By the way, what compiler do you use on your BSD box?
I have been running Linux. My next machine will have FreeBSD. I use a proprietary compiler called gcc (v2.95.1). I consider the code proprietary since the code may not be used in anything but a GPL'd product. It reminds me of Sun's license. Not exactly but they have similarities.
Explain how my liscencing something under the GPL gives Richard Stallman any real power.
The license does not give him power, but the followers do. Many would agree with most of what he has said. There is the power.
Also, if you don't remove the part in the GPL about allowing users to "upgrade" to a newer license if they so choose, he has the ability to change the license to anything he wants regardless of the author. If you use the GPL, make sure to remove that clause.
P.S. I am not the original poster although I do understand some aspects of what he said.
If you feel like helping every single one of your fellow humans (including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs), please use a BSD-style licence. No strings attached whatsoever -- only the simple requirement that people mention your name as the original developer and don't sue you if the darn thing does not work. The worst that can happen is that someone may have to fork the source tree if Big Greedy Corporation Inc. has decided to steal your work and make $$money$$ out of it.
Stop spreading FUD about BSD licenses. Why are you trying to make others fearful of a "Big Greedy Corporation" making a copy of their code and profiting from it? Red Hat is doing just that. They might not be making a version under a different license, but they are still trying to profit from it. Are you collecting any money from the sale of Red Hat cdrom's? In reply to your comment about "stealing my work", how can they steal it? I gave it out freely. Copying something is not stealing. Who ever heard of stealing free speech? That is absurd.
XFree86 would have continued on easily without the Open Group if X11R6.4 had stayed with the more restrictive license.
What is even better is that future versions will *have* to be free as well.
Having to be only one thing sounds more like a restriction.
A TGPL is redundant and (in my book) a rehashing of ideas that have been better expressed and better thought-out before.
For different reasons, I agree that this license will not succeed.
of a lawyer chasing after an ambulance (no offense to lawyers). I read this in another post about the accident:
In Washington, President Clinton expressed deep concern, offered assistance. "This is going to be a very hard day for the people of Japan," he said.
I get the feeling he is trying to suck up to this accident and be seen giving help to Japan. The fact that he said "a very hard day" is what made me think this way. If you were wanting to help someone, you would most likely say something like, "We (the U.S.) offer to help anyway we can," without stressing how Japan may be suffering. I really am disgusted by people who feed off the misery or problems of others.
Try this to get rid of the "Shop" button: user_pref("browser.chrome.disableMyShopping", true);
Re:Presidential politics (offtopic subthread)
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen. I would have voted for Senator Gramm from Texas when he ran for president some time ago. I liked the way he made some of the press stutter when he gave yes or no answers without going through a song-and-dance.
The press expects politicians to hide the truth, and they are ready to dig it out. If a politician states his/hers opinions up front, the press does not know what to do.
You or the person who started this thread sounded like a religious zealot. I threw a little humor in.
It's nice that you bring up the Catholic example where once men where burned at the stake for attempting to disseminate information in a format that you could use without being a priest.
Now the FSF is trying to have everyone think "free speech; not free beer", and I guess I am being burned at the browser for showing any tendancy otherwise.
The example of this classic information monopoly...
I would compare the old Catholic church to many GNU zealots any day of the week. Just read the subject line: THIS IS WHY WE MUST FOLLOW GNU.
You're allowing your assets to be held hostage by the like of Microsoft or Corel or even Sun.
I did not write the code, so those assets are not mine.
The language that states that the whole thing is the property of Corel and not subject to other licenses is just flat out a violation of the GPL, no matter whether it's internal or not.
Corel believes they are not distributing but are testing. The GPL applys to distributing. You can hack a GPL program to your heart's content and not give the changes away if it is for internal use only.
I know a lot of companies that only use Windows internally. Does that mean they don't need to license it from Microsoft? Can they just say they own it, and all the code to it, as long as they don't resell it? Of course not.
If Microsoft said you could in their EULA, then you could. Since they don't, you can't. The GPL allows hacking the source anyway you want without release changes as long as the program stays internal.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why the police have decided to crack down on "internet access" as opposed to TV or movie access during school hours.
Maybe they are cracking down on all of the above. The great Internet is sensational enough to be news.
To answer your questions:
1) I pay tax money (at least in the U.S.:)) to have children go to school. I don't like to see waste.
2) If I paid for the opportunity for someone to get education, I would certainly hope they do. If they don't even try, why should they expect unemployment compensation later in life?
3) Are you talking about politics or the drugs? I think they should crack down on the drugs.
There you go. If you agree with any of the above, you need to think deeply. Or join the local law enforcement.
I think you need to go back and think about it more deeply.
It is hypocritical to be upset with other companies or groups that assert proprietary rights over their code, but keep your code closed to all except those within the GPL proprietorship.
Either you want to share with others or you don't. Trying to do both smacks of hypocracy.
...very simple and equal rules...
Very simple would be the BSDL. The GPL is quite long and complex. As for the GPL's rules, I don't like licenses which require my code to apply the same rules as those of the code being "shared" to me. This is not sharing.
Before you say it, I do realize that I am not forced to use GPL code in my projects. Believe me, I am most thankful!
What 3Com is doing with their drivers is ensuring that no third party vendor will take their drivers and make a commercial version that has "new features" and "enhancements" and end up giving 3Com tech support grief, etc.
So when enhancements come out for Linux (under the GPL) and tech support gets calls (and they will), this will not be considered grief?
If a commercial version came out, why would that company claim it came from 3com? They are trying to sell something as theirs.
* Personal freedom is completely eliminated when code is taken into a prorpeitary project,...
Whose freedom are you talking about?!? My freedom never changes from proprietary projects. Are you saying that I have some freedom with a BSD project that disappears the second it is used in a proprietary project? Does it hurt? How will I notice it? My BSD project will continue on NEVER noticing that this mythical freedom is gone.
* Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
You should tell this to the multitudes who pray towards MIT everyday.:)
- The GPL being very good at preventing code forking...
Just because few people are forking code that is GPL'd does not mean it can't happen. The GPL has nothing in it against forks.
- Developers can be assured that their hard work will remain available for others to freely use and improve
The BSD license does this as well. Changes may not fall under a BSD license, but my hard work ALWAYS remains open!!! Why sweat over copies when everyone can get at the original. I have to categorize your comment as FUD.
BSD is better if you don't mind the possibility of your code or project being used by Sun, Microsoft, and others for their own proprietary projects.
This includes usage by GNU.
As for your comment about Microsoft not claiming rights to your work, you may be one of the lucky ones.
Were those unlucky ones using a BSD license? A GPL license? Or none at all?
I can use BSD code in a GPL project. I can't use GPL code in a BSD project.
I will play on the GNU belief that BSD code that is used in a proprietary project is "stolen". GNU believes that freedom is lost because of this. If this is true, then using BSD code in a GPL project is also "lost freedom" since it cannot be freed back to the BSD project. This is why I consider the GNU community to be a type of proprietorship.
I disagree with the GPL, yet I still submit patches. I do it to have a better program for me (and others) to use. This is probably why I like the BSD license for open source: I prefer giving.
Off topic: During this reply, I noticed that Bruce's score does not show up. All I see is "(Score:)". Anyone else?
Uhm, you completely skipped my comment on Linux driver compatibility.
Why should they have to be the ones to give in and include Linux driver compatibility? Devil's Advocate: maybe Linux should include SCO driver compatibility even though Linux has more driver support already than SCO.
Now, vendors could create binary only linux drivers
They can do that already. UDI will not change that fact.
Now, with 10M+ users, that's a pretty good reason to publish specs. It sells more hardware. More to the point, they will soon have to publish specs to be competetive.
Or they could write their own binary-only driver using Linux's module interface. They don't have to publish anything to be competitive. I think they might do it for good PR though.
I wonder how many/. readers have bought a TNT2 based video card because they knew it would have good support due to open specs? Or what about Matrox?
My next machine will have one of these cards, but I am basing it on how well these companies support XFree86. Source or not, I like to see the companies say they support their product on the OS even if that means only the specs are public.
Third party drivers for Windows are what make it crash.
Also, what happens when you want to run linux on non-x86 hardware? There goes linux portability.
Is UDI only for x86 or was it designed for more than the x86? I realize that the module would have to be compiled for each hardware platform, but is the interface the same?
If the module has to only be compiled based on hardware platform, you would get the benefit of all Solaris (Sparc) drivers being available to alternative OS's.
It still would cut down on testing. Have you ever done testing for multiple systems? It can be painful.
Slashdot Mirror
I concider the GPL free, ...
I don't. It is a matter of opinion.
By the way, what compiler do you use on your BSD box?
I have been running Linux. My next machine will have FreeBSD. I use a proprietary compiler called gcc (v2.95.1). I consider the code proprietary since the code may not be used in anything but a GPL'd product. It reminds me of Sun's license. Not exactly but they have similarities.
Explain how my liscencing something under the GPL gives Richard Stallman any real power.
The license does not give him power, but the followers do. Many would agree with most of what he has said. There is the power.
Also, if you don't remove the part in the GPL about allowing users to "upgrade" to a newer license if they so choose, he has the ability to change the license to anything he wants regardless of the author. If you use the GPL, make sure to remove that clause.
P.S. I am not the original poster although I do understand some aspects of what he said.
If you feel like helping every single one of your fellow humans (including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs), please use a BSD-style licence. No strings attached whatsoever -- only the simple requirement that people mention your name as the original developer and don't sue you if the darn thing does not work. The worst that can happen is that someone may have to fork the source tree if Big Greedy Corporation Inc. has decided to steal your work and make $$money$$ out of it.
Stop spreading FUD about BSD licenses. Why are you trying to make others fearful of a "Big Greedy Corporation" making a copy of their code and profiting from it? Red Hat is doing just that. They might not be making a version under a different license, but they are still trying to profit from it. Are you collecting any money from the sale of Red Hat cdrom's?
In reply to your comment about "stealing my work", how can they steal it? I gave it out freely. Copying something is not stealing. Who ever heard of stealing free speech? That is absurd.
XFree86 would have continued on easily without the Open Group if X11R6.4 had stayed with the more restrictive license.
What is even better is that future versions will *have* to be free as well.
Having to be only one thing sounds more like a restriction.
A TGPL is redundant and (in my book) a rehashing of ideas that have been better expressed and better thought-out before.
For different reasons, I agree that this license will not succeed.
I get the feeling he is trying to suck up to this accident and be seen giving help to Japan. The fact that he said "a very hard day" is what made me think this way. If you were wanting to help someone, you would most likely say something like, "We (the U.S.) offer to help anyway we can," without stressing how Japan may be suffering. I really am disgusted by people who feed off the misery or problems of others.
Cool new features also include:
, true);
user_pref("browser.chrome.disableMyShopping", true);
user_pref("browser.chrome.disableNetscapeRadio"
Try this to get rid of the "Shop" button:
user_pref("browser.chrome.disableMyShopping", true);
Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen. I would have voted for Senator Gramm from Texas when he ran for president some time ago. I liked the way he made some of the press stutter when he gave yes or no answers without going through a song-and-dance.
The press expects politicians to hide the truth, and they are ready to dig it out. If a politician states his/hers opinions up front, the press does not know what to do.
Be careful with jokes. Some moderators have no sense of humor: example
You or the person who started this thread sounded like a religious zealot. I threw a little humor in.
It's nice that you bring up the Catholic example where once men where burned at the stake for attempting to disseminate information in a format that you could use without being a priest.
Now the FSF is trying to have everyone think "free speech; not free beer", and I guess I am being burned at the browser for showing any tendancy otherwise.
The example of this classic information monopoly...
I would compare the old Catholic church to many GNU zealots any day of the week. Just read the subject line: THIS IS WHY WE MUST FOLLOW GNU.
You're allowing your assets to be held hostage by the like of Microsoft or Corel or even Sun.
I did not write the code, so those assets are not mine.
I thought this comment would have gotten a "funny". I guess I was wrong.
Possible reasons for the downgrade:
1) I am Catholic.
2) Something remotely anti-GNU.
3) No sense of humor.
I am curious why it was pushed down. I am thinking it is a combination of 2 & 3. The off-topic status does not bother me.
I'll pass; I am already Catholic. One religion is enough for me. ;)
That idiot (Sendmail, Inc.) is making money doing it.
The language that states that the whole thing is the property of Corel and not subject to other licenses is just flat out a violation of the GPL, no matter whether it's internal or not.
:)
Corel believes they are not distributing but are testing. The GPL applys to distributing. You can hack a GPL program to your heart's content and not give the changes away if it is for internal use only.
I know a lot of companies that only use Windows internally. Does that mean they don't need to license it from Microsoft? Can they just say they own it, and all the code to it, as long as they don't resell it? Of course not.
If Microsoft said you could in their EULA, then you could. Since they don't, you can't. The GPL allows hacking the source anyway you want without release changes as long as the program stays internal.
I think I got all of that right.
This would be a nice memorial.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why the police have decided to crack down on "internet access" as opposed to TV or movie access during school hours.
:)) to have children go to school. I don't like to see waste.
Maybe they are cracking down on all of the above. The great Internet is sensational enough to be news.
To answer your questions:
1) I pay tax money (at least in the U.S.
2) If I paid for the opportunity for someone to get education, I would certainly hope they do. If they don't even try, why should they expect unemployment compensation later in life?
3) Are you talking about politics or the drugs? I think they should crack down on the drugs.
There you go. If you agree with any of the above, you need to think deeply. Or join the local law enforcement.
I think you need to go back and think about it more deeply.
It is hypocritical to be upset with other companies or groups that assert proprietary rights over their code, but keep your code closed to all except those within the GPL proprietorship.
...very simple and equal rules...
Either you want to share with others or you don't. Trying to do both smacks of hypocracy.
Very simple would be the BSDL. The GPL is quite long and complex. As for the GPL's rules, I don't like licenses which require my code to apply the same rules as those of the code being "shared" to me. This is not sharing.
Before you say it, I do realize that I am not forced to use GPL code in my projects. Believe me, I am most thankful!
If I want to extend GPL commercialy, I can't because of the GPL.
I assume you mean proprietarily (real word?).
If something is to be free, it should be free to eveyone.
Why would a proprietary version make it non-free? The code is still free.
What 3Com is doing with their drivers is ensuring that no third party vendor will take their drivers and make a commercial version that has "new features" and "enhancements" and end up giving 3Com tech support grief, etc.
So when enhancements come out for Linux (under the GPL) and tech support gets calls (and they will), this will not be considered grief?
If a commercial version came out, why would that company claim it came from 3com? They are trying to sell something as theirs.
* Personal freedom is completely eliminated when code is taken into a prorpeitary project, ...
:)
Whose freedom are you talking about?!? My freedom never changes from proprietary projects. Are you saying that I have some freedom with a BSD project that disappears the second it is used in a proprietary project? Does it hurt? How will I notice it? My BSD project will continue on NEVER noticing that this mythical freedom is gone.
* Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
You should tell this to the multitudes who pray towards MIT everyday.
- The GPL being very good at preventing code forking...
Just because few people are forking code that is GPL'd does not mean it can't happen. The GPL has nothing in it against forks.
- Developers can be assured that their hard work will remain available for others to freely use and improve
The BSD license does this as well. Changes may not fall under a BSD license, but my hard work ALWAYS remains open!!! Why sweat over copies when everyone can get at the original. I have to categorize your comment as FUD.
BSD is better if you don't mind the possibility of your code or project being used by Sun, Microsoft, and others for their own proprietary projects.
This includes usage by GNU.
As for your comment about Microsoft not claiming rights to your work, you may be one of the lucky ones.
Were those unlucky ones using a BSD license? A GPL license? Or none at all?
I can use BSD code in a GPL project. I can't use GPL code in a BSD project.
I will play on the GNU belief that BSD code that is used in a proprietary project is "stolen". GNU believes that freedom is lost because of this. If this is true, then using BSD code in a GPL project is also "lost freedom" since it cannot be freed back to the BSD project. This is why I consider the GNU community to be a type of proprietorship.
The GPL isn't all about "destruction". It's about giving people a choice.
...
Only one choice under one group.
At any rate, the GPL gives equal freedom to everyone,
...as long as you abide by the GPL and give everything back to GNU. Proprietary to a specific community. This is NOT freedom.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it destroys your freedom.
Just because you do like it doesn't mean it won't destroy freedom.
GPL is set up to control what other people do with the code, ...
By whom?
I disagree with the GPL, yet I still submit patches. I do it to have a better program for me (and others) to use. This is probably why I like the BSD license for open source: I prefer giving.
Off topic: During this reply, I noticed that Bruce's score does not show up. All I see is "(Score:)". Anyone else?
If you contribute a nifty routine to a SCSL project, it can't be copied into a GPL work. It can't be shared.
That is a problem the GPL shares. If you contribute a nifty routine to a GPL project, it can't be copied into a BSD work. It can't be shared.
If it was BSD licensed, anyone could share it.
No, you can't extract SCSL code into your GPL application.
I don't see too much of a problem. I can't take GPL code and put it into a BSD-licensed application either.
Uhm, you completely skipped my comment on Linux driver compatibility.
/. readers have bought a TNT2 based video card because they knew it would have good support due to open specs? Or what about Matrox?
:)
Why should they have to be the ones to give in and include Linux driver compatibility? Devil's Advocate: maybe Linux should include SCO driver compatibility even though Linux has more driver support already than SCO.
Now, vendors could create binary only linux drivers
They can do that already. UDI will not change that fact.
Now, with 10M+ users, that's a pretty good reason to publish specs. It sells more hardware. More to the point, they will soon have to publish specs to be competetive.
Or they could write their own binary-only driver using Linux's module interface. They don't have to publish anything to be competitive. I think they might do it for good PR though.
I wonder how many
My next machine will have one of these cards, but I am basing it on how well these companies support XFree86. Source or not, I like to see the companies say they support their product on the OS even if that means only the specs are public.
Third party drivers for Windows are what make it crash.
Also, what happens when you want to run linux on non-x86 hardware? There goes linux portability.
Is UDI only for x86 or was it designed for more than the x86? I realize that the module would have to be compiled for each hardware platform, but is the interface the same?
If the module has to only be compiled based on hardware platform, you would get the benefit of all Solaris (Sparc) drivers being available to alternative OS's.
It still would cut down on testing. Have you ever done testing for multiple systems? It can be painful.
Binary only drivers are bad.
I never considered them necessarily good.