How are the GPL guys forking stuff in a way that prevents the rest from using the code? And if you want to argue about the "originally intended" way I guess there is none? The BSD license is a permissive license, so my guess is that the reason to exist for the code is so it is used by the means the "user" wants to use it, and thus the original developers intended the rest of the world to do anything with the code.
This all seems to be more about the BSD people disliking the GPL and calling it a lock-in for no reason rather than "GNU forking something just because they don't like the BSD license..."
No, if ODF succeeds, MS will be forced to improve their products and actually care about the costumer in order to keep users, and that's something that goes against all what Microsoft stands for, what they want is to keep making products that sell automatically.
When I read the title I really thought this was about MS submitting licenses to OSI, turns out it was a pseudo-patriotic, crazy FUD. Heck, OS gives confort to your military anyways, why shouldn't other countries do that?
Complaint to the guys that made the latest office products, adobe and games, because it turns out that the most frequent reason WINE can't run something is a copy protection...
1) Truly open source licenses don't govern use.
2) Most users don't distribute
Therefore there is not much of added complexity...
Not to mention the fact that there may be 1000 open source licenses, that does not mean the projects with multiple license use more than 3 and the differences on the licenses in a single project tend not to be big, and it is very unlikely you would not get into one of the 10 most common ones.
Hi, give me all evidence that points out there is no superior entity at all, no, I don't mean "prove me the biblical god doesn't exist", that's very easy to do.
Deciding what a fact is without any evidence makes you as bad as the religious zealots
This is a gem, some dick with a republican party IP deleted the entire "Harry Potter" entry and replaced it with a single sentence
"Snape is the half-blood prince and kills Dumbledore."
This was shortly after the release of "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" so there were still plenty of people out there who hadn't read it at the time.
Now the guy that posted this info has spoiled it for everyone else.
1 . GPLv3 Enforcement: This Could Become a Bumpy Road
oh no, please no more GPLv3 controversy , it is just a license for god's sake!
You can think Novell and Linspire might threaten the GPLv3, but the fact is Novell doesn't seem interested and Linspire is simply too lame to be able to do that...
Working Together As a Community to Leave Behind Microsoft Media Formats.
Wasn't this already happening,before the deals?
Separating the Weak From the Strong. Regardless of your opinion of how this is going to go down, whether or not we'll see the Linux community split, the fact is that these powerful events happening with Microsoft, Novell and Linspire have already gestured many of us.
No matter how hard we try to down play it, the patent threats and deals that are being made because of them are hurting the community - it's a simple fact. The real trick will be to see who sticks this out and who falls back to closed source alternatives, as we see Linux getting split with IP politics.
I see them more as "attempts" to hurt the community rather than things that will work.
It is silly when you consider that the top corporate Linux vendor wants nothing to do with Microsoft, I think it is a fallacy to say that the deals are required for corporate business, perhaps for dumb business, but I really don't see much going on
Companies might love to close stuff, the thing is that unfortunately they can't, GPL ensures that once something is open it cannot be closed again, whether it is GPLv2 or GPLv3 it doesn't matter, hope this teaches the people that really use simply permissive licenses to notice why they need something stronger
Hey, sorry for the 2 posts with a tone people might not appreciate too much, but I'd like to state my opinion in a more serious manner:
Yeah, sure, SUSE is a pseudo open-source project which an incredibly significant percentage of the open-source community is working on. Like who? Developers of probably 70% of the applications (and a higher percentage of software) that you regularly use. Like what, you say? Heard of KDE? Heard of GNOME? Heard of OpenOffice.org, the Linux kernel, GCC, ALSA, Compiz? Yes, it's often hard to not use them.:-)
Sure, but regardless of how good the developers are, or how good it had done to the OSS community before, Novell has sold out. And this is a conclusion I take from actions rather than words.
Regarding the "majority" of the open source community is working on "open"SUSE it does not change the actions from Novell, I don't see that as my mistake but as a mistake from those developers, since they are so truly into open source, they should have forked SUSE already or at least leave it.
The tagline of the story is perfectly applicable here: money-where-mouth-is. You really don't want SUSE in the OSS community? Put your money where your mouth is: start ripping out all the contributions that they put in.:)
And if things continue like they are right now we are soon gonna have to do that... Or pay microsoft, all due to this "deal", regardless of the good intentions from the developers they are right now contributing to a project that is not good for us or them. And their work on things like openxml support or the MONOfication of gnome should seriously be pushed not to be done from SUSE.
Anyway, at least be sure that your hate is justified, which it most probably isn't.
Let's say, this is the place that pisses me off, you posted a link to http://opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS , so Why am I supposed to buy that? They say a lot of pretty stuff like "Novell has not sold out to Microsoft" or "The deal is not harmful to Linux in general" both assertions are false. And again I am coming to this conclusion from actions and not just "words", anyone can make that deal and then a page explaining how the deal is exactly the opposite to what it really is, but that would not change the real purpose of the deal.
In the very first "explanation" on the page they say something as false as : "nteroperability with regards to virtualization and documents " which is clearly NOT what Novell seems to be doing, Novell got no trouble helping MS get Linux virtualization while at the same time MS is not going to allow us at all to virtualize windows. And it is the same with ODF/"Open"XML , then again this first line of the document is totally false.
* Covenant not to sue each others _customers_ over patents.
Another false point in the document, you see MS has just promised not to sue, as long as it is not about a "clone" product, and MS has the will to decide what a clone product is.
Novell's strategy and future is almost entirely based on Linux. They would not do anything that they thought would harm Linux in general, that would be suicidal.
This all sounds like a "we are not evil, we are stupid" statement, because the deal is indeed harmful to Linux, why? It gives Microsoft all the right to say that open source really infringes their patents since Novell was so willing to sign this deal, it also forks openSUSE since we are not sure if the patches submitted by them are not going to be considered infringing of MS IP since we did not sign any agreement.
Then they say "We are absolutely not pushing OOXML" but then you don't hear Novell saying anything about how openxml should not be an ISO "open" standard, in fact they are at least being totally negligent regarding this issue, in fact even implementing openxml right now seems like
Sure, they got developers and used to contribute, hell yeah. But now OpenSUSE sold out to Microsoft, you can't simply deny that. And no offense but your link is not example from an unbiased source. No matter how points you get from the inept guys that got mod powers during this post. Regarding all the contributions from SUSE to the OSS commnity, now they are poisoning it, You said gnome, I say how much efforts now come to make it require MS patented technology, you say how much it helped "openoffice", now they have released a bastardified version that uses OpenXML, etc etc etc... Ever heard of novell's efforts to make Linux virtualized in windows so companies can migrate to windows on the server. But no care at all to virtualize windows or make Microsoft allow it, so we could have hopes in Linux for the Desktop?
I don't really worry too much about it not being OpenOffice... It is still Google trying to get people to migrate from MSOffice... And StarOffice is yet another ODF thing, so google seems to be including tools for migration from MSOffice formats to ODF, and I see that as a good thing.
Both OpenOffice and StarOffice are equally bloated thanks to Sun anyways...
I would guess the percentage of active IE users is 5% then? Since we need to be over picky and realistic on statistics, this means that the market share is even bigger for firefox! yay!.
Slashdot Mirror
This all seems to be more about the BSD people disliking the GPL and calling it a lock-in for no reason rather than "GNU forking something just because they don't like the BSD license..."
Didn't Bush also say something about a topic unrelated to your comment?
By the BSD guys deciding not to use any other licensed code, I guess they are the ones locking themselves out of the code.
Seriously, what the feck is a libertarian, and why should I care?
No, if ODF succeeds, MS will be forced to improve their products and actually care about the costumer in order to keep users, and that's something that goes against all what Microsoft stands for, what they want is to keep making products that sell automatically.
Take a look to the end of the video, this one is an awesome method to remove objects from pics. Very interesting.
Oh no! you mean I have missed a news item? Oh no, what a tragedy!
When I read the title I really thought this was about MS submitting licenses to OSI, turns out it was a pseudo-patriotic, crazy FUD. Heck, OS gives confort to your military anyways, why shouldn't other countries do that?
Complaint to the guys that made the latest office products, adobe and games, because it turns out that the most frequent reason WINE can't run something is a copy protection...
2) Most users don't distribute
Therefore there is not much of added complexity...
Not to mention the fact that there may be 1000 open source licenses, that does not mean the projects with multiple license use more than 3 and the differences on the licenses in a single project tend not to be big, and it is very unlikely you would not get into one of the 10 most common ones.
making fun games is an art
Deciding what a fact is without any evidence makes you as bad as the religious zealots
You can think Novell and Linspire might threaten the GPLv3, but the fact is Novell doesn't seem interested and Linspire is simply too lame to be able to do that...
Wasn't this already happeningIt is silly when you consider that the top corporate Linux vendor wants nothing to do with Microsoft, I think it is a fallacy to say that the deals are required for corporate business, perhaps for dumb business, but I really don't see much going on
Companies might love to close stuff, the thing is that unfortunately they can't, GPL ensures that once something is open it cannot be closed again, whether it is GPLv2 or GPLv3 it doesn't matter, hope this teaches the people that really use simply permissive licenses to notice why they need something stronger
MONO : YAPLC (Yet another proprietary language clone)
ah fun stuff, looks like I accidentally got an extra blockquote tag, sorry, I guess you can read anyways...
Sure, they got developers and used to contribute, hell yeah. But now OpenSUSE sold out to Microsoft, you can't simply deny that. And no offense but your link is not example from an unbiased source. No matter how points you get from the inept guys that got mod powers during this post. Regarding all the contributions from SUSE to the OSS commnity, now they are poisoning it, You said gnome, I say how much efforts now come to make it require MS patented technology, you say how much it helped "openoffice", now they have released a bastardified version that uses OpenXML, etc etc etc... Ever heard of novell's efforts to make Linux virtualized in windows so companies can migrate to windows on the server. But no care at all to virtualize windows or make Microsoft allow it, so we could have hopes in Linux for the Desktop?
Both OpenOffice and StarOffice are equally bloated thanks to Sun anyways...
yeah it looks like AMD is wasting money on a pseudo-Open-source product, shame on them.
hmmm I would personally love to mod Steve Ballmer a flamebait, or perhaps I did already?