Novell has not, AFAIK, agreed that Microsoft is right. The basic conversation sounds like it was: MS: I'll sue you Novell: We'll fight you and win MS: No you won't Novell: Yes we will and you'll get lots more bad press MS: What would it take to have us make nice in the market place, as our business users need/use Novell sw? Novell: $$, lots, and an agreement not to sue us or our users. In return we'll make nice-nice.
No agreement on Novell's part that patent claim is valid, or precedent. As I see it this may actually be a win for the good guys. Now I suspect I'll be called a moron like other posters have. Don't really care, since I know I'm not one. That said, here's my opinion on the GPL (you may want to stop reading if you are really in love with the GPL/FSF beyond reason):
GPL is a similar concept to unions. GPL served its purpose at one time, but now that open source (GASP..not captialized version) software is mainstream GPL is not needed, and is in fact harmful. How many companies do you think will now have second thoughts about basing their products on Linux after this stunt by the FSF? How far do you think open source would have gotten without the support of companies like Novell, IBM, and others? What do you think would happen to open source software if companies started categorically disallowing its use in any aspect of work?
You want free software? Let the authors make it free, which most if not all the other open source licenses out there do (I personally prefer Apache for its freedom and for its recognition within the commercial environment). OMG, someone could re-sell my software: well, yeah..it's free to everyone, not just academics. If someone wants to packages my sw up, maybe add value or bug fixes, and sell it, and I've released it as open source, more power to them. They could even make modifications and sell those without contributing them back to the world at large. Again, yeah..the company wrote their software and added it to yours, just because yours is free shouldn't mean mine has to be free, unless you plan on paying my grocery bill.
The idea that only certain licenses are allowed to call themselves open source, that the term Open Source actually has a definition that lawsuits have been threatened if it's not used correctly (rumour, I've not seen the threats myself), and that the FSF can do what they are talking about doing, are all signs of software that is under dictatorial control, not sw that is free. Interesting point to make here: dictatorial control is usuually established or maintained in order to either keep from losing something of value or to gain something of value. My first thought is always to ask how much money is involved: i.e. how much does the FSF make every year from fees, or how much do the leaders make from speaking engagements, books, etc, that are the result of them being at the ehad of the FSF? How much of that is donated to open source projects, and is it only donated to projects that toe the party line?
Please don't take that as an accusation, but rather a question. Blind faith is never good, and if we cannot question the FSF and their motives, and get answers that make us warm and fuzzy inside, then why are we following them?
I'd love to give you details on how I personally have helped the open source movement, but it would involve giving details on the practices of past and present employers. which I won't do. So feel free to assume I am a MS wonk and rabidly anti-open-source, you'll be very wrong on both counts, but isn't that freedom what it's all about anyway?
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the old adage is true that learning a new language is easier once you know programming/engineering basics. But only so far. Each time you learn a new language you learn a new way of looking at design problems, and add a new tool to your work bench.
What has helped me more than anything is refining my ability to see the pattern in problems, and refining my problem solving skills.
I'd read anything by Joel, Martin Fowler, and what interests you among Oreilly's new books, and I'd use it. Again, as has been pointed out, you won't truly learn it until you've used it. There's some Hemingway quote about not being a writer until you've written 1 million lines or some such. Maybe something similar applies to engineering...not an engineer until you've successfully solved 500k problems, unsuccessfuly worked on 500k (But know why they didn't work). Batting averages vary, and will get better as you improve.
All of the above is rehash, so here's something new (somewhat):
1. IMHO you've got the wrong order: Don't read books then try something. Instead try something new, if you run into a road block buy a book on the aspect that's a problem, learn why it's a road block and finish the problem.
2. Learn how to see patterns. Not Gang of Four patterns, but how pieces of an architecture interoperate and exchange data, how they work together, and why they work together.
I use GPL'd software, including linux, on my job. I do not use GPL'd libraries, and try to avoid LGPL where possible, because of GPL2 issues that GPL3 is not fixing but making worse:
The viral nature. Old debate, but still valid. If I am to use your GPL library I need to make GPL everything that links to it, including my employer's code that they've invested so much in. Then I won't use your library, as I'd be fired if I did, and rightfully so.
Politics, Propaganda, religious-like fervor. Software is software, coding is not coding. Coding, like any art, can aid in enlightenment, but it's not a religion and neither Linus nor Stallman are God or a Saint, which I hope either would tell you as well. Leave the politics at the pulpits, and just use a license that protects the openness of your code without trying push "One license to rule them all, and in the Openness bind them, One license to rule them all, and in the violations find them"
Open source software has advanced our digital lives immeasurably, but that doesn't mean all software has to be Open Source. I make a living from my code, I should go let my daughter go hungry because "Software wants to be free"? Software does not want anything, it is a tool.
Write software for the joy of it, without the politics or propaganda, like the rest of us, and use BSD, or Apache. I am not a heavyweight like Stallman or Linus, or even a medium weight, in the community but IMHO the GPL crowd is like the far religious right "Everone should be Christian because everyone else is wrong and will burn in Hell", or like Microsoft "Windows is the only viable OS because it's what we sell and we wrote the book".
I disagree with both ( I am a Christian and I use BSD or Apache licenses at work), because there ain't no such thing as one true way (TANSTAOTW)..wish that caught one like TANSTAAFL. Please consider those of us that need to put food on the table, food that is provided by our coding efforts when you write/right the next GPL. If the current trend continues then you will add a clause that says that anything that runs on/in Gnu software like VMs or Linux will need to be Gnu. That will be the day my employer, and I, toss out Linux (prob while I cry for the tools I love like Gimp), and switch to NetBSD. I guarantee we won't be alone. I think corporate adoption of Open Source is behind the recent upswing in its usage and growth, so force viral-licensing down our throats and expect a backlash.
I had to say this, even though I know I will be marked as flame bait. Consider this though: if it is my actual opinion, stated with passion but without rancor, and you mod it down, then aren't you in fact acting against the principles upon which GPL, and Open Source, were based?
Thank you for reading this through to the end. I hope it's provided some food for thought, and having said what I have let me also say a big thanks to the Linux community: I watched you be born, grow, and bring us software that has enriched my life as a coder, for which I am truly thankful. I just wish it was under a different license.
Ok, so Wash and Book are dead. Barring some JR-esque revival, that writes them out.
So what cast do you have left over?
Kaylee
Inara
River
Tam
Mal
Jayne
Still a decent cast, but mising comic relief and the mysterious preacher/warrior. For the second I can think of one character who'd have a similar past and bring lots of dramatic tension: the nemesis warrior in the movie. Have him save Mal, the crew, and the ship again, and have him take up Shepherd's footsteps by going to same preacher school, and I could see that happening (or Mal would shoot him which is prob more likely, have be a convincing reason for this to happen).
Comic relief, hmm good question. For that I'd go back to the series..remember Mal's "Wife", the one that tried to steal the Lassiter? Work her into the plot, on the same ship as Inara and Mal. Again, you'd have to work out the dramatic reason, but let's face it..the probability of the original cast coming together and staying together was pretty low in the first place, so it can be made to work.
Here's why Google should get into video production as well as sales:
They've just gotten into video sales
They have the wherewithal to take the significant risk, and write it off as a publicity stunt if it doesn't take off
Their motto is "Do no Evil", and their original audience was let's face it their original audience was geeks (remember the first time you tried this new thing called google?). Firfly is not the only good sci-fi show cancelled due to majority's need for bimbos and bombs, or due to moral majority's outcries. Some get carried by Sci-Fi channel (Galactica), some get revisited many years later (Dr. Who), but most are left in the dust (Don't even remember name, but was one about space marines that was decent if not great, that I was sad to see go).
They are pioneers, it's in their blood, just like the people they hire. They would be the first company to deliver a recognized show on TV over the internet (TOIP)
Just my five cents (was 2 cents, but inflation...)
OMG, thank you. That's a very good explanation of the JDBC situation and why I truly hope that something better comes along.
Some candidates I've been looking at that I'd love to get opinions on are:
Service Data Objects
XQuery (so far winner for vendor support)
xpath2 (sadly, not seeing much support for this
Java Connector Archtitecture (A more abstract JDBC?)
XMLDb
What I'd really like to see, and if it's out there let me know, is a web service standard with support from OASIS or W3C for using XQuery. I don't love XQuery, but it seems an improvement, and with a standard web service API you would not be tied like with JDBC. Of course you'll need to do a lot of optimization to scale and still have decent performance (Fast-Infoset, Sarvega or Datapower hardware).
Well, the argument to management was made for Postgres, but the manager decided no based on two things (1) No one on the team had Postgres experience, even though they could ramp up quickly, and (2) they already had a site license for Oracle. I also suggested Berkeley database, as that would really be all they need, but again no for same reasons.
I got from lead project engineer, a friend of mine
He got it from their lawyer, and a MySQL person
As several other posters have mentioned MySQL seems to believe sw falls into option a) Commercial, requiring a fee, or option B) GPL.
As for MySQL vs Oracle...
The original choice for MySQL was because that was the functionality needed, and because it was Open Source, so sites would not require a site license for Oracle, like we currently have. Obviously, after the fiasco with MySQL and the new requirement that nothing be Open Source and SINCE WE HAVE SITE LICENSE, Oracle was the obvious choice.
AS for what the programmers were doing, I can't speak to that, wasn't on the project. I know much of the problem was changing all the documentation, test plans, db scripts, etc.
I've worked with clients ranging in size from Mom and Pop businesses to fortune 500s as a developer and system integrator. The bigger the client usually means the more recognition of the value of Intellectual Capital, and the pressure to protect that capital.
For large clients Open Source can be a tough sell, though it is getting easier, thanks in large part to Apache Server and Firefox projects (Guys and Gals, you rock!). GPL Open Source is a no go with every mid to large size client I've worked for in most cases. In many cases LGPL was also no go.
The secondary reason? The viral nature of the GPL.
What? The secondary reason!? Yep. The primary reason is the rabid fanaticism with which the GPL is worshipped/defended by many (NOTE: NOT all, there are many bright and reasonable folk in the GPL camp).
Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.
The moral: Open Source got killed in that project, and many others, because of the fanaticism of the GPL crowd and because of the all-encompassing nature of the GPL.
Fanatics of any stripe are bad. Rabid fanatics are worse.
IMHO the perfect model for an money-making Open Source licensing scheme would be similar to Saxon's: Make a functional product, release it under a BSD style license (no idea what Michael's license is, but I believe not GPL), and then create another tier of product available for sale with features that are very desirable (Namespace support). Supplement that with consulting and you have a decent business model, if your products and skills are good.
As a song said, "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."
Thanks for the long and insightful answer, and thanks to everyone who's posted. I definitely think I have a better understanding of how GPL works now.
The big difference is the copyright-holder. If it's me then I can license it however I wish, say GPL and commercial. If I'm using something where the copyright is held by someone else who's released it under GPL then I have two options (1) Release my product, a derivative work, under GPL, (2) give them money to license their software under a commercial license which allow me to use a commercial license. If it really is that simple, then it is amazing the amount of FUD surrounding GPL. I have some pretty decent managers (most of mine are NOT morons!) and I know they tend to avoid GPL like the plague, so maybe I can help convince them otherwise.
On a sidenote I do know of one case (I can't go into details) where a derivative work definition was different than expected. Another team was using MySQL as their database and was told by the MySQL team that using their database made the team's work a derivative and that the team couldn't release a commercial product using MySQL.
Seems weird, and bear in mind this is third or fourth hand info, but it sounds like derivative work means whatever the copyright holders want it to mean as was mentioned in one of the posts.
Would be nice if their was a contract out there by the Open Source movement that said exactly what a derivative work was and excluded anything not specifically covered. It would have to be updated on a regular basis and could hurt the FOSS community if it wasn't detailed and thorough. I gues this would kind of be like a meta-license. Basically the copyright holders of the GPL, LPGPL and other FOSS licenses would agree to license their licenses under this meta-license, thereby establishing a baseline for what a derivative work is or isn't.
I'm a newbie to non-BSDish licenses, but is there some initiative like that out there? If there isn't do people think it's a good idea?
Part jest, but also serious:
If the above written ideas can be considered IP then I release those ideas into the public domain, with only the request for an honorable mention somewhere if they bear fruit.
Weird, this went in the wrong place. Was meant to be a response to the guy who use blod and caps so much and called me an idiot. Heh, guess that teaches me to not respond to trolls. Btw, yep I am a/. newbie..so am still learning.
Sorry, I didn't clarify. I meant humanity's resources as a whole when I talked about a zsg. Until we go out into space (which I devoutly hope is soon) we have a limited supply of everything except intellectual products, which is what software is, so in that you're right.
Heh. Newsflash ace, I make over 80k a year getting paid to write software and design web service solutions, and that's living in the boonies of upstate NY, so go suck an egg. Guess is you're a troll, but I don't really care.
Truthfully, this is my first real post on/. after being a long time casual reader (I check the top level page and only go in depth if seomthing really strikes me as interesting). This is in part to get a better understanding, but it is also in part to get a a better feel for/. as a community.
So far the responses have all been critical, but insightful and informative, not derogatory, until yours. Congrats!
BSD doesn't guarantee buy-in... management could simply take your code and release it under a non-free license. They might say 'thank you' if you are lucky.
With GPL code you can guarantee buy in: they need to license it from you (asuming you are the sole copyright holder) under a different license than the GPL and you can dictate the payment terms.
True, but that sounds to me to be more relevant to someone who makes their money from Open Source. I have a full time (on the slow weeks L) job with a good salary getting paid to work on the projects I get told to work on. I work on FOSS because I can chose what I work on and my creativity can be expressed in any direction I choose to take it.
But to work on it during work time I need to justify using it in my products at work.
So my perspective is how can I use it at work and still keep proprietary what I've been told needs to stay proprietary..not how can I get paid for my FOSS and still keep it FOSS
The above is confusing, even to me, and I wrote it. If someone else can express it better, by all means please do so.
Second, please don't conflate "commercial" and "proprietary";
Very good point, 'commercial' and 'proprietary' are very different animals, and I intended 'proprietary'. One such group I believe is JBoss, who IMHO put out an awesome product, and in fact one of the more commercially used FOSS (Free Open Source Software) products.
For the rest, both you and another commenter seem to be talking about dual licensing. Admittedly I do not know much about that. Can you explain how the following scenario would work?
I work for company xyz making product abc. Abc uses some new proprietary algorithms (the 'a' of abc), and per management the source code for the implementation of these algs MUST remain undisclosed to keep competitive advantage. The 'b' and 'c' of 'abc' are known problems, and there's some great GPL's solutions usable off the shelf. So our final product is 'a' (properietary license for binaries only), 'b' (GPL) 'c' (GPL, and glue code (could possibly be GPL).
Can management remain happy by keeping their baby to themselves, or would GPL require that the source to 'a' be made available?
The above assumes someone else wrote 'b' and 'c'. How would the scenario change if I wrote 'b' and 'c'? Would it then be possible to keep management happy, and if so what would the licensing structure be?
Thanks for the help btw. I really don't know much about licensing legal terms, but this is important for me, now more than ever as I used to just do what I love (i.e. code:), but am now taking on more of a managemen role to get more money and more freedom in what I code.
I am very much for Open Source, but for me "Open Source" includes BSD style licensed projects, but not GPL. Not trying to be flame bait, but I think GPL is damaging the Open Source movement. I say this because as a commercial developer I know plenty of managers who won't let me use Open Source on their projects because they think all Open Source has a viral license such as GPL.
"Software should be free..everything should be free, including the BIOS". Nice concept, but reality is we live in what's called a zero-sum game. We as humanity have a finite amount of resources, which means that if I'm going to expend resources by writing software I need to get something in return, in order to provide for my family.
BSD style licenses allow me to get recognition (not much I haven't written a lot of Open Source) and allow me to re-use that software in my commercial projects, which benefits me and Open Source as it allows me to get buy-in from management.
GPL licenses do not. Essentialy I write GPL software and I cannot use it in any commercial projects.
I love the concept of free software, and I think we are on a downward slide to having to pay a micro-payment for each web page you view, but call a spade a spade: IMHO, GPL is not designed to increase free software but to get rid of commercial software. As someone who's method of feeding my newborn baby is writing software you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming to work on any GPL'd code.
More of a rant than I intended but I'll leave it as is, and see open a forum this is.
Btw, I may very well be wrong as I have a limited viewpoint: A commercial developer, supporting a family, who has stayed away from GPL and even LGPL projects as code I write generally has to be re-usable in my commercial projects.
I am using Oracle 9i to serve an XML database of say project management information for many projects. The operations done on this data change frequently and are captured as Jelly scripts, which are also stored in the database.
Each user has a customized view, which is created by a different Jelly script stored in the database. A thin client fetch's that user's Jelly view script and Jelly swt tags in that script create the user's personalized GUI from XML stored on the server.
Now at some point I want to see what projects, or other data, each view accesses, and I want that information to be presented as a PDF report.
Could I do that with SQL, regex? Yes, of course. But I would need to roll my own parser, a set of regex, and code to take the match groups and put them into a report, and the code to publish the report as a PDF.
Using the XML technologies I can instead do the following:
Create an xpath expression to gather the information I need as XML
Create a XSLT stylesheet that translates that XML into xsl:fo. The stylesheet has as a source document the URL to query the db with the xpath expression.
Run the result through Batik or some other xsl:fo to PDF converter.
For me the second way will take half or less of the time the first method would take, and it would be much more re-usable.
Jelly does not allow these things to be done. They can be done in XML, plain text, CSV, in the same way the code can be implemented in C, Java, or even C#. The benefit that Jelly brings to the table is the ability to leverage the many XML technologies out there without re-inventing the wheel for a proprietary or little-used format. Also the more in use a technology is the quicker it's implementations will become stable. In short it's about minimization. Minimization of risk. Minimization of time to market.
Storing of XML based Jelly scripts in Oracle 9 R2, or some XML enabled database, and then searching/executing whole scripts or fragments thereof from the db using XQuery"
Let's say I want to find all scripts that access a database. Then I can create an xpath expression that represents this and submit it to the XML database which handles the searching for me. I can then run a stylesheet on the query results to create a report in pdf format. Granted this could be done using SQL, and the report code could be custom written, but again the point is not whether it can be done. The point is how much of the code used in the solution is new code, and how long does it take to solve the problem. In the scenario above I would have to write only TWO things: (1) the XSLT that transforms the query results to xsl:fo, and (2) the xpath expression that represents the query I want to do. As an additional plus these are implemented in well known technologies, so if I transfer to another project someone else can come in and take my place with ease, as long as they have XSLT/XPATH in their skill set.
It's kind of funny. Maven IS a love it or hate it tool. I've a habit of joining failing projects and turning them around, and Maven is one of my key tools to do that.
I've often found the people who rail against XML are the ones who do not really know the various XML technologies out there.
Several people argue against an XML programming language. Granted that it, like ALL things, is not a one size fits all solution.
However, I've used Jelly outside of Maven for the following:
Storing of XML based Jelly scripts in Oracle 9 R2, or some XML enabled database, and then searching/executing whole scripts or fragments thereof from the db using XQuery
Using XSL to transform a Jelly Script for several uses
The use of pre-canned XML compression, encryption, and XML signature libraries to implement mobile code with Jelly scripts.
Quickly creating the GUI for an desktop app whose GUI was different for each of several different customers. XUL was examined, but wasn't able to meet severl of the client's needs. No slam against XUL, I like it, it just didn't meet the client's specific needs for use with pre-existing Java code.
That said I do agree with some of the complaints:
Complaint: Compatibility issues between releases
Suggestion:
Maven team: Be more rigorous about eating your own dogfood and adopt known best of breed engineering release management.
Complaint: Plugin writing/modification is neither fun nor as easy as it should be.
Suggestions:
Scrap the current plug in system for Maven 2.0
Replace it with an OSGI based plug in system, as Eclipse has done
Keep Jelly as an option for plugin scripts, but use the beanshell framework to expand script options
Strip out as much functionality out of the Maven core until you have a Maven micro-kernel. Put the extra functionality into OSGI bundles managed as separate projects
Test, Test, Test!
Complaint: The auto-generated website has a lot of pointless information that most people don't care about
Suggestions:
I edit my Maven builds so that it only generates the reports I am are interested in. Many of those reports are kind of like lint though...you don't realize how useful it actually is until you use them for the first time. For example I used the checkstyle report on a project with many developers and it made my life was easier.
Is Maven for everyone? No, definitely not. For me, and those engineers I have trained, Maven and Jelly are definitely two of the essential items in our everyday toolbox for medium to large projects.
Slashdot Mirror
Novell has not, AFAIK, agreed that Microsoft is right. The basic conversation sounds like it was:
MS: I'll sue you
Novell: We'll fight you and win
MS: No you won't
Novell: Yes we will and you'll get lots more bad press
MS: What would it take to have us make nice in the market place, as our business users need/use Novell sw?
Novell: $$, lots, and an agreement not to sue us or our users. In return we'll make nice-nice.
No agreement on Novell's part that patent claim is valid, or precedent. As I see it this may actually be a win for the good guys. Now I suspect I'll be called a moron like other posters have. Don't really care, since I know I'm not one. That said, here's my opinion on the GPL (you may want to stop reading if you are really in love with the GPL/FSF beyond reason):
GPL is a similar concept to unions. GPL served its purpose at one time, but now that open source (GASP..not captialized version) software is mainstream GPL is not needed, and is in fact harmful. How many companies do you think will now have second thoughts about basing their products on Linux after this stunt by the FSF? How far do you think open source would have gotten without the support of companies like Novell, IBM, and others? What do you think would happen to open source software if companies started categorically disallowing its use in any aspect of work?
You want free software? Let the authors make it free, which most if not all the other open source licenses out there do (I personally prefer Apache for its freedom and for its recognition within the commercial environment). OMG, someone could re-sell my software: well, yeah..it's free to everyone, not just academics. If someone wants to packages my sw up, maybe add value or bug fixes, and sell it, and I've released it as open source, more power to them. They could even make modifications and sell those without contributing them back to the world at large. Again, yeah..the company wrote their software and added it to yours, just because yours is free shouldn't mean mine has to be free, unless you plan on paying my grocery bill.
The idea that only certain licenses are allowed to call themselves open source, that the term Open Source actually has a definition that lawsuits have been threatened if it's not used correctly (rumour, I've not seen the threats myself), and that the FSF can do what they are talking about doing, are all signs of software that is under dictatorial control, not sw that is free. Interesting point to make here: dictatorial control is usuually established or maintained in order to either keep from losing something of value or to gain something of value. My first thought is always to ask how much money is involved: i.e. how much does the FSF make every year from fees, or how much do the leaders make from speaking engagements, books, etc, that are the result of them being at the ehad of the FSF? How much of that is donated to open source projects, and is it only donated to projects that toe the party line?
Please don't take that as an accusation, but rather a question. Blind faith is never good, and if we cannot question the FSF and their motives, and get answers that make us warm and fuzzy inside, then why are we following them?
I'd love to give you details on how I personally have helped the open source movement, but it would involve giving details on the practices of past and present employers. which I won't do. So feel free to assume I am a MS wonk and rabidly anti-open-source, you'll be very wrong on both counts, but isn't that freedom what it's all about anyway?
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the old adage is true that learning a new language is easier once you know programming/engineering basics. But only so far. Each time you learn a new language you learn a new way of looking at design problems, and add a new tool to your work bench.
What has helped me more than anything is refining my ability to see the pattern in problems, and refining my problem solving skills.
I'd read anything by Joel, Martin Fowler, and what interests you among Oreilly's new books, and I'd use it. Again, as has been pointed out, you won't truly learn it until you've used it. There's some Hemingway quote about not being a writer until you've written 1 million lines or some such. Maybe something similar applies to engineering...not an engineer until you've successfully solved 500k problems, unsuccessfuly worked on 500k (But know why they didn't work). Batting averages vary, and will get better as you improve.
All of the above is rehash, so here's something new (somewhat):
1. IMHO you've got the wrong order: Don't read books then try something.
Instead try something new, if you run into a road block buy a book on the aspect that's a problem, learn why it's a road block and finish the problem.
2. Learn how to see patterns. Not Gang of Four patterns, but how pieces of an architecture interoperate and exchange data, how they work together, and why they work together.
I use GPL'd software, including linux, on my job. I do not use GPL'd libraries, and try to avoid LGPL where possible, because of GPL2 issues that GPL3 is not fixing but making worse:
Open source software has advanced our digital lives immeasurably, but that doesn't mean all software has to be Open Source. I make a living from my code, I should go let my daughter go hungry because "Software wants to be free"? Software does not want anything, it is a tool.
Write software for the joy of it, without the politics or propaganda, like the rest of us, and use BSD, or Apache. I am not a heavyweight like Stallman or Linus, or even a medium weight, in the community but IMHO the GPL crowd is like the far religious right "Everone should be Christian because everyone else is wrong and will burn in Hell", or like Microsoft "Windows is the only viable OS because it's what we sell and we wrote the book".
I disagree with both ( I am a Christian and I use BSD or Apache licenses at work), because there ain't no such thing as one true way (TANSTAOTW)..wish that caught one like TANSTAAFL. Please consider those of us that need to put food on the table, food that is provided by our coding efforts when you write/right the next GPL. If the current trend continues then you will add a clause that says that anything that runs on/in Gnu software like VMs or Linux will need to be Gnu. That will be the day my employer, and I, toss out Linux (prob while I cry for the tools I love like Gimp), and switch to NetBSD. I guarantee we won't be alone. I think corporate adoption of Open Source is behind the recent upswing in its usage and growth, so force viral-licensing down our throats and expect a backlash.
I had to say this, even though I know I will be marked as flame bait. Consider this though: if it is my actual opinion, stated with passion but without rancor, and you mod it down, then aren't you in fact acting against the principles upon which GPL, and Open Source, were based?
Thank you for reading this through to the end. I hope it's provided some food for thought, and having said what I have let me also say a big thanks to the Linux community: I watched you be born, grow, and bring us software that has enriched my life as a coder, for which I am truly thankful. I just wish it was under a different license.
Yep, that's the one.
Another more recent example is Threshold.
Google folks must read Slashdot, any comments from your perspective?
Ok, so Wash and Book are dead. Barring some JR-esque revival, that writes them out.
So what cast do you have left over?
Still a decent cast, but mising comic relief and the mysterious preacher/warrior. For the second I can think of one character who'd have a similar past and bring lots of dramatic tension: the nemesis warrior in the movie. Have him save Mal, the crew, and the ship again, and have him take up Shepherd's footsteps by going to same preacher school, and I could see that happening (or Mal would shoot him which is prob more likely, have be a convincing reason for this to happen).
Comic relief, hmm good question. For that I'd go back to the series..remember Mal's "Wife", the one that tried to steal the Lassiter? Work her into the plot, on the same ship as Inara and Mal. Again, you'd have to work out the dramatic reason, but let's face it..the probability of the original cast coming together and staying together was pretty low in the first place, so it can be made to work.
Just my 5 cents (was 2 cents, but inflation...)
Yep, you heard me right: Google.
"Hey, but don't they just do searches?"
Do searches, yes. Just do searches, no.
Here's why Google should get into video production as well as sales:
Just my five cents (was 2 cents, but inflation...)
What I'd really like to see, and if it's out there let me know, is a web service standard with support from OASIS or W3C for using XQuery. I don't love XQuery, but it seems an improvement, and with a standard web service API you would not be tied like with JDBC. Of course you'll need to do a lot of optimization to scale and still have decent performance (Fast-Infoset, Sarvega or Datapower hardware).
Well, the argument to management was made for Postgres, but the manager decided no based on two things (1) No one on the team had Postgres experience, even though they could ramp up quickly, and (2) they already had a site license for Oracle. I also suggested Berkeley database, as that would really be all they need, but again no for same reasons.
Yeah, third or fourth hand:
As several other posters have mentioned MySQL seems to believe sw falls into option a) Commercial, requiring a fee, or option B) GPL.
As for MySQL vs Oracle...
The original choice for MySQL was because that was the functionality needed, and because it was Open Source, so sites would not require a site license for Oracle, like we currently have. Obviously, after the fiasco with MySQL and the new requirement that nothing be Open Source and SINCE WE HAVE SITE LICENSE, Oracle was the obvious choice.
AS for what the programmers were doing, I can't speak to that, wasn't on the project. I know much of the problem was changing all the documentation, test plans, db scripts, etc.
Before you call people liars you might want to...
- get a little more experience as a consultant,
- get therapy,
- or switch to decaf
Thinking about it, do all of the aboveI've worked with clients ranging in size from Mom and Pop businesses to fortune 500s as a developer and system integrator. The bigger the client usually means the more recognition of the value of Intellectual Capital, and the pressure to protect that capital.
For large clients Open Source can be a tough sell, though it is getting easier, thanks in large part to Apache Server and Firefox projects (Guys and Gals, you rock!). GPL Open Source is a no go with every mid to large size client I've worked for in most cases. In many cases LGPL was also no go.
The secondary reason? The viral nature of the GPL.
What? The secondary reason!? Yep. The primary reason is the rabid fanaticism with which the GPL is worshipped/defended by many (NOTE: NOT all, there are many bright and reasonable folk in the GPL camp).
Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.
The moral: Open Source got killed in that project, and many others, because of the fanaticism of the GPL crowd and because of the all-encompassing nature of the GPL.
Fanatics of any stripe are bad. Rabid fanatics are worse.
IMHO the perfect model for an money-making Open Source licensing scheme would be similar to Saxon's: Make a functional product, release it under a BSD style license (no idea what Michael's license is, but I believe not GPL), and then create another tier of product available for sale with features that are very desirable (Namespace support). Supplement that with consulting and you have a decent business model, if your products and skills are good.
As a song said, "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."
One acronym to consider: CP/M
Thanks for the long and insightful answer, and thanks to everyone who's posted. I definitely think I have a better understanding of how GPL works now.
The big difference is the copyright-holder. If it's me then I can license it however I wish, say GPL and commercial. If I'm using something where the copyright is held by someone else who's released it under GPL then I have two options (1) Release my product, a derivative work, under GPL, (2) give them money to license their software under a commercial license which allow me to use a commercial license. If it really is that simple, then it is amazing the amount of FUD surrounding GPL. I have some pretty decent managers (most of mine are NOT morons!) and I know they tend to avoid GPL like the plague, so maybe I can help convince them otherwise. On a sidenote I do know of one case (I can't go into details) where a derivative work definition was different than expected. Another team was using MySQL as their database and was told by the MySQL team that using their database made the team's work a derivative and that the team couldn't release a commercial product using MySQL.
Seems weird, and bear in mind this is third or fourth hand info, but it sounds like derivative work means whatever the copyright holders want it to mean as was mentioned in one of the posts.
Would be nice if their was a contract out there by the Open Source movement that said exactly what a derivative work was and excluded anything not specifically covered. It would have to be updated on a regular basis and could hurt the FOSS community if it wasn't detailed and thorough. I gues this would kind of be like a meta-license. Basically the copyright holders of the GPL, LPGPL and other FOSS licenses would agree to license their licenses under this meta-license, thereby establishing a baseline for what a derivative work is or isn't.
I'm a newbie to non-BSDish licenses, but is there some initiative like that out there? If there isn't do people think it's a good idea? Part jest, but also serious:
FYI, IANAL.Weird, this went in the wrong place. Was meant to be a response to the guy who use blod and caps so much and called me an idiot. Heh, guess that teaches me to not respond to trolls. Btw, yep I am a /. newbie..so am still learning.
Sorry, I didn't clarify. I meant humanity's resources as a whole when I talked about a zsg. Until we go out into space (which I devoutly hope is soon) we have a limited supply of everything except intellectual products, which is what software is, so in that you're right.
Heh. Newsflash ace, I make over 80k a year getting paid to write software and design web service solutions, and that's living in the boonies of upstate NY, so go suck an egg. Guess is you're a troll, but I don't really care.
Truthfully, this is my first real post on /. after being a long time casual reader (I check the top level page and only go in depth if seomthing really strikes me as interesting). This is in part to get a better understanding, but it is also in part to get a a better feel for /. as a community.
So far the responses have all been critical, but insightful and informative, not derogatory, until yours. Congrats!
True, but that sounds to me to be more relevant to someone who makes their money from Open Source. I have a full time (on the slow weeks L) job with a good salary getting paid to work on the projects I get told to work on. I work on FOSS because I can chose what I work on and my creativity can be expressed in any direction I choose to take it.
But to work on it during work time I need to justify using it in my products at work.
So my perspective is how can I use it at work and still keep proprietary what I've been told needs to stay proprietary..not how can I get paid for my FOSS and still keep it FOSS
The above is confusing, even to me, and I wrote it. If someone else can express it better, by all means please do so.
Your welcome, and thank you for that sentiment.
Very good point, 'commercial' and 'proprietary' are very different animals, and I intended 'proprietary'. One such group I believe is JBoss, who IMHO put out an awesome product, and in fact one of the more commercially used FOSS (Free Open Source Software) products.
For the rest, both you and another commenter seem to be talking about dual licensing. Admittedly I do not know much about that. Can you explain how the following scenario would work?
I work for company xyz making product abc. Abc uses some new proprietary algorithms (the 'a' of abc), and per management the source code for the implementation of these algs MUST remain undisclosed to keep competitive advantage. The 'b' and 'c' of 'abc' are known problems, and there's some great GPL's solutions usable off the shelf. So our final product is 'a' (properietary license for binaries only), 'b' (GPL) 'c' (GPL, and glue code (could possibly be GPL).
Can management remain happy by keeping their baby to themselves, or would GPL require that the source to 'a' be made available?
The above assumes someone else wrote 'b' and 'c'. How would the scenario change if I wrote 'b' and 'c'? Would it then be possible to keep management happy, and if so what would the licensing structure be?
Thanks for the help btw. I really don't know much about licensing legal terms, but this is important for me, now more than ever as I used to just do what I love (i.e. code :), but am now taking on more of a managemen role to get more money and more freedom in what I code.
Why does it make sense?
I am very much for Open Source, but for me "Open Source" includes BSD style licensed projects, but not GPL. Not trying to be flame bait, but I think GPL is damaging the Open Source movement. I say this because as a commercial developer I know plenty of managers who won't let me use Open Source on their projects because they think all Open Source has a viral license such as GPL.
"Software should be free..everything should be free, including the BIOS". Nice concept, but reality is we live in what's called a zero-sum game. We as humanity have a finite amount of resources, which means that if I'm going to expend resources by writing software I need to get something in return, in order to provide for my family.
BSD style licenses allow me to get recognition (not much I haven't written a lot of Open Source) and allow me to re-use that software in my commercial projects, which benefits me and Open Source as it allows me to get buy-in from management.
GPL licenses do not. Essentialy I write GPL software and I cannot use it in any commercial projects.
I love the concept of free software, and I think we are on a downward slide to having to pay a micro-payment for each web page you view, but call a spade a spade: IMHO, GPL is not designed to increase free software but to get rid of commercial software. As someone who's method of feeding my newborn baby is writing software you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming to work on any GPL'd code.
More of a rant than I intended but I'll leave it as is, and see open a forum this is.
Btw, I may very well be wrong as I have a limited viewpoint: A commercial developer, supporting a family, who has stayed away from GPL and even LGPL projects as code I write generally has to be re-usable in my commercial projects.
I tend to use zip code of 12345, which corresponds to Virginia Beach, VA for the ones that require addresses
I am using Oracle 9i to serve an XML database of say project management information for many projects. The operations done on this data change frequently and are captured as Jelly scripts, which are also stored in the database.
Each user has a customized view, which is created by a different Jelly script stored in the database. A thin client fetch's that user's Jelly view script and Jelly swt tags in that script create the user's personalized GUI from XML stored on the server.
Now at some point I want to see what projects, or other data, each view accesses, and I want that information to be presented as a PDF report.
Could I do that with SQL, regex? Yes, of course. But I would need to roll my own parser, a set of regex, and code to take the match groups and put them into a report, and the code to publish the report as a PDF.
Using the XML technologies I can instead do the following:
For me the second way will take half or less of the time the first method would take, and it would be much more re-usable.
It's kind of funny. Maven IS a love it or hate it tool. I've a habit of joining failing projects and turning them around, and Maven is one of my key tools to do that.
I've often found the people who rail against XML are the ones who do not really know the various XML technologies out there.
Several people argue against an XML programming language. Granted that it, like ALL things, is not a one size fits all solution.
However, I've used Jelly outside of Maven for the following:
That said I do agree with some of the complaints:
Complaint: Compatibility issues between releases
Suggestion:
Complaint: Plugin writing/modification is neither fun nor as easy as it should be.
Suggestions:
Complaint: The auto-generated website has a lot of pointless information that most people don't care about
Suggestions:
Is Maven for everyone? No, definitely not. For me, and those engineers I have trained, Maven and Jelly are definitely two of the essential items in our everyday toolbox for medium to large projects.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning, though you have definitely thought this through.
SmartDust is currently being commercialized, and while not nanotech scale it is very small, approximate 8mm x 5 mm., shown in this photo
Your points of jamming, memory, and complexity are very valid, but consider the following three technologies being researched: