I covered Wiki in a document I wrote about an intellegent translation system last November, the organic nature is something that I beleive I have fairly well covered:
Neologisms for neologisms sake are a pain though. While I believe firmly in the organic nature of English (otherwise I'd still be writing with long and short s) I do dislike 'management talk' and suchlike because I feel that there are existing descriptive words covering the same subject. So by creating redundant words you can cliche the rest.
But ultimately most of the people that object strongly to overtly bad grammar and neologisms are the same people who 'had a go at' the great writers of our time. The writers having filled holes existing in their contemporary language by changing, bending and creating new rules. The pedants are the kind of people that extract some kind of self esteem from the minor foibles of others. Ideal teacher material I imagine.
The same people probably objected to all kinds of things and all.
An OSS based buisness is like any other business that focuses on services, the fact is that if you don't cover out going expenses with commercial work (note: not code) such as services, documentation and consulting, your code will get stuck and your developers will be on rations.
So I don't see it as any different from any other consulting or services business, I think the problem comes when boxed products are thrown into the mix. But the it's chicken and the egg, covering development costs needs a good turnover, but only if you want it done on a commercial timescale.
I've always wondered if the best bet would be to turn developement over to a educational sector and fund them through commercial business. That way you'd have a ready pool of good recruits and the company could concentrate on selling and promotion of the services provided on the educational establishments development plinth. A lot of government projects work in a similar way - look at SE-Linux.
But I don't see Redhat or any of these companies as different from those selling any other product. You can get the same product elsewhere but Redhat has factors that differentiate them from others, the code is free - but so what, most people aren't bothered about the underlying code, they are more bothered about what it can do for them and what the company that provided it can do for them over the companies competitors. Provided they can out market and provide cost advantages over the competitors Redhat and others should do well.
I'd disagree with the statement that only a government has the power to deprive you of life, liberty, property, etc. I think the overlap between government and buisness is such that either can deprive you of freedoms, not nessisarily your life but certainly your liberty. Getting tied up in a court case over a cease and desist order from a private company is a pretty quick way of most of the above (if you can't afford the legal fees) bar life.
They are maybe not as different as you think depending on context. However both liberal and libertarian has radically different meanings 100 years ago;-), particularly the word liberal which in the UK was largely used to denote a political methodology revolving around the free market, non government involvement in buisness and the day to day running of peoples lives (the main political party during the Victorian years was the Liberal party). Whilst libertarian (IIRC) pertains to liberty or liberalism depending on the context.
Interesting, but who's law are the companies governed by? The State's law and Fedral law. Therefore are the company working within State law and therefore is the State reponsible? If you see my point;-) are the State enforcing by proxy by setting the boundaries (or goal posts as we say on this side of the Atlantic) of the law itself and allowing companies to conduct themselves in such a way? If they make the law or have influence over the justice system.
Can a company be considered wrong when they operate within the laws of the land but against the standard set for government?
I actually agree with you 100% and don't think that this thing is a big deal, but I also think it is complicated;-).
Interesting, but I don't buy it. Why? [Disclaimer: I'm from the UK so my US history is a little poor - but I do make the effort;-)] Wasn't it Tom Paine who said something like the one of the governments tasks should be to stop individuals and companies pressing unnecisary restrictiona on individuals? I thought that [a bit later] a big part of the Civil War was about stopping people doing that.
I think the only piece of moral high ground his employer has is that he signed a contract of his own free will. Which rules out most of my above arguement... Oh well;-) and slavery is an extreme example, but then these are less extreme times.
Surely code is a written expression of human thought and therefor should be protected by theUS Constitution? Or does that only count for academic papers and books (sic crypto)?
The only way that anyone from a vending machine cleaner to a managing director stays current is through re-training. Re-training doesn't always mean college or university, often people don't pop to their local library and pick up a 'Windows for Dummies' or even learn the basics of what a computer actually is. I'm not saying that there are not mitigating factors and I'm not saying that there isn't an excuse. But the fact is from the industrial revolution to today people have had to shift skill sets and move with the market.
It's the nature of things, one door closes and another opens. My 83 year old grandmother has learnt how to email and use the net so its possible up to a quite considerable age. Who is the oldest computer/internet/slashdot user?
Re:Well I would you steal a commercial programs co
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Well thanks for the correction. Although the thanks are reaching. You could just have a lack of mental capacity to fill in others mistakes 'in your head' and feel the need to spout off about it. I wonder? I shall not commit more time to this other than this reply.
You sir are a sad pedant that should get out more.
Between 1945 and 1949 the major threat that was presented to the allies was a Soviet conventional attack. In 1949 the Soviet Union got the bomb and this created a kind of stalemate.
China is however not sealed from the outside, a large ammount of her income is from exports. In a nutshell we are too integrated for war.
These days a large army is prefferable for defence and conventional attack. But don't confuse these with modern warfare and don't forget that the US is a lynchpin for the West. If China were to invade the US the earths crust would probably crumble from the number of nuclear exchanges.
So we'll probably be in stalemate for a few decades yet... bar Chinas weapons developement overtaking the wests and no Chinese internal rebellion.
Re:A consultant would be pissed.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
I don't doubt that he'd be pissed off and I'm not defending piracy (which is what this is). My point was that closed-source has more to fear from this kind of thing. Read the the other posts, I explain what I meant. I should have thought further before hitting the send button. But that's life..;-).
Re:Yes, I know about legal fees
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
How do Free Software authors operate, what are their motivations?
How does 'shared source' operate, what is Microsoft's motivation?
Who has the most to lose from someone ripping off their code?
If a GPL'd program is ripped off, the author is pissed off, the FSF is up in arms and the Free Software community vocally makes this point clear. Microsoft is ripped off and they lose part of what their business is based upon, the monopoly to supply a product.
See my point? Who has less to lose? A pissed of programmer or a the company that may have to lay people off, split stock and change strategy to cope?
I can understand a 'project' in its entirety, such as Apache, having more to lose, but your average individual Free Software author has far less and has the odds stacked in their favor with the support of the FSF and tens of thousands of Free Software advocates.
Re:They may not be doing it for the income
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
I'm also a GPL author, GPL has provided me with the cheapest way of imposing intellectual rights and stamping my name on some original ideas without having to set up a company and market it!
I'm not suggesting that people rip of other peoples code, that is wrong any time. What I am saying is that Free software (note not OpenSource) has lot less to lose than the companies that rely solely on the IP rights of their products and the ensuing protectionism.
Have you any idea how much legal fees are? My solicitor charges about 10 times what my dentist charges, and thats saying something;-).
Well I would you steal a commercial programs code?
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
For me this is a huge inditement of Microsofts shared source and commercial licenses for code. Why? Well, if you rip of GPL'led code the authors while annoyed if they knew, are not going to be saddened by the loss of income. The bulk of them make money on the packaging, sponsorship, their day jobs or consulting related to the product.
Now 'shared source', and companies that provide Perl/PHP/JSP code with a commercial license *would* loose income! They don't have any more magic reverse engineering tools than the open source community.
What you're company is doing is morally very wrong but I don't think it'll kill the GPL as a license but it could have an impact on other ideas such as 'Shared Source'.
The 1960 campus riots (if you remember a few got shot), the Republican conference in the late 1960's, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the suffragette riot of 1908, the 1735 corn price riot (Leeds England), 15th December 1867 Fenian riots (Ireland), 1920s black rights riots etc. etc.
Its not often that they are justified, but I'll think you'll find that occationally they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I covered Wiki in a document I wrote about an intellegent translation system last November, the organic nature is something that I beleive I have fairly well covered:
http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/cdf/
Neologisms for neologisms sake are a pain though. While I believe firmly in the organic nature of English (otherwise I'd still be writing with long and short s) I do dislike 'management talk' and suchlike because I feel that there are existing descriptive words covering the same subject. So by creating redundant words you can cliche the rest.
But ultimately most of the people that object strongly to overtly bad grammar and neologisms are the same people who 'had a go at' the great writers of our time. The writers having filled holes existing in their contemporary language by changing, bending and creating new rules. The pedants are the kind of people that extract some kind of self esteem from the minor foibles of others. Ideal teacher material I imagine.
The same people probably objected to all kinds of things and all.
An OSS based buisness is like any other business that focuses on services, the fact is that if you don't cover out going expenses with commercial work (note: not code) such as services, documentation and consulting, your code will get stuck and your developers will be on rations.
So I don't see it as any different from any other consulting or services business, I think the problem comes when boxed products are thrown into the mix. But the it's chicken and the egg, covering development costs needs a good turnover, but only if you want it done on a commercial timescale.
I've always wondered if the best bet would be to turn developement over to a educational sector and fund them through commercial business. That way you'd have a ready pool of good recruits and the company could concentrate on selling and promotion of the services provided on the educational establishments development plinth. A lot of government projects work in a similar way - look at SE-Linux.
But I don't see Redhat or any of these companies as different from those selling any other product. You can get the same product elsewhere but Redhat has factors that differentiate them from others, the code is free - but so what, most people aren't bothered about the underlying code, they are more bothered about what it can do for them and what the company that provided it can do for them over the companies competitors. Provided they can out market and provide cost advantages over the competitors Redhat and others should do well.
What about civil court cases and debt collection agencies?
I know they don't have the power, but they they have the powers vested in them.
I'd disagree with the statement that only a government has the power to deprive you of life, liberty, property, etc. I think the overlap between government and buisness is such that either can deprive you of freedoms, not nessisarily your life but certainly your liberty. Getting tied up in a court case over a cease and desist order from a private company is a pretty quick way of most of the above (if you can't afford the legal fees) bar life.
They are maybe not as different as you think depending on context. However both liberal and libertarian has radically different meanings 100 years ago ;-), particularly the word liberal which in the UK was largely used to denote a political methodology revolving around the free market, non government involvement in buisness and the day to day running of peoples lives (the main political party during the Victorian years was the Liberal party). Whilst libertarian (IIRC) pertains to liberty or liberalism depending on the context.
Interesting, but who's law are the companies governed by? The State's law and Fedral law. Therefore are the company working within State law and therefore is the State reponsible? If you see my point ;-) are the State enforcing by proxy by setting the boundaries (or goal posts as we say on this side of the Atlantic) of the law itself and allowing companies to conduct themselves in such a way? If they make the law or have influence over the justice system.
;-).
Can a company be considered wrong when they operate within the laws of the land but against the standard set for government?
I actually agree with you 100% and don't think that this thing is a big deal, but I also think it is complicated
Heh. Look up liberal in a good dictionary, I think you'll see how the term has perverted over the years.
Interesting, but I don't buy it. Why? [Disclaimer: I'm from the UK so my US history is a little poor - but I do make the effort ;-)] Wasn't it Tom Paine who said something like the one of the governments tasks should be to stop individuals and companies pressing unnecisary restrictiona on individuals? I thought that [a bit later] a big part of the Civil War was about stopping people doing that.
;-) and slavery is an extreme example, but then these are less extreme times.
I think the only piece of moral high ground his employer has is that he signed a contract of his own free will. Which rules out most of my above arguement... Oh well
Surely code is a written expression of human thought and therefor should be protected by theUS Constitution? Or does that only count for academic papers and books (sic crypto)?
Surely we all have the right to free expression?
Well, good luck and a change is as good as a rest ;-).
If they are not suffering from RSI due to cheap internet access...
Heh.
The only way that anyone from a vending machine cleaner to a managing director stays current is through re-training. Re-training doesn't always mean college or university, often people don't pop to their local library and pick up a 'Windows for Dummies' or even learn the basics of what a computer actually is. I'm not saying that there are not mitigating factors and I'm not saying that there isn't an excuse. But the fact is from the industrial revolution to today people have had to shift skill sets and move with the market.
It's the nature of things, one door closes and another opens. My 83 year old grandmother has learnt how to email and use the net so its possible up to a quite considerable age. Who is the oldest computer/internet/slashdot user?
Well thanks for the correction. Although the thanks are reaching. You could just have a lack of mental capacity to fill in others mistakes 'in your head' and feel the need to spout off about it. I wonder? I shall not commit more time to this other than this reply.
You sir are a sad pedant that should get out more.
Between 1945 and 1949 the major threat that was presented to the allies was a Soviet conventional attack. In 1949 the Soviet Union got the bomb and this created a kind of stalemate.
... bar Chinas weapons developement overtaking the wests and no Chinese internal rebellion.
China is however not sealed from the outside, a large ammount of her income is from exports. In a nutshell we are too integrated for war.
These days a large army is prefferable for defence and conventional attack. But don't confuse these with modern warfare and don't forget that the US is a lynchpin for the West. If China were to invade the US the earths crust would probably crumble from the number of nuclear exchanges.
So we'll probably be in stalemate for a few decades yet
I don't doubt that he'd be pissed off and I'm not defending piracy (which is what this is). My point was that closed-source has more to fear from this kind of thing. Read the the other posts, I explain what I meant. I should have thought further before hitting the send button. But that's life.. ;-).
How do Free Software authors operate, what are their motivations?
How does 'shared source' operate, what is Microsoft's motivation?
Who has the most to lose from someone ripping off their code?
If a GPL'd program is ripped off, the author is pissed off, the FSF is up in arms and the Free Software community vocally makes this point clear. Microsoft is ripped off and they lose part of what their business is based upon, the monopoly to supply a product.
See my point? Who has less to lose? A pissed of programmer or a the company that may have to lay people off, split stock and change strategy to cope?
I can understand a 'project' in its entirety, such as Apache, having more to lose, but your average individual Free Software author has far less and has the odds stacked in their favor with the support of the FSF and tens of thousands of Free Software advocates.
I'm also a GPL author, GPL has provided me with the cheapest way of imposing intellectual rights and stamping my name on some original ideas without having to set up a company and market it!
;-).
I'm not suggesting that people rip of other peoples code, that is wrong any time. What I am saying is that Free software (note not OpenSource) has lot less to lose than the companies that rely solely on the IP rights of their products and the ensuing protectionism.
Have you any idea how much legal fees are? My solicitor charges about 10 times what my dentist charges, and thats saying something
For me this is a huge inditement of Microsofts shared source and commercial licenses for code. Why? Well, if you rip of GPL'led code the authors while annoyed if they knew, are not going to be saddened by the loss of income. The bulk of them make money on the packaging, sponsorship, their day jobs or consulting related to the product.
Now 'shared source', and companies that provide Perl/PHP/JSP code with a commercial license *would* loose income! They don't have any more magic reverse engineering tools than the open source community.
What you're company is doing is morally very wrong but I don't think it'll kill the GPL as a license but it could have an impact on other ideas such as 'Shared Source'.
Yeah, could be so. I don't think things like this will stop demonstration anyway, it'll just change forms to suit.
True, but will they use slime more readily because it rarely kills people?
I've noted something similar in the past (but far worse).
Thanks, I'm from the UK and apart from the Revolution and Civil War my American history is pretty poor ;-).
What about the 1867 Fenian riots in Ireland?
What about the 1920's black riots in areas of heavy segregation?
What about the 1908 Suffragette riot?
The American revolution (many riots before it really kicked off)?
Wrong because they involved force?
The 1960 campus riots (if you remember a few got shot), the Republican conference in the late 1960's, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the suffragette riot of 1908, the 1735 corn price riot (Leeds England), 15th December 1867 Fenian riots (Ireland), 1920s black rights riots etc. etc.
Its not often that they are justified, but I'll think you'll find that occationally they are.