I've read it. I don't agree with it. You can argue quite reasonably that the APSL increases the amount of open source software because it requires that any distribution -- even in-house -- requires publication of the source code.
What is important about the freedom to program? That you be free to modify and redistribute. But the GPL forces a requirement on those who would modify. The GPL imposes a cost that you must redistribute source to anyone who gets a binary. The APSL imposes a cost that you must redistribute source to anyone if you deploy a binary. The difference is that you have the freedom to make proprietary changes to your code. Why is RMS arguing that this is a good thing??? Proprietary is suddenly good? What happened to him? -russ
If you never deploy APSL'ed software, you don't have to publish your source code. If you give it to a bunch of people -- even if they all work for you -- then you have to publish the source code. How is this different in spirit from the GPL? -russ
Licenses are for *other* parties to use your copyrighted works. Macromedia has just made changes to the license to clarify that they are not bound by the license by which you use their work. -russ
Even better: ASK them for permission.
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Even better: ASK them for permission. If everybody links to their site and asks them for permission to do so, they're going to get REAL tired of it real fast. Just like Jesus, when he suggested that the Palestinians carry their master's packs for two leagues instead of just one. Imagine the poor Roman soldier, begging the Palestinian to give him back his pack: "No, no, it's alright, I'm not tired--here, I'll just carry it a few more steps. Nevermind that I'm a tired old woman, older than your mother, God bless her soul. I'll be fine, you just rest in the shade." -russ
I'd exchange speed of rendering for an affordable video card. The prices of some of these top-end video cards rivals the motherboard AND CPU put together. Not to mention having Linux drivers for the card. -russ
Dan Bernstein has a proposal for internationalized domain names which solves this problem and many other problems. It's called IDNC3. IDN stands for ``internationalized domain name.'' C3 stands for ``clean, careful, conservative.''
My Kinesis Essential will beat up your Microsoft Natural keyboard any day. Yeah, it's funkier, but it puts the important keys under your thumbs, like backspace, delete, and enter.
No pain, and I type faster. I like that in a keyboard. -russ
Right, but according to the wording of the GPL v2, RMS could publish the GPL v3 and no matter what it says, Linux is autmatically publishable under that license. That's why Linus modified the language of the GPL even though the GPL is supposedly copyrighted and you can't do that. -russ
Ronald Coase wrote what should be a famous paper on why corporations exist. Some respondants here understand why; some do not. Basically, a corporation exists to reduce the transaction cost of negotiating every bit of work that needs to be done. If that cost is low, then corporations have no reason to exist. -russ
No, every version of Linux is considerd by RMS to really be the GNU system. Doesn't matter who creates it. Red Hat Linux is a version of GNU. SuSE is a version of GNU. And RMS gets credit for creating all of them -- or at least *wants* credit. -russ
The FSF owns the copyright on the copyright used in the Linux kernel. Yes, it matters. Read the GPL and you will see that it gives RMS permission to change everybody's license. The version of COPYING that comes with Linux disclaims the FSF's ability to re-license the Linux kernel. You should feel free to argue that this forms an illegal derived work of the GPL. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
Update the website ... like we just did, with a total makeover using php?
-russ
I think I'm going to go back to telnet and s/key! When was the last time you heard of a security hole in telnet?
-russ
Of course he was just guessing. I'm suggesting that he not guess!
-russ
I've read it. I don't agree with it. You can argue quite reasonably that the APSL increases the amount of open source software because it requires that any distribution -- even in-house -- requires publication of the source code.
What is important about the freedom to program? That you be free to modify and redistribute. But the GPL forces a requirement on those who would modify. The GPL imposes a cost that you must redistribute source to anyone who gets a binary. The APSL imposes a cost that you must redistribute source to anyone if you deploy a binary. The difference is that you have the freedom to make proprietary changes to your code. Why is RMS arguing that this is a good thing??? Proprietary is suddenly good? What happened to him?
-russ
Well, we gave CmdrTaco an early look at the Open Source trademark icon, and he said "Nahhhhh, if I can't change it, I'm not going to use it."
-russ
Have you considered not speculating, and waiting to see what actually happens? Nooooo, this is Slashdot.
-russ
If you never deploy APSL'ed software, you don't have to publish your source code. If you give it to a bunch of people -- even if they all work for you -- then you have to publish the source code. How is this different in spirit from the GPL?
-russ
Licenses are for *other* parties to use your copyrighted works. Macromedia has just made changes to the license to clarify that they are not bound by the license by which you use their work.
-russ
Even better: ASK them for permission. If everybody links to their site and asks them for permission to do so, they're going to get REAL tired of it real fast. Just like Jesus, when he suggested that the Palestinians carry their master's packs for two leagues instead of just one. Imagine the poor Roman soldier, begging the Palestinian to give him back his pack: "No, no, it's alright, I'm not tired--here, I'll just carry it a few more steps. Nevermind that I'm a tired old woman, older than your mother, God bless her soul. I'll be fine, you just rest in the shade."
-russ
Amazing!
"Troll"?? I didn't think Rob was giving moderation points to certified morons these days.
-russ
Subscribe to the lego-robotics mailing list.
IDNC3 prohibits the use of visually identical characters in domain names. There's really no alternative to doing that.
-russ
I'd exchange speed of rendering for an affordable video card. The prices of some of these top-end video cards rivals the motherboard AND CPU put together. Not to mention having Linux drivers for the card.
-russ
Dan Bernstein has a proposal for internationalized domain names which solves this problem and many other problems. It's called IDNC3. IDN stands for ``internationalized domain name.'' C3 stands for ``clean, careful, conservative.''
My Kinesis Essential will beat up your Microsoft Natural keyboard any day. Yeah, it's funkier, but it puts the important keys under your thumbs, like backspace, delete, and enter.
No pain, and I type faster. I like that in a keyboard.
-russ
Right, but according to the wording of the GPL v2, RMS could publish the GPL v3 and no matter what it says, Linux is autmatically publishable under that license. That's why Linus modified the language of the GPL even though the GPL is supposedly copyrighted and you can't do that.
-russ
Ronald Coase wrote what should be a famous paper on why corporations exist. Some respondants here understand why; some do not. Basically, a corporation exists to reduce the transaction cost of negotiating every bit of work that needs to be done. If that cost is low, then corporations have no reason to exist.
-russ
No, every version of Linux is considerd by RMS to really be the GNU system. Doesn't matter who creates it. Red Hat Linux is a version of GNU. SuSE is a version of GNU. And RMS gets credit for creating all of them -- or at least *wants* credit.
-russ
The FSF owns the copyright on the copyright used in the Linux kernel. Yes, it matters. Read the GPL and you will see that it gives RMS permission to change everybody's license. The version of COPYING that comes with Linux disclaims the FSF's ability to re-license the Linux kernel. You should feel free to argue that this forms an illegal derived work of the GPL.
-russ
Larouche is a fascist.
-russ
For the Jerry Springer version of the show, I'd have Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Brett Glass, and Richard Stallman.
-russ
Um, hello? I was writing open source software before the GPL existed. I didn't call it that, but that's what it was.
-russ
Geez, back in 1998, I consulted for MatchLogic on their email system. They seemed on the up-and-up, but of course that was four years ago.
-russ
RMS denies being a libertarian. Anyone who respects Chomsky is automagically a leftist. No choice about it.
-russ