The GPL happens to be written to be easily understood
That's your justification for not having it properly lawyered? Anyone can misconstrue anything, given the right circumstances. Having a lawyer look over it is a precaution - and a really good idea, given that you can get sued for not doing "due diligence".
If you're going to be licensing software under *any* license, it pays to have a second set of eyes looking things over as well. If it happens to be your lawyer, well, you're a little bit better off.
Personally, I will use GPL software and occasionally, even recommend it to someone else. My personal preference is for the BSD License - I just don't care about all the political and philosophical ramifications.
you don't need a lawyer to understand your obligations under the GPL
Perhaps not, but it's a damn good idea to have a lawyer look it over to offer suggestions about what could and could not happen. Being concerned about things that affect the way you do business never hurt anyone.
Consider this: you drop a couple of hundred thousand on development, only to find out you have to give it up because someone used GPL software in the project, it's going to suck to explain that to the people who provided the money and who were expecting something proprietary.
If the idea of owning all personally identifiable data about yourself were to pass as law, there would certainly be exceptions for law enforcement.
There always are - the FCC just passed rules stating that law enforcement has to be able to tap VOIP communications, pretty much destroying chance of having a secure connection.
It's been that way for a long time, because they are unable to compete with the pace of technology and so law-enforcement always gets exceptions.
Only inexperienced Linux users expect Linux to run on any hardware - the rest of the world either doesn't give a damn, hasn't heard of it, or has a grip on reality.
However, everyone expects Windows to run either because they use it, or it allows a bit snide commentary if it fails.
OS X (until now) just ran on Apple hardware and that was enough. Now, it seems Apple has opened the floodgates wide for people to bitch and moan about how it's not compatible with their old dot-matrix printer.
"I don't take sides, I kill for anyone". Big fucking hero.
I'm not out to be heroic - there are plenty of people much smarter with way more time on their hands who can and want to do that. I have to eat and I have to make a living. There's my justification - curse it all you want. If I'm erring, it's on the side of practicality, where I can pick and choose my battles.
The fight to stop YOUR freedom to code
Get over it - they can't stop you from coding. They can't stop you from releasing it, either. The net is way too powerful for the kind of Machiavellian schemes you are imagining. And if you, or others like you, want to represent me, then find out what I want, not what you think I need.
. MS uses BSD code as part of its war against freedom and you, you mug, are one of the targets of that war.
(see above about Machiavellian schemes). If Microsoft uses BSD code, great. It's legal. Nothing you or I can do about it. That's what the license is for.
Ultimately, I would rather lead by example, not lead by force. BSD licensing allows me to hand out whatever code I choose to and not have to worry about how it's used. The responsibility for ethical use or contribution of the code rests on the shoulders of the next person in line.
My final word is this: you can say I'm idiot or amoral or whatever, but I will always say that people should be generous or altruistic or whatever because they want to, not because you or I or anyone else tells them they should be.
To use the BSD license is to devalue the time you spent on the code.
Not at all. Perhaps the value comes from spending time with the code, not from the actual code itself.
A BSD-licensed project is shouting into vacuum - nobody but other altruists will ever publish improvements.
And your point is? So what? Real altruism has to start somewhere and it doesn't start with the GPL. Forced altruism is not altruism.
GPL means that others who use the code are required to be as generous as you were.
Required to be generous? Being generous should never be required. One should be generous because one wants to be generous or because one wants to contribute. Forcing people to be generous will freely make them assholes.
The BSD License values the individual's achievements, but doesn't require anyone else to if they don't want to. The GPL values the group contribution to the detriment of the individual members.
You missed the point - he was speaking ironically.
No one group deserves more Constitutional Rights than anyone else under any circumstances. We're all supposed to be equal under the law. It's just that we've set up a system where some people are more equal and others are less equal.
I consider drug tests and drm and all the other assorted crap to be punishment for someone else's inability to control their own urges in a manner that's socially responsible. Actually, it's way more complicated than that, because I don't consider pot smokers to be all that harmful to society, in general.
Nonetheless, we keep getting saddled with the stupid laws because someone in Washington gets their dander up when some well-funded "public interest group" pays them to and it occurs no matter which side of the political fence our "honorable" representatives take, because a) the public has limited understanding, b) it looks and sounds good, or c) it's for the children.
Sorry, started ranting.
Washington has become divorced from reality in a very real way. Most of our Representatives and Senators can't connect with the people they're affecting beyond any superficial manner, regardless of their personal wealth. It may not even be possible, considering the number of people they're supposed to be representing. The only thing they're sure of connecting with are fat checkbooks and sleazy fuckers like RIAA or TCPA, who have a vested interest in limiting the rights of consumers.
So when I yell "Bitch! Make me a sammich!" at the computer, I won't have to do it twice.
Great. All things considered, I'd be happy if it did what I wanted it to, when I wanted it do, rather than what I was considering wanting it to, before I was done thinking about it.
Look, considering that this is the most female action some people can aspire to, that perhaps 10% of humanity is actually worth saving, and a whole lot of other cynical reasons, I say good luck, go to it, and bring on the fembots.
We had our chance. Let the robots inherit the earth. It's not like they're getting a great deal.
So, by trying to reduce altruism to a simple form, you have all missed the mark.
Why people are altruistic is important, but more to the individuals being altruistic than it should be society at large. What we need to watch out for are the results of the altruism - because they can make people dependent on that kindness, which has a negative effect overall.
Don't worry so much about why or how the altruism is expressed, worry about the results of that expression.
Or rather don't worry, but keep a watchful eye.
And not constantly, either. That leads to a world of Woody Allens constantly examining their own motives when it's not really necessary or interesting.
which had a feature set strikingly similar to that of Reiser
What's the big deal about a feature set? That doesn't require advanced reverse engineering, just close attention to working details. Since just about every Open Source project publishes their specs and documentation, one need not even look at the code to figure out how to duplicate the featureset.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but Microsoft and other companies have people who have been doing this stuff for years and know the same tips and tricks everyone else does.
If they've taken BSD code, that's all perfectly good and legal.
Bash them if you will, but bash them when you have proof instead of just throwing around rumor and innuendo. If you want to believe they're wrong, fine - but there's no point in casting aspersions without the proof to back it up.
The spirit of the law is what you should respect, but in reality, the letter of the law is all that you are required to respect.
Creative Commons has enough teeth, I suppose, to make one follow the law, but it falls way short on specifications and standards, which will trip somebody up eventually. At some point, somebody with way more legal ability than myself or you, or most of the people involved in CC, is going to have to sit down and work out all those ugly little permutations covering the various media or someone's gonna lose an eye.
It's a good idea that's only half-baked, or maybe half half-baked.
Seriously, you've never thought that correcting a watch once a year isn't that much of a struggle?
Oh, gods. First there's the whole fumbling with the watchstrap thing (they just never seem to come undone at the first go). Then I have to run around asking people the time until I get a proper consensus, and of course, the ever so tedious drudgery of looking at some other timepiece, knowing that it's anywhere from a millisecond to ten minutes off the the correct time.
Really, it's the milliseconds that do you in - if someone can't be bothered to keep their clock exactly correct, then they do not deserve to live, if you ask me.
But once the watch is reset, there's all the trouble of having to put it back on, reversing the unlatching motion, etc.
Personally, I'd rather hand-calculate two-million digit prime numbers with pen and ink.
---
Is it really that much of a struggle to set your watch?
So what does this have to do with whether there are one or fifty Linux distributions?
It's a pity, but you're right. In the real world, evolution takes care of the dying software companies by killing them off and forcing the developers to go elsewhere, like to software companies that create software for the home.
Unfortunately, evolution doesn't work in that respect on Linux, because all it takes is one disgruntled hacker to keep a distro going in some form or fashion, regardless of whether it's generally useful or not or even practical.
Having read some works from all of the authors you mention, I'll say this in rebuttal:
It's entertainment.
That's it. That's why I read Harry Potter. I enjoy it. If you want to sit up on you high horse and look down on everyone else who enjoys this series of books, that's your right.
Without a doubt, the lamest post in many months. RMX, you are an idiot for trying to make this spurious tie-in. Timothy, as an editor, one would hope that you had better sense than to allow this shite to make it to the front page.
But that just doesn't work for the internet. The internet works ONLY by the fact that it is open.
Most people don't think of it that way, though. They don't think in terms of network and internet and so on - they think in terms of the equipment necessary to establish networks and connect to the internet (though the two are pretty much the same). The end result is that any use of their un-WEPPED router is viewed as infringing upon their property rights.
Is this right? Hard to say - either technology forces psychological change, or perhaps the technology should enforce our existing ideals. It's a balancing act in the end, but most things are and we fail miserably at them, on the whole.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL happens to be written to be easily understood
That's your justification for not having it properly lawyered? Anyone can misconstrue anything, given the right circumstances. Having a lawyer look over it is a precaution - and a really good idea, given that you can get sued for not doing "due diligence".
If you're going to be licensing software under *any* license, it pays to have a second set of eyes looking things over as well. If it happens to be your lawyer, well, you're a little bit better off.
Personally, I will use GPL software and occasionally, even recommend it to someone else. My personal preference is for the BSD License - I just don't care about all the political and philosophical ramifications.
you don't need a lawyer to understand your obligations under the GPL
Perhaps not, but it's a damn good idea to have a lawyer look it over to offer suggestions about what could and could not happen. Being concerned about things that affect the way you do business never hurt anyone.
Consider this: you drop a couple of hundred thousand on development, only to find out you have to give it up because someone used GPL software in the project, it's going to suck to explain that to the people who provided the money and who were expecting something proprietary.
If the idea of owning all personally identifiable data about yourself were to pass as law, there would certainly be exceptions for law enforcement.
There always are - the FCC just passed rules stating that law enforcement has to be able to tap VOIP communications, pretty much destroying chance of having a secure connection.
It's been that way for a long time, because they are unable to compete with the pace of technology and so law-enforcement always gets exceptions.
Only inexperienced Linux users expect Linux to run on any hardware - the rest of the world either doesn't give a damn, hasn't heard of it, or has a grip on reality.
However, everyone expects Windows to run either because they use it, or it allows a bit snide commentary if it fails.
OS X (until now) just ran on Apple hardware and that was enough. Now, it seems Apple has opened the floodgates wide for people to bitch and moan about how it's not compatible with their old dot-matrix printer.
Whether it's reasonable or not.
"I don't take sides, I kill for anyone". Big fucking hero.
I'm not out to be heroic - there are plenty of people much smarter with way more time on their hands who can and want to do that. I have to eat and I have to make a living. There's my justification - curse it all you want. If I'm erring, it's on the side of practicality, where I can pick and choose my battles.
The fight to stop YOUR freedom to code
Get over it - they can't stop you from coding. They can't stop you from releasing it, either. The net is way too powerful for the kind of Machiavellian schemes you are imagining. And if you, or others like you, want to represent me, then find out what I want, not what you think I need.
. MS uses BSD code as part of its war against freedom and you, you mug, are one of the targets of that war.
(see above about Machiavellian schemes). If Microsoft uses BSD code, great. It's legal. Nothing you or I can do about it. That's what the license is for.
Ultimately, I would rather lead by example, not lead by force. BSD licensing allows me to hand out whatever code I choose to and not have to worry about how it's used. The responsibility for ethical use or contribution of the code rests on the shoulders of the next person in line.
My final word is this: you can say I'm idiot or amoral or whatever, but I will always say that people should be generous or altruistic or whatever because they want to, not because you or I or anyone else tells them they should be.
Anything else is religion.
To use the BSD license is to devalue the time you spent on the code.
Not at all. Perhaps the value comes from spending time with the code, not from the actual code itself.
A BSD-licensed project is shouting into vacuum - nobody but other altruists will ever publish improvements.
And your point is? So what? Real altruism has to start somewhere and it doesn't start with the GPL. Forced altruism is not altruism.
GPL means that others who use the code are required to be as generous as you were.
Required to be generous? Being generous should never be required. One should be generous because one wants to be generous or because one wants to contribute. Forcing people to be generous will freely make them assholes.
The BSD License values the individual's achievements, but doesn't require anyone else to if they don't want to. The GPL values the group contribution to the detriment of the individual members.
Which one is more free?
I would call it Free From Philosophy.
Or perhaps Free From Hidden Agendas.
Free From Politics.
Free From Misinterpretation.
If you execute a specific elisp file at a key time, emacs displays a very graphic mini-game involving Richard Stallman.
I would pay money not to see that.
My eyes! The burning!
You missed the point - he was speaking ironically.
No one group deserves more Constitutional Rights than anyone else under any circumstances. We're all supposed to be equal under the law. It's just that we've set up a system where some people are more equal and others are less equal.
I consider drug tests and drm and all the other assorted crap to be punishment for someone else's inability to control their own urges in a manner that's socially responsible. Actually, it's way more complicated than that, because I don't consider pot smokers to be all that harmful to society, in general.
Nonetheless, we keep getting saddled with the stupid laws because someone in Washington gets their dander up when some well-funded "public interest group" pays them to and it occurs no matter which side of the political fence our "honorable" representatives take, because a) the public has limited understanding, b) it looks and sounds good, or c) it's for the children.
Sorry, started ranting.
Washington has become divorced from reality in a very real way. Most of our Representatives and Senators can't connect with the people they're affecting beyond any superficial manner, regardless of their personal wealth. It may not even be possible, considering the number of people they're supposed to be representing. The only thing they're sure of connecting with are fat checkbooks and sleazy fuckers like RIAA or TCPA, who have a vested interest in limiting the rights of consumers.
You do realize that the only difference between a "patriot" and a "terrorist" is based on who's doing the defining, right?
So when I yell "Bitch! Make me a sammich!" at the computer, I won't have to do it twice.
Great. All things considered, I'd be happy if it did what I wanted it to, when I wanted it do, rather than what I was considering wanting it to, before I was done thinking about it.
And this is a problem, why?
Look, considering that this is the most female action some people can aspire to, that perhaps 10% of humanity is actually worth saving, and a whole lot of other cynical reasons, I say good luck, go to it, and bring on the fembots.
We had our chance. Let the robots inherit the earth. It's not like they're getting a great deal.
o_0
Which is not why I use FreeBSD, but it certainly goes on the list of minor strikes against OpenBSD.
Add up enough strikes and sooner or later you're talking about a real reason.
So, by trying to reduce altruism to a simple form, you have all missed the mark.
Why people are altruistic is important, but more to the individuals being altruistic than it should be society at large. What we need to watch out for are the results of the altruism - because they can make people dependent on that kindness, which has a negative effect overall.
Don't worry so much about why or how the altruism is expressed, worry about the results of that expression.
Or rather don't worry, but keep a watchful eye.
And not constantly, either. That leads to a world of Woody Allens constantly examining their own motives when it's not really necessary or interesting.
which had a feature set strikingly similar to that of Reiser
What's the big deal about a feature set? That doesn't require advanced reverse engineering, just close attention to working details. Since just about every Open Source project publishes their specs and documentation, one need not even look at the code to figure out how to duplicate the featureset.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but Microsoft and other companies have people who have been doing this stuff for years and know the same tips and tricks everyone else does.
If they've taken BSD code, that's all perfectly good and legal.
Bash them if you will, but bash them when you have proof instead of just throwing around rumor and innuendo. If you want to believe they're wrong, fine - but there's no point in casting aspersions without the proof to back it up.
What about NetBSD? You forgot NetBSD!
NetBSD is like Poland - it keeps chugging along, but everyone forgets about it.
My guess is that the lowest person in any company that interviewed Alan Kay would be the CEO.
It would mostly consist of:
"How big do you want your office?"
"Can I get you anything?"
"Hookers and beer? No problem!"
and
"When can you start?"
But that's just my guess.
The spirit of the law is what you should respect, but in reality, the letter of the law is all that you are required to respect.
Creative Commons has enough teeth, I suppose, to make one follow the law, but it falls way short on specifications and standards, which will trip somebody up eventually. At some point, somebody with way more legal ability than myself or you, or most of the people involved in CC, is going to have to sit down and work out all those ugly little permutations covering the various media or someone's gonna lose an eye.
It's a good idea that's only half-baked, or maybe half half-baked.
Seriously, you've never thought that correcting a watch once a year isn't that much of a struggle?
Oh, gods. First there's the whole fumbling with the watchstrap thing (they just never seem to come undone at the first go). Then I have to run around asking people the time until I get a proper consensus, and of course, the ever so tedious drudgery of looking at some other timepiece, knowing that it's anywhere from a millisecond to ten minutes off the the correct time.
Really, it's the milliseconds that do you in - if someone can't be bothered to keep their clock exactly correct, then they do not deserve to live, if you ask me.
But once the watch is reset, there's all the trouble of having to put it back on, reversing the unlatching motion, etc.
Personally, I'd rather hand-calculate two-million digit prime numbers with pen and ink.
---
Is it really that much of a struggle to set your watch?
So what does this have to do with whether there are one or fifty Linux distributions?
It's a pity, but you're right. In the real world, evolution takes care of the dying software companies by killing them off and forcing the developers to go elsewhere, like to software companies that create software for the home.
Unfortunately, evolution doesn't work in that respect on Linux, because all it takes is one disgruntled hacker to keep a distro going in some form or fashion, regardless of whether it's generally useful or not or even practical.
So is your computer and anything beyond basic sustenance, housing and clothing.
On the other, hand life would suck without them.
Having read some works from all of the authors you mention, I'll say this in rebuttal:
It's entertainment.
That's it. That's why I read Harry Potter. I enjoy it. If you want to sit up on you high horse and look down on everyone else who enjoys this series of books, that's your right.
Do it somewhere else.
Asshole.
Without a doubt, the lamest post in many months. RMX, you are an idiot for trying to make this spurious tie-in. Timothy, as an editor, one would hope that you had better sense than to allow this shite to make it to the front page.
All of a sudden we're experts on the Chinese internal market?
Inside China? Who knows? The State might just force all its citizens to buy it at gunpoint.
Outside China? Probably not.
But that just doesn't work for the internet. The internet works ONLY by the fact that it is open.
Most people don't think of it that way, though. They don't think in terms of network and internet and so on - they think in terms of the equipment necessary to establish networks and connect to the internet (though the two are pretty much the same). The end result is that any use of their un-WEPPED router is viewed as infringing upon their property rights.
Is this right? Hard to say - either technology forces psychological change, or perhaps the technology should enforce our existing ideals. It's a balancing act in the end, but most things are and we fail miserably at them, on the whole.