I agree with you. Little has come out that impresses me as much as those fellows. Most of the mainstream music I have heard sounds like men whining into a microphone. I do like Enya and Adiemus.
As for interesting classical, Debussey's Pictures at an Exhibition is a good piece. It sounds like it is story being told with music.
The hard part is finding the best rendition of a piece of music. Which orchestra has not done 1812 Overture? Also, the orchestra can go up and down in quality over the years.
The one thing I am really interested in is a story I saw on 60 Minutes or some other program like that several years ago. It showed a vault of music composed during the Soviet Union locked up for one reason or another. I think it had about 50,000 or more pieces of music. A lot of it was classical style. I would love to know what happened to it.
Similarly the scene with Kowaru and Shinji before Shinji snaps his head off as Shinji agonizes over whether he should or can kill this one person who he's actually been comfortable with in his entire life...
Of course, hearing Ode to Joy (oh, no! classical music) during that scene was a great touch. I really enjoy classical music, and I think it can make for the most intense scenes.
They would turn it into a show about fighting robots, instead of a show about the characters. Because of what FOX did to Escaflowne.
I saw the first episode on FOX and forgot about watching it there. It is interesting how they think advertisements should come first in way of time. If people do not like the show, then the advertisers will not get their money's worth.
I noticed a series called "Nadesico" at Fry's. You wouldn't happen to know if it is any good? I rather here the opinion of someone who is picky about anime than someone who thinks Futurama is the greatest.:)
Because Star Trek passes for decent Sci-Fi.
I agree. Star Trek is entertaining, but B5 was my favorite sci-fi show (non-anime). Besides having a long plot, the fact that it was not only the extras that die but main characters really kept the suspense up.
P.S. My definition of B5 is the first four seasons and part of the fifth. The Byron era hurts to think about.:)
I do understand specifications and how to find the differences when an implementation does not match the specification. It is difficult but not impossible.
That last 1% compatibility may be the diference betwean what we have now and Office 95/97/2000/xp running better under wine than they do under Windows. It may be the little bit neaded to make 30 of the 50 most important Windows programs work.
I did not get that impression from the developers on the wine mailing list.
I didn't mean it like that. I was trying to say that BSD can be used in a larger number of ways than the GPL without being in violation of the license.
The only reason an entity would not use code licensed under the GPL is if they are intent on profiting from the work of others without giving anything back.
Incorrect. There are many reasons someone would not use GPL code. For example, if I wanted to use a portion of code in a BSD-licensed project, I would stick with BSD'd code. I think MESA switched from the LGPL to the X11 license to be included in XFree86.
Both licenses are about sharing. One just makes sure that the sharing continues.
Forcing others to share is not considered sharing in my book.
Or: If you want your code to stay open, use GPL. If you want someone else to make money off of something that you didn't ask any money to produce, use BSD.
There are a lot of ways to say it which is what I was trying to point out. Both your versions point out only one scenario of the BSD license and in a negative light.
From reading the archive, I think Jeremy White was making another point.
I might have added more comments in my message than was in his post as I have read every message within the development list. It helps to be subscribed.:)
JW says that prior to TransGaming entering the field, the bulk of contributions to WINE were game related.
This is not necessarily true. It is more likely that the large drop in the economy has taken free time away from a lot of developers. Before they could think about running games, now they need to think about earning some money for their family.
He also mentioned that one developer spent three weeks duplicating some InstallShield functionality that CodeWeavers developed.
There is some response from Gav (owner of TransGaming) concerning this in the mail archives. I am too lazy to find it, but I believe he was not trying to hold that piece of code back.
In short, JW is worried about an ongoing brain-drain.
Jeremy should not worry about it. His company makes money by writing code for his customers. If a company needs more code, he makes more money.
The current licence encourages the clients to want to own the for hire work even though it is the end result (the application can be sold on *nix.) that is important and not a few snippets of code to WINE.
He has also stated that he informs all of his clients that he will give the code back to WINE. The LGPL will not change this for him as he already makes all of his code open-source.
JW wants a clear set of rules so clients know before the fact what belongs to the project and what belongs to them.
His company already has a clear set of rules (WINE gets a copy of all the code he writes) in this regard as I stated up above.
Of course, all of this could be simply about the developers of Wine wanting to change to a copyleft license to prevent some bastard company from coming along, stealing everything, repackaging it with a 2KB patch, and closing the source.
You are not saying that an open-source developer would not be able to duplicate a 2KB patch?!?;)
Seriously, as was stated on a wine mailing list, if it was just a small change any developer could duplicate it. A company would have to make a large change to actually be viable.
Not to mention it was specifically stated that they didn't want to use the BSD style license as they felt it was hurting the project.
Actually, it was not the project which proposed the license change; it was a company (CodeWeavers).
There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all.
The BSD license is about sharing. If I share my food with someone, I don't expect it back. That would be a loan.
The pro-corporate BSD license allows closing of the source, which means less rights for the user.
Hogwash! The rights never changed. Even with Lindows existance, the license within WINE's distribution did not magically change, therefore, what I am allowed to do with the code did not change.
You consider the ability to take without giving back to be a freedom. I don't.
It is called sharing. More people should learn about it.
The whole argument boils down to that. If you don't mind someone taking what you have created and selling it back to you, use the BSD license. If you don't want that to happen, use the GPL.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Actually, he seems to want protection under the LGPL to compete with the other companies using WINE: archive
I get the feeling that he is just trying to force other companies, using different business models, into his business model and get their code. It is just a little selfish.
BTW, TransGaming, one company he complains about not sharing their code, has given a lot of code to WINE: archive
With wine it is different. Currently say the comunity got 99% compatability but just couldn't figure out the last little bit:-( and some company did the 1% needed, the company could sell their wine. This is fine but for the fact that they have no reason to release the source:-( If they keep the source then they are the only company with 100% compatability even though they only did 1% of the code.
If a company only adds back a little bit and sells wine, an open-source developer could just write the code as open-source. You need not fear a company adding a tiny piece and keeping it proprietary. Besides, when you hit 99% compatibility, that 1% will not attract very many customers as most applications will be running.
Ok. I will allow the SunOS argument--I did say "usually".:) Although, can anyone think of some newer cases where the closed-source version stalled or stopped the open-source version?
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
A more analagous problem would be if AT&T or whoever starting making noises about (maybe) open-sourcing pieces of UNIX that Linux didn't have yet and contributing them to Linux.
It'd be a major psychologial deterrent to anyone else starting work on those areas in Linux independently.
Maybe that's not a technical or legal problem, but as long as coders are human you have to consider psychological factors too.
I do understand this and agree that there is a psychological factor involved. OTOH, the issue with AT&T was using the law to prevent open source as opposed to just a competing fork.
I never said it was easy, but people should be able to overcome this obstacle.
Sorry, but the "Do you use SunOS?" argument is pretty silly.
Why? You may have a lot of Sun boxes. We do too. How old are they? Where I work I have yet to see anything past an Ultra 5. We are adding Linux boxes but apparently no Suns.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
So it is not the fact that transgaming isn't releasing the code, but the fact that they are holding the wine source hostage.
They can't hold it hostage. Someone should just write their own version. If a company could truly hold software hostage like this, Linux could never have been written while commercial UNIX existed.
Think about this: it is even harder to write code when an open source version of what you want to do already exists, yet look at all of the VI clones. Someone just needs to start; they can't expect others to just give it to them.
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
As a programmer, nothing. As a user, maybe or maybe not a lot. It all depends.
The BSD guarantees freedom for all without limitations on the 'all' or how the 'all' uses it.
Check out Apache for a good example of how the BSD license triumphs. IBM has given a lot of code to Apache even while having their own closed-source version (IHS).
Slashdot Mirror
No problem. I like to be corrected. A solo piano rendition would be very interesting indeed. I will see about getting a copy. Thank you.
I agree with you. Little has come out that impresses me as much as those fellows. Most of the mainstream music I have heard sounds like men whining into a microphone. I do like Enya and Adiemus.
As for interesting classical, Debussey's Pictures at an Exhibition is a good piece. It sounds like it is story being told with music.
The hard part is finding the best rendition of a piece of music. Which orchestra has not done 1812 Overture? Also, the orchestra can go up and down in quality over the years.
The one thing I am really interested in is a story I saw on 60 Minutes or some other program like that several years ago. It showed a vault of music composed during the Soviet Union locked up for one reason or another. I think it had about 50,000 or more pieces of music. A lot of it was classical style. I would love to know what happened to it.
Cool. I see about trying it out. Thank you.
Similarly the scene with Kowaru and Shinji before Shinji snaps his head off as Shinji agonizes over whether he should or can kill this one person who he's actually been comfortable with in his entire life...
:)
:)
Of course, hearing Ode to Joy (oh, no! classical music) during that scene was a great touch. I really enjoy classical music, and I think it can make for the most intense scenes.
They would turn it into a show about fighting robots, instead of a show about the characters. Because of what FOX did to Escaflowne.
I saw the first episode on FOX and forgot about watching it there. It is interesting how they think advertisements should come first in way of time. If people do not like the show, then the advertisers will not get their money's worth.
I noticed a series called "Nadesico" at Fry's. You wouldn't happen to know if it is any good? I rather here the opinion of someone who is picky about anime than someone who thinks Futurama is the greatest.
Because Star Trek passes for decent Sci-Fi.
I agree. Star Trek is entertaining, but B5 was my favorite sci-fi show (non-anime). Besides having a long plot, the fact that it was not only the extras that die but main characters really kept the suspense up.
P.S. My definition of B5 is the first four seasons and part of the fifth. The Byron era hurts to think about.
How much does Sun charge for Solaris on their mainframes (or are they called Enterprise Servers)?
Chief Competitive Officer? I have never heard this title before. Is it new?
You realy don't understand emulation.
I do understand specifications and how to find the differences when an implementation does not match the specification. It is difficult but not impossible.
That last 1% compatibility may be the diference betwean what we have now and Office 95/97/2000/xp running better under wine than they do under Windows. It may be the little bit neaded to make 30 of the 50 most important Windows programs work.
I did not get that impression from the developers on the wine mailing list.
Personally, I won't believe that transgaming is going to release their code until after I see it.
Check the CVS tree. A lot of code should already be in there: list archive
I didn't mean it like that. I was trying to say that BSD can be used in a larger number of ways than the GPL without being in violation of the license.
The only reason an entity would not use code licensed under the GPL is if they are intent on profiting from the work of others without giving anything back.
Incorrect. There are many reasons someone would not use GPL code. For example, if I wanted to use a portion of code in a BSD-licensed project, I would stick with BSD'd code. I think MESA switched from the LGPL to the X11 license to be included in XFree86.
Both licenses are about sharing. One just makes sure that the sharing continues.
Forcing others to share is not considered sharing in my book.
Or: If you want your code to stay open, use GPL. If you want someone else to make money off of something that you didn't ask any money to produce, use BSD.
There are a lot of ways to say it which is what I was trying to point out. Both your versions point out only one scenario of the BSD license and in a negative light.
From reading the archive, I think Jeremy White was making another point.
:)
I might have added more comments in my message than was in his post as I have read every message within the development list. It helps to be subscribed.
JW says that prior to TransGaming entering the field, the bulk of contributions to WINE were game related.
This is not necessarily true. It is more likely that the large drop in the economy has taken free time away from a lot of developers. Before they could think about running games, now they need to think about earning some money for their family.
He also mentioned that one developer spent three weeks duplicating some InstallShield functionality that CodeWeavers developed.
There is some response from Gav (owner of TransGaming) concerning this in the mail archives. I am too lazy to find it, but I believe he was not trying to hold that piece of code back.
In short, JW is worried about an ongoing brain-drain.
Jeremy should not worry about it. His company makes money by writing code for his customers. If a company needs more code, he makes more money.
The current licence encourages the clients to want to own the for hire work even though it is the end result (the application can be sold on *nix.) that is important and not a few snippets of code to WINE.
He has also stated that he informs all of his clients that he will give the code back to WINE. The LGPL will not change this for him as he already makes all of his code open-source.
JW wants a clear set of rules so clients know before the fact what belongs to the project and what belongs to them.
His company already has a clear set of rules (WINE gets a copy of all the code he writes) in this regard as I stated up above.
Of course, all of this could be simply about the developers of Wine wanting to change to a copyleft license to prevent some bastard company from coming along, stealing everything, repackaging it with a 2KB patch, and closing the source.
;)
You are not saying that an open-source developer would not be able to duplicate a 2KB patch?!?
Seriously, as was stated on a wine mailing list, if it was just a small change any developer could duplicate it. A company would have to make a large change to actually be viable.
Not to mention it was specifically stated that they didn't want to use the BSD style license as they felt it was hurting the project.
:)
Actually, it was not the project which proposed the license change; it was a company (CodeWeavers).
There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all.
The BSD license is about sharing. If I share my food with someone, I don't expect it back. That would be a loan.
P.S. I would never want that food back.
The GPL offers more freedom to the community.
The BSD license offers more freedom to the individual.
Personally, I see the BSD license as having a larger set of entities which can use the code than the GPL.
The pro-corporate BSD license allows closing of the source, which means less rights for the user.
Hogwash! The rights never changed. Even with Lindows existance, the license within WINE's distribution did not magically change, therefore, what I am allowed to do with the code did not change.
You consider the ability to take without giving back to be a freedom. I don't.
It is called sharing. More people should learn about it.
The whole argument boils down to that. If you don't mind someone taking what you have created and selling it back to you, use the BSD license. If you don't want that to happen, use the GPL.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Actually, he seems to want protection under the LGPL to compete with the other companies using WINE: archive
I get the feeling that he is just trying to force other companies, using different business models, into his business model and get their code. It is just a little selfish.
BTW, TransGaming, one company he complains about not sharing their code, has given a lot of code to WINE: archive
With wine it is different. Currently say the comunity got 99% compatability but just couldn't figure out the last little bit :-( and some company did the 1% needed, the company could sell their wine. This is fine but for the fact that they have no reason to release the source :-( If they keep the source then they are the only company with 100% compatability even though they only did 1% of the code.
If a company only adds back a little bit and sells wine, an open-source developer could just write the code as open-source. You need not fear a company adding a tiny piece and keeping it proprietary. Besides, when you hit 99% compatibility, that 1% will not attract very many customers as most applications will be running.
Depends on whether you call Mac OS X closed source because of Quartz, or open source because of Darwin.
:)
Sheesh! Didn't you know that everything is black or white here?!? No gray allowed!
Good point.
Ok. I will allow the SunOS argument--I did say "usually". :) Although, can anyone think of some newer cases where the closed-source version stalled or stopped the open-source version?
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
I was just wondering.
A more analagous problem would be if AT&T or whoever starting making noises about (maybe) open-sourcing pieces of UNIX that Linux didn't have yet and contributing them to Linux.
It'd be a major psychologial deterrent to anyone else starting work on those areas in Linux independently.
Maybe that's not a technical or legal problem, but as long as coders are human you have to consider psychological factors too.
I do understand this and agree that there is a psychological factor involved. OTOH, the issue with AT&T was using the law to prevent open source as opposed to just a competing fork.
I never said it was easy, but people should be able to overcome this obstacle.
Sorry, but the "Do you use SunOS?" argument is pretty silly.
Why? You may have a lot of Sun boxes. We do too. How old are they? Where I work I have yet to see anything past an Ultra 5. We are adding Linux boxes but apparently no Suns.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
So it is not the fact that transgaming isn't releasing the code, but the fact that they are holding the wine source hostage.
They can't hold it hostage. Someone should just write their own version. If a company could truly hold software hostage like this, Linux could never have been written while commercial UNIX existed.
Think about this: it is even harder to write code when an open source version of what you want to do already exists, yet look at all of the VI clones. Someone just needs to start; they can't expect others to just give it to them.
Do you use SunOS? I have one Sun box at work while I have one FreeBSD at work and three at home.
BTW, are there more closed-source UNIX installations or open-source UNIX installations? I bet there are more open-source installations.
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
As a programmer, nothing. As a user, maybe or maybe not a lot. It all depends.
The BSD guarantees freedom for all without limitations on the 'all' or how the 'all' uses it.
Check out Apache for a good example of how the BSD license triumphs. IBM has given a lot of code to Apache even while having their own closed-source version (IHS).