TCL can run untrusted code too. It also runs on more platforms than Java. There are TCL plugins for browsers and you can even bury TCL/TK in your C/C++ programs to do gui and event work -- making your source almost 100% retargetable with very little hassle. They also have a HUGE amount of extensions from DB to networking.
And the source is there. www.scriptics.com
Check it out, dude.
P.S. I'm sure I'm missing other languages (Perl maybe?) but I'm too lazy to check.
You can simulate many more lights by overlapping the lights you do have.
Think of it as having 100 lights all over the place but choosing the 8 that makes the biggest impact on the polygon. Since most objects and groups of objects exhibit a lot of lighting coherence, you probably wouldn't even notice the subtler lighting discrepancies.
Anyway, when copyright law was created, it was done to give people the impetus to create, secure in knowing that they would have the chance to benefit from their own work. It's what IP is all about. People want and need to own their creations, especially ones that take a nontrivial amount of effort to accomplish.
I'm not saying don't use GPL or BSD. That's your choice as the developer. And that's the crux. If you do away with the concept of ownership, then you can no more say "this is MY code and YOU can't distribute it without providing the source" than you can say "this is MY code and YOU can only have the binary."
BSD was set back because there was contention with code from AT&T. BSD was based on AT&T code and as such, AT&T would not allow their code to be widely disseminated (at least in the way BSD'ers wanted). This required a major rewrite of the BSD's innards. It turned a lot of people off because the BSD's code base was not stable.
ASIDE: A lot of the original BSD work was sponsored by gov't and university funding. In the case of gov't funding, its illegal to put any restrictions on the code.
The other point you're missing is that BSD'ed code can't be "harmed." The entire goal of the licensing that way is to spread the code far and wide. If you as a programmer can use unencumbered code in your projects then go for you. If a company uses the code and sells it to someone willing to pay for it, then go for them. If a user gets a more stable commercial app because of it, then good for the user.
GPL proponents think the original code is some how diminished when it gets closed up. The original code is still there for all to enjoy. Additionally, a company would have to work pretty damn hard to make their closed version more enticing than the free and community supported version. (Really, which would you choose?) If they pull it off, then they deserve their money.
The last point IMHO is that many people adopt the GPL to protect themselves from Microsoft. Really, the only way to protect your code from someone who really wants to take it is to not distribute source at all. In that regard, BSD coders are realists. They know someone will misuse the code.
Who says selling an end user a binary only distro is a bad thing? If that's my terms for distro and the end user could care less about the source, then what's the problem?
Sure you should choose the license that makes sense for you. But choosing GPL because of these ethical (and subjective), IMHO is a flawed judgement.
PHB's don't like to be questioned about their choices. Especially when they're convinced that all this talk about Linux is hype. Sure Linux is stable and fast, and you can purchase service contracts and such. But how is that much better than Digital Unix or SunOS? Those OS's are a far cry from NT. If you're systems would be substantially faster and more stable on Linux than on the other two Unix's, then your IS staff should be fired. Otherwise, if it ain't really broke, don't fix it. 'Cause if it goes wrong, its yo' ass.
What I see happening is that over the next year or two, after all the jockeying for position by the big commercial interests (ie IBM, Corel, etc.) you'll see PHB's coming around. Usually it takes PHB's that long to decide to upgrade. Then maybe you can make a point.
Slashdot Mirror
TCL can run untrusted code too. It also runs on more platforms than Java. There are TCL plugins for browsers and you can even bury TCL/TK in your C/C++ programs to do gui and event work -- making your source almost 100% retargetable with very little hassle. They also have a HUGE amount of extensions from DB to networking.
And the source is there. www.scriptics.com
Check it out, dude.
P.S. I'm sure I'm missing other languages (Perl maybe?) but I'm too lazy to check.
You can simulate many more lights by overlapping the lights you do have.
Think of it as having 100 lights all over the place but choosing the 8 that makes the biggest impact on the polygon. Since most objects and groups of objects exhibit a lot of lighting coherence, you probably wouldn't even notice the subtler lighting discrepancies.
First item. Plain as day. You can't change the copyright.
Didn't DEC demonstrate an Alpha system doing
near real time ray-tracing? I think it was
around the time the Compaq merger was finalized.
Man I wish I had the link.
Anyway, when copyright law was created, it was done to give people the impetus to create, secure in knowing that they would have the chance to benefit from their own work. It's what IP is all about. People want and need to own their creations, especially ones that take a nontrivial amount of effort to accomplish.
I'm not saying don't use GPL or BSD. That's your choice as the developer. And that's the crux. If you do away with the concept of ownership, then you can no more say "this is MY code and YOU can't distribute it without providing the source" than you can say "this is MY code and YOU can only have the binary."
BSD was set back because there was contention with code from AT&T. BSD was based on AT&T code and as such, AT&T would not allow their code to be widely disseminated (at least in the way BSD'ers wanted).
This required a major rewrite of the BSD's innards. It turned a lot of people off because the BSD's code base was not stable.
ASIDE: A lot of the original BSD work was sponsored by gov't and university funding. In the case of gov't funding, its illegal to put any restrictions on the code.
The other point you're missing is that BSD'ed code can't be "harmed." The entire goal of the licensing that way is to spread the code far and wide. If you as a programmer can use unencumbered code in your projects then go for you. If a company uses the code and sells it to someone willing to pay for it, then go for them. If a user gets a more stable commercial app because of it, then good for the user.
GPL proponents think the original code is some how diminished when it gets closed up. The original code is still there for all to enjoy. Additionally, a company would have to work pretty damn hard to make their closed version more enticing than the free and community supported version. (Really, which would you choose?) If they pull it off, then they deserve their money.
The last point IMHO is that many people adopt the GPL to protect themselves from Microsoft. Really, the only way to protect your code from someone who really wants to take it is to not distribute source at all. In that regard, BSD coders are realists. They know someone will misuse the code.
Who says selling an end user a binary only distro is a bad thing? If that's my terms for distro and the end user could care less about the source, then what's the problem?
Sure you should choose the license that makes sense for you. But choosing GPL because of these ethical (and subjective), IMHO is a flawed judgement.
Theo
PHB's don't like to be questioned about their choices. Especially when they're convinced that all this talk about Linux is hype. Sure Linux is stable and fast, and you can purchase service contracts and such. But how is that much better than Digital Unix or SunOS? Those OS's are a far cry from NT. If you're systems would be substantially faster and more stable on Linux than on the other two Unix's, then your IS staff should be fired. Otherwise, if it ain't really broke, don't fix it. 'Cause if it goes wrong, its yo' ass.
What I see happening is that over the next year or two, after all the jockeying for position by the big commercial interests (ie IBM, Corel, etc.) you'll see PHB's coming around. Usually it takes PHB's that long to decide to upgrade. Then maybe you can make a point.