> The point is, if we DONT let companies securely turn material into abandonware, then their incentive to produce goes > down. This is basic economics and it makes good policy sense as well.
Thats just bullshit.
Offering someone a incentive to produce but without _any_ limits to what is demanded to continue to produce shouldnt be a part of any policy either, but which is what you are recommending.
The company's incentive to produce would without doubt rise if we exempted them from paying taxes to the state, so why shouldnt this be done too?
> the whole dual licensing crap will make most small commercial software developers move away from MySQL
There is no "dual licencing crap" for companies that only use and do not intend to distribute proprietary versions of MySQL themselves.
For those who intend to make unfree versions of MySQL publically available, and make money that way, whats wrong with requiring them to pay for the base MySQL and thus help its development??
The whole "dual licencing crap" starts when a company chooses PostgreSQL for its licence only, because it intents to distribute it under another, proprietary licence, and give neither code nor money back to encourage its further free development. Its then another dead end and a code sink for Postgres' development.
They can force you by not granting you a proprietary licence at all.
You can try to take this risk, and develop your small sharewarchen with the free version, and after the development switch to the proprietary, but people who invest real money (and much of it) in a QT app can't, because not getting a licence from Trolltech would mean they would have to GPL their proprietary app, or not distribute it at all.
It isnt ironic at all. Youre free to develop Free Software for a free platform. You have to pay money for proprietary QT just in case you want to make unfree, proprietary software, and not to contribute anything back to the free platform you're using. Its a way to make sure youre either contributing to QT (in form of your money, which will lead to further development of Free Software) or directly to the Free Software platform, in form of your code. As I understand, you, and most of other QT bashers, dont care to contribute in any way, so stop whining.
It IS a gift. Sure, not for the proprietary developer who wants to constrict access to that code and make money by selling "rights" to use what has been made constricted, but it is a gift to the user, who has been given the free software rights (using, modifying, distributing) at no cost.
> how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL?
And then, compare those numbers to the numbers of people who will _not_ contribute to a BSD licensed project sincfe they do not want anyone to incorporate their code into proprietary commercial projects, without giving _anything_ back to the community.
I think that summa sumarum, the Pro-GPL folks outnumber the Pro-BSD folks by orders of some magnitudes.
> This means you get access to their changes whether they want to be nice or not
Of course, why are you so amazed about it? IT is the point to force freedom, the same way IRL force is used to abolish slavery (proprietary licences.)
> to give away code is not to help others, but rather to benifit yourself.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. The goal when using the GPL is to ensure that your code is never going to go proprietary and the basic freedoms taken away. I just fucking dont want anyone to restrict people access to my own code.
> If *I* can't make money off the code, you sure as hell won't either!
Wrong again. They can sell it as they want, but dont act as a little Stalin and restrict the access to the code, just to "make money". If their only way to "make money" is to restrict the access and the freedoms of the code, they can write their shit from scratch.
> Clarifying this point in a more liberal fashion can do nothing but further > entrench GPL code in the enterprise and thus further solidify the F/OSS ideal > among the IT elite
You can be sure RMS wont let make the GPL more BSDish, or let any thing in what will make you able to make GPL code not GPL'ed.
They will change the wording a bit so many free software licences which are not GPL compatible at this moment, notably the Apache license, will get compatible to version 3. This will make stuff under other licences easier to relicence under the GPL, not the other way round.
It cant be true! Please somebody, do something! A patent application is at stake!
If Apple cannot patent this, although it has been known and used for approx. 50 years now, they will be _SHAMELESSLY_ ripped off! Other companies will use the same 50yr old wheel interface and put out even remotely similar products that will _HARM_ Apples hegemony and glory.
They _HAVE_ to be rewarded for their revolutionary invention. Even if it was invented before. But _no one_ came up with an great product as the iPod. A company that manages to produce something revolutionary as the iPod has to be protected. They have the absolute right to disallow everybody else the usage of everything they want to. This protection is absolutely _necessary_, even if it is not based on any lagal concept. The invention machine that is Apple _HAS_ to be protected by any means, as much as possible.
What is good for Apple, is good for _US_. So competition for Apple is _HARMING_ us! Think about it.
> Apple and MicroSoft might be both playing "Football" but one uses and round ball > and the other enlogated one.
Lets word it a little differently:
Microsoft and Apple might both be playing "Football" but you can play with Microsoft in just any stadium all over the world, and with Apple only strictly in their own stadium, where the tickets cost about twice as much.
Have you ever seen a winner team _NEVER_ leaving its own stadium and refusing to play with anybody else outside? Me neither.
> You could just as easily say that the GPL does not promote further selfless > behavior. Rather, it enforces reciprocity by denying other developers the > freedom to choose their own license for the code they write.
It does promote selfless behaviour by making attractive code bound to selfless conditions, and by eliminating the possibilities of selfish licencing.
There is no reason for a Free Software developer to chose another licence than than GPL, because the GPL ensures the Free Software freedoms more than any other licence. The only reason to chose another licence is to make selfish behaviour more possible than with the GPL, so relicencing should be discouraged.
> The BSD license does not deny anyone anything. You said it yourself "BSD > allows".
BSD makes every single distributor except the original developer to relicence the code and to disallow you something. BSD code theoretically wouldnt be able to survive a single node of distribution, because there would be no guarantees to the code to retain its original free licence. BSD code depends upon the good will and selflessness of its distributors to remain free, GPL'd code does not.
> GPL disallows.
The only thing the GPL disallows is the disallowing itself.
Hes obviously concentrating on the benefits for the closed source industry, not for the community.
In fact, ESR's bullshit doesn't differ at all from Microsoft's "BSD good, GPL bad" rants.
If the community is the only one producing the code, how could the switch to BSD make it actually produce the same code faster? Proprietary companies wouldnt give anything back, unless they're legally forced to. Thats how proprietary companies do business, they try to sell stuff, not to give it away for free.
Just think what Apple for example would gave back to the KHTML project, if the engine were under the BSD.
> who am I to say that it can't be distributed by somebody else? I'm the author of > the f*cking software, that's who.
You being the author doesnt make clear why you should be given the right to disallow two people of the other side of the planet share a CDs with your stuff on it.
> I'm a writer, and I decide what happens with my work, not some group of > individuals who claim to represent "society".
You do decide what happens with your work, until you willingfully release it to this "society". You cant have it both ways: Having your work stuffed up the peoples asses, but at the same time trying to control how it is used, once it is out there.
> There is, however, a word for what happens when "the good of society" takes > priority over individual rights and freedoms. Oppression.
Thanks, youre describing exactly what happens when someones trying to limit the masses of a perfectly natural right: copying and exchanging information amongst eachother. Copyright is opression of many for the benefit of a few.
> Do you understand that there will be economic consequences to the industries > that produce these media?
Do you actually understand that there are a few people (call them an overhelming majority) that actually value their right to copy everything more than the industry's means of existence? That they even would accept having a way less creative products being created, just to be able to copy it all at will?
Even then, they would have acces to more creative works, than they could afford now, having to pay for every line of text.
> People think it's ok, because they don't physically > take it from some place. That is the classic > definition of stealing.
People can reproduce the feeling of having their property stolen, and therefore most of them do not steal others property to avoid hurting them the way they wouldnt like to be hurt.
On the other side, very few people can reproduce the feeling how it is to have your "Intellectual property" stolen, because they dont posess any. This leads to the opinion that a new form of property, the intellectual property, is unjust towards all the ones that do not posess any, while a few can live of it by simply selling fictional letters of indulgence (licences), so this form of property is simply ignored.
> There's plenty of free stuff out there that you *do* have a right to use.
And there are even more people who think you, as a developer, have the right to deny them the right to copy it, if they want.
If the state tries to take them this natural right, the law is felt as unjust an simply ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
lol, i wish i had points for this one.
Too bad it will pass through unreckognized.
> The point is, if we DONT let companies securely turn material into abandonware, then their incentive to produce goes
> down. This is basic economics and it makes good policy sense as well.
Thats just bullshit.
Offering someone a incentive to produce but without _any_ limits to what is demanded to continue to produce shouldnt be a part of any policy either, but which is what you are recommending.
The company's incentive to produce would without doubt rise if we exempted them from paying taxes to the state, so why shouldnt this be done too?
> the whole dual licensing crap will make most small commercial software developers move away from MySQL
There is no "dual licencing crap" for companies that only use and do not intend to distribute proprietary versions of MySQL themselves.
For those who intend to make unfree versions of MySQL publically available, and make money that way, whats wrong with requiring them to pay for the base MySQL and thus help its development??
The whole "dual licencing crap" starts when a company chooses PostgreSQL for its licence only, because it intents to distribute it under another, proprietary licence, and give neither code nor money back to encourage its further free development. Its then another dead end and a code sink for Postgres' development.
They can force you by not granting you a proprietary licence at all.
You can try to take this risk, and develop your small sharewarchen with the free version, and after the development switch to the proprietary, but people who invest real money (and much of it) in a QT app can't, because not getting a licence from Trolltech would mean they would have to GPL their proprietary app, or not distribute it at all.
> And it is a commercial software project: it is run like one, it is sold under
> a commercial license, and Troll Tech retains all the rights.
What "rights" do they retain, any other Free Software developer gives away?
Their copyrights?
Why the hell should they give away their copyrights, and to whom?
It isnt ironic at all. Youre free to develop Free Software for a free platform. You have to pay money for proprietary QT just in case you want to make unfree, proprietary software, and not to contribute anything back to the free platform you're using. Its a way to make sure youre either contributing to QT (in form of your money, which will lead to further development of Free Software) or directly to the Free Software platform, in form of your code. As I understand, you, and most of other QT bashers, dont care to contribute in any way, so stop whining.
> At that point, why put *any* database on mysql? Postgresql/Firebird/SQLite are all *freer* anyway.
Freer than GPL'd free software?
Oh, you mean free like in "free to deny everybody the right to redistribute it"?
> they should be allowed to reverse engineer FairPlay to interoperate the #1 music
> device on the planet.
The Ipod isn't the #1 music device on the planet.
> Therefore, GPL'd software is NOT a gift.
It IS a gift. Sure, not for the proprietary developer who wants to constrict access to that code and make money by selling "rights" to use what has been made constricted, but it is a gift to the user, who has been given the free software rights (using, modifying, distributing) at no cost.
> How does a BSD license prevent this exactly?
By people not willing to work on code which can be closed up and made propriatery and people denied free access to it by its next best distributor.
> how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL?
And then, compare those numbers to the numbers of people who will _not_ contribute to a BSD licensed project sincfe they do not want anyone to incorporate their code into proprietary commercial projects, without giving _anything_ back to the community.
I think that summa sumarum, the Pro-GPL folks outnumber the Pro-BSD folks by orders of some magnitudes.
> This means you get access to their changes whether they want to be nice or not
Of course, why are you so amazed about it? IT is the point to force freedom, the same way IRL force is used to abolish slavery (proprietary licences.)
> to give away code is not to help others, but rather to benifit yourself.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. The goal when using the GPL is to ensure that your code is never going to go proprietary and the basic freedoms taken away. I just fucking dont want anyone to restrict people access to my own code.
> If *I* can't make money off the code, you sure as hell won't either!
Wrong again. They can sell it as they want, but dont act as a little Stalin and restrict the access to the code, just to "make money". If their only way to "make money" is to restrict the access and the freedoms of the code, they can write their shit from scratch.
And its people like you, who "thank" in the public on their knees for the "privilege" to use OSX, that make me laugh every time I see it.
> Clarifying this point in a more liberal fashion can do nothing but further
> entrench GPL code in the enterprise and thus further solidify the F/OSS ideal
> among the IT elite
You can be sure RMS wont let make the GPL more BSDish, or let any thing in what will make you able to make GPL code not GPL'ed.
They will change the wording a bit so many free software licences which are not GPL compatible at this moment, notably the Apache license, will get compatible to version 3. This will make stuff under other licences easier to relicence under the GPL, not the other way round.
We are mad because some jerk tries to make it difficult for Apple to patent 50yr old concepts.
Oh NO!
It cant be true! Please somebody, do something! A patent application is at stake!
If Apple cannot patent this, although it has been known and used for approx. 50 years now, they will be _SHAMELESSLY_ ripped off! Other companies will use the same 50yr old wheel interface and put out even remotely similar products that will _HARM_ Apples hegemony and glory.
They _HAVE_ to be rewarded for their revolutionary invention. Even if it was invented before. But _no one_ came up with an great product as the iPod. A company that manages to produce something revolutionary as the iPod has to be protected. They have the absolute right to disallow everybody else the usage of everything they want to. This protection is absolutely _necessary_, even if it is not based on any lagal concept. The invention machine that is Apple _HAS_ to be protected by any means, as much as possible.
What is good for Apple, is good for _US_. So competition for Apple is _HARMING_ us! Think about it.
> Apple and MicroSoft might be both playing "Football" but one uses and round ball
> and the other enlogated one.
Lets word it a little differently:
Microsoft and Apple might both be playing "Football" but you can play with Microsoft in just any stadium all over the world, and with Apple only strictly in their own stadium, where the tickets cost about twice as much.
Have you ever seen a winner team _NEVER_ leaving its own stadium and refusing to play with anybody else outside? Me neither.
Or port them to Death Metal.
> You could just as easily say that the GPL does not promote further selfless
> behavior. Rather, it enforces reciprocity by denying other developers the
> freedom to choose their own license for the code they write.
It does promote selfless behaviour by making attractive code bound to selfless conditions, and by eliminating the possibilities of selfish licencing.
There is no reason for a Free Software developer to chose another licence than than GPL, because the GPL ensures the Free Software freedoms more than any other licence. The only reason to chose another licence is to make selfish behaviour more possible than with the GPL, so relicencing should be discouraged.
> The BSD license does not deny anyone anything. You said it yourself "BSD
> allows".
BSD makes every single distributor except the original developer to relicence the code and to disallow you something. BSD code theoretically wouldnt be able to survive a single node of distribution, because there would be no guarantees to the code to retain its original free licence. BSD code depends upon the good will and selflessness of its distributors to remain free, GPL'd code does not.
> GPL disallows.
The only thing the GPL disallows is the disallowing itself.
> No, OS X is hands down the best OS out there at this point in time.
I'm sorry to be the one who has to tell you, but no it isn't.
Hes obviously concentrating on the benefits for the closed source industry, not for the community.
In fact, ESR's bullshit doesn't differ at all from Microsoft's "BSD good, GPL bad" rants.
If the community is the only one producing the code, how could the switch to BSD make it actually produce the same code faster? Proprietary companies wouldnt give anything back, unless they're legally forced to. Thats how proprietary companies do business, they try to sell stuff, not to give it away for free.
Just think what Apple for example would gave back to the KHTML project, if the engine were under the BSD.
> who am I to say that it can't be distributed by somebody else? I'm the author of
> the f*cking software, that's who.
You being the author doesnt make clear why you should be given the right to disallow two people of the other side of the planet share a CDs with your stuff on it.
> I'm a writer, and I decide what happens with my work, not some group of
> individuals who claim to represent "society".
You do decide what happens with your work, until you willingfully release it to this "society". You cant have it both ways: Having your work stuffed up the peoples asses, but at the same time trying to control how it is used, once it is out there.
> There is, however, a word for what happens when "the good of society" takes
> priority over individual rights and freedoms. Oppression.
Thanks, youre describing exactly what happens when someones trying to limit the masses of a perfectly natural right: copying and exchanging information amongst eachother. Copyright is opression of many for the benefit of a few.
> Do you understand that there will be economic consequences to the industries
> that produce these media?
Do you actually understand that there are a few people (call them an overhelming majority) that actually value their right to copy everything more than the industry's means of existence? That they even would accept having a way less creative products being created, just to be able to copy it all at will?
Even then, they would have acces to more creative works, than they could afford now, having to pay for every line of text.
> People think it's ok, because they don't physically
> take it from some place. That is the classic
> definition of stealing.
People can reproduce the feeling of having their property stolen, and therefore most of them do not steal others property to avoid hurting them the way they wouldnt like to be hurt.
On the other side, very few people can reproduce the feeling how it is to have your "Intellectual property" stolen, because they dont posess any. This leads to the opinion that a new form of property, the intellectual property, is unjust towards all the ones that do not posess any, while a few can live of it by simply selling fictional letters of indulgence (licences), so this form of property is simply ignored.
> There's plenty of free stuff out there that you *do* have a right to use. And there are even more people who think you, as a developer, have the right to deny them the right to copy it, if they want. If the state tries to take them this natural right, the law is felt as unjust an simply ignored.