Ada was designed to work directly with C and other languages. This wasn't tacked on later, it a fundamental part of the language.
Do you even know anything about Ada, or are you just spewing? At least put in a caveat if you aren't familiar with a topic rather than lumping things together with topics you may know.
Facebook is held together with baling wire and duct tape. From a technical standpoint, Facebook is very poor quality Just count how many times any query times out per day.
I wouldn't use a facebook-built browser not because of privacy concerns, but because there's no way it would perform well. Just look at Facebook performance. That should speak to their technical competence.
You can see my response to JohnFluxx below because it applies to your childish post too. Regarding the purpose of the GPL, that's actually the purpose of the LGPL. Perhaps you should take time to understand the ramifications and goals of your license better. I have contributed changes back to GPL and LGPL projects, btw. However, don't worry, people *are* taking the option to not use GPL code at all.
To be clear, only the modifications can have a different license. The original code must stay under the original licence. However, if the modifier intentionally (and therefore maliciously) licenses his changes knowing that the original author can't use them, then he is a punk. Is it legal? Yes. Is it just? IMO, no. Does it serve any purpose? Yes, it serves to make BSD advocates fear the GPL for good reason. Can the BSD complain since they picked the license? Ultimately no. However, I think they are justified in painting GPL advocates as hypocrites in the highest order. They lock away code from BSD just as they claim close-source locks away improvements from them.
Yes, you are missing something. In this case, the GPL'er removed the BSD license. You can't do that. You can't change the licence of the existing code because you aren't the copyright owner. You can add your own license to the code changes though (so part of the code is under one license and the rest under another). Obviously the part of removing the BSD license is illegal and had to be reversed. The part of having the modifications as GPL is not illegal, but morally questionable since it means that practically the original author can't use the code. Obviously he could, but then he would have to relicense the original code as GPL, so the modifications are, in effect, a poison pill.
I think you are mincing words. He starts with "Since it is under a BSD-esque license,", and states a risk resulting from the license with the obvious implication that a copyleft license wouldn't suffer this perceived risk.
Again, why even make this statement unless you are trying to stir stuff up? By now, hopefully people know the pros and cons of each basic license type. You can apply this "concern" to any BSD project. Obviously some people believe it, great. They don't need to use or contribute to the project. The rest can, and will have to assume the "risk" that FFF is worried about.
Who's backpedaling now, then? The GPL's stated desire to gobble up code they had nothing to do with is a big deal. It's pretty much the cornerstone of the license, and the basis for licensing readline as GPL and not the more logical LGPL. Protecting yourself against the viral invasion of GPL (both open-source and proprietary projects) is not fanatism, it smart on many levels.
I don't know how anybody can refute or dispute the claim if its internal to Apple. However, it doesn't matter. Not only because they are allowed to legally and morally, but because LLVM wouldn't exist in the state that its in without their financial and developer support. Some of us choose to be grateful for what was contributed in good faith rather than demanding that a benefactor give everything he has.
Seriously, say you see a salvation army volunteer on the street and you contribute $5, feeling pretty good about yourself and then the volunteer demands that you open up you wallet and dump it all the bucket? I'm guessing the next time around you wouldn't give that ingrate a dime.
Right, which is why GPL is increasingly becoming a dirty word. With V3 and interpretation of what GPL actually means, people are getting educated (well, somebody has to paraphase V3 because nobody other than a lawyer can actually understand what's written in that document) and with that knowledge are realizing that the terms aren't acceptable. It's the small part of a big project scenario that I really hate -- GPL says the whole damn thing is a derivative work, even if it's 0.05% of the overall. It's okay though. Any decent GPL-only functionality will be replaced eventually by one friendly to BSD projects and commercial interests. It's not surprising to me at all that LLVM is generating lots of interest from commercial entities and progressing rapidly because of it.
It is not a red herring. For a BSD project, relicensing an improvement as GPL is equivalent to making it proprietary. Only it's worse, because it's done with malice. The GPL jerk who did this obviously has the option to leave the code and the modification the original license, but intentionally chose to prevent the author from legally being able to use the code.
People that do this (and support this) are punks.
The obvious recent example was the relicensing of BSD drivers from OpenBSD. When given the opportunity to correct an "honest" mistake, the punk steadfastly refused even with the FSF asking him nicely to reconsider (knowing the backlash it could cause) so clearly it's important to some of these advocates.
I'm not sure what that means. Pretty much any time LLVM or LLVM subprojects come up, a bunch of GPL'ers start with, "it's a nice little project, too bad it doesn't have a copyleft license.". Obviously GPL'ers want the copyleft license to help them achieve RMS' dream of 100% "Free" software and BSD just gets in the way. At this point, we shouldn't be discussing the license and just assume the authors that choose the license in the first place knew exactly what they are doing, and the future contributers know and ACCEPT the ramifications of using the license.
A very nice response, thank you. I disagree a bit with the last paragraph. The LGPL would be sufficient to protect getting the changes back into the project that they started. The GPL exists to get another projects to change their license. Yes, you are right that the GPL wants to improve the users lives, but they are doing that by trying to convert projects that they really had nothing to do with to the GPL. The stated goal is all proprietary software is evil and all software should be GPL by whatever means necessary. This latest trend of GPL projects relicensing BSD code so the BSD project can't use the improvements makes me seethe those. The GPL adocates say proprietary software is evil because it keeps code from the author, but then the GPL does the same thing to truly free licensed projects.
Fair enough, but a contributor knows the terms of the license going in. If they have a moral issue with this possibility, then they shouldn't contribute in the first place.
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Transgaming thing, but I do support the LGPL. I think that's a pretty good license. Too bad the FSF wish it didn't exist.
I didn't quite understand that. Who stops contributing? The creators of the private fork or some third party that's duplicating the functionality on the main branch?
One of the big misconceptions by GPL people is they think that if the license is GPL, the potential contributor will be "forced" to contribute back. No, he won't. Anyone that does not wish to contribute will not, regardless of license. He'll either use GPL code, but not distribute, use another project, or roll his own. The GPL did not force anyone to contribute in those cases.
Reading GCC mail-lists are quite entertaining -- they spend a lot of time discussion legal action, potential lawsuits (defensive and offensive), etc. This kind of frequent litigious discussion just doesn't seem to occur on BSD project sites. By the way, GPL folks, stop being offended for BSD projects when some commercial entity uses their code. It's allowed in the license and the BSD people aren't stupid. They are okay with the use of the code so you should be too. Stop using the Microsoft TCP/IP example. Nobody cared. They were probably happy that TCP/IP was reinforced as the defacto standard.
Ah, a staple argument from GPL fanatics. No, your scenario is not realistic. Even if somebody makes a proprietary branch, that doesn't deprive anybody of the mainstream branch. Only GPL freaks are concerned about this. The rest of us realize that maintaining a private fork of a large project like this an enormous pain in the rear and it's much more convenient for the improving entity just to give the fix back and let project absorb it.
Unlike GCC, outsiders can successfully provide patches and bug reports to LLVM. The process isn't so incredibly oppressive that people just don't bother.
Anyway, other major BSD-like projects don't suffer from private forks, and there's no reason to think LLVM will either.
I would like to hear explained how a "schmuck writing code" would be worse off in comparison with a compiler that is BSD(like) licensed.
If you mention the possibility of some terrible corporation forking and making a proprietary version of the compiler, I'll be disappointed. That situation has no impact on the "schmuck".
By the way, have you ever looked into how difficult it is to actually contribute a bug fix back to GCC? It's such a hindrance (that's putting it mildly) that patches don't get contributed back. I've got quite a few that I could give back myself on GCC and binutils, but I'm not goign to spend 6 months of my time and my employers time (and approval) to jump through absurd and artificial hoops for an FSF project. LLVM does not suffer from this with their implied copyright assignment (and the fact they actually review bug reports and patches). GCC expects the patch provider to constantly ping the group 4-5 times until someone is so tired of the complaints that they actually review the code. Sorry, that's not acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ada was designed to work directly with C and other languages. This wasn't tacked on later, it a fundamental part of the language.
Do you even know anything about Ada, or are you just spewing? At least put in a caveat if you aren't familiar with a topic rather than lumping things together with topics you may know.
Obviously other people don't share your high regard for the current state of BtrFS in relation to ZFS. I wonder why that is?
yes.
And asking that question basically pegs you as a jerk.
Sounds good. You'll take the first bite, right?
Facebook is held together with baling wire and duct tape. From a technical standpoint, Facebook is very poor quality Just count how many times any query times out per day.
I wouldn't use a facebook-built browser not because of privacy concerns, but because there's no way it would perform well. Just look at Facebook performance. That should speak to their technical competence.
Nothing, although I'm also confused as to what point you are ultimately trying to make.
You can see my response to JohnFluxx below because it applies to your childish post too. Regarding the purpose of the GPL, that's actually the purpose of the LGPL. Perhaps you should take time to understand the ramifications and goals of your license better. I have contributed changes back to GPL and LGPL projects, btw. However, don't worry, people *are* taking the option to not use GPL code at all.
To be clear, only the modifications can have a different license. The original code must stay under the original licence. However, if the modifier intentionally (and therefore maliciously) licenses his changes knowing that the original author can't use them, then he is a punk.
Is it legal? Yes.
Is it just? IMO, no.
Does it serve any purpose? Yes, it serves to make BSD advocates fear the GPL for good reason.
Can the BSD complain since they picked the license? Ultimately no. However, I think they are justified in painting GPL advocates as hypocrites in the highest order. They lock away code from BSD just as they claim close-source locks away improvements from them.
Yes, you are missing something. In this case, the GPL'er removed the BSD license. You can't do that. You can't change the licence of the existing code because you aren't the copyright owner. You can add your own license to the code changes though (so part of the code is under one license and the rest under another). Obviously the part of removing the BSD license is illegal and had to be reversed. The part of having the modifications as GPL is not illegal, but morally questionable since it means that practically the original author can't use the code. Obviously he could, but then he would have to relicense the original code as GPL, so the modifications are, in effect, a poison pill.
I think you are mincing words. He starts with "Since it is under a BSD-esque license,", and states a risk resulting from the license with the obvious implication that a copyleft license wouldn't suffer this perceived risk.
Again, why even make this statement unless you are trying to stir stuff up? By now, hopefully people know the pros and cons of each basic license type. You can apply this "concern" to any BSD project. Obviously some people believe it, great. They don't need to use or contribute to the project. The rest can, and will have to assume the "risk" that FFF is worried about.
Who's backpedaling now, then? The GPL's stated desire to gobble up code they had nothing to do with is a big deal. It's pretty much the cornerstone of the license, and the basis for licensing readline as GPL and not the more logical LGPL. Protecting yourself against the viral invasion of GPL (both open-source and proprietary projects) is not fanatism, it smart on many levels.
Any action used to subvert the GPL resulting in truly free software is a good intention in my book.
I don't know how anybody can refute or dispute the claim if its internal to Apple. However, it doesn't matter. Not only because they are allowed to legally and morally, but because LLVM wouldn't exist in the state that its in without their financial and developer support. Some of us choose to be grateful for what was contributed in good faith rather than demanding that a benefactor give everything he has.
Seriously, say you see a salvation army volunteer on the street and you contribute $5, feeling pretty good about yourself and then the volunteer demands that you open up you wallet and dump it all the bucket? I'm guessing the next time around you wouldn't give that ingrate a dime.
Right, which is why GPL is increasingly becoming a dirty word. With V3 and interpretation of what GPL actually means, people are getting educated (well, somebody has to paraphase V3 because nobody other than a lawyer can actually understand what's written in that document) and with that knowledge are realizing that the terms aren't acceptable. It's the small part of a big project scenario that I really hate -- GPL says the whole damn thing is a derivative work, even if it's 0.05% of the overall. It's okay though. Any decent GPL-only functionality will be replaced eventually by one friendly to BSD projects and commercial interests. It's not surprising to me at all that LLVM is generating lots of interest from commercial entities and progressing rapidly because of it.
It is not a red herring. For a BSD project, relicensing an improvement as GPL is equivalent to making it proprietary. Only it's worse, because it's done with malice. The GPL jerk who did this obviously has the option to leave the code and the modification the original license, but intentionally chose to prevent the author from legally being able to use the code.
People that do this (and support this) are punks.
The obvious recent example was the relicensing of BSD drivers from OpenBSD. When given the opportunity to correct an "honest" mistake, the punk steadfastly refused even with the FSF asking him nicely to reconsider (knowing the backlash it could cause) so clearly it's important to some of these advocates.
I'm not sure what that means. Pretty much any time LLVM or LLVM subprojects come up, a bunch of GPL'ers start with, "it's a nice little project, too bad it doesn't have a copyleft license.". Obviously GPL'ers want the copyleft license to help them achieve RMS' dream of 100% "Free" software and BSD just gets in the way. At this point, we shouldn't be discussing the license and just assume the authors that choose the license in the first place knew exactly what they are doing, and the future contributers know and ACCEPT the ramifications of using the license.
A very nice response, thank you. I disagree a bit with the last paragraph. The LGPL would be sufficient to protect getting the changes back into the project that they started. The GPL exists to get another projects to change their license. Yes, you are right that the GPL wants to improve the users lives, but they are doing that by trying to convert projects that they really had nothing to do with to the GPL. The stated goal is all proprietary software is evil and all software should be GPL by whatever means necessary. This latest trend of GPL projects relicensing BSD code so the BSD project can't use the improvements makes me seethe those. The GPL adocates say proprietary software is evil because it keeps code from the author, but then the GPL does the same thing to truly free licensed projects.
Fair enough, but a contributor knows the terms of the license going in. If they have a moral issue with this possibility, then they shouldn't contribute in the first place.
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Transgaming thing, but I do support the LGPL. I think that's a pretty good license. Too bad the FSF wish it didn't exist.
I didn't quite understand that. Who stops contributing? The creators of the private fork or some third party that's duplicating the functionality on the main branch?
One of the big misconceptions by GPL people is they think that if the license is GPL, the potential contributor will be "forced" to contribute back. No, he won't. Anyone that does not wish to contribute will not, regardless of license. He'll either use GPL code, but not distribute, use another project, or roll his own. The GPL did not force anyone to contribute in those cases.
Reading GCC mail-lists are quite entertaining -- they spend a lot of time discussion legal action, potential lawsuits (defensive and offensive), etc. This kind of frequent litigious discussion just doesn't seem to occur on BSD project sites. By the way, GPL folks, stop being offended for BSD projects when some commercial entity uses their code. It's allowed in the license and the BSD people aren't stupid. They are okay with the use of the code so you should be too. Stop using the Microsoft TCP/IP example. Nobody cared. They were probably happy that TCP/IP was reinforced as the defacto standard.
Ah, a staple argument from GPL fanatics. No, your scenario is not realistic. Even if somebody makes a proprietary branch, that doesn't deprive anybody of the mainstream branch. Only GPL freaks are concerned about this. The rest of us realize that maintaining a private fork of a large project like this an enormous pain in the rear and it's much more convenient for the improving entity just to give the fix back and let project absorb it.
Unlike GCC, outsiders can successfully provide patches and bug reports to LLVM. The process isn't so incredibly oppressive that people just don't bother.
Anyway, other major BSD-like projects don't suffer from private forks, and there's no reason to think LLVM will either.
Nice post, Draek. I'm also discovering the beauty of Ada and it's actually ruining other languages for me!
I would like to hear explained how a "schmuck writing code" would be worse off in comparison with a compiler that is BSD(like) licensed.
If you mention the possibility of some terrible corporation forking and making a proprietary version of the compiler, I'll be disappointed. That situation has no impact on the "schmuck".
By the way, have you ever looked into how difficult it is to actually contribute a bug fix back to GCC? It's such a hindrance (that's putting it mildly) that patches don't get contributed back. I've got quite a few that I could give back myself on GCC and binutils, but I'm not goign to spend 6 months of my time and my employers time (and approval) to jump through absurd and artificial hoops for an FSF project. LLVM does not suffer from this with their implied copyright assignment (and the fact they actually review bug reports and patches). GCC expects the patch provider to constantly ping the group 4-5 times until someone is so tired of the complaints that they actually review the code. Sorry, that's not acceptable.
What do you mean, "return of bad old days"? Have you actually viewed GCC code? It's still full of #defines.
Conversely, I'll keep rooting for LLVM because it's not GPL licensed.
This story has been on slashdot before.
The military loves acronyms, so that makes you a FIG?
(I'm former US military too, different branch)