"It has occurred to me that Flash on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system."
It has occurred to me that for the past decade, every Linux user has thought his most recent personal itch was the one major entry barrier to Linux desktop domination, and they have all been completely wrong.
The major entry barrier to Linux desktop domination is that even if you're a hardcore Mac or Linux or BSD guy, Windows simply doesn't suck that much. In general, any reasonably competent computer user can sit down at a Windows machine and get his work done. He may have to go out foraging for the right tools, but they're out there, and they're readily accessible.
Meanwhile, there is a vast community of computer users who are NOT reasonably competent, and while they may not be particularly good at getting their work done on Windows, they are EVEN WORSE at getting it done on anything else.
When retarded people can use Linux, you might have a shot at desktop domination. Until then, don't bother.
"I've stored five example job classifications in this structure to demonstrate the system."
"It works! Put all the other classifications in there."
"But this solution isn't scalable."
"Scalable? WTF does that mean? It works. Put all the others in."
"Um... okay, but it will be slow."
"Slow?! We have the fastest mainframes in the world! Deploy it to all the field offices, too."
"Um... it isn't finished."
"What do you mean? It works. Deploy it."
"But it doesn't handle temporary pay modifications."
"Temporary? What do you mean? You either get a raise, or you do not get a raise. There's no temporary."
"Well, if the state has money problems..."
"LOL, money problems? We're California! We don't have money problems!"
"But if that ever changed..."
"What, people are going to stop watching movies? Yeah, right!"
"But if the budget isn't approved by the deadline..."
"That would never happen!"
"But IF IT DID, the system couldn't handle it and you'd need thousands of people to fix it."
"Who cares? There are programmers everywhere! They're cheap! It's easy! Deploy it already!"
"I really think we need to discuss this more..."
"Look, do you like your job?"
*SIGH* "I'll start cutting nine-tracks."
And today, that programmer is sitting at home reading about this, and wishing he had that manager's phone number so he could call it and say "I TOLD YOU SO".
Why is it insensitive to suggest that you're better off with a sluggish VM-hosted alternate O/S window than you are having to reboot? It seems to me that if you're going to run one O/S native and the other virtualised, you want to run the slim and fast one in the VM.
I personally just use Virtual PC. That way, when I need to make the occasional use of Linux, I just fire up the VPC and do my thing in a window on the desktop. I'm sure there's something similar that can run Windows on an X desktop, or on a Mac.
> back-asswards models trying to "convince" players to pay for something.
That's the problem with modern microtransaction systems: the extras aren't REALLY optional, they're essential. If you don't have them, the game sucks.
That has to change. If we're going to have a microtransaction model that works, it has to be things people WANT, but don't NEED. Perry's very clear about this in what little he says during the article, and I seriously doubt he's proposing that traditional game development will disappear. You've just got recency bias - you can't believe that what Perry's talking about isn't what you've already seen, because you've just seen it.
> People don't want to whip out their credit card in midgame > and use it to buy a +3 sword of shiny metal bits. At least > I don't.
Oh, just admit you're a thief and will never buy anything you can steal. We all know that's what you're really saying, so drop the self-righteous crap.
I think Perry's nailed something here: micro-pay games are here to stay, and traditional studios are going to be less of a factor in the future of gaming. The pattern's been there for a while, in fact - small studio builds blockbuster game, big studio buys small studio, founders leave to start new small studio. Those of us who track the industry don't watch companies, we watch people. We don't watch Shiny and Origin and Atari, we watch David Perry and Raph Koster and Nolan Bushnell.
Will games ever be free? They already are. Thousands of games are released every year for free. You never have to buy another game again. What costs is the same thing that always costs: the drive to have the latest and greatest things first. When Crackdown came out, it was $60, and it flew off the shelves because of the Halo 3 Beta invite it contained. If you waited a few weeks, hordes of used copies flooded the shelves. The price on the used shelf plummeted. A couple months down the road, you could pick it up for $15. If what you wanted was a good game, that was fantastic. But if what you wanted was the game everyone else was playing, it was worse than useless.
You don't remember these books as dry and cynical because you didn't care.
You're not seeing them the same way today. Just as I look back on books I loved as a child and see new things, so do you. But the fact remains: they were good books. Children are very, very good at ignoring the things they don't understand in favor of the things they do.
Consider just handing them Heinlein, and letting them figure it out for themselves. Children are robust little machines for making sense of the world. Give them "Stranger in a Strange Land"; all the sex and religion parts whizzed right by me as a kid, and I mainly came away from it with an appreciation for cultural differences. So if you were looking at that book thinking the sex and religion parts were too much, you might be right, but you're also throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've been less than impressed by this feature. In general, I don't do porn, warez, or bittorrent - so the chances of ending up on a malicious site are miniscule. I haven't had any of my scanners report anything at all for years.
My wife loves to steal her some unlicensed fan-subbed anime, though, so she frequently finds herself with malware out the yin-yang.
I've disabled this feature on my AVG install. Drop in the bucket, but I always thought it was probably a Bad Idea anyway.
> if they're looking for a BSD-licensed driver for that particular > card, they'll find it.
But they're not. They're looking for a driver. They find the GPL version, which now has no mention of the BSD version, and they STOP LOOKING. This is basic human nature.
> Then why does it need to be stopped?
Because it damages the people whose credit is removed.
> If it didn't benefit the person who did it, > no-one would do it.
Removing the BSD license from this code dcoesn't benefit the GPL version in any way. It simply damages the BSD version. People are assholes, and will do things just to make other people's lives difficult. Usually out of jealousy and fear. Indeed, the entire point of the GPL is to make your life difficult if you don't release YOUR code under the GPL, too. That's about as petty and self-absorbed as it gets.
> Or to license the patent with the ability to distribute the source
I don't have any control over that. The patent owner controls that. If he says "no", that's the end of it.
> You're already displaying a sense of entitlement towards my code that I wrote
Rather the opposite, actually. I'm denying that YOU are entitled to MY code. My code belongs to me, just like yours belongs to you. If you choose to give yours away, and you did, then I should be able to use it. That shouldn't mean that I have to give mine away, too. I should be able to make my own decision about whether to give mine away, because it's mine.
Which is where we come down to that old argument about "legal" versus "right". It is legal for you to attach any condition you like to the use of your code, just like the patent owner. But that does not make it right. You need to make up your mind about whether this movement is about freedom and sharing, or just some petty and jealous war on commercial software. There is more than enough room in this world for everyone to share only the code they want, and we'll all have plenty of code for plenty of purposes. But as long as a license exists that pretends to be about freedom while taking those freedoms away, we're going to have a constant stream of ignorant people ending up in the prison of that license where their code isn't really free.
The GPL damages this community, and actively destroys the ideals we've worked to instill in it. It is an abomination. It needs to be stopped.
> Again, what useful freedom does he *actually* have?
The freedom to incorporate the code with his own code however he deems appropriate.
Under the BSD license, I get to decide whether my code goes into the open source world or not. If I don't want it there, I don't have to put it there. I wrote the code, so it's my decision what to do with it. I can't take the BSD code off the internet; the genie's out of the bottle. It's simply impossible for me to take anything away from the community. The only thing I can possibly do is add more code, which - being mine - is something I ought to license the way *I* want to license it.
Under the GPL, I don't get that choice. If I use so much as one line from a GPL project, my entire project MUST go under the GPL unless I jump through hoops to turn it into two projects - one that has to be GPL because it contains that line of code, and another that doesn't because it technically doesn't incorporate any GPL code. The GPLv3 is trying very hard to fix that, because RMS is deeply offended at the idea that I might not want to give my work away for free. He wants to make sure I don't get to use any GPL code at all unless I put the GOOD stuff under the GPL, too. He doesn't like it when I have things he doesn't get to have.
> I've yet to see one thing to convince me it's anything other than > BSD zealots
That's all right. You'll grow up one day.
> If the restrictions in the BSD license don't actually remove any > useful freedoms, then what is the point in them?
They remove a useless freedom: the freedom to take away the names of contributors altogether. This doesn't benefit the person who does it at all, but it damages the people whose names are removed. The BSD license prevents that damage.
> So they'll be dependent on you for binaries, unable to fix bugs > they come across or use your code for anything else.
You don't seem to understand the trade here.
There is no open source alternative to the binary I produce. I don't have the right to place the code into the open source world; the rights don't belong to me. I've simply licensed them from the owners.
The choice is not between a closed-source binary and an open-source project. The choice is between a closed-source binary and NOTHING.
I don't like software patents. I think they're wrong. But I don't get to choose the way of the world. When the algorithm my product needs is patented, I have no choice but to license it. That's the law. And when that license says I can't distribute the source code, that's the law, too. When you put your code under a license that I can't legally combine with this algorithm, you don't force me to fight software patents. You simply force me to reinvent the wheel and write code that does the same thing yours does.
Now, if you DIDN'T make me spend two hundred hours designing, building, testing, and debugging code you've already written... what ELSE might I have chosen to do with that two hundred hours?
Do you suppose I might have been grateful, and tried to give something back to the community?
I wonder. And so do you, because I can't use your GPL code, so I'm not grateful to you. Instead, I resent that you've forced me to write all that code myself with your patent-incompatible licensing. I didn't want to use patented code. It wasn't my decision. You've punished me for something that isn't my fault, that I don't control, and that I can't change. You suck.
> don't you think it's more than a little hypocritical to be using > someone else's code for something where the users won't see its > original, liberal license
They do. All the contributing projects are listed in the copyright information, even though I'm not required to do that, because that's the Right Thing.
Oddly enough, many people do in fact/choose/ to do the Right Thing, even when you don't force it on them.
> What use is the extra option the recipient gets though?
None whatsoever, if he's a GPL bigot who doesn't understand why anyone would prefer BSD.
If, however, he's smart enough to realise that the GPL is bad for everybody and needs to die... that's a very useful freedom indeed.
> as the facts have come out it looks like that's what actually happened here
And look, it's controversial enough to be news on Slashdot. Don't you suppose MAYBE that means this isn't quite the trivial matter you seem to think it is?
> You can't deny that the freedom to falsely claim authorship of a piece > of code (e.g. when selling it to a client) is a useful one.
No, but I can deny that you have that freedom in the first place, on the grounds that it's an illegal practice.
> you can make the changes and keep them to yourself just as well under GPL as BSD.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not make it clear that I've licensed the right to distribute compiled binaries of the algorithm? I keep forgetting that most GPL bigots know squat about how real programming works in the real world.
Because it removes the recipient's knowledge of his licensing options, under the rather likely assumption that he's not going to invest much time in researching it, because the GPL crowd doesn't want anything to be released under any other license ever. Because they are dicks.
> But keeping the dual license would in no way have prevented this.
Prevented? No. But submitting a change with the note that your change is only GPL and not BSD would make you look like a dick, so NOBODY WOULD DO IT. The hacker culture thrives on merit and reputation. Nothing else matters. That's the only reason the GPL has any supporters at all.
> If you hold that good and freedom are the same,
This is not calculus. The operation is not commutative. While "freedom = good", it does not follow that "good = freedom".
> then why BSD license rather than public domain?
To secure proper attribution for the original author(s). Your useful freedom is not infringed by this requirement.
> You're just making excuses
I have a little time right now, so let me distill things a little.
The GPL needlessly infringes your right to keep your changes to yourself.
The BSD license recognises that when you write your changes, they are yours, and you can do whatever you want with them. This is a useful freedom. It means that if I have a patented algorithm I licensed from someone else, which I can't legally distribute or license, I can use it in my changes and still honor my existing commitment to keep it confidential. No matter what your opinion of this, that's a freedom that I have under the BSD license, and it has value.
I don't have that freedom under the GPL. The GPL says I can't make those changes unless I give out my code, which I can't legally do. If you ask the FSF what this means, they'll happily explain that this means you can't use GPL code and that's what you get for using patented algorithms you donkey-raping shit-eater. Then they'll all burst out in a chorus of "Uncle Fucker" and start quoting South Park until someone inevitably quotes Monty Python and they have a collective nerdgasm.
Meanwhile, those of us who work for a living will be stuck reinventing the wheel because some dumbass thought the GPL was better... but couldn't explain why if you paid him.
> Yes, but "Linux is under the GPL" is simpler and easier than > "Linux is under the GPL, except for module X which is BSD".
But module X was dual-license GPL/BSD. It was still under the GPL. You could say "Linux is under the GPL" already, and if you had a stick up your butt about it you could add "but some portions are also available under other licenses". Removing the BSD license doesn't actually change anything for anyone. What changes things is when authors contribute changes under the GPL, contaminating the Linux version and preventing those changes from going into the BSD version.
This is a Bad Thing. Nothing good will come of it. The best case scenario is that the BSD and Linux teams will have to do more work keeping the code synchronised. Indeed, the only thing that can PREVENT that work is if nobody ever contributes to the GPL version, in which case it DOESN'T MATTER what the license is.
> if someone knows nothing about software licensing, how is > their contribution falling under GPL any better or worse > than it falling under BSD?
Premise: freedom = good.
GPL = less freedom.
Ergo, GPL = less good.
That simple.
> But what freedom has been removed in practice?
I am not your lawyer. If you really want to know, go get one. Honestly, I think you're just trying to make me waste time explaining a complicated subject.
> As I said before, to simplify the licensing of linux.
Putting BSD software under GPL doesn't make things simpler. BSD licensing is about as simple as you get, and the GPL is arguably the most complicated open source license on the planet.
> Anyone who doesn't realise that would know nothing about licensing anyway.
I am of the opinion that if your license strategy requires your volunteer contributors to understand the legal nuances of software licensing before they can make an informed decision on how and where to contribute, you are a sadistic asshole.
> Ah yes, the crux of internet debate. Go on, why does it suck, in practice?
There are freedoms under the BSD license that don't exist under the GPL.
Removing them to make license management easier is just dickhead behavior.
"Your freedom is inconvenient to me. I will remove it."
That sucks, and if you don't know why, you're an idiot.
It seems to me that the license is changing EXCLUSIVELY in the hope that some future developer will be too lazy or ignorant to check the origin of the code, and his changes will then go under the GPL because he simply didn't know they could go under the BSD license.
I think that sucks, and if you don't see why it sucks, you're an idiot.
Because changes from the Linux team can't go into the BSD tree anymore (GPL license is incompatible). So the Linux team can't actually change the code in their tree, or they'll have to do a full integration when the BSD team makes a change. They have to go to the BSD team for any changes, and then see to it that the changes are imported.
And the end result is... squat. They just work harder for nothing.
> with the topic buried we're talking to each other, but debating is always good
The lack of invective is certainly refreshing.
> You see, this is where I think we diverge
I agree. In my opinion, the GPL's flaw is that it tries to tell developers what is right and proper to do with their own code. It seems like you consider this a benefit, rather than a flaw.
From my perspective, the GPL is well-suited to a world that adheres to the UNIX philosophy: many small utilities that do one thing and do it well. We don't really do things that way anymore. The divisions of labor are not process boundaries, but object boundaries; sometimes those boundaries are also process boundaries, but more and more frequently those boundaries are purely theoretical. The menu manager and the window manager are separate objects with separate APIs written by separate teams and tested separately, but fundamentally they're designed to be linked together in the compilation phase.
When you try to apply the GPL restrictions to the window manager because the menu manager is under GPL, I think that violates the spirit of the GPL that appealed to me. What I liked about the GPL was that it encouraged a specific sequence of events.
1. Write a tool that does the job effectively. 2. Toss it out there for other people to use. 3. Let them make it better, knowing that your investment will beget other investment.
Today, people aren't using the GPL that way. They're doing something altogether different.
1. Write a crappy version of a tool you want. 2. Toss it out into the world. 3. Wait for someone else to fix it, knowing that nobody can do that without giving you the new code.
It's similar to the tragedy of the commons. People are no longer investing real work to grow more real work; they're investing a half-assed effort and demanding work to which they feel entitled.
What really raises the flag in my head is that this only works with the GPL. Nothing else lets you do this. You cannot rationally expect that if you release something under the BSD license, you will as a matter of course receive any improvements made to it. There is no other license that secures to the original author a right to access code by later contributors. I suggest that this is at least partially because professional developers have a moral objection to that idea.
Object oriented methodologies change the landscape rather drastically. I tend to think that the unit of code to which one should apply a license is now the object, rather than the application. It is the object - not the process - which is the natural division of labor in modern computing. Modern licenses should begin taking into account this division, so objects can be more readily recombined to solve interesting problems.
> others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code
But they're not restricting my usage of their code. They're restricting my usage of MY code. If I write code that only works when linked to something GPL, I can't distribute the code under anything but the GPL. Traditionally, you get around this by making code that late-binds at runtime to a shim linked to the GPL code - you have to release the shim under GPL, but who cares? The real work is in the library that connects into it.
The GPLv3 is trying to seal up this "loophole" where I can actually do what I want with my code. There are two major loopholes, one of which is that you can just not distribute the code - choosing instead to run the GPL code in a web service that your proprietary code contacts. The other is as I've described, exposing an API for dynamic loading of or by proprietary code. (TiVo's efforts are dubious, and I don't think they really represent a legitimate loophole.)
But these are not efforts to steal code or avoid contributing - they're efforts to meet business requirements. I generally don't own the code I write. It's considered a work made for hire, and my client owns it. If I encumber that code with a
> Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all.
Actually, I'm complaining about the very reason open source software exists at all.
The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over. There is no reason for me to write a customisable and extensible menu system once someone else has already done it; I should be able to take that system, configure it to my tastes, and worry about larger problems like the functionality behind it.
The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.
I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.
And you can whine all you want about how the protocol shouldn't be patented, and the feature can't be done well in a week, and all the things that are wrong with this scenario. But I'm not in charge of that. I don't get to stand there and say "I refuse to interface with our company's primary product using a patent-encumbered protocol on the grounds that software patents are bad!" - I have to do what I'm told to do. That's the price I pay for job security, and no matter what I personally think about software patents, I rather prefer that my kids have good health insurance.
The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.
From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use code that would make my job easier, because RMS doesn't like how my employer does business. I think that's petty and selfish. It's a political issue tacked onto a technical question for no good purpose.
> The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users.
If you really think about it, the GPLv2 treats them as the same thing.
> either stop distributing the software or be covered > by the obligations puth forth in the license.
This amounts to blackmail. RMS is saying "meet these obligations or stop distributing GPL software" to everyone currently distributing it, and banking on the fact that many people can't stop distribution unless they close their business. I think that's really shitty.
Slashdot Mirror
"It has occurred to me that Flash on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system."
It has occurred to me that for the past decade, every Linux user has thought his most recent personal itch was the one major entry barrier to Linux desktop domination, and they have all been completely wrong.
The major entry barrier to Linux desktop domination is that even if you're a hardcore Mac or Linux or BSD guy, Windows simply doesn't suck that much. In general, any reasonably competent computer user can sit down at a Windows machine and get his work done. He may have to go out foraging for the right tools, but they're out there, and they're readily accessible.
Meanwhile, there is a vast community of computer users who are NOT reasonably competent, and while they may not be particularly good at getting their work done on Windows, they are EVEN WORSE at getting it done on anything else.
When retarded people can use Linux, you might have a shot at desktop domination. Until then, don't bother.
I write inventory and supply chain management software! Gives me a job!
Here's how this sort of thing happens.
"I've stored five example job classifications in this structure to demonstrate the system."
"It works! Put all the other classifications in there."
"But this solution isn't scalable."
"Scalable? WTF does that mean? It works. Put all the others in."
"Um... okay, but it will be slow."
"Slow?! We have the fastest mainframes in the world! Deploy it to all the field offices, too."
"Um... it isn't finished."
"What do you mean? It works. Deploy it."
"But it doesn't handle temporary pay modifications."
"Temporary? What do you mean? You either get a raise, or you do not get a raise. There's no temporary."
"Well, if the state has money problems..."
"LOL, money problems? We're California! We don't have money problems!"
"But if that ever changed..."
"What, people are going to stop watching movies? Yeah, right!"
"But if the budget isn't approved by the deadline..."
"That would never happen!"
"But IF IT DID, the system couldn't handle it and you'd need thousands of people to fix it."
"Who cares? There are programmers everywhere! They're cheap! It's easy! Deploy it already!"
"I really think we need to discuss this more..."
"Look, do you like your job?"
*SIGH* "I'll start cutting nine-tracks."
And today, that programmer is sitting at home reading about this, and wishing he had that manager's phone number so he could call it and say "I TOLD YOU SO".
Yeah, and operating systems have been around for like, forty. There's nothing new here at all. It's just code that runs on a machine.
Why is it insensitive to suggest that you're better off with a sluggish VM-hosted alternate O/S window than you are having to reboot? It seems to me that if you're going to run one O/S native and the other virtualised, you want to run the slim and fast one in the VM.
I personally just use Virtual PC. That way, when I need to make the occasional use of Linux, I just fire up the VPC and do my thing in a window on the desktop. I'm sure there's something similar that can run Windows on an X desktop, or on a Mac.
> back-asswards models trying to "convince" players to pay for something.
That's the problem with modern microtransaction systems: the extras aren't REALLY optional, they're essential. If you don't have them, the game sucks.
That has to change. If we're going to have a microtransaction model that works, it has to be things people WANT, but don't NEED. Perry's very clear about this in what little he says during the article, and I seriously doubt he's proposing that traditional game development will disappear. You've just got recency bias - you can't believe that what Perry's talking about isn't what you've already seen, because you've just seen it.
> People don't want to whip out their credit card in midgame
> and use it to buy a +3 sword of shiny metal bits. At least
> I don't.
Oh, just admit you're a thief and will never buy anything you can steal. We all know that's what you're really saying, so drop the self-righteous crap.
I think Perry's nailed something here: micro-pay games are here to stay, and traditional studios are going to be less of a factor in the future of gaming. The pattern's been there for a while, in fact - small studio builds blockbuster game, big studio buys small studio, founders leave to start new small studio. Those of us who track the industry don't watch companies, we watch people. We don't watch Shiny and Origin and Atari, we watch David Perry and Raph Koster and Nolan Bushnell.
Will games ever be free? They already are. Thousands of games are released every year for free. You never have to buy another game again. What costs is the same thing that always costs: the drive to have the latest and greatest things first. When Crackdown came out, it was $60, and it flew off the shelves because of the Halo 3 Beta invite it contained. If you waited a few weeks, hordes of used copies flooded the shelves. The price on the used shelf plummeted. A couple months down the road, you could pick it up for $15. If what you wanted was a good game, that was fantastic. But if what you wanted was the game everyone else was playing, it was worse than useless.
How has the American government's regulation of performance enhancing chemicals, e.g. the steroid crackdown, impacted your research?
You don't remember these books as dry and cynical because you didn't care.
You're not seeing them the same way today. Just as I look back on books I loved as a child and see new things, so do you. But the fact remains: they were good books. Children are very, very good at ignoring the things they don't understand in favor of the things they do.
Consider just handing them Heinlein, and letting them figure it out for themselves. Children are robust little machines for making sense of the world. Give them "Stranger in a Strange Land"; all the sex and religion parts whizzed right by me as a kid, and I mainly came away from it with an appreciation for cultural differences. So if you were looking at that book thinking the sex and religion parts were too much, you might be right, but you're also throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've been less than impressed by this feature. In general, I don't do porn, warez, or bittorrent - so the chances of ending up on a malicious site are miniscule. I haven't had any of my scanners report anything at all for years.
My wife loves to steal her some unlicensed fan-subbed anime, though, so she frequently finds herself with malware out the yin-yang.
I've disabled this feature on my AVG install. Drop in the bucket, but I always thought it was probably a Bad Idea anyway.
> if they're looking for a BSD-licensed driver for that particular
> card, they'll find it.
But they're not. They're looking for a driver. They find the GPL version, which now has no mention of the BSD version, and they STOP LOOKING. This is basic human nature.
> Then why does it need to be stopped?
Because it damages the people whose credit is removed.
> If it didn't benefit the person who did it,
> no-one would do it.
Removing the BSD license from this code dcoesn't benefit the GPL version in any way. It simply damages the BSD version. People are assholes, and will do things just to make other people's lives difficult. Usually out of jealousy and fear. Indeed, the entire point of the GPL is to make your life difficult if you don't release YOUR code under the GPL, too. That's about as petty and self-absorbed as it gets.
> Or to license the patent with the ability to distribute the source
I don't have any control over that. The patent owner controls that. If he says "no", that's the end of it.
> You're already displaying a sense of entitlement towards my code that I wrote
Rather the opposite, actually. I'm denying that YOU are entitled to MY code. My code belongs to me, just like yours belongs to you. If you choose to give yours away, and you did, then I should be able to use it. That shouldn't mean that I have to give mine away, too. I should be able to make my own decision about whether to give mine away, because it's mine.
Which is where we come down to that old argument about "legal" versus "right". It is legal for you to attach any condition you like to the use of your code, just like the patent owner. But that does not make it right. You need to make up your mind about whether this movement is about freedom and sharing, or just some petty and jealous war on commercial software. There is more than enough room in this world for everyone to share only the code they want, and we'll all have plenty of code for plenty of purposes. But as long as a license exists that pretends to be about freedom while taking those freedoms away, we're going to have a constant stream of ignorant people ending up in the prison of that license where their code isn't really free.
The GPL damages this community, and actively destroys the ideals we've worked to instill in it. It is an abomination. It needs to be stopped.
> Again, what useful freedom does he *actually* have?
/choose/ to do the Right Thing, even when you don't force it on them.
The freedom to incorporate the code with his own code however he deems appropriate.
Under the BSD license, I get to decide whether my code goes into the open source world or not. If I don't want it there, I don't have to put it there. I wrote the code, so it's my decision what to do with it. I can't take the BSD code off the internet; the genie's out of the bottle. It's simply impossible for me to take anything away from the community. The only thing I can possibly do is add more code, which - being mine - is something I ought to license the way *I* want to license it.
Under the GPL, I don't get that choice. If I use so much as one line from a GPL project, my entire project MUST go under the GPL unless I jump through hoops to turn it into two projects - one that has to be GPL because it contains that line of code, and another that doesn't because it technically doesn't incorporate any GPL code. The GPLv3 is trying very hard to fix that, because RMS is deeply offended at the idea that I might not want to give my work away for free. He wants to make sure I don't get to use any GPL code at all unless I put the GOOD stuff under the GPL, too. He doesn't like it when I have things he doesn't get to have.
> I've yet to see one thing to convince me it's anything other than
> BSD zealots
That's all right. You'll grow up one day.
> If the restrictions in the BSD license don't actually remove any
> useful freedoms, then what is the point in them?
They remove a useless freedom: the freedom to take away the names of contributors altogether. This doesn't benefit the person who does it at all, but it damages the people whose names are removed. The BSD license prevents that damage.
> So they'll be dependent on you for binaries, unable to fix bugs
> they come across or use your code for anything else.
You don't seem to understand the trade here.
There is no open source alternative to the binary I produce. I don't have the right to place the code into the open source world; the rights don't belong to me. I've simply licensed them from the owners.
The choice is not between a closed-source binary and an open-source project. The choice is between a closed-source binary and NOTHING.
I don't like software patents. I think they're wrong. But I don't get to choose the way of the world. When the algorithm my product needs is patented, I have no choice but to license it. That's the law. And when that license says I can't distribute the source code, that's the law, too. When you put your code under a license that I can't legally combine with this algorithm, you don't force me to fight software patents. You simply force me to reinvent the wheel and write code that does the same thing yours does.
Now, if you DIDN'T make me spend two hundred hours designing, building, testing, and debugging code you've already written... what ELSE might I have chosen to do with that two hundred hours?
Do you suppose I might have been grateful, and tried to give something back to the community?
I wonder. And so do you, because I can't use your GPL code, so I'm not grateful to you. Instead, I resent that you've forced me to write all that code myself with your patent-incompatible licensing. I didn't want to use patented code. It wasn't my decision. You've punished me for something that isn't my fault, that I don't control, and that I can't change. You suck.
> don't you think it's more than a little hypocritical to be using
> someone else's code for something where the users won't see its
> original, liberal license
They do. All the contributing projects are listed in the copyright information, even though I'm not required to do that, because that's the Right Thing.
Oddly enough, many people do in fact
> What use is the extra option the recipient gets though?
None whatsoever, if he's a GPL bigot who doesn't understand why anyone would prefer BSD.
If, however, he's smart enough to realise that the GPL is bad for everybody and needs to die... that's a very useful freedom indeed.
> as the facts have come out it looks like that's what actually happened here
And look, it's controversial enough to be news on Slashdot. Don't you suppose MAYBE that means this isn't quite the trivial matter you seem to think it is?
> You can't deny that the freedom to falsely claim authorship of a piece
> of code (e.g. when selling it to a client) is a useful one.
No, but I can deny that you have that freedom in the first place, on the grounds that it's an illegal practice.
> you can make the changes and keep them to yourself just as well under GPL as BSD.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not make it clear that I've licensed the right to distribute compiled binaries of the algorithm? I keep forgetting that most GPL bigots know squat about how real programming works in the real world.
> So why is it a problem?
Because it removes the recipient's knowledge of his licensing options, under the rather likely assumption that he's not going to invest much time in researching it, because the GPL crowd doesn't want anything to be released under any other license ever. Because they are dicks.
> But keeping the dual license would in no way have prevented this.
Prevented? No. But submitting a change with the note that your change is only GPL and not BSD would make you look like a dick, so NOBODY WOULD DO IT. The hacker culture thrives on merit and reputation. Nothing else matters. That's the only reason the GPL has any supporters at all.
> If you hold that good and freedom are the same,
This is not calculus. The operation is not commutative. While "freedom = good", it does not follow that "good = freedom".
> then why BSD license rather than public domain?
To secure proper attribution for the original author(s). Your useful freedom is not infringed by this requirement.
> You're just making excuses
I have a little time right now, so let me distill things a little.
The GPL needlessly infringes your right to keep your changes to yourself.
The BSD license recognises that when you write your changes, they are yours, and you can do whatever you want with them. This is a useful freedom. It means that if I have a patented algorithm I licensed from someone else, which I can't legally distribute or license, I can use it in my changes and still honor my existing commitment to keep it confidential. No matter what your opinion of this, that's a freedom that I have under the BSD license, and it has value.
I don't have that freedom under the GPL. The GPL says I can't make those changes unless I give out my code, which I can't legally do. If you ask the FSF what this means, they'll happily explain that this means you can't use GPL code and that's what you get for using patented algorithms you donkey-raping shit-eater. Then they'll all burst out in a chorus of "Uncle Fucker" and start quoting South Park until someone inevitably quotes Monty Python and they have a collective nerdgasm.
Meanwhile, those of us who work for a living will be stuck reinventing the wheel because some dumbass thought the GPL was better... but couldn't explain why if you paid him.
Probably because he's never had that experience.
> Yes, but "Linux is under the GPL" is simpler and easier than
> "Linux is under the GPL, except for module X which is BSD".
But module X was dual-license GPL/BSD. It was still under the GPL. You could say "Linux is under the GPL" already, and if you had a stick up your butt about it you could add "but some portions are also available under other licenses". Removing the BSD license doesn't actually change anything for anyone. What changes things is when authors contribute changes under the GPL, contaminating the Linux version and preventing those changes from going into the BSD version.
This is a Bad Thing. Nothing good will come of it. The best case scenario is that the BSD and Linux teams will have to do more work keeping the code synchronised. Indeed, the only thing that can PREVENT that work is if nobody ever contributes to the GPL version, in which case it DOESN'T MATTER what the license is.
> if someone knows nothing about software licensing, how is
> their contribution falling under GPL any better or worse
> than it falling under BSD?
Premise: freedom = good.
GPL = less freedom.
Ergo, GPL = less good.
That simple.
> But what freedom has been removed in practice?
I am not your lawyer. If you really want to know, go get one. Honestly, I think you're just trying to make me waste time explaining a complicated subject.
> As I said before, to simplify the licensing of linux.
Putting BSD software under GPL doesn't make things simpler. BSD licensing is about as simple as you get, and the GPL is arguably the most complicated open source license on the planet.
> Anyone who doesn't realise that would know nothing about licensing anyway.
I am of the opinion that if your license strategy requires your volunteer contributors to understand the legal nuances of software licensing before they can make an informed decision on how and where to contribute, you are a sadistic asshole.
> Ah yes, the crux of internet debate. Go on, why does it suck, in practice?
There are freedoms under the BSD license that don't exist under the GPL.
Removing them to make license management easier is just dickhead behavior.
"Your freedom is inconvenient to me. I will remove it."
That sucks, and if you don't know why, you're an idiot.
> But that'd be the case anyway
Then why change the license?
It seems to me that the license is changing EXCLUSIVELY in the hope that some future developer will be too lazy or ignorant to check the origin of the code, and his changes will then go under the GPL because he simply didn't know they could go under the BSD license.
I think that sucks, and if you don't see why it sucks, you're an idiot.
Because changes from the Linux team can't go into the BSD tree anymore (GPL license is incompatible). So the Linux team can't actually change the code in their tree, or they'll have to do a full integration when the BSD team makes a change. They have to go to the BSD team for any changes, and then see to it that the changes are imported.
And the end result is... squat. They just work harder for nothing.
> so that it's under the same license as the rest of the
> kernel, which makes managing linux licensing easier.
At the expense of managing the CODE?
I call shenanigans.
> with the topic buried we're talking to each other, but debating is always good
The lack of invective is certainly refreshing.
> You see, this is where I think we diverge
I agree. In my opinion, the GPL's flaw is that it tries to tell developers what is right and proper to do with their own code. It seems like you consider this a benefit, rather than a flaw.
From my perspective, the GPL is well-suited to a world that adheres to the UNIX philosophy: many small utilities that do one thing and do it well. We don't really do things that way anymore. The divisions of labor are not process boundaries, but object boundaries; sometimes those boundaries are also process boundaries, but more and more frequently those boundaries are purely theoretical. The menu manager and the window manager are separate objects with separate APIs written by separate teams and tested separately, but fundamentally they're designed to be linked together in the compilation phase.
When you try to apply the GPL restrictions to the window manager because the menu manager is under GPL, I think that violates the spirit of the GPL that appealed to me. What I liked about the GPL was that it encouraged a specific sequence of events.
1. Write a tool that does the job effectively.
2. Toss it out there for other people to use.
3. Let them make it better, knowing that your investment will beget other investment.
Today, people aren't using the GPL that way. They're doing something altogether different.
1. Write a crappy version of a tool you want.
2. Toss it out into the world.
3. Wait for someone else to fix it, knowing that nobody can do that without giving you the new code.
It's similar to the tragedy of the commons. People are no longer investing real work to grow more real work; they're investing a half-assed effort and demanding work to which they feel entitled.
What really raises the flag in my head is that this only works with the GPL. Nothing else lets you do this. You cannot rationally expect that if you release something under the BSD license, you will as a matter of course receive any improvements made to it. There is no other license that secures to the original author a right to access code by later contributors. I suggest that this is at least partially because professional developers have a moral objection to that idea.
Object oriented methodologies change the landscape rather drastically. I tend to think that the unit of code to which one should apply a license is now the object, rather than the application. It is the object - not the process - which is the natural division of labor in modern computing. Modern licenses should begin taking into account this division, so objects can be more readily recombined to solve interesting problems.
> others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code
But they're not restricting my usage of their code. They're restricting my usage of MY code. If I write code that only works when linked to something GPL, I can't distribute the code under anything but the GPL. Traditionally, you get around this by making code that late-binds at runtime to a shim linked to the GPL code - you have to release the shim under GPL, but who cares? The real work is in the library that connects into it.
The GPLv3 is trying to seal up this "loophole" where I can actually do what I want with my code. There are two major loopholes, one of which is that you can just not distribute the code - choosing instead to run the GPL code in a web service that your proprietary code contacts. The other is as I've described, exposing an API for dynamic loading of or by proprietary code. (TiVo's efforts are dubious, and I don't think they really represent a legitimate loophole.)
But these are not efforts to steal code or avoid contributing - they're efforts to meet business requirements. I generally don't own the code I write. It's considered a work made for hire, and my client owns it. If I encumber that code with a
> Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all.
Actually, I'm complaining about the very reason open source software exists at all.
The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over. There is no reason for me to write a customisable and extensible menu system once someone else has already done it; I should be able to take that system, configure it to my tastes, and worry about larger problems like the functionality behind it.
The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.
I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.
And you can whine all you want about how the protocol shouldn't be patented, and the feature can't be done well in a week, and all the things that are wrong with this scenario. But I'm not in charge of that. I don't get to stand there and say "I refuse to interface with our company's primary product using a patent-encumbered protocol on the grounds that software patents are bad!" - I have to do what I'm told to do. That's the price I pay for job security, and no matter what I personally think about software patents, I rather prefer that my kids have good health insurance.
The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.
From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use code that would make my job easier, because RMS doesn't like how my employer does business. I think that's petty and selfish. It's a political issue tacked onto a technical question for no good purpose.
> The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users.
If you really think about it, the GPLv2 treats them as the same thing.
> either stop distributing the software or be covered
> by the obligations puth forth in the license.
This amounts to blackmail. RMS is saying "meet these obligations or stop distributing GPL software" to everyone currently distributing it, and banking on the fact that many people can't stop distribution unless they close their business. I think that's really shitty.
Okay, pay attention.
If ANY change is made to the GPL version, the BSD version can't incorporate it because of the GPL.
So when a later change is made in the BSD version, you can't just sync it because there are GPL-only changes.
Now, if the GPL version isn't going to have any changes, ask yourself this:
Why relicense it?
> We do have apples to apples comparisons, though.
Actually, we don't. We've never had a BSD project forked into a GPL project without significant alterations to the code. Ever.