"Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" just isn't the impressive statement it used to be.. When was the last Windows/Linux remote hole in a default install. Last I can remember was blaster, and you can bet Windows will have a hell of a lot more people looking for holes in it than OpenBSD.
Things like NX which OpenBSD rushed to emulate in software are now implemented in hardware on every modern computer. It's not the late 90s/early 2000 when robust security was a real selling point.
(FYI I use pf, openssh and freebsd, I'm not close-minded but I wouldn't feel any safer on OpenBSD)
This guy is so good at writing resumes that he tells the rest of us how to write them as a job; what more proof do you need that he must have an excellent resume?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
I think you don't understand the "OSS spirit" if by OSS you're talking about GPL, but feel free to rewrite my work and put my software on your "banned list" because you have some moral objection to the GPL. I have the open, effective development environment I want and am protected from plagiarism, so I couldn't care less about hollow threats.
I know end users can get it, if it wasn't under the AGPL they couldn't, the GPL doesn't specify that for web-apps
There are several successful derivative sites which use my code
When someone uses your code to make a derivative site you don't have to "stalk" them to find it
Don't tell me "Trust. Learn it." when you have no clue what the AGPL is for or any experience in having your work plagiarized. If you're naive enough to think you can trust all developers to share code back without a license why use the GPL at all?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
If you think you wouldn't have a problem competing with a proprietary version of your own work maybe open source isn't your thing. (But I think you're naive if you actually think that, though)
Except a web app isn't a derivative work of a LAMP based system.. Besides we're talking about web-apps only, not that everyone should switch to the AGPL.
I consider "freedom of the code" to mean access to the code, and I think if you want to argue with that you're arguing with the FSF definition of free code which I posted.
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
Can't you see how in the example I just gave from personal experience the AGPL would have protected my code had it been released at the time, and how that falls pretty much directly in line with the stated purpose of the GPL?
"You have to give back" is the original purpose of the GPL..
It comments on the AGPL's efficacy for my project, and gives an example which doesn't fit your view that people will generally contribute back if left to do what they choose.
You ask me if your terms are fair. You're damn straight, I don't. Let me turn it around: what makes your code so special that you feel you can restrict the conditions under which I install and run it?
I wanted to encourage a share-alike development model for my web-application, like the software in the stack it runs on.
But web-application licensing has to be different to OS/server/platform licensing to have the same share-alike development model.
You ask me why my code is so special, but you could ask "why does Zend think its code is so special that they feel they can restrict the conditions under which I distribute it?"
They restrict how you distribute the code, I restrict how you can run it (by requiring you distribute it when you run it).
We both place these different restrictions on our code to the same end, and I don't see why one of the restrictions is less fair than the other.
My code did used to be BSD licensed (before the AGPL came out), but it got plagiarized and the license was ignored. When I uncovered it they re-included the license, but they didn't share back any code, and made only the minimum required mention that their code is derived from mine while soliciting thousands dollars of donations from users of their code.
I think that truly is unfair, and goes against the ideals that made PHP, MySQL, etc, etc, successful. I think AGPL provides the best equivalent protection to the GPL for code which doesn't rely on distribution for success.
As soon as the AGPL came out I protected my code with it, and now have a much more mutually beneficial relationship with derivative sites. So you can see why I support the AGPL; it got me the open share-alike development environment I want and that's hard to pose theoretical/moral arguments to.
If you still can't see my side of the argument at least you can avoid my code if you don't like the license.
I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential. Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.
You may hate that etc, and prefer not to share the improvements back, but for my web project I've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites wouldn't have been obliged to share otherwise, and everyone enjoys the better code as a result.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.
What so MIT wants a bunch of pill-popping jocks who pick on the geeks and use women, blah blah blah [ranting about personal insecurities and grudges] blah blah entitlement?
See this is the kind of thing that doesn't come out in test scores, but likely does in interviews and essays. You are probably a vain, resentful person who literally doesn't know the meaning of "a broad range of interests."
If you can't take an honest look at yourself and adjust your goals to suit them you're always going to be bitter
Id get worked up about this too except PayPal just has such a terrible record of cancelling accounts. After they've cancelled a fund-raising account for a dead soldier (or something) you become numb to it, they must just be looking for any excuse to cancel accounts and reap the sweet rewards of cash and consumer hatred
I do understand that my analogy isn't right because it costs more (I would guess) to maintain wireless connections for everyone over a wide area than to maintain a wired connection to a single person, but a digital message is digital data. It does irk me, but I think the reason it doesn't irk most is that they don't equate e-mail with messages or voip with phone, so they don't ask why data transmitted one way costs so much more than data transmitted another way.
Because of this they don't get a phone with internet and send e-mail, which means I can't get a phone with internet and send e-mail. They use text messages, I have to use them too.
Slashdot Mirror
As an Australian I agree, why not look to Zimbabwe for an economic recovery plan?
I exaggerate, but there are surely better places to look.
"Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" just isn't the impressive statement it used to be.. When was the last Windows/Linux remote hole in a default install. Last I can remember was blaster, and you can bet Windows will have a hell of a lot more people looking for holes in it than OpenBSD.
Things like NX which OpenBSD rushed to emulate in software are now implemented in hardware on every modern computer. It's not the late 90s/early 2000 when robust security was a real selling point.
(FYI I use pf, openssh and freebsd, I'm not close-minded but I wouldn't feel any safer on OpenBSD)
Oh boy you're in for a fun time..
I know, isn't it great? :-) They're still working on the 8.3 filename limitation, but let no-one say UFS is standing still!
This guy is so good at writing resumes that he tells the rest of us how to write them as a job; what more proof do you need that he must have an excellent resume?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
I think you don't understand the "OSS spirit" if by OSS you're talking about GPL, but feel free to rewrite my work and put my software on your "banned list" because you have some moral objection to the GPL. I have the open, effective development environment I want and am protected from plagiarism, so I couldn't care less about hollow threats.
1) This "derivative work" has the same code as before.
2) You would only have to distribute the LAMP stack, not the web-app which is running on it.
Please learn about a license before badmouthing it.
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
If you think you wouldn't have a problem competing with a proprietary version of your own work maybe open source isn't your thing. (But I think you're naive if you actually think that, though)
Except a web app isn't a derivative work of a LAMP based system.. Besides we're talking about web-apps only, not that everyone should switch to the AGPL.
It's a really great thing if you can get access to your competitions code but they can't get access to yours, but only great for you.
I guess you know why the FSF writes licenses better than the FSF do..
I consider "freedom of the code" to mean access to the code, and I think if you want to argue with that you're arguing with the FSF definition of free code which I posted.
Even assuming web-applications are nothing new that doesn't address the point about the GPL "distribution loophole".
We're talking about server-side web-applications here, not static web-pages..
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.
Can't you see how in the example I just gave from personal experience the AGPL would have protected my code had it been released at the time, and how that falls pretty much directly in line with the stated purpose of the GPL?
"You have to give back" is the original purpose of the GPL..
GPL2 used to work because there was not substantive use of derivative works without distribution. That's not true any longer.
Thanks, that's a very concise way to put it.
Eivind see my post just above: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406005&cid=29761159
It comments on the AGPL's efficacy for my project, and gives an example which doesn't fit your view that people will generally contribute back if left to do what they choose.
You ask me if your terms are fair. You're damn straight, I don't. Let me turn it around: what makes your code so special that you feel you can restrict the conditions under which I install and run it?
I wanted to encourage a share-alike development model for my web-application, like the software in the stack it runs on.
But web-application licensing has to be different to OS/server/platform licensing to have the same share-alike development model.
You ask me why my code is so special, but you could ask "why does Zend think its code is so special that they feel they can restrict the conditions under which I distribute it?"
They restrict how you distribute the code, I restrict how you can run it (by requiring you distribute it when you run it).
We both place these different restrictions on our code to the same end, and I don't see why one of the restrictions is less fair than the other.
My code did used to be BSD licensed (before the AGPL came out), but it got plagiarized and the license was ignored.
When I uncovered it they re-included the license, but they didn't share back any code, and made only the minimum required mention that their code is derived from mine while soliciting thousands dollars of donations from users of their code.
I think that truly is unfair, and goes against the ideals that made PHP, MySQL, etc, etc, successful. I think AGPL provides the best equivalent protection to the GPL for code which doesn't rely on distribution for success.
As soon as the AGPL came out I protected my code with it, and now have a much more mutually beneficial relationship with derivative sites. So you can see why I support the AGPL; it got me the open share-alike development environment I want and that's hard to pose theoretical/moral arguments to.
If you still can't see my side of the argument at least you can avoid my code if you don't like the license.
I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential. Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.
You may hate that etc, and prefer not to share the improvements back, but for my web project I've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites wouldn't have been obliged to share otherwise, and everyone enjoys the better code as a result.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.
Thrice daily? What?.. I can't remember the last time I had three in a single month.
MIT wants balanced individuals
What so MIT wants a bunch of pill-popping jocks who pick on the geeks and use women, blah blah blah [ranting about personal insecurities and grudges] blah blah entitlement?
See this is the kind of thing that doesn't come out in test scores, but likely does in interviews and essays. You are probably a vain, resentful person who literally doesn't know the meaning of "a broad range of interests."
If you can't take an honest look at yourself and adjust your goals to suit them you're always going to be bitter
Id get worked up about this too except PayPal just has such a terrible record of cancelling accounts. After they've cancelled a fund-raising account for a dead soldier (or something) you become numb to it, they must just be looking for any excuse to cancel accounts and reap the sweet rewards of cash and consumer hatred
12% of the letters in your post were the letter 'a'.
Mind = blown.
I do understand that my analogy isn't right because it costs more (I would guess) to maintain wireless connections for everyone over a wide area than to maintain a wired connection to a single person, but a digital message is digital data. It does irk me, but I think the reason it doesn't irk most is that they don't equate e-mail with messages or voip with phone, so they don't ask why data transmitted one way costs so much more than data transmitted another way.
Because of this they don't get a phone with internet and send e-mail, which means I can't get a phone with internet and send e-mail. They use text messages, I have to use them too.