Yes, it should be clear from my comments about using Safari that I have a Mac.
The reason I asked this is because Java is known to perform a lot better on a Mac platform than on any other. From my experience the difference is major.
Why doesn't Gmail use Java? I don't know, possibly because it isn't the correct buzzword anymore.
Google has never struck me as the kind of company to follow buzzwords.
Does IE on Windows machines come with Java installed? One that works properly and is reasonably recent?
Nope. And java on windows is so slow (comparitively) that people have no reason to install it. AJAX is a lot faster. Plus it has less memory requirements because most people have a browser loaded already. Plus shorter start up times for the same reason. Plus you can develop AJAX applications to have a fallback in case the user's browser doesn't support it - or supports various levels of it. With Java, what do you fall back to if someone doesn't support it? Oh shit, the browser... So now you've gotta support two totally seperate versions of the software, instead of one version with fallbacks in place.
Also AJAX is an easy way to get more responsiveness out of web apps by upgrade. To do it in java you need to start from scratch.
Here's some food for thought: imagine a simple instant messaging program, written in your favorite programming languages. One the connection to your chat party is established, all you need to do is send the text the user types, and wait for incoming text and display it. Now, imagine implementing the same sort of application in an environment where the only possible communication is you making an HTTP request and receiving an XML response.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying (as per usual), but I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle.
Does AJAX work on all browsers? NOPE. But MS Word does not on all computers. Or even editors. That didn't stop it from becoming a standard that is very important - and has in fact made people switch platforms. AJAX allows you to switch to a cheaper platform with basically no retraining. Linux + firefox isn't much different from windows + explorer looks and functionality wise if your apps are all on the intranet.
AJAX is "good enough" and "fast enough" to replace maybe 80% of commercial software apps. Intranet apps. The timesheets your workers fill out. The Petty cash forms. Think about the administration teams of offices.. and how many offices need administration. It is easier to maintain and upgrade versions of these apps for your systems administrator.
As long as web standards insist on the heavyweight request-response model, they will never achieve the snappiness, responsiveness, and flexibility that can be achieved with proper applications.
I take issue with this, mainly because I don't understand what you need to send over the network that makes an AJAX app slow?
Yes, I prefer local apps. I use my computer a lot, and i want it to feel responsive. No AJAX apps are not ready to replace MS Word. And definately not ready to replace 3d Studio. But the things programmers and other people in niche markets use their computer for is not the thing the majority of users use their computers for.
The ONLY advantage that something like AJAX has is that most people now have browsers that can support it. Other than that, it is an extremely poor "cross platform" virtual windowing/execution environment - it substitutes one type of incompatible platform (CPU, OS) for another (Web browser). Sure, supposedly Web browsers are supposed to all be conforming to a standard that can be used, but we all know they aren't.
Okay that is the advantage, but the way you write it makes it sounds like a small advantage. The advantage is not small at all - Software is way easier to change than hardware. Sure, yes this is what java is made for, but slow startup times make it painful to use. Maybe if we had java+SWT avaliable on every platform in an easy to install package - but even then, it's still another package to install.
You can certainly do anything in Java that you could do in a Web browser, and you can do it a lot faster.
WTF? Have you actually used java? The only explaination I have for this statement is that you have a very very fast computer. Or a mac. The majority of computer users have neither, and for them, java is still a dog. Even if you don't agree with me - look at the web. Why doesn't Gmail have its interface in java? Why not hotmail? why not ebay?
AJAX needs a lot of improvements. An editable list widget would work wonders. But even if it gets the speed up it needs, it's a lot harder to tack onto a website than a bit of javascript.
The problem with that approach is that startups with little money couldn't compete. But if you drop those arbitary figures to make it more reasonable for everyone, big companies would just absorb it as a tax for doing business.
I know there has to be a solution out there but i can't think of it for the life of me:P
A switch is just a switched hub. It doesn't matter if you use a switch, they are just stating minimum requirments for this thing to be useful.
Sure, a switch would be better, but if you're sharing a connection around the home, and your packets are being prioritized, it doesn't make much a difference.
Why don't they just impose a patent limit on companies? If each company is limited to 10 patents, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess. Have an option to release a patent if you want to file a new one after you've reached 10 patents.
Or would it just start a slew of people operating multiple companies and licensing their software to their other companies?
On the one hand, it is well established that an embryo is not the same as a person, on the other hand, an embryo has the potential the become a living, breathing member of society. So where do you draw the line?
No no no. The potential for an embryo to become a living, breathing member of society is taken away from it as soon as you denucleate the egg and start the process in a petri dish.
Saying it has the potential to be a living member of society is like saying i've got the potential to get laid if you lock me in a room by myself and castrate me.
Hey.
I totally agree with what you're trying to say but your post made me see some things in a different light (and as such there is a section i take issue with).
But the clump of cells wasn't me, therefore it's irrelevant. I keep seeing people confuse something's potential with it's reality. Just because something has the potential to be something else doesn't give it the status or rights of that thing it may someday become.
The problem with this argument is that everytime you decide not to kill a living thing, it's because of its potential. Every few months our whole body has regenerated - We are new people. And if we don't base our decisions on what things are going to be (potentially) in the future, then we have no moral obligations cause tomorrow you could be dead. And until we can predict the future for certain, it's always potential that we are looking at.
So as I said, I agree with your post, but this topic is by no means clear cut.
What are you talking about? Every browser that lets someone download binaries "allows bad code to be installed".
The difference is in default settings and warnings. Firefox extensions have access to anything on your system BY DESIGN. That is the reason you need to whitelist the site you're downloading them from.
Firefox has an autoupdate mechinism for these extensions. Firefox lets you disable them in ~4 mouse clicks.
....once usage of a software package becomes widespread enough, there will be people who find ways to use it to their (malicious) advantage, regardless of the built in security features.
That's not an argument. It's not "regardless of the built in security features" but "despite of the the built in security features". You can always raise the barrier for entry. Firefox has a crapload more developers than IE will ever have, allowing it to react to bugs a lot quicker. Even if you don't care about your freedom (as in speech), that is the differentiating factor.
Yeh, but the GPL doesn't work any better than any other license for them.
Yes it does. Under the GPL, trainers are ensured that they can support any derivitive works in the future. If a BSDL dervived work gets closed and the closed version becomes more popular the trainers can be left up the creek without a paddle. Same goes with support.
The company who is dominating the market with their version might employ you to add features, but if the code was still GPLd you'd have a lot more potential clients.
If anything, getting a sugar-daddy company to pick up your software and pay you to support it is easier if they can build a conventional application on top of your free software.
If this is the route you want to take then maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you just worked for a company from the start and got paid to develop all of it.
Even if you are paid to support their application and you get fired, under BSDL you've got less of a chance of getting picked up by another company, because the original company has a developmental advantage.
Yes there are lots of companies that don't get the GPL right now. It's changing. If you don't think longterm then you end up killing your grandchildren to feed your children.
Unless you're doing something like using the GPL as part of a dual license strategy, whatever you get from your GPL software is indirect at best
Or maybe you're supporting GPL software? OR maybe paid to add features to GPL software? What about being paid to train people to use GPL software? There are a lot of possible revenue streams..
Yes, some of the mapping between financial returns and GPL software is indirect BUT that doesn't mean that those aspects are illegitimate and shouldn't be considered.
Maybe your time is worth nothing, but i know i value mine.
Ok, yes my analogy was flawed if you see the lunch as software. But I was thinking more along the lines of it being the money you make from the software.
And besides being poor (but free to get income from elsewhere) you are spending your time doing things that can possibly help vendors (bullies) from locking you into using their products. Sure, a lot have good will but some don't.
If you're donating money, I'd prefer to see it go to a charity than to a multinational. You're saying "why not give it to both? I'm not loosing anything" and i think that's a valid point of view. But I'd prefer to only give it to the charity, because money is a finite resource and I'd like to level the playing field. The thing about having a lot of money, is that it's easy to make more. I don't want to see the gap between the poor and the rich getting greater.
As for it being 'nothing to do with socialism' cause it's not an economic system, you are missing a key point in economics. Time is money.
To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice.
Or you simply don't want to be constrained by the GPL. Not wanting to put all your software under an open source license is not malicious. It's not incompatible with good will.
But in that case it's not a threat. You just avoid using code that's under that license. How does that threaten you? It just doesn't explicitly help you.
The GPL is just providing a framework/groundrules to encourage cooporation. In a playground context, it's like saying that there are some playground rules that you have to abide by to be in the playground. Sure, the penalty is to play by the rules, but the advantage is a playground free from bullies.
In the BSDL world, you're playing in a playground with no rules, where any bully can take your lunch. In fact, you're willing to give it to them in hope that they'll give you some of theirs in return.
We need rules. I believe in socialism and sticking up for the little guy.
But at the same time, i love the LGPL and the BSDL and most of those style licenses. They have their time and place.
What's the point of choice if you don't have a reason behind it? Choice is only useful if it puts you in an advantageous position
With a GPLed project 15 levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared before that's going to happen.
So your argument is that with public domain software you can do what you want with the code? So it's better? The reason for the GPL is so that everyone plays fair. It's the same reason we have rules (although in a socialist system we have rules to stop you or others from getting hurt physically too). Do you think Microsoft should be allowed to use anti-competitive practises? What do you think of anti-monopoly laws?
The GPL does not cause them this trouble.. Yes dealing with it can be an extra burden. But this is more than outweighed by the net effect of good that it creates. If the burden is too much, then you can pick to use someone elses code. No skin off anyone's teeth. If your company can't deal with something as simple as the GPL, they shouldn't be in business.
In other words the people that created and promote the GPL do not want you to use the LGPL so clearly you, as a GPL supporter, should not be supporting the LGPL.
I'm arguing for which is a better system overall, and what will work in real life. I don't know what people you are referring to, but if the LGPL was created, then they obviously could be realistic about the state of the world too. Ideally, I would like to see all code GPLd, but ideally we wouldn't need a GPL so the point is moot.
Why is it okay to you that a million people can download your software and use it for free for any nefarious purpose without contributing a thing but as soon as one programmer decides to use it you're freaking out?
Programmers can use GPLd code all they want. There is no bias against them. They can even modify the code and keep using it. The only problem is when they redistribute the works of others - the GPL requires that their additions are given up to the public good too. And it asks the same from future users too.
As for your Apache example, ESR's point is that ALL BSDed projects have the same issues.
Then ESR is wrong. Every single project has different issues. Even when the same issues are shared by more than one project, they nearly always pop up at different times. ESR needs to live in the real world.
I tend to see companies behavior like the behavior of children. The misbehaved ones just need a structure/framework to press up against. Once they have it, the vast majority of them come good.
The GPL does this. It acts like a good parent. A good parent just tries to make it fair on all the children.
As far as getting a threat of punishment - there is no need as long as they go somewhere else. To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice. As the GPL gets stronger, malicious people will go elsewhere. People who make a mistake will correct their mistake or go elsewhere.
I also can't see why we would want companies unwilling to cooporate participating in open source? I personally don't want someone without good will helping me make a product. I see getting QUANTITY of particpants up is of no or little value unless they are QUALITY participants.
I didn't have to choose to give the other million lines of code up just to use and contribute to one minor part.
You will never have this choice. The only choice you have is if you want to use GPL code or use something else. After that, any choices you make only decide if what you are doing is illegal or not.
If the code is under any other license, you have to conform to the terms of that license too. As for libraries like you specifically mentioned, they really should be under LGPL, which wouldn't ask you to give up any code outside of the library, while still letting you use it in your commerical application.
Furthermore, why don't you want to give up your code? The GPL simply helps distribute the wealth in a software project amongst users and developers. If you can work out a better system for protecting against foul play i'd love to hear it.
Since Apache is the #1 webserver and since it is offered under a BSD style license why has no one, especially MS, done exactly what you claim would happen?
Because it would be one of the stupidest moves they could make at the present time? Why would they want to acknowledge their competitor as being a viable alternative? Not only would they have to do that, but they would also have to beat apaches engineers at their own software, which was designed for a unix style operating system.
Look at p2p. All the successful p2p software products have a system to prevent leeching. Lets look at sports.. They all have referees.. These wouldn't be needed if people were honest.
And this is a valid debate. The debate is, which license is more effective at getting people to contribute.
Those projects you listed (which are funded) are getting people to contribute due to financial incentive. So now it's a debate about BSD style commercial software being more effective at getting people to contribute than closed commercial software. That's a no brainer! Of course more people will contribute when they have the source then when they don't.
But what if you're not funded. How does your software compete with software that is funded? With a bsd style license there is no way you can get ahead - your competition can use all your code. The GPL is leveling the playing field.
Furthermore, even IF bsd style licensing was more effective at getting people to contribute, you have to ask the cost. The cost is, allowing a commercial entity to take what you have worked on, improve upon it, and sell it without giving you anything in return. The cost is potentially having microsoft embrace and extend your code, with little effort of their own, to lock you into their standards.
It's especially effective with funded people because they can contribute directly to that project without having to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well.
When i read this, i finally understood the reason for your dislike of the GPL. You don't understand it. Why would anyone have to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well? They can decide to do this, but they don't have to.
Your argument would work in a perfect world, where companies has the same or less rights than individuals and where those companies participating in anti-competitive tactics such as Microsoft were squashed straight away (or at least had a just punishment applied).
The problem with BSD style licences in an environment with commericial competition is you're pitting those who are funded with those who are not, and there is nothing to level the playing field. The ones who are funded aren't contributing, and the ones that aren't are getting their work used, without making a scrap for themselves.
Anyway, this whole debate is a non-issue. It's just like religions - some are viral, they require you to have faith in their religion for people of that religion to play with you. If that negates you from joining in, then find something you like, that allows for you beliefs and lets you join in.
"We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it."
This is just plain wrong. Not all open source is GPL at _PRESENT_. What open source software is more widely adopted? GPL or BSD? What projects are most active? Why is linux getting all the attention and *BSD isn't?
Even without the GPL, open source would exist. In fact, it would thrive - at first. BUT a whole new group of software companies would crop up, simply taking the open source code and making it user friendly. Noone likes seeing someone else making a living off their work. This would discourage open source development. Programmers/hackers (in general) aren't business people. They wouldn't know the first thing about setting up a company - Otherwise they could have done it before without releasing their code as open source.
Maybe Eric is right that Linus was the first person to have the right social structure for distributed software development. But I'd argue that the support of linux by companies is largely from the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason I asked this is because Java is known to perform a lot better on a Mac platform than on any other. From my experience the difference is major.
Google has never struck me as the kind of company to follow buzzwords.
Nope. And java on windows is so slow (comparitively) that people have no reason to install it. AJAX is a lot faster. Plus it has less memory requirements because most people have a browser loaded already. Plus shorter start up times for the same reason. Plus you can develop AJAX applications to have a fallback in case the user's browser doesn't support it - or supports various levels of it. With Java, what do you fall back to if someone doesn't support it? Oh shit, the browser... So now you've gotta support two totally seperate versions of the software, instead of one version with fallbacks in place.
Also AJAX is an easy way to get more responsiveness out of web apps by upgrade. To do it in java you need to start from scratch.
What, like Jabber?
I agree with a lot of what you're saying (as per usual), but I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle.
Does AJAX work on all browsers? NOPE. But MS Word does not on all computers. Or even editors. That didn't stop it from becoming a standard that is very important - and has in fact made people switch platforms. AJAX allows you to switch to a cheaper platform with basically no retraining. Linux + firefox isn't much different from windows + explorer looks and functionality wise if your apps are all on the intranet.
AJAX is "good enough" and "fast enough" to replace maybe 80% of commercial software apps. Intranet apps. The timesheets your workers fill out. The Petty cash forms. Think about the administration teams of offices.. and how many offices need administration. It is easier to maintain and upgrade versions of these apps for your systems administrator.
I take issue with this, mainly because I don't understand what you need to send over the network that makes an AJAX app slow?
Yes, I prefer local apps. I use my computer a lot, and i want it to feel responsive. No AJAX apps are not ready to replace MS Word. And definately not ready to replace 3d Studio. But the things programmers and other people in niche markets use their computer for is not the thing the majority of users use their computers for.
Okay that is the advantage, but the way you write it makes it sounds like a small advantage. The advantage is not small at all - Software is way easier to change than hardware. Sure, yes this is what java is made for, but slow startup times make it painful to use. Maybe if we had java+SWT avaliable on every platform in an easy to install package - but even then, it's still another package to install.
WTF? Have you actually used java? The only explaination I have for this statement is that you have a very very fast computer. Or a mac. The majority of computer users have neither, and for them, java is still a dog. Even if you don't agree with me - look at the web. Why doesn't Gmail have its interface in java? Why not hotmail? why not ebay?
AJAX needs a lot of improvements. An editable list widget would work wonders. But even if it gets the speed up it needs, it's a lot harder to tack onto a website than a bit of javascript.
The problem with that approach is that startups with little money couldn't compete. But if you drop those arbitary figures to make it more reasonable for everyone, big companies would just absorb it as a tax for doing business.
:P
I know there has to be a solution out there but i can't think of it for the life of me
Max and min widths and heights are soooooooooo important for proper resizable page design.
This would be one of the best features they could add, and i see no mention of it in their blog.
A switch is just a switched hub. It doesn't matter if you use a switch, they are just stating minimum requirments for this thing to be useful. Sure, a switch would be better, but if you're sharing a connection around the home, and your packets are being prioritized, it doesn't make much a difference.
Why don't they just impose a patent limit on companies? If each company is limited to 10 patents, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess. Have an option to release a patent if you want to file a new one after you've reached 10 patents.
Or would it just start a slew of people operating multiple companies and licensing their software to their other companies?
To be honest, I haven't used linux as a desktop for a couple of years, due to work, but what about locate?
No no no. The potential for an embryo to become a living, breathing member of society is taken away from it as soon as you denucleate the egg and start the process in a petri dish.
Saying it has the potential to be a living member of society is like saying i've got the potential to get laid if you lock me in a room by myself and castrate me.
Hey.
I totally agree with what you're trying to say but your post made me see some things in a different light (and as such there is a section i take issue with).
The problem with this argument is that everytime you decide not to kill a living thing, it's because of its potential. Every few months our whole body has regenerated - We are new people. And if we don't base our decisions on what things are going to be (potentially) in the future, then we have no moral obligations cause tomorrow you could be dead. And until we can predict the future for certain, it's always potential that we are looking at.
So as I said, I agree with your post, but this topic is by no means clear cut.
What are you talking about? Every browser that lets someone download binaries "allows bad code to be installed".
The difference is in default settings and warnings. Firefox extensions have access to anything on your system BY DESIGN. That is the reason you need to whitelist the site you're downloading them from.
Firefox has an autoupdate mechinism for these extensions. Firefox lets you disable them in ~4 mouse clicks.
That's not an argument. It's not "regardless of the built in security features" but "despite of the the built in security features". You can always raise the barrier for entry. Firefox has a crapload more developers than IE will ever have, allowing it to react to bugs a lot quicker. Even if you don't care about your freedom (as in speech), that is the differentiating factor.
Yes it does. Under the GPL, trainers are ensured that they can support any derivitive works in the future. If a BSDL dervived work gets closed and the closed version becomes more popular the trainers can be left up the creek without a paddle. Same goes with support.
The company who is dominating the market with their version might employ you to add features, but if the code was still GPLd you'd have a lot more potential clients.
If this is the route you want to take then maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you just worked for a company from the start and got paid to develop all of it.
Even if you are paid to support their application and you get fired, under BSDL you've got less of a chance of getting picked up by another company, because the original company has a developmental advantage.
Yes there are lots of companies that don't get the GPL right now. It's changing. If you don't think longterm then you end up killing your grandchildren to feed your children.
Or maybe you're supporting GPL software? OR maybe paid to add features to GPL software? What about being paid to train people to use GPL software? There are a lot of possible revenue streams..
Yes, some of the mapping between financial returns and GPL software is indirect BUT that doesn't mean that those aspects are illegitimate and shouldn't be considered.
Maybe your time is worth nothing, but i know i value mine.
Ok, yes my analogy was flawed if you see the lunch as software. But I was thinking more along the lines of it being the money you make from the software.
And besides being poor (but free to get income from elsewhere) you are spending your time doing things that can possibly help vendors (bullies) from locking you into using their products. Sure, a lot have good will but some don't.
If you're donating money, I'd prefer to see it go to a charity than to a multinational. You're saying "why not give it to both? I'm not loosing anything" and i think that's a valid point of view. But I'd prefer to only give it to the charity, because money is a finite resource and I'd like to level the playing field. The thing about having a lot of money, is that it's easy to make more. I don't want to see the gap between the poor and the rich getting greater.
As for it being 'nothing to do with socialism' cause it's not an economic system, you are missing a key point in economics. Time is money.
But in that case it's not a threat. You just avoid using code that's under that license. How does that threaten you? It just doesn't explicitly help you.
The GPL is just providing a framework/groundrules to encourage cooporation. In a playground context, it's like saying that there are some playground rules that you have to abide by to be in the playground. Sure, the penalty is to play by the rules, but the advantage is a playground free from bullies.
In the BSDL world, you're playing in a playground with no rules, where any bully can take your lunch. In fact, you're willing to give it to them in hope that they'll give you some of theirs in return.
We need rules. I believe in socialism and sticking up for the little guy.
But at the same time, i love the LGPL and the BSDL and most of those style licenses. They have their time and place.
What's the point of choice if you don't have a reason behind it? Choice is only useful if it puts you in an advantageous position
So your argument is that with public domain software you can do what you want with the code? So it's better? The reason for the GPL is so that everyone plays fair. It's the same reason we have rules (although in a socialist system we have rules to stop you or others from getting hurt physically too). Do you think Microsoft should be allowed to use anti-competitive practises? What do you think of anti-monopoly laws?
The GPL does not cause them this trouble.. Yes dealing with it can be an extra burden. But this is more than outweighed by the net effect of good that it creates. If the burden is too much, then you can pick to use someone elses code. No skin off anyone's teeth. If your company can't deal with something as simple as the GPL, they shouldn't be in business.
I'm arguing for which is a better system overall, and what will work in real life. I don't know what people you are referring to, but if the LGPL was created, then they obviously could be realistic about the state of the world too. Ideally, I would like to see all code GPLd, but ideally we wouldn't need a GPL so the point is moot.
Programmers can use GPLd code all they want. There is no bias against them. They can even modify the code and keep using it. The only problem is when they redistribute the works of others - the GPL requires that their additions are given up to the public good too. And it asks the same from future users too.
Then ESR is wrong. Every single project has different issues. Even when the same issues are shared by more than one project, they nearly always pop up at different times. ESR needs to live in the real world.
That was a well explained post. Thanks.
I tend to see companies behavior like the behavior of children. The misbehaved ones just need a structure/framework to press up against. Once they have it, the vast majority of them come good.
The GPL does this. It acts like a good parent. A good parent just tries to make it fair on all the children.
As far as getting a threat of punishment - there is no need as long as they go somewhere else. To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice. As the GPL gets stronger, malicious people will go elsewhere. People who make a mistake will correct their mistake or go elsewhere.
I also can't see why we would want companies unwilling to cooporate participating in open source? I personally don't want someone without good will helping me make a product. I see getting QUANTITY of particpants up is of no or little value unless they are QUALITY participants.
You will never have this choice. The only choice you have is if you want to use GPL code or use something else. After that, any choices you make only decide if what you are doing is illegal or not.
If the code is under any other license, you have to conform to the terms of that license too. As for libraries like you specifically mentioned, they really should be under LGPL, which wouldn't ask you to give up any code outside of the library, while still letting you use it in your commerical application.
Furthermore, why don't you want to give up your code? The GPL simply helps distribute the wealth in a software project amongst users and developers. If you can work out a better system for protecting against foul play i'd love to hear it.
Because it would be one of the stupidest moves they could make at the present time? Why would they want to acknowledge their competitor as being a viable alternative? Not only would they have to do that, but they would also have to beat apaches engineers at their own software, which was designed for a unix style operating system.
Look at p2p. All the successful p2p software products have a system to prevent leeching. Lets look at sports.. They all have referees.. These wouldn't be needed if people were honest.
Duh, he/she is saying that not all companies have Apple's goodwill, hence the need for the GPL.
Those projects you listed (which are funded) are getting people to contribute due to financial incentive. So now it's a debate about BSD style commercial software being more effective at getting people to contribute than closed commercial software. That's a no brainer! Of course more people will contribute when they have the source then when they don't.
But what if you're not funded. How does your software compete with software that is funded? With a bsd style license there is no way you can get ahead - your competition can use all your code. The GPL is leveling the playing field.
Furthermore, even IF bsd style licensing was more effective at getting people to contribute, you have to ask the cost. The cost is, allowing a commercial entity to take what you have worked on, improve upon it, and sell it without giving you anything in return. The cost is potentially having microsoft embrace and extend your code, with little effort of their own, to lock you into their standards.
When i read this, i finally understood the reason for your dislike of the GPL. You don't understand it. Why would anyone have to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well? They can decide to do this, but they don't have to.
So basically you are saying that BSD style licenses have their place. And i totally agree. Lots of good has come from BSD licenses.
But that does not negate the need for the GPL.
Your argument would work in a perfect world, where companies has the same or less rights than individuals and where those companies participating in anti-competitive tactics such as Microsoft were squashed straight away (or at least had a just punishment applied).
The problem with BSD style licences in an environment with commericial competition is you're pitting those who are funded with those who are not, and there is nothing to level the playing field. The ones who are funded aren't contributing, and the ones that aren't are getting their work used, without making a scrap for themselves.
Anyway, this whole debate is a non-issue. It's just like religions - some are viral, they require you to have faith in their religion for people of that religion to play with you. If that negates you from joining in, then find something you like, that allows for you beliefs and lets you join in.
This is just plain wrong. Not all open source is GPL at _PRESENT_. What open source software is more widely adopted? GPL or BSD? What projects are most active? Why is linux getting all the attention and *BSD isn't?
Even without the GPL, open source would exist. In fact, it would thrive - at first. BUT a whole new group of software companies would crop up, simply taking the open source code and making it user friendly. Noone likes seeing someone else making a living off their work. This would discourage open source development. Programmers/hackers (in general) aren't business people. They wouldn't know the first thing about setting up a company - Otherwise they could have done it before without releasing their code as open source.
Maybe Eric is right that Linus was the first person to have the right social structure for distributed software development. But I'd argue that the support of linux by companies is largely from the GPL.
ahh that's interesting, in that case i'm incorrect..
Got a source for this?
well duh, most people only have one brain. But you can MEASURE the difference in the size of the moon in both photos.
If there is a MEASURABLE discrepancy, then it's not all in your brain.