For the love of God, Cain't they find better names? Just right now, I was Abel to think of a few just off the top off my head. My mind is being Flooded with ideas for software names, in fact. Funny story, I used to Noah guy who could Babel out a hundred names on command...what a Nimrod that guy was.
We want more money because we are greedy corporate money mongers. Raise your prices or we'll drag you to court and prevent you from selling our hip, fun, energetic teeny pop music.
Sincerely, The Recording Industry Association of America
can't the PC guys check their goddamn counters and pointers when using buffers?
We try our best, but we're humans. We make mistakes.
And why the hell do we still need to code buffers? Isn't there a library or a call to handle buffers in a safe way?
Yes. In fact, most modern languages like Java and C# handle memory for us; no more deletes necessary, and buffer overflows, while not impossible, more much less likely to happen with higher level languages.
The last time someone paid for OSS? Oh, I don't know, maybe the last time someone purchased a Red Hat commercial OS?
I could make my code open source by including it in packages users have purchased from me. That way the code is open, the software is unrestricted, and I get paid for it.
Wow, that was well said. Thank you, couldn't have said it better. This whole community ought to apply the same critical standards to all studies presented, not just the ones they happen to agree with.
It all depends on your stance. I'm coming from a legal point of view; where I grant users the right to use my software (a right that must be purchased; it is not an inherent right). You seem to be coming from a philosophical point of view, where, under copyleft, I am "restrict the freedom of my user" by not granting the user "additional rights".
I choose to believe that the RMS's philosophy is a fallacy, and it seems you do not. That's where this argument is rooted; in essence we're both right from our own perspectives: mine legal, yours philosophical.
So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?
If what you say is true, then I guess that I have had a misunderstanding of the GPL.
In other words, it's the difference between a philosophical and legal view. Legally, according to US Copyright, you're granting them rights. Philosophically, according to copyleft, you're restricting their rights. You're both right, so there's no reason to keep arguing about it.
In one of the other replies to my original post, I offer a theoretical example of why someone would want a different license requiring a purchase before the code could be accessed.
Of course, all this is just speculation, I have no idea what the 'commercial GPL' will really be. Maybe they just want to stop projects like MySQL from using non-GPL licenses for commercial content...who knows.
:-) I guess we differ; I say that by granting right, I am not restricting rights by 'insufficiently protecting' them. Anonymous cowards seem to think otherwise.
you aren't granting the recipient any rights at all
I guess that's where you and I differ. Our customers purchase our software in exchange for being able to use it in any fashion they like. That in of itself is granting rights - the right to use the software as they please in exchange for money. Pretty simple to understand.
What I don't understand is how my granting of rights to our customers is somehow restricting rights of the customers.
You have no reason to grant the recipients any extra rights beyond the ones they get by default, and so don't need to use the GPL, or any other open source license.
So why is such softare labelled 'unethical' by such prominent open source leaders as RMS?
There are some circumstances in which a commercial GPL would differ. I want to demonstrate the application, or show a client how our application works, under GPL, I would have to supply them with the code. Yes, I could change the licensing solely for demonstration purposes, but the point remains.
My *guess* is that a commercial GPL would be one that would cover such areas, in which the source will be freely available dependant upon a purchase of the software.
Upon purchase, the source code would be freely available, modifiable, and so on.
Currently what's stopping us from using the GPL is that we fear anyone could take our code, build their own version, and basically get a working copy of our application for free.
As it is, the GPL clashes with commercial software. Indeed, most commercial software businesses see the GPL as a threat when it could be seen as an ally.
Doesn't that [commercial GPL] kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL?
Uh no. The GPL is not about giving away software for free. It's about the sharing of information in the form of source code, without restrictions.
If GPL doesn't have some sort of commercial counterpart, the company I work for will never use it -- after all, we're a company like any other, we exist to make money and earn a decent living.
Slashdot Mirror
For the love of God, Cain't they find better names? Just right now, I was Abel to think of a few just off the top off my head. My mind is being Flooded with ideas for software names, in fact. Funny story, I used to Noah guy who could Babel out a hundred names on command...what a Nimrod that guy was.
Was thinking more along the lines of "Cool. They used something from the Bible" personally.
I spent three days of productive work time listening to polyphonic ringtones...in a meeting, this phone's gonna go off-- what are they going to hear?
"You're fired."
Dear iTunes et al,
We want more money because we are greedy corporate money mongers. Raise your prices or we'll drag you to court and prevent you from selling our hip, fun, energetic teeny pop music.
Sincerely,
The Recording Industry Association of America
can't the PC guys check their goddamn counters and pointers when using buffers?
We try our best, but we're humans. We make mistakes.
And why the hell do we still need to code buffers? Isn't there a library or a call to handle buffers in a safe way?
Yes. In fact, most modern languages like Java and C# handle memory for us; no more deletes necessary, and buffer overflows, while not impossible, more much less likely to happen with higher level languages.
The last time someone paid for OSS? Oh, I don't know, maybe the last time someone purchased a Red Hat commercial OS?
I could make my code open source by including it in packages users have purchased from me. That way the code is open, the software is unrestricted, and I get paid for it.
Anyone else think this article sounded a bit more superhero than it turned out to be?
No.
To me, it sounds like a man named Rasterman responded to some criticism by two men, one named Seth, another named Havoc.
If you choose to write open source code, you are chosing to have no money.
Hello? Free software != software for no money. Free software == software without restrictions.
Ok, so the everybody at 1% is off obviously, but come on he has a valid question -- is this a case of everybody vs. MS?
Wow, that was well said. Thank you, couldn't have said it better. This whole community ought to apply the same critical standards to all studies presented, not just the ones they happen to agree with.
It all depends on your stance. I'm coming from a legal point of view; where I grant users the right to use my software (a right that must be purchased; it is not an inherent right). You seem to be coming from a philosophical point of view, where, under copyleft, I am "restrict the freedom of my user" by not granting the user "additional rights".
I choose to believe that the RMS's philosophy is a fallacy, and it seems you do not. That's where this argument is rooted; in essence we're both right from our own perspectives: mine legal, yours philosophical.
So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase? If what you say is true, then I guess that I have had a misunderstanding of the GPL.
In other words, it's the difference between a philosophical and legal view. Legally, according to US Copyright, you're granting them rights. Philosophically, according to copyleft, you're restricting their rights. You're both right, so there's no reason to keep arguing about it.
Well said, I agree with that wholly.
In one of the other replies to my original post, I offer a theoretical example of why someone would want a different license requiring a purchase before the code could be accessed.
Of course, all this is just speculation, I have no idea what the 'commercial GPL' will really be. Maybe they just want to stop projects like MySQL from using non-GPL licenses for commercial content...who knows.
:-) I guess we differ; I say that by granting right, I am not restricting rights by 'insufficiently protecting' them. Anonymous cowards seem to think otherwise.
you aren't granting the recipient any rights at all
I guess that's where you and I differ. Our customers purchase our software in exchange for being able to use it in any fashion they like. That in of itself is granting rights - the right to use the software as they please in exchange for money. Pretty simple to understand.
What I don't understand is how my granting of rights to our customers is somehow restricting rights of the customers.
Ah, my mistake.
I fail to see how granting someone rights restricts their freedom.
You have no reason to grant the recipients any extra rights beyond the ones they get by default, and so don't need to use the GPL, or any other open source license. So why is such softare labelled 'unethical' by such prominent open source leaders as RMS?
Most commercial software development is "in house" and/ore bespoke.
Regardless of the accuracy of that statement, not all software development is in-house.
There are some circumstances in which a commercial GPL would differ. I want to demonstrate the application, or show a client how our application works, under GPL, I would have to supply them with the code. Yes, I could change the licensing solely for demonstration purposes, but the point remains.
My *guess* is that a commercial GPL would be one that would cover such areas, in which the source will be freely available dependant upon a purchase of the software.
Upon purchase, the source code would be freely available, modifiable, and so on.
Currently what's stopping us from using the GPL is that we fear anyone could take our code, build their own version, and basically get a working copy of our application for free.
As it is, the GPL clashes with commercial software. Indeed, most commercial software businesses see the GPL as a threat when it could be seen as an ally.
It'd most likely be a license with a provision of source code sharing dependant on whether the software is purchased.
Doesn't that [commercial GPL] kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL?
Uh no. The GPL is not about giving away software for free. It's about the sharing of information in the form of source code, without restrictions.
If GPL doesn't have some sort of commercial counterpart, the company I work for will never use it -- after all, we're a company like any other, we exist to make money and earn a decent living.
Yeah, those darned Republicans and their evil agendas. Oh wait, this is California we're talking about? Nevermind then.