an audience performing this exercise. He says "Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.". At this point, if 85% of the hands are still raised, he looks a bit foolish for using that particular means of communicating his idea, no?
I haven't missed that point at all, I assume it from the start. The operative phrase in your reply is "how determined". If the software you write is truly customized to your company's needs, then no one will be particularly determined to write open source GPL versions of it.
If it's general-purpose enough to give rise to a viable GPL community around it - great. Scratch that project off your list and turn your attention to your company's other needs. And while you're at it, set aside a couple hours a week to contribute to the GPL project. See, everyone wins!
What if Congress could some how interpret writing GPL code as a taxable activity? As in: open source code is in effect a massive, distributed barter transaction? That could have a devastating effect on GPL'd code just from the book-keeping overhead alone.
I know it's a perverse argument, but viewed through the prism of massive political campaign contributions, you can just make out the outlines of it.
I DON"T GIVE A RAT'S ASS. Microsoft does not deserve to exist because it's a tax generation mechanism. Companies do not exist to generate tax. They exist to provide value to others. GPL software is making some commercial comodity software obsolete. DEAL WITH IT.
No, it is not. Mundie spends A LOT of time in Washington stroking rule-makers' dicks. Ibelieve the "Unamerican", "Communist", "Intellectual property destroyer", "Tax drain" rhetoric is the visible tip of a very real iceberg-of-an-effort to destroy or gut the GPL through legislation or regulation.
Just who the fuck else could language like "but people will pay less taxes!" POSSIBLY be directed toward other than governments? Is paying more taxes "what's good for the consumer", whose interest Microsoft lives to serve (or so they incessantly blather)? (OK, governments and public universities - which introduces another obvious angle - universities being the home of much GPL work).
I will have lost my last shred of faith in our system if our rule-makers and Microsoft jointly crap all over the GPL.
(hand raised)
Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.
(hmmm. hand STILL raised)
See, the vast majority of code written is not resold. It's written INTERNALLY to support an business or other organization that usually has nothing to do with software sales.
The point is - if your company's existence depends on selling software that a bunch of volunteers can cobble together themselves, just what the FUCK is your justification for existence? You're a leech on the ass of society.
So, if you work for a commercial software house, ask yourself that question. If the answer troubles you, you're company's in the wrong line of business.
Sorry to be so blunt, but them's the facts. If your company is writing commodity software, you're in trouble. Too bad. Next product idea. Move on. If you can't adapt, you die. Sorry.
> Tante Hedwig Would that be Hedwig of the Angry Inch?
It's that rough anal sex from Microsoft I could do without.
Allow me to one-up myself, then:
ALL YOUR BEOWULF ARE BELONG TO CLUSTER!
Whoa!! Could you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf cluster jokes?!! Man, that would RULE!
Could you imagine a Beowulf cluster of MS Windows clusters?!
It also denies admins the opportunity to at least shut down or wall off the affected service until a real fix is available.