Protect every developer involved with the project. If the company wants a license other than GPL, they should pay all the "employees" that contributed.
I remember reading the news that after three hundred and eighty something years, Juan Pablo II (the Pope) had absolved (is this the right word?) Galileo of all charges. What were those then?
I used to use Borland's tools before they became unusable. They were the best tools at the time, but when Microsoft started to make theirs usable, Borland started to release versions too early. Borland C++ 4.0 couldn't generate usable binaries, even after the patches (4.2) it wasn't reliable. Version 5, I didn't even try it because of the bad comments I've heard.
I think this is a chance for Inprise to do 'The Right Thing'. They shall not have any competition so there is no rush (at first), they can take some time (not too much) to make some good first versions. That would buy them some air to take the time to fix those old bugs in all the other packages they have (even those win32 ugly things).
Let [Red Hat|Caldera|SuSE|et al] buy the hardware for the servers and everybody bring your machine, we'll knock an NT Server out and benchmark a Linux Server. It shouldn't be THAT hard to do.
This is a problem, but we've seen the games embeded in Excel, and we've all seen what information goes into Word documents without your consentment. This obviously is NOT an Open Source invented problem.
I think there is something about GPL that is being missunderstood. I believe GPL works this way: I develope some software and sell it under GPL I only have to provide the source to the client that paid for the software, not to everyone.
You say that some company can get for free what another paid thousands to get. What's the difference with propietary software? If I want to, I can give for free something I've already been paid for.
I work in place where all the documents are MS Office docs, and I don't have a problem using StarOffice, wich is free for personal use. Did you try to change?
- Anybody saw any license? - Should anybody look at their data to find out that he/she can't ever do anything without getting in trouble with Sun? - Can Sun claim any chip designed by someone that saw their desings as derivative work? - How many designers/companies will be sued by Sun in the next years?
Slashdot Mirror
Protect every developer involved with the project. If the company wants a license other than GPL, they should pay all the "employees" that contributed.
I remember reading the news that after three hundred and eighty something years, Juan Pablo II (the Pope) had absolved (is this the right word?) Galileo of all charges. What were those then?
Isn't it a body transplant? I mean, I'll always be in my head not in my body, so what's new to me after the transplant is the body, not the head...
I used to use Borland's tools before they became unusable. They were the best tools at the time, but when Microsoft started to make theirs usable, Borland started to release versions too early. Borland C++ 4.0 couldn't generate usable binaries, even after the patches (4.2) it wasn't reliable. Version 5, I didn't even try it because of the bad comments I've heard.
I think this is a chance for Inprise to do 'The Right Thing'. They shall not have any competition so there is no rush (at first), they can take some time (not too much) to make some good first versions. That would buy them some air to take the time to fix those old bugs in all the other packages they have (even those win32 ugly things).
Kierkan
Please read this, then think again if they really make great GUIs.
This is not the last year of the millenium.
Let [Red Hat|Caldera|SuSE|et al] buy the hardware for the servers and everybody bring your machine, we'll knock an NT Server out and benchmark a Linux Server. It shouldn't be THAT hard to do.
This is a problem, but we've seen the games embeded in Excel, and we've all seen what information goes into Word documents without your consentment.
This obviously is NOT an Open Source invented problem.
I think there is something about GPL that is being missunderstood. I believe GPL works this way: I develope some software and sell it under GPL I only have to provide the source to the client that paid for the software, not to everyone.
You say that some company can get for free what another paid thousands to get. What's the difference with propietary software? If I want to, I can give for free something I've already been paid for.I work in place where all the documents are MS Office docs, and I don't have a problem using StarOffice, wich is free for personal use.
Did you try to change?
I see this as very usefull in a way,
but OTOH:
- Anybody saw any license?
- Should anybody look at their data to find out that he/she can't ever do anything without getting in trouble with Sun?
- Can Sun claim any chip designed by someone that saw their desings as derivative work?
- How many designers/companies will be sued by Sun in the next years?