Slavery?!?!? Are you serious?!?!? I honestly don't think that there is a much more offensive way to put what you're trying to say. Though your usage is seriously flawed. I mean, come on. Restricting usage of the source is no slavery...
Oh, btw, the GPL does _not_ force open software for those that are not playing by the rules. After all, if it's closed source, how are you know?
For binary distributions, it doesn't state/at//all/ where the license/must/ be put. This is given with this statement in the license:
" in the documentation and/>>>or other materials provided with the distribution. "
So, it could be in a COPYING (or otherwise named) file with the distribution even if the user isn't told it was put on there computer. It just has to be/somewhere/. But, because of the 3rd clause, a 3rd party can't exact promote that they are using code under the BSD "without specific prior written permission."
""" You have it wrong - they can't *market* it with your name: """
Yes and no. You see, it says, "/endorse/ or promote products". And if a name appears on a website (or anywhere publicly) that can be construed as endorsement of the named developer/company.
I find it hilarious that the OP asked how to educate him/her-self on this topic and immediately there are lots of post recommending a license (overwhelmingly the GPL); this is NOT what the OP asked for.
@OP:
If you want to educate yourself on what licenses would be appropriate for what/you/ want, read the licenses. This site:
The most common are the BSD, MIT, MPL, Apache, GPL and LGPL. That is according to sf.net. Please note that there are licenses that don't just protect you, but seriously effect how others can use your work. Please consider this as well when choosing your license.
To add in my personal opinion, I *really* don't like the GPL. What it does is FORCE other developers that use your work (whether dynamically linked to or not) to use the GPL as well. My personal opinion is that as a developer, I don't have the right to choose the license of someone else's work. There is of course the argument that the developer just shouldn't use your work. But, IMO, that is a non-argument as in some areas there really is only one or two real options.
At any rate, agree or disagree. That's just my opinion.
""" When I ignored the bullies I just got hit from behind when I wasn't looking. So much for that idea. """
Yes and of course b/c it happened to you it'll happen to/everyone/. And of course we need to have instant gratification. Because if it doesn't work straight away, it won't ever work, right. There's never an adjustment period. No never.
So, then under this law people could theoretically be suspended or expelled for being involved in arguing that K&R rocks (or sucks)?!?!? I mean seriously, just look at any mailing list/news group/web forum/etc. They're all full of people flaming each-other. But, if this law passes, and the people involved are students, they can be expelled for arguing/bracing style/.
This is sickeningly politically correct and does NOTHING to stop this problem. Just like other "methods", the bully will be smart enough to move his/her efforts to another "solution space" that it's unlikely they'll get caught in. It's this sort of reactionary thinking that let this stuff get out of hand in the first place. Seriously, is suspending or expelling the student going to make them stop posting on MySpace? If anything, they'll have more time to do that!
Basically, no law will stop bullying. No law will "pull in the reigns" of the bully. The solution is the same simple one that it always has been; the parents must actually parent there child. This alone will put this back to a healthy level if society actually does it.
Furthermore, the schools have absolutely no right to start parenting children; which this basically amounts to. The schools rights begin and end during school hours. The schools rights also only apply to what happens on school property. Everything outside that is the jurisdiction of the parents, police and society in general.
I'm sorry, but unlike others, I acknowledge the reality that bullying (_not_ the ridiculous hazing bullying that/is/ a problem) is about getting the ability to cope with adversity. It's a necessary life skill and those that don't develop it are going to have *serious* problems in life. Furthermore, when people learn to deal with bullying in appropriate ways (e.g. ignoring the bully), then that bully will have to change tactics (or most likely stop as the person in question isn't really a target anymore). The cycle continues until the bully "grows out of it".
It must be noted that this will benefit both the victim AND the bully. The victim gets the ability to cope with adversity whereas the bully (hopefully) learns that violence and/or intimidation is not the answer (that is, if the victim was able to cope). Most likely this is a form of learning to deal with his/her own stress in a productive way rather than taking things out on someone else.
Also, the fact of the matter is that bullying of this type was extremely rare until very very recently. Recently though, that ratio has started to flip; hyper bullying is getting far more common. So, to see what the problem is, we must look at what has changed in society recently. IMO the list would look something like:
- parent treating the child as a burden. something that you have and then just have to "deal with" - kids being brainwashed to thinking that they're the best at everything when they're obviously not.
"All I know is that no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."
- Assistant Grounds Keeper Skinner, Simpsons - getting away with treating there parents like crap (similar to the hyper bullying) - repercussion if the get caught are constant slaps on the wrist or disproportionally rough (i.e. basically no repercussions or so brutal it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get the same harsh punishment, so you might as well go all out). - teacher becoming apathetic and letting the student talk back, show massive disrespect in class, etc without repercussions. - teachers not challenging the students academically because god forbid the student will fail and effect there massive ego and get yelled at by the parent(s). - administration being disciplinarily impotent. - students having problems with realizing what is reality
One could continue, but I think that the point has been made.
But, I find it stunning that if we dialed back the clock one or two decades with regards to discipline and parenting, it would actually be some major leaps forward.
Actually, that depends on how the 3rd party had submitted the code or how the docs say it would be accepted as.
It also depends on how the project is run in general. As in, if this project is run with a dictator type model (benevolent or not) then the one person at the top can certainly make these sorts of decisions on his/her own.
""" The constant cracking of their protection schemes just proves that it doesn't stop piracy _AT ALL_.. If preventing piracy was the true reason for DRM, they would have abandoned DRM years ago, as it's costing them a lot of money to develop while doing nothing to stop piracy. """
Not if you have companies with dumbasses running them being convinced that flawed tech will work. Hmmm...
""" Actually, I've been trained in debate and worked with logic and logical fallacies since the 1980s. What I find interesting is that I provided support for everything I said, while you, who doubt it, could only support one part of your arguments or statements with hours of observation, without any indication of professional training to go with it.... Is it possible you are one of those very people you mention that would rather object to everything and block progress? Is it just possible you are one of those people who refuse to open up and consider other methods or possibilities? """
Actually, you've provided the exact same support that I have. You've also not acted in accordance with your Friend way of thinking (last quote above). This makes you a hypocrite. Btw, this also proves my point. Thanks for playing.
p.s. Since I've proved my point, I won't be responding to any more of your sophistry. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that I'm right. Btw, if you really want proof, just go to any mailing list, web forum, etc and you'll find so many examples of what I say is true it isn't funny.
""" Are you making a statement from theory, or have you observed both groups and seen the dynamics in both groups? """
My experience is spends many hours with my girlfriend when she worked in an residential home with people with Downs Syndrome. Very emotional people. But, in the end, no matter what, they *always* yielded to authority. Typically in just minutes. I also visited her at an institution several times working with people that did not have Downs Syndrome.
My experience with regards to development (i.e. geeks) is working as a professional programmer. Furthermore, I have worked as a student researcher with Physicists (where I actually produced something).
So, I have experience with/both/ worlds.
"""
specifically emotionally disturbed students """
We aren't talking about this population in this thread. In fact, the only reason why this came up is because YOU brought it up. The fact of the matter is that "well adjusted" programmers are going to behave VERY differently than the "emotionally disturbed". Both in there participation in discussion and there reactions within it.
""" In other words, I'm trying politely to cite part of over a decade of experience and training that proves that statement is completely wrong. """
LOL, hubris. Your experience contradicts common sense and human nature. Perhaps you need a refresh in Psyc 101.
""" I simply don't understand where you get that impression, """
And I'm referencing the reality of THIS situation. While you may be able to sit down with the disturbed and work with them over a long period of time, that was not the question originally posed (i.e. the people here CAN IGNORE YOU; they just don't have to read the email). Nor are the people even remotely of the same stature.
Basically, you have a captive audience that has to listen to you. Whether it is because they work with you or because they have been institutionalized (or similar) it makes your experience inapplicable to this situation.
What we have here is people who are contacting each-other ONLY BY EMAIL. What we have here is people that not only are capable of destructive behaviour, but are/currently doing it/. No amount of discussion has been successful in removing this blockage. In fact, from the original question, we know that certain people in this group are actively involved in... limiting progress. "Nice words" are not going to sway these people.
Your idea may be able to/keep/ people in a peaceful way (mostly) when they are already in it, but it won't do a lick of good when things have gotten this bad. And you haven't made a case to the contrary.
I worked for the Quakers for over 400 year b/c there society is built around it. They actually listen to each-other.
But, when it comes to tech stuff, there is a significant percentage of the geek community that is so stuck in there opinions that they won't even listen to the other side. Unfortunately, most communities aren't able to recognize this early enough and everything degrades into flame war. And once you are at the point of flame war, there's no return.
Your example of success in special ed classrooms is sophistry. While it may work with them, in the end they are weak willed. Geeks on the forums are not.
*One* way that things can work is to (as you say) treat people with respect and expect the same. But,/when/ people don't (consistently), they get removed from the project.
What you don't realize is that there are bad seeds out there. Even if there intentions are good./When/ they are encountered, they must be dealt with or they'll poison the project (which happened here). Basically, the work isn't a warm and fuzzy as you would like it to believe and some of the time (e.g. here), the only way to deal with it, is a heavy hand.
Although I agree with you in principal, this isn't what the guy said is going on. Quoting:
""" slowed by flames, trolls, and even filibustering """
And:
""" This passive-aggressiveness, coupled with growing despair on the part of other members, would have caused the project to dissolve if a vote had not taken place to elect new leadership """
Clearly this is _not_ about silencing constructive criticism.
Yah, I remember watching that talk a little while ago. Some of the things in it were good and some... not so much. One _must_ remember that these guys are *very* biased toward an extreme community development style i.e. voting, discussion, etc. This is exactly the situation that isn't working here. Here we have a community gone wrong b/c of lack of leadership (IMO).
My advice would be to go with the benevolent dictator model (btw, 2 leaders is a recipe for disaster). But, b/c things have gotten sour, a foot (or feet here I guess) _must_ be put down. So, not so benevolent dictator for the first little while;)
IMO, you should have the 2 co-leaders sit down together and hash out the direction that the project will take (there has already been much "discussion" so the other dev's opinions are already known). Write up the direction and post it. Those that are belligerent get commit access revoked. If they really care about there particular vision, they'll fork the project. If not, whatever. Either way, they're out of your hair.
But, for the love of god, make sure that/only/ the 2 co-leaders are able to revoke commit access. Otherwise, if someone that is belligerent has this as well... well, bad things.
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. As in, what this basically amounts to is that these guys learned something while working at a company and are know bared from using that knowledge. I mean, any non-compete clauses that I've seen means that you can't take anything with you went you leave the company e.g. research papers, contact info, etc. But, never have I seen one that prevents the/reproduction/ of results which would prevent people from working in the same field.
When I worked in industry, I had to learn PHP for a project. Going along the same logic here, I wouldn't be able to program in PHP b/c my former company owns that knowledge.
This is a dangerous precedent. One that needs to be challenged. Otherwise, many others will be screwed as well.
I'd hate to tell you this, but FF wasn't about the tech (which is a departure for most). FF was about the story. It was about the characters, there interactions, etc. As such, it ended up being quite complex. Basically, FF had a story that you obviously didn't pay any attention to.
I suggest that you watch again. But, this time, instead of looking for all the things that/you/ don't like, watch it for what it is.
If they are polling people that are largely bias then fine. BUT, 3000 people IS statistically significant. Hell, statisticians are happy with half that number.
Slashdot Mirror
Slavery?!?!? Are you serious?!?!? I honestly don't think that there is a much more offensive way to put what you're trying to say. Though your usage is seriously flawed. I mean, come on. Restricting usage of the source is no slavery...
Oh, btw, the GPL does _not_ force open software for those that are not playing by the rules. After all, if it's closed source, how are you know?
For binary distributions, it doesn't state /at/ /all/ where the license /must/ be put. This is given with this statement in the license:
/somewhere/. But, because of the 3rd clause, a 3rd party can't exact promote that they are using code under the BSD "without specific prior written permission."
"
in the documentation and/>>>or other materials provided with the distribution.
"
So, it could be in a COPYING (or otherwise named) file with the distribution even if the user isn't told it was put on there computer. It just has to be
"""
You have it wrong - they can't *market* it with your name:
"""
Yes and no. You see, it says, "/endorse/ or promote products". And if a name appears on a website (or anywhere publicly) that can be construed as endorsement of the named developer/company.
I find it hilarious that the OP asked how to educate him/her-self on this topic and immediately there are lots of post recommending a license (overwhelmingly the GPL); this is NOT what the OP asked for.
/you/ want, read the licenses. This site:
@OP:
If you want to educate yourself on what licenses would be appropriate for what
http://opensource.org/
has a TONNE of them.
The most common are the BSD, MIT, MPL, Apache, GPL and LGPL. That is according to sf.net. Please note that there are licenses that don't just protect you, but seriously effect how others can use your work. Please consider this as well when choosing your license.
To add in my personal opinion, I *really* don't like the GPL. What it does is FORCE other developers that use your work (whether dynamically linked to or not) to use the GPL as well. My personal opinion is that as a developer, I don't have the right to choose the license of someone else's work. There is of course the argument that the developer just shouldn't use your work. But, IMO, that is a non-argument as in some areas there really is only one or two real options.
At any rate, agree or disagree. That's just my opinion.
"""
BSD: Anyone can use your code, any way they want, as long as they mention your name.
"""
Actually, there is a clause in there that says that they can _not_ use your name. I think you are confusing the BSD with zlib.
"""
/everyone/. And of course we need to have instant gratification. Because if it doesn't work straight away, it won't ever work, right. There's never an adjustment period. No never.
When I ignored the bullies I just got hit from behind when I wasn't looking. So much for that idea.
"""
Yes and of course b/c it happened to you it'll happen to
----
Not captioned for the sarcasm impaired.
The Perimeter Institute has been putting its lectures online for some time now.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
Now I agree that it's good to have a central location for this sort of thing, but its hardly revolutionary.
So, then under this law people could theoretically be suspended or expelled for being involved in arguing that K&R rocks (or sucks)?!?!? I mean seriously, just look at any mailing list/news group/web forum/etc. They're all full of people flaming each-other. But, if this law passes, and the people involved are students, they can be expelled for arguing /bracing style/.
/is/ a problem) is about getting the ability to cope with adversity. It's a necessary life skill and those that don't develop it are going to have *serious* problems in life. Furthermore, when people learn to deal with bullying in appropriate ways (e.g. ignoring the bully), then that bully will have to change tactics (or most likely stop as the person in question isn't really a target anymore). The cycle continues until the bully "grows out of it".
This is sickeningly politically correct and does NOTHING to stop this problem. Just like other "methods", the bully will be smart enough to move his/her efforts to another "solution space" that it's unlikely they'll get caught in. It's this sort of reactionary thinking that let this stuff get out of hand in the first place. Seriously, is suspending or expelling the student going to make them stop posting on MySpace? If anything, they'll have more time to do that!
Basically, no law will stop bullying. No law will "pull in the reigns" of the bully. The solution is the same simple one that it always has been; the parents must actually parent there child. This alone will put this back to a healthy level if society actually does it.
Furthermore, the schools have absolutely no right to start parenting children; which this basically amounts to. The schools rights begin and end during school hours. The schools rights also only apply to what happens on school property. Everything outside that is the jurisdiction of the parents, police and society in general.
I'm sorry, but unlike others, I acknowledge the reality that bullying (_not_ the ridiculous hazing bullying that
It must be noted that this will benefit both the victim AND the bully. The victim gets the ability to cope with adversity whereas the bully (hopefully) learns that violence and/or intimidation is not the answer (that is, if the victim was able to cope). Most likely this is a form of learning to deal with his/her own stress in a productive way rather than taking things out on someone else.
Also, the fact of the matter is that bullying of this type was extremely rare until very very recently. Recently though, that ratio has started to flip; hyper bullying is getting far more common. So, to see what the problem is, we must look at what has changed in society recently. IMO the list would look something like:
- parent treating the child as a burden. something that you have and then just have to "deal with"
- kids being brainwashed to thinking that they're the best at everything when they're obviously not.
"All I know is that no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."
- Assistant Grounds Keeper Skinner, Simpsons
- getting away with treating there parents like crap (similar to the hyper bullying)
- repercussion if the get caught are constant slaps on the wrist or disproportionally rough (i.e. basically no repercussions or so brutal it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get the same harsh punishment, so you might as well go all out).
- teacher becoming apathetic and letting the student talk back, show massive disrespect in class, etc without repercussions.
- teachers not challenging the students academically because god forbid the student will fail and effect there massive ego and get yelled at by the parent(s).
- administration being disciplinarily impotent.
- students having problems with realizing what is reality
One could continue, but I think that the point has been made.
But, I find it stunning that if we dialed back the clock one or two decades with regards to discipline and parenting, it would actually be some major leaps forward.
But, arguably if the project is run with a dictator type model, then the dictator doesn't need to ask. They _can_ just make changes.
Actually, that depends on how the 3rd party had submitted the code or how the docs say it would be accepted as.
It also depends on how the project is run in general. As in, if this project is run with a dictator type model (benevolent or not) then the one person at the top can certainly make these sorts of decisions on his/her own.
"""
The constant cracking of their protection schemes just proves that it doesn't stop piracy _AT ALL_.. If preventing piracy was the true reason for DRM, they would have abandoned DRM years ago, as it's costing them a lot of money to develop while doing nothing to stop piracy.
"""
Not if you have companies with dumbasses running them being convinced that flawed tech will work. Hmmm...
""" ...
Actually, I've been trained in debate and worked with logic and logical fallacies since the 1980s. What I find interesting is that I provided support for everything I said, while you, who doubt it, could only support one part of your arguments or statements with hours of observation, without any indication of professional training to go with it.
Is it possible you are one of those very people you mention that would rather object to everything and block progress? Is it just possible you are one of those people who refuse to open up and consider other methods or possibilities?
"""
Actually, you've provided the exact same support that I have. You've also not acted in accordance with your Friend way of thinking (last quote above). This makes you a hypocrite. Btw, this also proves my point. Thanks for playing.
p.s. Since I've proved my point, I won't be responding to any more of your sophistry. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that I'm right. Btw, if you really want proof, just go to any mailing list, web forum, etc and you'll find so many examples of what I say is true it isn't funny.
Yes. See my reply to the other guy.
"""
/both/ worlds.
/currently doing it/. No amount of discussion has been successful in removing this blockage. In fact, from the original question, we know that certain people in this group are actively involved in... limiting progress. "Nice words" are not going to sway these people.
/keep/ people in a peaceful way (mostly) when they are already in it, but it won't do a lick of good when things have gotten this bad. And you haven't made a case to the contrary.
Are you making a statement from theory, or have you observed both groups and seen the dynamics in both groups?
"""
My experience is spends many hours with my girlfriend when she worked in an residential home with people with Downs Syndrome. Very emotional people. But, in the end, no matter what, they *always* yielded to authority. Typically in just minutes. I also visited her at an institution several times working with people that did not have Downs Syndrome.
My experience with regards to development (i.e. geeks) is working as a professional programmer. Furthermore, I have worked as a student researcher with Physicists (where I actually produced something).
So, I have experience with
"""
specifically emotionally disturbed students
"""
We aren't talking about this population in this thread. In fact, the only reason why this came up is because YOU brought it up. The fact of the matter is that "well adjusted" programmers are going to behave VERY differently than the "emotionally disturbed". Both in there participation in discussion and there reactions within it.
"""
In other words, I'm trying politely to cite part of over a decade of experience and training that proves that statement is completely wrong.
"""
LOL, hubris. Your experience contradicts common sense and human nature. Perhaps you need a refresh in Psyc 101.
"""
I simply don't understand where you get that impression,
"""
And I'm referencing the reality of THIS situation. While you may be able to sit down with the disturbed and work with them over a long period of time, that was not the question originally posed (i.e. the people here CAN IGNORE YOU; they just don't have to read the email). Nor are the people even remotely of the same stature.
Basically, you have a captive audience that has to listen to you. Whether it is because they work with you or because they have been institutionalized (or similar) it makes your experience inapplicable to this situation.
What we have here is people who are contacting each-other ONLY BY EMAIL. What we have here is people that not only are capable of destructive behaviour, but are
Your idea may be able to
I worked for the Quakers for over 400 year b/c there society is built around it. They actually listen to each-other.
/when/ people don't (consistently), they get removed from the project.
/When/ they are encountered, they must be dealt with or they'll poison the project (which happened here). Basically, the work isn't a warm and fuzzy as you would like it to believe and some of the time (e.g. here), the only way to deal with it, is a heavy hand.
But, when it comes to tech stuff, there is a significant percentage of the geek community that is so stuck in there opinions that they won't even listen to the other side. Unfortunately, most communities aren't able to recognize this early enough and everything degrades into flame war. And once you are at the point of flame war, there's no return.
Your example of success in special ed classrooms is sophistry. While it may work with them, in the end they are weak willed. Geeks on the forums are not.
*One* way that things can work is to (as you say) treat people with respect and expect the same. But,
What you don't realize is that there are bad seeds out there. Even if there intentions are good.
Although I agree with you in principal, this isn't what the guy said is going on. Quoting:
"""
slowed by flames, trolls, and even filibustering
"""
And:
"""
This passive-aggressiveness, coupled with growing despair on the part of other members, would have caused the project to dissolve if a vote had not taken place to elect new leadership
"""
Clearly this is _not_ about silencing constructive criticism.
Yah, I remember watching that talk a little while ago. Some of the things in it were good and some... not so much. One _must_ remember that these guys are *very* biased toward an extreme community development style i.e. voting, discussion, etc. This is exactly the situation that isn't working here. Here we have a community gone wrong b/c of lack of leadership (IMO).
;)
/only/ the 2 co-leaders are able to revoke commit access. Otherwise, if someone that is belligerent has this as well... well, bad things.
My advice would be to go with the benevolent dictator model (btw, 2 leaders is a recipe for disaster). But, b/c things have gotten sour, a foot (or feet here I guess) _must_ be put down. So, not so benevolent dictator for the first little while
IMO, you should have the 2 co-leaders sit down together and hash out the direction that the project will take (there has already been much "discussion" so the other dev's opinions are already known). Write up the direction and post it. Those that are belligerent get commit access revoked. If they really care about there particular vision, they'll fork the project. If not, whatever. Either way, they're out of your hair.
But, for the love of god, make sure that
tee hee :)
I wondering if a chimp would vote for bush.
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. As in, what this basically amounts to is that these guys learned something while working at a company and are know bared from using that knowledge. I mean, any non-compete clauses that I've seen means that you can't take anything with you went you leave the company e.g. research papers, contact info, etc. But, never have I seen one that prevents the /reproduction/ of results which would prevent people from working in the same field.
When I worked in industry, I had to learn PHP for a project. Going along the same logic here, I wouldn't be able to program in PHP b/c my former company owns that knowledge.
This is a dangerous precedent. One that needs to be challenged. Otherwise, many others will be screwed as well.
"""
Are they the same people that voted Oasis as better than The Beatles?
"""
Yes, b/c they only have web polls in the UK.
I'd hate to tell you this, but FF wasn't about the tech (which is a departure for most). FF was about the story. It was about the characters, there interactions, etc. As such, it ended up being quite complex. Basically, FF had a story that you obviously didn't pay any attention to.
/you/ don't like, watch it for what it is.
I suggest that you watch again. But, this time, instead of looking for all the things that
If they are polling people that are largely bias then fine. BUT, 3000 people IS statistically significant. Hell, statisticians are happy with half that number.
""" ;)
Hardly conclusive evidence, given the fact that 99% of people who have seen Star Wars have never heard of the magazine in the first place
"""
LOL!!!
You only have a point if special effects are the only things considered. Some (many?) people aren't so narrow minded.