Go easy; I recognize that ordinarily that would be quite a troll, and, on reflection, I'm surprised it wasn't modded as such. That said, I meant it as an equal-time barb, not a full-fledged indictment of capitalism.
You're welcome. May we have some nice light sweet crude and/or Liquified Natural Gas, please? If you can send us both, I can totally hook you up with some nice F-16 Fighting Falcons. Get back to me.
Essentially, what I was advocating was a sort of Wikipedia of Source. (Or a Sourceforge, perhaps?;) ) However, mrsbrisby's posts in response to my posts have convinced me that my conception of the source-distribution requirement was erroneous, thus rendering my opposition moot.
Just as long as there's more than one way to skin the cat on this issue, I see no problems. I'd been under the apparently mistaken impression that one was required to package and distribute the source itself in all derivative packages/works. I viewed that as problematic and confusing to non-technical end-users. Linking the source and/or disclosing where it can be found is no big deal at all.
I continue to maintain that further education is necessary on this issue; I even took the "GPL Test" and came out more confused than ever. And I definitely feel that it's only a matter of time before this clause is used in proprietary FUD. That, of course, is another issue for another day.
Thanks for the reply, though; I'd been getting the karma stomped out of me for even daring to innocently (and erroneously) question the policy. For those of you reading this now-old thread, please remember this little snippet the next time you go to down-mod someone who might simply need some education.
Well, there we have it.
I've read so many contradictory blurbs on the matter of source disclosure vis a vis the GPL that you could tell me the GPL said you have to provide paper copies by request and I'd almost believe it.
I'd thought the method you outline was one of the "unacceptable" methods, so it's nice to finally get a definitive answer here, rather than folks simply assuming I'm attempting to troll and downmodding me into oblivion.
I do continue to believe that the controversy surrounding this clause is ripe for exploitation by proprietary FUD, but that's where we go from "narrowly on-topic" to "entirely off-topic".
Thanks for the edification.
They also have charismatic CEO figures and strong anti-Microsoft streaks
Another common factor: Both CEOs have known Reality Distortion Fields.
Could two such personalities coexist? I'm reminded of what happened between Jobs and John Sculley.
It doesn't really matter what your philosophy is on whether the GPL is right or not though - if you choose to use this software, which has this license, you must comply...
That sounds like the sort of logic the MPAA would apply to the Sony rootkit to me. Retort made, I'll continue the discussion in a non-trolling vein below.
I'm very disappointed that this post (parent) of mine got modded "troll". My intent was certainly not to troll, and the replies, other than this one, have been very educational. It's sad to see the "groupthink" aspect of this community working against ongoing education.
All that said, I continue to posit that this clause will work against the OSS community in a multitude of ways, and that further clarification and revision is required to this clause of the license to prevent confusion.
I absolutely agree that those benefitting from OSS software should provide some token payback to the cause, and that the easiest and most productive way for that to happen is to provide disclosure as to the source code. My only bone of contention is the way that's currently being done as of now.
I've yet to re-re-re-read the GPL, as suggested by MrsBrisby in another reply to my initial post. I keep posting to threads on this topic, and continually get modded troll, when my only intent is to keep the overall discussion on this topic open in the hopes that a more natural, organic solution to this problem will eventually take root and flourish.
For what it's worth, my solution to this issue would be to include a link to source repositories within the GPL itself. I would be interested to know other's thoughts on this idea.
Overall we absolutely agree. However, one of your points actually has nothing to do with what I posted. I totally agree that people are within their rights, morally, ethically, and legally, to have access to the source code -- this is not in dispute.
My only point of contention is on the topic of how to comply with this requirement; the current standards seem somewhat problematic, again, from a purely "end-user" perspective.
It just seems to me that the way it's being done now is contrary to the community's ideals and interests. Access to the source code is certainly the sine qua non of OSS; however, there are many ways to skin a cat, and I'd like to see better, more organic methods of disseminating the source.
I still don't understand why the source distribution is compulsory in the way that it is. I would argue, and I'm sure others have, that from a purely "end-user" perspective, including the source code is both confusing and superfluous.
I absolutely agree with the philosophy that produced this clause, but the execution leaves much to be desired. I suspect that there will be many more cases like this one to provide flame-fodder for slashdotters, and that this clause will be somewhat revised sooner or later to more reasonably balance the needs of simplicity versus the need to "spread the revolution" virally.
We need to ask ourselves: Is the OSS cause materially harmed by not including the source itself in distributions? While the license (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) does allow alternative means of "providing" and/or linking the source, how many people who know enough to look for it wouldn't know that it can easily be found via resources like Sourceforge?
I don't think anybody wants to get into a position where the Forces of Good start stumbling down RIAA Road. Enforcement of license provisions like this one can only serve the purposes of proprietary FUD, and detracts from time better spent coding and/or evangelizing.
There's a worm currently in propagation that affects unpatched Mambo 4.5.3.x installs. Unknown if the precise worm affects Joomla, however I do note a concurrent "security release" of Joomla as well. The worm compromises via SQL injection, and opens the error_log on all virtual hosts on a given server, in an attempt to obfuscate the true source of the error. Meanwhile, the worm launches a perl process and begins portscanning and attacking other hosts -- it also googles to find new sources for infection. Compromised servers check in at a predetermined IRC room/server.
AIT suing Google for fraud is like the pot calling the kettle black.
For a few years now, there's been a website run by a former AIT reseller that delves into the dark truth behind this McWebhost.
AIT CEO Briggs is revealed to be a boastful drunkard who abuses his support staff, and AIT's infrastructure is revealed to be mostly obsolete, poor translations of better open source and proprietary packages.
The full story can be found at AITSucks.com, I recommend budgeting quite a bit of time, get a cup of coffee, and prepare to be shocked and amused by the pervasive skullduggery of AIT.
The irritating seizure inducing ads, along with pop-ups and unders, exist for a reason. They work. Until that simple fact changes (ie, greater percentages of people have are more tech-savvy) those ads will persist, and will in fact proliferate. The online advertising market is only now getting truly smart as to its offerings, and new startups enter the field every month. Think about the proliferation of p2p nets post-Napster: the ad companies aren't just going to sit back and let Firefox's native-and-extension blocking put them out of business.
I use an affiliate program on one of my sites that pays out as much as 5x on the popup ads and interstitials as they do on basic ads. Since I know most tech savvy people block them anyway, I go ahead and run them. (Of course, I set my pop up to pop only once per 24 hours per IP, and the interstitials to trigger once a half-hour...less than one percent of my visitors stay that long.)
Another irritating feature of my program is that they'll administratively 'cancel' some of the more irritating ads, and then reinsert them as 'new' ads...thus putting them right back in your queue.
My point: websites and bandwidth cost money, and getting that money often requires a dance with the devil in the pale moonlight. Your friendly neighborhood webmaster probably dislikes his ads as much as you do, but that's what keeps his server up. (Contrast this with Matt Drudge, who's constantly foisting new ads on his already saturated site that has mad traffic and low bandwidth overhead.)
I'm certainly not going to be one of the ones moaning about the commercialization of the net...it's too late to worry about, and I personally welcome any opportunity to grab some of The Man's(TM) money any time I can....it's just unfortunate that so many lemmings make the "bad" ads so appealing to advertisers...
As an example, say Coca-Cola uses an open source CMS to build a promotional site. How big a percentage of people are going to immediately understand what the "source code" link and "GNU License" means contrasted with the number of people who are distracted or otherwise confused by this?
Corporate America will not pay for the promotional expenses of a software movement, nor will it tolerate its co-opting as the promotional host-body for the selfsame movement.
Sounds like a good idea, but if used as a big stick, it will hurt adoption rather than promote it.
All the GPL3 requires is that if some code already includes a "send me the code" feature, any modifications may not remove it.
OK, but who's paying for the bandwidth associated with that function? And does that include hardcoded links to the source on other sites? Examining this from a bottom-up perspective looks a lot different than from the top down.
Short version is, can we expect corporations to adopt in any situation where their "ownership" (using the term liberally to make the point) seems diluted by what some may see as as much a political movement as anything else?
Am I the only one that sees this as a boon to M$ FUD? Many customers are not going to understand the finer points of the closed-proprietary vs. open source debate, and are going to be confused by conflicting concepts of ownership.
I can understand that greater transparency vis a vis the license can help shine the spotlight on the virtues of the open source community, but I do think that this will be overtaken by the confusion it creates amongst the adoption decision makers....to say nothing of the reactionary attempt Microsoft will surely make to exploit it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say it's just peeved at being thrown out of an airlock. You'd be just as upset, believe me.
Here's a mirror site hosting this one and a few other octopi videos.
Link (pops)
Go easy; I recognize that ordinarily that would be quite a troll, and, on reflection, I'm surprised it wasn't modded as such. That said, I meant it as an equal-time barb, not a full-fledged indictment of capitalism.
Mr. Viktory Yushchenkoff,
You're welcome. May we have some nice light sweet crude and/or Liquified Natural Gas, please? If you can send us both, I can totally hook you up with some nice F-16 Fighting Falcons. Get back to me.
Your pal, Dubya
Essentially, what I was advocating was a sort of Wikipedia of Source. (Or a Sourceforge, perhaps? ;) ) However, mrsbrisby's posts in response to my posts have convinced me that my conception of the source-distribution requirement was erroneous, thus rendering my opposition moot.
Just as long as there's more than one way to skin the cat on this issue, I see no problems. I'd been under the apparently mistaken impression that one was required to package and distribute the source itself in all derivative packages/works. I viewed that as problematic and confusing to non-technical end-users. Linking the source and/or disclosing where it can be found is no big deal at all.
I continue to maintain that further education is necessary on this issue; I even took the "GPL Test" and came out more confused than ever. And I definitely feel that it's only a matter of time before this clause is used in proprietary FUD. That, of course, is another issue for another day.
Thanks for the reply, though; I'd been getting the karma stomped out of me for even daring to innocently (and erroneously) question the policy. For those of you reading this now-old thread, please remember this little snippet the next time you go to down-mod someone who might simply need some education.
Well, there we have it. I've read so many contradictory blurbs on the matter of source disclosure vis a vis the GPL that you could tell me the GPL said you have to provide paper copies by request and I'd almost believe it. I'd thought the method you outline was one of the "unacceptable" methods, so it's nice to finally get a definitive answer here, rather than folks simply assuming I'm attempting to troll and downmodding me into oblivion. I do continue to believe that the controversy surrounding this clause is ripe for exploitation by proprietary FUD, but that's where we go from "narrowly on-topic" to "entirely off-topic". Thanks for the edification.
They also have charismatic CEO figures and strong anti-Microsoft streaks Another common factor: Both CEOs have known Reality Distortion Fields. Could two such personalities coexist? I'm reminded of what happened between Jobs and John Sculley.
It doesn't really matter what your philosophy is on whether the GPL is right or not though - if you choose to use this software, which has this license, you must comply...
That sounds like the sort of logic the MPAA would apply to the Sony rootkit to me. Retort made, I'll continue the discussion in a non-trolling vein below.
I'm very disappointed that this post (parent) of mine got modded "troll". My intent was certainly not to troll, and the replies, other than this one, have been very educational. It's sad to see the "groupthink" aspect of this community working against ongoing education.
All that said, I continue to posit that this clause will work against the OSS community in a multitude of ways, and that further clarification and revision is required to this clause of the license to prevent confusion.
I absolutely agree that those benefitting from OSS software should provide some token payback to the cause, and that the easiest and most productive way for that to happen is to provide disclosure as to the source code. My only bone of contention is the way that's currently being done as of now.
I've yet to re-re-re-read the GPL, as suggested by MrsBrisby in another reply to my initial post. I keep posting to threads on this topic, and continually get modded troll, when my only intent is to keep the overall discussion on this topic open in the hopes that a more natural, organic solution to this problem will eventually take root and flourish.
For what it's worth, my solution to this issue would be to include a link to source repositories within the GPL itself. I would be interested to know other's thoughts on this idea.
Overall we absolutely agree. However, one of your points actually has nothing to do with what I posted. I totally agree that people are within their rights, morally, ethically, and legally, to have access to the source code -- this is not in dispute.
My only point of contention is on the topic of how to comply with this requirement; the current standards seem somewhat problematic, again, from a purely "end-user" perspective.
It just seems to me that the way it's being done now is contrary to the community's ideals and interests. Access to the source code is certainly the sine qua non of OSS; however, there are many ways to skin a cat, and I'd like to see better, more organic methods of disseminating the source.
I still don't understand why the source distribution is compulsory in the way that it is. I would argue, and I'm sure others have, that from a purely "end-user" perspective, including the source code is both confusing and superfluous.
I absolutely agree with the philosophy that produced this clause, but the execution leaves much to be desired. I suspect that there will be many more cases like this one to provide flame-fodder for slashdotters, and that this clause will be somewhat revised sooner or later to more reasonably balance the needs of simplicity versus the need to "spread the revolution" virally.
We need to ask ourselves: Is the OSS cause materially harmed by not including the source itself in distributions? While the license (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) does allow alternative means of "providing" and/or linking the source, how many people who know enough to look for it wouldn't know that it can easily be found via resources like Sourceforge?
I don't think anybody wants to get into a position where the Forces of Good start stumbling down RIAA Road. Enforcement of license provisions like this one can only serve the purposes of proprietary FUD, and detracts from time better spent coding and/or evangelizing.
...as long as they don't start importing counterfeit Penis Mightiers. Because, what matter is, do they work?
There's a worm currently in propagation that affects unpatched Mambo 4.5.3.x installs. Unknown if the precise worm affects Joomla, however I do note a concurrent "security release" of Joomla as well. The worm compromises via SQL injection, and opens the error_log on all virtual hosts on a given server, in an attempt to obfuscate the true source of the error. Meanwhile, the worm launches a perl process and begins portscanning and attacking other hosts -- it also googles to find new sources for infection. Compromised servers check in at a predetermined IRC room/server.
Official Release on Mamboserver.com.
I would strongly advise getting your site patched circa now.
AIT suing Google for fraud is like the pot calling the kettle black. For a few years now, there's been a website run by a former AIT reseller that delves into the dark truth behind this McWebhost. AIT CEO Briggs is revealed to be a boastful drunkard who abuses his support staff, and AIT's infrastructure is revealed to be mostly obsolete, poor translations of better open source and proprietary packages. The full story can be found at AITSucks.com, I recommend budgeting quite a bit of time, get a cup of coffee, and prepare to be shocked and amused by the pervasive skullduggery of AIT.
That's why we've got to keep them in the dark! And watch out for that real little one....he creeps me out.
The irritating seizure inducing ads, along with pop-ups and unders, exist for a reason. They work. Until that simple fact changes (ie, greater percentages of people have are more tech-savvy) those ads will persist, and will in fact proliferate. The online advertising market is only now getting truly smart as to its offerings, and new startups enter the field every month. Think about the proliferation of p2p nets post-Napster: the ad companies aren't just going to sit back and let Firefox's native-and-extension blocking put them out of business. I use an affiliate program on one of my sites that pays out as much as 5x on the popup ads and interstitials as they do on basic ads. Since I know most tech savvy people block them anyway, I go ahead and run them. (Of course, I set my pop up to pop only once per 24 hours per IP, and the interstitials to trigger once a half-hour...less than one percent of my visitors stay that long.) Another irritating feature of my program is that they'll administratively 'cancel' some of the more irritating ads, and then reinsert them as 'new' ads...thus putting them right back in your queue. My point: websites and bandwidth cost money, and getting that money often requires a dance with the devil in the pale moonlight. Your friendly neighborhood webmaster probably dislikes his ads as much as you do, but that's what keeps his server up. (Contrast this with Matt Drudge, who's constantly foisting new ads on his already saturated site that has mad traffic and low bandwidth overhead.) I'm certainly not going to be one of the ones moaning about the commercialization of the net...it's too late to worry about, and I personally welcome any opportunity to grab some of The Man's(TM) money any time I can....it's just unfortunate that so many lemmings make the "bad" ads so appealing to advertisers...
As an example, say Coca-Cola uses an open source CMS to build a promotional site. How big a percentage of people are going to immediately understand what the "source code" link and "GNU License" means contrasted with the number of people who are distracted or otherwise confused by this?
Corporate America will not pay for the promotional expenses of a software movement, nor will it tolerate its co-opting as the promotional host-body for the selfsame movement.
Sounds like a good idea, but if used as a big stick, it will hurt adoption rather than promote it.
All the GPL3 requires is that if some code already includes a "send me the code" feature, any modifications may not remove it.
OK, but who's paying for the bandwidth associated with that function? And does that include hardcoded links to the source on other sites? Examining this from a bottom-up perspective looks a lot different than from the top down.
Short version is, can we expect corporations to adopt in any situation where their "ownership" (using the term liberally to make the point) seems diluted by what some may see as as much a political movement as anything else?
Am I the only one that sees this as a boon to M$ FUD? Many customers are not going to understand the finer points of the closed-proprietary vs. open source debate, and are going to be confused by conflicting concepts of ownership. I can understand that greater transparency vis a vis the license can help shine the spotlight on the virtues of the open source community, but I do think that this will be overtaken by the confusion it creates amongst the adoption decision makers....to say nothing of the reactionary attempt Microsoft will surely make to exploit it.
Yes, but this obscures a far more important percentage: how many astronauts will come home with incredible super powers?!
BTW, feel free to seed this link around the net; I have tons of bandwidth and enjoy watching my server under a heavy traffic load. /. nerd PSA ;)
The Way to Amarillo
Link is right on the top third of the screen, "above the fold".
Enjoy!!
http://video.contemporaryinsanity.org/ Link is right on the top third of the screen, "above the fold". Enjoy!!
As noted further down, I've got it mirrored at my place. (redundant postage for short attention spans; please don't deem me a k/w ;) )
I pray regularly at Our Lady of the Righteous Uplink. ;)
Thanks for the love.
Got your US mirror here: