Perhaps if you carefully re-inspect the GNU license [gnu.org] (and if necessary, find a lawyer friend to interpret it for you) you will see that MS is following the licensee rights of the GNU license.
Perhaps if you carefully inspect both article and posts you will see that I don't have any problem with that, nor have I ever claimed it to be a problem. The problem is that they are doing this and telling other people not to because the GPL is `viral'. Clear?
But do not claim they violate licenses that they don't.
Show me where I claim that, and I'll freely recant. If you can't, you recant.
No need to. It is included with something they sell.
Said product would be next to useless without it. Ergo, Microsoft sell a product which relies on and includes GPLed software, and they make money from it.
They most likely get around this the same way every Linux distro out there that packages and sells Linux does...
Yeah, like Debian...? (-:
Mandrake and RedHat, at least, offer free 100%-OSS versions of their stuff. Every tool that Mandrake develops is GPLed, yet modulo a mistake with trying to do exactly what you're proposing, several years ago, they would have been the first profitable Linux distribution company. As it is, they're steaming ahead under `bankruptcy protection' (the French flavour of that is, surprise, quite different to the US one) and will probably come out of it quite well.
If you want to make money off of your software (or allow others via licensing the technology from you to make money off of it) you can't use the Open Source license.
Microsoft sell the GNU C Compiler at a profit (as part of SFU). Would you like another run-up at that statement?
...and OpenOffice.org, and Mozilla, and others, and PostFix's licence is closer to GPL than to BSD. But I guess the BSD packages leaped out at you for a reason. (-:
I personally think that people should have complete choice in their licencing, and that variety is the spice of life, and I am pleased that there is much excellent BSD stuff out there too, but I always licence my own stuff GPL unless it is to be reintegrated with a BSD-ish system.
The whole idea is that when we hear answers, we re-engineer the questions to head them off. Eventually, even the thickest Mongo in the audience will notice several things:
Microsoft's supply of answers has dried up
These are not genius level questions
the emperor has no clothes
Once this becomes commonplace, Shared Source will lose most of its value for Microsoft.
You will notice that they're almost out of strategies as well. Invoking State Department officials against OSS has backfired (cost Microsoft and the US gummint both valuable `face'). FUD has backfired (as real people in real situations find out they're lying, and say so). Benchmarking has backfired (because `we' answered it, every challenge resulted in massive improvements to their OSS competitors and we're now effectively unbeatable). Slanted TCO studies have backfired (ie it was becoming plain that they had retreated to special cases and special pleading). `Independent' studies (and `switchers') backfired. About all they have left is patents, and I think they'll shoot themselves in the foot there too.
It's not an OSS project. He said it's really a shared source project.
What he said was:
I work on a scientific project that is supossedly an "open source" project. In reality, it is really shared source.
How I and DeputySpade interpret that is "the licence says Open Source but the project manager treats it like Share Source". Assuming that we are correct in our interpretation, DS is indeed technically correct - although I don't see the need for calling simplexMethod a `gonad'. It might be politically infeasible for SM to take over or fork the project (e.g., PM is up the management tree from him). OT3H, if he came back as an AC and somehow named the project, someone in a different situation may well be able to fork off with it.
His educated reference to Star Trek really helped me to understand the situation, and make an informed decision.
Association with well-known situations can often perform more instruction in one line than the remaining four pages of the article. Think of it as tab-completion for concepts. In the bad old days it was called `a parable'.
anything written by a group called "The Cyberknights" has GOT to [be] authoritative!
It was an improvement on `Shelf Company 27005'. (-:
Locally, we have (unrelated) companies named TwoBlueDots and BlueSkyFrog which are doing a roaring trade. I'm a long way from king of the flippant names hill.
Is NineNine better? I keep thinking of scarlet inflatables.
...but I think you need to meet more of the people at the creative hub of marketing. They're in the `You wanna see something really scarey?' category. (-:
The email I got over this is universally positive. Linux Australia's webserver is taking a shellacking (the Debian-on-Alpha server isn't raising a sweat - thanks Digital-now-Compaq Australia and Spice for that - but the hit counters are), more people have seen one of their new banners in one day than the old banner in the last 2 years.
However, I fear universally positive responses, because it indicates one of the same weaknesses suffered by closed source software: the problem is being approached with what amounts to a single mindset. The occasional negative response, even if utterly without merit, is a good indication.
While not knocking the positive responses I did get (they're all going into version 2 of the doc when it gets rewritten presently, and credited), I've learned a lot of stuff from watching NoCoward's arguments going down in flames despite an amazingly energetic personal defense of them. The special thing about NC's stuff is that nobody would have raised much of it if we hadn't had such a manic devil's advocate on the case. This saves a lot of messing around and egg-on-face in the field, and makes the approach so much more effective.
So... I'd like to take this chance to thank NoCoward for his/her helpful input, and if (s)he wants a spot in the credits for version 2, including a mention that (s)he disagrees with every word of it, email me and it shall be done. Version 2 is likely to be published in Australian Developer magazine before it hits Linux Australia's webserver.
There will always be a place for people who swim against the flow. (-:
By way of explanation, I'm a language bigot. I speak about 30 words each of Spanish, French, Italian, Indonesian. If it helps, I also speak C, ForTran, Pascal, CoBOL, Python, Ruby, BASH, awk, sed, PHP, SQL and numerous assemblers. (-:
Yes, and they will get hurt. Why is this good? They are a major employer of programmers.
Using the same reasoning, sustaining war or at least the realistic threat of war would be good because the military are a major employer of soldiers.
I'd be much happier with the idea of paying most of the soldiers to do something constructive instead, and let the military antagonism drop, wouldn't you?
I have no idea why people at Slashdot seems to equate closed source software with only Microsoft.
`We' generally don't, modulo a vocal few, but the focus on Microsoft is because they are closed, poor sports, and weighty enough to cause real harm to everyone else, especially competing closed-source software houses. Think Lotus 1-2-3, which was killed by poor sportsmanship despite being technically superior to Excel at the time, likewise WordPerfect (ain't dead yet, but a shadow of its former self).
But why are you so concerned about Microsoft?
There will be TENS OF THOUSANDS more if we do not devalue software production to the point where it is not feasible to enter a market.
This monomania with sales is getting wearing. There are many other ways to make money. Most vertical markets can sharge heaps for the software anyway, and in fact the vast majority of their money is made on services. They would often be delighted if the software itself was made free and others maintained most of it for them. Most consultancies would rather gouge their customers for service than ship the bulk of that money to someone else overseas. Vertical markets and consultancies are well on their way to being the only games in town, and were before OSS became a big player - oh, and why is that? (-:
their bigotted neighbors assumed they were somehow connected with the Black Death, and killed them.
True.
In greater numbers than plauge would have.
Not true, to the best of my knowledge.
That's an ironic use of the word `bigot', too. Bigot is a contraction of `by God', as in `no, by God', famous last words for many Protestants, Aryans and other `heretics' on being asked to recant before being burned to death at the stake by said neighbours. The phrase came to mean `stubbornly ignorant' but IRL originated with stubborn enlightenment...
You can spray insecticide all you like and all will happen is the mosquitos will become resistant to it and you're back to square one.
Wrong. Amongst other things, the survivng mosquitos are generally weaker. If you batter their population with enough variety of chemicals, the survivors become non-viable. Selection does have a cost to the species, one which mutation generall amplifies rather than correcting for. If poison - as the poster before me mentioned - in specific target areas, you select for mosquitos that don't favour human dwellings. This is even better since you're not making as large a hole in the biosphere.
Other steps you can take are turning vegetarian (mossies favour carnivores), abstaining from perfume (mossies like it too!), and - as you said - covering standing water (e.g. wells).
he was (implicitly) claiming that the problem is "deviant" sexual behavior that's not permitted by the OT.
You chose the word `deviant', I did not.
For the record, homosexuality (and it even differentiates between being an effeminate homosexual or a butch one, and condemns both) and heterosexual sodomy are not permitted by the NT, either.
In answer to a post below, the OT does indeed condemn homosexuality, very specifically. Read Genesis chapter 19 and tell me if you don't know what it is on about, Leviticus 18:22 against lesbianism, Leviticus 20:13 commands stoning to death of practicing male homosexuals (same penalty for incest or bestiality in the verses round about).
Having got that off our chests, I claim that the problem is dangerous behaviour, and that the remedy long predates AIDS as we know it. What you call that dangerous behaviour is, as always, your choice.
Quite a few people that I know, and many more friend-of-friends, have died of AIDS, although the official cause of death was sometimes different. The original poster (dbrutus, grandparent of your post?) does indeed have a point, and we should mod him up. Oh, I see he has been.
AIDS is spread in Africa almost entirely by heterosexual sex. Stop blaming gays for AIDS.
You're just being a prejudiced bigot, didn't even read what I had to say. I'm blaming stupid practices for AIDS, not gays. Now wake up and use your brain instead of your programming.
Having said that, stats typically show that gays are between three and seven times as likely to die of AIDS as heterosexuals. I believe that the real figures are even worse, because a number of those "heterosexuals" would actually be bisexual but unwilling (or ashamed) to admit it for a variety of reasons including overwhelming prejudice.
If you go back and read my post again, you'll see that I'm advocating whatever is proven to work and chaste heterosexual marriage works most effectively against AIDS.
You'll note that I didn't advocate Islamic (polygynous) marriage, because although that works for the individuals actually married, it forces a large population surplus of single males, with consequent pressure toward homosexuality, which is an unadmitted pandemic in many Islamic countries. If Mohammed had been born female, I think the outcome might have been quite different.
Other prejudice that you might be carrying around include the idea of `genetic' or pre-programmed homosexuality. I've seen this idea espoused by many gay websites and other literature, but never with any real proof, and many of the sites which do advocate it often (to their credit) never make a direct claim, just copious implications, I presume because they really want it to be so, but can't see any firm evidence for it and can't bring themselves to lie directly. I've dealt with a lot of gays, had deep-and-meaningful story-of-my-life conversations with many, and the sum of what I find is that they have all had some significant personal experiences which set them up for being gay (mum dressing them up in girly clothes etc). Consequently, I flatly refuse to believe that a significant number of gays are `born that way'.
Another finesse indulged in by gay sites is the claim that some ministry or other failed to `heal' any of their gay clients. I've not seen the ministry named, but let's say for debate's sake that it is. I know of other ministries that have permanently and gently `healed' gays. And yes, it is indeed real, they're not just burying it to please their peers.
Back at the Christophobia, your prejudice does have a real basis in fact: there are at least as many self-righteous dickheads travelling under the `Christian' banner as anywhere else. There are also large numbers of organisations claiming to be Christian (or, more often, `The Christian Church'), and evidently without reasonable cause. However, this doesn't prevent the basic premises of `primitive' Christianity from being demonstrable and effective in everyday life. You can go to Moses' crossing and dive on the drowned Egyptian army (friends of mine have done this), touch the rock that split and fountained, it's not myth and fantasy.
On the other hand, materialism is indeed myth and fantasy. It's dead easy to shoot materialists with their own weapons, so to speak. Take, for example, quantum physics. There are not enough atoms (and not enough quantum ticks) in the universe to have formed even one copy of the DNA of a painfully simple organism by random juggling of atoms, no matter how rosy-hued a view of chemistry you take. We're talking tens of thousands of orders of magnitude impossible here. And if you add any structure to that, in an effort to find "useful" intermediate stages, the odds go down.
There are, of course, a myriad other falsifications to hand to take down materialism, the main point is you're assuming that it's true and working from there. That's not wise. Indulge in a bit more metaphysics before trying to diss Christianity, and don't lump everything labelled `Christian' together as if all Chrsitians were mental clones.
What about the topic? Yes, it's a wordplay. The aircraft that levelled Hiroshima long after the Japanese surrender offers was named Enola Gay, but homosexuality has killed many more people than her.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if you carefully inspect both article and posts you will see that I don't have any problem with that, nor have I ever claimed it to be a problem. The problem is that they are doing this and telling other people not to because the GPL is `viral'. Clear?
Show me where I claim that, and I'll freely recant. If you can't, you recant.
And yes, I've seen which axe you're grinding too.
We have one of those. He goes completely troppo/postal when people don't accept everything he says, too. It's quite a circus.
Said product would be next to useless without it. Ergo, Microsoft sell a product which relies on and includes GPLed software, and they make money from it.
Yeah, like Debian...? (-:
Mandrake and RedHat, at least, offer free 100%-OSS versions of their stuff. Every tool that Mandrake develops is GPLed, yet modulo a mistake with trying to do exactly what you're proposing, several years ago, they would have been the first profitable Linux distribution company. As it is, they're steaming ahead under `bankruptcy protection' (the French flavour of that is, surprise, quite different to the US one) and will probably come out of it quite well.
You're on the right track.
But why not buy a dual-CPU G4 box and use Linux on it. How much difference does Aqua make to a server?
Microsoft sell the GNU C Compiler at a profit (as part of SFU). Would you like another run-up at that statement?
Not. You have indeed been very helpful so far.
I haven't really needed to, many others have swarmed in and done th job for me. Think of it as an Open Source Debate. (-:
Yah, will fix. The AKA is because some people call it freeware, not because I think they are equivalent.
...and OpenOffice.org, and Mozilla, and others, and PostFix's licence is closer to GPL than to BSD. But I guess the BSD packages leaped out at you for a reason. (-:
I personally think that people should have complete choice in their licencing, and that variety is the spice of life, and I am pleased that there is much excellent BSD stuff out there too, but I always licence my own stuff GPL unless it is to be reintegrated with a BSD-ish system.
...prepare to vi! (-:
The whole idea is that when we hear answers, we re-engineer the questions to head them off. Eventually, even the thickest Mongo in the audience will notice several things:
Once this becomes commonplace, Shared Source will lose most of its value for Microsoft.
You will notice that they're almost out of strategies as well. Invoking State Department officials against OSS has backfired (cost Microsoft and the US gummint both valuable `face'). FUD has backfired (as real people in real situations find out they're lying, and say so). Benchmarking has backfired (because `we' answered it, every challenge resulted in massive improvements to their OSS competitors and we're now effectively unbeatable). Slanted TCO studies have backfired (ie it was becoming plain that they had retreated to special cases and special pleading). `Independent' studies (and `switchers') backfired. About all they have left is patents, and I think they'll shoot themselves in the foot there too.
What he said was:
How I and DeputySpade interpret that is "the licence says Open Source but the project manager treats it like Share Source". Assuming that we are correct in our interpretation, DS is indeed technically correct - although I don't see the need for calling simplexMethod a `gonad'. It might be politically infeasible for SM to take over or fork the project (e.g., PM is up the management tree from him). OT3H, if he came back as an AC and somehow named the project, someone in a different situation may well be able to fork off with it.
Association with well-known situations can often perform more instruction in one line than the remaining four pages of the article. Think of it as tab-completion for concepts. In the bad old days it was called `a parable'.
It was an improvement on `Shelf Company 27005'. (-:
Locally, we have (unrelated) companies named TwoBlueDots and BlueSkyFrog which are doing a roaring trade. I'm a long way from king of the flippant names hill.
Is NineNine better? I keep thinking of scarlet inflatables.
Maybe at heart, but at wall-clock he's about 3.45 times that. (-:
...but I think you need to meet more of the people at the creative hub of marketing. They're in the `You wanna see something really scarey?' category. (-:
The email I got over this is universally positive. Linux Australia's webserver is taking a shellacking (the Debian-on-Alpha server isn't raising a sweat - thanks Digital-now-Compaq Australia and Spice for that - but the hit counters are), more people have seen one of their new banners in one day than the old banner in the last 2 years.
However, I fear universally positive responses, because it indicates one of the same weaknesses suffered by closed source software: the problem is being approached with what amounts to a single mindset. The occasional negative response, even if utterly without merit, is a good indication.
While not knocking the positive responses I did get (they're all going into version 2 of the doc when it gets rewritten presently, and credited), I've learned a lot of stuff from watching NoCoward's arguments going down in flames despite an amazingly energetic personal defense of them. The special thing about NC's stuff is that nobody would have raised much of it if we hadn't had such a manic devil's advocate on the case. This saves a lot of messing around and egg-on-face in the field, and makes the approach so much more effective.
So... I'd like to take this chance to thank NoCoward for his/her helpful input, and if (s)he wants a spot in the credits for version 2, including a mention that (s)he disagrees with every word of it, email me and it shall be done. Version 2 is likely to be published in Australian Developer magazine before it hits Linux Australia's webserver.
There will always be a place for people who swim against the flow. (-:
By way of explanation, I'm a language bigot. I speak about 30 words each of Spanish, French, Italian, Indonesian. If it helps, I also speak C, ForTran, Pascal, CoBOL, Python, Ruby, BASH, awk, sed, PHP, SQL and numerous assemblers. (-:
Will fix in version 1.4, copy/pasted the word from another website that seemed to know what it was on about.
Using the same reasoning, sustaining war or at least the realistic threat of war would be good because the military are a major employer of soldiers.
I'd be much happier with the idea of paying most of the soldiers to do something constructive instead, and let the military antagonism drop, wouldn't you?
`We' generally don't, modulo a vocal few, but the focus on Microsoft is because they are closed, poor sports, and weighty enough to cause real harm to everyone else, especially competing closed-source software houses. Think Lotus 1-2-3, which was killed by poor sportsmanship despite being technically superior to Excel at the time, likewise WordPerfect (ain't dead yet, but a shadow of its former self).
But why are you so concerned about Microsoft?
This monomania with sales is getting wearing. There are many other ways to make money. Most vertical markets can sharge heaps for the software anyway, and in fact the vast majority of their money is made on services. They would often be delighted if the software itself was made free and others maintained most of it for them. Most consultancies would rather gouge their customers for service than ship the bulk of that money to someone else overseas. Vertical markets and consultancies are well on their way to being the only games in town, and were before OSS became a big player - oh, and why is that? (-:
Stands to reason - we destroy practically everything else, it must be the Universe's way of protecting itself against us.
True.
Not true, to the best of my knowledge.
That's an ironic use of the word `bigot', too. Bigot is a contraction of `by God', as in `no, by God', famous last words for many Protestants, Aryans and other `heretics' on being asked to recant before being burned to death at the stake by said neighbours. The phrase came to mean `stubbornly ignorant' but IRL originated with stubborn enlightenment...
Wrong. Amongst other things, the survivng mosquitos are generally weaker. If you batter their population with enough variety of chemicals, the survivors become non-viable. Selection does have a cost to the species, one which mutation generall amplifies rather than correcting for. If poison - as the poster before me mentioned - in specific target areas, you select for mosquitos that don't favour human dwellings. This is even better since you're not making as large a hole in the biosphere.
Other steps you can take are turning vegetarian (mossies favour carnivores), abstaining from perfume (mossies like it too!), and - as you said - covering standing water (e.g. wells).
You chose the word `deviant', I did not.
For the record, homosexuality (and it even differentiates between being an effeminate homosexual or a butch one, and condemns both) and heterosexual sodomy are not permitted by the NT, either.
In answer to a post below, the OT does indeed condemn homosexuality, very specifically. Read Genesis chapter 19 and tell me if you don't know what it is on about, Leviticus 18:22 against lesbianism, Leviticus 20:13 commands stoning to death of practicing male homosexuals (same penalty for incest or bestiality in the verses round about).
Having got that off our chests, I claim that the problem is dangerous behaviour, and that the remedy long predates AIDS as we know it. What you call that dangerous behaviour is, as always, your choice.
Quite a few people that I know, and many more friend-of-friends, have died of AIDS, although the official cause of death was sometimes different. The original poster (dbrutus, grandparent of your post?) does indeed have a point, and we should mod him up. Oh, I see he has been.
You're just being a prejudiced bigot, didn't even read what I had to say. I'm blaming stupid practices for AIDS, not gays. Now wake up and use your brain instead of your programming.
Having said that, stats typically show that gays are between three and seven times as likely to die of AIDS as heterosexuals. I believe that the real figures are even worse, because a number of those "heterosexuals" would actually be bisexual but unwilling (or ashamed) to admit it for a variety of reasons including overwhelming prejudice.
If you go back and read my post again, you'll see that I'm advocating whatever is proven to work and chaste heterosexual marriage works most effectively against AIDS.
You'll note that I didn't advocate Islamic (polygynous) marriage, because although that works for the individuals actually married, it forces a large population surplus of single males, with consequent pressure toward homosexuality, which is an unadmitted pandemic in many Islamic countries. If Mohammed had been born female, I think the outcome might have been quite different.
Other prejudice that you might be carrying around include the idea of `genetic' or pre-programmed homosexuality. I've seen this idea espoused by many gay websites and other literature, but never with any real proof, and many of the sites which do advocate it often (to their credit) never make a direct claim, just copious implications, I presume because they really want it to be so, but can't see any firm evidence for it and can't bring themselves to lie directly. I've dealt with a lot of gays, had deep-and-meaningful story-of-my-life conversations with many, and the sum of what I find is that they have all had some significant personal experiences which set them up for being gay (mum dressing them up in girly clothes etc). Consequently, I flatly refuse to believe that a significant number of gays are `born that way'.
Another finesse indulged in by gay sites is the claim that some ministry or other failed to `heal' any of their gay clients. I've not seen the ministry named, but let's say for debate's sake that it is. I know of other ministries that have permanently and gently `healed' gays. And yes, it is indeed real, they're not just burying it to please their peers.
Back at the Christophobia, your prejudice does have a real basis in fact: there are at least as many self-righteous dickheads travelling under the `Christian' banner as anywhere else. There are also large numbers of organisations claiming to be Christian (or, more often, `The Christian Church'), and evidently without reasonable cause. However, this doesn't prevent the basic premises of `primitive' Christianity from being demonstrable and effective in everyday life. You can go to Moses' crossing and dive on the drowned Egyptian army (friends of mine have done this), touch the rock that split and fountained, it's not myth and fantasy.
On the other hand, materialism is indeed myth and fantasy. It's dead easy to shoot materialists with their own weapons, so to speak. Take, for example, quantum physics. There are not enough atoms (and not enough quantum ticks) in the universe to have formed even one copy of the DNA of a painfully simple organism by random juggling of atoms, no matter how rosy-hued a view of chemistry you take. We're talking tens of thousands of orders of magnitude impossible here. And if you add any structure to that, in an effort to find "useful" intermediate stages, the odds go down.
There are, of course, a myriad other falsifications to hand to take down materialism, the main point is you're assuming that it's true and working from there. That's not wise. Indulge in a bit more metaphysics before trying to diss Christianity, and don't lump everything labelled `Christian' together as if all Chrsitians were mental clones.
What about the topic? Yes, it's a wordplay. The aircraft that levelled Hiroshima long after the Japanese surrender offers was named Enola Gay, but homosexuality has killed many more people than her.
Against which thousands of visits have been logged...?