I already explained to you that I misttyped my original post, and yet you continue to repeat the idea that I have this mistaken belief. Please stop.
I agree with you on AIDS and discrimination. That happens to be one of the harder viruses to transmit, so for you to read what I originally wrote (mistakenly) would indeed be offensive, for much prejudice has developed from those misconceptions. I hear you loud and clear.
That isn't what I meant, and isn't what I believe. As I already corrected to you. We're on the same page. I'm sorry to have inadvertantly offended you, for it was truly inadvertant.
Yes, I know, as you can see in my post I left out the words "cough on you," as I explained to the other responder. The way I wrote it, which makes no sense with those words missing, is not what I meant to say.
I'm not an open source programmer, so apply your anger elsewhere. I'm merely in favor of shared knowledge, whether in science, programming or whatever. If someone wishes to write a book or a program and charge for it, I fully support that. If someone wishes to write a book or a program and give it away, I fully support that right too.
The GPL is a license that empowers programmers with the full power of copyright law. I get tired of the FUD against it designed to discredit it with FUD. "Physical assault"???
Hmmm...I meant to write, "have someone else walk by you, cough, and you become infected" but I see I clearly did not do so. Based on what I wrote, not what I thought I had written, you are right. No, I don't think you can get infected just by having an infected person walk past you.
My point was, and is, that you do not have to take any deliberate steps to become infected. Just standing near someone else who is coughing can conceivably be enough. It's the person-to-person contact that doesn't translate to the GPL "virual" FUD. You can use GPL code all you want without becoming "infected." The only way to become "infected" is to take several deliberate and illegal (according to the license terms you agreed to) steps first.
This only comes up among those who want to a) discredit the GPL and encourage other licenses that absolutely allow someone to grab another person's code and lock it up as they wish; or b) those who want to discredit Free or Open Source software period, because as proprietary code companies they would love to grab all these free code without having to do the work, and then lock people into their solution; or c) those who read the GPL = viral meme and believe it.
Once again, for anyone who happens to read this thread, just Google "GPL viral" and have that argument debunked.
I wasn't complaining about what CA did, for they have the right to use whatever license they want for their code. What I was complaining about was their representative's tired use of the old "viral" FUD that has been debunked all over the Net, including right here on/.
The definition comes from the way biological viruses work. You do not have to take any steps to become infected. You can sit there quite passively and have someone else walk by you and you become infected.
This is absolutely not possible with GPL code. The only way the so-called "viral" behavior can occur with GPL code is if you take several deliberate steps that are expressly forbidden in the GPL. Guess what? You get a fishing license and you violate the terms of the license, that license gets taken away from you. Same with the GPL. If you deliberately violate the terms of the license you agree to when you get the code in the first place, on what basis can you complain?
It shouldn't be called "viral" because of the connotation we have in our minds about the word based on the biological effects of a virus. It gives the wrong impression, which is why FUDsters use that word.
Re:CA doesn't get it re: GPL and "viral"
on
Fun Stuff at OSCON 2005
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"I'm seriously not trolling here: how is that not viral? If you release the code you are forced to use the GPL... so... viral, right?"
Viral means you get infected whether you take action or not. Someone coughs and next thing you know you get sick. But the only way you get to the stage where you face the choice I describe is if you take deliberate steps to appropriate some GPL code into your own product, combined with the next deliberate step to release the new product, combined with the next deliberate step to change the license terms of this product. That's hardly viral. That's called deliberately violating the terms of the license.
It's easy to avoid GPL problems with code. Just don't take someone else's code and refuse to honor their license terms. Or take the GPL code and use it in-house all you want. No one makes you release the new product. You can grab as much GPL code as you can stuff into your greedy little company. It's only when you want to release the new product, and decide to violate the terms of the license, that you have a problem. As it should be.
"Computer Associates was invited by O'Reilly to talk about its recently open-sourcing Ingres. Its representative, while confessing that introducing a new license was "probably the wrong thing to do," said that other licenses wouldn't have worked for them (the GPL "was seen as viral")."
What a disappointing response by the CA representative. Can CA really be that clueless, since a simple Google search on "GPL viral" will find plenty of information (including past articles on/.) that show the GPL is NOT viral? Or is CA just pushing that FUD for some other reason? I don't know, but it's disappointing to see them resort to that tired excuse for their actions.
If you use a GPL'ed database tool, the GPL does not come into play with regard to your software, any more than using the GIMP to create a picture doesn't GPL your software in the process. The GPL comes into play if you were to grab some GPL code and put it into your software product, and then you release the result as your own product under a different licensing scheme. You are then given a choice: Release it under the GPL or not release that code. There is always a third option: Don't take someone else's code without honoring its license terms in the first place. Write it yourself, if you want to release under a different license.
But none of this applies to using a DB program. The GPL isn't viral in the first place, and it certainly doesn't apply to the end-user use of a software package.
So? When you decide to quit.Mac, you first archive your photos onto your medium of choice at that time. No big deal. It's just like mom and pop remembering to pack up that shoebox of photos when they move to a new house. A step to be done, but not that big of a deal.
So we have a/. article that highlights Skepticality. Probably the server hosting the article is being hammered as usual. But I also went to the iTunes Music Store and looked at the Top 20 Podcasts list. Sure enough, Skepticality is up to #2 for the day. The/. effect moves to new technology!
I was positing how a right-wing respondant might address that issue, not giving my own views on life. Under the circumstances, reaching for an absolute truth seems appropriate.
Me too, and I normally write "grey," but I'm constantly being lectured about not doing that in America. So I avoided it to prevent the grammar police taking that one word and lecturing me.
Because life rarely gives us simple black-and-white issues. It's far more likely to be shades of gray. For example, we believe in free speech, but not to the extent that it can cause serious harm to somebody (yelling fire in the theater as the most common example). We learn balance, and circumstances.
Let's take your two examples: I'm not right-wing (nor am I left-wing for that matter), so I can only guess how they reconcile the seemingly contradicting abortion-no/death penalty-yes issues. It's probably a shade of gray like this: Every newly-formed life deserves a chance to live. But a criminal who does something so heinous that he forfeits his right to live among society should be put to death. Not a contradiction, but a recognition of differing circumstances.
On to 'information wants to be free.' That refers to knowledge that can benefit humanity, whether it's sharing of source code so that other coders can learn and improve, or sharing of knowledge so that everyone can benefit from the wisdom of the group. However, we do not want to give up our personal privacy because harm can come to us if that happens. Stalkers, criminals, cranks, whoever wants to harm us for either personal gain or vendettas, can do so if they know our name and SSN and so on. Not to mention spammers. See? It's once again not a contradiction but a recognition of differing circumstances.
Amen. I also work hard while at work, and then do similar activities at home for myself because I love what I do. But I absolutely do not work extra hours, nor do I think about work when I am at home. I learned long ago to separate my lives. I still get my work done plenty early and of good quality.
It has been my observation that people who habitually work extra hours (that is, not those on the occasional project crunch time) fall into these four categories, and ONLY these four categories:
Young and inexperienced and don't yet know they are doing more harm than good to their careers by a) starting down the path of burnout; and b) telling management it is OK to exploit them.
Workaholics who can't stop, and who are miserable if they aren't working.
People who do not know how to manage their time properly, and thus need to work extra to get done what the rest of us get done in 40 hours.
People who are given too much work for the time allotted, thereby indicating a failure of management.
"A massive spacecraft built on the moon might possibly be constructed so that the shielding would reduce the radiation hazard," he told New Scientist. But even so he reckons that humans will be unable to travel more than 75 million kilometres (47 million miles) on a space mission - about half the distance from the Earth to the Sun. This allowance might get them to Mars or Venus, but not to Jupiter or Saturn."
So even if they cannot solve the cosmic radiation problem entirely, there is a possibility that could get them safely to Mars and back. Of course first we'd need that Moon base I've been reading about in SF stories written as far back as forever...
Man, Hell isn't as hot as I was led to believe. Is it getting cold in here or is it just me?
Hey, wait a minute, what will the Apple trolls do? Won't somebody think of the trooooollls?
OK, seriously, I hope this finally ends all the lame "Yeah, but it only got a one-button mouse" idiocy whenever Apple hardware is discussed around here. You always could use a multi-button mouse with OS X. Now you can do it with a shiny new Apple mouse. Let's put these snipes to rest, k?
Yeah, but I'm one of the guys who helps the salespeople out with answers to questions they don't know. That's because unlike the ignorant consumers I was talking about, I actually do research before I give someone my hard-earned cash.
"So now the measure of smartness is knowledge of consumer electronics?"
It is when they go into a consumer electronic store in order to buy consumer electronics, and yet display the most basic ignorance of what they are about to plunk down their $500 or $1000 or $3000 for.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you on AIDS and discrimination. That happens to be one of the harder viruses to transmit, so for you to read what I originally wrote (mistakenly) would indeed be offensive, for much prejudice has developed from those misconceptions. I hear you loud and clear.
That isn't what I meant, and isn't what I believe. As I already corrected to you. We're on the same page. I'm sorry to have inadvertantly offended you, for it was truly inadvertant.
Yes, I know, as you can see in my post I left out the words "cough on you," as I explained to the other responder. The way I wrote it, which makes no sense with those words missing, is not what I meant to say.
The GPL is a license that empowers programmers with the full power of copyright law. I get tired of the FUD against it designed to discredit it with FUD. "Physical assault"???
My point was, and is, that you do not have to take any deliberate steps to become infected. Just standing near someone else who is coughing can conceivably be enough. It's the person-to-person contact that doesn't translate to the GPL "virual" FUD. You can use GPL code all you want without becoming "infected." The only way to become "infected" is to take several deliberate and illegal (according to the license terms you agreed to) steps first.
This only comes up among those who want to a) discredit the GPL and encourage other licenses that absolutely allow someone to grab another person's code and lock it up as they wish; or b) those who want to discredit Free or Open Source software period, because as proprietary code companies they would love to grab all these free code without having to do the work, and then lock people into their solution; or c) those who read the GPL = viral meme and believe it.
Once again, for anyone who happens to read this thread, just Google "GPL viral" and have that argument debunked.
I wasn't complaining about what CA did, for they have the right to use whatever license they want for their code. What I was complaining about was their representative's tired use of the old "viral" FUD that has been debunked all over the Net, including right here on /.
This is absolutely not possible with GPL code. The only way the so-called "viral" behavior can occur with GPL code is if you take several deliberate steps that are expressly forbidden in the GPL. Guess what? You get a fishing license and you violate the terms of the license, that license gets taken away from you. Same with the GPL. If you deliberately violate the terms of the license you agree to when you get the code in the first place, on what basis can you complain?
It shouldn't be called "viral" because of the connotation we have in our minds about the word based on the biological effects of a virus. It gives the wrong impression, which is why FUDsters use that word.
Yeah, that makes sense. That's probably what they meant, and why they did it.
See my reply to docflan in this thread.
Viral means you get infected whether you take action or not. Someone coughs and next thing you know you get sick. But the only way you get to the stage where you face the choice I describe is if you take deliberate steps to appropriate some GPL code into your own product, combined with the next deliberate step to release the new product, combined with the next deliberate step to change the license terms of this product. That's hardly viral. That's called deliberately violating the terms of the license.
It's easy to avoid GPL problems with code. Just don't take someone else's code and refuse to honor their license terms. Or take the GPL code and use it in-house all you want. No one makes you release the new product. You can grab as much GPL code as you can stuff into your greedy little company. It's only when you want to release the new product, and decide to violate the terms of the license, that you have a problem. As it should be.
What a disappointing response by the CA representative. Can CA really be that clueless, since a simple Google search on "GPL viral" will find plenty of information (including past articles on /.) that show the GPL is NOT viral? Or is CA just pushing that FUD for some other reason? I don't know, but it's disappointing to see them resort to that tired excuse for their actions.
If you use a GPL'ed database tool, the GPL does not come into play with regard to your software, any more than using the GIMP to create a picture doesn't GPL your software in the process. The GPL comes into play if you were to grab some GPL code and put it into your software product, and then you release the result as your own product under a different licensing scheme. You are then given a choice: Release it under the GPL or not release that code. There is always a third option: Don't take someone else's code without honoring its license terms in the first place. Write it yourself, if you want to release under a different license.
But none of this applies to using a DB program. The GPL isn't viral in the first place, and it certainly doesn't apply to the end-user use of a software package.
So? When you decide to quit .Mac, you first archive your photos onto your medium of choice at that time. No big deal. It's just like mom and pop remembering to pack up that shoebox of photos when they move to a new house. A step to be done, but not that big of a deal.
So we have a /. article that highlights Skepticality. Probably the server hosting the article is being hammered as usual. But I also went to the iTunes Music Store and looked at the Top 20 Podcasts list. Sure enough, Skepticality is up to #2 for the day. The /. effect moves to new technology!
I've seen movies where the theaters would want to be on fire to just put itself out of its misery.
I made a very simple thank you and it gets modded down to -1? In what possible way could this have offended anyone?
Thank you for your comments, as well as your years of service.
I was positing how a right-wing respondant might address that issue, not giving my own views on life. Under the circumstances, reaching for an absolute truth seems appropriate.
Sorta didn't work, huh? ;)
Let's take your two examples: I'm not right-wing (nor am I left-wing for that matter), so I can only guess how they reconcile the seemingly contradicting abortion-no/death penalty-yes issues. It's probably a shade of gray like this: Every newly-formed life deserves a chance to live. But a criminal who does something so heinous that he forfeits his right to live among society should be put to death. Not a contradiction, but a recognition of differing circumstances.
On to 'information wants to be free.' That refers to knowledge that can benefit humanity, whether it's sharing of source code so that other coders can learn and improve, or sharing of knowledge so that everyone can benefit from the wisdom of the group. However, we do not want to give up our personal privacy because harm can come to us if that happens. Stalkers, criminals, cranks, whoever wants to harm us for either personal gain or vendettas, can do so if they know our name and SSN and so on. Not to mention spammers. See? It's once again not a contradiction but a recognition of differing circumstances.
Very valid points.
It has been my observation that people who habitually work extra hours (that is, not those on the occasional project crunch time) fall into these four categories, and ONLY these four categories:
So even if they cannot solve the cosmic radiation problem entirely, there is a possibility that could get them safely to Mars and back. Of course first we'd need that Moon base I've been reading about in SF stories written as far back as forever...
Hey, wait a minute, what will the Apple trolls do? Won't somebody think of the trooooollls?
OK, seriously, I hope this finally ends all the lame "Yeah, but it only got a one-button mouse" idiocy whenever Apple hardware is discussed around here. You always could use a multi-button mouse with OS X. Now you can do it with a shiny new Apple mouse. Let's put these snipes to rest, k?
Yeah, but I'm one of the guys who helps the salespeople out with answers to questions they don't know. That's because unlike the ignorant consumers I was talking about, I actually do research before I give someone my hard-earned cash.
It is when they go into a consumer electronic store in order to buy consumer electronics, and yet display the most basic ignorance of what they are about to plunk down their $500 or $1000 or $3000 for.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh, brother, I can barely catch my breath. Have you ever wandered through a Best Buy or Circuit City?
hahahahahahahahahahahaha