I used to live in an apartment court. One day I was putting in X10. I stood at the window and hit "all lights on" for each of the house codes A through P, trying to see if anything went on, so that I could avoid using a neighbor's house code. I didn't see any lights go on, but as I hit one house code I heard a loud scream of terror! I guess having a light go on when you think you're alone could be scary.
The world is full of starving artists, yes. The point I was trying to make was that given the chance lots of people would work for a steady wage. In other words, you would not have any trouble finding people who would be willing to create even if there is a cap on their potential earnings, as long as they get a reasonable steady wage.
Wall's main contribution to his employer has been a copyrighted work - the Perl manual. Cox's contribution to Red Hat is less direct, but still it's working software that they sell. In contrast, the Medicis used patronage as a P.R. tool - those nice artworks and talented people hanging around the office helped them lead by impressing the little folks.
Most people work for a steady wage and are more or less happy that way. Most would exchange a gamble for security. The ones who take risks are in the minority.
First, it's important to realize that the Protocol depends on the assumption that copyright law is already broken, and only becomes valid when that point is reaced.
What if the world doesn't cooperate? And even if it does, then I guess this scheme would then be vulnerable to copyright barbarians at the gates.
I think you're making a mistake by requiring a significant change in the way people do business as a prerequisite. As a consequence, fine, but not as a prerequisite.
There's lots of good stuff in your thesis that doesn't depend on copyright breaking so badly. Don't get hung up on that.
The program is dual-licensed with the GPL and a NPL variant. The GPL is, of course, already accepted as an Open Source license. The NPL variant is probably Open Source too, but I haven't done a detailed audit and thus can't say for sure.
This is the same AOL that some unauthorized character at Sun told us was thinking of giving up the Mozilla license. We already knew that report was bogus, but this is just more evidence.
No, there are not 35000000 LOC in the Windows kernel, or if there are it's much worse than I thought. You're confusing the entire distribution with the kernel. Debian has about tripled in size in the past three years (source included), but I don't have a line count. Someone with more time on their hands could generate that.
I'm sure they know by now. And I'm sure it wasn't deliberate and they'll fix it right away. OK, RH let one get by and Debian didn't, but I agree it's not RH's policy to let this stuff slip by and they will fix it.
I checked. There's really an addendum to the Red Hat version that makes it non-free. Extract the source package and look just before the usual BSD license text.
OK, I created the scripts (and the concept of the Debian Official CD and its policies). I've no wish to steal credit from people who have re-written them in recent times.
I got rsync and rdist confused in more than one posting. Sorry. Time to go to sleep.
One would think that a license that prohibits your use of the program for commercial gain would get in the way of completing your work. In this case, Debian protected you from that license, allowing you to get your work done. RH, through an innocent oversight no doubt, did not.
But that's not the BSD license! That's a BSD-license with an addendum that makes it non-free. The "BSD" tag on the.rpm is wrong, and would mislead the customer into believing that adendum was not there!
Everything in Linux is like this. They grab you by telling you everything is free then when you want to do anything necessary to get a big corporatoin running, your forced to fork over big bucks to companies you've never heard of
That, sir, is why we're so "fanatical" about licenses. To protect you from exactly what you described.
Let's see if I've got this straight. There are three rsync licenses. The license on their web site is seriously non-free. The license in the red hat version has an addendum to the BSD license that doesn't allow for-profit use, so it's non-free as well. The red hat one-line license indicator just says "BSD" and that's wrong. The Debian version is from 1996 and is under the straight BSD, so it's free software.
I wrote the scripts that master the Debian Official CD set. The ISO 9660 files that are the output of these scripts are distributed to CD manufacturers by Debian. If you want to call it the Official CD, you can replicate the ISO 9600 images that Debian distributes to you, but you can not change them. You can of course distribute other versions of Debian as long as you do not call them official.
The Official CD ISO 9660 images do not contain non-free software. They do contain an old BSD version of rsync.
Oops, it's in the Debian netstd package. Debian is shipping a free version. The Red Hat version has an addition to the BSD license that makes it non-free.
OK, Debian ships the free version in the Debian ships the free version. Maybe if you extract the red hat source package you can tell what version they ship - they don't install license files on their system the way Debian does.
I'm more than a bit wary of a program with two very different licenses on the same site. It sounds as if some left hands don't know what the right ones are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
What if the world doesn't cooperate? And even if it does, then I guess this scheme would then be vulnerable to copyright barbarians at the gates.
I think you're making a mistake by requiring a significant change in the way people do business as a prerequisite. As a consequence, fine, but not as a prerequisite.
There's lots of good stuff in your thesis that doesn't depend on copyright breaking so badly. Don't get hung up on that.
Thanks
Bruce
I'm more sanguine about the future of copyright, so why not apply a scheme like this to GPL software rather than public domain?
It needs a 501(c)3 non-profit operating it to be tax-effective.
Thanks
Bruce
This is the same AOL that some unauthorized character at Sun told us was thinking of giving up the Mozilla license. We already knew that report was bogus, but this is just more evidence.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
No, there are not 35000000 LOC in the Windows kernel, or if there are it's much worse than I thought. You're confusing the entire distribution with the kernel. Debian has about tripled in size in the past three years (source included), but I don't have a line count. Someone with more time on their hands could generate that.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Nope, it's not that old.
I checked. There's really an addendum to the Red Hat version that makes it non-free. Extract the source package and look just before the usual BSD license text.
I got rsync and rdist confused in more than one posting. Sorry. Time to go to sleep.
Thanks
Bruce
One would think that a license that prohibits your use of the program for commercial gain would get in the way of completing your work. In this case, Debian protected you from that license, allowing you to get your work done. RH, through an innocent oversight no doubt, did not.
Yeah rdist. It's getting late. Thanks for the verification.
It turns out I was right, AC. Apology accepted :-)
Gotcha!
Bruce
That, sir, is why we're so "fanatical" about licenses. To protect you from exactly what you described.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
The Official CD ISO 9660 images do not contain non-free software. They do contain an old BSD version of rsync.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
I'm more than a bit wary of a program with two very different licenses on the same site. It sounds as if some left hands don't know what the right ones are doing.
Bruce