As I replied to others in the thread, it's been done before by other OS's/distros. For example, OpenBSD has forked or re-written a lot of apps that initially started as open, but changed to more restrictive licenses. It can be done. Besides, not everyone is in love with GPL3 and will move to it. Plus others might like to, but can't because they can't track down all the authors to get them to agree to the change. My personal prediction is GPL3 is going to be a bust as far as moving most current GPL stuff over to it. I don't think Novell has that much to worry about. Some things will move to it, but nothing (really desired/necessary) that won't be maintainable as a fork under the old license.
There is nothing that says Novell can't fork off the 2007 version and keep making it better. OpenBSD has done it with lots of apps that changed to unfriendly licenses.
Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.
So exactly how much lobbying have you done to get research funding for a cure? Oh, none. Ok.
Life-threatening diseases which affect millions get first crack at research money from the government and pharmaceutical companies. If you can get folks to donate, there are plenty of researchers who would love to get a grant from you to work on the problem.
Blaming your doctor for not curing it for you is insanely stupid.
He spent years extra in school, not being paid while if he went into any other field, he would have been making money, putting in credit on social security, paying off a mortgage, and saving some for the future. All that didn't happen because of being in school, so to stay even with a guy with a different regular job so they can both retire at the same time, he'd need to make more once his practice was established.
So the Catholic church hasn't had tried to influence the direction of any governments lately? I guess before the last presidential election when the Bishops and Cardinals were urging their followers to not support anyone pro-choice, and were refusing communion to any politicians who were pro-choice (though not refusing it to any non-politicians in the congregation who happened to be pro-choice), that was all my imagination that the Catholic church was trying to influence government policy. Right.
Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.
Umm, have you not been paying any attention AT ALL to what the religious right has done and/or tried to do to the US governments direction and policies in the past 25 years?
If you do either MS or Google in a subscription model (even for free), I think you are crazy. Why would I ever want my documents or apps hostage to any changes to the software/service-model that those companies decide to make. I always want my software local so it always works, and to store my own documents. If MS goes to subscription only, I'll do the best I can to move everyone I know to OpenOffice, so that they can keep their own documents and apps secure and available.
Power hungry? Why? Some customer didn't follow the policy, and then emails them about 10 times harassing them to change the policy for her. The first several emails were polite and told her exactly how and why things happened because she broke the terms of service. How many dozen emails from a non-paying user are they supposed to deal with before someone tells it like it is?
In total? Didn't you read the rest of his comments? Strict isn't 'strict' at all. You have to go in and twist a bunch of knobs to even come close. And real databases don't make you twist that first knob to set InnoDB as a default. They assume you actually care about your data and want data integrity. I can dismiss MySQL because by default it thinks data is garbage.
No, it's not a perfectly fine example. If something is only really worth $50, then other stores online or in the real world will have it available for $50. You can buy it from any of those. The only reason to get it on ebay is to try to get it for a bargain price (that would be under $50, not twice normal retail). If you absolutely must have something and be sure you get it, then you can buy it at any number of real stores for it's real worth, which is $50. Spending $100 for it on ebay is ridiculous and makes you an idiot.
If it's a rare item you can find available only on ebay, then it's real value is the going rate on ebay, and if that's $100 rather than the $50 you were expecting, than too bad. $100 is what it is really worth on the market if ebay is the only market. If it's not worth that much to you, than don't bid that much.
An example of being a moron? Seriously, don't bid more than something is worth to you. If you get it for that price you said you were willing to bid to, don't bitch about it. I can't think of a more horrible example of trying to show something wrong with shill bidding.
I think a few of the UI mods are worth doing, even for your first pass. The keychain and the small-icon inventory mods let you concentrate on playing the game, and spend less time scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling through your inventory and maps to manage things.
Where in the constitution does it say there is a right to have well maintained roads with few potholes? Guardrails on the road? Good lane markings and signs? Nowhere. But the government spends money on all those thing, and actually pays companies directly to do them. OMG, corporate welfare!! Why do we do that? Because society as a whole benefits from those things. The same with medical research.
I don't work for any companies, so I'm not about creating a product. I'm doing basic research to understand biology. I don't directly work on stem cells, so this debate has nothing to do with my livelihood.
Most of the articles I read, addressing the lack of public funding for stem cells, centers around research for specific applications, such as MJF's push for using stem cells to find a cure for Parkinson's, that is a specific application of stem cells and should be pursued with private funds
As a researcher, I often talk about theoretical indirect benefits that come from the basic research I do. The general public usually has no understanding and no interest about hearing about the intricacies of a signal transduction cascade, and what kinases may or may not be activating specific proteins. In order to put our research into language the general public might understand we will often extrapolate what further research from our basic research might lead to, if we can only understand the fundamental biology behind it. That's why people working on the biology of telomeres, etc, will talk about important medical breakthroughs that may come later, as a result of our better understanding of the basic biology of stem cells.
The other thing to keep in mind is that pharmaceutical companies are driven by one thing, money. Most of the research that is being done by NIH funds, even that geared towards curing disease, would not be done if not for the NIH. The money just isn't enough to lure the pharmaceutical companies into it. Research which is lucrative enough the pharm companies are already doing. Without the NIH sponsoring research in the other areas, many of the treatments, medications, vaccines that you and your loved ones may depend on would not exist. The pharm companies might eventually get around to spending in those other areas, but it would take decades more before things currently available would be then. If your loved one needs that advance in medicine now, I think you would think it is very worthy of funding. If we were talking about the government spending money for a technology widget for a computer or TV I would agree with you, but we are talking about medicines here, and different guidelines are appropriate for public interest/investment when the lack of the research may mean disease or death for many of them.
A good example of this is stem cells, the government should no longer be funding any type of stem cell research, the basic understanding of how stem cells work has been done, the work now centers around finding applications for them,
You have no clue what you are talking about here. There is a lot of the biology of stem cells that we simply don't understand at all yet. There is a ton of basic research that needs done to understand how they do things. All that is basic fundamental biology and has nothing to do with applying that information to make products.
If you are interested in keeping the government as small as possible, why the hell are you still a Republican???
Since the Reagan era, Republicans have been for the biggest highest-spending government possible. Look at spending and the national debt in Republican vs Democrat eras. Clinton shut down the government TWICE to make the republican congress come back with smaller budgets than they were trying to pass. Bush II has taken Republican BIG-GOVERNMENT to a new level. Homeland security is insanely huge and it doesn't work. Republicans are pushing for pork everywhere.
If you said you were a Democrat, Green, or Libertarian and wanted smaller government I could sympathize with you, but Republicans wanting smaller government goes directly against what the Republican party has stood for for the last quarter-century plus.
Oh, and as I asked before, and you neglected to answer, please point out any source other than yourself and the FUD author which considers the BSD license to be 'viral' by any standard definition of the word. No sources? Thought not. You and the FUD author are twisting of the standard meaning of viral licensing.
First of all, what exactly do you mean by "the community"???
If you mean GPL code, the same thing that happens if the GPL folks swiped code from Microsoft, Apple, or any other source. The original authors could sue. Since inclusion of the attribution/disclaimer is not an onerous burden, anyone sensible would include it. Someone stealing code and publishing it in some 'community' does nothing to destroy the original copyright. It can still be enforced.
If you would bother to read the FUD article, the author puts for that modieied BSD code may not be relicensed under other licenses. That's the FUD interpretation.
Including an attribution/disclaimer is NOT viral under the generally held meaning of viral. All changes don't have to be given back to the community. That's the viral bit that some folks complain about. Please point me to a reference, other than this FUD author, which complains that an attribution/disclaimer is 'viral' in any sense.
Incorrect. MS is totally free to warranty that Windows is fit for any purpose they care to warranty it for. What they can't do is pass on that responsibility to the authors of any BSD code in it for the BSD parts. That's why the warranty part of the BSD license stays with the author notice. So 'The buck stops at MS' if they want to warranty it for any purposes, but they are absolutely free to warranty it if they like.
Call a spade a spade. It's not a 'novel interpretation', it's FUD.
Someone who want all software to be 'open' only in the GPL notion is trying to spread FUD that the truely free BSD license also has the same viral restrictions. Don't buy it, don't spread it. It's FUD.
To the author of this crap 'interpretation': If you want your software under GPL, then write it that way, but don't try to spread crap about the BSD license.
Slashdot Mirror
As I replied to others in the thread, it's been done before by other OS's/distros. For example, OpenBSD has forked or re-written a lot of apps that initially started as open, but changed to more restrictive licenses. It can be done. Besides, not everyone is in love with GPL3 and will move to it. Plus others might like to, but can't because they can't track down all the authors to get them to agree to the change. My personal prediction is GPL3 is going to be a bust as far as moving most current GPL stuff over to it. I don't think Novell has that much to worry about. Some things will move to it, but nothing (really desired/necessary) that won't be maintainable as a fork under the old license.
Not if Novell forks the current GPL versions of the apps and continue to develop them. It's been done before. Lots.
There is nothing that says Novell can't fork off the 2007 version and keep making it better. OpenBSD has done it with lots of apps that changed to unfriendly licenses.
Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.
So exactly how much lobbying have you done to get research funding for a cure? Oh, none. Ok.
Life-threatening diseases which affect millions get first crack at research money from the government and pharmaceutical companies. If you can get folks to donate, there are plenty of researchers who would love to get a grant from you to work on the problem.
Blaming your doctor for not curing it for you is insanely stupid.
Ok troll,
He spent years extra in school, not being paid while if he went into any other field, he would have been making money, putting in credit on social security, paying off a mortgage, and saving some for the future. All that didn't happen because of being in school, so to stay even with a guy with a different regular job so they can both retire at the same time, he'd need to make more once his practice was established.
So the Catholic church hasn't had tried to influence the direction of any governments lately? I guess before the last presidential election when the Bishops and Cardinals were urging their followers to not support anyone pro-choice, and were refusing communion to any politicians who were pro-choice (though not refusing it to any non-politicians in the congregation who happened to be pro-choice), that was all my imagination that the Catholic church was trying to influence government policy. Right.
And no child 'knows'/'believes' there is no god without learning of the belief of their existence.
Agnostic is right. The child doesn't even know the debate exists, so can't come down on either side.
Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.
Umm, have you not been paying any attention AT ALL to what the religious right has done and/or tried to do to the US governments direction and policies in the past 25 years?
If you do either MS or Google in a subscription model (even for free), I think you are crazy. Why would I ever want my documents or apps hostage to any changes to the software/service-model that those companies decide to make. I always want my software local so it always works, and to store my own documents. If MS goes to subscription only, I'll do the best I can to move everyone I know to OpenOffice, so that they can keep their own documents and apps secure and available.
Power hungry? Why? Some customer didn't follow the policy, and then emails them about 10 times harassing them to change the policy for her. The first several emails were polite and told her exactly how and why things happened because she broke the terms of service. How many dozen emails from a non-paying user are they supposed to deal with before someone tells it like it is?
In total? Didn't you read the rest of his comments? Strict isn't 'strict' at all. You have to go in and twist a bunch of knobs to even come close. And real databases don't make you twist that first knob to set InnoDB as a default. They assume you actually care about your data and want data integrity. I can dismiss MySQL because by default it thinks data is garbage.
No, it's not a perfectly fine example. If something is only really worth $50, then other stores online or in the real world will have it available for $50. You can buy it from any of those. The only reason to get it on ebay is to try to get it for a bargain price (that would be under $50, not twice normal retail). If you absolutely must have something and be sure you get it, then you can buy it at any number of real stores for it's real worth, which is $50. Spending $100 for it on ebay is ridiculous and makes you an idiot.
If it's a rare item you can find available only on ebay, then it's real value is the going rate on ebay, and if that's $100 rather than the $50 you were expecting, than too bad. $100 is what it is really worth on the market if ebay is the only market. If it's not worth that much to you, than don't bid that much.
An example of being a moron? Seriously, don't bid more than something is worth to you. If you get it for that price you said you were willing to bid to, don't bitch about it. I can't think of a more horrible example of trying to show something wrong with shill bidding.
I think a few of the UI mods are worth doing, even for your first pass. The keychain and the small-icon inventory mods let you concentrate on playing the game, and spend less time scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling through your inventory and maps to manage things.
Where in the constitution does it say there is a right to have well maintained roads with few potholes? Guardrails on the road? Good lane markings and signs? Nowhere. But the government spends money on all those thing, and actually pays companies directly to do them. OMG, corporate welfare!! Why do we do that? Because society as a whole benefits from those things. The same with medical research.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I don't work for any companies, so I'm not about creating a product. I'm doing basic research to understand biology. I don't directly work on stem cells, so this debate has nothing to do with my livelihood.
Most of the articles I read, addressing the lack of public funding for stem cells, centers around research for specific applications, such as MJF's push for using stem cells to find a cure for Parkinson's, that is a specific application of stem cells and should be pursued with private funds
As a researcher, I often talk about theoretical indirect benefits that come from the basic research I do. The general public usually has no understanding and no interest about hearing about the intricacies of a signal transduction cascade, and what kinases may or may not be activating specific proteins. In order to put our research into language the general public might understand we will often extrapolate what further research from our basic research might lead to, if we can only understand the fundamental biology behind it. That's why people working on the biology of telomeres, etc, will talk about important medical breakthroughs that may come later, as a result of our better understanding of the basic biology of stem cells.
The other thing to keep in mind is that pharmaceutical companies are driven by one thing, money. Most of the research that is being done by NIH funds, even that geared towards curing disease, would not be done if not for the NIH. The money just isn't enough to lure the pharmaceutical companies into it. Research which is lucrative enough the pharm companies are already doing. Without the NIH sponsoring research in the other areas, many of the treatments, medications, vaccines that you and your loved ones may depend on would not exist. The pharm companies might eventually get around to spending in those other areas, but it would take decades more before things currently available would be then. If your loved one needs that advance in medicine now, I think you would think it is very worthy of funding. If we were talking about the government spending money for a technology widget for a computer or TV I would agree with you, but we are talking about medicines here, and different guidelines are appropriate for public interest/investment when the lack of the research may mean disease or death for many of them.
Hi, Ph.D. Biology researcher here.
A good example of this is stem cells, the government should no longer be funding any type of stem cell research, the basic understanding of how stem cells work has been done, the work now centers around finding applications for them,
You have no clue what you are talking about here. There is a lot of the biology of stem cells that we simply don't understand at all yet. There is a ton of basic research that needs done to understand how they do things. All that is basic fundamental biology and has nothing to do with applying that information to make products.
If you are interested in keeping the government as small as possible, why the hell are you still a Republican???
Since the Reagan era, Republicans have been for the biggest highest-spending government possible. Look at spending and the national debt in Republican vs Democrat eras. Clinton shut down the government TWICE to make the republican congress come back with smaller budgets than they were trying to pass. Bush II has taken Republican BIG-GOVERNMENT to a new level. Homeland security is insanely huge and it doesn't work. Republicans are pushing for pork everywhere.
If you said you were a Democrat, Green, or Libertarian and wanted smaller government I could sympathize with you, but Republicans wanting smaller government goes directly against what the Republican party has stood for for the last quarter-century plus.
Oh, and as I asked before, and you neglected to answer, please point out any source other than yourself and the FUD author which considers the BSD license to be 'viral' by any standard definition of the word. No sources? Thought not. You and the FUD author are twisting of the standard meaning of viral licensing.
First of all, what exactly do you mean by "the community"???
If you mean GPL code, the same thing that happens if the GPL folks swiped code from Microsoft, Apple, or any other source. The original authors could sue. Since inclusion of the attribution/disclaimer is not an onerous burden, anyone sensible would include it. Someone stealing code and publishing it in some 'community' does nothing to destroy the original copyright. It can still be enforced.
If you would bother to read the FUD article, the author puts for that modieied BSD code may not be relicensed under other licenses. That's the FUD interpretation.
Including an attribution/disclaimer is NOT viral under the generally held meaning of viral. All changes don't have to be given back to the community. That's the viral bit that some folks complain about. Please point me to a reference, other than this FUD author, which complains that an attribution/disclaimer is 'viral' in any sense.
Incorrect. MS is totally free to warranty that Windows is fit for any purpose they care to warranty it for. What they can't do is pass on that responsibility to the authors of any BSD code in it for the BSD parts. That's why the warranty part of the BSD license stays with the author notice. So 'The buck stops at MS' if they want to warranty it for any purposes, but they are absolutely free to warranty it if they like.
Call a spade a spade. It's not a 'novel interpretation', it's FUD.
Someone who want all software to be 'open' only in the GPL notion is trying to spread FUD that the truely free BSD license also has the same viral restrictions. Don't buy it, don't spread it. It's FUD.
To the author of this crap 'interpretation': If you want your software under GPL, then write it that way, but don't try to spread crap about the BSD license.
And its a hell of a lot less than that in others.