And as such, I give you license to *use* my source code if/when ever you put your hands on it, which is different from me *owning* a given copy of it, much less me having to pass you one.
That would make your "license" markedly different from the GPL, or as a matter of fact, any other software license in existence. You would be specifically going into contortions to purposefully dis-associate the licence to use that software from the software itself. And I am not sure if that sort of contortion would stand up in court, even if explicitely made, as no other case exists in which software was licensed that way.
If and only if you got binaries from me, you may ask me for the correspondant source code (which, on the other hand, is nothing but logical: since *I* never met in bussiness to you, how is it logical you coming to me asking for something?)
GPL is different because it specifically mentions "third parties", in an effort to avoid a formation of essentially a conspiracy between companies to distribute GPL-ed code between themselves, while denying anyone else access. If you do not like that provision, you are welcome not to modify GPL-ed code or not to distribute it after you modified it and thus avoid such problems. You can still use unmodified code and by doing only so, you will never run afoul these provisions.
Now: I grant you a license to use whatever money you find in my pocket.
As I already mentioned, software and physical objects do not obey the same rules. Software licenses are used exclusively to control what people can do with copies of software they already have access to.
I am in no more obligation to pass you the binaries than the State about providing you with a car, just because it allowed you to drive.
Again, quit harping on cars, as they have nothing to do with software, and their licensing to drive is in no way related to a wholly different concept of licensing software. To be specific, you are obligated, under the GPL, to pass the source code to any "third party" that requests so, providing that you were modifying and distributing GPLed code in any way. You can even ask for a reasonable fee to cover the expense of the data medium. But you are obligated to provide it.
That's not a trick.
It goes against the whole spirit and the purpose of the GPL, ergo: a slimy attempt to bypass its provisions. A con-man's trick.
That's simply legally possible, and it is happening *now*.
If you could kindly give us examples so that we could go after these people, I would very much appreciate it.
There are voices asking for this to be changed on the future; there are licenses that ask for any change published or not to be sent to the original author, but that's simply not the case for the GPLv2.
Again, "sending any change to the original author" is wholly impractical (as there could be thousands of co-authors of any piece of code) and I am not aware of any license that states so. GPL accomplishes this effect much more efficiently: any third party (including the original author or any of the subsequent contributors) can demand the source code from a distributor of modified GPL code.
Do you honestly have something to be paranoid about in your phone conversations, or are they as ridiculous as 95% of the blogs out there. I don't think Homeland Security is really interested in the calls about your overdue credit cards.
And you are really so naive to think that the spying would focus on Joe Sixpack (at least at the beginning of this nightmare) rather then on oposing political candidates and their friends/families, journalists, prominent dissenters, etc?
But there is absolutely zero proof of this. The notion that this could be happening is, as you point out, purely speculation based on the fact that there is acknowledged, warrantless surveillance of calls that sometimes terminate within the US and that a government that can do that could also be spying on purely domestic calls.
That is true, but as I pointed out, as soon as the government engages in any sort of totalitarian measures, such as any kind of warrantless wiretapping (no matter how supposedly limited), all bets are essentially off. Such is the nature of these things. It is really "all-or-nothing" proposition. Either the government obides by the law, or it does not. And if it does not, there is essentially no telling how far they will go. And we already know that they are fond of secret trials and secret detention and secret from the defendant evidence (i.e. you are not entitled to see the "evidence" against you -- I don't know if there is any more of a signature hallmark of totalitarianism then being sentenced for "crimes" against which accusation you cannot defend yourself). Compared to these grave evils already commited, and given the general, well proven attidude of these people, spying on all and any phone conversations within the US is small potatoes for them.
Which part of "licensed at no charge" do you translate as "you have to provide me with some tangible element, be it source or binary"?
Right, so I am a (no fee) licensee of source code to which I have no access? Your logic is mind boggling.
Well, if you think "licensing" and "giving it" is the same thing, maybe you can ask the State for a new car, since they got you a driving license.
Right, you see many people not entitled to driving with driving licenses? Nice mis-direction there bud, but the license in question is to drive a class of vehicles, which is different from owning one, whereas a license discussed in that provision of GPL is to use the specific source code in question, which is synonymous with having access to a copy. Code and cars do not exist in the same domains and do not behave in comparable ways.
thereby are licensing that code under the GPL to anyone else that gets legal access to such code (but this doesn't mean that *you* will be the one that will get access to the code)
Yes it does. GPL clearly states so. You can mis-read it in as many ways as you want, but it will change little. Otherwise a trick proposed upthread would be possible: a large network of corporations distributing code to each other and excluding everyone else, including the original developers of the code from the process. That is precisely why this clause exists in the GPL, to prevent greedy tricksters from coming up with the very scheme you are desperately attempting to come up with.
"warrantless wiretapping of international calls on known terrorists channels [read numbers] even if the call terminates or originates within the United States"
Trouble with this purposefully misleading definition is this: who decides what are these "channels" or "numbers"? Thats right, the same people who do the "warrantless", supervision-free wiretapping. Translation: they can pick any number and any international call originating within the US they like by simply claiming a vague "terrorist" connection. And be entitled to keep the exact nature of that "connection" secret from anyone based on "national security". In case you wonder this is tyranny pure and simple, indistinguishable from what the Gestapo, KGB or Saddam's henchmen would do in the same exact circumstance. And "national security" was the exact same excuse every tyrant of 20th century has used for this.
Now add the fact that there is no certainty (as the administration is being extremely obtuse about this) that the calls were even international to begin with.
Result: guaranteed warantless (i.e. based on the administration's whim) wiretapping of any one of the international calls from/to the US, plus possible warrantless (i.e. based on the administration's whim) wiretapping of just about any phone conversation in the US.
That is the meaning of that "domestic wiretap issue".
These types of activities, including the abhorrent "secret trials" and "secret evidence" (which defendants are not entitled to seeing) are what has beyond any doubt pushed the USA into the category of a "police-state". Textbook example of one, as a matter of fact.
The UAV drones are simply a confirmation that the process of conversion of USA into a full-blown tyranny is now under way and proceeding apace.
I work for someone who makes unmanned drones/rockets/tanks/ships/computers/condoms/etc for a living....
Look, that pre-fabricated, "just add-water", flamebait post was maybe funny the first 294 times or so it was posted on Slashdot. It is getting really old now. You are not even creative enough to re-arrange some sentences in it for variety.
There have been stresses and disruptions in many countries due to globalization, but I believe the results have been positive. Never forget the 400 million chinese who no longer live in poverty. That's a lot of people.
Capitalist marketplaces, if applied in certain ways, do produce wealth, there is no denying that. However the "success" you refer to is only possible because of coupling of very selectively chosen western capitalist elements with a strict societal control and hegemony as enforced by the "communist" party. In essence, this pseudo-globalization is happening in China because the "communist" party feels it is a handy tool to build their empire with, and thus are willing to sacrifice some Chinese to feed the machine of wealth and influence generation.
Now if we can only get this working in Africa and the Middle East.
See above. The African and Middle Eastern governments are unable to enforce their ways onto their populations in a way that Chinese can. Also there are matters of scale involved, China is a homogenous entity of over a billion people. Most Middle Eastern countries do not exceed 100 million. Chinese "communists" offered free technical education to all, Middle East offers Islamic maddrasses. And so on. Things are much more complicated then they look and the situation so far by no means provides a ringing endorsment for "globalization".
Perfect illustration of my point. This "joke" is unclear to a vast majority of people, i.e. everyone who does not happen to have the same frame of empirical or cultural reference as you. It case you wonder, that does not make you into a master of sublime humour, and only demonstrates a lack of ability to communicate in universally understood terms, in favour of obscure self-centered riddles.
Your entire argument of "others will do it anyways" is for stingent global and national penalites and controls on waste, pollution, abuse of labour and other associated stupidity targetting all those "others", until those "others" find it too risky do to so. Controls that override capitalism and individual greed, i.e. Socialism, or at least Social Democracy, coupled with strict population control measures. The alternative is simply mindless, mass self-destruction, "swarm of locusts" style, and implies that human civilzation as a whole and a can of maggots have roughly equal abilities to use reason and planning.
The Manager buys it because he can trash it on the curb in the fall and buy new in the spring not worrying about getting it tuned, the oil changed, new blade, and it get's it out of his garage for that Jaguar to sit all winter.
And the only minor downsides are: horrendous waste of materials, energy, natural resources, pollution, slave and child labour abroad, massive trade imbalances, astronomical debt, erosion of American workplaces and a whole slew of other fun side-effects of American Wal-Mart gluttony. Nothing to worry about. It is well worth that $150 he "saved".
Did you see my links? Companies are returning code for both the BSD-licensed OpenSSH and the GPL-licensed gcc. Theo is not complaining about that form of return. He's complaining about not getting money. The GPL still doesn't help him there.
And as I keep explaining, Theo is in a rut of his own making, and the GPL is only one of the many things that could have assisted his project, all of which did not suit Theo's tastes. While it is true that some will contribute back even to a BSD licensed project, they are not in any way obligated to do so. Theo whining about them not doing so flies directly in the face of the very notion of the BSD license. You can't encourage people do "do what they like" with your code and then complain that they "do what they like" with it. With the GPL they would at least be forced to be contributing the code. Is it enough for Theo? Probably not. But BSD is worse, from his own perspective, as he not only gets no money, but even code is subject to someone's whim.
Also as I explained already, many times, expecting to get money for a FOSS project, even GPLed, is just pure megalomaniac nonsense. Code contributions are the most one can expect and the GPL ensures at least that form of return. And also prevents people from just taking what you made and then selling it back to you.
Only if you get very lucky, or if you use your head to work the periphery of the project as a consultant or what not, you will get some financial return.
Apparently it is sufficiently (no, not "sooooo") important that some very big players adopted the code.
Many, many manufacturers of appliances use embedded Linux in their products, yet no one is moaning and bitching on lklm about them not ponying up. Its all in Theo's head.
First off, I'd just like to say that you do seem to go on, and on with personal attacks upon Theo, which, from my perspective, only serves to deeply weaken your arguments by making them appear as if you're biased.
Guilty as charged. Theo's antics and attitudes rub me the wrong way.
Actually, in my experience, Theo tends to focus on the code, and yes, it may seem that he does so the expense of others concerns.
Its how he does it which is causing my "bias".
You said, "any old clown who gets the whiff of this" Of course, it seems as if you're ignoring the fact the closed source is "closed".
Not GPL derrived code which is being distributed. I already pointed out the relevant GPL section to someone on this thread.
As well, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that a lot of open source code is used as a framework by closed code shops, most of which never share back.
As long as they do not distribute it anywhere else, they are entitled to it and it is no skin of anybody's nose.
Furthermore, let me guess, I'd bet you work on closed code, no? Sir, with all due respect, is there any chance you're suffering from some self justification yourself?
Not at all. I am a contributor to a few GPL projects myself, but my coding days are otheriwse long over.
Err, no. Only those that recieve binaries from *you* can ask for the source code to *you*.
GPL section 2.b:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Which part of "third parties" you do not understand?
Source code is not "the very thing Theo seems to be complaining about." It's money.
No, its the fact that they are using the code and not paying Theo. In case of GPL, there would be at least some return, in form of code. As I explained to someone else already, expecting a FOSS project to make money is the apex of silliness as only very few, far and between, get so lucky. But that's Theo and his ego for you.
You cannot steal BSD licensed code, once created it is there foreever, and freely given.
Sigh.
Really? You mean you've got all of these companies, like Apple, to give you their modified version of the OpenBSD code, which is the very thing Theo seems to be complaining about? How about you go tell him that he must be mistaken because "the code is there forever" and one "cannot steal it". For us "the GPL monkeys" it looks very much like Apple and SCO are selling the OpenBSD code back to the OpenBSD people. We "GPL monkeys" laugh much at this. And incidentally, at you.
Unless they are academics and thereby have their open source development efforts subsidized they have to generate some sort of income to keep their pet projects going and avoid having to get "real" jobs.
Vast majority of FOSS projects are either after-work hobby efforts or side-effects of some other paid work. It is a testimony to Theos' ego, for him to assume that he will be funded just because his project is sooooo much more important then all the others.
Not celebrity status, expertise with the code.
Proficency with code can be acquired, and most of the time other factors play the primary role, such as geographical locations, existing teams, well proven employees and managers, corporate politics and what not. Again, as Theo is finding the hard way.
It takes time for a 3rd party to learn and become proficient with someone else's code. The most cost effective way of getting the changes you want may easily be to hire the original author.
You could hire whole armies of programmers, have them dine at 5-star restaurants, be enterntained by live performances by the most expensive actors, while on one of their 20 scheduled breaks during the day, and still not arrive anywhere near the financial and psychological cost of having Theo "work" for you. People have jumped off tall buildings to escape far less aggravating situations, such as hammer-totting mafia debt collectors.
Seriously, you have a horrible propensity to massively oversimplify things. Vast majority of FOSS programmers never gets approached by commercial interests, even though they are using the projects extensively, as most companies would rather use an existing in-house development team or local, proven consultants. That is how businesses work.
It case of the project contributors seeking to be hired, their options are the same as those of any other software maker: self-promotion and salesmanship. Which requires inter-personal skills. Which Theo is utterly devoid of.
In part that is another fallacy.
You are fond of saying "fallacy", in an effort to pre-emptively discredit your opponent, and yet lack any ability to demonstrate any such "fallacies". Not a very respectable debating tactic.
Most work on GPL'd code is never seen by the original authors or the community. Most software is internal, it is not distributed outside the company, and the GPL does *not* require the changes to be returned to the community unless thers is public distribution.
In which GPL is indistinguishable from all the other licenses. And which internal work is again performed by internal, pre-existing teams, with an occasional posting on a project's mailing list being the only indication of any desire for external input. None of which of course alters my points in any way, as the resulting code cannot be sold to anyone, or distributed in any way externally, without running afoul of the GPL.
Technically you only have to share the changes with those you distribute executables to, so two companies could share work and keep the community in the dark.
Err, no. As soon as you begin any external "distibution", any old clown who gets the whiff of this can show up and demand both binaries and source. Such is the way of the GPL.
FWIW, the majority of software being for internal consumption is the real lock Microsoft has on the market.
Microsofts position has a myriad of reasons, and is another, wholly off-topic, conversation.
The exact reply to the question didn't really matter. The amount of time you think about it is what I look for.
Was it me, you would have found out that it takes only 0.3 seconds to have a horrible accident with your coffee spilling all over your lap. Applogies and all that, why, I am just such a horrible klutz!
Joking aside, but that sort of question would have me thanking you for the lovely opportunity to get interviewed by you, followed by a mental note not to ever do business with you, under any circumstances.
Has it ever occured to you that these types of smart-ass, self-congratulatory questions, main purpose of which is to show who is the smart alpha-dog in that interview room, are absolutely useless in ascertaining someone's workplace abilities? Oh, what am I talking about, if it had, you would not be asking that and all the other ridiculous "logic" puzzles I am sure you are inflicting on your poor hapless, victims... err... applicants.
Oh, really? You mean it does not depend on what the purpose of the project is?
In general under open source the money is in consulting, not in the development.
Oh I see, making money for Theo was the whole idea of OpenBSD? NOW you tell us!
A BSD based project is more likely to get inside a corporation and possibly more likely to create consulting work.
Which is a good thing if you are planning to make people appropriate, modify and sell your code while not letting you look at it ever again, in hopes that somehow your celebrity status will make some of them hire you.
Whether a project is BSD or GPL, if someone doesn't want to code themselves, they can hire others to do the work.
True enough, that is why BSD offers no advantage over GPL in this area.
The only difference is whether that work goes back to the community at large and for the company that needed specialized changes that is irrlevant and it may even be counterproductive to the company.
Which, in most cases, as Theo is finding the hard way, is the only type of return expected from commercial involvment in your project. Hoping to get hired by someone using your code is wishful thinking in vast majority of cases. GPL folks understand that, and operate accordingly.
The GPL is not some magic pill. We've seen numerous GPL based projects in financial trouble and begging for donations around here as well.
Of course it is not. But it was never its purpose. The purpose of GPL is to ensure that regardless of who is using or contributing to the code, and regardless of financial circumstaneces of a project, the code remains the property of the community and cannot be stolen and then sold back to us. That is all.
BSD vs GPL is not relevant. Theo's bed was made by driving away potential sources of income like DARPA.
Yes it is, as a part of a very long list of good advice he received over the years on a lot of things, and all of which he proceeded to sneer and snicker on, as only Theo can. DARPA's help is just one item on that very, very long list.
I was recently asked in a job interview "If Theo de Raadt and Dan Bernstein were locked in a room with knives, who would you want to come out alive?"
At which question I would have gotten up, broken off a leg table, and proceeded to ask "Where are they?!" so that I can proceed to give Dan a hand, musing to myself that it is at times like these that I wish I were a gun nut.
I am afraid this kind of a reaction would have been rather popular amongst those who had a pleasure of reading Theos' "conversations" with people on some of the USENET groups of old. Theo is just such a charming, loveable guy that swiss army knives open spontaneously in people's pockets at the very mention of him.
They don't like the GPL and are currently removing GPL only licensed code from the base install. The GPL is not an option for OpenBSD.
Subsequently, their moaning about how their self-inflicted mortal wounds hurt horribly is going to rightfully fall on deaf ears, if they are lucky, or will become a butt of jokes, if they are not.
This is what happens if someone is given good advice not to drive their car off the road and into a bog and which they derisively reject and proceed at "what can possibly happen?"-speed into the mud. Following which they sit on top of their sinking vehicle, far into the swamp, waving frantically and complaining loudly about "selfish" people who fail to stop to pull them out of there. So that they can ignore good advice, as soon as rescued, derisively, again.
I say onto Theo: Tough Cookies! You made your bed, you sleep in it! Perhaps placing product placements into the BSD code or performing in a clown outfit at conferences will bring the required revenue, now that the commercial interests do what you have always encouraged them to do: take, take and take... whatever they can get in return for as least as possible. Its called "business", Theo. Look it up sometime.
Heinlein's Starship Trooper's society is pretty much every conferderate-flag-waving, assault-rifle-sporting rednecks' from Texas dream. A society where societal merit is based on how many things you have murdered and how ruthless and immune to suffering you've become as a result. A way to finally kick down and put a boot on the face of all those peacenick "liberals", and keep it there, forcibly, permanently. And all those born crippled or sick. Permanent underclasses galore.
I was firmly rooting for the "bugs" as soon as I got far enough into the book to understand what he was peddling.
And then of course are the disguisting appologists. Where are the insectoid aliens when one needs them?
If that man was merely deficient in his understanding of the situation, I would cringe at the state of civic appointments but would heed your advice and remain civil and polite towards him, as I would in most cases in my professional dealings, preserving the decorum of the conversation. That is because such decorum is what makes inter-personal interactions civil, friendly and as a result allows us to correct someone's gaps in education without insulting him.
Unfortunately, Mr. Butthead chose to go ape at the first opportunity, displaying his obtuse arrogance and ample ill will, not to mention lack of any decorum to the point that any pretense of civility never existed. Add to this the insulting and egomaniac "apology", which seeks to blame everyone else for his wretched personality, combine this with his civil-servant status, and we have a situation where civic action, publicity and frankly, total destruction of his credibility in the public's eye is the only decent course of action.
Although it is frequently not so, this case has nothing to do with our, Linux users's, attitudes and everything to do with his.
Slashdot Mirror
That would make your "license" markedly different from the GPL, or as a matter of fact, any other software license in existence. You would be specifically going into contortions to purposefully dis-associate the licence to use that software from the software itself. And I am not sure if that sort of contortion would stand up in court, even if explicitely made, as no other case exists in which software was licensed that way.
If and only if you got binaries from me, you may ask me for the correspondant source code (which, on the other hand, is nothing but logical: since *I* never met in bussiness to you, how is it logical you coming to me asking for something?)
GPL is different because it specifically mentions "third parties", in an effort to avoid a formation of essentially a conspiracy between companies to distribute GPL-ed code between themselves, while denying anyone else access. If you do not like that provision, you are welcome not to modify GPL-ed code or not to distribute it after you modified it and thus avoid such problems. You can still use unmodified code and by doing only so, you will never run afoul these provisions.
Now: I grant you a license to use whatever money you find in my pocket.
As I already mentioned, software and physical objects do not obey the same rules. Software licenses are used exclusively to control what people can do with copies of software they already have access to.
I am in no more obligation to pass you the binaries than the State about providing you with a car, just because it allowed you to drive.
Again, quit harping on cars, as they have nothing to do with software, and their licensing to drive is in no way related to a wholly different concept of licensing software. To be specific, you are obligated, under the GPL, to pass the source code to any "third party" that requests so, providing that you were modifying and distributing GPLed code in any way. You can even ask for a reasonable fee to cover the expense of the data medium. But you are obligated to provide it.
That's not a trick.
It goes against the whole spirit and the purpose of the GPL, ergo: a slimy attempt to bypass its provisions. A con-man's trick.
That's simply legally possible, and it is happening *now*.
If you could kindly give us examples so that we could go after these people, I would very much appreciate it.
There are voices asking for this to be changed on the future; there are licenses that ask for any change published or not to be sent to the original author, but that's simply not the case for the GPLv2.
Again, "sending any change to the original author" is wholly impractical (as there could be thousands of co-authors of any piece of code) and I am not aware of any license that states so. GPL accomplishes this effect much more efficiently: any third party (including the original author or any of the subsequent contributors) can demand the source code from a distributor of modified GPL code.
And you are really so naive to think that the spying would focus on Joe Sixpack (at least at the beginning of this nightmare) rather then on oposing political candidates and their friends/families, journalists, prominent dissenters, etc?
That is true, but as I pointed out, as soon as the government engages in any sort of totalitarian measures, such as any kind of warrantless wiretapping (no matter how supposedly limited), all bets are essentially off. Such is the nature of these things. It is really "all-or-nothing" proposition. Either the government obides by the law, or it does not. And if it does not, there is essentially no telling how far they will go. And we already know that they are fond of secret trials and secret detention and secret from the defendant evidence (i.e. you are not entitled to see the "evidence" against you -- I don't know if there is any more of a signature hallmark of totalitarianism then being sentenced for "crimes" against which accusation you cannot defend yourself). Compared to these grave evils already commited, and given the general, well proven attidude of these people, spying on all and any phone conversations within the US is small potatoes for them.
Right, so I am a (no fee) licensee of source code to which I have no access? Your logic is mind boggling.
Well, if you think "licensing" and "giving it" is the same thing, maybe you can ask the State for a new car, since they got you a driving license.
Right, you see many people not entitled to driving with driving licenses? Nice mis-direction there bud, but the license in question is to drive a class of vehicles, which is different from owning one, whereas a license discussed in that provision of GPL is to use the specific source code in question, which is synonymous with having access to a copy. Code and cars do not exist in the same domains and do not behave in comparable ways.
thereby are licensing that code under the GPL to anyone else that gets legal access to such code (but this doesn't mean that *you* will be the one that will get access to the code)
Yes it does. GPL clearly states so. You can mis-read it in as many ways as you want, but it will change little. Otherwise a trick proposed upthread would be possible: a large network of corporations distributing code to each other and excluding everyone else, including the original developers of the code from the process. That is precisely why this clause exists in the GPL, to prevent greedy tricksters from coming up with the very scheme you are desperately attempting to come up with.
Trouble with this purposefully misleading definition is this: who decides what are these "channels" or "numbers"? Thats right, the same people who do the "warrantless", supervision-free wiretapping. Translation: they can pick any number and any international call originating within the US they like by simply claiming a vague "terrorist" connection. And be entitled to keep the exact nature of that "connection" secret from anyone based on "national security". In case you wonder this is tyranny pure and simple, indistinguishable from what the Gestapo, KGB or Saddam's henchmen would do in the same exact circumstance. And "national security" was the exact same excuse every tyrant of 20th century has used for this.
Now add the fact that there is no certainty (as the administration is being extremely obtuse about this) that the calls were even international to begin with.
Result: guaranteed warantless (i.e. based on the administration's whim) wiretapping of any one of the international calls from/to the US, plus possible warrantless (i.e. based on the administration's whim) wiretapping of just about any phone conversation in the US.
That is the meaning of that "domestic wiretap issue".
These types of activities, including the abhorrent "secret trials" and "secret evidence" (which defendants are not entitled to seeing) are what has beyond any doubt pushed the USA into the category of a "police-state". Textbook example of one, as a matter of fact.
The UAV drones are simply a confirmation that the process of conversion of USA into a full-blown tyranny is now under way and proceeding apace.
Look, that pre-fabricated, "just add-water", flamebait post was maybe funny the first 294 times or so it was posted on Slashdot. It is getting really old now. You are not even creative enough to re-arrange some sentences in it for variety.
Capitalist marketplaces, if applied in certain ways, do produce wealth, there is no denying that. However the "success" you refer to is only possible because of coupling of very selectively chosen western capitalist elements with a strict societal control and hegemony as enforced by the "communist" party. In essence, this pseudo-globalization is happening in China because the "communist" party feels it is a handy tool to build their empire with, and thus are willing to sacrifice some Chinese to feed the machine of wealth and influence generation.
Now if we can only get this working in Africa and the Middle East.
See above. The African and Middle Eastern governments are unable to enforce their ways onto their populations in a way that Chinese can. Also there are matters of scale involved, China is a homogenous entity of over a billion people. Most Middle Eastern countries do not exceed 100 million. Chinese "communists" offered free technical education to all, Middle East offers Islamic maddrasses. And so on. Things are much more complicated then they look and the situation so far by no means provides a ringing endorsment for "globalization".
Perfect illustration of my point. This "joke" is unclear to a vast majority of people, i.e. everyone who does not happen to have the same frame of empirical or cultural reference as you. It case you wonder, that does not make you into a master of sublime humour, and only demonstrates a lack of ability to communicate in universally understood terms, in favour of obscure self-centered riddles.
Your entire argument of "others will do it anyways" is for stingent global and national penalites and controls on waste, pollution, abuse of labour and other associated stupidity targetting all those "others", until those "others" find it too risky do to so. Controls that override capitalism and individual greed, i.e. Socialism, or at least Social Democracy, coupled with strict population control measures. The alternative is simply mindless, mass self-destruction, "swarm of locusts" style, and implies that human civilzation as a whole and a can of maggots have roughly equal abilities to use reason and planning.
And the only minor downsides are: horrendous waste of materials, energy, natural resources, pollution, slave and child labour abroad, massive trade imbalances, astronomical debt, erosion of American workplaces and a whole slew of other fun side-effects of American Wal-Mart gluttony. Nothing to worry about. It is well worth that $150 he "saved".
And as I keep explaining, Theo is in a rut of his own making, and the GPL is only one of the many things that could have assisted his project, all of which did not suit Theo's tastes. While it is true that some will contribute back even to a BSD licensed project, they are not in any way obligated to do so. Theo whining about them not doing so flies directly in the face of the very notion of the BSD license. You can't encourage people do "do what they like" with your code and then complain that they "do what they like" with it. With the GPL they would at least be forced to be contributing the code. Is it enough for Theo? Probably not. But BSD is worse, from his own perspective, as he not only gets no money, but even code is subject to someone's whim.
Also as I explained already, many times, expecting to get money for a FOSS project, even GPLed, is just pure megalomaniac nonsense. Code contributions are the most one can expect and the GPL ensures at least that form of return. And also prevents people from just taking what you made and then selling it back to you.
Only if you get very lucky, or if you use your head to work the periphery of the project as a consultant or what not, you will get some financial return.
Many, many manufacturers of appliances use embedded Linux in their products, yet no one is moaning and bitching on lklm about them not ponying up. Its all in Theo's head.
Guilty as charged. Theo's antics and attitudes rub me the wrong way.
Actually, in my experience, Theo tends to focus on the code, and yes, it may seem that he does so the expense of others concerns.
Its how he does it which is causing my "bias".
You said, "any old clown who gets the whiff of this" Of course, it seems as if you're ignoring the fact the closed source is "closed".
Not GPL derrived code which is being distributed. I already pointed out the relevant GPL section to someone on this thread.
As well, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that a lot of open source code is used as a framework by closed code shops, most of which never share back.
As long as they do not distribute it anywhere else, they are entitled to it and it is no skin of anybody's nose.
Furthermore, let me guess, I'd bet you work on closed code, no? Sir, with all due respect, is there any chance you're suffering from some self justification yourself?
Not at all. I am a contributor to a few GPL projects myself, but my coding days are otheriwse long over.
GPL section 2.b:
Which part of "third parties" you do not understand?No, its the fact that they are using the code and not paying Theo. In case of GPL, there would be at least some return, in form of code. As I explained to someone else already, expecting a FOSS project to make money is the apex of silliness as only very few, far and between, get so lucky. But that's Theo and his ego for you.
So how would the GPL help the project?
See above.
Sigh.
Really? You mean you've got all of these companies, like Apple, to give you their modified version of the OpenBSD code, which is the very thing Theo seems to be complaining about? How about you go tell him that he must be mistaken because "the code is there forever" and one "cannot steal it". For us "the GPL monkeys" it looks very much like Apple and SCO are selling the OpenBSD code back to the OpenBSD people. We "GPL monkeys" laugh much at this. And incidentally, at you.
Vast majority of FOSS projects are either after-work hobby efforts or side-effects of some other paid work. It is a testimony to Theos' ego, for him to assume that he will be funded just because his project is sooooo much more important then all the others.
Not celebrity status, expertise with the code.
Proficency with code can be acquired, and most of the time other factors play the primary role, such as geographical locations, existing teams, well proven employees and managers, corporate politics and what not. Again, as Theo is finding the hard way.
It takes time for a 3rd party to learn and become proficient with someone else's code. The most cost effective way of getting the changes you want may easily be to hire the original author.
You could hire whole armies of programmers, have them dine at 5-star restaurants, be enterntained by live performances by the most expensive actors, while on one of their 20 scheduled breaks during the day, and still not arrive anywhere near the financial and psychological cost of having Theo "work" for you. People have jumped off tall buildings to escape far less aggravating situations, such as hammer-totting mafia debt collectors.
Seriously, you have a horrible propensity to massively oversimplify things. Vast majority of FOSS programmers never gets approached by commercial interests, even though they are using the projects extensively, as most companies would rather use an existing in-house development team or local, proven consultants. That is how businesses work.
It case of the project contributors seeking to be hired, their options are the same as those of any other software maker: self-promotion and salesmanship. Which requires inter-personal skills. Which Theo is utterly devoid of.
In part that is another fallacy.
You are fond of saying "fallacy", in an effort to pre-emptively discredit your opponent, and yet lack any ability to demonstrate any such "fallacies". Not a very respectable debating tactic.
Most work on GPL'd code is never seen by the original authors or the community. Most software is internal, it is not distributed outside the company, and the GPL does *not* require the changes to be returned to the community unless thers is public distribution.
In which GPL is indistinguishable from all the other licenses. And which internal work is again performed by internal, pre-existing teams, with an occasional posting on a project's mailing list being the only indication of any desire for external input. None of which of course alters my points in any way, as the resulting code cannot be sold to anyone, or distributed in any way externally, without running afoul of the GPL.
Technically you only have to share the changes with those you distribute executables to, so two companies could share work and keep the community in the dark.
Err, no. As soon as you begin any external "distibution", any old clown who gets the whiff of this can show up and demand both binaries and source. Such is the way of the GPL.
FWIW, the majority of software being for internal consumption is the real lock Microsoft has on the market.
Microsofts position has a myriad of reasons, and is another, wholly off-topic, conversation.
Was it me, you would have found out that it takes only 0.3 seconds to have a horrible accident with your coffee spilling all over your lap. Applogies and all that, why, I am just such a horrible klutz!
Joking aside, but that sort of question would have me thanking you for the lovely opportunity to get interviewed by you, followed by a mental note not to ever do business with you, under any circumstances.
Has it ever occured to you that these types of smart-ass, self-congratulatory questions, main purpose of which is to show who is the smart alpha-dog in that interview room, are absolutely useless in ascertaining someone's workplace abilities? Oh, what am I talking about, if it had, you would not be asking that and all the other ridiculous "logic" puzzles I am sure you are inflicting on your poor hapless, victims ... err ... applicants.
Oh, really? You mean it does not depend on what the purpose of the project is?
In general under open source the money is in consulting, not in the development.
Oh I see, making money for Theo was the whole idea of OpenBSD? NOW you tell us!
A BSD based project is more likely to get inside a corporation and possibly more likely to create consulting work.
Which is a good thing if you are planning to make people appropriate, modify and sell your code while not letting you look at it ever again, in hopes that somehow your celebrity status will make some of them hire you.
Whether a project is BSD or GPL, if someone doesn't want to code themselves, they can hire others to do the work.
True enough, that is why BSD offers no advantage over GPL in this area.
The only difference is whether that work goes back to the community at large and for the company that needed specialized changes that is irrlevant and it may even be counterproductive to the company.
Which, in most cases, as Theo is finding the hard way, is the only type of return expected from commercial involvment in your project. Hoping to get hired by someone using your code is wishful thinking in vast majority of cases. GPL folks understand that, and operate accordingly.
The GPL is not some magic pill. We've seen numerous GPL based projects in financial trouble and begging for donations around here as well.
Of course it is not. But it was never its purpose. The purpose of GPL is to ensure that regardless of who is using or contributing to the code, and regardless of financial circumstaneces of a project, the code remains the property of the community and cannot be stolen and then sold back to us. That is all.
Yes it is, as a part of a very long list of good advice he received over the years on a lot of things, and all of which he proceeded to sneer and snicker on, as only Theo can. DARPA's help is just one item on that very, very long list.
At which question I would have gotten up, broken off a leg table, and proceeded to ask "Where are they?!" so that I can proceed to give Dan a hand, musing to myself that it is at times like these that I wish I were a gun nut.
I am afraid this kind of a reaction would have been rather popular amongst those who had a pleasure of reading Theos' "conversations" with people on some of the USENET groups of old. Theo is just such a charming, loveable guy that swiss army knives open spontaneously in people's pockets at the very mention of him.
Subsequently, their moaning about how their self-inflicted mortal wounds hurt horribly is going to rightfully fall on deaf ears, if they are lucky, or will become a butt of jokes, if they are not.
This is what happens if someone is given good advice not to drive their car off the road and into a bog and which they derisively reject and proceed at "what can possibly happen?"-speed into the mud. Following which they sit on top of their sinking vehicle, far into the swamp, waving frantically and complaining loudly about "selfish" people who fail to stop to pull them out of there. So that they can ignore good advice, as soon as rescued, derisively, again.
I say onto Theo: Tough Cookies! You made your bed, you sleep in it! Perhaps placing product placements into the BSD code or performing in a clown outfit at conferences will bring the required revenue, now that the commercial interests do what you have always encouraged them to do: take, take and take ... whatever they can get in return for as least as possible. Its called "business", Theo. Look it up sometime.
I was firmly rooting for the "bugs" as soon as I got far enough into the book to understand what he was peddling.
And then of course are the disguisting appologists. Where are the insectoid aliens when one needs them?
If that man was merely deficient in his understanding of the situation, I would cringe at the state of civic appointments but would heed your advice and remain civil and polite towards him, as I would in most cases in my professional dealings, preserving the decorum of the conversation. That is because such decorum is what makes inter-personal interactions civil, friendly and as a result allows us to correct someone's gaps in education without insulting him.
Unfortunately, Mr. Butthead chose to go ape at the first opportunity, displaying his obtuse arrogance and ample ill will, not to mention lack of any decorum to the point that any pretense of civility never existed. Add to this the insulting and egomaniac "apology", which seeks to blame everyone else for his wretched personality, combine this with his civil-servant status, and we have a situation where civic action, publicity and frankly, total destruction of his credibility in the public's eye is the only decent course of action.
Although it is frequently not so, this case has nothing to do with our, Linux users's, attitudes and everything to do with his.
This was supposed to read:
The patently false assumption being, of course, that labour has the mobility necessary to escape such conditions.
Oops.