Software can be upgraded with no cost to the original developer!
I think this shows one of the greatest things that Open Source and GPL offer. The original developer did'nt have to pay a cent to see it's software evolve on a new platform or be up to date. The rules can seem unfair, but the same rules allow him to sell the app also! He can get the new code (for free), and state that he is the original developer in his marketing.
We have to focus on starters, the advanced civilizations would hide themselves.
So.. we should analyze the numbers on how many low-technical civilizations could be out there.
We have to be more (in quantity) than the advanced ones (like the species in our planet, there are few organized species). And it should be easier to find the ones like us.
It's interesting the attribution clause included on these licenses.
We have many discussions about how manage attribution on open source projects.
CPAL (https://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?cpal) license gave us some points to consider when talking about attribution. This license allows you to put a limited attribution on the software "copyright notice, short phrase (10 words), graphic image and URL."
GPL 3 has it's own clause on attribution resources (see clause 7)
The way Ms-RL Ms-PL describes how attribution will be managed has another aproach from the previous licenses:
They require you to respect any attribution notices that the original work has.
So here we have an OSI approved license which can be used to preserve all your attribution notices...
This move looks like Borland's politics on Delphi. They provided the source code of the vcl components and main libraries, however you couldn't modify or rebuild them.
After some years working on Delphi i can say that the access to the base code has its gainings, mainly when you have poor or ambigous documentation, because you can see what is really happen behind the curtains.
You will be graceful when using a function or a method and it doesn't behave as expected, because you can strip down the actual code.
Have you noticed that Microsoft has purchased 70 000 coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support per year and that Novell has 50000 customers
Is there an error on these numbers??
I know, that a customer can have more than one license, but some customers don't have purchased the SUSE Server.
So... Microsoft has bought a number of licences that is similar to the currently base-installed?
And then you have that Novell will pay Microsoft a royalty fee depending on sales...
The movement seems to be more than just a patent issue, don't you think?
Any comments on the Database camp?
Slashdot Mirror
Software can be upgraded with no cost to the original developer! I think this shows one of the greatest things that Open Source and GPL offer. The original developer did'nt have to pay a cent to see it's software evolve on a new platform or be up to date. The rules can seem unfair, but the same rules allow him to sell the app also! He can get the new code (for free), and state that he is the original developer in his marketing.
It would be nice to try to contact the former developer when someone will modify their software...
We have to focus on starters, the advanced civilizations would hide themselves. So.. we should analyze the numbers on how many low-technical civilizations could be out there. We have to be more (in quantity) than the advanced ones (like the species in our planet, there are few organized species). And it should be easier to find the ones like us.
It's interesting the attribution clause included on these licenses. We have many discussions about how manage attribution on open source projects. CPAL (https://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?cpal) license gave us some points to consider when talking about attribution. This license allows you to put a limited attribution on the software "copyright notice, short phrase (10 words), graphic image and URL." GPL 3 has it's own clause on attribution resources (see clause 7) The way Ms-RL Ms-PL describes how attribution will be managed has another aproach from the previous licenses: They require you to respect any attribution notices that the original work has. So here we have an OSI approved license which can be used to preserve all your attribution notices...
This move looks like Borland's politics on Delphi. They provided the source code of the vcl components and main libraries, however you couldn't modify or rebuild them.
After some years working on Delphi i can say that the access to the base code has its gainings, mainly when you have poor or ambigous documentation, because you can see what is really happen behind the curtains.
You will be graceful when using a function or a method and it doesn't behave as expected, because you can strip down the actual code.
Have you noticed that Microsoft has purchased 70 000 coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support per year and that Novell has 50000 customers
Check this on:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html
http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1199
Is there an error on these numbers??
I know, that a customer can have more than one license, but some customers don't have purchased the SUSE Server. So... Microsoft has bought a number of licences that is similar to the currently base-installed?
And then you have that Novell will pay Microsoft a royalty fee depending on sales... The movement seems to be more than just a patent issue, don't you think?
Any comments on the Database camp?