I would have supported them it had just been the case of the (apparently) evil people building evil weapons, but once i saw the color scheme i was so out of there.
"What can be done to minimize multiple-license pain for corporate open source adopters?"
Why should corporate users get an easy ride ?
Corporate users are the ones who would likely turn on us and destroy the community if it would boost the next profit report by a few percent.
Its not about users its about the source code.
But i guess if it turns out that corporate users a big on giving constructive feedback, bug reports then i guess we should give a shit, but i expect they are too busy using to do anything else.
Well said above, i'd also like to mention that the ACCC's actions here are consistent with their actions in other mediums, namely radio.
Five years or so ago the ACCC sued a famous Australian talk-back radio radio personalities for not having a clear seperation between his comments and advertising. e.g. whenever a caller rang to comment about the telephone system he would always be defending one telephone company who happebned to be a sponsor, it was considered deceptive and misleading. (search for John Laws, Cash for comments)
ACCC also said they were picking on google in the hope that it would have a flow on effect to other search engines.
Speaking from my own experience, i found that what motivates me to code has changed over time.
First it was the technical challenge; Second the challenge was to earn money from my skill (not very successfully) The challenge for me now is design.
I see free software as an art, code is just the medium in which a design is implemented.
I dont care if my project has fancy features, i dont care if time spent on it can be justified from a commerical perspective. Its just about solving a problem that people (developers) can one day look at and realise its the way it should be.
Art is really what seperates commercial code from free software, if you spent an hour thinking about a more appropriate variable or function name on a commercial project your boss wouldnt be impressed. But its little things like this (and design) that lower the level of participation, enabling them to get the "many eyes" that improve it.
Free software programmers are like the artistic painters. Commercial programmers are like a signwriter.
It's not as if these people are getting anything tangible for their investment
You seem to be totally missing the point,
If fans wanted to get something tangible for their money they would send the nuts to themselves.
They are sending the nuts to CBS to make a point, CBS have said they intend to donate the nuts to some charity.
The donations are not being wasted, if all the money spend on publicity was recycled to charities such as is happening with Jericho nuts then the world would be a better place.
It seems openembedded.org isnt as well known as it deserves.
Openembedded has;
- Been around for a number of years
- Has a strong developer community
- Is used be a few commercial projects, notably openmoko.
- Can builds its own cross compiler
It allows you to pretty easily define your own distro and build an image for it.
Im sure that the contributions that have been made under the RedHat banner are significant compared to any one individual, but the collective work of individuals who contributed time for free for the community dwarf any single corporations contributions. So yes, RedHat contributions are pretty insignificant in the big picture.
There are 20000 Debian packages, how many of those projects do you think received financial compensation for their work ?
"How can you argue that these businesses are not the backbone of Open Source when they are the primary source of funding for developer time so many key projects?"
For it to be the backbone implies they system would collapse without them.
Which would be more damaging to the open source software;
a) Key developers in key projects no longer get funding from commercial interests.
b) The hundreds of thousands of volunteers cease their contributions
I think its volunteers that are the backbone, commercial developers are just fancy decorations.
If commercial interests control development for too long then the little things wont get done and we will end up where we were before Linux came along.
Commercial interests paying people isnt a problem unless it becomes a dependency, no need for volunteers to work on Linux when people can get paid for it, there are plenty of other projects that doesnt get commercial support that they can work on.
Yeah, and we can see how well that's worked for ultra-complex things like the kernel and OpenOffice.
Not so clear to me... are you saying the pay has had a bad effect on the linux kernel ?
OpenOffice started life as proprietary software and i doubt it will ever recover, so i dont think its a good example.
It really comes down to intent doesn't it, some (well, a few) companies accept the responsibility that comes with it, but i guess most just see it as something to exploit. So its not the money thats bad, its the intent behind it.
Since they started being the ones paying the salaries of the key developers in the big projects that are the infrastructure of Open Source, that's when.
According to Linus many eyes make all bugs shallow.
Its the collaboration that makes Free and Open Source software great, not "key developers in big projects"
Twelve hundred children an hour die, largely in said world, and mostly preventable deaths. (Source: UNICEF). That's things like malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, etc...
No offense meant, but can you imagine how much we shouldn't care what kind of operating system these countries are using? There are bigger problems to worry about.
"Give a man a fish he has a food for a day, teach a man to fish he has food for a lifetime"
You say we should give them lots of fish, but what of tomorrow ?
More than food, they need control over their own lives.
OLPC isnt teaching them to fish, it is introducing them to the guy who teaches people to fish, its helping to integrate them in the global economy.
Giving them a Free (liberty) operating system gives them a tiny bit more control, the butterfly effect from looking after their future instead of their present might just make the world that much better in 10 or 15 years.
IT is a global marketplace, if OLDC gives some kids an interest in computers, they could grow up and compete as equals in the IT marketplace, unlike most other markets.
I went to bottle shop the other day to buy some beer, to my surprise they had 100 different types, i really enjoyed sampling them all at the time, but today i am sick and bloated.
Just because you can have something doesnt mean you should.
One of the reasons language is so useful is that everyone has the same understanding of words. While those may be your definitions of "morality" and "ethics", they are not the dictionary's definitions; they are not common definitions; and they are not useful.
"Morality: a system of beliefs based in individual motivation that dictate behaviors towards others and self. It is immoral to let bad deeds go unpunished. Ethics: a system of beliefs based in group motivation that dictate the behaviors that would make the group run as smoothly as possible. It is unethical to sell term papers on the internet." - http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=461562
While i was being brief, what i said is based on what i read about Aristotle's, but if he isnt in the dictionary, or common, then i guess hes not useful.
This is akin to saying "Bob Dylan is only associated with music if you like Bob Dylan". Again we're dealing with actual definitions of words here, not your definitions of words.
Strawman argument... its not what i said at all, lrn2read.
If a person has no knowledge of any religion, is it possible for him to understand morality, or be moral ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, some people just go too far...
I would have supported them it had just been the case of the (apparently) evil people building evil weapons, but once i saw the color scheme i was so out of there.
j/k
"Five words: Slit your fucking wrists fucktard."
Freedom is not an excuse to be irresponsible.
"What can be done to minimize multiple-license pain for corporate open source adopters?"
Why should corporate users get an easy ride ?
Corporate users are the ones who would likely turn on us and destroy the community if it would boost the next profit report by a few percent.
Its not about users its about the source code.
But i guess if it turns out that corporate users a big on giving constructive feedback, bug reports then i guess we should give a shit, but i expect they are too busy using to do anything else.
Well said above, i'd also like to mention that the ACCC's actions here are consistent with their actions in other mediums, namely radio.
Five years or so ago the ACCC sued a famous Australian talk-back radio radio personalities for not having a clear seperation between his comments and advertising. e.g. whenever a caller rang to comment about the telephone system he would always be defending one telephone company who happebned to be a sponsor, it was considered deceptive and misleading. (search for John Laws, Cash for comments)
ACCC also said they were picking on google in the hope that it would have a flow on effect to other search engines.
Speaking from my own experience, i found that what motivates me to code has changed over time.
First it was the technical challenge;
Second the challenge was to earn money from my skill (not very successfully)
The challenge for me now is design.
I see free software as an art, code is just the medium in which a design is implemented.
I dont care if my project has fancy features, i dont care if time spent on it can be justified from a commerical perspective. Its just about solving a problem that people (developers) can one day look at and realise its the way it should be.
Art is really what seperates commercial code from free software, if you spent an hour thinking about a more appropriate variable or function name on a commercial project your boss wouldnt be impressed. But its little things like this (and design) that lower the level of participation, enabling them to get the "many eyes" that improve it.
Free software programmers are like the artistic painters.
Commercial programmers are like a signwriter.
Deadlines can only lessen the quality of code.
It's not as if these people are getting anything tangible for their investment
You seem to be totally missing the point,
If fans wanted to get something tangible for their money they would send the nuts to themselves.
They are sending the nuts to CBS to make a point, CBS have said they intend to donate the nuts to some charity.
The donations are not being wasted, if all the money spend on publicity was recycled to charities such as is happening with Jericho nuts then the world would be a better place.
10. Ignoring people like yourself who waste their life telling people to live like them.
"Class A blocks were one of the benefits of being a Internet pioneer. Why should they give them up?"
First, apple was never an internet pioneer, they were very late in implementing the IP protocol, even microsoft beat them to it.
The people who handed out IP blocks cleanly did not expect the internet to be so popular (if they did they would have gone to ipv6 straight away).
They benefited froma mistake, now they should fxi the mistake.
If IP blocks are handed out as a reward for being an internet pioneer, how many class A blocks did they give Tim-Berners_Lee?
Instead of asking 100 company representatives, maybe they would have been better of asking 100 users.
Its unfortunate that people care so little about liberty, they just come for the beer....
Well, there are lots of examples there, if you have time and patients you can follow it through.
. dev/packages/tasks/task-openmoko.bb
OE uses tasks (similar in concept to debian tasks) to group packages.
e.g.
http://www.openembedded.org/repo/org.openembedded
It seems openembedded.org isnt as well known as it deserves.
Openembedded has;
- Been around for a number of years
- Has a strong developer community
- Is used be a few commercial projects, notably openmoko.
- Can builds its own cross compiler
It allows you to pretty easily define your own distro and build an image for it.
I think you misunderstand the line you quoted.
Im sure that the contributions that have been made under the RedHat banner are significant compared to any one individual, but the collective work of individuals who contributed time for free for the community dwarf any single corporations contributions. So yes, RedHat contributions are pretty insignificant in the big picture.
There are 20000 Debian packages, how many of those projects do you think received financial compensation for their work ?
"How can you argue that these businesses are not the backbone of Open Source when they are the primary source of funding for developer time so many key projects?"
For it to be the backbone implies they system would collapse without them.
Which would be more damaging to the open source software;
a) Key developers in key projects no longer get funding from commercial interests.
b) The hundreds of thousands of volunteers cease their contributions
I think its volunteers that are the backbone, commercial developers are just fancy decorations.
If commercial interests control development for too long then the little things wont get done and we will end up where we were before Linux came along.
Commercial interests paying people isnt a problem unless it becomes a dependency, no need for volunteers to work on Linux when people can get paid for it, there are plenty of other projects that doesnt get commercial support that they can work on.
Yeah, and we can see how well that's worked for ultra-complex things like the kernel and OpenOffice.
Not so clear to me... are you saying the pay has had a bad effect on the linux kernel ?
OpenOffice started life as proprietary software and i doubt it will ever recover, so i dont think its a good example.
It really comes down to intent doesn't it, some (well, a few) companies accept the responsibility that comes with it, but i guess most just see it as something to exploit. So its not the money thats bad, its the intent behind it.
Since they started being the ones paying the salaries of the key developers in the big projects that are the infrastructure of Open Source, that's when.
According to Linus many eyes make all bugs shallow.
Its the collaboration that makes Free and Open Source software great, not "key developers in big projects"
Twelve hundred children an hour die, largely in said world, and mostly preventable deaths. (Source: UNICEF). That's things like malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, etc...
No offense meant, but can you imagine how much we shouldn't care what kind of operating system these countries are using? There are bigger problems to worry about.
"Give a man a fish he has a food for a day, teach a man to fish he has food for a lifetime"
You say we should give them lots of fish, but what of tomorrow ?
More than food, they need control over their own lives.
OLPC isnt teaching them to fish, it is introducing them to the guy who teaches people to fish, its helping to integrate them in the global economy.
Giving them a Free (liberty) operating system gives them a tiny bit more control, the butterfly effect from looking after their future instead of their present might just make the world that much better in 10 or 15 years.
IT is a global marketplace, if OLDC gives some kids an interest in computers, they could grow up and compete as equals in the IT marketplace, unlike most other markets.
What is this...offline?
Its when you go to sleep.
I went to bottle shop the other day to buy some beer, to my surprise they had 100 different types, i really enjoyed sampling them all at the time, but today i am sick and bloated.
Just because you can have something doesnt mean you should.
"Advice which would've held a lot more weight if they weren't unethically benefiting from the status quo"
/irony
Your right, from now on, lets do what Halliburton thinks is best, they arent french
Not all countries recognise software patents, so i assume this patents doesnt apply in all countries.
Why do we force software patents on people who live in non-software patent countries ?
I thought the golden rule was "who has the most gold makes the rules", but i guess thats the same as the weasel rule if you are the strongest.
"Yes, BOA is giving credit cards to people violating US law by being here illegally."
Thats better, its (in)action, not existence that is legal/illegal.
Oh, and what of the legal aliens, can they have credit cards now ?
Nobody is "illegal", fascist.
It's comments like this that I find really anti-productive
I hereby name anti-productive as the unword of the day.
One of the reasons language is so useful is that everyone has the same understanding of words. While those may be your definitions of "morality" and "ethics", they are not the dictionary's definitions; they are not common definitions; and they are not useful.
"Morality: a system of beliefs based in individual motivation that dictate behaviors towards others and self. It is immoral to let bad deeds go unpunished. Ethics: a system of beliefs based in group motivation that dictate the behaviors that would make the group run as smoothly as possible. It is unethical to sell term papers on the internet." - http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=461562
While i was being brief, what i said is based on what i read about Aristotle's, but if he isnt in the dictionary, or common, then i guess hes not useful.
This is akin to saying "Bob Dylan is only associated with music if you like Bob Dylan". Again we're dealing with actual definitions of words here, not your definitions of words.
Strawman argument... its not what i said at all, lrn2read.
If a person has no knowledge of any religion, is it possible for him to understand morality, or be moral ?
I think you can.