They're giving you choice. Now they're giving you the choice of running KDE _or_ Gnome.
They realize that dividing the community is a very bad move and it would hurt the efforts at making Linux have a decent desktop environment, our biggest challenge right now.
This is the first Jon Katz article I really liked and had no problems with.
He presents the media the way it is, and it shows how the entire power structure is so bent on money they will sacrifice every ideal to get there.
I'm glad Open Source is getting some recognition, because the ideals it is based on are intrinisically more sound than something based on the whims of a corporation that wants to own everything that is the computer industry.
I don't like that clause, then. Why do I have to release my code if it's for an internal project?
This will keep commercial interests from modifying the code for internal projects, since many of them will not want to release the code. This takes away some of the usefulness of the Open Sourcedness.
2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each instance:
b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site) You must continue to make the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer;
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.ht ml
Deploy, from earlier in the license seems to mean any production use at all within your company, with any lines of code changed.
This is quite a bit more anal than the GPL in that regard, since the GPL only stipulates that you must make the source available if you distribute it.
There's got to be more in here that stinks. I just haven't had time to look at it all.
There is _ONE_ Linux kernel. Nobody plays with the kernel because people trust Linus, and also because if they want a change, and it's _techically_ good, then it will get implemented in Linux. They just need to prove it with code, which is what GGI, Alsa, etc. are doing.
And certainly one size doesn't fit all. But many people like being able to completely customize their environment, and yet be able to run all the applications everyone else can. That way, developers get and use distributions that are more technical, and newbies/people that just want to get work done can use easier-to-understand distributions.
Having more choice is a good thing, and I think it's actually helped Linux, if anything. Red Hat is the newbie distribution that everyone hears about and tries the first time, and then as they get more involved, if they do, they'll see that there are different distributions and they can pick the one that fits them the most.
But I agree. This is besides the point. Be can do whatever they want. Releasing their source under a true free license would make they best features be cannabalized by Linux pretty quickly, but Be would have a different priority than the Linux kernel and would, in effect differenciate itself.
Anyway, as soon as people start using it, bug fixing becomes easier, and they can run something like Mozilla.Org, and maintain Be like that. Has Open Source hurt Netscape any? They're still in business offering proprietary products on the back end supporting their browser. Be could do something that like too.
Then again, I've never used Be, but my arguments could apply to any operating system code being released to the public.
The Internet and DNS, Bind, Sendmail, gcc, etc.? Wouldn't you say all of that software broke new ground and changed not only computers, but all of society?
Certainly, closed source software has brought about a lot of progress in computers, but don't even try to discount free software as something that doesn't break new ground.
But if MS makes office for Linux, then they need to compete on the actual merits of their software, and the software industry will be much better off for it.
The only reason MS won the office war was because they had control of the operating system that the applications were running under.
An MS Linux would be a strange sight. Maybe they really are planning on doing something like that. But would anyone buy it?
they already can. only the honest kiddie porn and foreign spies will no longer be able to send messages since they don't want to break crypto export rules.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many moderators.. They don't all think the same way. Some moderators bump back posts that really shouldn't have been bumped down.
I hate to say it, but RMS seems more level-headed than ESR or even Bruce does.
He seems to make his point fairly quickly and concisely, even though his idealogy doesn't quite fit in with mine, I can respect his opinions.
I didn't like the APSL very much myself..
Please, stop spouting that bull. You make all Debian users look bad with unfounded assertions and stupidity like that.
Ben
It's not the fact that we have to pay for it that bothers us. If you've even bothered to read any of the posts, we're just kind of skeptical.
Microsoft isn't well known for fair play.
... They will have to compete on the merits of their application, and not through bundling or anything else, hooks in the operating system, etc.
As long as Linux remains a level playing field, I don't care if MS writes Office for Linux.
If however, they try to subvert Linux somehow by doing this, things could get very nasty indeed.
I can get
Developers in the end will choose what environment to code in, and it is up to them what license they want to use.
They're giving you choice. Now they're giving you the choice of running KDE _or_ Gnome.
They realize that dividing the community is a very bad move and it would hurt the efforts at making Linux have a decent desktop environment, our biggest challenge right now.
This is the first Jon Katz article I really liked and had no problems with.
He presents the media the way it is, and it shows how the entire power structure is so bent on money they will sacrifice every ideal to get there.
I'm glad Open Source is getting some recognition, because the ideals it is based on are intrinisically more sound than something based on the whims of a corporation that wants to own everything that is the computer industry.
There was another response posted on Linux Today here at http://www.netrinsics.com/Famous.html..
This one is a bit more thorough..
Ben
I don't like that clause, then. Why do I have to release my code if it's for an internal project?
This will keep commercial interests from modifying the code for internal projects, since many of them will not want to release the code. This takes away some of the usefulness of the Open Sourcedness.
I thought deploy was exactly that without the not....
I guess it's not as annoying as I thought.
Interesting license. Especially this part:
2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each instance:
b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site) You must continue to make the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer;
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.h
Deploy, from earlier in the license seems to mean any production use at all within your company, with any lines of code changed.
This is quite a bit more anal than the GPL in that regard, since the GPL only stipulates that you must make the source available if you distribute it.
There's got to be more in here that stinks. I just haven't had time to look at it all.
Without GNU and the FSF, Linux would never have been possible.
GNU is the foundation of Linux, and everyone involved made it what it is.
That being said, I think that RMS just wants people to realize this fact, so that we maintain the freedom that made Linux what it is today.
I don't think RMS is trying to get credit for anything he hasn't played a part in.
Conflicts? I had no snafus with .deb packages.
There is _ONE_ Linux kernel. Nobody plays with the kernel because people trust Linus, and also because if they want a change, and it's _techically_ good, then it will get implemented in Linux. They just need to prove it with code, which is what GGI, Alsa, etc. are doing.
And certainly one size doesn't fit all. But many people like being able to completely customize their environment, and yet be able to run all the applications everyone else can. That way, developers get and use distributions that are more technical, and newbies/people that just want to get work done can use easier-to-understand distributions.
Having more choice is a good thing, and I think it's actually helped Linux, if anything. Red Hat is the newbie distribution that everyone hears about and tries the first time, and then as they get more involved, if they do, they'll see that there are different distributions and they can pick the one that fits them the most.
But I agree. This is besides the point. Be can do whatever they want. Releasing their source under a true free license would make they best features be cannabalized by Linux pretty quickly, but Be would have a different priority than the Linux kernel and would, in effect differenciate itself.
Anyway, as soon as people start using it, bug fixing becomes easier, and they can run something like Mozilla.Org, and maintain Be like that. Has Open Source hurt Netscape any? They're still in business offering proprietary products on the back end supporting their browser. Be could do something that like too.
Then again, I've never used Be, but my arguments could apply to any operating system code being released to the public.
I like the other girl more, I forget her name, but she's been her sidekick in a few shows.
:-)
Shrug.
The Internet and DNS, Bind, Sendmail, gcc, etc.? Wouldn't you say all of that software broke new ground and changed not only computers, but all of society?
Certainly, closed source software has brought about a lot of progress in computers, but don't even try to discount free software as something that doesn't break new ground.
Yeah, Windows is a great example of a closed source os that is high quality.
How would opening the source of beos making the quality worse?
Don't you love OS's where marketing and the bottom line impacts every decision?
Good luck to Be, but it seems like they would do the same things as MS if they could.
But if MS makes office for Linux, then they need to compete on the actual merits of their software, and the software industry will be much better off for it.
The only reason MS won the office war was because they had control of the operating system that the applications were running under.
An MS Linux would be a strange sight. Maybe they really are planning on doing something like that. But would anyone buy it?
What does the operating system have to do with the content of his writing?
I was reading through this to find some sort of meaning and point to all of this.
The only things this long post seemed to say are the following:
1. Thank you Slashdot readers! I was going to be a washed up writer, but I stumbled upon you guys and you gave me a chance!
2. If you see me on TV, let me know you're a slashdot reader, so I can slum with you guys and feel like I belong somewhere.
3. Since some of you bought my book, and the rest of you probably won't, I'll be nice and let you get at the text.
4. If you want to see the real live me in person, come and see me! I love seeing the little people that are my fans.
Maybe I'm just cynical. Shrug.
No offense, Katz, but you seem a little full of yourself.
they already can. only the honest kiddie porn and foreign spies will no longer be able to send messages since they don't want to break crypto export rules.
Of course, if Microsoft made PC's easy to use, then Al Gore invented the Internet.
I wonder how many things in history are attributed to the wrong people at the wrong time, and they didn't really happen that way.
Who knows? Who cares? Shrug, it all doesn't really matter. A lot of people are probably going to believe him anyway.
I suppose it it would be too much to ask for the favor of letting us know we were being tracked.