GNOME doesn't need X, and should not make extensive use of X features in a non-portable way. GTK+ runs on Windows now, and should run on things like GGI, SVGAlib, or Berlin.
Am I the only person who thinks X should die and be replaced with a lightweight window system?
I like the GPL because it is the preferred license of the GNU project as well as being Open Source(TM) compliant. Of course I'm an Open Source Initiative board member as well as a GNU supporter. When I can satisfy both groups, I do.
To be useful, this data has to be made into a binary form and also you have to reduce the data by smoothing points, throwing away irrelevant fields, etc. In its source form it is inpractically large: 4GB compressed text files. It's even larger uncompressed. Once that binary transformation happens, you want to be able to recover the data in source form. Thus, I am treating it as source and binary.
To make the GPL stick, I will make the data a component of a GPL-ed program and distribute it in that form.
Why make something public domain less _free_? (GPL _protects_ owner rights, public domain has no owners)
Many would tell you that the GPL protects everybody's rights. We want to add some value to the database. For example, I know of an unused dirt road that appears as a street in the database: that will be corrected. Indexing will be done, etc. Once we start adding value to this database, we don't want that added value, contributed by the community, to revert to the public domain when it could be GPL-ed.
Why a select few?
Those are the few who are getting free CDs. They are the groups that are in the best position to distribute the data to more people, cheaply.
www.cheapbytes.com sells Linux CD's for less than $3. Why can't you go for around $12 to anyone?
I will sell CDs, but probably for more than $12. Cheap*Bytes can sell CDs of the data for $12 if they want. My time is worth more than that.
Free software is a community effort, not a commercial effort.
Why not both? That is part of what we are trying to say in the Open Source Initiative.
The database usually is reduced to a machine-readable "binary" form for use. In text-file form, it's much too large to use practically (4GB _compressed_). So the "binary" provisions in the GPL did fit.
I am researching how to get topological and other data from the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey.
In the case of the TIGER/Line(R) database, I have taken a public-domain product and have assumed the copyright, for my particular instance of the data. Anyone who has $1500 to throw away (for the Government's costs under the Freedom of Information Act) can do this and choose their own license.
It happens that I can also distribute this same data under a commercial license, for the non-Open-Source crowd. It might be that I can use that strategy to recover my costs and finance the purchase of more data.
Free software contributors have to contend with those who don't have the intellectual tools to make a positive contribution, so they make a negative one just to have their voice heard.
I used to think I had a thick skin, but you need a really thick skin with this crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only person who thinks X should die and be replaced with a lightweight window system?
Bruce
I like the GPL because it is the preferred license of the GNU project as well as being Open Source(TM) compliant. Of course I'm an Open Source Initiative board member as well as a GNU supporter. When I can satisfy both groups, I do.
To be useful, this data has to be made into a binary form and also you have to reduce the data by smoothing points, throwing away irrelevant fields, etc. In its source form it is inpractically large: 4GB compressed text files. It's even larger uncompressed. Once that binary transformation happens, you want to be able to recover the data in source form. Thus, I am treating it as source and binary.
To make the GPL stick, I will make the data a component of a GPL-ed program and distribute it in that form.
Why make something public domain less _free_? (GPL _protects_ owner rights, public domain has no owners)
Many would tell you that the GPL protects everybody's rights. We want to add some value to the database. For example, I know of an unused dirt road that appears as a street in the database: that will be corrected. Indexing will be done, etc. Once we start adding value to this database, we don't want that added value, contributed by the community, to revert to the public domain when it could be GPL-ed.
Why a select few?
Those are the few who are getting free CDs. They are the groups that are in the best position to distribute the data to more people, cheaply.
www.cheapbytes.com sells Linux CD's for less than $3. Why can't you go for around $12 to anyone?
I will sell CDs, but probably for more than $12. Cheap*Bytes can sell CDs of the data for $12 if they want. My time is worth more than that.
Free software is a community effort, not a commercial effort.
Why not both? That is part of what we are trying to say in the Open Source Initiative.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
I am researching how to get topological and other data from the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey.
In the case of the TIGER/Line(R) database, I have taken a public-domain product and have assumed the copyright, for my particular instance of the data. Anyone who has $1500 to throw away (for the Government's costs under the Freedom of Information Act) can do this and choose their own license.
It happens that I can also distribute this same data under a commercial license, for the non-Open-Source crowd. It might be that I can use that strategy to recover my costs and finance the purchase of more data.
Thanks
Bruce
I used to think I had a thick skin, but you need a really thick skin with this crowd.
Bruce