I guess I just have one fear WRT this thing they're doing. Somebody else mentioned it but was ignored. What is to stop the UnitedLinux folks from using the approach of making every piece of code that they write for LINUX non-GPL, things like a new RPM, desk top software, and such. Couldn't they then basically give the source away to the GPL'd versions but make their distribution unusable to anyone with just GPL source because of all the non-GPL'd pieces they wrote?
And you say you'll never buy it, but what if they write good software that people like, couldn't they in effect kill other distros with this technique? Please don't say people won't go for this stupid idea. You might not go for it, but not everyone is as smart (especially PHBs) as you are.
If they have the ability (and I'm no GPL expert) to do this, then I say off with Ransom's head! That guy just strikes me as a slimy POS.
Microsoft hates GPL. Hates the word GNU. That's reason enough for me. Every piece of free software should be called GNU/[name here].
I have to admit I'm getting less moderate as i get older. I think using 'unfree' tools and code in LINUX is a bad thing. And I think saying "Write better free software and I'll use it" brings to mind the saying: Those who see evil and don't speak against it are part of the problem (paraphrased)
Zelazny Amber analogy: Torvalds, ESR and others are pale shadows of Stallman. They get like 75% of it, but they compromise in the end. Sad.
Off topic: My company is replacing Lotus Notes as our web server (thank god) and I think I've convinced them to go Apache/Tomcat/Struts/Linux over dot.net. w00t!
Hmm, does this mean Alan will be moving out of Europe if this law passes. He said something about not travelling to the U.S. because of our oppressive DMCA law and his fear of being arrested.
Hmm, maybe you should move to South America, Alan.
Everybody who's against the gpl or some subset of it wants to make money off their code. That's fine, but they want to be part of the open source movement too. His argument is so hilarious. GPL is fine for others, but I want to make money. I love the fact that I can base my code on free stuff and run it on a free platform, but I want people to pay for my stuff. sheesh.
How's this: The OS should be free, but the device drivers should cost money. no, wait, the OS and drivers should be free but (insert your money making scheme here).
I apologize for breaking this to you in such a manner, but this has nothing to do with my post. Yes, it's his IP by default, but without some type of written agreement they can claim hand shake deals, verbal contracts, whatever... just cause trouble with their lawyers.
I mean how could he not have some type of written agreement with his beta testers. Sheesh, I have to sign NDAs when I go on job interviews.
Or were you stupidly replying to the joke I made at the top of my comment? Nah, you couldn't be.
Hmm, if I reply to your thread, then I want
partial IP rights over your product.:)
Seriously, don't you have a Beta tester agreement that states that they get nothing but the opportunity to test the release?
Personally, I'd have your lawyer write up a one page agreement, I'm sure there's boilerplate somewhere out there, and make sure all beta testers sign it.
It seems to me that everybody who likes 'most' of the GPL do so because they want to distribute source but they want the option of making money off it at the same time. Kinda having your cake and eating it too.
IMHO, once you accept mods from people who are working for free, then you are morally obligated not to take their code, make other mods and sell it. Sure a company might add some cool new code that they think gives them the right to make money off the code, but if I wrote the 'paste' feature for VIM (I didn't) then paste should be disabled in the version they sell.
Slashdot Mirror
And you say you'll never buy it, but what if they write good software that people like, couldn't they in effect kill other distros with this technique? Please don't say people won't go for this stupid idea. You might not go for it, but not everyone is as smart (especially PHBs) as you are.
If they have the ability (and I'm no GPL expert) to do this, then I say off with Ransom's head! That guy just strikes me as a slimy POS.
Microsoft hates GPL. Hates the word GNU. That's reason enough for me. Every piece of free software should be called GNU/[name here].
I have to admit I'm getting less moderate as i get older. I think using 'unfree' tools and code in LINUX is a bad thing. And I think saying "Write better free software and I'll use it" brings to mind the saying: Those who see evil and don't speak against it are part of the problem (paraphrased)
Zelazny Amber analogy: Torvalds, ESR and others are pale shadows of Stallman. They get like 75% of it, but they compromise in the end. Sad.
Off topic: My company is replacing Lotus Notes as our web server (thank god) and I think I've convinced them to go Apache/Tomcat/Struts/Linux over dot.net. w00t!
Hmm, maybe you should move to South America, Alan.
Yea, and just think how great it'll be if you can get the deer to wear them too!
Everybody who's against the gpl or some subset of it wants to make money off their code. That's fine, but they want to be part of the open source movement too.
His argument is so hilarious. GPL is fine for others, but I want to make money. I love the fact that I can base my code on free stuff and run it on a free platform, but I want people to pay for my stuff. sheesh.
How's this: The OS should be free, but the device drivers should cost money. no, wait, the OS and drivers should be free but (insert your money making scheme here).
He's a hypocrit IMHO.
I apologize for breaking this to you in such a manner, but this has nothing to do with my post. Yes, it's his IP by default, but without some type of written agreement they can claim hand shake deals, verbal contracts, whatever... just cause trouble with their lawyers.
I mean how could he not have some type of written agreement with his beta testers. Sheesh, I have to sign NDAs when I go on job interviews.
Or were you stupidly replying to the joke I made at the top of my comment? Nah, you couldn't be.
Hmm, if I reply to your thread, then I want :)
partial IP rights over your product.
Seriously, don't you have a Beta tester agreement that states that they get nothing but the opportunity to test the release?
Personally, I'd have your lawyer write up a one page agreement, I'm sure there's boilerplate somewhere out there, and make sure all beta testers sign it.
IMHO, once you accept mods from people who are working for free, then you are morally obligated not to take their code, make other mods and sell it. Sure a company might add some cool new code that they think gives them the right to make money off the code, but if I wrote the 'paste' feature for VIM (I didn't) then paste should be disabled in the version they sell.
Oh well, my 2 cents worth.