Open source/format is such a misunderstood term. By extension, it is believed that this means a completely democratic, transparent, and even collegiate collaborative development environment.
Open source tends to mean that. Open formats means well defined data formats, which is far, far more important. Open formats guarantee interoperability and access to your data. Open source can lead to that as well, but it's a rather indirect route to get there.
Increasingly, it means "using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck" Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.
Open source is irrelevant for most people. Everyone benefits from open formats - unless you're in a position like Microsoft, and have a monopoly built around closed formats.
or people who only like BSD-style licenses because they think that when code is freely given to them it means they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer (and then claim that the GPL is stealing the food off their children's tables).
You're a tad off there. The claim generally isn't "they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer". Very few people have any objections to the wishes of the original developer.
The claim is if you're putting restrictions on how the code can be reused, it isn't really free, so you shouldn't be calling it that. Unless you believe the code itself is an entity with rights and needs to be protected from slavery or something like that.
How it is that people assume that it is a matter of oil, when the oil producing nations are the ones which end up with windfall profits is beyond me.
That comes down to two things:
1) The reasons for war given were questionable at the start, and ended up being completely off. Oil is the most valuable thing to us that Iraq has, hence the assumption. Also remember, gaining more control over the supply of oil might be worth paying more for it. Don't just think current price, think future price.
2) When the US installed the new government in Iraq, they privatized many things that were previously run by the government. Many of which were sold to US based companies.
Actors, directors, producers, and the like are all payed based on the total revenue a movie makes. Whether the money comes from theaters vs retail sales doesn't factor in much, it's the bottom line number that sets the budget. Individual people may have bonuses based on box office sales, but the overall budget is based on box office profit + retail profit.
As for the people being paid salary, where do you think that money comes from? Again, the bottom line, box office profit + retail profit.
If you shrink either box office or retail profit, the resulting budget cuts will affect everyone involved. Do you really think retail sales don't affect the budgets of movies?
(Feel free to add merchandising and other misc revenue streams into the budget talks as you wish, it expands on my point)
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
2) The free software movement is based on the idea that anyone receiving software should inherently be entitled to the full source so that the software can be recreated exactly, however, there is no justification as to why software should receive this treatment when there are no expectations that other types of products should.
Pardon me? No justification? It is the same justification that is valid for each and every product: The copyright.
So you're now trying to claim that everything copyrighted (not just software) should come with all the information necessary for you to exactly duplicate it? At least it's consistent, unlike the FSF. Again though, you haven't really given a reason why this should be so, considering copyright law is designed completely counter to that.
Btw., you are mixing here free software movement with the special case of the GPL. BSD is also part of the free software movement, but noone needs to give his sources away.
Free Software generally means GPL. Doesn't have to, but the FSF (you know, the people who invented the term and got all this started) would prefer anything other than the GPL didn't exist, and generally imply not GPL = not free unless they have to admit otherwise.
When it comes to copyright, the copyright holder is entitled to choose how he likes to license his work. He may demand money, he may demand a friendly postcard, he may demand that you heed the demands within the GPL. You don't like it? Too bad for you. I don't like to pay for software. Too bad for me. I don't use commercial software, you please keep your greedy little hands from GPL software.
That's all fine and dandy. And still completely in agreement with what I've been saying. You keep arguing with me, but not actually responding to my points. Again... the free software movement as a whole, and especially the FSF, acts as if it is a basic human right that all software should be free software, and anything else is a severe rights violation. That's the fundamental idea that drives the entire free software movement. Why should software be treated differently than anything else? Shouldn't it be that the author gets to choose whatever terms they want, and everyone respects that?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
Hey, over here you're making sense. But again...
The point of this has nothing to do with enforcing the GPL. If you're working with GPL'd code, of course you should abide by the GPL.
The FSF acts like "free software" is a moral issue, with key rights at stake. They believe all software should be GPL, and we are losing our freedom otherwise. However, they do no provide any justification as to why software should be treated any different than anything else, nor do they provide any reason to believe that they think their rules should apply to anything but software.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
You are definitely and without a doubt a troll. But fine, have it your way. You know that PostgreSQL is BSD? Most BDS is free? No free enough? Public Domain? Ok, from now on all public domain software belongs to me. Noone is allowed to use any public domain software withougt paying me $$$$. Noone is allowed anymore to say that there is a single piece of public domain software, which was not written by me. I can not do this? Hey, public domain limits my freedom. You call this 'free software'? Ridiculous.
I'm sure I'm being trolled here, but what are you rambling about? What that supposed to mean anything, or be in response to something? Did you have a little too much to drink or something?
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
Now you're are least speaking coherently, but not really paying attention. That has nothing to do with the conversation here. No one is disputing what the GPL says.
The claims being made are:
1) The definition of "free" used in "free software" isn't a definition most people would expect (as evidenced by the fact that any introduction to free software has a length intro on how they define the word free)
2) The free software movement is based on the idea that anyone receiving software should inherently be entitled to the full source so that the software can be recreated exactly, however, there is no justification as to why software should receive this treatment when there are no expectations that other types of products should.
Your post, when readable, is simply setting up some pretty bad strawmen to tear down.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
When you buy a car, do you expect to be given the specifications to manufacturer a new engine identical to the original? Or the other parts of the car?
Do you expect your home electronics to come with circuit diagrams detailing every part and connection?
Do you expect your CPU to come with the code used to create it?
Do you expect your music CDs to come with sheet music?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code.
This is the usual troll interpretation. An intelligent person knows that freedom can only be seen in a context. The BSD license might give a developer/company greater freedom, but allows to take freedom from the end user. The GPL limits more the freedom of the developers/companies, but makes sure that the end user's freedom is not further limited.
"Freedom = no limitations" is a troll? Funny, I always thought that's what most people thought it meant. You really need to be drinking the right Kool Aid to think otherwise.
As for taking freedom from the user... in what other industry do you expect a manufacturer to provide the full source to their products? You don't expect your car or refrigerator to come with the details to create your own replacement parts from scratch, do you?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
You are restricted from locking up code, you are restricted from giving others less freedom than you received. This way the original freedoms are always preserved.
As long as the original code is available, others have the same freedom you do.
If you copy an mp3 and do whatever you want with it, you haven't deprived the RIAA of a song. If you copy code and modify it, you haven't deprived anyone of any code.
In some sense of the word, GIMP cannot legally be placed under GPL, because it is not possible to put "the entire work" under GPL: portions of GIMP will link against Windows.DLL's, and those.DLL's aren't GPL'd.
The GPL has an exception for dependencies on libraries that are distributed as part of the operating system. I've often wondered where the line is drawn on that. Back when Qt was distributed under the QPL instead of the GPL, was it really a license violation for a GPL app to link against it? Almost every Linux distro in existence shipped with Qt, so you could consider it part of the OS.
"BLOBisation" is either no problem at all (legally *OR* philosophically) or already illegal by the GPLv2 (even though companies like Nvidia and ATI ignore this).
That's rather debatable. Linus and others seem to believe its fine in certain cases.
Linus's explanation goes something like this: * The GPL covers code that is explicitly written under the GPL, or is created as a derived work of code covered under the GPL. * Nvidia's interface to the Linux kernel is a derived work of the kernel, and distributed under the GPL. * The part of Nvidia's Linux drivers that actually deals with the hardware is derived work of Nvidia's Windows drivers. (NVidia uses a common codebase for all their drivers, and the Windows drivers came first) As such, Nvidia has the rights to license the code as they please.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The other thing that I find annoying but you didn't mention is the hypocrisy of people who complain that the GPL restricts their potential actions more than BSD. So what? One doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
The hypocrisy is in the GPL camp. They go around claiming their code is the ultimate in freedom, yet there are conditions attached. Most people don't really consider that to be free.
If they pulled a Microsoft and used a name like Shared Source instead of Free Software, there wouldn't be any complaints.
The simple fact that the first thing on the FSF site is a link to a 3 page essay explaining that when they say Free it doesn't mean what you probably think it means should tip you off that something is wrong with their approach.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The GPL protects the rights of the code, because as you know, code doesn't like to be enslaved and forced to work in proprietary software.
As to the people who want to use the code, they are irrelevant. Their rights end where the rights of the code begins.
Honestly, what do you expect from a license that first requires you to read up on why the word free doesn't mean what you would think it means before you can understand it?
2011 is probably right for the next Wii. Nintendo consistently releases their consoles 5 years apart, and the Wii was 2006. Also note that Nintendo's forecast of 35 million Wii sales goes through 2011.
There are tens of thousands of instances of government not working that are in the news every year, doesn't matter if it's democrats or republicans in charge.
Your comment just prompted the following thought:
Ever think about how many things they do get right? Remember, something is only news if it's out of the ordinary.
Information is also stored and communicated using hard disks. Do you expect the manufacturer to therefore give you the information necessary to build your own replica of their hard disks?
But then, the microwave doesn't make the food recipe secret just but heating your food in it. Those items that you mention cannot be compared with software. What analogies would you use for your work products stored in secret-format files that you cannot use with competitors' products without them doing a lot of reverse engineering?
Your argument is about data formats, not software. Very, very, different things.
No, you don't. If you release any code under the GPL, any user is granted rights to that code. Regardless of what crap you think. If you release "your" code under the GPL, I have full rights to modify, distribute or sell the code I got from you.
Not quite right. You have rights to distribute, but not full rights. The author can distribute however he wants, however, receipts have some strings attached, so it's not full rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Alten8, GameCock, O3
Nintendo promised cheaper dev kits to licensed developers. They never said anything about the general public.
You're forgetting that RPGs sell more copies in Japan than they do in the rest of the world combined.
The 360 is a lot less attractive when you factor that in.
Open source/format is such a misunderstood term. By extension, it is believed that this means a completely democratic, transparent, and even collegiate collaborative development environment.
Open source tends to mean that. Open formats means well defined data formats, which is far, far more important. Open formats guarantee interoperability and access to your data. Open source can lead to that as well, but it's a rather indirect route to get there.
Increasingly, it means "using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck" Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.
Open source is irrelevant for most people. Everyone benefits from open formats - unless you're in a position like Microsoft, and have a monopoly built around closed formats.
or people who only like BSD-style licenses because they think that when code is freely given to them it means they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer (and then claim that the GPL is stealing the food off their children's tables).
You're a tad off there. The claim generally isn't "they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer". Very few people have any objections to the wishes of the original developer.
The claim is if you're putting restrictions on how the code can be reused, it isn't really free, so you shouldn't be calling it that. Unless you believe the code itself is an entity with rights and needs to be protected from slavery or something like that.
Moore's Law applies to transistor density, not processing power.
However, transistor density is a factor in both price and processing power.
How it is that people assume that it is a matter of oil, when the oil producing nations are the ones which end up with windfall profits is beyond me.
That comes down to two things:
1) The reasons for war given were questionable at the start, and ended up being completely off. Oil is the most valuable thing to us that Iraq has, hence the assumption. Also remember, gaining more control over the supply of oil might be worth paying more for it. Don't just think current price, think future price.
2) When the US installed the new government in Iraq, they privatized many things that were previously run by the government. Many of which were sold to US based companies.
Actors, directors, producers, and the like are all payed based on the total revenue a movie makes. Whether the money comes from theaters vs retail sales doesn't factor in much, it's the bottom line number that sets the budget. Individual people may have bonuses based on box office sales, but the overall budget is based on box office profit + retail profit.
As for the people being paid salary, where do you think that money comes from? Again, the bottom line, box office profit + retail profit.
If you shrink either box office or retail profit, the resulting budget cuts will affect everyone involved. Do you really think retail sales don't affect the budgets of movies?
(Feel free to add merchandising and other misc revenue streams into the budget talks as you wish, it expands on my point)
So you're now trying to claim that everything copyrighted (not just software) should come with all the information necessary for you to exactly duplicate it? At least it's consistent, unlike the FSF. Again though, you haven't really given a reason why this should be so, considering copyright law is designed completely counter to that.
Free Software generally means GPL. Doesn't have to, but the FSF (you know, the people who invented the term and got all this started) would prefer anything other than the GPL didn't exist, and generally imply not GPL = not free unless they have to admit otherwise.
That's all fine and dandy. And still completely in agreement with what I've been saying. You keep arguing with me, but not actually responding to my points. Again... the free software movement as a whole, and especially the FSF, acts as if it is a basic human right that all software should be free software, and anything else is a severe rights violation. That's the fundamental idea that drives the entire free software movement. Why should software be treated differently than anything else? Shouldn't it be that the author gets to choose whatever terms they want, and everyone respects that?
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
Hey, over here you're making sense. But again...
The point of this has nothing to do with enforcing the GPL. If you're working with GPL'd code, of course you should abide by the GPL.
The FSF acts like "free software" is a moral issue, with key rights at stake. They believe all software should be GPL, and we are losing our freedom otherwise. However, they do no provide any justification as to why software should be treated any different than anything else, nor do they provide any reason to believe that they think their rules should apply to anything but software.
You are definitely and without a doubt a troll. But fine, have it your way. You know that PostgreSQL is BSD? Most BDS is free? No free enough? Public Domain? Ok, from now on all public domain software belongs to me. Noone is allowed to use any public domain software withougt paying me $$$$. Noone is allowed anymore to say that there is a single piece of public domain software, which was not written by me. I can not do this? Hey, public domain limits my freedom. You call this 'free software'? Ridiculous.
I'm sure I'm being trolled here, but what are you rambling about? What that supposed to mean anything, or be in response to something? Did you have a little too much to drink or something?
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
Now you're are least speaking coherently, but not really paying attention. That has nothing to do with the conversation here. No one is disputing what the GPL says.
The claims being made are:
1) The definition of "free" used in "free software" isn't a definition most people would expect (as evidenced by the fact that any introduction to free software has a length intro on how they define the word free)
2) The free software movement is based on the idea that anyone receiving software should inherently be entitled to the full source so that the software can be recreated exactly, however, there is no justification as to why software should receive this treatment when there are no expectations that other types of products should.
Your post, when readable, is simply setting up some pretty bad strawmen to tear down.
When you buy a car, do you expect to be given the specifications to manufacturer a new engine identical to the original? Or the other parts of the car?
Do you expect your home electronics to come with circuit diagrams detailing every part and connection?
Do you expect your CPU to come with the code used to create it?
Do you expect your music CDs to come with sheet music?
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code.
This is the usual troll interpretation. An intelligent person knows that freedom can only be seen in a context. The BSD license might give a developer/company greater freedom, but allows to take freedom from the end user. The GPL limits more the freedom of the developers/companies, but makes sure that the end user's freedom is not further limited.
"Freedom = no limitations" is a troll? Funny, I always thought that's what most people thought it meant. You really need to be drinking the right Kool Aid to think otherwise.
As for taking freedom from the user... in what other industry do you expect a manufacturer to provide the full source to their products? You don't expect your car or refrigerator to come with the details to create your own replacement parts from scratch, do you?
You are restricted from locking up code, you are restricted from giving others less freedom than you received. This way the original freedoms are always preserved.
As long as the original code is available, others have the same freedom you do.
If you copy an mp3 and do whatever you want with it, you haven't deprived the RIAA of a song. If you copy code and modify it, you haven't deprived anyone of any code.
In some sense of the word, GIMP cannot legally be placed under GPL, because it is not possible to put "the entire work" under GPL: portions of GIMP will link against Windows .DLL's, and those .DLL's aren't GPL'd.
The GPL has an exception for dependencies on libraries that are distributed as part of the operating system. I've often wondered where the line is drawn on that. Back when Qt was distributed under the QPL instead of the GPL, was it really a license violation for a GPL app to link against it? Almost every Linux distro in existence shipped with Qt, so you could consider it part of the OS.
"BLOBisation" is either no problem at all (legally *OR* philosophically) or already illegal by the GPLv2 (even though companies like Nvidia and ATI ignore this).
That's rather debatable. Linus and others seem to believe its fine in certain cases.
Linus's explanation goes something like this:
* The GPL covers code that is explicitly written under the GPL, or is created as a derived work of code covered under the GPL.
* Nvidia's interface to the Linux kernel is a derived work of the kernel, and distributed under the GPL.
* The part of Nvidia's Linux drivers that actually deals with the hardware is derived work of Nvidia's Windows drivers. (NVidia uses a common codebase for all their drivers, and the Windows drivers came first) As such, Nvidia has the rights to license the code as they please.
The other thing that I find annoying but you didn't mention is the hypocrisy of people who complain that the GPL restricts their potential actions more than BSD. So what? One doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
The hypocrisy is in the GPL camp. They go around claiming their code is the ultimate in freedom, yet there are conditions attached. Most people don't really consider that to be free.
If they pulled a Microsoft and used a name like Shared Source instead of Free Software, there wouldn't be any complaints.
The simple fact that the first thing on the FSF site is a link to a 3 page essay explaining that when they say Free it doesn't mean what you probably think it means should tip you off that something is wrong with their approach.
The GPL protects the rights of the code, because as you know, code doesn't like to be enslaved and forced to work in proprietary software.
As to the people who want to use the code, they are irrelevant. Their rights end where the rights of the code begins.
Honestly, what do you expect from a license that first requires you to read up on why the word free doesn't mean what you would think it means before you can understand it?
Your understanding is correct. However, the point is, it's extremely easy to find the keys, making the strength of the algorithm irrelevant.
2011 is probably right for the next Wii. Nintendo consistently releases their consoles 5 years apart, and the Wii was 2006. Also note that Nintendo's forecast of 35 million Wii sales goes through 2011.
Do you really think the customers would have been better off with control of their domains staying with a defunct company?
There are tens of thousands of instances of government not working that are in the news every year, doesn't matter if it's democrats or republicans in charge.
Your comment just prompted the following thought:
Ever think about how many things they do get right? Remember, something is only news if it's out of the ordinary.
Information is also stored and communicated using hard disks. Do you expect the manufacturer to therefore give you the information necessary to build your own replica of their hard disks?
But then, the microwave doesn't make the food recipe secret just but heating your food in it. Those items that you mention cannot be compared with software. What analogies would you use for your work products stored in secret-format files that you cannot use with competitors' products without them doing a lot of reverse engineering?
Your argument is about data formats, not software. Very, very, different things.
No, you don't. If you release any code under the GPL, any user is granted rights to that code. Regardless of what crap you think. If you release "your" code under the GPL, I have full rights to modify, distribute or sell the code I got from you.
Not quite right. You have rights to distribute, but not full rights. The author can distribute however he wants, however, receipts have some strings attached, so it's not full rights.