"Prudence suggests that since it's our money funding the research, we ought to make sure the public gets some return from the endeavor."
That's why it should be BSD licensed.
Of course, if a someone uses that code in proprietary software, the public gets to pay twice for it.
Personally, I think that it should be dual-licenced. GPLed, and also licenced to whoever wants to use it in their proprietary software - for a royalty. Yes, the proprietary software company might have paid taxes, but they will be trying to sell it back to the others who also paid taxes. And why shouldn't the government recoup some of their costs - it is not unusual for the government to sell things such as TV frequencies, or charge admission to national parks.
No, anyone who has a website should sue SpamKing because SpamKing fraudulantly tried to get their clients websites ranked higher on Google, damaging sites that were legitimately ranked on Google.
This would be a huge class action suit that would have hundreds of millions of dollars involved, of course.
Sorry, you don't get to put words in my mouth and then beat me over the head with them.
Sorry, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have a real reading comprehension problem. Your own words do a fine job on yourself.
You have shown yourself to have no integrity, and to be dishonest.
I'm not the one lying about Stallman wanting to use guns and violence. Your words. I'm not the one trying to come up with a new definition of free software, to try to exclude GPLed software from it.
I'm done wasting time with you.
I followed the links posted by the ACs in this subthread. It's about "the nation of macintosh". I was somewhat stunned to see the following post by you:
but the thing that strikes me is how much outright hatred there is out there.
ITs not about preference-- its actually persecution (in the same way gay people are persecuted-- not burned at the stake, but harassed and denied opportunity.)
Just look at the blatantly biased way my post has been modded.
Yes, amiga users suffer the same fate, and Linux users too, but its worth noting that at least in these parts its the linux users running around calling us "macfags" and getting modded up for it!
Compairing "mac persecution" to the way gays are treated - sorry, but that is just so crazy. But then again, it sort of fits in with the ways you have tried to demonize RMS.
Looks like I've wasted my time talking to an immature child.
You are so stupid you can't even tell what the issue is? First off "Free" software isn't involved here-- that's a bullshit term as you use it as I've shown . Secondly, I'm not wanting to make open source software closed, I just wnat ot be able to sell my software. If I use and GPLed software, then I cant-- even if I keep the GPLed software open sourced.
Excuse me, but you haven't shown that GPL'ed software isn't free. Just because you can't do anything you want with it doesn't make it not free.
Let's see... You said you want to be able to use open source software in your products, but you might not want to release the code. That sounds like you are making it closed.
So, stop lying about what I've said-- you think I'm not going to notice it? How stupid is that?
Hey, I just repeat what you say, and now you call me a liar? Interesting.
Finally, RMS advocates the elimination of propritary software and software patents. He advocates that the government does this. The government doing so involves guns because everything the government does is enforced with guns. Therefore RMS is advocating the use of violence to force people to open their code when they don't want to.
Is this your *proof* that RMS wants to use guns? If this is the best you can do, then, well yes, you lied about it.
Using your line of reasoning, if someone gives out your proprietary software, then you will be advocating the use of violence and guns against those people.
By the way, there are plenty of BSD type people who are also quite upset about software patents - it effects them as much as it does GPLed software. And many, if not all european countries don't give software patents.
And while RMS may like an end to proprietary software, he has never advocated forcing companies to release their software as free software (unless they violate the GPL), but advocates that people choose free software instead. Your attempts at demonizing RMS reflects badly upon yourself.
You just can't deal with this so you have to lie about what I've said to try and twist it around.
I don't have to lie about what you say - you do a good enough job of damning yourself. All I have to do is point it out. Easy Job.
Get a life. And learn the definition of "Free" you fuckwad.
Sorry, I tend not to go along with peoples personal redefinition of terms.
You aren't paying very close attention. But anyway, its irrelevant-- you've placed me in a nice little box in your head that lets you hate me and so you're not listening to what I say.
Box? Hate? Sorry, you seem to have some reading comprehension problems. Someone complaining that they can't take free software and make it unfree is rather funny.
Oh, and your inability to comprehend english does not make a lie on my part. Watch those accusations.
OK - prove that I was wrong - show me where RMS advocated the use of guns as you said earlier:
RMS has advocated the forcing (and that means, with guns) of all software to be "free"-- whether it was GPLed or not.
If anything,it looks like you who either have either a reading comprehension problem, or a writing comprehension problem.
Of course, if you can back up your accusations about the above (RMS w/ guns), I'll gladly appologize.
Ah, so when pressed you deny that stallman has claimed that all software should be free. Or that the GPL forces any software that it is mixed with to be "Free" was well.
No, I pointed out that you lied about Stallman willing to use guns to make software free. But we are also talking about the GPL here, and not Stallman. As far as I am concerned, bringing up Stallman and his views is a way to try to divert the discussion when you are losing it.
Stallman is trying to force people to open their code if tehy use GPL code.
But he is not forcing you to incorporate GPL'd code in the first place, so your point is bogus.
I've found that its not worth the time, and I have no desire to open some of my code (after all, that's what I SELL), and so I sued the BSD license.
Sued? You must be a lawyer:).
Whatever. If you write your code, you can put whatever licence on it that you want. But it is really funny to listen to someone who writes proprietary code complain about free software.
But calling the GPL about "free" software is like calling the communist party the party of freedom and tolerance.
Darn it, don't you know you are supposed to use the Nazis, and not the commies?
And to listen to a proprietary software vendor complain about the GPL is like a prostitute complaining about men getting sex from their wives...:).
A government should not be allowed to (and should not want to!) destroy its constitents' livelihoods. Therefore, government should not produce GPLed software (its output should be in the public domain) and should not promote the use of GPLed software or the spread of the GPL as a license. It would truly be horrible if government guns were used to fight Stallman's war against programmers and small business.
The above was written by Brett Glass (or someone claiming to be him).
And it aint freedom he's advocating-- its the elimination of programmer as a job title, and the elimination of any ownership of ones work product.
Considering that RMS claims that one of the benefits of free software is that you can hire someone to fix a program (since you have the source), he isn't advocating eliminating programmers as a job title. Look at the Linux companies, and at companies like IBM, Motorola, and SGI - they have programmers who are paid to work on GPL'd software.
Trying to attack the GPL by going after Stallman isn't going to win any points. And your last post seems to be very short in facts.
Generally, anyone who is using open source to begin with sees the economic value of contributing their improvements back into the tree-- if they don't then they won't be able to use the improvements of others either, every release will require a complete reworking of that bit of code.
Yes and no - if the GPL'd code is kept relatively modular, changes are relatively simple. And there may be an economic incentive to not contribute back. Again, can we say "WINE"?
No, the problem is the GPL wants to force them to give up their original code as well. The GPL isn't satisfied enough with its code being open sourced, it wants to FORCE anyone who uses code that is GPLed to also open source their own code.
Since you aren't FORCED to use GPL'd code, no one is being FORCED to open source their own code.
THAT's how its anti-freedom. The GPL keeping the GPLed code open source nobody has a beef with. ITs forcing people to opensource unrelated code that people find offensive.
Since you aren't FORCED to use GPL'd code, no one is being FORCED to open source their own code.
And what a buzzword - "anti-freedom" - because someone won't let you do whatever you want with their code, they are "anti-freedom"! However, what *you* want to be able to do with the GPL'd code is "anti-freedom" too, since you want to keep your code locked up.
The BSD license is far more free-- you're FREE to do anything you want with the code.
Yep. Including making it proprietary. So you get those greedy SOBS going Waaaa! Bad GPL! I can't just grab it for my own, I have to *give back*! Imagine - somebody gives out their code, and wants others to share back! How horrible! The GPL must be destroyed!
Personally, I feel it is up to the authors of the code to decide on the licence. It's sad, though, when a developer realizes that they have been locked out of improvements made to their code because they used the BSD licence. Can you say "WINE"? They switched for reasons similar to this.
Frankly, I'm tired of Brett Glass and his ilk, whining about the GPL. Their arguements sound like they look at software developers as free slave laborers.
I don't consider the GPL and the GNU project to be about freedom, in any shape or form.
Well, if you take the amount of money spent by people watching bad movies, factor in compensation for their lost time, the studios should be punished by fines greater than $3Bill-ions.
How can people be called ignorant when there are facts that a man, created by God, came down and preached to thousands upon thousands. Documented proof of the existance of a man who could cure the blind. Raise the dead. Heal a cripple, etc. The most popular book ever sold is the bible. Granted its translation is inaccurate to some degree but it isn't just Catholics and Mormons and Lutherans believing in one God. It is Muslims and buddhists? and countless other religions believing in just one entity that created us. We are talking billions of people here.
Now, don't forget that the gospels were written 60 or more years after Christ, by his followers. So I would hardly call it "Documented Proof". And there exists no independent accounts of these things.
As far as other religions go, there have been many that have multiple gods/goddesses, and had a significant portion of the worlds population at that time. Many of those civilizations spent an enormous amount of their capital supporting their religions, so they obviously felt that they had substantial evidence that their religion was true.
And while most religions have certain things in common, they have substantial enough differences so that they could not come from the same god or gods.
How scientists had to actually calculate into their equations for the original Apollo moon flights the fact that Earth stood still for an entire day. Real things that happened.
ROTFL. You really believe that sort of crap?
Even if the earth did stand still (and there is no record by other civilizations at that time that it ever happened), it would not have any long term effect - the moon is in a stable orbit around the earth, and the earths' rotation is a constant speed.
Besides... here are two more interesting arguements that cause science to fail.
Your arguements don't cause "science to fail". Just like newtonian physics were superceeded as we learned more, new theories will probably come along. If "we don't know" is scientific failure, there is alot less scientific failure today than a century ago:).
Slashdot Mirror
The germans used the V1 and V2 to attack British cities.
-MDL
That's why it should be BSD licensed.
Of course, if a someone uses that code in proprietary software, the public gets to pay twice for it.
Personally, I think that it should be dual-licenced. GPLed, and also licenced to whoever wants to use it in their proprietary software - for a royalty. Yes, the proprietary software company might have paid taxes, but they will be trying to sell it back to the others who also paid taxes. And why shouldn't the government recoup some of their costs - it is not unusual for the government to sell things such as TV frequencies, or charge admission to national parks.
-MDL
This would be a huge class action suit that would have hundreds of millions of dollars involved, of course.
-MDL
Sorry, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have a real reading comprehension problem. Your own words do a fine job on yourself.
You have shown yourself to have no integrity, and to be dishonest.
I'm not the one lying about Stallman wanting to use guns and violence. Your words. I'm not the one trying to come up with a new definition of free software, to try to exclude GPLed software from it.
I'm done wasting time with you.
I followed the links posted by the ACs in this subthread. It's about "the nation of macintosh". I was somewhat stunned to see the following post by you:
4468509
Sure, the mac is not alone in this. I agree.
but the thing that strikes me is how much outright hatred there is out there.
ITs not about preference-- its actually persecution (in the same way gay people are persecuted-- not burned at the stake, but harassed and denied opportunity.)
Just look at the blatantly biased way my post has been modded.
Yes, amiga users suffer the same fate, and Linux users too, but its worth noting that at least in these parts its the linux users running around calling us "macfags" and getting modded up for it!
Compairing "mac persecution" to the way gays are treated - sorry, but that is just so crazy. But then again, it sort of fits in with the ways you have tried to demonize RMS.
Looks like I've wasted my time talking to an immature child.
-MDL
Excuse me, but you haven't shown that GPL'ed software isn't free. Just because you can't do anything you want with it doesn't make it not free.
Let's see... You said you want to be able to use open source software in your products, but you might not want to release the code. That sounds like you are making it closed.
So, stop lying about what I've said-- you think I'm not going to notice it? How stupid is that?
Hey, I just repeat what you say, and now you call me a liar? Interesting.
Finally, RMS advocates the elimination of propritary software and software patents. He advocates that the government does this. The government doing so involves guns because everything the government does is enforced with guns. Therefore RMS is advocating the use of violence to force people to open their code when they don't want to.
Is this your *proof* that RMS wants to use guns? If this is the best you can do, then, well yes, you lied about it.
Using your line of reasoning, if someone gives out your proprietary software, then you will be advocating the use of violence and guns against those people.
By the way, there are plenty of BSD type people who are also quite upset about software patents - it effects them as much as it does GPLed software. And many, if not all european countries don't give software patents.
And while RMS may like an end to proprietary software, he has never advocated forcing companies to release their software as free software (unless they violate the GPL), but advocates that people choose free software instead. Your attempts at demonizing RMS reflects badly upon yourself.
You just can't deal with this so you have to lie about what I've said to try and twist it around.
I don't have to lie about what you say - you do a good enough job of damning yourself. All I have to do is point it out. Easy Job.
Get a life. And learn the definition of "Free" you fuckwad.
Sorry, I tend not to go along with peoples personal redefinition of terms.
-MDL
Box? Hate? Sorry, you seem to have some reading comprehension problems. Someone complaining that they can't take free software and make it unfree is rather funny.
Oh, and your inability to comprehend english does not make a lie on my part. Watch those accusations.
OK - prove that I was wrong - show me where RMS advocated the use of guns as you said earlier:
RMS has advocated the forcing (and that means, with guns) of all software to be "free"-- whether it was GPLed or not.
If anything,it looks like you who either have either a reading comprehension problem, or a writing comprehension problem.
Of course, if you can back up your accusations about the above (RMS w/ guns), I'll gladly appologize.
-MDL
No, I pointed out that you lied about Stallman willing to use guns to make software free. But we are also talking about the GPL here, and not Stallman. As far as I am concerned, bringing up Stallman and his views is a way to try to divert the discussion when you are losing it.
Stallman is trying to force people to open their code if tehy use GPL code.
But he is not forcing you to incorporate GPL'd code in the first place, so your point is bogus.
I've found that its not worth the time, and I have no desire to open some of my code (after all, that's what I SELL), and so I sued the BSD license.
Sued? You must be a lawyer :).
Whatever. If you write your code, you can put whatever licence on it that you want. But it is really funny to listen to someone who writes proprietary code complain about free software.
But calling the GPL about "free" software is like calling the communist party the party of freedom and tolerance.
Darn it, don't you know you are supposed to use the Nazis, and not the commies?
And to listen to a proprietary software vendor complain about the GPL is like a prostitute complaining about men getting sex from their wives... :).
-MDL
I have never seen anything like this claim - Stallman advocating the use of guns. I did a web search, and the closest thing I could find was this:
From Oreillynet.com
A government should not be allowed to (and should not want to!) destroy its constitents' livelihoods. Therefore, government should not produce GPLed software (its output should be in the public domain) and should not promote the use of GPLed software or the spread of the GPL as a license. It would truly be horrible if government guns were used to fight Stallman's war against programmers and small business.
The above was written by Brett Glass (or someone claiming to be him).
And it aint freedom he's advocating-- its the elimination of programmer as a job title, and the elimination of any ownership of ones work product.
Considering that RMS claims that one of the benefits of free software is that you can hire someone to fix a program (since you have the source), he isn't advocating eliminating programmers as a job title. Look at the Linux companies, and at companies like IBM, Motorola, and SGI - they have programmers who are paid to work on GPL'd software.
Trying to attack the GPL by going after Stallman isn't going to win any points. And your last post seems to be very short in facts.
-MDL
Yes and no - if the GPL'd code is kept relatively modular, changes are relatively simple. And there may be an economic incentive to not contribute back. Again, can we say "WINE"?
No, the problem is the GPL wants to force them to give up their original code as well. The GPL isn't satisfied enough with its code being open sourced, it wants to FORCE anyone who uses code that is GPLed to also open source their own code.
Since you aren't FORCED to use GPL'd code, no one is being FORCED to open source their own code.
THAT's how its anti-freedom. The GPL keeping the GPLed code open source nobody has a beef with. ITs forcing people to opensource unrelated code that people find offensive.
Since you aren't FORCED to use GPL'd code, no one is being FORCED to open source their own code.
And what a buzzword - "anti-freedom" - because someone won't let you do whatever you want with their code, they are "anti-freedom"! However, what *you* want to be able to do with the GPL'd code is "anti-freedom" too, since you want to keep your code locked up.
Please at least understand what the issue is.
Again, can you say "WINE"?
-MDL
Yep. Including making it proprietary. So you get those greedy SOBS going Waaaa! Bad GPL! I can't just grab it for my own, I have to *give back*! Imagine - somebody gives out their code, and wants others to share back! How horrible! The GPL must be destroyed!
Personally, I feel it is up to the authors of the code to decide on the licence. It's sad, though, when a developer realizes that they have been locked out of improvements made to their code because they used the BSD licence. Can you say "WINE"? They switched for reasons similar to this.
Frankly, I'm tired of Brett Glass and his ilk, whining about the GPL. Their arguements sound like they look at software developers as free slave laborers.
I don't consider the GPL and the GNU project to be about freedom, in any shape or form.
Thank you for making my point.
-MDL
Well, if you take the amount of money spent by people watching bad movies, factor in compensation for their lost time, the studios should be punished by fines greater than $3Bill-ions.
-MD
So, by ripping a new Britney album, it reduces the incentive for her to make the next one. So what is the downside to that? -MD
We have a playstation 2 with over a dozen games, but my 10 year old son frequently likes to play the games included with KDE instead.
:).
Remember, chess is only a 2-D game
-mdl
Now, don't forget that the gospels were written 60 or more years after Christ, by his followers. So I would hardly call it "Documented Proof". And there exists no independent accounts of these things.
As far as other religions go, there have been many that have multiple gods/goddesses, and had a significant portion of the worlds population at that time. Many of those civilizations spent an enormous amount of their capital supporting their religions, so they obviously felt that they had substantial evidence that their religion was true.
And while most religions have certain things in common, they have substantial enough differences so that they could not come from the same god or gods.
How scientists had to actually calculate into their equations for the original Apollo moon flights the fact that Earth stood still for an entire day. Real things that happened.
ROTFL. You really believe that sort of crap? Even if the earth did stand still (and there is no record by other civilizations at that time that it ever happened), it would not have any long term effect - the moon is in a stable orbit around the earth, and the earths' rotation is a constant speed.
Besides... here are two more interesting arguements that cause science to fail.
Your arguements don't cause "science to fail". Just like newtonian physics were superceeded as we learned more, new theories will probably come along. If "we don't know" is scientific failure, there is alot less scientific failure today than a century ago :).