He'd like to get into the Linux market, but to do that he might have to use some GPL'code
Nobody have to use GPL Code!
He can just write his program for GNU/Linux like he writes his program for Windows or MacOS!
The difference is that he has the option to be part of our community and build upon our GPL code. But that's just another option, an option that doesn't exist in the proprietary software world at all!
At the end just everybody have this additional option but nobody force someone to use this option!
Take this option and be part of our community or don't take the option, don't look at our code, don't use it and just write your own code like you would do it on windows, macos or every other os. There is no problem at all!
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
sure, both BSD licenses are Free Software licenses.
Just read again the part you have quoted:
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
>How about this.... If you force people to pay money to make software based on what is touted as a free software platform, you are in the wrong line of culture.
How about this... If you create software which denies freedom to their users on a free software platform, you are in the wrong line of culture.
Personally i prefer gnome/xfce as Desktop and use Gtk+ for my GUI apps.
But i think the license argument is just a alibi argument. Both toolkits are free software, that's what count on o free operating system, so talk about technical advantage. Gtk+ and Qt has so much to offer. So start talking about the advantage and disadvantage of both. But don't use that easy excuses like the licenses.
The GPL was last revised in 1991. In 1991, people used plenty of Internet software, including not only sendmail and FTP, but also the first web servers and browsers.
Yes they use smtp,pop, ftp, http.
But the new GPL will not change something about this thinks.
It's not about thinks were you send data to someone else, for example the smtp server of the provider.
It's about were programs were send to you that you can use it to do some work. This is a new kind of "distribution" beside the classic ways of sending a binary and execute them on your pc.
It's about web-services were "real" programs come over the network on your display and you use them like they were on your own PC. This kind of services don't exist 1991. I would say, for the most users this web service come up 1995-1998 and become popular at most for the last 5 years.
1991 (almost) all programs you used were on your PC. There were no flatrate and no high bandwidth to send real programs to the user through the internet and interact with it in a reasonable speed, beside some university networks or simular constitutions both nothing for most of the 'normal' people. This is a new situation for about 5 to max. 10 years (mass usage).
And the usage of this will increase in the feature.
If we think about a feature scenario were everyone has only a thin-client and everything comes over the network, operating system, office suite, text editor,... What would happen with the GPL v2? It would be useless, the users would have lost all there freedom.
And that is what the FSF and other have to talk about, no more and no less.
That new constraint would be a totally different principle for the license. The current principle is that if someone gets an executable from you, they also can get the source code, just as you got the source code from which you made your executable.
No, the the principle of the license GPL v2 is, that if someone use a program he should have the freedom to looks how it works, change it and share it. At the time GPL v2 was written the only way someone could use a program was by getting a copy. So it was decribed about the distribution of software.
Today thinks has changed. Often people use software without getting a copy, just over the internet or other networks. And this is a gap in the principle of the licence because it creates a situation were people use a program but don't have the freedoms described above.
This is a new situation and we have to think about it and that is exactly what the FSF is doing.
The new principle would be requiring anyone who customized the source to release all customizations.
no, the principle are the same. If someone uses the program he sould have the freedoms described above. Only the time has changed, today you don't always need a copy on your PC to run a program. And the new license have to take care about this new situation to keep the freedom of the users valid.
The FSF and other groups have to discuss this 'problem'. But today it's to early to talk about details, because nothing official is released about GPL v3.
here my arguments.
Java was long time _the_ VM. And because they were the only option they could make their game "we own java and we alone decide were we go".
But now time has changed.
There is another System C# and the CLI. People say that it has advantages to java. I'm not that deep in java and c# to confirm that. But for me it sounds logical. Java was the first VM and since them there was enough space to learn more about the concept and learn from the mistakes of java.
But i think that's not the main reason. I think both platforms are well enough for most of the usual tasks.
But MS will push.Net on windows and i'm sure that this will be one of the main platforms for developing on windows in the future. So you have a great integration in windows. On the other hand you have Mono. In most cases it will be compatible with.Net, so your programs runs on windows, unix and MacOS.
But at the same time you can have full integration in one platfrom:
- windows:.Net activeX, COM,...
- Unix: Gtk#, gnome#, gst#,...
- MacOS: coca#
so you have all options: best integration or portability.
And all this bases on a ISO standardised C# and CLI.
So the arguments for.Net:
- comparable to jave (maybe better)
- multi language support
- based on a open standard
- platform independend or best integration (depends on what costumer wants)
- Free solutions with Mono (were everyone can decide what to do with the software)
And what have sun to over?
That there name is not Microsoft? That may be an argument for some kidies but not for the whole IT market all over the world.
> Sun doesn't go around looking for ways to be evil, which is more than I can say for Microsoft.
Both Sun and Microsoft are big companies with a variety of positions inside them. From one side, for example, Sun donated OpenOffice to the community and from the other, they funded SCO, threatened JBoss etc.
MS support the standardization of the CLR and C# as Sun never did for the JVM.
Slashdot Mirror
He'd like to get into the Linux market, but to do that he might have to use some GPL'code
Nobody have to use GPL Code!
He can just write his program for GNU/Linux like he writes his program for Windows or MacOS! The difference is that he has the option to be part of our community and build upon our GPL code. But that's just another option, an option that doesn't exist in the proprietary software world at all!
At the end just everybody have this additional option but nobody force someone to use this option!
Take this option and be part of our community or don't take the option, don't look at our code, don't use it and just write your own code like you would do it on windows, macos or every other os. There is no problem at all!
Just read again the part you have quoted:
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
How about this... If you create software which denies freedom to their users on a free software platform, you are in the wrong line of culture.
Personally i prefer gnome/xfce as Desktop and use Gtk+ for my GUI apps.
But i think the license argument is just a alibi argument. Both toolkits are free software, that's what count on o free operating system, so talk about technical advantage. Gtk+ and Qt has so much to offer. So start talking about the advantage and disadvantage of both. But don't use that easy excuses like the licenses.
Yes they use smtp,pop, ftp, http.
But the new GPL will not change something about this thinks.
It's not about thinks were you send data to someone else, for example the smtp server of the provider.
It's about were programs were send to you that you can use it to do some work. This is a new kind of "distribution" beside the classic ways of sending a binary and execute them on your pc.
It's about web-services were "real" programs come over the network on your display and you use them like they were on your own PC. This kind of services don't exist 1991. I would say, for the most users this web service come up 1995-1998 and become popular at most for the last 5 years.
1991 (almost) all programs you used were on your PC. There were no flatrate and no high bandwidth to send real programs to the user through the internet and interact with it in a reasonable speed, beside some university networks or simular constitutions both nothing for most of the 'normal' people. This is a new situation for about 5 to max. 10 years (mass usage).
And the usage of this will increase in the feature.
If we think about a feature scenario were everyone has only a thin-client and everything comes over the network, operating system, office suite, text editor,... What would happen with the GPL v2? It would be useless, the users would have lost all there freedom.
And that is what the FSF and other have to talk about, no more and no less.
No, the the principle of the license GPL v2 is, that if someone use a program he should have the freedom to looks how it works, change it and share it. At the time GPL v2 was written the only way someone could use a program was by getting a copy. So it was decribed about the distribution of software.
Today thinks has changed. Often people use software without getting a copy, just over the internet or other networks. And this is a gap in the principle of the licence because it creates a situation were people use a program but don't have the freedoms described above.
This is a new situation and we have to think about it and that is exactly what the FSF is doing.
The new principle would be requiring anyone who customized the source to release all customizations.
no, the principle are the same. If someone uses the program he sould have the freedoms described above. Only the time has changed, today you don't always need a copy on your PC to run a program. And the new license have to take care about this new situation to keep the freedom of the users valid.
The FSF and other groups have to discuss this 'problem'. But today it's to early to talk about details, because nothing official is released about GPL v3.
i have answered the post from agraupe and he talks about c# vs java and not about .Net!
Java was long time _the_ VM. And because they were the only option they could make their game "we own java and we alone decide were we go".
But now time has changed.
There is another System C# and the CLI. People say that it has advantages to java. I'm not that deep in java and c# to confirm that. But for me it sounds logical. Java was the first VM and since them there was enough space to learn more about the concept and learn from the mistakes of java.
But i think that's not the main reason. I think both platforms are well enough for most of the usual tasks.
But MS will push .Net on windows and i'm sure that this will be one of the main platforms for developing on windows in the future. So you have a great integration in windows. On the other hand you have Mono. In most cases it will be compatible with .Net, so your programs runs on windows, unix and MacOS. .Net activeX, COM,...
But at the same time you can have full integration in one platfrom:
- windows:
- Unix: Gtk#, gnome#, gst#,...
- MacOS: coca#
so you have all options: best integration or portability.
And all this bases on a ISO standardised C# and CLI.
So the arguments for .Net:
- comparable to jave (maybe better)
- multi language support
- based on a open standard
- platform independend or best integration (depends on what costumer wants)
- Free solutions with Mono (were everyone can decide what to do with the software)
And what have sun to over?
That there name is not Microsoft? That may be an argument for some kidies but not for the whole IT market all over the world.
No! C# is an open ISO and ECMA Standard!
> Sun doesn't go around looking for ways to be evil, which is more than I can say for Microsoft.
Both Sun and Microsoft are big companies with a variety of positions inside them. From one side, for example, Sun donated OpenOffice to the community and from the other, they funded SCO, threatened JBoss etc.
MS support the standardization of the CLR and C# as Sun never did for the JVM.