I know how hard it is to keep from getting caught up in these discussions sometimes. I do it far too often myself. Thanks for clarifying, Let me know if I step out of line too please.:)
"You create something, you're not getting paid for it, you're doing it for the greater good but you still want to get something out of it."
The point I was trying to convey, is that for the most part I'm not all that concerned with the greater good. The benefit to the greater good is coincidental to the free software process as far as I am concerned. My motivations are mostly selfish, and I'll be honest about that. RMS is a visionary and an idealist, I can respect that but I don't share his apparently altruistic motivations.
In the case of bugfixes or feature additions, it's very nice to be able to contribute, because changes go upstream and I don't have to worry about maintaining patches. It is a mutual benefit though, and I don't think in terms of 'ability to build on all the other contributors code' as any more significant than the other contributors being able to benefit from my work. In order to clarify this relationship, I would much rather the terms of the license were static - at least for the code that I contribute. The rest of it isn't really up to me.
In the example you give, I see myself as author or co-author of some library that the guy developing the business appliance for sale want to incorporate into his product. In that case I'm not particularly interested in helping this fellow out. I'm not comfortable with closed source software or highly restrictive licensing, and I have no desire to help it succeed. In my view, closed source software is harmful, and free/open is the future. My interest is in symbiosis with the emerging free/open software environment.
I should also say that I respect Sun's right to dictate the terms that it's code is released under. The assurances that Linux gives to contributors for what will happen to their code I believe will allow it to continue to dominate the world of Unix though. Sun will have to continue to adapt, as they should quickly do with the java licensing before it too is disrupted by other implementations that offer more freedom, and assurances to developers.
I'm sorry if I offended you with that comment, it was not an accusation or judgement of any kind. I'm glad you found work, it's really difficult to survive without it.;)
"BTW, what moderator decided that this comment was "Interesting"?"
What deity bestowed the ultimate truth and power to judge the value of opinions upon you? I found the comment interesting. This is a great forum for discussion of news items, and that is what I come here for.
What I wouldn't give for a "-5, Callous Pedantism" mod.
"[copyright assignment] neutralizes an unfair part of my work contract... which requires that work I do at home on my own time becomes my employer's property"
As a general rule I would avoid contracts that put any restriction on my personal life, even the idea of it offends me. I completely understand that this may not be always be possible, and in your case you have a very valid point there.
"Giving away the copyrights today, to a trusted party (which Sun isn't, because while I like Sun and don't understand the stick they get from so many in the FOSS camps, they are, just like my employer, beholden to their shareholders and a quick change of management could put anyone in charge with any agenda; but the FSF is) would fix that"
Very well said. I hadn't given much thought to the difference between assignment to an organization or co-op versus a corporation. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with either, but between the two it is the corporation that I absolutely do not trust. When dealing with corporations I am inclined to be very very cautious. Money is not my primary motivation in life and I'm inherently suspicious of anyone or anything for whom it is. Copyright ownership affords me some leverage when I enter into partnerships with them.
"Looks like your problem is with assigning copyright (in the case of FSF) or letting your copyright be co-owned (in the case of Sun)."
Yes, that is what I am concerned about. I'll just clarify my understanding (not lecture you, please don't take it that way). Copyright is the right to make copies of some program, in binary or source form. The owner of the copyright can offer licenses to make copies with or without conditions.
As a developer when I spend the time to write some code, if I'm coding for an employer I usually do it with the understanding that they own the result, and I receive some compensation for my efforts. When I decide to publish code that I write for myself, I do it with the understanding that I will get compensation for my work in the form of improvements, and that I will benefit either from them directly, or that I will learn something new. Unfortunately I lack the motivation to code purely for the benefit of mankind.
If I'm asked to assign copyright either jointly or in whole of that work, then I'm explicitly giving the right to relicense that code under different conditions to someone else. That significantly reduces my motivation to do the work, because I no longer have the guarantee that the conditions that were in place when I did the work will apply to future versions, or that new ones won't be put on. For example, at any time Sun may decide it's had enough of the open source thing, and is going back to the closed source model. I still have access to the last CDDL release, but Sun goes off and does what they like with my work and everyone elses with no regard for our wishes. Corporations have the rights of people but their only conscience is in the form of public opinion. There is no reason for me to trust them, they exist exclusively to generate revenue for their shareholders.
Also when I contribute code to some existing project under the GPL and retain the copyright, I get a sense of being part of a community and a sort of ownership of some part of it. I don't get this with BSD licenses, if I give up copyright, or if I put it in the public domain quite to the same degree, it's more of a donation in my eyes.
Therefor, my concern is that asking for copyright ownership will inhibit contributions. I think these projects would do well to give an understanding that if relicensing is required then the contributors will be the ones to determine if they are comfortable with that.
I have a great respect for the way things are done in the Linux project. In the past, Linus has removed code from contributors for no other reason than they requested it be removed. He has also stated that he will do so in the future within reason. They aren't required to do that unless they violate the license in some way, but it's just a policy of theirs out of respect for copyright holders.
Here is a quote from Linus that I find very agreeable (particularly #3):
I'm obviously not the only copyright holder of Linux, and I did so on purpose for several reasons. One reason is just because I hate the paperwork and other cr*p that goes along with copyright assignments.
Another is that I don't much like copyright assignments at all: the author is the author, and he may be bound by my requirement for GPL, but that doesn't mean that he should give his copyright to me.
A third reason, and the most relevant reason here, is that I want people to _know_ that I cannot control the sources. I can write you a note to say that "for use XXX, I do not consider module YYY to be a derived work of my kernel", but that would not really matter that much. Any other Linux copyright holder might still sue you.
What that is teaching is that computers and TV are a _reward_ to strive for which I believe to be a great error
I couldn't agree more. If you want your kids to enjoy the out doors, then take them there. Go to the beach, go camping. Go play sports with them. And have a good time while you're doing it. Make that the reward, and the computer something to do in the meantime.
How do I set it up so that what I highlight goes into the clipboard (and idealy, set it up so that ctrl-c goes to one clipboard and the immediate highlight to another). I think OSX is still crippled in this regard.
Easy, install Xorg. Trouble is, how to paste when you've only got one mouse button. (har har har)
Seriously though, I don't see how any proprietary OS can be a threat to Linux. Developers are attracted to Free Software because they like to code, and Linux is an awesome playground for that. That's not going to change, no matter what Apple does. It also happens to have become very useful commercially, but even if that were to change Linux development might slow a bit but it's not going anywhere. It's too much fun. Neither is BSD, our grandchildren will be reading about Netcraft confirmations. I'm sure of it.
No, what I'm saying is that if Linux goes to GPL v3 and GPL v2 is not compatable Linus will have to hunt down the other contributors whose files do not specify "any later version" in their license.
Why? Linux can oficially switch to GPL-3, and leave however many files this is a problem for licensed under GPL-2. The files don't go away just because a new license is released.
More likely, something in the GPL v3 will appeal to someone like RedHat and they would want to switch.
Well good for RedHat. They can license the code they have copyright on under any license they want, there's quite a bit of that too.
SVK allows a developer to continue to operate when her repository connection has been temporarily lost
What kind of system are you thinking of where that does happen? When my network connection goes down, the files that I have checked out of the repository don't get deleted, I keep right on working.
I have no intention of arguing with you about it. It's been my experience that the ones left on all the time, break a lot less often than the ones that are on for 3 or 4 hours every day. Hard drives especially.
There's no requirement, from what I've seen, that you assign copyright to the FSF to get a project on Savannah
No, but to be one of the 291 blessed "GNU" packages you do.
You're probably right about those other points. I don't know very much about Savannah's history. But I do agree with the other guy that it is exactly the same for Sun to require copyright ownership, and for GNU to do the same.
GNU is a specific project, and each addition to it has to be approved by RMS.
That's fine too. GNU is RMS' baby, so he looks out for it as best he can. I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying that a great many developers would not feel comfortable giving up copyrights on code they worked very hard on to develop. This is probably one of the things holding GNU back in its goals. Whether it is necessary or not I have no idea. But I wouldn't do it. Well I would probably, but it would take a fat sack of cash, and that's not how things work in free software world usually.
On the other hand, converting them to text after the meeting concludes takes extra time.
Also, I can type a hell of a lot faster than I can scrawl out my chicken scratch. God help anyone else who would have to read that off my tablet too, I wouldn't even want to.
I have yet to actually see a single computer that breaks for this reason.
Maybe you didn't recognize it as the problem, but it does shorten lifespan. Especially of things like hard drives. Dust buildup will kill the fan long before the temperature shock does though.
There's different kinds of heat pumps. The ones commonly found in my part of the world are geothermal heat pumps. The really neat thing about them is that even when its -40 outside, its still about 17 degrees celsius down there. It may use electricity in the process, but that isn't what generates the heat.
They don't do multitasking because the only tasks they do are games.
My X-Box has never had a game in it or on it. It has a keyboard and mouse, it runs Firefox.. They indeed do other tasks than games, and more than one at a time.
(no long boot times, usually longer play sessions, no multitasking) that makes a difference between game console and desktop pc.
I've never been a big fan of game consoles for that reason. I modchipped a few X-Box's for friends and played with XBMC a bit, but it was very much a toy in my eyes too. It also seemed like Microsoft was fighting our attempts to turn it into a PC at every turn. This next generation is going to be different from the looks of things though. I found this quote particularly interesting in that article I linked to:
"The kernel will be running on the Cell, and multiple OSes will be running on top of that as applications."
That very much sounds like multitasking to me, and multitasking at a new level similar to Xen. Very interesting times are ahead.:)
Seems reasonable - they will need to be able to release SUN stable versions from time to time.
That is the purpose of the CDDL, or the GPL, or any other license. That is what gives people rights to use some peice of code. The contributer, Sun, or Sun's customers. Sun does not need to own the copyright to release versions. It scares away developers, and those that come anyway will be less likely to give back because they don't want to give up their copyright.
Please tell me how having a closed source driver destroys the core value of linux. But, in doing so, you must explain how not having this driver at all (which is the only other alternative in todays society) would be a better option.
Because it takes away incentive for people to get involved in the free projects. Not only that, but the people who do get involved are constantly bombarded with fanboys telling them how their work is useless because the proprietary drivers are superior. Of course they are, they're the only ones who know how the damn cards work. In the past we saw great contributions from 3rd parties like when The Weather Channel paid out of their own pocket to port the Radeon driver to the 8500 cards. This kind of thing is much less likely today.
Thats enough of the Z word too. The community is zealous. Thats a big part of what makes it so much fun. There's nothing wrong with being excited about free software at all. Don't tell people they should be ashamed of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I know how hard it is to keep from getting caught up in these discussions sometimes. I do it far too often myself. Thanks for clarifying, Let me know if I step out of line too please. :)
"You create something, you're not getting paid for it, you're doing it for the greater good but you still want to get something out of it."
The point I was trying to convey, is that for the most part I'm not all that concerned with the greater good. The benefit to the greater good is coincidental to the free software process as far as I am concerned. My motivations are mostly selfish, and I'll be honest about that. RMS is a visionary and an idealist, I can respect that but I don't share his apparently altruistic motivations.
In the case of bugfixes or feature additions, it's very nice to be able to contribute, because changes go upstream and I don't have to worry about maintaining patches. It is a mutual benefit though, and I don't think in terms of 'ability to build on all the other contributors code' as any more significant than the other contributors being able to benefit from my work. In order to clarify this relationship, I would much rather the terms of the license were static - at least for the code that I contribute. The rest of it isn't really up to me.
In the example you give, I see myself as author or co-author of some library that the guy developing the business appliance for sale want to incorporate into his product. In that case I'm not particularly interested in helping this fellow out. I'm not comfortable with closed source software or highly restrictive licensing, and I have no desire to help it succeed. In my view, closed source software is harmful, and free/open is the future. My interest is in symbiosis with the emerging free/open software environment.
I should also say that I respect Sun's right to dictate the terms that it's code is released under. The assurances that Linux gives to contributors for what will happen to their code I believe will allow it to continue to dominate the world of Unix though. Sun will have to continue to adapt, as they should quickly do with the java licensing before it too is disrupted by other implementations that offer more freedom, and assurances to developers.
I'm sorry if I offended you with that comment, it was not an accusation or judgement of any kind. I'm glad you found work, it's really difficult to survive without it. ;)
I wish you the very best of luck in your career.
"BTW, what moderator decided that this comment was "Interesting"?"
What deity bestowed the ultimate truth and power to judge the value of opinions upon you? I found the comment interesting. This is a great forum for discussion of news items, and that is what I come here for.
What I wouldn't give for a "-5, Callous Pedantism" mod.
"[copyright assignment] neutralizes an unfair part of my work contract ... which requires that work I do at home on my own time becomes my employer's property"
As a general rule I would avoid contracts that put any restriction on my personal life, even the idea of it offends me. I completely understand that this may not be always be possible, and in your case you have a very valid point there.
"Giving away the copyrights today, to a trusted party (which Sun isn't, because while I like Sun and don't understand the stick they get from so many in the FOSS camps, they are, just like my employer, beholden to their shareholders and a quick change of management could put anyone in charge with any agenda; but the FSF is) would fix that"
Very well said. I hadn't given much thought to the difference between assignment to an organization or co-op versus a corporation. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with either, but between the two it is the corporation that I absolutely do not trust. When dealing with corporations I am inclined to be very very cautious. Money is not my primary motivation in life and I'm inherently suspicious of anyone or anything for whom it is. Copyright ownership affords me some leverage when I enter into partnerships with them.
Yes, that is what I am concerned about. I'll just clarify my understanding (not lecture you, please don't take it that way). Copyright is the right to make copies of some program, in binary or source form. The owner of the copyright can offer licenses to make copies with or without conditions.
As a developer when I spend the time to write some code, if I'm coding for an employer I usually do it with the understanding that they own the result, and I receive some compensation for my efforts. When I decide to publish code that I write for myself, I do it with the understanding that I will get compensation for my work in the form of improvements, and that I will benefit either from them directly, or that I will learn something new. Unfortunately I lack the motivation to code purely for the benefit of mankind.
If I'm asked to assign copyright either jointly or in whole of that work, then I'm explicitly giving the right to relicense that code under different conditions to someone else. That significantly reduces my motivation to do the work, because I no longer have the guarantee that the conditions that were in place when I did the work will apply to future versions, or that new ones won't be put on. For example, at any time Sun may decide it's had enough of the open source thing, and is going back to the closed source model. I still have access to the last CDDL release, but Sun goes off and does what they like with my work and everyone elses with no regard for our wishes. Corporations have the rights of people but their only conscience is in the form of public opinion. There is no reason for me to trust them, they exist exclusively to generate revenue for their shareholders.
Also when I contribute code to some existing project under the GPL and retain the copyright, I get a sense of being part of a community and a sort of ownership of some part of it. I don't get this with BSD licenses, if I give up copyright, or if I put it in the public domain quite to the same degree, it's more of a donation in my eyes.
Therefor, my concern is that asking for copyright ownership will inhibit contributions. I think these projects would do well to give an understanding that if relicensing is required then the contributors will be the ones to determine if they are comfortable with that.
I have a great respect for the way things are done in the Linux project. In the past, Linus has removed code from contributors for no other reason than they requested it be removed. He has also stated that he will do so in the future within reason. They aren't required to do that unless they violate the license in some way, but it's just a policy of theirs out of respect for copyright holders.
Here is a quote from Linus that I find very agreeable (particularly #3):
What that is teaching is that computers and TV are a _reward_ to strive for which I believe to be a great error
I couldn't agree more. If you want your kids to enjoy the out doors, then take them there. Go to the beach, go camping. Go play sports with them. And have a good time while you're doing it. Make that the reward, and the computer something to do in the meantime.
How do I set it up so that what I highlight goes into the clipboard (and idealy, set it up so that ctrl-c goes to one clipboard and the immediate highlight to another). I think OSX is still crippled in this regard.
Easy, install Xorg. Trouble is, how to paste when you've only got one mouse button. (har har har)
Seriously though, I don't see how any proprietary OS can be a threat to Linux. Developers are attracted to Free Software because they like to code, and Linux is an awesome playground for that. That's not going to change, no matter what Apple does. It also happens to have become very useful commercially, but even if that were to change Linux development might slow a bit but it's not going anywhere. It's too much fun. Neither is BSD, our grandchildren will be reading about Netcraft confirmations. I'm sure of it.
"That's why I am partial to them."
Well I guess its no different than why people cheer for sports teams. I find the whole thing silly, but I'm in the minority there too.
"Well you go ahead and encourage your friends at Xorg to do that"
You and I both know that's not going to happen. I was just being dramatic.
No, what I'm saying is that if Linux goes to GPL v3 and GPL v2 is not compatable Linus will have to hunt down the other contributors whose files do not specify "any later version" in their license.
Why? Linux can oficially switch to GPL-3, and leave however many files this is a problem for licensed under GPL-2. The files don't go away just because a new license is released.
More likely, something in the GPL v3 will appeal to someone like RedHat and they would want to switch.
Well good for RedHat. They can license the code they have copyright on under any license they want, there's quite a bit of that too.
SVK allows a developer to continue to operate when her repository connection has been temporarily lost
What kind of system are you thinking of where that does happen? When my network connection goes down, the files that I have checked out of the repository don't get deleted, I keep right on working.
I have no intention of arguing with you about it. It's been my experience that the ones left on all the time, break a lot less often than the ones that are on for 3 or 4 hours every day. Hard drives especially.
No, but to be one of the 291 blessed "GNU" packages you do.
You're probably right about those other points. I don't know very much about Savannah's history. But I do agree with the other guy that it is exactly the same for Sun to require copyright ownership, and for GNU to do the same.
That's fine too. GNU is RMS' baby, so he looks out for it as best he can. I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying that a great many developers would not feel comfortable giving up copyrights on code they worked very hard on to develop. This is probably one of the things holding GNU back in its goals. Whether it is necessary or not I have no idea. But I wouldn't do it. Well I would probably, but it would take a fat sack of cash, and that's not how things work in free software world usually.
In Canada, there is one already
;)
I know. Look down.
Damn, and I was sure they would finally ditch the concept of drive letters this time!!!
Yeah, he's got the old alpha. The new shot is over here.
Why do the unix zealots always dismiss...
Because we're Unix zealots dumb ass. Get with the program.
On the other hand, converting them to text after the meeting concludes takes extra time.
Also, I can type a hell of a lot faster than I can scrawl out my chicken scratch. God help anyone else who would have to read that off my tablet too, I wouldn't even want to.
I have yet to actually see a single computer that breaks for this reason.
Maybe you didn't recognize it as the problem, but it does shorten lifespan. Especially of things like hard drives. Dust buildup will kill the fan long before the temperature shock does though.
Well, that's your problem.
No, that's my benefit. I'm not complaining at all.
There's different kinds of heat pumps. The ones commonly found in my part of the world are geothermal heat pumps. The really neat thing about them is that even when its -40 outside, its still about 17 degrees celsius down there. It may use electricity in the process, but that isn't what generates the heat.
They don't do multitasking because the only tasks they do are games.
My X-Box has never had a game in it or on it. It has a keyboard and mouse, it runs Firefox.. They indeed do other tasks than games, and more than one at a time.
I've never been a big fan of game consoles for that reason. I modchipped a few X-Box's for friends and played with XBMC a bit, but it was very much a toy in my eyes too. It also seemed like Microsoft was fighting our attempts to turn it into a PC at every turn. This next generation is going to be different from the looks of things though. I found this quote particularly interesting in that article I linked to:
That very much sounds like multitasking to me, and multitasking at a new level similar to Xen. Very interesting times are ahead.
Its not that a game console is something like a desktop pc
They aren't?
Seems reasonable - they will need to be able to release SUN stable versions from time to time.
That is the purpose of the CDDL, or the GPL, or any other license. That is what gives people rights to use some peice of code. The contributer, Sun, or Sun's customers. Sun does not need to own the copyright to release versions. It scares away developers, and those that come anyway will be less likely to give back because they don't want to give up their copyright.
Please tell me how having a closed source driver destroys the core value of linux. But, in doing so, you must explain how not having this driver at all (which is the only other alternative in todays society) would be a better option.
Because it takes away incentive for people to get involved in the free projects. Not only that, but the people who do get involved are constantly bombarded with fanboys telling them how their work is useless because the proprietary drivers are superior. Of course they are, they're the only ones who know how the damn cards work. In the past we saw great contributions from 3rd parties like when The Weather Channel paid out of their own pocket to port the Radeon driver to the 8500 cards. This kind of thing is much less likely today.
Thats enough of the Z word too. The community is zealous. Thats a big part of what makes it so much fun. There's nothing wrong with being excited about free software at all. Don't tell people they should be ashamed of it.