I'm friends with the lead actor Anthony "Pacino" Piana (although I'm not speaking for him here). My understanding is that this movie will be distributed to over a thousand Landmark theaters throughout the U.S. The movie is legitimate but obviously isn't big budget. I know Anthony did travel to London for at least some of the shooting.
Anthony himself is an excellent fellow and based on my acting experience (not much but several years) he's a legitimately good actor with star potential. He got his training through NYU. He's coached my improv group several times and compared with many coaches with lots of experience including tv and movies, Anthony has just as much to offer.
That is one of the most ridiculous questions about open source that I've ever heard. One may as well ask, "Why does one create small arts and crafts for free?" Clearly many humans have a need to create simply for the sake of creating. Restricting how/what/why we create is infringes upon our liberty and should not be treated lightly.
The real question is probably why those of us who choose to create software in our spare time might choose an open source license. It seems clear to me that an open source license frees our creation to live a life of its own so that it is not hindered by our own wims. It allows our creations to become something bigger and better than we, individually, were able to produce.
It is true that GPL'd projects makes it difficult for any single organization to control the project. However, with the Gnome project, Red Hat is showing how to do it.
Here's how to do it:
o Hire as many of the project leaders as possible
o Control the code repository
While these measures don't make it theoretically impossible to take the project over, the size of the Gnome project makes it practically impossible for most people or organizations.
As long as the power isn't used inappropriately there isn't a problem. However, here are a few places where non-technical or technically poor decisions were made for the benefit of Red Hat:
o It should be clear to everyone that Gnome was not 1.0 material. Why release it so soon? Was the fact that the release was made during LinuxWorld just a coincidence? Nope.
o The reasons for starting another ORB project are weak. The only technical reason was that MICO took too much memory to compile and marshalling was a bit too slow. I don't know what the complaints were with OmniORB. It is obvious that improving an existing ORB would have been a better technical desicion that creating a new probject.
o The reasons for not using KDE as the default environment for the Red Hat distribution before Gnome is ready aren't consistent with other decisions they make. The argument is that QT is not GPL'd and that they couldn't track every different license. Have they looked at the Sendmail, BIND, or Pine licenses? QT's previous license was no more restrictive than these licenses the current QT license is much better than these.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm friends with the lead actor Anthony "Pacino" Piana (although I'm not speaking for him here). My understanding is that this movie will be distributed to over a thousand Landmark theaters throughout the U.S. The movie is legitimate but obviously isn't big budget. I know Anthony did travel to London for at least some of the shooting.
Anthony himself is an excellent fellow and based on my acting experience (not much but several years) he's a legitimately good actor with star potential. He got his training through NYU. He's coached my improv group several times and compared with many coaches with lots of experience including tv and movies, Anthony has just as much to offer.
That is one of the most ridiculous questions about open source that I've ever heard. One may as well ask, "Why does one create small arts and crafts for free?" Clearly many humans have a need to create simply for the sake of creating. Restricting how/what/why we create is infringes upon our liberty and should not be treated lightly.
The real question is probably why those of us who choose to create software in our spare time might choose an open source license. It seems clear to me that an open source license frees our creation to live a life of its own so that it is not hindered by our own wims. It allows our creations to become something bigger and better than we, individually, were able to produce.
Ah, this makes a little more sense. Thanks for the clarification!
It is true that GPL'd projects makes it difficult for any single organization to control the project. However, with the Gnome project, Red Hat is showing how to do it.
Here's how to do it:
o Hire as many of the project leaders as possible
o Control the code repository
While these measures don't make it theoretically impossible to take the project over, the size of the Gnome project makes it practically impossible for most people or organizations.
As long as the power isn't used inappropriately there isn't a problem. However, here are a few places where non-technical or technically poor decisions were made for the benefit of Red Hat:
o It should be clear to everyone that Gnome was not 1.0 material. Why release it so soon? Was the fact that the release was made during LinuxWorld just a coincidence? Nope.
o The reasons for starting another ORB project are weak. The only technical reason was that MICO took too much memory to compile and marshalling was a bit too slow. I don't know what the complaints were with OmniORB. It is obvious that improving an existing ORB would have been a better technical desicion that creating a new probject.
o The reasons for not using KDE as the default environment for the Red Hat distribution before Gnome is ready aren't consistent with other decisions they make. The argument is that QT is not GPL'd and that they couldn't track every different license. Have they looked at the Sendmail, BIND, or Pine licenses? QT's previous license was no more restrictive than these licenses the current QT license is much better than these.