"We will use the best tool for the job. We strongly prefer open source for reliability and flexibility reasons; we will consider commercial products where appropriate."
Are you saying that Open Source can't be commercial? Red Hat, MySQL, QT etc. anyone? If you mean non-free then say so.
For the global software ecosystem, the best environment for innovation is the coexistence of OSS and commercial software. There is a good review of this successful interaction between software models here.
That shows that the guy doesn't have clue, it isn't about money, it is about freedom.
Agreed. I love the world of Free Software because it isn't some shareware crap. Make free software and make people respect you and you'll get donations.
Have you been exposed to the idea that software should be free (as in freedom) while using Free Software?. What do you think, should users have freedom or not?
Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?) If not, what's to prevent one of these falling into the black market and eventually being used on Police?
Some conductive surface would work, like a tin foil shield.
That way, I can share my software, and if someone doesn't want to share they can pay for a commercial license.
But the GPL is a commercial license. There are many companies making money out of GPL licensed software. Some people use the power of GPL to free software (FSF), others for commercial gain (MySQL etc.).
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that the code will always be open.
Nope, it's about giving every user the Freedom to copy, modify, use and share that software and/or modifications. GPL was written long before anything was "Open Source".
IIRC the modulation used by BPL is very broadband and tends to add much noise to the band. They could have used a notch filter to filter out some bands (not very probable) or it could be that the stations were millions of times stronger than the background noise.
Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.
That would be illegal only if the software package was distributed under non-GPL license. You can sell free (GPL or otherwise) software for $$$ but you have to give the users the same freedoms that you have.
The people who care about the freedom of software see this only as another tempting proprietary software trap. Use the term Open Source when you refer to people who don't care about freedom in computing.
And now, despite the presence of tons of successful OSS workflow packages, they want to go out and spend another God knows how much (figure I heard was $250K) on a commercial workflow package.
Non-free you mean? Are you sure that those free workflow packages were developed without any involment of companies or money?
Nor should schools be a place to push an OSS agenda simply because it's OSS.
Most of "OSS" is Free software which is social and encourages cooperation instead of dividing and keeping users helpless, like proprietary software. Those are the things schools should teach and Free Software is an excellent choice for that job even if it is inferior technically.
Slashdot Mirror
"We will use the best tool for the job. We strongly prefer open source for reliability and flexibility reasons; we will consider commercial products where appropriate."
Are you saying that Open Source can't be commercial? Red Hat, MySQL, QT etc. anyone? If you mean non-free then say so.
Freedom is not the same thing as modularity!
Indeed.
For the global software ecosystem, the best environment for innovation is the coexistence of OSS and commercial software. There is a good review of this successful interaction between software models here.
That shows that the guy doesn't have clue, it isn't about money, it is about freedom.
It covers all Intellectual property crimes, including criminalizing patent infringement.
That with software patents could make it illegal to develop any free software.
..used by the media companies to make it morally justified to make such harsh laws.
Agreed. I love the world of Free Software because it isn't some shareware crap. Make free software and make people respect you and you'll get donations.
Have you been exposed to the idea that software should be free (as in freedom) while using Free Software?. What do you think, should users have freedom or not?
RMS has many times said that the GNU Project isn't about Open Source.
"Linux" is GNU+Linux, FreeBSD is a complete OS.
Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?) If not, what's to prevent one of these falling into the black market and eventually being used on Police?
Some conductive surface would work, like a tin foil shield.
Indeed. If I had mod points I would mod you up.
Use the GPL if you're going to get upset if someone uses your code commercially without paying you.
The GPL doesn't cover the use of software, only distribution. The GPL doesn't prevent making money, it only prevents making software non-free.
That way, I can share my software, and if someone doesn't want to share they can pay for a commercial license.
But the GPL is a commercial license. There are many companies making money out of GPL licensed software. Some people use the power of GPL to free software (FSF), others for commercial gain (MySQL etc.).
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that the code will always be open.
Nope, it's about giving every user the Freedom to copy, modify, use and share that software and/or modifications. GPL was written long before anything was "Open Source".
IIRC the modulation used by BPL is very broadband and tends to add much noise to the band. They could have used a notch filter to filter out some bands (not very probable) or it could be that the stations were millions of times stronger than the background noise.
Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights.
Copyrights don't need to be actively "protected". Protection means preventing destruction, so this is clearly a propaganda word.
Oh and you can mix GPL compatible licenses.
Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.
That would be illegal only if the software package was distributed under non-GPL license. You can sell free (GPL or otherwise) software for $$$ but you have to give the users the same freedoms that you have.
The people who care about the freedom of software see this only as another tempting proprietary software trap. Use the term Open Source when you refer to people who don't care about freedom in computing.
Crackers.
And now, despite the presence of tons of successful OSS workflow packages, they want to go out and spend another God knows how much (figure I heard was $250K) on a commercial workflow package.
Non-free you mean? Are you sure that those free workflow packages were developed without any involment of companies or money?
The only commercial products I still use are:
I bet you use some commercial free software packages on GNU/Linux. There is money involved in OSS/FS.
Nor should schools be a place to push an OSS agenda simply because it's OSS.
Most of "OSS" is Free software which is social and encourages cooperation instead of dividing and keeping users helpless, like proprietary software. Those are the things schools should teach and Free Software is an excellent choice for that job even if it is inferior technically.
They may treat you differently because you are not a Chinese.
Steganographic SSH anyone? Just send some images or stream video with the data included.
Does renaming .rtf files to .doc work?