The customer is always right!
on
Freshmeat II
·
· Score: 2
I thought the whole point of running a site for the benefit of end-users was to make them happy and keep them coming back. Here's the problem with so-called "non-profit" (yeah right) websites, they don't give a rats ass for the end-users. Cmdrtaco's insult and berating of end-users who visit his site and freshmeat is similar to the way free software projects disregard end-user opinions and complaints.
Companies (monopolies are the exception here) have always kissed the customer's ass and held high the mantra, "The customer is always right". This is the way it should be, because they exist to serve us.
Yet from Cmdrtaco's, Scoop's, and thousands of other "non-profit" websites, non-profit (non-advertisement, such as #efnet radio) internet radio streams and non-profit free software projects' perspectives, the customer is an annoyance that can just go away. They shout, "Go jump in a lake, we don't need you anyways", and these sites really don't. Gone is the respect for customers and their opinions.
And yes we are customers. The day you placed that advertisement banner on your site you became a business, with customers paying with their time and attention.
Well I'm sick of the attitude and disrespect I am given. This is one reader who won't load up freshmeat.net nor slashdot.org on a daily basis any longer. Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
Reading source code is like reading a book. The author/publisher of the book are not going to accuse you of making illegal copies of the book because you read words from it. Yet, proprietary software makers think this is entirely reasonable.
Similarly, copying sentences word for word from a book or even paraphrasing those words is considered plagiarism. Instead of just reading their ideas, you are copying their original work and claiming it is your own. However, it is not wrong to use the book for reference and write your own book using similar or opposing ideas but all written originally by you. Any quotes you make you provide as a source and give proper credit to the author in your bibliography.
Writing proprietary software is a lot like writing proprietary books. How many proprietary books have you signed an NDA to read? How many of those have been stolen by evil pirates and released over the internet for authors to "steal" ideas from or plagiarize.
There are several items in the licence which I consider to be incompatible with the GPL.
Is stating elsewhere in the licence that "this licence is compatible with the GPL" enough though?
Does that render everything incompatible unenforceble? That really puts the burden of finding the incompatibilities on the interpreter of the licence. IMHO it should define which sections no longer apply if the source is linked with GPL'd software. But, there is actually a section which deems that the NASM licence still applies to these portions:
"II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other freely redistributable software (by which we mean software that may be obtained free of charge) without requiring permission from the authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the Software that are used remain under this licence."
I'll paste a comment I sent to the license-discuss@opensource.org mailing list since it sums up what I was about to type anyways.
"It's a misconception that only open source/free software advocates should
critize licenses. Anyone has the right to give their opinion on any license
and let the author/company know about it. The fact that users of proprietary
software don't do this makes me suspicious that they are not actually
reading the licenses they've agreed to. Certainly if a majority of Windows
(tm) users had a problem with a portion of the EULA (such as the recently
(well not so recent) removed right to a refund) Microsoft would take action
and change it. Instead, these users continue to agree to anything Microsoft
puts in the license and use the software.
Such apathy disgusts me. I do not long for the day that open source/free
software advocates no longer open their mouths."
Actually, a month or two back we did contact them and had a big debate about it. Julian did respond and didn't like the notion for some reason or another.
Others have tried to reason with them, which is why the original NASM project became unmaintained. The maintainer of the original project got fed up with arguing with them and refused to make another release.
That maintainer did succeed in convincing them to put the clause in the licence about being compatible with the GPL though.
I resent that, this is something I thought was important to the free software community.
And this wasn't meant to be an "Ask Slashdot".
With Open Watcom just released and Kendall Bennet working on NASM there just might be some code swapping between the two. And who knows where else that code might end up, maybe in the Linux kernel.
There are many ways to make money off of something that you make available as free software. Few of them are very profitable, and usually when they are profitable they involve proprietizing some or all of the source.
It all really depends on who your target market is.
id Software released Quake 1 under the GPL and will license it proprietary to companies who want to make games with it since these companies do not want people to be able to freely redistribute their games.
Namesys released ReiserFS under the GPL and requires sponsership from companies to continue development.
Helixcode requires that anyone contributing code to their project release under the GPL and hand any copyright over to Helixcode so Helixcode has rights to the entire work. This means that Helixcode can license the code as they wish to anyone they wish. Eazel is working with Helixcode so I am assuming that their joint relationship is based on this.
Sun Microsystems is releasing Solaris 8 under a non-redistributable "open source" license.
The fact is that there are always going to be trade secrets, something you don't want your competitor to get the upper hand on you with. If your need to release the source is a stronger edge for you than your need for trade secrets, then this is what you should do.
But, I think there are two sides to this coin.
1) Releasing source code.
and
2) Freely redistributable.
If you release source, and disallow free redistribution then the source really is little use to anyone. At the least it is an educational resource for programmers.
If you release the source, and require that any modifications not be redistributed but may be given back to the original author/company then this may prove useful to you.
However, it will not prove useful to hackers, since they are not receiving anything in return. Free software works so well because these hackers can get free software and then feel obligated to help free software in return. This causes a massive build up of reward for free software developers. It is essentially exponential.
If you release your work as freely redistributable but not as free source then you aren't helping software developers.
If you release your work as both freely redistributable and free source then hackers love you and end users "pirate" more than usual.
But, as we have seen with software distributions, this is still profitable. But then, they are providing an ongoing service. So it really depends on what line of business you're running and what your product is.
I don't know what the right solution is for you. But, good luck.
They aren't advertisements. Namesys's business model is to provide changes to their open source product for companies that pay them to add it.
SuSe, mp3.com, ecila.com all paid to have Namesys add some modifications to ReiserFS. In fact, when it scrolls their names it also mentions what feature they paid for.
You won't see nudebabes.com in there unless they pay for a useful feature to be added to ReiserFS. You won't ever see a slogan in there either.
They probably settled for a couple of reasons, regardless what they officially claim.
1) They didn't want to deal with a court case over it.
This is sad because Mattel's actions are now verified as correct by this settlement. In future court cases of this kind Mattel's court case can be used as an example. Using previous court cases as historical examples is the kind of thing that has protected emulators for so long. If I was in the same position though, I might have put my tail between my legs and waddled too. Freedom? Yeah, right.
2) They're making a subtle moral statement.
Consider how ridiculous the situation is. Mattel makes an ass of itself. Mattel requires the privacy of individuals invaded. Mattel asks for the source code to no longer be distributed and to be destroyed, shattering freedom of speech. ACLU steps up to offer protection to both these individuals in a case that can't be lost if you take into account previous cases of this sort and the insidious actions from Mattel. Both settle for a dollar, and give up on a ideals they were so eager to defend.
What's wrong with this picture?
I think this is a lesson.
People stand up for freedom, and when they don't, no one stands up.
There is a side lesson to be taken into consideration here. Do not do Canada or Sweden a favor by visiting, and if you do don't bring money. And, if you're already a citizen, get out as soon as possible.
Slashdot knows the Democrats have control of this country and are going to keep it, so they're covering their asses by helping spread the Democrat propaganda. Every news media outlet has done the same thing of course, so/. isn't doing anything terribly new.
Everyone does eventually, I just expected/. to last longer than this.
Sex in space? No Way!
on
Sex in Space
·
· Score: 1
If you're going to do that, you'd better wear a lot of protection (thick rubber glove instead of a condom) and the chick had better take ten birth control pills. Zero gravity causes massive mutations in human children concieved in space. Gravity defines our body structure when we are in the first stages of being born.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the whole point of running a site for the benefit of end-users was to make them happy and keep them coming back. Here's the problem with so-called "non-profit" (yeah right) websites, they don't give a rats ass for the end-users. Cmdrtaco's insult and berating of end-users who visit his site and freshmeat is similar to the way free software projects disregard end-user opinions and complaints.
Companies (monopolies are the exception here) have always kissed the customer's ass and held high the mantra, "The customer is always right". This is the way it should be, because they exist to serve us.
Yet from Cmdrtaco's, Scoop's, and thousands of other "non-profit" websites, non-profit (non-advertisement, such as #efnet radio) internet radio streams and non-profit free software projects' perspectives, the customer is an annoyance that can just go away. They shout, "Go jump in a lake, we don't need you anyways", and these sites really don't. Gone is the respect for customers and their opinions.
And yes we are customers. The day you placed that advertisement banner on your site you became a business, with customers paying with their time and attention.
Well I'm sick of the attitude and disrespect I am given. This is one reader who won't load up freshmeat.net nor slashdot.org on a daily basis any longer. Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
Even if fragmentation occurs, it's all GPL'd so it will still be possible to make the various distributions/kernels compatible.
God forgive us.
Reading source code is like reading a book. The author/publisher of the book are not going to accuse you of making illegal copies of the book because you read words from it. Yet, proprietary software makers think this is entirely reasonable.
Similarly, copying sentences word for word from a book or even paraphrasing those words is considered plagiarism. Instead of just reading their ideas, you are copying their original work and claiming it is your own. However, it is not wrong to use the book for reference and write your own book using similar or opposing ideas but all written originally by you. Any quotes you make you provide as a source and give proper credit to the author in your bibliography.
Writing proprietary software is a lot like writing proprietary books. How many proprietary books have you signed an NDA to read? How many of those have been stolen by evil pirates and released over the internet for authors to "steal" ideas from or plagiarize.
I rest my case, court adjourned.
Hey, I care. If I write code and license it a certain way I don't want it to end up under a license that I never agreed to.
Think about that, I may not even be allowed to use my own code without agreeing to someone elses license because they linked it in!
So it does matter if someone includes pieces of NASM in another software program with another license and the same for other parts included into NASM.
Try refunding Windows (tm) and you'll quickly learn what your rights are.
There are several items in the licence which I consider to be incompatible with the GPL.
Is stating elsewhere in the licence that "this licence is compatible with the GPL" enough though?
Does that render everything incompatible unenforceble? That really puts the burden of finding the incompatibilities on the interpreter of the licence. IMHO it should define which sections no longer apply if the source is linked with GPL'd software. But, there is actually a section which deems that the NASM licence still applies to these portions:
"II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other freely redistributable software (by which we mean software that may be obtained free of charge) without requiring permission from the authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the Software that are used remain under this licence."
All very confusing.
Good point.
That's next week's article.
I'm not sure if the original authors were intending to make it dual licensed though. I'll try to ask him or mention this /. thread to him.
I agree with you that the legalise in the licence is strange, I don't think it was written by a lawyer.
Would this affect it's legality?
I'll paste a comment I sent to the license-discuss@opensource.org mailing list since it sums up what I was about to type anyways.
"It's a misconception that only open source/free software advocates should
critize licenses. Anyone has the right to give their opinion on any license
and let the author/company know about it. The fact that users of proprietary
software don't do this makes me suspicious that they are not actually
reading the licenses they've agreed to. Certainly if a majority of Windows
(tm) users had a problem with a portion of the EULA (such as the recently
(well not so recent) removed right to a refund) Microsoft would take action
and change it. Instead, these users continue to agree to anything Microsoft
puts in the license and use the software.
Such apathy disgusts me. I do not long for the day that open source/free
software advocates no longer open their mouths."
Actually, a month or two back we did contact them and had a big debate about it. Julian did respond and didn't like the notion for some reason or another.
Others have tried to reason with them, which is why the original NASM project became unmaintained. The maintainer of the original project got fed up with arguing with them and refused to make another release.
That maintainer did succeed in convincing them to put the clause in the licence about being compatible with the GPL though.
It matters to me as a developer to know what my rights are.
And it has been tested, an example is Bruce Perens vs. BeOS back when they included Electric Fence in their proprietary kernel.
It really does matter what the licence says, if it didn't then we wouldn't use them.
Yes.
So this means we can completely drop the NASM license and say it's available under the GPL.
I remember asking Julian about that but he said no.
I'm not sure if the authors actually intend for it to be a dual licence. I think they are instead indicating that their licence is compatible.
I have talked with Julian, and this seems to be what he's saying. I'll mention this Slashdot thread to him and see if he'll speak up about it.
I resent that, this is something I thought was important to the free software community.
And this wasn't meant to be an "Ask Slashdot".
With Open Watcom just released and Kendall Bennet working on NASM there just might be some code swapping between the two. And who knows where else that code might end up, maybe in the Linux kernel.
They both serve up something nasty.
I really cannot stand McDonald's food, it is utter crap.
There are many ways to make money off of something that you make available as free software. Few of them are very profitable, and usually when they are profitable they involve proprietizing some or all of the source.
;-)
It all really depends on who your target market is.
id Software released Quake 1 under the GPL and will license it proprietary to companies who want to make games with it since these companies do not want people to be able to freely redistribute their games.
Namesys released ReiserFS under the GPL and requires sponsership from companies to continue development.
Helixcode requires that anyone contributing code to their project release under the GPL and hand any copyright over to Helixcode so Helixcode has rights to the entire work. This means that Helixcode can license the code as they wish to anyone they wish. Eazel is working with Helixcode so I am assuming that their joint relationship is based on this.
Sun Microsystems is releasing Solaris 8 under a non-redistributable "open source" license.
The fact is that there are always going to be trade secrets, something you don't want your competitor to get the upper hand on you with. If your need to release the source is a stronger edge for you than your need for trade secrets, then this is what you should do.
But, I think there are two sides to this coin.
1) Releasing source code.
and
2) Freely redistributable.
If you release source, and disallow free redistribution then the source really is little use to anyone. At the least it is an educational resource for programmers.
If you release the source, and require that any modifications not be redistributed but may be given back to the original author/company then this may prove useful to you.
However, it will not prove useful to hackers, since they are not receiving anything in return. Free software works so well because these hackers can get free software and then feel obligated to help free software in return. This causes a massive build up of reward for free software developers. It is essentially exponential.
If you release your work as freely redistributable but not as free source then you aren't helping software developers.
If you release your work as both freely redistributable and free source then hackers love you and end users "pirate" more than usual.
But, as we have seen with software distributions, this is still profitable. But then, they are providing an ongoing service. So it really depends on what line of business you're running and what your product is.
I don't know what the right solution is for you. But, good luck.
Happy fourth of July everyone.
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush
They aren't advertisements. Namesys's business model is to provide changes to their open source product for companies that pay them to add it.
SuSe, mp3.com, ecila.com all paid to have Namesys add some modifications to ReiserFS. In fact, when it scrolls their names it also mentions what feature they paid for.
You won't see nudebabes.com in there unless they pay for a useful feature to be added to ReiserFS. You won't ever see a slogan in there either.
They probably settled for a couple of reasons, regardless what they officially claim.
1) They didn't want to deal with a court case over it.
This is sad because Mattel's actions are now verified as correct by this settlement. In future court cases of this kind Mattel's court case can be used as an example. Using previous court cases as historical examples is the kind of thing that has protected emulators for so long. If I was in the same position though, I might have put my tail between my legs and waddled too. Freedom? Yeah, right.
2) They're making a subtle moral statement.
Consider how ridiculous the situation is. Mattel makes an ass of itself. Mattel requires the privacy of individuals invaded. Mattel asks for the source code to no longer be distributed and to be destroyed, shattering freedom of speech.
ACLU steps up to offer protection to both these individuals in a case that can't be lost if you take into account previous cases of this sort and the insidious actions from Mattel. Both settle for a dollar, and give up on a ideals they were so eager to defend.
What's wrong with this picture?
I think this is a lesson.
People stand up for freedom, and when they don't, no one stands up.
There is a side lesson to be taken into consideration here. Do not do Canada or Sweden a favor by visiting, and if you do don't bring money. And, if you're already a citizen, get out as soon as possible.
Slashdot knows the Democrats have control of this country and are going to keep it, so they're covering their asses by helping spread the Democrat propaganda. Every news media outlet has done the same thing of course, so /. isn't doing anything terribly new.
/. to last longer than this.
Everyone does eventually, I just expected
Well, time to find another news site.
If you are going to mess with politics you either need to represent all parties, or you declare your loyalties.
/. crew is biased, and on top of that lying about it.
I haven't heard anything about anyone else other than Gore, so it's *very* apparent that the
"Redraw Me"
If you're going to do that, you'd better wear a lot of protection (thick rubber glove instead of a condom) and the chick had better take ten birth control pills. Zero gravity causes massive mutations in human children concieved in space. Gravity defines our body structure when we are in the first stages of being born.