The irony is that one "solution" would probably be to distribute the BSD parts in Linux as binary blobs... since if there's no source distribution, the issue goes away.
That's an interesting proposition but I wonder if it, in itself, does not create another problem: how do you work in a collaborative fashion with source code, on open source projects, if you are distributing binary blobs of BSD work? That's a contradiction, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Because the source code, visible to all, would have the BSD license.
So I think the BSD license is showing clearly an interesting property here: it refers to the way you work. If you work in an open source project (and this discussion, BTW, demonstrates the clear superiority of the term as opposed to "free software"), then the source code is visible. If it's visible, the BSD license is exposed and hence the code can be copied. Therefore, the only way to void the BSD "visiblity" would be to close it (which it allows), though binary blobs. Now in this situation you have a GPL visible code and a BSD binary blob. You can fork and extend the GPL code and the changes remain open. The BSD code is not visible and is distributed via a binary blob. Then why are you distributing the GPL code if your changes are going in the blob? In this situation, either you do that (work on the BSD binary blob) or you commit code simultaneously to both the BSD codebase and to the GPL codebase (which is what Theo wants). Otherwise, the GPL code can only merge with GPL code, and the BSD code continues to mutate under no visibilty. Which code are you using to make your computer work? What is the point, then, of working on a GPL project? The GPL has been voided, because the only rational thing to do would be to contribute to the BSD codebase. As a third option, you would have to distribute simultaneously a non-existent BSD binary blob together with the compiled GPLed binary and the GPL source code. An absurd proposition.
Again, if you work in an open manner than you cannot strip the license if your source code is publicly accessible. You can't strip the license, because claiming the legality of this is a legal non-sequitur - the license doesn't relicense the license. Also, clearly, we know, it's not public domain - it was never the licensor's intention. This means you can't create a GPL-only fork (that is what the linuxers want to do).
It seem the dual-license BSD+GPL has put the GPL in a sort of conundrum.
These are interesting times. This is very exciting.
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't redistribute BSD licensed source under GPL (...)
Let's put it this way: once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license (*) From that point on, all code can be incorporated into proprietary code, but all code can be also be virally copied and replicated through the GPL license which must, from this point on, retain the BSD license. The process repeats itself non-stop.
This means the BSD code has injected itself in all codes of life. The BSD code enters the germ line.
------ (*) Because, as I've said in another post, the BSD license does not license the BSD license (which would be a legal contradiction) but licenses the source code.
(...) what is the point in a BSD+GPL combo? Since BSD is the less restrictive of the two, it would seem that the net effect is exactly the same as having a pure-BSD licensed project.
I think you are correct here. I've pretty much said the same thing in another post. It had never ocurred to me, but it seems that the dual-license BSD+GPL renders the GPL, to all effect, useless or nulliifies its viral effects.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You confuse two different things: one thing is the coder hacking the BSD source code and turning it something of his own and incorporating that under a binary. That is OK. The other thing is to strip the license. If you strip the license, you nullify it. That is not the point of the BSD license. The point of the license regards the source code. So, you have to retain the license. What you do with the source code is up to you. But doing it to the source code (for example, rendering into a binary or incorporating it under your proprietary code) is up to you. In this resides the difference between the BSD license and the GPL, because the GPL is viral with regards to modifications of the source code. This misunderstanding of this simple concept has come about through the repeated misconception by linuxers that the BSD is a "License to Steal." It's very interesting what is happening here...The GPL was somehow rendered neutralized when dual-licensed with the BSD license.
A lot of people are falling into a logic trap here: the BSD license does not license the BSD license. It licenses the source code. So, you do not get to remove the license. This would be a contradiction and it would undermine the very purpose of having a crafted a license. A legal non-sequitur. Wise up, linuxers.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..." So, you do not get to strip the license, although you can use and produce binaries with it. That's the issue: you can't strip the license. By removing the BSD license, the linux people are obliterating the license. As Theo says, licenses are granted to you.
The Linux desktop is built on very similar components to the Mac desktop, yet is worlds away in usability. And that's basically because a) nobody is defining, shepherding and advocating usability requirements at the OS level, and b) the desktop projects don't have a architect/requirements definer at all.
And whose fault is this? How many usability studies has GNOME conducted? NOVELL, IIRC, has done a only a handful, many years later. And KDE has set up an usability group one one or two years ago (and I've yet to read any paper on it). Not only that, GNOME has adopted the practice of not even paying attention to bug reports (look up Eugenia Loli-Queru's arguement with the GNOME project on this).
Almost all the free software GUIs are not innovating *at all* on usability. They are all about little cosmetic changes. Mac OS X and Vista have left them behind the curve (and don't mention Beryl...what's the point of a spinning cube ?! How does that increase usability? Or wobbly windows?!!) Sometimes they inovate a little, but in the opposite direction, like Ion.
And frankly when someone tries something new, nobody pays attention. Like OpenCroquet. Like some experimental Java desktops. You can't really expect anything other from developers hellbent on C programming...What can you expect from GMOME? All I expect from a C project of that size is that it's going to be further and further behind the curve...We can't even expecct anything from the likes of Novell: their Mono is not really being developed as a multiplatform tool, is it? (So, no FOSS desktop like GNOME or KDE).
The real shame is having companies that are basically full with non-creative individuals injecting money on FOSS.
By the way, "Linux" is not the only Unix-like OS that uses GNOME and KDE.
(...) if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it,(...)
I don't know that I understand you correctly but you seem to be implying that a Government can't take away previoulsy granted rights?
That is obviously not the case when you have abrupt discontinuities in the law. Such is the case, for instance, of coups d'état...
Today's law-abiding citizen becomes tomorrow's outlaw. Ask Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Uruguaians, etc., everywhere the loathsome School of the Americas set its dirty paws.
Then, when you don't have the money you focus on prevention which, in mental health, starts at an earlier point in life than that in which that individual has met "the system."
For instance, you tell young people that over 10% of schizophrenia cases in the UK, IIRC, are related to marihuana consumption.
There is a moral imperative to treat those mentally ill, nevertheless. Unless your ideal model of society is Soviet Russia.
I don't believe, for a minute, that restricting civil liberties of populations of consenting adults is the answer.
What are you talking about...? (...) No. They're not. Freedom requires you to take responsibility, so they go hand in hand -- but they are most certainly not the same thing.
Do you know the origin of the word "responsibility"? Here, I'll break it down for you: response-ability. That certainly equates with "freedom" for me. Because you can only have the ability to respond if you are free to react to something.
I have to say I fully agree with you contender. This is some sort of Labour party/Socialist disease of the mind. Why do I say this? Because this is a pattern in the Left world-wide. They keep wanting to legislate on every aspect of a citizen's life (and, by the way, this is where christo-fascists, nazis, islamofascists and socialists all meet). The State will "protect" you. Fuck that. Fuck Socialism, fuck lefties. I don't give a damn what BSDM people do to each other, it's not my business. If there are web sites that cater to that, I don't care. If they make money, pay taxes and keep people employed, I'm all for them.
Besides, It's a pretty weak assumption that that man would have done nothing if it weren't for the sites. Maybe in his case...But I would like to see some research. For instance: do these sites actually keep pervs off the streets, because they don't go around roaming in your neighbourhood? These are the kinds of things I would like to see answered (even if this guy is a statistical "outlier").
It's about recognising that a prosperous, stable and fair society must be built on prosperous, reasonably happy people.
And who might you or some politico be to define what happiness is to me? No, for real, let's just throw in the garbage the whole fucking Western philosophical and political tradition. It sure looks like Western democracies like the US, UK and Germany are very inclined towards that. 1984 is coming, it's just a little late.
What we have here is a clear lase of well-intentioned socialist braindead politicos limiting civil liberties.
It is unbelievable what state we have come to after 911. Everything is a fucking excuse. Now, in England, they are banning "kinky" sex sites. Wow! The West is resembling the East more and more, huh?
Strange how the Internet is being used to do weird stuff to one another: the systematic and widespread use of it as a scapegoat for the restriction of civil liberties (in the UK, USA, Germany, Brazil, Thailand, China, etc.).
In all these countries people are pushing legislation that furthers agendas that have nothing or very little to do with the "war on terrorism."
Germany has been the most extreme case, outlawing TOR, etc.
I wonder what effect this will have on the long run...Perhaps it will push the very people they want to outlaw to a "new techie underground" (SciFi/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk galore)?
Read one of those books that introduce you to the toolsets and cycles in open source programming.
Also, choose a domain you want to work in, or one in which you have some expertise. Is it user interfaces, graphics, mathematics, little enhancements to GNOME or KDE, etc?
And remember that Linux is not your only choice: you also have OpenSolaris and the *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonflyBSD).
They air their programs world wide, via satellite, they make extraordinarily good journalism, they're a public television and once the program's has aired, it just disappears into oblivion...That's not vey smart.
Why not let people download all their content with tools like the Democracy player? What have they to loose if more people see a fantastic BBC documentary they like? What's it to them if I wanna keep a documentary where I actually learn something?
It makes no sense to me. The content has already been paid for (by taxes of UK citizens). I mean, maybe if you're British you don't think its fair but, I think you got to look at it as a great way to divulge "brand Britain."
I think France and Germany do a much better job of divulging their country and culture than the Brits (colonialism techniques notwithstanding;-)). Germany has Deutsche Welle and the Goethe Institute, and France has always understood the importance of catering to their "francophone" audience. They know they are people that'll actually consume French products (literature, movies, a trip to Paris, etc.)
The BBC has got to loosen up that tight upper lip.
PS: We are still waiting for Dirac.;-)
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Or unless you would like to sell per-seat licenses, like RedHat, or dual-license your code, so fools can contribute to your project for free, giving away their copyright to you, while you can make a nice buck selling a proprietary license.
IMHO, the problem is that specialized subjects (unless it's something directly related to systems software) are harder to get going in open source projects. Some domains, like computer algebra, operations research, visualization, etc., demand a domain knowledge that is not widely available. Being able to program in C/C++/C# or Java, etc., is not enough. A lot of programmers in the OS world know Unix. But knowing Unix does nothing for your, e.g., workflow, spreadsheet, or number-crunching software (scientific computing, BTW, is one very specialized area where you find good open source software, because it fulfills the needs of academics). Chances are, if you are specialized to that degree, you already have ties, or plan to have, with certain software houses or academic institutions. Or perhaps, you want to compete in the market with your own business (and this might have something to do with certain license choices, in particular the GPL).
In fact, if you look at it, there are quite a few domain-specific softwares that are lagging behind when compared to their proprietary counterparts.
Cooperation in some open source domains might also lag behind because of the lack of imagination of many OS tools. Look at the proprietary tools for Java, for instance and what they can achieve in terms of colaboration. I'm not a Java programmer, but to my knowledge there isn't anything like that in the OS world.
Licenses might have have something to do with it, also. I don't see why one specialist would want to contribute to another specialist's project, when there's even the possibility that this one releases the other's code contribution under a dual license (one proprietary, the other GPL). The solution is to reinvent the wheel and roll your own.
IIIRC, there's somebody developing a scientific visualization package that is being developed in Java, but I forgot it's name.
I gave up on it because of the dual-license trap (he wanted to take your contributions and sell a proprietary version, while you had to use the GPL version).
Slashdot Mirror
giving people who hate freedom of speech all your research and writings, to help them write an anti free speech essay, and lending them your pen too
This is pretty much what happens in an open society. I much prefer it that way than the alternative.
The irony is that one "solution" would probably be to distribute the BSD parts in Linux as binary blobs... since if there's no source distribution, the issue goes away.
That's an interesting proposition but I wonder if it, in itself, does not create another problem: how do you work in a collaborative fashion with source code, on open source projects, if you are distributing binary blobs of BSD work? That's a contradiction, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Because the source code, visible to all, would have the BSD license.
So I think the BSD license is showing clearly an interesting property here: it refers to the way you work. If you work in an open source project (and this discussion, BTW, demonstrates the clear superiority of the term as opposed to "free software"), then the source code is visible. If it's visible, the BSD license is exposed and hence the code can be copied. Therefore, the only way to void the BSD "visiblity" would be to close it (which it allows), though binary blobs. Now in this situation you have a GPL visible code and a BSD binary blob. You can fork and extend the GPL code and the changes remain open. The BSD code is not visible and is distributed via a binary blob. Then why are you distributing the GPL code if your changes are going in the blob? In this situation, either you do that (work on the BSD binary blob) or you commit code simultaneously to both the BSD codebase and to the GPL codebase (which is what Theo wants). Otherwise, the GPL code can only merge with GPL code, and the BSD code continues to mutate under no visibilty. Which code are you using to make your computer work? What is the point, then, of working on a GPL project? The GPL has been voided, because the only rational thing to do would be to contribute to the BSD codebase. As a third option, you would have to distribute simultaneously a non-existent BSD binary blob together with the compiled GPLed binary and the GPL source code. An absurd proposition.
Again, if you work in an open manner than you cannot strip the license if your source code is publicly accessible. You can't strip the license, because claiming the legality of this is a legal non-sequitur - the license doesn't relicense the license. Also, clearly, we know, it's not public domain - it was never the licensor's intention. This means you can't create a GPL-only fork (that is what the linuxers want to do).
It seem the dual-license BSD+GPL has put the GPL in a sort of conundrum.
These are interesting times. This is very exciting.
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't redistribute BSD licensed source under GPL (...)
Let's put it this way: once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license (*) From that point on, all code can be incorporated into proprietary code, but all code can be also be virally copied and replicated through the GPL license which must, from this point on, retain the BSD license. The process repeats itself non-stop.
This means the BSD code has injected itself in all codes of life. The BSD code enters the germ line.
------
(*) Because, as I've said in another post, the BSD license does not license the BSD license (which would be a legal contradiction) but licenses the source code.
(...) what is the point in a BSD+GPL combo? Since BSD is the less restrictive of the two, it would seem that the net effect is exactly the same as having a pure-BSD licensed project.
I think you are correct here. I've pretty much said the same thing in another post. It had never ocurred to me, but it seems that the dual-license BSD+GPL renders the GPL, to all effect, useless or nulliifies its viral effects.
OK, Game Theory brainstorm here.
OH! The BSD license just won!
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You confuse two different things: one thing is the coder hacking the BSD source code and turning it something of his own and incorporating that under a binary. That is OK.
The other thing is to strip the license. If you strip the license, you nullify it. That is not the point of the BSD license. The point of the license regards the source code. So, you have to retain the license. What you do with the source code is up to you. But doing it to the source code (for example, rendering into a binary or incorporating it under your proprietary code) is up to you. In this resides the difference between the BSD license and the GPL, because the GPL is viral with regards to modifications of the source code. This misunderstanding of this simple concept has come about through the repeated misconception by linuxers that the BSD is a "License to Steal."
It's very interesting what is happening here...The GPL was somehow rendered neutralized when dual-licensed with the BSD license.
A lot of people are falling into a logic trap here: the BSD license does not license the BSD license. It licenses the source code. So, you do not get to remove the license.
This would be a contradiction and it would undermine the very purpose of having a crafted a license. A legal non-sequitur. Wise up, linuxers.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..."
So, you do not get to strip the license, although you can use and produce binaries with it.
That's the issue: you can't strip the license. By removing the BSD license, the linux people are obliterating the license. As Theo says, licenses are granted to you.
The Linux desktop is built on very similar components to the Mac desktop, yet is worlds away in usability. And that's basically because a) nobody is defining, shepherding and advocating usability requirements at the OS level, and b) the desktop projects don't have a architect/requirements definer at all.
And whose fault is this? How many usability studies has GNOME conducted? NOVELL, IIRC, has done a only a handful, many years later. And KDE has set up an usability group one one or two years ago (and I've yet to read any paper on it). Not only that, GNOME has adopted the practice of not even paying attention to bug reports (look up Eugenia Loli-Queru's arguement with the GNOME project on this).
Almost all the free software GUIs are not innovating *at all* on usability. They are all about little cosmetic changes. Mac OS X and Vista have left them behind the curve (and don't mention Beryl...what's the point of a spinning cube ?! How does that increase usability? Or wobbly windows?!!) Sometimes they inovate a little, but in the opposite direction, like Ion.
And frankly when someone tries something new, nobody pays attention. Like OpenCroquet. Like some experimental Java desktops. You can't really expect anything other from developers hellbent on C programming...What can you expect from GMOME? All I expect from a C project of that size is that it's going to be further and further behind the curve...We can't even expecct anything from the likes of Novell: their Mono is not really being developed as a multiplatform tool, is it? (So, no FOSS desktop like GNOME or KDE).
The real shame is having companies that are basically full with non-creative individuals injecting money on FOSS.
By the way, "Linux" is not the only Unix-like OS that uses GNOME and KDE.
(...) if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it,(...)
I don't know that I understand you correctly but you seem to be implying that a Government can't take away previoulsy granted rights?
That is obviously not the case when you have abrupt discontinuities in the law. Such is the case, for instance, of coups d'état...
Today's law-abiding citizen becomes tomorrow's outlaw. Ask Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Uruguaians, etc., everywhere the loathsome School of the Americas set its dirty paws.
Then, when you don't have the money you focus on prevention which, in mental health, starts at an earlier point in life than that in which that individual has met "the system."
For instance, you tell young people that over 10% of schizophrenia cases in the UK, IIRC, are related to marihuana consumption.
There is a moral imperative to treat those mentally ill, nevertheless. Unless your ideal model of society is Soviet Russia.
I don't believe, for a minute, that restricting civil liberties of populations of consenting adults is the answer.
What are you talking about...?
(...)
No. They're not. Freedom requires you to take responsibility, so they go hand in hand -- but they are most certainly not the same thing.
Do you know the origin of the word "responsibility"? Here, I'll break it down for you: response-ability. That certainly equates with "freedom" for me. Because you can only have the ability to respond if you are free to react to something.
I have to say I fully agree with you contender. This is some sort of Labour party/Socialist disease of the mind. Why do I say this? Because this is a pattern in the Left world-wide. They keep wanting to legislate on every aspect of a citizen's life (and, by the way, this is where christo-fascists, nazis, islamofascists and socialists all meet). The State will "protect" you. Fuck that. Fuck Socialism, fuck lefties. I don't give a damn what BSDM people do to each other, it's not my business. If there are web sites that cater to that, I don't care. If they make money, pay taxes and keep people employed, I'm all for them.
Besides, It's a pretty weak assumption that that man would have done nothing if it weren't for the sites. Maybe in his case...But I would like to see some research. For instance: do these sites actually keep pervs off the streets, because they don't go around roaming in your neighbourhood? These are the kinds of things I would like to see answered (even if this guy is a statistical "outlier").
It's about recognising that a prosperous, stable and fair society must be built on prosperous, reasonably happy people.
And who might you or some politico be to define what happiness is to me ? No, for real, let's just throw in the garbage the whole fucking Western philosophical and political tradition. It sure looks like Western democracies like the US, UK and Germany are very inclined towards that. 1984 is coming, it's just a little late.
What we have here is a clear lase of well-intentioned socialist braindead politicos limiting civil liberties.
It is unbelievable what state we have come to after 911. Everything is a fucking excuse. Now, in England, they are banning "kinky" sex sites. Wow! The West is resembling the East more and more, huh?
Strange how the Internet is being used to do weird stuff to one another: the systematic and widespread use of it as a scapegoat for the restriction of civil liberties (in the UK, USA, Germany, Brazil, Thailand, China, etc.).
In all these countries people are pushing legislation that furthers agendas that have nothing or very little to do with the "war on terrorism."
Germany has been the most extreme case, outlawing TOR, etc.
I wonder what effect this will have on the long run...Perhaps it will push the very people they want to outlaw to a "new techie underground" (SciFi/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk galore)?
How about microkernels?
Are they better at surviving these attacks?
I don't know how you got modded "interesting."
Because what you do is a cheap "text-analysis" of what Theo says.
In order to refute him, you have to do an analysis on the bugs he claims exist. You have to prove his claims are false.
It doesn't seem like you will do that.
Hi --
Read one of those books that introduce you to the toolsets and cycles in open source programming.
Also, choose a domain you want to work in, or one in which you have some expertise. Is it user interfaces, graphics, mathematics, little enhancements to GNOME or KDE, etc?
And remember that Linux is not your only choice: you also have OpenSolaris and the *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonflyBSD).
HTH.
Yes! Turn over the RAM!
All your RAM are belong to us!
They air their programs world wide, via satellite, they make extraordinarily good journalism, they're a public television and once the program's has aired, it just disappears into oblivion...That's not vey smart.
;-)
Why not let people download all their content with tools like the Democracy player? What have they to loose if more people see a fantastic BBC documentary they like? What's it to them if I wanna keep a documentary where I actually learn something?
It makes no sense to me. The content has already been paid for (by taxes of UK citizens). I mean, maybe if you're British you don't think its fair but, I think you got to look at it as a great way to divulge "brand Britain."
I think France and Germany do a much better job of divulging their country and culture than the Brits (colonialism techniques notwithstanding;-)). Germany has Deutsche Welle and the Goethe Institute, and France has always understood the importance of catering to their "francophone" audience. They know they are people that'll actually consume French products (literature, movies, a trip to Paris, etc.)
The BBC has got to loosen up that tight upper lip.
PS: We are still waiting for Dirac.
Or unless you would like to sell per-seat licenses, like RedHat, or dual-license your code, so fools can contribute to your project for free, giving away their copyright to you, while you can make a nice buck selling a proprietary license.
Yeah, the GPL is all about freedom.
FUD.
FUD.
FUD.
Interesting times. These days, we not only get the typical Redmond FUD, but FUD from the Linux people.
Available on OpenSolaris and FreeBSD (and being ported at least to NetBSD, AFAIK). Those are free software operating systems.
Your problem is that not everything fits in your little GNU/Linux box.
Wings3d is written in Erlang, correct?
IMHO, the problem is that specialized subjects (unless it's something directly related to systems software) are harder to get going in open source projects. Some domains, like computer algebra, operations research, visualization, etc., demand a domain knowledge that is not widely available. Being able to program in C/C++/C# or Java, etc., is not enough. A lot of programmers in the OS world know Unix. But knowing Unix does nothing for your, e.g., workflow, spreadsheet, or number-crunching software (scientific computing, BTW, is one very specialized area where you find good open source software, because it fulfills the needs of academics). Chances are, if you are specialized to that degree, you already have ties, or plan to have, with certain software houses or academic institutions. Or perhaps, you want to compete in the market with your own business (and this might have something to do with certain license choices, in particular the GPL).
In fact, if you look at it, there are quite a few domain-specific softwares that are lagging behind when compared to their proprietary counterparts.
Cooperation in some open source domains might also lag behind because of the lack of imagination of many OS tools. Look at the proprietary tools for Java, for instance and what they can achieve in terms of colaboration. I'm not a Java programmer, but to my knowledge there isn't anything like that in the OS world.
Licenses might have have something to do with it, also. I don't see why one specialist would want to contribute to another specialist's project, when there's even the possibility that this one releases the other's code contribution under a dual license (one proprietary, the other GPL). The solution is to reinvent the wheel and roll your own.
Digg's HD-DVD sponsorship sure beats Reddit's "NSA grant" sponsorship (now wisely removed from their pages).
Besides, Linux users are always in the public eye, due to the profusion of basically 3 types of articles:
.Net, Free Mac OS, etc.)
1) "Look, Ma! Look at my Beryl spinning cube interface!!" articles, or The Linux Desktop Wallpaper How-To;
2) The We-Are-Fighting-Evil genre of articles (Free Java, Free Flash, Free
3) We-Are-Fighting-Each-Other genre (e.g., "Debian X Ubuntu" material).
You don't like the mg Emacs-like editor installed by default?
What a fucking troll...
OpenBSD's man pages are the gold standard.
NIce.
IIIRC, there's somebody developing a scientific visualization package that is being developed in Java, but I forgot it's name.
I gave up on it because of the dual-license trap (he wanted to take your contributions and sell a proprietary version, while you had to use the GPL version).
There aren't many done in Java, sadly.