Look at the LGPL. Paraphrased (and yes, I know about library substitution, etc.): "If you change my code, give me back the changes to my code." This is fair; it's your creation, if they improve it, give back the improvements to the creator (and, by extension, everybody else).
Look at the GPL. Paraphrased: "If you use my code, give me, and anyone else to whom you distribute your product, your code." This is unfair, because you are putting conditions on code you didn't write. (And please don't give me that "you don't have to use it" crap--the implication by GPL proponents is that you will use it, and this is where we loop back to Stallman's little vision.)
This is a basic moral split, where the GPL proponents think it's okay to demand that others "free" their code, whereas the LGPL doesn't presume to dictate conditions on code by other people.
"Freedom" doesn't just mean code freedom. It means developer freedom, too. Disrespecting that disrespects the concept of freedom.
You know as well as I do that "using" it (in the vernacular use of "using a library") necessitating licensing under the GPL. Splitting hairs is an ugly habit, Bruce. I'd think you smarter than that.
Very well. Let me rephrase. The GPL is "fair" only if you buy that it's okay to demand that others kowtow to you when dealing with software you didn't write.
LGPL? That's fair. "If you change my code, give me back the changes."
GPL? That's unfair. "If you use my code, you must give me your code."
Ohh, so projects that want to actually improve the quality of their product that they're peddling Windows users (look at Pidgin, it's horrible on Windows, and they're trying to improve it) shouldn't, just because it doesn't benefit your OS? That's hilarious.
You wouldn't be complaining if they were writing code to improve the functionality only on Linux, so shut the hell up. Go back to the basement.
Evidence of this business practice is emerging even now: MS is a platinum sponsor for Apache, and contributed a MSSQL patch to ADOdb (BSD license, not MS). Of course, MS isn't the only large corporation doing this (Sun, HP, IBM, Google, etc).
I'm having a hard time seeing the open-source community actually being capable of doing something new and interesting. (That's not a troll, it's just the way software development works. Microsoft can direct programmers; open-source can't do so as effectively.)
Besides, what you propose is sickeningly hypocritical. "We won't share with them what they've shared with us"? I get that the GNUtard contingent is okay with screwing people over to fit their ideology (BSD devs say hi), but don't you think that's a little fucked up?
They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them
The GPL is "fair" only if you buy that all software must be open source (and, like most sane people, I don't presume to dictate that to anyone). In any other case, the LGPL, Apache, and BSD licenses are far, far more fair.
They get people using their stuff, because it more easily operates with Linux. Why do you think they sucked up to Novell so much? Because Novell's real business is interoperability; SuSE is just part of that.
I find it very naive; it seems to not take into account that people are selfish and stupid and would rather vote in their own interests than that of the society at large. For example (not the best example, but one off the top of my head), raising an army--well, it's not important until somebody's at your doorstep, at which point it's too late. Sure, some people will say "but we need it!" before an imminent threat arrives...but most people are stupid and aren't forward-thinking.
A large part of the issue also comes from parecon. Parecon is a sad joke that does everything it can to avoid using the word "money," despite its tracking of contribution to the community in terms of relative worth, and the use of this value to obtain goods and services. It's extremely naive and doesn't really take into account how humans work.
It also doesn't seem to scale well at all. Eventually you have to have elected people because an aggregate body just can't function on a large enough scale; this may one day be possible with the Internet, but it sure isn't today. Once you have those elected representatives, it is a natural instinct for those representatives to retain that party--and you've come back to the democratic republic.
It'd be nice, if somehow you could ensure that everybody was highly intelligent and actually believed in the philosophies behind the governing system. But you can't, and thus it travels on square wheels.
"Increasing government services" is a huge part of the problem. We need to kill the subsidies for farmers to grow relatively useless topics. We need to stop corporate bailouts. We need to stop trying to coddle the citizenry.
It's not the government's job to hold my hand--or anyone else's.
Not all paleocons are isolationist. I think we should be projecting force in some cases (Korea comes to mind); I just don't think we should be nation-building.
"Helping the little guy" sounds good, until you realize that they want to suck the money out of the middle class to do it.
"Reining in corporate power" sounds good, until you realize that they'll only rein in the ones not paying to re-elect them, just like the Republicans.
"Universal health care" sounds good, until you realize that UHC in the form of all other first world countries involves services across a far, far larger area than any of the other countries (and poses a real and significant risk to medical innovation).
"Fixing social security" sounds good, until you realize that they've had plenty of tries to "fix" that oh-so-unconstitutional institution before and have spit the bit.
The Democrats are the party of "sounds good." They're no better than the neoconservative Republicans we now have.
What we need are old-style paleoconservatives, the Eisenhowers, Goldwaters, and, yes, even Nixons (minus the criminal element, of course; as a President, Nixon was a lot better than he gets credit for).
No, Bush most definitely is a neoconservative (socially conservative, pro-foreign-involvement, and big-government). Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative (and so am I). Bush? Neocon all the way.
You're right. My bad, I thought they'd done something sensical.
I used to contribute money to KDE projects (because I'm not a C++ programmer, otherwise I'd have been contributing code), but with these people running the show and the direction they've chosen to take the project (with a wannabe cult-of-personality type trying to run the show, more's the pity), I said to hell with it went back to Windows. It's unfortunate seeing a project I used to really, really like decide to barf on its shoes.:/
They're the ones trying to push KDE4 as "branding," not me. If you're trying to establish a brand, the first release--which they were touting as "stable," and KDE 3.5.x as "Legacy," by the way--had better be feature-complete.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe the Congress shouldn't have adjourned. We aren't paying them to "vacation" (in order words, to go campaign for themselves).
I don't need to quote the GPL to do so.
Look at the LGPL. Paraphrased (and yes, I know about library substitution, etc.): "If you change my code, give me back the changes to my code." This is fair; it's your creation, if they improve it, give back the improvements to the creator (and, by extension, everybody else).
Look at the GPL. Paraphrased: "If you use my code, give me, and anyone else to whom you distribute your product, your code." This is unfair, because you are putting conditions on code you didn't write. (And please don't give me that "you don't have to use it" crap--the implication by GPL proponents is that you will use it, and this is where we loop back to Stallman's little vision.)
This is a basic moral split, where the GPL proponents think it's okay to demand that others "free" their code, whereas the LGPL doesn't presume to dictate conditions on code by other people.
"Freedom" doesn't just mean code freedom. It means developer freedom, too. Disrespecting that disrespects the concept of freedom.
Er, necessitates. Apologies, I've been watching the Red Sox throw their season down the toilet all afternoon.
You know as well as I do that "using" it (in the vernacular use of "using a library") necessitating licensing under the GPL. Splitting hairs is an ugly habit, Bruce. I'd think you smarter than that.
You can always use my code. I license what I release under BSD and LGPL.
But I can't use what you do, because the GPL prohibits it. Where's the "fairness" of the GPL here?
Very well. Let me rephrase. The GPL is "fair" only if you buy that it's okay to demand that others kowtow to you when dealing with software you didn't write.
LGPL? That's fair. "If you change my code, give me back the changes."
GPL? That's unfair. "If you use my code, you must give me your code."
No thanks.
Ohh, so projects that want to actually improve the quality of their product that they're peddling Windows users (look at Pidgin, it's horrible on Windows, and they're trying to improve it) shouldn't, just because it doesn't benefit your OS? That's hilarious.
You wouldn't be complaining if they were writing code to improve the functionality only on Linux, so shut the hell up. Go back to the basement.
Evidence of this business practice is emerging even now: MS is a platinum sponsor for Apache, and contributed a MSSQL patch to ADOdb (BSD license, not MS). Of course, MS isn't the only large corporation doing this (Sun, HP, IBM, Google, etc).
Microsoft also donated to GNU last year.
How's that for EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!?
You're fucking retarded. "Profit" means revenue minus expenses, and stamping a CD is not the expensive part of assembling a distro.
I hope that was a joke, because Bad Religion and a bunch of other 80's bands might have something to say to you about "inventing punk rock."
Wait, you're bitching about Microsoft not supporting X11, something that just doesn't work with their windowing system? Are you seriously for real?
And they support NFS just fucking fine, cretin. Here's a HOWTO. They support NIS, too. Here's another HOWTO.
Fucking freetards.
Silly man, the adults of the open source community think that being childish toward THE BIG BAD MICROSOFT is a good idea.
I'm having a hard time seeing the open-source community actually being capable of doing something new and interesting. (That's not a troll, it's just the way software development works. Microsoft can direct programmers; open-source can't do so as effectively.)
Besides, what you propose is sickeningly hypocritical. "We won't share with them what they've shared with us"? I get that the GNUtard contingent is okay with screwing people over to fit their ideology (BSD devs say hi), but don't you think that's a little fucked up?
They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them
The GPL is "fair" only if you buy that all software must be open source (and, like most sane people, I don't presume to dictate that to anyone). In any other case, the LGPL, Apache, and BSD licenses are far, far more fair.
They get people using their stuff, because it more easily operates with Linux. Why do you think they sucked up to Novell so much? Because Novell's real business is interoperability; SuSE is just part of that.
Yes, and that's why I'm not voting for Obama.
I find it very naive; it seems to not take into account that people are selfish and stupid and would rather vote in their own interests than that of the society at large. For example (not the best example, but one off the top of my head), raising an army--well, it's not important until somebody's at your doorstep, at which point it's too late. Sure, some people will say "but we need it!" before an imminent threat arrives...but most people are stupid and aren't forward-thinking.
A large part of the issue also comes from parecon. Parecon is a sad joke that does everything it can to avoid using the word "money," despite its tracking of contribution to the community in terms of relative worth, and the use of this value to obtain goods and services. It's extremely naive and doesn't really take into account how humans work.
It also doesn't seem to scale well at all. Eventually you have to have elected people because an aggregate body just can't function on a large enough scale; this may one day be possible with the Internet, but it sure isn't today. Once you have those elected representatives, it is a natural instinct for those representatives to retain that party--and you've come back to the democratic republic.
It'd be nice, if somehow you could ensure that everybody was highly intelligent and actually believed in the philosophies behind the governing system. But you can't, and thus it travels on square wheels.
"Increasing government services" is a huge part of the problem. We need to kill the subsidies for farmers to grow relatively useless topics. We need to stop corporate bailouts. We need to stop trying to coddle the citizenry.
It's not the government's job to hold my hand--or anyone else's.
Not all paleocons are isolationist. I think we should be projecting force in some cases (Korea comes to mind); I just don't think we should be nation-building.
Right, but who's going to push for it when both major parties benefit from the status quo?
This explains so much.
Anarchism/libertarian socialism: "We Travel On Square Wheels, But We All Agree We Make Sense"
"Helping the little guy" sounds good, until you realize that they want to suck the money out of the middle class to do it.
"Reining in corporate power" sounds good, until you realize that they'll only rein in the ones not paying to re-elect them, just like the Republicans.
"Universal health care" sounds good, until you realize that UHC in the form of all other first world countries involves services across a far, far larger area than any of the other countries (and poses a real and significant risk to medical innovation).
"Fixing social security" sounds good, until you realize that they've had plenty of tries to "fix" that oh-so-unconstitutional institution before and have spit the bit.
The Democrats are the party of "sounds good." They're no better than the neoconservative Republicans we now have.
What we need are old-style paleoconservatives, the Eisenhowers, Goldwaters, and, yes, even Nixons (minus the criminal element, of course; as a President, Nixon was a lot better than he gets credit for).
No, Bush most definitely is a neoconservative (socially conservative, pro-foreign-involvement, and big-government). Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative (and so am I). Bush? Neocon all the way.
You're right. My bad, I thought they'd done something sensical.
I used to contribute money to KDE projects (because I'm not a C++ programmer, otherwise I'd have been contributing code), but with these people running the show and the direction they've chosen to take the project (with a wannabe cult-of-personality type trying to run the show, more's the pity), I said to hell with it went back to Windows. It's unfortunate seeing a project I used to really, really like decide to barf on its shoes. :/
They're the ones trying to push KDE4 as "branding," not me. If you're trying to establish a brand, the first release--which they were touting as "stable," and KDE 3.5.x as "Legacy," by the way--had better be feature-complete.