Actually the mistake was assuming that Sun's Java, and hence OpenOffice so far as it requires Sun's Java, is Open Source. It is neither Free nor Open, to exactly that extent. That is the point.
Certainly agreed that Free Software is a subset of Open Source. However, Sun doesn't make either cut. If you go to OSI and check their list of Open Source licenses, you'll see that the Sun Community Source Licensing doesn't make the cut.
That's what Open Source is: developing software in an
open manner because of a belief that software developed this way is technologically better than closed-source software.
Well, bubba, Open Source is about more than just seeing the code, its about:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
This is much much more than "From a practical standpoint, it is sufficient that the tool or language meets the needs of the developers and is available on the required platforms, and does not appear to be a patent or other legal liability."
"More engineering, less philosophy." Obviously you are in need of some Marketing classes, and perhaps some Org Theory / Behavior. If it were just about engineering then Unix would have won hands down. Likewise for OS2, or even the Mac.
To suggest that the legal minefield which is the history of IP (sic) can be regulated to mere "philosophy" is blatently ignorant. Take a history class. Realize that business is about a lot more than just engineering. Your "reasonable, prgamatic" stance resembles an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Well, what if a group of people want their own private shared bookmarks with god only knows what modifications? Maybe for an intranet? Parents who only want to allow their children net access from a rather large set of bookmarks? This source code is their start.
In terms of your statement that "Users of the new service will not be able to take advantage of the network effect that del.icio.us already has going for it", you remind me of the quote about howt 5 computers should be enough for the US. Why would we want a dozen computers, for heaven's sake? I know I'm still wondering why we need more than a dozen different athletic shoes, let alone so many brands that each have way more than a dozen types, each.
Also missing: the facts:-) Its not the JVM. We have that already.
Kaffe is probably the oldest of all open source JVM projects. It is cleanroom implementation of JVM, which means no Sun proprietary JVM source code contamination. Until recently, it did not have JIT... One open source JVM implementation from IBM is Jikes Research Virtual Machine (Jikes RVM).
Rather, its the libraries that are still needed. Here is a link to the 14 JVM's using GNU Classpath
GNU Classpath, Essential Libraries for Java", is a GNU project to create free core class libraries for use with virtual machines and compilers for the java programming language.
But long term, the "practical, pragmatic decision" is obviously to "like (stop) using Java". Sun has Free Software in it's crosshairs. Why wait for the bullet to hit, to try to duck?
Gnumeric (especially considering R extensions) is by far the best spreadsheet currently out there. Nothing even comes close to R for MathStat. Its more stable, it works, and when AbiWord catches up the pair will be my prefered Office Suite.
I don't relate to personal blogs, either. But I see who does. There are freshman and sophmores at my Univ. who were blogging in highschool, and now that everyone has gone different directions to school, its the *main* way they keep in contact. Consider your life as that of a Soap Opera star, but you have to write the script. It ain't none of it true *until* you've blogged it, then its what just what you've blogged that's *true*.
Actually I was taught that science deals with the development of models whose value lay in the ability to make precise and repeatable predictions within the context of the boundaries of the model. This has nothing to do with "truth", but rather the ability of a model to generate a solution that when tested is found sufficent. I'd go so far as to say when you start *believing* the model, you've given up *science* for religion.
Actually those of us in the Physical Sciences (or at least my Dept Chair when I was in Physics) take issue with the lack of Scientific Methodology in the Natural Sciences. It has been demonstrated that evolution occurs today. That involved Scientific Methodolgy. But how does one run a doubleblind study on events that have already occured? You can't. (Likewise, those who take this position feel the same about the big bang "theory". How do you design an experiment to measure something that has already happened?)
Sorry Charlie...here in Kansas it was just a little while ago that legislation insisted that public schools not teach evolution. They also couldn't teach cosmology because the concept of a lifecyle for stars contradicted an eternal heavens. Similarly for platectonics. Sad.
Agreed. I grew up an hour north of SF (we consider ourselves both Bay Area and Redwood Empire) and my High School had a Religious Fellowship Club. We met and read our bibles, and prayed, and worshiped. The only legal requirement we had to meet was that we accepted *everyone*: Christian (any and all demoninations), Jew, Muslim, Wiccian, whatever. I've lived in Austin, TX. I'm attending school in the midwest. Big difference in tolerance. It is a recent occurance that I'd rather find out that my neighbors are not Christian, than Christian. In the midwest, the averages at least seem to indicate thats the way to find the better sort of people. Very sad.
On my way into the Physics dept. building I was offered a pocket-sized New Testament and Psalms. "Have you accepted Jesus?"
I told them I'd accept the bible if they'd accept the wave equation. The trouble is, anybody can put a bible in their hip pocket. Not everybody can get the wave equation. Its not just how *open* their mind is, its also how well it works. (I took the bible, and still have it.)
In my Organizatonal Theory of Behavior class last week the Prof. suggested that Fundamentalism was a form of Future Shock. Things change too fast (and it is accelerating) and people look back for simpler status ques. Many of the current "fundie" churchs splintered after disagrements re: archeology. Many christians were looking forward to it confirming "the truth", which lead to "the inerrency of the bible" as a backlash (when it didn't). Likewise the insistance on the original KJV (not the revised!) when bibles such as the NIV use better sources. They are Future (shell) Shocked.
Cultures of inclusion vs. cultures of exclusion...
Those who expouse tolerance have trouble tolerating those who expouse intolerance. Contradiction? Well, in a diverse world, tolerance can lead to peace. Intolerance is much less likely to be sustainable.
Miguel and Novell legal staff are currently conducting a formal patent review of mono, and the team had already split up the components of mono into separate ECMA-based and non-ECMA components (WinForms, ADO.NET, etc) to clearly define what RedHat and others could make use of. Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components of.NET.
Slashdot Mirror
AbiWord, Gnumeric (and R-Gnumeric, and R for that matter), Koffice (and Kile, and Kate), Octave, LyX, TeXmacs, etc., are the solution, yes!
Sorry. Nope. Bad e.g., because:
Please someone mod the parent down or the replies explaining the legal fallacy up. Its wrong for a fallacy to be "insightful".
Actually the mistake was assuming that Sun's Java, and hence OpenOffice so far as it requires Sun's Java, is Open Source. It is neither Free nor Open, to exactly that extent. That is the point.
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
This is much much more than "From a practical standpoint, it is sufficient that the tool or language meets the needs of the developers and is available on the required platforms, and does not appear to be a patent or other legal liability."
"More engineering, less philosophy." Obviously you are in need of some Marketing classes, and perhaps some Org Theory / Behavior. If it were just about engineering then Unix would have won hands down. Likewise for OS2, or even the Mac.
To suggest that the legal minefield which is the history of IP (sic) can be regulated to mere "philosophy" is blatently ignorant. Take a history class. Realize that business is about a lot more than just engineering. Your "reasonable, prgamatic" stance resembles an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Well, what if a group of people want their own private shared bookmarks with god only knows what modifications? Maybe for an intranet? Parents who only want to allow their children net access from a rather large set of bookmarks? This source code is their start.
In terms of your statement that "Users of the new service will not be able to take advantage of the network effect that del.icio.us already has going for it", you remind me of the quote about howt 5 computers should be enough for the US. Why would we want a dozen computers, for heaven's sake? I know I'm still wondering why we need more than a dozen different athletic shoes, let alone so many brands that each have way more than a dozen types, each.
Its not the JVM. We have that already. Rather, its the libraries that are still needed. Here is a link to the 14 JVM's using GNU Classpath
But long term, the "practical, pragmatic decision" is obviously to "like (stop) using Java". Sun has Free Software in it's crosshairs. Why wait for the bullet to hit, to try to duck?
Gnumeric (especially considering R extensions) is by far the best spreadsheet currently out there. Nothing even comes close to R for MathStat. Its more stable, it works, and when AbiWord catches up the pair will be my prefered Office Suite.
Uh...sorry...but appeal to tradition is by definition a logical fallacy.
Indeed. What you are describing is the Strawman Fallacy.
I don't relate to personal blogs, either. But I see who does. There are freshman and sophmores at my Univ. who were blogging in highschool, and now that everyone has gone different directions to school, its the *main* way they keep in contact. Consider your life as that of a Soap Opera star, but you have to write the script. It ain't none of it true *until* you've blogged it, then its what just what you've blogged that's *true*.
All I want is an iPod/iPaq/HP-48 that runs GNU Emacs!
Actually I was taught that science deals with the development of models whose value lay in the ability to make precise and repeatable predictions within the context of the boundaries of the model. This has nothing to do with "truth", but rather the ability of a model to generate a solution that when tested is found sufficent. I'd go so far as to say when you start *believing* the model, you've given up *science* for religion.
Actually those of us in the Physical Sciences (or at least my Dept Chair when I was in Physics) take issue with the lack of Scientific Methodology in the Natural Sciences. It has been demonstrated that evolution occurs today. That involved Scientific Methodolgy. But how does one run a doubleblind study on events that have already occured? You can't. (Likewise, those who take this position feel the same about the big bang "theory". How do you design an experiment to measure something that has already happened?)
Sorry Charlie...here in Kansas it was just a little while ago that legislation insisted that public schools not teach evolution. They also couldn't teach cosmology because the concept of a lifecyle for stars contradicted an eternal heavens. Similarly for platectonics. Sad.
Agreed. I grew up an hour north of SF (we consider ourselves both Bay Area and Redwood Empire) and my High School had a Religious Fellowship Club. We met and read our bibles, and prayed, and worshiped. The only legal requirement we had to meet was that we accepted *everyone*: Christian (any and all demoninations), Jew, Muslim, Wiccian, whatever. I've lived in Austin, TX. I'm attending school in the midwest. Big difference in tolerance. It is a recent occurance that I'd rather find out that my neighbors are not Christian, than Christian. In the midwest, the averages at least seem to indicate thats the way to find the better sort of people. Very sad.
On my way into the Physics dept. building I was offered a pocket-sized New Testament and Psalms. "Have you accepted Jesus?"
I told them I'd accept the bible if they'd accept the wave equation. The trouble is, anybody can put a bible in their hip pocket. Not everybody can get the wave equation. Its not just how *open* their mind is, its also how well it works. (I took the bible, and still have it.)
In my Organizatonal Theory of Behavior class last week the Prof. suggested that Fundamentalism was a form of Future Shock. Things change too fast (and it is accelerating) and people look back for simpler status ques. Many of the current "fundie" churchs splintered after disagrements re: archeology. Many christians were looking forward to it confirming "the truth", which lead to "the inerrency of the bible" as a backlash (when it didn't). Likewise the insistance on the original KJV (not the revised!) when bibles such as the NIV use better sources. They are Future (shell) Shocked.
Cultures of inclusion vs. cultures of exclusion...
Those who expouse tolerance have trouble tolerating those who expouse intolerance. Contradiction? Well, in a diverse world, tolerance can lead to peace. Intolerance is much less likely to be sustainable.
Nets? Pits? What ever happened to good old fashioned $$$ ?
For Horatiu Nastase's paper in pdf format: Title: The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole
Mono Developer Meeting