>Except, there is already talk of forking LARGE projects like GCC because of the GPL3 move
You are a liar.
>here is a lot of in-fighting amongst project developers of other projects concerning the switching of the license,
Yes because adults who work in a co-operative matter talk to each other and express their concerns. You are probably not used to that because your boss tells you what to do and doesn't care what you think.
>So, this means they fork a pre-GPLv3 code and guess what, we have splintering.
You are a liar.
>Some kids might be a bit young to remember other big project splits, but they have occurred. Usually these splits occur over other items, but this sort of thing happens when egos collide.
Every time a big project has been split it's been for the better. See x.org for the latest example.
>He is saying that if projects splinter, then development could (or would?) slow.
And if pink unicorns flew out of my butt.... Wake me up when it happens.
>Think about this, a large contributor of a project leaves the project over the GPL v3 change. Development grinds to a halt because of this and the developer who left cannot maintain a proper fork on his own (and do to naming and/or trademark issues) and his development is slow or people are unaware of it.
Think about this. Pink unicorns fly out of my butt. Then a genie comes to me and give me fifteen wishes...
>Seriously, both of us are arguing a hypothetical situation that you really refuse to refute with facts,
you want me to refute your hypotherical situation with facts? What are you in grade school or something?
>Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology.
Again you are a poor little confused idiot.
We are not talking about technology here. Remember that? Do you even know what the topic of this conversation is? It's not technology. It's software licenses. It's legal stuff.
For gods sake why are you so dense?
>As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster.
Either they pay attention or they don't. If they don't pay attention then they are not afraid of the GPL because they have no idea what it is. If they are paying attention then they are not afraid of the GPL because they read it.
>Anyway, your whole point is that the GPL is easy to understand. Unquestionably. I'm not arguing that.
That's exactly what you are arguing. You are arguing that somebody who is smart enough to start and run a business, pay his taxes, keep his books straight is too stupid to read and understand the GPL.
>My point is that most businesses don't want to read the GPL, because they don't want to change how they do things,
Why would reading the GPL suddenly make you change your business plan?
>his is what I meant by people being comfortable with paying for software; it's simply easier than trying to think about it in a different way.
Apparently you are too dumb to understand so I will repeat myself again. I don't think you have the brain power to actually understand what I am about to say again but I will do it anyway.
1) You can pay for GPLed software. 2) Paying for software in no way, shape or form frees you from the obligations of software licensing.
Did you get that you stupid shit. Paying for software has nothing to do with your obligations under the EULA or License.
Did you understand that retard? Paying for software has nothing to do with your legal obligations.
>This only applies to developers already contributing to a project, not for potentially new developers who like the software but not the license
What does that mean? If you are a developer then you can either write your own code, take code others wrote under the BSD/MIT type license or take code under GPL2 or 3. It's your choice.
>In my opinion this is a very short sighted view.
I don't care about your opinion. Your opinion is worthless because it's so misinformed.
>If the development of an application is slowing because there are less developers contributing to it, not only Microsoft Windows and Apple, but many other proprietary projects will advance faster and thus be more attractive to new users
If pink unicorns flew out my ass then I would build a house made of gold.
Do you have any evidence that the GPL slows down applications development? No? Then shut up.
>Everybody wants to use the slickest and easiest to use applications that give you all the latest and greatest computers have to offer
If that was true then everybody would be using a mac. Since everybody is not using a mac then your argument is useless.
>In the end this might reduce choice and therefore your freedom to choose from as a user.
>His comment about many businesses being unsure whether it's safe to use open software was spot on.
No it wasn't. I have never seen any business be confused about that. The GPL is a very simple document to read. It's in plain english not legalese. A high school student can read it and understand it.
Here is a quote.
" This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."
Does that seem confusing to you? Well I guess it does but trust me most human beings on the planet who have enough brains to start a business can read and understand this kind of language.
>You might not like it, but a lot of people are confused about what it means
No they are not. You are just pulling that out of your ass. If a company has a legal question they take it to a lawyer or a paralegal to read the license. No businessperson or a legal professional would be confused by the GPL.
>most businesses are very used to -- and very comfortable with -- simply paying for software.
First of all that has nothing to do with anything. You are throwing that here to spread FUD.
Secondly you are lying your fucking ass off and have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. Businesses don't pay for IE, they don't pay for google, they don't pay for IIS, they don't even pay for windows (they get it with their PC). A business person knows perfectly well you get some stuff for free, some stuff for cheap, and some stuff for a lot of money. What kind of a business person are you hanging around with that can't understand that some software may be free (like IE or sharepoint or SQL server express).
>You really ought to work on your comprehension skills;
You really ought to try telling the truth and thinking for a few seconds before you post.
>And spending money is often far, far easier than doing even a tiny bit of homework.
Really? How does spending money not make you liable to being subject to software licenses? You think just because you paid for office you are not bound to the MS EULA?
Never mind, obviously you do think that. The average business person is smarter then that. I guarantee you.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the developer. The developer either chooses it or not.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the user. The user is not subject to the GPL in any version. You are only subject to it if you modify the source code AND distribute it.
With your stunning ignorance of the GPL on such proud display one wonders what kind of a dumbass modded your post up.
>Actually, kid, I don't have a problem understanding the licenses. In fact, I've helped businesses understand the differences between the major licenses and convinced quite a few that some open source software could indeed help them.
really. And yet you were unable to make a simple distinction between using software and modifying/distributing it.
>That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
Why don't you tell us which business people were so stupid that they can't read a simple license like the GPL and are "confused" because "zealots" can read licenses and be able to discuss their differences.
>I have to say that, as a troll, you suck.
It's funny how everybody who disagrees with you is a zealot or a troll.
I guess that's what passes for a slashdot user these days. No wonder everybody has left.
>I said the zealots are the ones who yell at anyone using a solution other than theirs or anything that isn't open (no matter what the non-open solution is).
So you would consider every member of the upper management of MS a zealot then I gather.
>And the truth is that those people ARE a problem for the community.
No they are not. YOU are a problem for the community. Lucky for us there are a lot more of THEM and of YOU so the community continues to grow and thrive and linux marketshare grows every year.
>They not only split the community itself, they cause companies not want to use open source software, and cause some people to stop contributing altogether.
Bullshit.
>You either lack reading comprehension skills or are a very poor troll
Now that reddit and digg have become popular seems like everybody else except the shills have left slashdot and a guy who calls people who use linux zealots gets modded up to four.
>How dare the evil corporations tell us what to do when they erroneously give us money that isn't ours!
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your actions. If you gave me money but you didn't intend to then why should you be be able to force me to give it back?
They made the mistake, they should suck it up and eat it. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
Oh sorry I forget, we are talking about corporations here. They were created specifically to shirk personal responsibility.
Hatred of ms is not irrational. If the average joe doesn't hate ms then we haven't educated enough obviously. No sane and rational person can look at the history of this company and stay neutral. Ms is a destructive force in the IT industry.
Open source is cutting off their oxygen supply. It's just a matter of time really. How much do you think the profitability of the SQL server product fell when they started offering a basic version for free?
The wingnut army of republitards don't make up more then one or two percent of the voting public so there is no reason to think that the exit polls were skewed by Rush.
The polling is completely anonymous and there is no reason whatsoever to lie about it so I don't expect significant number of normal people (people who don't listen to Rush and don't march in lockstep with fox news) lied about who they voted for.
Finally there is all kinds of other evidence that the elections were tampered with not just exit polling. Exit polling merely confirms eyewitnesses and affidavits of people who were involved with the tampering itself.
Why bother with either. Just include sqlite and be done with it. Rails can take care of all the data integrity for you anyway. Combine that with microapache and you are done.
What if they were from the future? They could be humans from the distant future which would explain not only why they look like humans but also why they would be interested in this piece of rock out in the middle of nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
>Except, there is already talk of forking LARGE projects like GCC because of the GPL3 move
You are a liar.
>here is a lot of in-fighting amongst project developers of other projects concerning the switching of the license,
Yes because adults who work in a co-operative matter talk to each other and express their concerns. You are probably not used to that because your boss tells you what to do and doesn't care what you think.
>So, this means they fork a pre-GPLv3 code and guess what, we have splintering.
You are a liar.
>Some kids might be a bit young to remember other big project splits, but they have occurred. Usually these splits occur over other items, but this sort of thing happens when egos collide.
Every time a big project has been split it's been for the better. See x.org for the latest example.
>He is saying that if projects splinter, then development could (or would?) slow.
And if pink unicorns flew out of my butt.... Wake me up when it happens.
>Think about this, a large contributor of a project leaves the project over the GPL v3 change. Development grinds to a halt because of this and the developer who left cannot maintain a proper fork on his own (and do to naming and/or trademark issues) and his development is slow or people are unaware of it.
Think about this. Pink unicorns fly out of my butt. Then a genie comes to me and give me fifteen wishes...
>Seriously, both of us are arguing a hypothetical situation that you really refuse to refute with facts,
you want me to refute your hypotherical situation with facts? What are you in grade school or something?
'
>Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology.
Again you are a poor little confused idiot.
We are not talking about technology here. Remember that? Do you even know what the topic of this conversation is? It's not technology. It's software licenses. It's legal stuff.
For gods sake why are you so dense?
>As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster.
Either they pay attention or they don't. If they don't pay attention then they are not afraid of the GPL because they have no idea what it is. If they are paying attention then they are not afraid of the GPL because they read it.
>Anyway, your whole point is that the GPL is easy to understand. Unquestionably. I'm not arguing that.
That's exactly what you are arguing. You are arguing that somebody who is smart enough to start and run a business, pay his taxes, keep his books straight is too stupid to read and understand the GPL.
>My point is that most businesses don't want to read the GPL, because they don't want to change how they do things,
Why would reading the GPL suddenly make you change your business plan?
>his is what I meant by people being comfortable with paying for software; it's simply easier than trying to think about it in a different way.
Apparently you are too dumb to understand so I will repeat myself again. I don't think you have the brain power to actually understand what I am about to say again but I will do it anyway.
1) You can pay for GPLed software.
2) Paying for software in no way, shape or form frees you from the obligations of software licensing.
Did you get that you stupid shit. Paying for software has nothing to do with your obligations under the EULA or License.
Did you understand that retard? Paying for software has nothing to do with your legal obligations.
Do you need me to repeat that one more time?
>This only applies to developers already contributing to a project, not for potentially new developers who like the software but not the license
What does that mean? If you are a developer then you can either write your own code, take code others wrote under the BSD/MIT type license or take code under GPL2 or 3. It's your choice.
>In my opinion this is a very short sighted view.
I don't care about your opinion. Your opinion is worthless because it's so misinformed.
>If the development of an application is slowing because there are less developers contributing to it, not only Microsoft Windows and Apple, but many other proprietary projects will advance faster and thus be more attractive to new users
If pink unicorns flew out my ass then I would build a house made of gold.
Do you have any evidence that the GPL slows down applications development? No? Then shut up.
>Everybody wants to use the slickest and easiest to use applications that give you all the latest and greatest computers have to offer
If that was true then everybody would be using a mac. Since everybody is not using a mac then your argument is useless.
>In the end this might reduce choice and therefore your freedom to choose from as a user.
And pink unicorns might fly out of my butt.
>His comment about many businesses being unsure whether it's safe to use open software was spot on.
No it wasn't. I have never seen any business be confused about that. The GPL is a very simple document to read. It's in plain english not legalese. A high school student can read it and understand it.
Here is a quote.
" This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."
Does that seem confusing to you? Well I guess it does but trust me most human beings on the planet who have enough brains to start a business can read and understand this kind of language.
>You might not like it, but a lot of people are confused about what it means
No they are not. You are just pulling that out of your ass. If a company has a legal question they take it to a lawyer or a paralegal to read the license. No businessperson or a legal professional would be confused by the GPL.
>most businesses are very used to -- and very comfortable with -- simply paying for software.
First of all that has nothing to do with anything. You are throwing that here to spread FUD.
Secondly you are lying your fucking ass off and have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. Businesses don't pay for IE, they don't pay for google, they don't pay for IIS, they don't even pay for windows (they get it with their PC). A business person knows perfectly well you get some stuff for free, some stuff for cheap, and some stuff for a lot of money. What kind of a business person are you hanging around with that can't understand that some software may be free (like IE or sharepoint or SQL server express).
>You really ought to work on your comprehension skills;
You really ought to try telling the truth and thinking for a few seconds before you post.
>And spending money is often far, far easier than doing even a tiny bit of homework.
Really? How does spending money not make you liable to being subject to software licenses? You think just because you paid for office you are not bound to the MS EULA?
Never mind, obviously you do think that. The average business person is smarter then that. I guarantee you.
You dumbass.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the developer. The developer either chooses it or not.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the user. The user is not subject to the GPL in any version. You are only subject to it if you modify the source code AND distribute it.
With your stunning ignorance of the GPL on such proud display one wonders what kind of a dumbass modded your post up.
>But my company will not use linux because of a PERCEPTION that the community is ALL zealots, incorrect though it may be.
Why don't you tell us the name of your company so we can make we don't invest in a company run by morons who lack critical thinking skills?
>Actually, kid, I don't have a problem understanding the licenses. In fact, I've helped businesses understand the differences between the major licenses and convinced quite a few that some open source software could indeed help them.
really. And yet you were unable to make a simple distinction between using software and modifying/distributing it.
>That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
Why don't you tell us which business people were so stupid that they can't read a simple license like the GPL and are "confused" because "zealots" can read licenses and be able to discuss their differences.
>I have to say that, as a troll, you suck.
It's funny how everybody who disagrees with you is a zealot or a troll.
I guess that's what passes for a slashdot user these days. No wonder everybody has left.
>I said the zealots are the ones who yell at anyone using a solution other than theirs or anything that isn't open (no matter what the non-open solution is).
So you would consider every member of the upper management of MS a zealot then I gather.
>And the truth is that those people ARE a problem for the community.
No they are not. YOU are a problem for the community. Lucky for us there are a lot more of THEM and of YOU so the community continues to grow and thrive and linux marketshare grows every year.
>They not only split the community itself, they cause companies not want to use open source software, and cause some people to stop contributing altogether.
Bullshit.
>You either lack reading comprehension skills or are a very poor troll
I am not the one calling people zealots.
Using GPLed software does not obligate you to anything. Only distributing does.
Remember not everybody is as stupid as you are. Most people read and are able to understand the GPL license.
Now that reddit and digg have become popular seems like everybody else except the shills have left slashdot and a guy who calls people who use linux zealots gets modded up to four.
So sad.
Spoken like a true republitard.
So reagan can't take credit for his term either then. That was the doing of the democratic congress.
Right?
>Where's your responsibility to fairly and honestly honour your contract of employment?
Show me where it says that in the contract. If it's not in the contract then by all means pocket the money.
>You can't ethically or morally pocket company funds and expect your employers not to want to set things right.
Who cares about ehics. We are talking about business here. It's either in the contract or not.
>If they underpaid you $1000, I'd bet you'd want to set things right.
Yes because that's in the contract.
>How dare the evil corporations tell us what to do when they erroneously give us money that isn't ours!
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your actions. If you gave me money but you didn't intend to then why should you be be able to force me to give it back?
They made the mistake, they should suck it up and eat it. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
Oh sorry I forget, we are talking about corporations here. They were created specifically to shirk personal responsibility.
Never mind.
>Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural".
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture?
>If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support.
GM is not about feeding people. It's about starving people who can't afford to pay for your seeds.
>irrational hatred of Microsoft
Hatred of ms is not irrational. If the average joe doesn't hate ms then we haven't educated enough obviously. No sane and rational person can look at the history of this company and stay neutral. Ms is a destructive force in the IT industry.
What does any of that have to do with the agreement with MS?
>. What was this deal regarding? If you don't know, then shut up.
Nobody knows. It's secret and neither MS nor Novell will publish the agreement.
Do you know? You sound like you work for Novell so perhaps you could leak it here. It would be the ethical thing to do.
Open source is cutting off their oxygen supply. It's just a matter of time really. How much do you think the profitability of the SQL server product fell when they started offering a basic version for free?
Postgres has ADO, ODBC, JDBC and .NET drivers as well as drivers for every other programming language in the world.
What does your choice of programming tool have to do with your database choice?
Postgres should aim itself as a replacement for MSSQL server.
They were attacking israel.
The wingnut army of republitards don't make up more then one or two percent of the voting public so there is no reason to think that the exit polls were skewed by Rush.
The polling is completely anonymous and there is no reason whatsoever to lie about it so I don't expect significant number of normal people (people who don't listen to Rush and don't march in lockstep with fox news) lied about who they voted for.
Finally there is all kinds of other evidence that the elections were tampered with not just exit polling. Exit polling merely confirms eyewitnesses and affidavits of people who were involved with the tampering itself.
Why bother with either. Just include sqlite and be done with it. Rails can take care of all the data integrity for you anyway. Combine that with microapache and you are done.
What if they were from the future? They could be humans from the distant future which would explain not only why they look like humans but also why they would be interested in this piece of rock out in the middle of nowhere.
Just sayin.