The song is on my hard disk. The song is on my ipod. The ipod has a hard disk.
Why do I have to make yet another backup? If my mac crashes why can't I just copy the songs on to my new mac from my ipod. If my ipod dies I can get a new one and put all the songs on my itunes on it how come I can't do the reverse?
"What major projects under the GPL say "or later"? The linux kernel does NOT."
Many do, some don't.
"If I take a project under GPL v2 which does not say "or later" and make a (major) contribution under GPL v2 without saying "or later", you do not have the legal right to incorporate my changes into a GPL v3 project (or any version other than v2) without my permission."
That's right. Under our laws whoever writes the code gets to say how it's used.
"What does "or later" even mean? Does it mean anything Stallman says it does?"
No. Why would you think that?
"Is he even restricted by those things that might violate the prior version of the license?"
He is subject to the same copyright laws all other human beings are. Why do you get confused by this?
"If he is just restricted to those things, do you have any idea how much further he can legally go? "
He is subject to the same copyright laws all other human beings are.
"Why cede so much authority to any one person (especially someone whose agenda is far-out idealistic and not pragmatic)? "
Who says you have to?
"If you want to say this is merely the "FSF", not RMS personally, I'm not so sure it matters (and RMS may be able to simply restructure the FSF at his will)."
Or he may not.
"You obviously have sexual and emotional issues to resolve as you keep on repeating this."
If you get to make up goofy evil shit you think people will do I also get to the same thing.
"To come back to my original point: While this may be technically true, it is not always true in practice."
Oh I can't wait for this....
"If, say, Linux were to suddenly go to V3 tomorrow (presuming every copyright holder signed off on this), this would mean that the burden would suddenly fall on me to fix every problem in the old code independently (or pray for a group of like-minded people)."
If you were to suddenly rape a nine year old girl.... Ok never mind.
Your beef is not with the GPL. It's with the copyright law which states that people who write code get to determine how other people use it. If linus and his buddies decide to change their license then they can. There is nothing you or anybody else can do about it. They could close the code up completely if they want. Sorry but you don't get to tell them what to do with their code.
"If you make commitments to an open source project or platform, you are not just dependent on the conditions of the current code, but also on future support. Thus you may be essentially compelled to accept terms you disagree with."
Nope. You never have to accept any license. If you accept it then it must have been because you get something from the deal. It says so right in the GPL. You don't have to accept this license.
Honestly after all this conversation we finally get to the point. You are pissed because people who write the code get to decide how that code is used and you don't like their decisions. Well though shit. I have no sympathy for your predicament. I will however give you one piece of advice.
WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNDED CODE. That way you can stay far away from the evil RMS and the evil FSF and the evil GPL and the evil open source developers.
First of all I think I am going to at this point put up or shut up. Start by showing us some example of how scientists were denied funding because they went against the mainstream on global warming.
We know fur sure the US govt has silenced studies showing that global warming is happening those are easy to come by, where are your examples?
Anyway...
"Of course. You can get access to money from biased sources, but your research is then ignored as "tainted" (even if your data is useful, it's discarded)."
So what? Your claim is that the scientists are in it for the money right?
"Understand that the current "consensus" is, "the Earth is warming more recently than it has in a long time and we have a set of computer models that account for every other variable that we can think of in ways that we think are correct, and the warming is left unexplained... human-produced CO2 could explain the difference.""
That's the way science always works. You cant prove for certain how far a star it, what happened a million years ago (or what happened last week for that matter), and any one a billion other things. At best you make theories, you test them, you come to logical conclusions. That's the way it works.
Your argument seems to be that until we are 100% sure of every variable then we should do nothing. That's stupid. You are not 100% sure you are going to wake up in the morning but you go about your life as it you were because the chances are very high that you will.
"The problem I have is that I may make commitments based on Version X of "the rules" with the understanding that this is the basic framework underwhich everyone has agreed to operate, only to find out later that Version X+1 (or +10) is so extreme that I'm screwed."
If that's the case then you are erecting a straw man. The license says GPLV2 OR (again OR, OR, OR, OR) later. If you wrote or used code under V2 then you can continue to do so.
"I'm not sure you understand. I'm only looking to use the database. Linking to client-library code does not exactly make it a derivative work -- there are, after all, applications that connect to dozens of different database vendor offerings with just a few lines of code... are they all derivative works?"
OK then why don't you ask microsoft or oracle for their access libraries so you can link to them from your code. I am sure they won't mind.
"Says who? If it's not in "the rules", then it is not "the point" (unless you want to argue that everyone should just take the most extreme version of Stallman's point of view and extropolate that anything GPL'd is likely to go this way)."
Says the GPL. It's a license. Read it, obey it, and you will be fine. If you choose not to accept the license then write your own code. Honestly I don't see the point of all this whining.
"What if Apache adopted GPL v10 which declared that any software making TCP/IP connections to it (thereby "using" the software) must not only be open source but actually be running GPL v10 (Oh, and by the way, you can't play mp3 or any such proprietary tech within)? The GPL is expressly now deviating away from more than just the sharing of code, but into actual usage...and god knows where else."
What if you decided to rape nine year girls in the ass while force feeing them your shit?
"My freedom to choose when and how I contribute back does not mean that I, in fact, will not contribute back. I may very well use one and send back patches even though I don't have to."
Ok then. Either way that's your right. The authors of those projects don't care if you contribute or not. Just use their code and be happy.
"They reserve the right, yes. But most don't make arbitrary changes and those that do send signals that they are not to be trusted in the future (which is exactly what I'm suggesting RMS is doing)."
Bullshit. How many times has the license for MS media player has been updated in the last five years? I'll give you a clue every update and some service packs.
"I'd say it's changing at an accelerating rate and getting increasingly radical with each iteration."
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.
"I would not be surprised if many open source projects are ultimately damaged seriously by this interference or if Stallman et. al are not just widely discreted and rejected outright in the future."
I would but again you are entitled to your opinion.
"The camp that agreed with GPL v1 may quickly get fractured into incompatible and increasingly divergent groups. "
Didn't happen with V2 probably won't happen with V3.
"Whatever strength open source has is in a set of shared resources (the OS, compiler, database, various libraries, etc that are all compatible and readily available) -- if that pool becomes sufficiently fractured the entire group may suffer."
Isn't this article about exxon funding studies to the tune of 16 million dollars? So there is clearly lots of money available from exxon. One presumes there are at least a dozen other corporations who would be willing to spend millions of dollars discrediting scientists not to mention thinktanks and the republican party.
"Linus Torvalds and others, who have arguably done the most in practical terms to promote openness, do not necessarily share this radical view."
That's true. Many people don't. Radical ideas are not usually embraced by the masses till they become mainstream. What's amusing to me is that linus still doesn't get it even after he got humiliated by bitkeeper. Well maybe he gets it a little because he released git under the GPL.
"Again, many of its contributors may not share this same idea. "
Why would they contribute under the GPL if they didn't agree?
"If I create a closed-source application that merely links to a GPL library (not modifies it) so that I can interface with the platform, I fail to see how you can argue that I am "taking" code from you."
I don't think anybody cares what you think. The important thing is what the authors of the code think. The authors of that code decided that there are conditions if you want to link to their code. That's their right. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
I don't see why you have to link to their code anyway. Just write your own code.
"This philosophy is a little contradictory to say the least."
It's not to me. Maybe you are confused by it or don't really understand it.
"It is testament to the fact that reasonable people, such as myself, see the value in sharing some code (like in the case of Linux and other such common platforms). In this specific instance, the attraction is not to have to write my own data storage engine."
The reason you don't want to write your own is that nothing you write will be able to compete with mysql. You know this so you want to use their code but you don't want to play by their rules. You just wish they would let you use their code any way you want and you are frustrated when you realize that they are not going to work for you for free.
But hey don't feel bad. Just use the postgres code or the sqlite code. Both are under very liberal licenses and the authors of those projects don't mind working for you for free.
"MSSQL and Oracle are superior in many ways"
Why don't you use their code instead? I am sure oracle and mssql will let you use their code if you just ask.
"However, the actual price imposed on me as a developer, due to future threats imposed by zealots like yourself (if MySQL shows signs of caving at least), will likely force me to choose Postgresql or a commercial engine -- which, at the end of the day, are likely to be appreciably superior."
Again that was the whole point of the GPL. The whole point of the GPL was to force you to use postgres or sqlite or something else. The people who wrote GPLed code don't want people like you to use their code without contributing back to the commons.
"nd, as a side note, I will likely avoid making any GPL code contributions in the future, in favor of artistic-style licenses or just keeping it closed, as the GPL crowd is turning increasingly radical and away from pragmatic concerns. If I make a contribution under a particular licensing scheme, I want that licensing scheme to remain largely the same or, at the very least, evolve in a predictable and pragmatic direction."
Although I am devastated at your choice not to contribute the GPL (and I am sure many people at the FSF will fall on their knees and cry when they hear this) I recognize that it's a free country (kind of) and you have the choice to release your code under any license you wish.
"This issue is much broader than just my rights as a developer with commercial interests. "
Yes it is. Much much broader.
"When opensource zealots can't restrain themselves from muddling with the licensing of existing and critical projects. Even if these purges just limit themselves to anything directly relating to copyright, patents, trade-secret, etc -- many more people, companies, and applications may find themselves at the other end of this unpredictable and constantly changing license."
"All I was trying to get accross was that I'd actually listen to one who makes their money talking politics over one who does not."
And my point is that you are stupid for making that distinction. Why don't you listen to people who have actually served or scholars or something? Any asshole can express their opinion. The ones that make money at it are charismatic. Same with the movies.
Well open source in and of itself is a radical thing. I for one am proud of it's radical heritage and it's radical future.
On another note your irritation is a powerful testemant to the power of open source and to the quality of the GPLed code on the market. Open source was intended to prevent you (proprietary software developer) form locking me (the people who use the software) out of the source code. It's designed to help me first and foremost and the fact that you are pissed at it means it's working.
I presume you know that if you write your own software then the GPL does not effect you are all but the good quality GPLed code out there is calling you like a siren. Taunting you by showing you how feeble your efforts are compared to it. Tempting you to steal it instead of writing your own code and then frustrating you by making you play nice if you decide to use it.
Your post is a powerful testimony for how great and effective the GPL is. Thanks for that.
"How is one to know what the future brings in the land of open source -- especially when the stated goals (even if not the current licensing terms) of many is to eliminate the ownership of almost any idea?"
How is one to know that your goals are not to rape nine year old girls in the ass while stuffing their face full of your freshly extruded excrement? There is no way to know the future is there?
"Don't get me wrong. I am NO fan of 'ole Rusty(his top 40 DJ name), but you MUST recognize that he has earned his money/celeb in the arena of politics."
SO what? Anybody can talk about politics, that's my point. Look at Michael Moore. He was a film director, then he started talking about politics. Arnold Shwartzanegger was an actor now he is a governor. The list goes on and on. Hell Bo Derek of all people was appearing on TV talking about how cool the republicans are.
My point is that any asshole can get on the TV or Radio, lie his ass off, express his opinions and become a pundit.
"I'd bet that you think Jon Stewart is some super brain, when he really is a historically failed comedian who got lucky with an anti-rush style show."
Bingo. Just like Oreilly was a failed school teacher who is now a celebirty. Same thing.
"And Susan Sarandon's holier than thou, condescending style of activism is a turnoff to me."
So you hate her because she is actively trying to do things she believes in then? I suppose you would prefer that she "shut up and sit down bitch!".
"They(susan and Robbins) are in the Oprah, Balwin, Babs, Janeane Garofalo, etc... activist-celeb group. You know the type - the 'either you are with us or against us' types."
You mean like the president, rush, oreilly, hannity and the rest?
The FSF has certainly acted in an honorable way for all of it's existance. They have proven themselves to be more trustworthy then any company or government that I know of.
Having said that if the FSF does something you don't like with GPL3 just keep using it under GPL2. It's just a choice for you, use either one.
If you are not writing code you are not violating the GPL. Got that? Wring SQL statements doesn't count.
If you are writing code and you are using a library you did not write then you are not violating the GPL. If there is a GPL violation it was done by the guy who wrote the library. SO if you are using JDBC, ruby, python, php, ocaml, haskell, rebol, or brainfuck to write your program that access your mysql server you are safe. Also if you are not distributing your application then you are safe no matter what.
If you are writing a library to access mysql and you do not use the mysql libs then you are not violating the GPL.
If you are writing a library to access mysql and you are using the mysql libs and you are not distributing those libraries to anybody outside of your company then you are not violating the GPL.
Got that? Now stop spreading FUD. Read the fucking GPL and understand it, it's not that fucking complicated. In order to violate the GPL you have to write code derived form GPLed code AND you have to distribute it.
"One earns a living directly from their political views, the other used his non political celebrity to start talking politics. You may not see a difference, but others might."
What exactly is the difference? They are both celebs in different media. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has no qualification whatsoever on any topics he speaks about. Robbins is a movie personality who has no qualification whatsoever on any topic he speaks about.
How come you hate his wife so much? What has she ever done to you?
"Extentions exist to address this issue (including a case insensative text data type) "
No included with the postgres distro not even in the contrib. The author admits it does not work with all operators. The author admits performance problems.
Would you trust your mission critical data to an extention not blessed by the team, not included in the regression tests, written by one guy who admits it's not done yet?
Well maybe YOU would but not me.
"or he can simply use ILIKE vs LIKE."
It's easier to use a different database then to convert every single SQL with a where clause or to rewrite hibernate so that it uses funky postgres syntax like ILIKE and *~
As I said before EVERY OTHER DATABASE ON THE MARKET SUPPORT THIS FEATURE.
The SQL standard specifies that you should be able to set collations on a per column basis. Postgres does not support that. All the database manufacturers and all the open source databases except for postgres give the user the option of selecting a case insensitive collation option so that the where name = 'mcnab' and name='McNab' and name = 'Mcnab' return the same record.
Postgres has chosen not the implement a case insensitive collation in their database. Instead they reccomend you use various non standard workarounds like ILIKE and *~ or using UPPER in your where clauses. Of course this limitation and their reccomended workarounds means that you can never port an existing application to postgres without rewriting all your SQL statements and basically rules out postgres if you are using an object relational layer such as activerecord.
This topic has come up dozens of times in the postgres mailing lists over the last five or six years. The devs are adamant that they won't implement it, their response is basically that users are stupid for having this requirement and that we should use one of the workarounds presented to us. When presented with those options most users with this requirement choose to use mysql or any one of dozens if not hundreds of databases that implement case insensitive data types of collations.
What's odd is that just recently somebody actually wrote a case insensitive data type and postgres refuses to ship it as a part of the distro not even as an add on. I suspect it's pride, after a decade of telling people they were stupid for needing a feature they can't very well implement that can they? The guy who wrote it admits it's not up to snuff, it doesn't work under all circumstances (i.e not all operators work properly) and that it could be made more performant.
Yes but linking in the code sense not in the "I am using this library" sense. If I write a driver and I link to the mysql libraries then I have to release my code under the GPL.
If you are not writing drivers you are fine.
Again this is old FUD, you need to find better FUD.
"Of course, most of these states are picking F/OSS for economic reasons - but not exactly about freedom and stuff. "
Not having to pay some corporation so that you could read the documents you yourself created is freedom too. In fact the number one reason why we all don't exclusively pursue what makes us happy is due to the fact that we need money (i.e shit costs money).
Only for the next five years, after five years are up any suse/novell customers will be the most likely targets for a lawsuit because they will be using a distro which will contain proprietary MS IP. In the next five years novell will be incorporating many "enhancements" to assure "interoperability" into suse and all that IP (formats, etc) will be coming from MS.
Most people use ODBC/JDBC either that or the libraries that come with their language like ruby, python, haskell or whatever. Anyway no need to talk to a lawyer unless you are modifying code and distributing it. The GPL does not apply to anybody who is simply using the binaries.
That's the usual workaround for this predicament but it tends to create headaches with some ORMs. Anyway the usual purpose of using guids is to aid replication collusions and adding an autoincrement field complicates that (yes I know mysql has a workaround for that too!).
Too bad postgres doesn't come with a GUID type. You have to track down some guys patch.
Crazy huh? How both of the most popular open source databases are lacking some really basic features like controlling the clustering of your indexes, guid data types, case insensitive collations etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The song is on my hard disk. The song is on my ipod. The ipod has a hard disk.
Why do I have to make yet another backup? If my mac crashes why can't I just copy the songs on to my new mac from my ipod. If my ipod dies I can get a new one and put all the songs on my itunes on it how come I can't do the reverse?
"What major projects under the GPL say "or later"? The linux kernel does NOT ."
Many do, some don't.
"If I take a project under GPL v2 which does not say "or later" and make a (major) contribution under GPL v2 without saying "or later", you do not have the legal right to incorporate my changes into a GPL v3 project (or any version other than v2) without my permission."
That's right. Under our laws whoever writes the code gets to say how it's used.
"What does "or later" even mean? Does it mean anything Stallman says it does?"
No. Why would you think that?
"Is he even restricted by those things that might violate the prior version of the license?"
He is subject to the same copyright laws all other human beings are. Why do you get confused by this?
"If he is just restricted to those things, do you have any idea how much further he can legally go? "
He is subject to the same copyright laws all other human beings are.
"Why cede so much authority to any one person (especially someone whose agenda is far-out idealistic and not pragmatic)? "
Who says you have to?
"If you want to say this is merely the "FSF", not RMS personally, I'm not so sure it matters (and RMS may be able to simply restructure the FSF at his will)."
Or he may not.
"You obviously have sexual and emotional issues to resolve as you keep on repeating this."
If you get to make up goofy evil shit you think people will do I also get to the same thing.
"To come back to my original point: While this may be technically true, it is not always true in practice."
Oh I can't wait for this....
"If, say, Linux were to suddenly go to V3 tomorrow (presuming every copyright holder signed off on this), this would mean that the burden would suddenly fall on me to fix every problem in the old code independently (or pray for a group of like-minded people)."
If you were to suddenly rape a nine year old girl.... Ok never mind.
Your beef is not with the GPL. It's with the copyright law which states that people who write code get to determine how other people use it. If linus and his buddies decide to change their license then they can. There is nothing you or anybody else can do about it. They could close the code up completely if they want. Sorry but you don't get to tell them what to do with their code.
"If you make commitments to an open source project or platform, you are not just dependent on the conditions of the current code, but also on future support. Thus you may be essentially compelled to accept terms you disagree with."
Nope. You never have to accept any license. If you accept it then it must have been because you get something from the deal. It says so right in the GPL. You don't have to accept this license.
Honestly after all this conversation we finally get to the point. You are pissed because people who write the code get to decide how that code is used and you don't like their decisions. Well though shit. I have no sympathy for your predicament. I will however give you one piece of advice.
WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNDED CODE. That way you can stay far away from the evil RMS and the evil FSF and the evil GPL and the evil open source developers.
First of all I think I am going to at this point put up or shut up. Start by showing us some example of how scientists were denied funding because they went against the mainstream on global warming.
We know fur sure the US govt has silenced studies showing that global warming is happening those are easy to come by, where are your examples?
Anyway...
"Of course. You can get access to money from biased sources, but your research is then ignored as "tainted" (even if your data is useful, it's discarded)."
So what? Your claim is that the scientists are in it for the money right?
"Understand that the current "consensus" is, "the Earth is warming more recently than it has in a long time and we have a set of computer models that account for every other variable that we can think of in ways that we think are correct, and the warming is left unexplained... human-produced CO2 could explain the difference.""
That's the way science always works. You cant prove for certain how far a star it, what happened a million years ago (or what happened last week for that matter), and any one a billion other things. At best you make theories, you test them, you come to logical conclusions. That's the way it works.
Your argument seems to be that until we are 100% sure of every variable then we should do nothing. That's stupid. You are not 100% sure you are going to wake up in the morning but you go about your life as it you were because the chances are very high that you will.
"The problem I have is that I may make commitments based on Version X of "the rules" with the understanding that this is the basic framework underwhich everyone has agreed to operate, only to find out later that Version X+1 (or +10) is so extreme that I'm screwed."
If that's the case then you are erecting a straw man. The license says GPLV2 OR (again OR, OR, OR, OR) later. If you wrote or used code under V2 then you can continue to do so.
"I'm not sure you understand. I'm only looking to use the database. Linking to client-library code does not exactly make it a derivative work -- there are, after all, applications that connect to dozens of different database vendor offerings with just a few lines of code... are they all derivative works?"
OK then why don't you ask microsoft or oracle for their access libraries so you can link to them from your code. I am sure they won't mind.
"Says who? If it's not in "the rules", then it is not "the point" (unless you want to argue that everyone should just take the most extreme version of Stallman's point of view and extropolate that anything GPL'd is likely to go this way)."
Says the GPL. It's a license. Read it, obey it, and you will be fine. If you choose not to accept the license then write your own code. Honestly I don't see the point of all this whining.
"What if Apache adopted GPL v10 which declared that any software making TCP/IP connections to it (thereby "using" the software) must not only be open source but actually be running GPL v10 (Oh, and by the way, you can't play mp3 or any such proprietary tech within)? The GPL is expressly now deviating away from more than just the sharing of code, but into actual usage...and god knows where else."
What if you decided to rape nine year girls in the ass while force feeing them your shit?
"My freedom to choose when and how I contribute back does not mean that I, in fact, will not contribute back. I may very well use one and send back patches even though I don't have to."
Ok then. Either way that's your right. The authors of those projects don't care if you contribute or not. Just use their code and be happy.
"They reserve the right, yes. But most don't make arbitrary changes and those that do send signals that they are not to be trusted in the future (which is exactly what I'm suggesting RMS is doing)."
Bullshit. How many times has the license for MS media player has been updated in the last five years? I'll give you a clue every update and some service packs.
"I'd say it's changing at an accelerating rate and getting increasingly radical with each iteration."
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.
"I would not be surprised if many open source projects are ultimately damaged seriously by this interference or if Stallman et. al are not just widely discreted and rejected outright in the future."
I would but again you are entitled to your opinion.
"The camp that agreed with GPL v1 may quickly get fractured into incompatible and increasingly divergent groups. "
Didn't happen with V2 probably won't happen with V3.
"Whatever strength open source has is in a set of shared resources (the OS, compiler, database, various libraries, etc that are all compatible and readily available) -- if that pool becomes sufficiently fractured the entire group may suffer."
Or maybe not.
Offer some proof that skeptics are not being funded.
Isn't this article about exxon funding studies to the tune of 16 million dollars? So there is clearly lots of money available from exxon. One presumes there are at least a dozen other corporations who would be willing to spend millions of dollars discrediting scientists not to mention thinktanks and the republican party.
"Linus Torvalds and others, who have arguably done the most in practical terms to promote openness, do not necessarily share this radical view."
That's true. Many people don't. Radical ideas are not usually embraced by the masses till they become mainstream. What's amusing to me is that linus still doesn't get it even after he got humiliated by bitkeeper. Well maybe he gets it a little because he released git under the GPL.
"Again, many of its contributors may not share this same idea. "
Why would they contribute under the GPL if they didn't agree?
"If I create a closed-source application that merely links to a GPL library (not modifies it) so that I can interface with the platform, I fail to see how you can argue that I am "taking" code from you."
I don't think anybody cares what you think. The important thing is what the authors of the code think. The authors of that code decided that there are conditions if you want to link to their code. That's their right. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
I don't see why you have to link to their code anyway. Just write your own code.
"This philosophy is a little contradictory to say the least."
It's not to me. Maybe you are confused by it or don't really understand it.
"It is testament to the fact that reasonable people, such as myself, see the value in sharing some code (like in the case of Linux and other such common platforms). In this specific instance, the attraction is not to have to write my own data storage engine."
The reason you don't want to write your own is that nothing you write will be able to compete with mysql. You know this so you want to use their code but you don't want to play by their rules. You just wish they would let you use their code any way you want and you are frustrated when you realize that they are not going to work for you for free.
But hey don't feel bad. Just use the postgres code or the sqlite code. Both are under very liberal licenses and the authors of those projects don't mind working for you for free.
"MSSQL and Oracle are superior in many ways"
Why don't you use their code instead? I am sure oracle and mssql will let you use their code if you just ask.
"However, the actual price imposed on me as a developer, due to future threats imposed by zealots like yourself (if MySQL shows signs of caving at least), will likely force me to choose Postgresql or a commercial engine -- which, at the end of the day, are likely to be appreciably superior."
Again that was the whole point of the GPL. The whole point of the GPL was to force you to use postgres or sqlite or something else. The people who wrote GPLed code don't want people like you to use their code without contributing back to the commons.
"nd, as a side note, I will likely avoid making any GPL code contributions in the future, in favor of artistic-style licenses or just keeping it closed, as the GPL crowd is turning increasingly radical and away from pragmatic concerns. If I make a contribution under a particular licensing scheme, I want that licensing scheme to remain largely the same or, at the very least, evolve in a predictable and pragmatic direction."
Although I am devastated at your choice not to contribute the GPL (and I am sure many people at the FSF will fall on their knees and cry when they hear this) I recognize that it's a free country (kind of) and you have the choice to release your code under any license you wish.
"This issue is much broader than just my rights as a developer with commercial interests. "
Yes it is. Much much broader.
"When opensource zealots can't restrain themselves from muddling with the licensing of existing and critical projects. Even if these purges just limit themselves to anything directly relating to copyright, patents, trade-secret, etc -- many more people, companies, and applications may find themselves at the other end of this unpredictable and constantly changing license."
All proprietary software comes
"All I was trying to get accross was that I'd actually listen to one who makes their money talking politics over one who does not."
And my point is that you are stupid for making that distinction. Why don't you listen to people who have actually served or scholars or something? Any asshole can express their opinion. The ones that make money at it are charismatic. Same with the movies.
He is in hell being tormented by the souls of the thousands of east timorese children he killed.
Ha Ha. You called economics a science. That's frekin funny dude. Economic, science BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Well open source in and of itself is a radical thing. I for one am proud of it's radical heritage and it's radical future.
On another note your irritation is a powerful testemant to the power of open source and to the quality of the GPLed code on the market. Open source was intended to prevent you (proprietary software developer) form locking me (the people who use the software) out of the source code. It's designed to help me first and foremost and the fact that you are pissed at it means it's working.
I presume you know that if you write your own software then the GPL does not effect you are all but the good quality GPLed code out there is calling you like a siren. Taunting you by showing you how feeble your efforts are compared to it. Tempting you to steal it instead of writing your own code and then frustrating you by making you play nice if you decide to use it.
Your post is a powerful testimony for how great and effective the GPL is. Thanks for that.
"How is one to know what the future brings in the land of open source -- especially when the stated goals (even if not the current licensing terms) of many is to eliminate the ownership of almost any idea?"
How is one to know that your goals are not to rape nine year old girls in the ass while stuffing their face full of your freshly extruded excrement? There is no way to know the future is there?
They can simply void the battery if you modify the code. That's the case with most hardware these days, if you open the case the warranty is void.
Thanks for sticking up for them though, I am sure they are grateful, they can now cut down on their PR budget now that you are on the case.
"I mean a lot of people I spoke with seem to have the perception of the FOSS movement as a group of pedants and sticklers for the letter of the law"
Oh yes and the business world never are sticklers for the law. I hear they don't even hire lawyers!
"Don't get me wrong. I am NO fan of 'ole Rusty(his top 40 DJ name), but you MUST recognize that he has earned his money/celeb in the arena of politics."
SO what? Anybody can talk about politics, that's my point. Look at Michael Moore. He was a film director, then he started talking about politics. Arnold Shwartzanegger was an actor now he is a governor. The list goes on and on. Hell Bo Derek of all people was appearing on TV talking about how cool the republicans are.
My point is that any asshole can get on the TV or Radio, lie his ass off, express his opinions and become a pundit.
"I'd bet that you think Jon Stewart is some super brain, when he really is a historically failed comedian who got lucky with an anti-rush style show."
Bingo. Just like Oreilly was a failed school teacher who is now a celebirty. Same thing.
"And Susan Sarandon's holier than thou, condescending style of activism is a turnoff to me."
So you hate her because she is actively trying to do things she believes in then? I suppose you would prefer that she "shut up and sit down bitch!".
"They(susan and Robbins) are in the Oprah, Balwin, Babs, Janeane Garofalo, etc... activist-celeb group. You know the type - the 'either you are with us or against us' types."
You mean like the president, rush, oreilly, hannity and the rest?
The FSF has certainly acted in an honorable way for all of it's existance. They have proven themselves to be more trustworthy then any company or government that I know of.
Having said that if the FSF does something you don't like with GPL3 just keep using it under GPL2. It's just a choice for you, use either one.
Here let me try and make it clear for you.
If you are not writing code you are not violating the GPL. Got that? Wring SQL statements doesn't count.
If you are writing code and you are using a library you did not write then you are not violating the GPL. If there is a GPL violation it was done by the guy who wrote the library. SO if you are using JDBC, ruby, python, php, ocaml, haskell, rebol, or brainfuck to write your program that access your mysql server you are safe. Also if you are not distributing your application then you are safe no matter what.
If you are writing a library to access mysql and you do not use the mysql libs then you are not violating the GPL.
If you are writing a library to access mysql and you are using the mysql libs and you are not distributing those libraries to anybody outside of your company then you are not violating the GPL.
Got that? Now stop spreading FUD. Read the fucking GPL and understand it, it's not that fucking complicated. In order to violate the GPL you have to write code derived form GPLed code AND you have to distribute it.
"One earns a living directly from their political views, the other used his non political celebrity to start talking politics. You may not see a difference, but others might."
What exactly is the difference? They are both celebs in different media. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has no qualification whatsoever on any topics he speaks about. Robbins is a movie personality who has no qualification whatsoever on any topic he speaks about.
How come you hate his wife so much? What has she ever done to you?
"Extentions exist to address this issue (including a case insensative text data type) "
No included with the postgres distro not even in the contrib. The author admits it does not work with all operators. The author admits performance problems.
Would you trust your mission critical data to an extention not blessed by the team, not included in the regression tests, written by one guy who admits it's not done yet?
Well maybe YOU would but not me.
"or he can simply use ILIKE vs LIKE."
It's easier to use a different database then to convert every single SQL with a where clause or to rewrite hibernate so that it uses funky postgres syntax like ILIKE and *~
As I said before EVERY OTHER DATABASE ON THE MARKET SUPPORT THIS FEATURE.
The SQL standard specifies that you should be able to set collations on a per column basis. Postgres does not support that. All the database manufacturers and all the open source databases except for postgres give the user the option of selecting a case insensitive collation option so that the where name = 'mcnab' and name='McNab' and name = 'Mcnab' return the same record.
Postgres has chosen not the implement a case insensitive collation in their database. Instead they reccomend you use various non standard workarounds like ILIKE and *~ or using UPPER in your where clauses. Of course this limitation and their reccomended workarounds means that you can never port an existing application to postgres without rewriting all your SQL statements and basically rules out postgres if you are using an object relational layer such as activerecord.
This topic has come up dozens of times in the postgres mailing lists over the last five or six years. The devs are adamant that they won't implement it, their response is basically that users are stupid for having this requirement and that we should use one of the workarounds presented to us. When presented with those options most users with this requirement choose to use mysql or any one of dozens if not hundreds of databases that implement case insensitive data types of collations.
What's odd is that just recently somebody actually wrote a case insensitive data type and postgres refuses to ship it as a part of the distro not even as an add on. I suspect it's pride, after a decade of telling people they were stupid for needing a feature they can't very well implement that can they? The guy who wrote it admits it's not up to snuff, it doesn't work under all circumstances (i.e not all operators work properly) and that it could be made more performant.
Does that clear it up for you?
"Linking usually constitutes a derived work."
Yes but linking in the code sense not in the "I am using this library" sense. If I write a driver and I link to the mysql libraries then I have to release my code under the GPL.
If you are not writing drivers you are fine.
Again this is old FUD, you need to find better FUD.
Aren't pundits celebs too? What's the difference between Tim Robbins and Rush Limbaugh other then the fact that one of them is smart and articulate.
"Of course, most of these states are picking F/OSS for economic reasons - but not exactly about freedom and stuff. "
Not having to pay some corporation so that you could read the documents you yourself created is freedom too. In fact the number one reason why we all don't exclusively pursue what makes us happy is due to the fact that we need money (i.e shit costs money).
Free as in beer is freedom too.
Only for the next five years, after five years are up any suse/novell customers will be the most likely targets for a lawsuit because they will be using a distro which will contain proprietary MS IP. In the next five years novell will be incorporating many "enhancements" to assure "interoperability" into suse and all that IP (formats, etc) will be coming from MS.
Most people use ODBC/JDBC either that or the libraries that come with their language like ruby, python, haskell or whatever. Anyway no need to talk to a lawyer unless you are modifying code and distributing it. The GPL does not apply to anybody who is simply using the binaries.
Nice FUD though too bad it's so easily countered.
That's the usual workaround for this predicament but it tends to create headaches with some ORMs. Anyway the usual purpose of using guids is to aid replication collusions and adding an autoincrement field complicates that (yes I know mysql has a workaround for that too!).
Too bad postgres doesn't come with a GUID type. You have to track down some guys patch.
Crazy huh? How both of the most popular open source databases are lacking some really basic features like controlling the clustering of your indexes, guid data types, case insensitive collations etc.