I'm sure most everyone knows. But it is common practice to, like, note conflicts of interest and such. Especially when playing news/media/reporter.
I mean, you guys do it sometimes when you post stories... ("Foo is also owned by OSDN.") Either do it all the time, or none of the time... Otherwise, it just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Sorry. It does.
Ahh, the old "ASP Loophole" -- Some good articles
on
GPL and Leased Software?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Not a new concept or a new problem. (I dealt with it myself... in a past life.)
Here's an interesting article from 2000 written by someone who actually had a dialogue with
RMS about the subject.
It actually links to an even older Slashdot article about the same subject.
The basic story was a developer wanted to release his product as open source but didn't want to see someone grab it, set up a competing site and not have to share code.
That story links to a SourceForge.net forum thread which is now offline, or at least "restricted to members of this group" (?). I believe they had similar issues back when they published their code.
In the end, looks like nothing was ever resolved...
I have to say that it's that sort of attitude that can really hurt the open source community. The fact of the matter is that an owner of intellectual property is free to do whatever they want with their property (subject to copyright law and other public policy).
Remember, it's __only__ the existence of IP law that makes the GPL possible. (Without copyright, the copyleft viral effect of the GPL goes away.) Some might argue copyright is immoral, but the fact of the matter is that it is the basis of the freedom that the GPL is built upon (until a revolution comes and legislates that all software must be free).
If a company wants to put their code in a drawer and not release it, that's their choice.
The weasel comment makes it sound like they're holding something for ransom and doing something immoral. They're not. They have no more obligation to release their code than you have to share you ATM pin code. (Yes the analogy isn't dead on.)
I didn't realize that about the Perforce renewal. I'd wager it's just to make sure people aren't abusing the license (by working on non-free software, not by competing with them). But I wouldn't be concerned, given that everyone I've ever talked to that's interacted with those guys says nice things about them. Not that I use any of these tools anyway, just seems like they represent a nice (in many senses of the word) alternative. See this slashdot discussion.....
"(I don't like sneakiness. All my comments belong solely to me. Slashdot would not have the importance it has now if the members knew that they were losing control over their writing.)"
If you believe this, why don't you just send a nasty-gram to VA and claim some sort of DMCA violation for repoducing your owned works? (Or alternatively, claim that the "you own it" language is fraudulent.)
I'm sure a letter to their lawyers will at least get them to change the text that makes you angry (one way or another). Clearly, posting comments in places like this hasn't made you any happier.;-]
(Actually, it looks like you may be out of luck. It appears that the terms of service say that you _do_ own your comments, just as the footnote says (Section 4, five or six paragraphs in). You just grant OSDN the right to repoduce and do other things with them -- sound like any popular licenses we've heard of? I imagine if someone _else_ were to reproduce your content, you'd still be able to send them legitimate nastygrams as the owners.)
Well, I'd clarify my comment a bit. I'm fine with whatever licensing terms he wants to go with (they may be arguable outrageous, as long as they're legal).
But the idea of retroactively adjusting licenses and forcing compliance for _existing_ users seems like it's not quite fair. (Even Microsoft can't force you to install SP3 or upgrade office 97, even thought they'd like to. Even the GPL lets you choose which version of a later license you'd like to be bound under.)
What's going on here is _existing_ users under an old license have to upgrade to new terms.
Bottom line, I'd just rather deal with friendlier people. If better development tools are the order, and non-free software is okay, I'd look elsewhere?
Otherwise, what's the next license change going to look like?
You want to reward him for this sort of behavior? I'd rather direct my goodwill wishing at someone or some company a bit nobler.....
And just wait for subversion in the meantime. Actually there are many alternatives to root for.
(Besides, do you know how expensive it would be to buy Bitmover? Think about the ego's involved. Better yet, just ask. I imagine you'd get a straight answer. Any guesses on how many zeros for to own this magic product you'd then be expected to give away for free?)
Give him some glasses, some voice lessons and one of those toy-lawn-mowers-with-colored-balls-that-bounce-whe n-you-push-them -instead-of-blades (which only he will be able to appreciate on a totality of artistic and mathematic levels).
"This is something almost every developer has had to deal with."
If that's the case, wouldn't you think that it would be an infrequent problem, as almost every developer would be "just as non-sucky and motivated" as "we the good ones"?
Slashdot Mirror
Full disclosure. Everyone knows, of course. But this is just the sort of things the "grown up" sites do, so slashdot should too.
Let them come!
Thanks for disclosing the fact that OSTG has a relationship with the vendor it's promoting.
I mean, you guys do it sometimes when you post stories... ("Foo is also owned by OSDN.") Either do it all the time, or none of the time... Otherwise, it just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Sorry. It does.
Wow, that's a lot of spam!
Here's an interesting article from 2000 written by someone who actually had a dialogue with RMS about the subject.
It actually links to an even older Slashdot article about the same subject.
The basic story was a developer wanted to release his product as open source but didn't want to see someone grab it, set up a competing site and not have to share code.
That story links to a SourceForge.net forum thread which is now offline, or at least "restricted to members of this group" (?). I believe they had similar issues back when they published their code.
In the end, looks like nothing was ever resolved...
But I guess that's why they didn't want to put him in the public light much. ;-)
Also, I think there's part of the sourceforge.net discussion thread for the source closing that I think is what he talks about in the interview here.
I have to say that it's that sort of attitude that can really hurt the open source community. The fact of the matter is that an owner of intellectual property is free to do whatever they want with their property (subject to copyright law and other public policy).
Remember, it's __only__ the existence of IP law that makes the GPL possible. (Without copyright, the copyleft viral effect of the GPL goes away.) Some might argue copyright is immoral, but the fact of the matter is that it is the basis of the freedom that the GPL is built upon (until a revolution comes and legislates that all software must be free).
If a company wants to put their code in a drawer and not release it, that's their choice. The weasel comment makes it sound like they're holding something for ransom and doing something immoral. They're not. They have no more obligation to release their code than you have to share you ATM pin code. (Yes the analogy isn't dead on.)
Enjoy.....
Anyways, if you want to have a look at a version of their site, check out their Russian cousin
I didn't realize that about the Perforce renewal. I'd wager it's just to make sure people aren't abusing the license (by working on non-free software, not by competing with them). But I wouldn't be concerned, given that everyone I've ever talked to that's interacted with those guys says nice things about them. Not that I use any of these tools anyway, just seems like they represent a nice (in many senses of the word) alternative. See this slashdot discussion.....
If you believe this, why don't you just send a nasty-gram to VA and claim some sort of DMCA violation for repoducing your owned works? (Or alternatively, claim that the "you own it" language is fraudulent.)
I'm sure a letter to their lawyers will at least get them to change the text that makes you angry (one way or another). Clearly, posting comments in places like this hasn't made you any happier. ;-]
(Actually, it looks like you may be out of luck. It appears that the terms of service say that you _do_ own your comments, just as the footnote says (Section 4, five or six paragraphs in). You just grant OSDN the right to repoduce and do other things with them -- sound like any popular licenses we've heard of? I imagine if someone _else_ were to reproduce your content, you'd still be able to send them legitimate nastygrams as the owners.)
But the idea of retroactively adjusting licenses and forcing compliance for _existing_ users seems like it's not quite fair. (Even Microsoft can't force you to install SP3 or upgrade office 97, even thought they'd like to. Even the GPL lets you choose which version of a later license you'd like to be bound under.)
What's going on here is _existing_ users under an old license have to upgrade to new terms.
Bottom line, I'd just rather deal with friendlier people. If better development tools are the order, and non-free software is okay, I'd look elsewhere?
Otherwise, what's the next license change going to look like?
You want to reward him for this sort of behavior? I'd rather direct my goodwill wishing at someone or some company a bit nobler.....
And just wait for subversion in the meantime. Actually there are many alternatives to root for.
(Besides, do you know how expensive it would be to buy Bitmover? Think about the ego's involved. Better yet, just ask. I imagine you'd get a straight answer. Any guesses on how many zeros for to own this magic product you'd then be expected to give away for free?)
Give him some glasses, some voice lessons and one of those toy-lawn-mowers-with-colored-balls-that-bounce-whe n-you-push-them -instead-of-blades (which only he will be able to appreciate on a totality of artistic and mathematic levels).
If that's the case, wouldn't you think that it would be an infrequent problem, as almost every developer would be "just as non-sucky and motivated" as "we the good ones"?