Certainly, you could open up a lawsuit with somebody and start an investigation of the source code in question. But how do the courts interperate the GPL? They haven't yet. It needs to stand up in court first before anything can be said on this topic.
I seriously doubt the GPL had anything to do with Perl's success. Maybe it's just because Perl is an excellent language for system administration and other mundane tasks it was created for. Perl might as well have been under Joe Public's public domain license; it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The GPL doesn't magically create good products.
The GPL is not a magic wrapper around your code that will preserve "freedom" (or the FSF's twisted definition of it) any more than the BSD license will preserve true freedom of code. In fact, the GPL has never been tested in a court of law; nobody is even sure it will stand up. In that case, you could say the GPL is really just a feel-good license..
WRONG. Linus has no possible way for relicensing the Linux kernel, for instance, unless he gets ahold of every single contributor to ask their permission. So he no longer controls "his" work. Same thing for any other GPL'd work of any magnitude.
Just as long as you don't say your code is free, because it isn't. You restrict the code usage from a LARGE segment of the developer population. Which, of course, you are welcome to do, but it seems rather elitist to me.
GPL encourages reinvention of the wheel, not BSDL. GPL code is off-limits to a developer creating a product, thus forcing him to possibly reinvent the wheel when he could have simply used the GPL'd code and not necessarily given away *HIS* code. You have no right to exercise rights over *HIS* code.
How would the value-added code in P+ be in any way "owed" to the developer of P? The poster is right; the value of P is not diminished by the existance of P+.
Re:Don't forget the 'obnoxious' advertising clause
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
I'd still love to know why giving credit where credit is due is "obnoxious" to the GPL community.
Re:Don't forget the 'obnoxious' advertising clause
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
In contrast to various places I've been to that would love to created a value-added product based on Linux, but can't afford to just give up work developed in-house with possibly a large budget, just to have to give that away for a competitor to use.. effectively allowing such a competitor to "compete" with no R&D involved. Clever. I'm sure everyone can come up with some sort of example either way.. As for commercial NetBSD or FreeBSD products, I think I could name more available ones than canned ones.
So it seems the GPL encourages re-engineering, "reinventing the wheel", so as to speak. That doesn't sound like a terribly smart direction to go in.
Re:Its not if they use it, its if they improve it
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Uh, hi, read the BSD license. Credit must be displayed when it is due. Otherwise, they are violating the license agreement. And don't come back with how the GPL supposedly prevents this; violation of a license is violation, whether or not it's BSD or GPL. The GPL doesn't magically protect code from being "stolen". Who knows how many products might possibly have the readline library in it with zero credit given, and all the GPL fluff stripped off? You wouldn't be any the wiser.
Re:Don't forget the 'obnoxious' advertising clause
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Obnoxious? What is obnoxious is trying to track down all the contributors to GPL'd code to get permission to do something to it. I fail to see how a file containing code contributors is so "obnoxious". Are you against giving credit where credit is due?
Re:FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MicrosoftBSD...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
As a developer, I'm more happy deciding my own "coding morality" than having it decided for me with a license.
How does this diminish the value of the STILL existing FREE BSD codebase? It doesn't. I wish rabid GPL advocates would stop trying to use this against the BSD license.
Yeah, I'm sure all the companies that gave back to the BSD community were laughing as they got free stuff without rewarding. Oh, wait. They gave back. Gee, seems to actually be a trend among people using the BSD codebase as a basis for their products.. So instead of trying to force morality, which I find repugnant, the BSD-style licenses do a better job at representing the spirit of a free software community by allowing totally free use of an existing codebase, and allowing everyone to make their own moral decision.
Even if somebody were to integrate your GPL'd code, how does that diminish the existing available codebase? It doesn't. It's not like they "stole" it and hid it from you. You still have your code.
How? I'm sure the most rabid GPL advocates can't point out how it actually harms the existing codebase when somebody else integrates their code into a value-added "proprietary" commercial product. Why? Because it doesn't.
Wow. Perhaps you might do a little research into that terminology which you so carelessly toss aside before you set your flamethrower on "crispy". What does "ext2fs" mean to anybody outside Linux? Or RPM? I guess they are nothing but buzzwords here. It comes down to research, bub. Hypocrisy still abounds on Slashdot it seems..
Bull. There are examples of driver code available, online documentation, and printed documentation. Why do you need the source to the kernel to produce useful drivers? The drivers attach to well-documented hooks in the kernel. Nothing more is really needed.
BeOS for Intel is barely over a year old. My Microsoft mouse and my SCSI2 (oh no, I'm not on the bleeding edge!) card were detected just fine. Same effect for many other people who use BeOS every day; it does "just work" for them. Did you even bother to check the hardware compatibility list? Do you just stick in any hardware for Linux and complain when it isn't autodetected? Or do you consult a list of currently supported hardware?
For free.. is that what it comes down to? Be has a money-back guarantee if you aren't happy with the BeOS. If you want to keep it for free, then I guess you won't be happy. There *is* a place in this world for products that aren't free you know.
I wouldn't say BeOS has no software. At work, I read my email with Postmaster (still in beta, but crashed less for me than Lookout Distress under Windows). I use 'ssh' to connect to my home machine. I web browse with NetPositive, which is the fastest GUI web browser I have ever seen (beats the tar out of IE, NS, and Opera). I compose "flashy" documents with AbiWord. I even assist in cracking RC5-64 with a native BeOS client. BeOS has the software to do what I need it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but this does not diminish the value of the original work.
Certainly, you could open up a lawsuit with somebody and start an investigation of the source code in question. But how do the courts interperate the GPL? They haven't yet. It needs to stand up in court first before anything can be said on this topic.
I seriously doubt the GPL had anything to do with Perl's success. Maybe it's just because Perl is an excellent language for system administration and other mundane tasks it was created for. Perl might as well have been under Joe Public's public domain license; it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The GPL doesn't magically create good products.
The GPL is not a magic wrapper around your code that will preserve "freedom" (or the FSF's twisted definition of it) any more than the BSD license will preserve true freedom of code. In fact, the GPL has never been tested in a court of law; nobody is even sure it will stand up. In that case, you could say the GPL is really just a feel-good license..
Not if other people start contributing to the code.. then it's no longer yours. You lose effective ownership.
WRONG. Linus has no possible way for relicensing the Linux kernel, for instance, unless he gets ahold of every single contributor to ask their permission. So he no longer controls "his" work. Same thing for any other GPL'd work of any magnitude.
Just as long as you don't say your code is free, because it isn't. You restrict the code usage from a LARGE segment of the developer population. Which, of course, you are welcome to do, but it seems rather elitist to me.
GPL encourages reinvention of the wheel, not BSDL. GPL code is off-limits to a developer creating a product, thus forcing him to possibly reinvent the wheel when he could have simply used the GPL'd code and not necessarily given away *HIS* code. You have no right to exercise rights over *HIS* code.
How would the value-added code in P+ be in any way "owed" to the developer of P? The poster is right; the value of P is not diminished by the existance of P+.
I'd still love to know why giving credit where credit is due is "obnoxious" to the GPL community.
In contrast to various places I've been to that would love to created a value-added product based on Linux, but can't afford to just give up work developed in-house with possibly a large budget, just to have to give that away for a competitor to use.. effectively allowing such a competitor to "compete" with no R&D involved. Clever. I'm sure everyone can come up with some sort of example either way.. As for commercial NetBSD or FreeBSD products, I think I could name more available ones than canned ones.
So it seems the GPL encourages re-engineering, "reinventing the wheel", so as to speak. That doesn't sound like a terribly smart direction to go in.
Uh, hi, read the BSD license. Credit must be displayed when it is due. Otherwise, they are violating the license agreement. And don't come back with how the GPL supposedly prevents this; violation of a license is violation, whether or not it's BSD or GPL. The GPL doesn't magically protect code from being "stolen". Who knows how many products might possibly have the readline library in it with zero credit given, and all the GPL fluff stripped off? You wouldn't be any the wiser.
Obnoxious? What is obnoxious is trying to track down all the contributors to GPL'd code to get permission to do something to it. I fail to see how a file containing code contributors is so "obnoxious". Are you against giving credit where credit is due?
As a developer, I'm more happy deciding my own "coding morality" than having it decided for me with a license.
How does this diminish the value of the STILL existing FREE BSD codebase? It doesn't. I wish rabid GPL advocates would stop trying to use this against the BSD license.
Yeah, I'm sure all the companies that gave back to the BSD community were laughing as they got free stuff without rewarding. Oh, wait. They gave back. Gee, seems to actually be a trend among people using the BSD codebase as a basis for their products.. So instead of trying to force morality, which I find repugnant, the BSD-style licenses do a better job at representing the spirit of a free software community by allowing totally free use of an existing codebase, and allowing everyone to make their own moral decision.
Even if somebody were to integrate your GPL'd code, how does that diminish the existing available codebase? It doesn't. It's not like they "stole" it and hid it from you. You still have your code.
How? I'm sure the most rabid GPL advocates can't point out how it actually harms the existing codebase when somebody else integrates their code into a value-added "proprietary" commercial product. Why? Because it doesn't.
Wow. Perhaps you might do a little research into that terminology which you so carelessly toss aside before you set your flamethrower on "crispy". What does "ext2fs" mean to anybody outside Linux? Or RPM? I guess they are nothing but buzzwords here. It comes down to research, bub. Hypocrisy still abounds on Slashdot it seems..
Bull. There are examples of driver code available, online documentation, and printed documentation. Why do you need the source to the kernel to produce useful drivers? The drivers attach to well-documented hooks in the kernel. Nothing more is really needed.
BeOS for Intel is barely over a year old. My Microsoft mouse and my SCSI2 (oh no, I'm not on the bleeding edge!) card were detected just fine. Same effect for many other people who use BeOS every day; it does "just work" for them. Did you even bother to check the hardware compatibility list? Do you just stick in any hardware for Linux and complain when it isn't autodetected? Or do you consult a list of currently supported hardware?
Is this yet another anti-BSD flamebait?
For free.. is that what it comes down to? Be has a
money-back guarantee if you aren't happy with the BeOS. If you want to keep it for free, then I guess you won't be happy. There *is* a place in this world for products that aren't free you know.
I wouldn't say BeOS has no software. At work, I read my email with Postmaster (still in beta, but crashed less for me than Lookout Distress under Windows). I use 'ssh' to connect to my home machine. I web browse with NetPositive, which is the fastest GUI web browser I have ever seen (beats the tar out of IE, NS, and Opera). I compose "flashy" documents with AbiWord. I even assist in cracking RC5-64 with a native BeOS client. BeOS has the software to do what I need it to do.