I think you got something confused: Michael Moore is the Willie in your example. Its these so-called elected officials that scoff at the "ignorant masses and useful idiots" as you so matter-of-factly call them.
We should all be thankful that there is still room in this society for more than one voice. It may be confusing to some to have to actually listen to various perspectives and draw their own conclusion--but I posit that that is far better than being told what-is-what.
But hey, his daughter is still alive! So RIAA can sue her, she for sure has a lot of money to aid this poor organisation with!
Funny, but Huffman didn't capitalize on his encoding scheme--he was after all, a lowly graduate student when he developed it. Lucky for humanity that he didn't patent it, yes? Also, while Huffman encoding may be used in MP3, it is also used in nearly every compression scheme in use--so singling out MP3 is just a "me too" knee-jerk to try and capture eye-balls.
Huffman compression was one of the more fundamental breaktrhoughs in the last 50 years, if you ask me.
It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument
Please. Code is nothing like fire. Fire is arguably always the same when it is passed from one generation to the next (witness the Olympic Flame). Code is not. I think the point being made is that under the GPL, generation 1234 is available to everyone in the same way that generation 1 was available to everyone. This is clearly not the case for BSD code.
You may feel that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft (or anyone) using that BSD code and not sharing back their modifications (their "competitive edge") but that is in no way an argument for freedom. Most people (particularly free lunchers) forget that with freedom, obligation comes necessarily (as Sarte). Allowing one person to make a monopoly of their work based on the work of someone else is not freedom at all, at least, not by the standards that would apply to a collective of individuals.
This is really the crux: Unless you live in a vaccuum by your own lone self, your freedoms are necessarily restricted by mine, and vice-versa. This is an undeniable fact of community. Ignoring this is the tantamount error of the BSD and the recognition of this fact is the grace of the GPL. The issue that folks like I have with the BSD is that it allows someone to drink from the common pool until they are sated and then turn around and piss in it.
BTW, when collectives of free peoples do grant unlimited power to individuals, they tend to regret it later as it leads (inevitably) to despostism. If people could be trusted to do the right thing in all situations (ie. share back modifications, even though it is not required) then we wouldn't have any civil laws, would we? We can dance around the issues forever by saying things like "BSD allows me more rights, so it is more free" but in the end, I am forced to consider that a rather short-sighted view.
Well, I'm sorry that my post got you to thinking that the BSD is somehow more agreeable to you than the GPL. Of course, more power to you. I think you are neglecting the fact that community developed software that is intended for the community at large should not come prey to single entities.
Certainly, as individuals we have many freedoms that we would not want curtailed, yet there are many individual freedoms, that for the good of all, we do want curtailed. For example, as a society of individuals we do not tolerate one individual taking the life of another since that necessarily impinges on the rights of the other. I see the BSD as falling into that same millieu.
By granting any individual unlimited rights, other individuals unnecessarily have their rights limited. This is why the GPL is often said to have the "right" balance. It allows for equal rights for all which, in my mind, is far better than unlimited rights for all--because that is, in an impossible fantasy.
Best regards! (and by-the-way, your english was excellent. My posts are probably more confusing and I'm a native english speaker)
You are making the same mistake that the idiot grandparent made- you do not have the right to happiness or property. You only have the right to pursue happiness and property.
Actually, you DO have the right to property--your own property, that is.
You have to be very careful with this sort of "law A says I'm allowed to do such and such, but law B hampers it, so law B must be violating my civil rights" reasoning. It's true that the U.S. Copyright Act contains a provision that allows people to make backup copies of copyrighted works, but this does not mean that you have some sort of inalienable right to make backup copies - it merely means that there is nothing wrong in principle with making backup copies.
This is true. It is also true that copyrights are not inalienable rights but rather an act of the people to grant specific, short-term rights to producers of works (or at least, that was the original intent). It is also true that many laws work at counter purposes. There is much dispute over the impact that the DMCA has over rights that the people have decided not to give to producers (eg. restricting fair-use). While your argument is sound, IMHO, it does not seem like a proper response to the parent post. [I could be wrong but it is not clear to me that using such software in fair-use scenarios is illegal--even though under the DMCA, creating such software seems to be considered illegal.]
Honestly, though... to not see this coming even a few days in advance? That's very disappointing.
It is disappointing, agreed. Also disappointing is how much people expect from other people who, out of generosity alone, have freely provided services, technologies, learning and even community. Does making someone comfortable on your premises make you responsible to them? Perhaps. Yet shouldn't there be room for graciousness and thanks? Some may not think much of DW now but the folks who are stabbing him in the back don't seem very saintly to me either.
What is interesting to me is that any and all of these people could have hosted their blogs on their own sites on their own machines and at their own costs. This should be a lesson to everyone that shows the importance of having control over your own services.
Well for standards compliance, you might use something like HLink for the sort of things XBL and behaviours are currently used for.
HLink? Ouch. One problem I have with the current direction of the W3C is that they seem to care little about BC or ease of development. It seems (to me) that they keep re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, without even giving regard to whether or not there is a chasis on to which the wheel can be affixed. The assumption seems to be that momentum will carry the day, but from the looks of it, it is inertia that presently prevails. Considering the W3C membership, you would think they would work with vendors more closely to ensure that the standards they release will actually be relevant. Sorry for the gripe, but I'm a little sick of that "standards" snafu.
I need stuff that works, can be readily and reliably deployed and that won't have to be scrapped the next time a new "standards" revision comes along. If the W3C continues to reject those ideals then I fear that we are doomed to follow defacto standards and that sadly means MS lock-in as we all know.
For everything I've seen, Firefox supports CSS much better than IE. Like a sibling said, IE has become the bane of CSS, hindering true development in a number of ways. Entire websites are devoted to making CSS compliant sites work with IE, not Firefox.
So true. The ironic part is that, AFAICR, IE was the first browser to support CSS and much of CSS's early development was the result of work done at MS. Still, MS should really, really consider fixing their current compliance in those regards.
Mozilla's equivalent to 'behaviours', XBL, is actually more powerful than Internet Explorer's.
Wow. Of course, XBL also looks equally non-standards compliant--if not moreso. (Aside: am I the only one who thinks that the W3C hasn't done enough recently to support practical and useful standards?) I'm actually less concerned with standards compliance these days than I am with actual, practical inter-operability, so this is sweet.
OR, some page designers still design their pages to work in IE, which is basically broken/or not standards compliant, or however you'd like to put it. A poorly coded OR PURPOSELY poorly coded page made to work for IE may not work correctly on a better browser bacause it does not render certain functions wrong or have the same quirks as IE.
Standards are the best, but to be fair, some designers have to rollout complicated web apps on intranets that are powered exclusively by IE. Agreed, behaviours are quite old, and another poster has mentioned XBL (which looks delightful) but that seems to be equally non-standards compliant.
I appreciate the comments though, as it appears that there may be some trickery available to make the behaviours model (which is certainly not all bad) work in a cross-platform manner. What I neglected to mention in my original post was that it irks me to write anything that will only work on one platform.
Despite claims that IE isn't innovative (I should say "wasn't" since it is far past its prime now), can anyone tell me if Mozilla/Firefox support css behaviours yet? Is there any reason not to support them? Believe it or not, for all its failings, IE still has some "innovations" which the other guys simply refuse to address for whatever reasons.
Anyways, long live the Phoenix, I mean the Firebird, I mean Firefox, damnit!
Stop mischaracterizing the parent posters argument. Their argument was that Linux isn't a complete OS, not that Mandrake or Slackware isn't.
Does it occur to you that that is a frivolous point? So FreeBSD is a big monolith whereas we can create any custom OS using the Linux kernel + various tools (which turns out to be a blessing for embedded and limited systems). I think the original poster was trying to slag "Linux" because it was "just a kernel" whereas FreeBSD is a "full-blown OS". But that's putting one's head in one's ass because nearly anyone using the Linux kernel will be doing so from a fully packaged OS like Debian or Slackware, etc. Saying otherwise is the subterfuge.
And don't tell me that the "Linux" factions are more fragmented because of the amazing variety of choices available. Most things are standardized or on their way. Besides, is it not true that FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD et al represent factions on the BSD side? I do agree that BSD is mostly better in those regards, though.
Please don't get me wrong: FreeBSD is a very fine OS. I just don't see why *BSDers feel the need to talk about that "other OS" whenever they bring up their own. Is your OS not worthy of being talked about in its own right? I suggest it is and it would be nice to see discussions that actually followed that ideal for a change. Mainly because in today's world, the old adage that "*BSD is so much better than */Linux" proves to be either false, misleading, or tragically unimportant in significant ways.
To be honest, I haven't run a *BSD OS in a long while. Mainly because I'm not fond of the license, but that's my own personal preference at play. (And BTW, no matter how good *BSD may ever be or become, some will never, ever use it for this reason alone. Same can be said of */Linux.)
"Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and
never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it."
AC> This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.
AC> Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.
That's a bullshit counter-point. I'm specifically talking about programs that are distributed and not private sole-use creations which couldn't be controlled anyhow. (I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, you know?)
Generosity is about giving without expecting return, but greediness is about taking without giving back. I will be generous, but not to the greedy. That is my choice.
There's a lyric in a song that goes like this:
we don't mind
we've been doing it all the time
but if you want us to sacrifice
you got to give something back to life
Great post. I used "disappear" in a slightly charged way, I'm afraid. Yes, for BSD styled code, the original is always available, necessarily. But I do think I said BSD derived code -- and what I meant to imply was the very more elaborate discussion you gave. Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it.
Otherwise I think you are spot on. Let people decide for themselves is the best of all solutions. It is important that folks like you and I and the others that posted make their opinions known, no matter how varied: as a very great man said, what we individually do is of no significance: but it is vitally important that we do it.
I'm imagining this petty dictator somewhere saying "now do you see how restrictive western style democracy is?"
You know Brandybuck, that was an unwarrented and unkind remark. Besides, the hallmark of western democracy is "freedom for all", whereas I am maintaining that the BSD hallmark is "freedom for me". I expected more from you based on your previous comments.
Prepubescent Slashdot trolls like to joke about BSD dying, but the fact of the matter is that for the thirty year history of BSD licensed code, it has never once stagnated. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, all under the BSD license, are growing at a tremendous rate
That's true--but not nearly as fast as GPL'd code. As BSDers like to note, GPL code is viral, so it will undoubtedly grow faster as long as people find the values it ensures worthwhile for adoption.
You raise a good point though--the BSD is older than the GPL. Yet which has more code licensed under it? Which has more active developers? For all of the supposed benefits of the BSD, why is it trailing the GPL in those metrics? This is my meaning--I am not trying to bash BSD code or users and I wish that community well. My opinion, though, is that they will find themselves with an ever decreasing mindshare. Only history can say if I am wrong (or right) about that.
Hi again. No need to apologize for the AC (but thanks)--it comes with the teritory of having an opinion, particularly here at/., yes? Still, I'd rather that someone like that didn't complain about difficulties making money using someone else's code. If that AC wants to roll their own codebase from scratch, more power to them.
I'm not sure exactly how I gave the impression that I don't realize that other people have different opinions than mine--I surely appreciate that as a somewhat obvious fact. I don't live in a vaccuum. I'm trying to outline why I have made my choices, for better or for worse.
I think I understand what you are getting at in terms of BSD being less restrictive and perhaps I mischaracterized that part. Indeed, I thought I already agreed with that point. I am maintaining, though, that what is being counted as "restrictive" in your outline is the users (in this case, the user is anyone using the source as part of their own project) rights. The main difference I see between the GPL and say BSD is that once code is committed under the GPL, it (and its derivatives) can never be uncommitted from that model. It imposes conditions on its users. It is the code that is free at the expense of certain user rights whereas with the BSD, it is the users that are free at the expense of the code. The benefit of GPL'd code, in terms of the community (ie: all users) is that improvements and enhancements made to it are always available to everyone. Code under the BSD can not make that claim--I see it as the tragedy of the commons for the modern age.
I don't think its a big issue in the end. The fact that there are choices means that we all get to put our efforts behind the horses that we want to win (I'm actually mostly a libertarian and I don't believe people can be legislated to behave in certain ways--only persuaded). I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate because there is no incentive for people to share back enhancements and because people who are interested in donating the fruits of their labours to the common good have better licenses for that at their disposal. No, BSD licenses won't disappear, but BSD developments will necessarily be behind those in the GPL world: we won't ever see mass donations of code to BSD like we do under the GPL. In particular, we won't likely see large corporations which are presently benefiting from BSD software releasing their enhancements, etc. Why create a level playing field, even if that is for the common good? Isn't that a shame?
So yes, BSD is panacea for anyone whose sole goal is to make a buck because it doesn't restrict their use of the code in anyway. But it doesn't protect my right to use (again, as a developer) BSD derived code since that may be closed at someone's whim. This is the type of restriction I meant to imply. I've probably done a bad job of it once again, though.
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.
See how it is restrictive now?
Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point. As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code? On what grounds can your ethical argument other than, "Everything for Silas!" Why should it be a one way street where the code you are acquiring is made to work for you (free beer) but you give nothing back?
If anything, the GPL promotes more code being made freely available than any other license since every other license seems to end at a piriah's doorstep. To be charitible, your plan is not really helpful to anyone except yourself. It doesn't even help the code you are embedding into your codebase since you aren't improving the code you are appropriating but rather, as far as you are concerned, you are improving your codebase.
Again, when code is merged, who's to say which code is which anymore? It is a merging of two to make a new whole. Why should that merging be a one way street that starts in the "free code" (as in freedom) community and end up in the "closed code" (as in proprietary) community?
Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are? LGPL is a fine license, it just doesn't do for code what the GPL does.
Do you think Cicso would have put a GPL'd SSH into their products? Probably not: they'd have done their own management application, which would only run on Windows machines or a few Unixes, or stuck with telnet. GPL advocates would probably say that was a "victory for freedom of the code", as the (hypothetical) GPL-SSH code wasn't used to make a profit by the evil Cisco. BSD advocates would prefer that the code be FREELY USED by ANYONE, including Cicso, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Intel, Motorola, IBM, and anyone else. Restricting ANYONE, no matter how "evil" they are perceived to be by someone is very much against the point of the BSD license.
FOOL. The GPL does not restrict anyone from using GPL licensed code. It restricts the ability to hinder or encumber the code and that is the choice that users must make. BSD is free beer, certainly--no wonder corporations love to suck it up. GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not. You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is. I suggest that the GPL is far more important to software as a result. I don't care whether CISCO or whomever makes money--I care that quality code remains in the community. (AND note, they can equally well make money with GPL'd code--they only have to share back their modifications. Is that really asking too much?)
The "description" part of the patent text, and especially the introductory sentence which you quote, are irrelevant for determining the scope of the patent. For that, you have to read the claims.
Interesting. Of course, the description elaborates on the meanings given in the claims and it is patently obvious that all computing systems are definitionally "limited resource computing device", not? Ok, I grant that a theoretical turing machine does not exhibit that property, but patents apply to tangible items. I quoted the description merely because it shows the intention behind the wording of the claim itself. In other words, don't trust my interpretation of the claim, this is what the petitioner actually contends is the meaning of "limited resource computing devices".
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I think it is somewhat irrelevant in this case;)
"This invention relates generally to computer systems, and more particularly to increasing the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device."
Slashdot Mirror
We should all be thankful that there is still room in this society for more than one voice. It may be confusing to some to have to actually listen to various perspectives and draw their own conclusion--but I posit that that is far better than being told what-is-what.
Worst slashdot article, ever.
AWESOME!
IMO, linus is chaotic neutral
Funny, but Huffman didn't capitalize on his encoding scheme--he was after all, a lowly graduate student when he developed it. Lucky for humanity that he didn't patent it, yes? Also, while Huffman encoding may be used in MP3, it is also used in nearly every compression scheme in use--so singling out MP3 is just a "me too" knee-jerk to try and capture eye-balls.
Huffman compression was one of the more fundamental breaktrhoughs in the last 50 years, if you ask me.
You may feel that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft (or anyone) using that BSD code and not sharing back their modifications (their "competitive edge") but that is in no way an argument for freedom. Most people (particularly free lunchers) forget that with freedom, obligation comes necessarily (as Sarte). Allowing one person to make a monopoly of their work based on the work of someone else is not freedom at all, at least, not by the standards that would apply to a collective of individuals.
This is really the crux: Unless you live in a vaccuum by your own lone self, your freedoms are necessarily restricted by mine, and vice-versa. This is an undeniable fact of community. Ignoring this is the tantamount error of the BSD and the recognition of this fact is the grace of the GPL. The issue that folks like I have with the BSD is that it allows someone to drink from the common pool until they are sated and then turn around and piss in it.
BTW, when collectives of free peoples do grant unlimited power to individuals, they tend to regret it later as it leads (inevitably) to despostism. If people could be trusted to do the right thing in all situations (ie. share back modifications, even though it is not required) then we wouldn't have any civil laws, would we? We can dance around the issues forever by saying things like "BSD allows me more rights, so it is more free" but in the end, I am forced to consider that a rather short-sighted view.
Certainly, as individuals we have many freedoms that we would not want curtailed, yet there are many individual freedoms, that for the good of all, we do want curtailed. For example, as a society of individuals we do not tolerate one individual taking the life of another since that necessarily impinges on the rights of the other. I see the BSD as falling into that same millieu.
By granting any individual unlimited rights, other individuals unnecessarily have their rights limited. This is why the GPL is often said to have the "right" balance. It allows for equal rights for all which, in my mind, is far better than unlimited rights for all--because that is, in an impossible fantasy.
Best regards! (and by-the-way, your english was excellent. My posts are probably more confusing and I'm a native english speaker)
Actually, you DO have the right to property--your own property, that is.
This is true. It is also true that copyrights are not inalienable rights but rather an act of the people to grant specific, short-term rights to producers of works (or at least, that was the original intent). It is also true that many laws work at counter purposes. There is much dispute over the impact that the DMCA has over rights that the people have decided not to give to producers (eg. restricting fair-use). While your argument is sound, IMHO, it does not seem like a proper response to the parent post. [I could be wrong but it is not clear to me that using such software in fair-use scenarios is illegal--even though under the DMCA, creating such software seems to be considered illegal.]
It is disappointing, agreed. Also disappointing is how much people expect from other people who, out of generosity alone, have freely provided services, technologies, learning and even community. Does making someone comfortable on your premises make you responsible to them? Perhaps. Yet shouldn't there be room for graciousness and thanks? Some may not think much of DW now but the folks who are stabbing him in the back don't seem very saintly to me either.
What is interesting to me is that any and all of these people could have hosted their blogs on their own sites on their own machines and at their own costs. This should be a lesson to everyone that shows the importance of having control over your own services.
Best regards.
HLink? Ouch. One problem I have with the current direction of the W3C is that they seem to care little about BC or ease of development. It seems (to me) that they keep re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, without even giving regard to whether or not there is a chasis on to which the wheel can be affixed. The assumption seems to be that momentum will carry the day, but from the looks of it, it is inertia that presently prevails. Considering the W3C membership, you would think they would work with vendors more closely to ensure that the standards they release will actually be relevant. Sorry for the gripe, but I'm a little sick of that "standards" snafu.
I need stuff that works, can be readily and reliably deployed and that won't have to be scrapped the next time a new "standards" revision comes along. If the W3C continues to reject those ideals then I fear that we are doomed to follow defacto standards and that sadly means MS lock-in as we all know.
So true. The ironic part is that, AFAICR, IE was the first browser to support CSS and much of CSS's early development was the result of work done at MS. Still, MS should really, really consider fixing their current compliance in those regards.
Wow. Of course, XBL also looks equally non-standards compliant--if not moreso. (Aside: am I the only one who thinks that the W3C hasn't done enough recently to support practical and useful standards?) I'm actually less concerned with standards compliance these days than I am with actual, practical inter-operability, so this is sweet.
Thanks!
Standards are the best, but to be fair, some designers have to rollout complicated web apps on intranets that are powered exclusively by IE. Agreed, behaviours are quite old, and another poster has mentioned XBL (which looks delightful) but that seems to be equally non-standards compliant.
I appreciate the comments though, as it appears that there may be some trickery available to make the behaviours model (which is certainly not all bad) work in a cross-platform manner. What I neglected to mention in my original post was that it irks me to write anything that will only work on one platform.
Anyways, long live the Phoenix, I mean the Firebird, I mean Firefox, damnit!
Stop mischaracterizing the parent posters argument. Their argument was that Linux isn't a complete OS, not that Mandrake or Slackware isn't.
Does it occur to you that that is a frivolous point? So FreeBSD is a big monolith whereas we can create any custom OS using the Linux kernel + various tools (which turns out to be a blessing for embedded and limited systems). I think the original poster was trying to slag "Linux" because it was "just a kernel" whereas FreeBSD is a "full-blown OS". But that's putting one's head in one's ass because nearly anyone using the Linux kernel will be doing so from a fully packaged OS like Debian or Slackware, etc. Saying otherwise is the subterfuge.
And don't tell me that the "Linux" factions are more fragmented because of the amazing variety of choices available. Most things are standardized or on their way. Besides, is it not true that FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD et al represent factions on the BSD side? I do agree that BSD is mostly better in those regards, though.
Please don't get me wrong: FreeBSD is a very fine OS. I just don't see why *BSDers feel the need to talk about that "other OS" whenever they bring up their own. Is your OS not worthy of being talked about in its own right? I suggest it is and it would be nice to see discussions that actually followed that ideal for a change. Mainly because in today's world, the old adage that "*BSD is so much better than */Linux" proves to be either false, misleading, or tragically unimportant in significant ways.
To be honest, I haven't run a *BSD OS in a long while. Mainly because I'm not fond of the license, but that's my own personal preference at play. (And BTW, no matter how good *BSD may ever be or become, some will never, ever use it for this reason alone. Same can be said of */Linux.)
Cheers!
The GPL encourages expansion of the GPL body of work.
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.
That's an excellent way to put it, though I would rather put it as:
The GPL ensures expansion of the GPL body of work for everyone.
The BSD licence permits use of the code by anyone.
AC> This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.
AC> Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.
That's a bullshit counter-point. I'm specifically talking about programs that are distributed and not private sole-use creations which couldn't be controlled anyhow. (I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, you know?)
Generosity is about giving without expecting return, but greediness is about taking without giving back. I will be generous, but not to the greedy. That is my choice.
There's a lyric in a song that goes like this:
we don't mind
we've been doing it all the time
but if you want us to sacrifice
you got to give something back to life
Otherwise I think you are spot on. Let people decide for themselves is the best of all solutions. It is important that folks like you and I and the others that posted make their opinions known, no matter how varied: as a very great man said, what we individually do is of no significance: but it is vitally important that we do it.
You know Brandybuck, that was an unwarrented and unkind remark. Besides, the hallmark of western democracy is "freedom for all", whereas I am maintaining that the BSD hallmark is "freedom for me". I expected more from you based on your previous comments.
That's true--but not nearly as fast as GPL'd code. As BSDers like to note, GPL code is viral, so it will undoubtedly grow faster as long as people find the values it ensures worthwhile for adoption.
You raise a good point though--the BSD is older than the GPL. Yet which has more code licensed under it? Which has more active developers? For all of the supposed benefits of the BSD, why is it trailing the GPL in those metrics? This is my meaning--I am not trying to bash BSD code or users and I wish that community well. My opinion, though, is that they will find themselves with an ever decreasing mindshare. Only history can say if I am wrong (or right) about that.
Cheers!
Hi again. No need to apologize for the AC (but thanks)--it comes with the teritory of having an opinion, particularly here at /., yes? Still, I'd rather that someone like that didn't complain about difficulties making money using someone else's code. If that AC wants to roll their own codebase from scratch, more power to them.
I'm not sure exactly how I gave the impression that I don't realize that other people have different opinions than mine--I surely appreciate that as a somewhat obvious fact. I don't live in a vaccuum. I'm trying to outline why I have made my choices, for better or for worse.
I think I understand what you are getting at in terms of BSD being less restrictive and perhaps I mischaracterized that part. Indeed, I thought I already agreed with that point. I am maintaining, though, that what is being counted as "restrictive" in your outline is the users (in this case, the user is anyone using the source as part of their own project) rights. The main difference I see between the GPL and say BSD is that once code is committed under the GPL, it (and its derivatives) can never be uncommitted from that model. It imposes conditions on its users. It is the code that is free at the expense of certain user rights whereas with the BSD, it is the users that are free at the expense of the code. The benefit of GPL'd code, in terms of the community (ie: all users) is that improvements and enhancements made to it are always available to everyone. Code under the BSD can not make that claim--I see it as the tragedy of the commons for the modern age.
I don't think its a big issue in the end. The fact that there are choices means that we all get to put our efforts behind the horses that we want to win (I'm actually mostly a libertarian and I don't believe people can be legislated to behave in certain ways--only persuaded). I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate because there is no incentive for people to share back enhancements and because people who are interested in donating the fruits of their labours to the common good have better licenses for that at their disposal. No, BSD licenses won't disappear, but BSD developments will necessarily be behind those in the GPL world: we won't ever see mass donations of code to BSD like we do under the GPL. In particular, we won't likely see large corporations which are presently benefiting from BSD software releasing their enhancements, etc. Why create a level playing field, even if that is for the common good? Isn't that a shame?
So yes, BSD is panacea for anyone whose sole goal is to make a buck because it doesn't restrict their use of the code in anyway. But it doesn't protect my right to use (again, as a developer) BSD derived code since that may be closed at someone's whim. This is the type of restriction I meant to imply. I've probably done a bad job of it once again, though.
Anyways, nice talking to you! Cheers!
See how it is restrictive now?
Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point. As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code? On what grounds can your ethical argument other than, "Everything for Silas!" Why should it be a one way street where the code you are acquiring is made to work for you (free beer) but you give nothing back?
If anything, the GPL promotes more code being made freely available than any other license since every other license seems to end at a piriah's doorstep. To be charitible, your plan is not really helpful to anyone except yourself. It doesn't even help the code you are embedding into your codebase since you aren't improving the code you are appropriating but rather, as far as you are concerned, you are improving your codebase.
Again, when code is merged, who's to say which code is which anymore? It is a merging of two to make a new whole. Why should that merging be a one way street that starts in the "free code" (as in freedom) community and end up in the "closed code" (as in proprietary) community?
Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are? LGPL is a fine license, it just doesn't do for code what the GPL does.
FOOL. The GPL does not restrict anyone from using GPL licensed code. It restricts the ability to hinder or encumber the code and that is the choice that users must make. BSD is free beer, certainly--no wonder corporations love to suck it up. GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not. You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is. I suggest that the GPL is far more important to software as a result. I don't care whether CISCO or whomever makes money--I care that quality code remains in the community. (AND note, they can equally well make money with GPL'd code--they only have to share back their modifications. Is that really asking too much?)
Interesting. Of course, the description elaborates on the meanings given in the claims and it is patently obvious that all computing systems are definitionally "limited resource computing device", not? Ok, I grant that a theoretical turing machine does not exhibit that property, but patents apply to tangible items. I quoted the description merely because it shows the intention behind the wording of the claim itself. In other words, don't trust my interpretation of the claim, this is what the petitioner actually contends is the meaning of "limited resource computing devices".
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I think it is somewhat irrelevant in this case ;)
Did you miss this then?
"This invention relates generally to computer systems, and more particularly to increasing the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device."
All its missing is an ", etc." at the end.