Actually a lot of the non GPL projects can interbreed. It's only when you try to mix GPL with non GPL when you really start having problems.
If people don't like all of the licenses, blaim RMS for making the GPL suck. (That may sound harsh, but evey time I look into the license issues of the GPL I find it binds my hands as a programmer and has enough holes/ambiguities to scare me).
Sorry, it is true. I used to like the GPL, then I actually read the thing.
Specifically (pulled from GPL ver 2): 1) Additions to the GPL: from item 6 in the license: "...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted werein...." this License.
so I can't impose the "restriction" on my users of not being able to look at the source of a library I don't have source code for.
2) But the kicker (from part 2 of the GPL): "... If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License..."
so roughly I have to violate the license of someone elses work to make my product GPL. uh... that seems bad to me. distribution includes binary distribution. SO if I like to a binary Intel library I link with I suddenly have to release the Intel library under the GPL???
I think Intel wouldn't be happy.
3) techy point: You can accomplish the hire someone to fix a program issue with code covered in a much simpler license.
Finally: I liked the spirt of the old Copyleft, the problem is the GPL is way convoluted. everyone I know who has had IP lawyers look at it, and all the IP lawyers I know get scared looking at it. There are so many loopholes and ambiguities that you have to wonder why a simpler license wasn't chosen.
Now don't get me wrong, I like open software (in fact I write a bunch of it). But my focus is allowing a programmer to produce products that solve problems. My top priority is to allow programmers access to the source code (and thus indcirectly an end user access). I think my main bitch has to do with library work. the LGPL is a joke. Its usefullness falls apart when you actually try to apply it to say C++ code. I want to be able to write a library that if people modifiy the library they hacve to keep it open, but anyone can use (read link to it, include it's headers which contain lots of inline code) freely. and there is NO current GNU license will let me do that.
Please, don't patronize me. your post impiles I don't know what software is GNU... bite me...
- compile stuff (so I really run Borland/Windows since half the stuff I run is compiled by borland)
Which actually I do use tcsh... been using it for 10 years, once bash became popular didn't see anything so cool it mandated a switch.
And yes I'm not saying I would have a working system without GNU.
BUT, and what you see too clueless to catch on to is that I wouldn't have a working system without a lot of other tools as well.
I have no problems giving GNU credit where credit was due. But to say GNU owes linux and linux owes GNU everything is crap. before linux the GNU stuff was no where near where it is today (I know I used it on sunOS boxes). They built off each other. But linux is linux. the name shouldn't be based off of the insides.
Well actually if you read the GNU literature (which RMS is the inspiration for) it tends to get very whiney at times. I always get the feeling of "no this is the right way to do it becuase RMS from on high said to do it this way". Please the GNU camp needs to grow up.
oh please. 30% of what? code... who cares. (and that statement comes from a person who writes code all day).
how about of what I use daily. A huge amount of that 30% is programs I rarely use. A lot I don't even install. If you are talking about what gets used the most, Apache/ISC/Linux would be far more accurate.
Actually RMS calls it free because he THINKS it is free. the GPL isn't about freedom. At least not the freedom of the programmer. As a progarmmer I can't use GPL code. Reason: In order to use GPL code my application has to be GPL. but if my applciation is GPL then I can't use a non GPL piece of code (library or what not) from someone else. My hands are then tied.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy. What the GPL calls an end product is vague at best. Plus I've always been a fan of the KISS principle. And the GPL seems more complex than it needs to be (and the LGPL makes the GPL look simple).
Which on the name of Linux, I call it linux in part becuase RMS needs some humbleness (I also like my systems would be better called Apache/ISC/GN/Linux rather than just GNU/Linux). The GNU info pages are filled with snobishness and FUD. Take gnu make. in the comparitive section it doesn't mention a bunch of very nice features available in commercial make programs, it only compares with a few of the makes that come with unicies.
One of the most important skills of a programmer (shoot any engineer for that matter) is to be open for input. Now I'm not saying you can't have an ego (for I know I do), but you can't just act like little kid cose your eyes and say it is the best way to do it because it is the way we do it.
hmm... let's see first time I set up ppp on my linux box... spent probably 15-20 minutes
first/last/every time I have tried to get an internet connection under windoze... generally an hour or two. Although I haven't had to config a modem on windoze recently... just an ether card to route through the linux box...
This was the best one yet on y2k. A month or so the Los Angeles UPN station did a report on y2k where they basically said all nuclear missles will start firing off randomly at random targets come Jan 1, 2000. *sigh* We are going to have more problems from the clueless masses lead by the clueless media freaking out over y2k than actually y2k problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a lot of the non GPL projects can interbreed. It's only when you try to mix GPL with non GPL when you really start having problems.
If people don't like all of the licenses, blaim RMS for making the GPL suck. (That may sound harsh, but evey time I look into the license issues of the GPL I find it binds my hands as a programmer and has enough holes/ambiguities to scare me).
Sorry, it is true. I used to like the GPL, then I actually read the thing.
..."
..."
Specifically (pulled from GPL ver 2):
1) Additions to the GPL:
from item 6 in the license:
"...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted werein.
this License.
so I can't impose the "restriction" on my users of not being able to look at the source of a library I don't have source code for.
2) But the kicker (from part 2 of the GPL):
"... If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License
so roughly I have to violate the license of someone elses work to make my product GPL. uh... that seems bad to me. distribution includes binary distribution. SO if I like to a binary Intel library I link with I suddenly have to release the Intel library under the GPL???
I think Intel wouldn't be happy.
3) techy point: You can accomplish the hire someone to fix a program issue with code covered in a much simpler license.
Finally:
I liked the spirt of the old Copyleft, the problem is the GPL is way convoluted. everyone I know who has had IP lawyers look at it, and all the IP lawyers I know get scared looking at it. There are so many loopholes and ambiguities that you have to wonder why a simpler license wasn't chosen.
Now don't get me wrong, I like open software (in fact I write a bunch of it). But my focus is allowing a programmer to produce products that solve problems. My top priority is to allow programmers access to the source code (and thus indcirectly an end user access). I think my main bitch has to do with library work. the LGPL is a joke. Its usefullness falls apart when you actually try to apply it to say C++ code. I want to be able to write a library that if people modifiy the library they hacve to keep it open, but anyone can use (read link to it, include it's headers which contain lots of inline code) freely. and there is NO current GNU license will let me do that.
Please, don't patronize me. your post impiles I don't know what software is GNU... bite me...
- compile stuff (so I really run Borland/Windows since half the stuff I run is compiled by borland)
Which actually I do use tcsh... been using it for 10 years, once bash became popular didn't see anything so cool it mandated a switch.
And yes I'm not saying I would have a working system without GNU.
BUT, and what you see too clueless to catch on to is that I wouldn't have a working system without a lot of other tools as well.
I have no problems giving GNU credit where credit was due. But to say GNU owes linux and linux owes GNU everything is crap. before linux the GNU stuff was no where near where it is today (I know I used it on sunOS boxes). They built off each other. But linux is linux. the name shouldn't be based off of the insides.
Amen Brother (or sister although with the latest poll, brother is a good bet).
Well actually if you read the GNU literature (which RMS is the inspiration for) it tends to get very whiney at times. I always get the feeling of "no this is the right way to do it becuase RMS from on high said to do it this way". Please the GNU camp needs to grow up.
oh please. 30% of what? code... who cares.
(and that statement comes from a person who
writes code all day).
how about of what I use daily. A huge amount
of that 30% is programs I rarely use. A lot I don't even install. If you are talking about
what gets used the most, Apache/ISC/Linux would
be far more accurate.
Actually RMS calls it free because he THINKS it
is free. the GPL isn't about freedom. At least
not the freedom of the programmer. As a
progarmmer I can't use GPL code.
Reason:
In order to use GPL code my application has to be GPL. but if my applciation is GPL then I can't use a non GPL piece of code (library or what not)
from someone else. My hands are then tied.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy. What the GPL calls an end product is vague at best. Plus I've always been a fan of the KISS principle. And the GPL seems more complex than it needs to be (and the LGPL makes the GPL look simple).
Which on the name of Linux, I call it linux in part becuase RMS needs some humbleness (I also like my systems would be better called Apache/ISC/GN/Linux rather than just GNU/Linux). The GNU info pages are filled with snobishness and FUD. Take gnu make. in the comparitive section it doesn't mention a bunch of very nice features available in commercial make programs, it only
compares with a few of the makes that come with
unicies.
One of the most important skills of a programmer (shoot any engineer for that matter) is to be
open for input. Now I'm not saying you can't have an ego (for I know I do), but you can't just act like little kid cose your eyes and say it is the best way to do it because it is the way we do it.
hmm... let's see first time I set up ppp on my linux box... spent probably 15-20 minutes
first/last/every time I have tried to get an
internet connection under windoze... generally an hour or two. Although I haven't had to config a modem on windoze recently... just an ether card to route through the linux box...
This was the best one yet on y2k. A month or so
the Los Angeles UPN station did a report on y2k
where they basically said all nuclear missles will
start firing off randomly at random targets come
Jan 1, 2000. *sigh* We are going to have
more problems from the clueless masses lead by the clueless media freaking out over y2k than actually y2k problems.
Get a f**king clue! Unless web pages are used
for the config screens, then bundling a browser
makes no difference.
Remember:
internet != web