Hey, whatever works for you, but I don't want to have to wait an hour for a CD to be made, especially if I want to make multiple CDs. In addition, although CDs scratch easily, they are cheap. And if I have to make a new one, well, it's fast.
However, what we need these days are some old fashioned caddy CD players. Just keep all your CDs in caddies and you've got all the protection you need.
If code is meant to be free, then release with BSD.
Ok, that was a bad rhyme, but the point is, short of public domain, BSD has the most permisive license I can think of. Basically, leave a copyright statement up and you're done. No need to mix and match.
Good lord, you are so completely wrong! First off, you say the FSF doesn't aspire to make everyone use FSF solutions. Although that is true, you are twisting the original statement. The FSF's GNU license forces someone who makes modifications to GPLed software to release those modifications back to the public. This is FORCING them to do this, and taking away their freedom to keep the code written by them to themselves.
Next you get into some crap about TCP/IP. You misinterpreted Mike's statement here. He said he'd release an actual, working TCP/IP stack, not a standard or RFC, with the BSD license. This encourages vendors to use his completely free stack, which can help with compatibility for new standards, ensuring all systems use similar code.
Hey, wait a sec here. My ideals are embodied in the BSD license. I like writing code. I'm not some software hippy. I don't care if everything remains free, I just want some good software. If someone wants to "steal" my code, I still have my code, and I have not lost a dime of possible sales, as my software is free.
The GPL would have no teeth if it weren't for copyright law, so if you don't like the GPL then work to get copyright law repealed.
That's horribly flawed logic. It's worse than the logic that people kill people with guns, so let's ban guns. Or cars make car accidents possible, so let's ban people.
Yeah, then he can be another burnt out, mediocre programmer. The best time to learn things is as a child. It's quite another thing to make the kid learn about programming, but if he is truly interested now, I say go for it.
Although I was certainly not a prodigy, I wanted to learn as much as I could about computers at a very early age, and let me say that I had little or no interest in other things. Sure, take the kid to a football game or some such occassionaly, but don't say to the kid, "No, we're not going to learn electronics today! We have to play with some drooling morons that are your age! It helps build skills!"
In a competitive market, somebody has to be the loser. And loser's tend not to survive very long.
Yeah, that's why there's only one company that sells prosessors, monitors, motherboards, motherboard chipsets, sound cards, networking equipment, hard drives, floppy drives, tape drives, other removeable storage, and light bulbs. Oh wait... There isn't always a loser...
Although this situation is not bad, it should not be construed as good. That's just one less thing nVidia might have to worry about in the future (3dfx could have made a comeback with one good chip - we've seen ATI make a big entrace with the Radeon, for example.)
Sorry Bruce, wrong. If you leave the "any later version" part in place, you can only hope RMS will think of your interests in future licences. If RMS wanted to add a clause in v3 that you are allowed to use the code for whatever you want, without attribution (unlikely, obviously), nothing would stop him. However, by removing this versioning clause, you protect yourself and your code from changes that aren't to your interests.
I wouldn't want to sign up at a bank where I give my money to them and have them say, "it's all your money according to the license, but we reserve the right to make a new license that says whatever we want in the future."
It is a problem that there are multiple copyright holders for Linux, but that's a tradeoff to make for the safety of a major software project.
If OS is so much better, why can't the community originate its own ideas and designs instead of copying others?
Simple. If a design looks good, why not copy it? I don't understand why everything must be different. Why should we create something new just to be new and different? It doesn't make sense.
Regarding their "development" of the design. Give me a break. Aqua is only a standard GUI with some lines in the windows and bubbles for buttons. There's nothing innovative, it just looks good. So don't give me this crap about "stealing" a design they came up with in the first place. I don't see you complaining because everything uses windows, scroll bars, and push buttons that happens to be 3D beveled, a la every GUI ever. Give me a break.
Perhaps you are correct about your first statement, but your second statement is a bit of a stretch. It's clear that AOL wants to be a content provider, not a service provider, the difference being that content is stuff like news, while service is access to stuff like news. So perhaps they'll give you AOL for "free" to coax people to broadband, but I don't see it being required for use.
Yeah, 'cause we know custom hardware will always be cheaper than off-the-shelf PC components. Oh wait, when people start using consoles for computer functions excessively, consoles will stop being sold at a loss or the software's cost will increase.
This, OTOH, could make The GIMP more GNOME-specific
Sorry, just because CORBA is used in GNOME doesn't mean CORBA is ONLY used in GNOME. You could still have CORBA without all the GNOME dependencies. Also, if you look at other posts, it appears that CORBA will be used in the 1.9 development branch.
What the hell are you talking about? You act like every Linux user, zealot or no, will flock to the Microsoft's Linux as soon as Microsoft makes a distribution. You forget most users of Linux switched from Windows to get away from Windows! And if they use Linux code in Windows? So what? It won't affect me. If my Linux apps don't work on MS-Linux, I won't use MS-Linux.
I think that MS is more likely to steal GPL'd code, integrate it into Windows, put an ultra-glitzy start menu on it. Then
they can continue their "naked PC" campaign and continue asking corporate IT departments, "Who are you gonna sue when
it all comes crashing down?"
Don't be stupid. Microsoft wouldn't chance the legal battle. If they want good code, they'll pay someone to write good code, not steal mediocre code from college students. Also, if putting an "ultra-glitzy start menu" (which is exactly what Gnome and KDE have done, btw...) on OSS would result in popular software, Linux would be popular. But its backwards compatibility and good office software that people want.
Yeah, that sure would be bad. Oh wait, their forks (of GPLed software, that is) would have to be GPLed as well. They couldn't change the licence. So how would this be bad? It wouldn't.
First of all, if the Microsoft software didn't continue to work with other distros, no one would code on it. Two, lets look at the hatred for Microsoft brewing around here. I might be likely to code for some Microsoft OSS if it had potential, but the zealots would not.
Standard disclamer: My brain might not be working today.
If you plan on using a lot of strings, roll your own 8-bit string containers and write a
separate handler class for it to minimize overhead for methods in the string container class.
Why on earth should I have to do this. I don't recall having to "roll my own" strings in C or C++.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, whatever works for you, but I don't want to have to wait an hour for a CD to be made, especially if I want to make multiple CDs. In addition, although CDs scratch easily, they are cheap. And if I have to make a new one, well, it's fast.
However, what we need these days are some old fashioned caddy CD players. Just keep all your CDs in caddies and you've got all the protection you need.
Junkbuster anyone?
If code is meant to be free, then release with BSD.
Ok, that was a bad rhyme, but the point is, short of public domain, BSD has the most permisive license I can think of. Basically, leave a copyright statement up and you're done. No need to mix and match.
Good lord, you are so completely wrong! First off, you say the FSF doesn't aspire to make everyone use FSF solutions. Although that is true, you are twisting the original statement. The FSF's GNU license forces someone who makes modifications to GPLed software to release those modifications back to the public. This is FORCING them to do this, and taking away their freedom to keep the code written by them to themselves.
Next you get into some crap about TCP/IP. You misinterpreted Mike's statement here. He said he'd release an actual, working TCP/IP stack, not a standard or RFC, with the BSD license. This encourages vendors to use his completely free stack, which can help with compatibility for new standards, ensuring all systems use similar code.
And don't get me started about your sig...
Hey, wait a sec here. My ideals are embodied in the BSD license. I like writing code. I'm not some software hippy. I don't care if everything remains free, I just want some good software. If someone wants to "steal" my code, I still have my code, and I have not lost a dime of possible sales, as my software is free.
The GPL would have no teeth if it weren't for copyright law, so if you don't like the GPL then work to get copyright law repealed.
That's horribly flawed logic. It's worse than the logic that people kill people with guns, so let's ban guns. Or cars make car accidents possible, so let's ban people.
Speaking of spelling, that's Tibetan, not Tibetin. Just a heads up.
Yeah, then he can be another burnt out, mediocre programmer. The best time to learn things is as a child. It's quite another thing to make the kid learn about programming, but if he is truly interested now, I say go for it.
Although I was certainly not a prodigy, I wanted to learn as much as I could about computers at a very early age, and let me say that I had little or no interest in other things. Sure, take the kid to a football game or some such occassionaly, but don't say to the kid, "No, we're not going to learn electronics today! We have to play with some drooling morons that are your age! It helps build skills!"
Of course, I'm sure de-regulation will fix that problem.
Yeah, because then they won't have an incentive to do well. Oh wait.
In a competitive market, somebody has to be the loser. And loser's tend not to survive very long.
Yeah, that's why there's only one company that sells prosessors, monitors, motherboards, motherboard chipsets, sound cards, networking equipment, hard drives, floppy drives, tape drives, other removeable storage, and light bulbs. Oh wait... There isn't always a loser...
Although this situation is not bad, it should not be construed as good. That's just one less thing nVidia might have to worry about in the future (3dfx could have made a comeback with one good chip - we've seen ATI make a big entrace with the Radeon, for example.)
Sorry Bruce, wrong. If you leave the "any later version" part in place, you can only hope RMS will think of your interests in future licences. If RMS wanted to add a clause in v3 that you are allowed to use the code for whatever you want, without attribution (unlikely, obviously), nothing would stop him. However, by removing this versioning clause, you protect yourself and your code from changes that aren't to your interests.
I wouldn't want to sign up at a bank where I give my money to them and have them say, "it's all your money according to the license, but we reserve the right to make a new license that says whatever we want in the future."
It is a problem that there are multiple copyright holders for Linux, but that's a tradeoff to make for the safety of a major software project.
If OS is so much better, why can't the community originate its own ideas and designs instead of copying others?
Simple. If a design looks good, why not copy it? I don't understand why everything must be different. Why should we create something new just to be new and different? It doesn't make sense.
Regarding their "development" of the design. Give me a break. Aqua is only a standard GUI with some lines in the windows and bubbles for buttons. There's nothing innovative, it just looks good. So don't give me this crap about "stealing" a design they came up with in the first place. I don't see you complaining because everything uses windows, scroll bars, and push buttons that happens to be 3D beveled, a la every GUI ever. Give me a break.
Demeber 15th, 2067
I'm moving to Europe!
Perhaps you are correct about your first statement, but your second statement is a bit of a stretch. It's clear that AOL wants to be a content provider, not a service provider, the difference being that content is stuff like news, while service is access to stuff like news. So perhaps they'll give you AOL for "free" to coax people to broadband, but I don't see it being required for use.
Yeah, 'cause we know custom hardware will always be cheaper than off-the-shelf PC components. Oh wait, when people start using consoles for computer functions excessively, consoles will stop being sold at a loss or the software's cost will increase.
Yeah, embedded Linux devices that aren't connected to the Internet are easy to crack. Oh wait, it was a stupid joke. Nevermind.
This, OTOH, could make The GIMP more GNOME-specific
Sorry, just because CORBA is used in GNOME doesn't mean CORBA is ONLY used in GNOME. You could still have CORBA without all the GNOME dependencies. Also, if you look at other posts, it appears that CORBA will be used in the 1.9 development branch.
Yeah, no one has ever tried to standardize syscalls before! I mean, god! Oh wait, POSIX.
What the hell are you talking about? You act like every Linux user, zealot or no, will flock to the Microsoft's Linux as soon as Microsoft makes a distribution. You forget most users of Linux switched from Windows to get away from Windows! And if they use Linux code in Windows? So what? It won't affect me. If my Linux apps don't work on MS-Linux, I won't use MS-Linux.
Don't be a fool.
I think that MS is more likely to steal GPL'd code, integrate it into Windows, put an ultra-glitzy start menu on it. Then they can continue their "naked PC" campaign and continue asking corporate IT departments, "Who are you gonna sue when it all comes crashing down?"
Don't be stupid. Microsoft wouldn't chance the legal battle. If they want good code, they'll pay someone to write good code, not steal mediocre code from college students. Also, if putting an "ultra-glitzy start menu" (which is exactly what Gnome and KDE have done, btw...) on OSS would result in popular software, Linux would be popular. But its backwards compatibility and good office software that people want.
Foolish zealot.
Yeah, that sure would be bad. Oh wait, their forks (of GPLed software, that is) would have to be GPLed as well. They couldn't change the licence. So how would this be bad? It wouldn't.
First of all, if the Microsoft software didn't continue to work with other distros, no one would code on it. Two, lets look at the hatred for Microsoft brewing around here. I might be likely to code for some Microsoft OSS if it had potential, but the zealots would not.
Standard disclamer: My brain might not be working today.
Yeah! Dvorak! Down with Qwerty! It's supported by The Man! I'm cool, look at me everybody!
You make me sick.
What? Are you joking? I can't tell. Seriously. What the hell are you talking about?
If you're not joking, are you implying Windows can't figure out what its own binary looks like? Wtf?
If you are joking, not funny.
If you plan on using a lot of strings, roll your own 8-bit string containers and write a
separate handler class for it to minimize overhead for methods in the string container class.
Why on earth should I have to do this. I don't recall having to "roll my own" strings in C or C++.