Is It Time for BSD ?, eweek.com
Daeron
--- quote ---
Is It Time for BSD?
Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
---
Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
want a BSD-based system that has an excellent—maybe even the
best—desktop and user application environment, there's always
Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
--- unquote ---
I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
Erik Funkenbusch
Almost all desktop applications available for Linux are available for BSD,
so I really have no clue what this guy is on about. Further, you have a
complete inability to seperate the license from the OS.
Daeron
Thank you for correcting me here :)
Do you mind providing us with a list
of these desktop applications together
with the source web site ?
Simon Cooke
Actually, I think you'll find that it's because the BSD license actually is
altruistic, while people who use GPL claim all the time to be really really
altruistic people giving their all for the good of the community, when in
fact they're doing it all with an ulterior motive.
Simon
Erik Funkenbusch
8866 in FreeBSD ports tree, plus they have a linux emulation layer for the
few binary only programs that aren't also ported to FreeBSD.
Donn Miller
BSD runs all the applications Linux does. It has a ports collection,
which was the inspiration for Gentoo's portage. KDE is in all the
BSD's ports collection (Free, Net, Open). The big problem with the
BSD's is a lack of kernel thread implentation, but that's being taken
care of with FreeBSD's KSE in -current. www.freebsd.org should have a
list of the ported applications. See
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html. There are both KDE and GNOME
in there, among the many window managers that are also available for
Linux.
I duel-boot with FreeBSD 5.1-current and Gentoo. I have a different
software configuration on each OS. For example, I have Mozilla 1.3
and CUPS on Gentoo, and Mozilla 1.4-beta and lpr/lpd on FreeBSD.
Sometimes, if I'm having problems with mplayer on FreeBSD, I'll boot
into Gentoo Linux to compare how mplayer works there. I've been
having problems building GXine and mldonkey from the FreeBSD ports
collection lately. Being lazy, I'll just boot Gentoo and use them there.
While I'd prefer to stick with FreeBSD soley, I've got to be familiar
with Linux, with some of the Linux-specific things for my work.
Hence, the duel-boot. I use LILO to boot Windows 2003, Linux, and
FreeBSD. And since I've been running Linux in addition to FreeBSD,
I've been running Windows a lot less lately. I know I should do
something and fix those FreeBSD ports that aren't compiling for me,
but I don't have the time. I've got to prepare for job interviews,
and hence I take the easy way out and boot Linux for those
applications. It doesn't matter to me. I like running Linux and
FreeBSD. I'll run either one. The time I spend running either one is
time I spend not running Windows.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Donn Miller
> Actually, I think you'll find that it's because the BSD license actually is
> altruistic, while people who use GPL claim all the time to be really really
> altruistic people giving their all for the good of the community, when in
> fact they're doing it all with an ulterior motive.
Ah, but the BSDs benefit from the GPL as well. They and Linux benefit
from having a nice, stable GNU C compiler, for example, which is free.
And FreeBSD also benefits from that Linux community, as the BSDs run
most if not all of the software which was written by the Linux
community.
Freeride
> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
Jon Portnoy
Yeah. Protecting freedom. What a horrible, horrible ulterior motive - we
won't let people take open source and make it closed source. What
terrible people we are!
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
Opinions expressed are my own, not those of any entity I am
associated with unless stated otherwise.
Simon Cooke
Very simply this:
So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
That's not 'altruistic'.
Altruism:
altruism noun [U]
willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in
disadvantage for yourself:
Simon
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>
>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>
> Very simply this:
>
> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>
> That's not 'altruistic'.
>
Only if you define "use" as "distribute".
But you knew that already, lying MS shill
--
"The Microsoft Game" rules are very simple:
1. If you play Microsoft's game, Microsoft wins.
2. If you refuse to play Microsoft's game, Microsoft wins.
3. Anytime you win, Microsoft gets to change the rules.
Simon Cooke
It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
Freedom: a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or
action
Doesn't sound like GPL to me.
Simon
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>
>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>
>> Very simply this:
>>
>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>
>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>
>
> Only if you define "use" as "distribute".
> But you knew that already, lying MS shill
Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying to
argue about this?
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
language to suit their political agenda.
Simon
Peter Köhlmann
You said that to *use* GPLed stuff you have to publish the modifications.
And that is simply wrong, bullshit and FUD from a paid MS shill like you
Got it now, or should I use smaller, simpler words for you to understand?
Peter
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:35 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>>>
>>>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>>>
>>>> Very simply this:
>>>>
>>>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>>>
>>>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you define "use" as "distribute".
>>> But you knew that already, lying MS shill
>>
>> Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
>> definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying
>> to argue about this?
>>
>> Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
>>
>> Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
>> language to suit their political agenda.
>>
>> Simon
>
> You said that to *use* GPLed stuff you have to publish the modifications.
> And that is simply wrong, bullshit and FUD from a paid MS shill like you
At least I'm not a paid Linux shill like you, Whore Kohlmann.
> Got it now, or should I use smaller, simpler words for you to understand?
OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by someone
else, I have to provide my modifications.
Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
Simon
Peter Köhlmann
So you say. I don't believe you. You have proven to be a liar enough to
take nothing written by you upfront
>
>> Got it now, or should I use smaller, simpler words for you to
>> understand?
>
> OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
> modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by
> someone else, I have to provide my modifications.
>
Doesn't sound like "use" to me. Sounds like "distribution"
> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>
> Simon
Are you really that dense?
First you blubber about "use" and how it requires you to publish the
source, and then you can't take it when someone calls you for your lies
und FUD? Has Erik F given explicit instructions to his FUD-team to talk
about the "viral" GPL because his masters at MS said so?
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Bo Grimes
>> Yeah. Protecting freedom. What a horrible, horrible ulterior motive - we
>> won't let people take open source and make it closed source. What
>> terrible people we are!
>
> It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
> users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
> freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
> 'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
You need to stop going on about dictionary definitions when you where just
recently explaining to rapskat what the definition of 'user' is.
The GPL does *not* force users, developers, programmers or consumers from
doing what they want with regard to using the software, even to the point
of modifying it. *That* does sound altruistic to me.
It only restricts distribution. And that does sound like freedom, to every
user except those who redistribute, and even then, unless you want to argue
that there's some state of being anywhere in this universe where there is
an "absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" then
I'd say it's just about a free as one can make it.
In other words, in the quotidian use of the word 'free', GPL'ed software is
free, maybe not free as an abstract Platonic form Free, but even speech has
restrictions.
--
Bo G
"Mankind does nothing save through initiatives on the part of inventors,
great or small, and imitation by the rest of us. Individuals show the way,
set the patterns. The rivalry of the patterns is the history of the
world." (William James) Linus is just such an inventor; Linux is just such
a pattern.
Rick
Then you need to listen better.
--
Rick
Rick
Not -quite- true. A company can use the code in-house and not release the
code/
>
> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>
And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS the
altrusistic part.
--
Rick
xx
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
> users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
> freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
> 'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>
The point you are missing is that no one is forcing you to do anything.
The code is not free, as in without cost. The code has value. The
license stipulates you may do with it as you wish, as long as it, and
anything derived from it, remains as free as when you got it.
That is fair and free. If you do not like those terms, then simply don't
use the code. You are free *not* to use GPL code.
Put simply, the code isn't yours. You have no inherent right to use and
benefit from the work of others. The GPL is very altruistic, but not
naive. The work of others should not be co-opted, the GPL prevents it.
Rick
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:35 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>>
>>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>>
>>> Very simply this:
>>>
>>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>>
>>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>>
>>>
>> Only if you define "use" as "distribute". But you knew that already,
>> lying MS shill
>
> Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
> definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying
> to argue about this?
You said :"no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications".
That is a lie.
> Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
Perhaps you should read the GPL.
>
> Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
> language to suit their political agenda.
>
> Simon
--
Rick
Rick
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>
>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>
> Very simply this:
>
> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>
> That's not 'altruistic'.
You need to study more. Person can modify GPL code in any way he/she
wants and doesn NOT have to publish modifications. A company can take
GPLed code, modify and use it in-house and does NOT have to publish the
modifications.
> Altruism:
> altruism noun [U]
> willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results
> in disadvantage for yourself:
>
Whats your point with the definition?
--
Rick
Simon Cooke
Not true either; that's never specified in the GPL. All they use is the
phrase "distributed" with no qualifier to specify scope. But if you want to
risk a lawsuit...
>>
>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>
> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS the
> altrusistic part.
It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
Simon
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. Protecting freedom. What a horrible, horrible ulterior motive - we
>>> won't let people take open source and make it closed source. What
>>> terrible people we are!
>>
>> It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
>> users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
>> freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
>> 'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>
> You need to stop going on about dictionary definitions when you where just
> recently explaining to rapskat what the definition of 'user' is.
>
> The GPL does *not* force users, developers, programmers or consumers from
> doing what they want with regard to using the software, even to the point
> of modifying it. *That* does sound altruistic to me.
>
> It only restricts distribution. And that does sound like freedom, to every
> user except those who redistribute, and even then, unless you want to argue
> that there's some state of being anywhere in this universe where there is
> an "absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" then
> I'd say it's just about a free as one can make it.
Yes. It's called Public Domain. Or slightly lower on the spectrum (but on
ly by a hair), the BSD license.
> In other words, in the quotidian use of the word 'free', GPL'ed software is
> free, maybe not free as an abstract Platonic form Free, but even speech has
> restrictions.
No, GPL'd software is nowhere near as free as at least two other licensing
forms.
Simon
Simon Cooke
>
>
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>> It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
>> users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
>> freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
>> 'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>>
>
> The point you are missing is that no one is forcing you to do anything.
> The code is not free, as in without cost. The code has value. The
> license stipulates you may do with it as you wish, as long as it, and
> anything derived from it, remains as free as when you got it.
>
> That is fair and free.
Which part is fair and free? The original code, or the stipulation that any
modifications to that code must be re-released under the same terms?
> If you do not like those terms, then simply don't
> use the code. You are free *not* to use GPL code.
Yes, but you're not free *to* use GPL code if you don't like those terms,
which makes GPL'd code much less FREE (capital FREE, as in the real meaning
of the word) than Public Domain code.
> Put simply, the code isn't yours. You have no inherent right to use and
> benefit from the work of others. The GPL is very altruistic, but not
> naive. The work of others should not be co-opted, the GPL prevents it.
No, the GPL is not altruistic either (look it up).
Simon
xx
Simon Cooke wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:58:10 GMT, xx wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>>It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
>>>users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
>>>freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
>>>'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>>>
>>
>>The point you are missing is that no one is forcing you to do anything.
>>The code is not free, as in without cost. The code has value. The
>>license stipulates you may do with it as you wish, as long as it, and
>>anything derived from it, remains as free as when you got it.
>>
>>That is fair and free.
>
>
> Which part is fair and free? The original code, or the stipulation that any
> modifications to that code must be re-released under the same terms?
The stipulation is a fair and reasonable requirement for the use of
other people's work.
>
>
>> If you do not like those terms, then simply don't
>>use the code. You are free *not* to use GPL code.
>
>
> Yes, but you're not free *to* use GPL code if you don't like those terms,
That's true. You are not "free" to use an automobile if you drink and
drive. Life has rules.
> which makes GPL'd code much less FREE (capital FREE, as in the real meaning
> of the word) than Public Domain code.
Public Domain Code can become "unfree" by means of a company not sharing
its changes.
>
>
>>Put simply, the code isn't yours. You have no inherent right to use and
>>benefit from the work of others. The GPL is very altruistic, but not
>>naive. The work of others should not be co-opted, the GPL prevents it.
>
>
> No, the GPL is not altruistic either (look it up).
We all know the meaning of altruistic, and yes releasing source as GPL is.
LiamSlider
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:58:10 GMT, xx wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>>It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
>>>users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
>>>freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
>>>'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>>>
>>
>>The point you are missing is that no one is forcing you to do anything.
>>The code is not free, as in without cost. The code has value. The
>>license stipulates you may do with it as you wish, as long as it, and
>>anything derived from it, remains as free as when you got it.
>>
>>That is fair and free.
>
>
> Which part is fair and free? The original code, or the stipulation that any
> modifications to that code must be re-released under the same terms?
You can modify all you want and not have to release the modified
source....all you have to do is not distribute the modified program itself.
The license is just a way to say, "if you are going to give out this
program, or a modified form of it, provide the source code."
That's all. If you just want to modify it for your own personal use you
have to give out *nothing.* Do you understand now?
--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume
Bo Grimes
> No, GPL'd software is nowhere near as free as at least two other licensing
> forms.
Ah, but now you're equivocating. "As free" is a difference in degree
whereas you were originally arguing a difference in kind.
Simon Cooke
Yes. I understand perfectly. I used to use a similar license myself;
although instead of wrapping it up in barbed wire, I simply specificed "for
non-commercial use only".
However, if I was being truly altruistic, it would have required no
specifier.
Simon
Bo Grimes
>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>
>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS the
>> altrusistic part.
>
> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
What's with all the typo corrections lately?
It *is* altruistic. I have a complete, usable, stable, secure, home system
that I could have had sans cost if I had so chosen.
I can write documents, presentations, send email, use the vast resources of
the Web, listen to music, watch movie clips, read usenet, manage my
finances, keep my schedule, etc. and I got it all because of those
altruistic coders who wanted to share it.
They even hope others will make money off of it, in terms of not having to
pay for other programs that do the same thing and thus have productivity
that allows them to maximize profit.
All they ask is that others not turn around and use their IP in a
*non*-altruistic way.
I don't know what life experience you have had that you don't define that as
altruistic. If I lend you my lawnmower, free of charge, to use whenever
you need to cut the grass is it non-altruistic for me to ask that you don't
sell the damn thing?
Jon Portnoy
Freedom does not include the freedom to deny freedom.
Simon Cooke
>
>
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:58:10 GMT, xx wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's still not altruistic though, and it still attempts to force other
>>>>users to do something that another person wants. It's not 'protecting
>>>>freedom', except in the very twisted sense that GPL supporters claim is
>>>>'freedom'. Certainly not the dictionary definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The point you are missing is that no one is forcing you to do anything.
>>>The code is not free, as in without cost. The code has value. The
>>>license stipulates you may do with it as you wish, as long as it, and
>>>anything derived from it, remains as free as when you got it.
>>>
>>>That is fair and free.
>>
>>
>> Which part is fair and free? The original code, or the stipulation that any
>> modifications to that code must be re-released under the same terms?
>
>
> The stipulation is a fair and reasonable requirement for the use of
> other people's work.
That's as may be. The problem I have is with the "holier than thou"
attitude of those who release their software in that manner, and those who
support them. "Lawks a lordy... we're releasing all our software as FREE
software... we are demiurges! We're whiter than Mother Theresa's
skivvies!"... while at the same time there are other people who release
their software into the public domain, or under other free licenses who are
actively viewed as 'evil' by the GPL thugs. (Or were; remember, at one
point BSD was viewed as an 'incompatible license').
>>
>>
>>> If you do not like those terms, then simply don't
>>>use the code. You are free *not* to use GPL code.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but you're not free *to* use GPL code if you don't like those terms,
>
> That's true. You are not "free" to use an automobile if you drink and
> drive. Life has rules.
Then don't call it "freedom", when it's plainly not by any reasonable
definition.
>> which makes GPL'd code much less FREE (capital FREE, as in the real meaning
>> of the word) than Public Domain code.
>
> Public Domain Code can become "unfree" by means of a company not sharing
> its changes.
No, it can't. Once I put my code into the public domain, it remains free
for ETERNITY. You seem to have this odd idea of what the public domain is.
Or what code is. It doesn't have children, or magically reproduce, or
decay.
>>
>>
>>>Put simply, the code isn't yours. You have no inherent right to use and
>>>benefit from the work of others. The GPL is very altruistic, but not
>>>naive. The work of others should not be co-opted, the GPL prevents it.
>>
>>
>> No, the GPL is not altruistic either (look it up).
>
> We all know the meaning of altruistic, and yes releasing source as GPL is.
No, releasing source as GPL is not. Altruism is without regard for self.
Specifying that "other people must do as I have done" in the license that
accompanies it is *not* by any means without regard for self.
Simon
Bo Grimes
> However, if I was being truly altruistic, it would have required no
> specifier.
No, you still don't get it. That *is* the altruistic part, not allowing
other people to take it and make it proprietary and thus hurt the thousands
of people who could have benefited.
It's the whole give a man a fish thing, with a twist.
Using your logic I may be altruistic to one person, but the GPL allows the
owner and creator of the software to be altruistic to millions by keeping
Jesus from multiplying the one fish you gave him and selling them on the
black market.
Not that You'd do that, of course.
Is that thunder I hear?
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> No, GPL'd software is nowhere near as free as at least two other licensing
>> forms.
>
> Ah, but now you're equivocating. "As free" is a difference in degree
> whereas you were originally arguing a difference in kind.
OK then; I'll remove the benefit of the doubt; GPL'd software is *not*
free-as-in-freedom. Software which has been entered into the Public domain
*is*.
Simon
Bo Grimes
So, if I take your public domain code, modify it, make it better, add value
to it, whatever, and then hide it away inside my closed source app, how are
you or anyone else going to know?
You're still arguing for some Platonic form of Free and not looking at
concrete reality.
The GPL allows the owner of the IP to keep his software free and open. So
you have a problem with their sanctimony, as it appears to you, but that
doesn't negate their altruism.
Rick
Read the FAQs at gnu.org.
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic>
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to
the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally
without ever releasing it outside the organization.
>
>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>
>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>> the altrusistic part.
>
> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>
You're a real jerk. Here:
And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
the altruistic part.
--
Rick
mlw
I have huge problems with idealogs, I am a very practical person. Sometimes,
however, it is very practical to stick with ones ideals.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you do not like those terms, then simply don't
>>>>use the code. You are free *not* to use GPL code.
>>>
>>> /usr/local/phoenix/mws/services/search
>>> Yes, but you're not free *to* use GPL code if you don't like those
>>> terms,
>>
>> That's true. You are not "free" to use an automobile if you drink and
>> drive. Life has rules.
>
> Then don't call it "freedom", when it's plainly not by any reasonable
> definition.
"Freedom" is not an absolute, it never has been. Your freedom to fire a
shotgun into a crowd of people must be limited to my freedom not to be
shot.
The GPL is a methodology of balancing freedom with responsibility to that
the freedom is preserved.
>
>>> which makes GPL'd code much less FREE (capital FREE, as in the real
>>> meaning of the word) than Public Domain code.
>>
>> Public Domain Code can become "unfree" by means of a company not sharing
>> its changes.
>
> No, it can't. Once I put my code into the public domain, it remains free
> for ETERNITY. You seem to have this odd idea of what the public domain is.
> Or what code is. It doesn't have children, or magically reproduce, or
> decay.
Public domain code does decay. Group 'A' creates a body of work and release
it into the public domain. Company 'B' acquires source, modifies it such
that it is no longer compatible with what Group 'A' still has. Company 'B'
now has captured the work done by group 'A.'
If company 'B' is big enough to force defacto standards, they force their
version of the code base as the standard. The public that group 'A' wished
to serve by releasing their code is now denyed use of the code originally
given freely because it no longer operates with the changeling code offered
from company 'B.'
Because company 'B' has the clout to subvert standards, public domain code
does not work. GPL, on the other hand, protects the public code such that
this can not happen. It forces companies like company 'B' to "play fair"
with code that they did not write, or to write their own.
The GPL protects your altruism because it makes sure your donation to the
public does not get used against them.
Lee Wei Shun
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>>
>>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>>> the altrusistic part.
>>
>> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>
> What's with all the typo corrections lately?
>
> It *is* altruistic. I have a complete, usable, stable, secure, home
> system that I could have had sans cost if I had so chosen.
>
> I can write documents, presentations, send email, use the vast resources
> of the Web, listen to music, watch movie clips, read usenet, manage my
> finances, keep my schedule, etc. and I got it all because of those
> altruistic coders who wanted to share it.
>
Actually, the point that Simon tries to bring across, is that there are
"strings" attached to the software.
As a user, the strings are non-binding (pun intended) but someone seeking to
"build upon" the efforts of others will have to be aware of the "cost" of
the software.
> They even hope others will make money off of it, in terms of not having to
> pay for other programs that do the same thing and thus have productivity
> that allows them to maximize profit.
>
> All they ask is that others not turn around and use their IP in a
> *non*-altruistic way.
>
I would see it in a different perspective, the "cost" of development, in
using GPL software is the licence. If you don't agree to this cost, then do
not "buy" the software. However, the licence also states that this "cost"
is passed on to the people who receive it subsequently and seek to build
upon it.
Some people, would not see this as beneficial or the best model for the idea
they want to express in a particular piece of software, and therefore the
"cost" to them would be to develop the same functionality independently.
Either way, there is a "cost".
"Earnings" is a very different animal, and the traditional model where after
having incurred the "cost" of development, the expectation for "earnings"
from licensing or selling the software so produced is *NOT* realised the
same way for GPL software, is where people baulk.
However, this does not mean that the benefits and earnings from the *USE* of
the software is negated.
> I don't know what life experience you have had that you don't define that
> as
> altruistic. If I lend you my lawnmower, free of charge, to use whenever
> you need to cut the grass is it non-altruistic for me to ask that you
> don't sell the damn thing?
>
This is not quite a correct analogy, since at the end of it, there is still
a limited resource, the single lawnmower, and you are deprived of it's use
if the person sells it.
Regards,
WS
--
Change to leews to mail.
Linux user #61399
The beginning of the
end
Simon Cooke
*cough* *splutter* Excuse me?
You're quoting the FAQ. That's not the license, and is only one
interpretation of it. The license is the wording you should be quoting;
legal language is VERY specific, and the license in no way excepts
'internal' distribution.
>>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>>
>>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>>> the altrusistic part.
>>
>> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>>
>
> You're a real jerk. Here:
> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
> the altruistic part.
Altruistic on whose part? Mine? Or is the person who originally released
the software as GPL claiming to be "altruistic by proxy"? Hmmm?
Simon
Simon Cooke
> In article <od3rfjcr8870.1o...@40tude.net>, Simon Cooke wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:35 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>>>
>>>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>>>
>>>> Very simply this:
>>>>
>>>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>>>
>>>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you define "use" as "distribute".
>>> But you knew that already, lying MS shill
>>
>> Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
>> definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying to
>> argue about this?
>>
>> Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
>>
>> Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
>> language to suit their political agenda.
>>
>> Simon
>
> Freedom does not include the freedom to deny freedom.
Deny freedom to whom? You seem to have this odd idea that if someone takes
GPL'd software, and bases a closed-source product on it, that you've lost
something. You haven't. You still have exactly the same amount of open
source code that you had at the start. And nobody's freedom is being denied
by that.
I really need to start describing the software I put in the Public Domain
as "ULTIMATE Free Software", or "Really Open Source", or "Exceptionally
Free Software" to distinguish it from the hijacked terms used by the OSS
guys.
Simon
Rick
(snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
>>>>> modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by
>>>>> someone else, I have to provide my modifications.
>>>>
>>>> Not -quite- true. A company can use the code in-house and not release
>>>> the code/
>>>
>>> Not true either; that's never specified in the GPL. All they use is the
>>> phrase "distributed" with no qualifier to specify scope. But if you want
>>> to risk a lawsuit...
>>
>> Read the FAQs at gnu.org.
>> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic>
>> Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to
>> the public?
>> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
>> free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
>> releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
>> too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally
>> without ever releasing it outside the organization.
>
> *cough* *splutter* Excuse me?
>
> You're quoting the FAQ. That's not the license, and is only one
> interpretation of it. The license is the wording you should be quoting;
> legal language is VERY specific, and the license in no way excepts
> 'internal' distribution.
No duh... Im quoting the faq. It is from the gnu.org site. It explains the
GPL license in words even you should understand. It would be used as
evidence if a suit got to court. ANd the license is specific. If you don't
distribute it, you don't have to publish source.
>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>>>
>>>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>>>> the altrusistic part.
>>>
>>> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>>>
>>
>> You're a real jerk. Here:
>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>> the altruistic part.
>
> Altruistic on whose part? Mine? Or is the person who originally released
> the software as GPL claiming to be "altruistic by proxy"? Hmmm?
>
Dense as a rock, I see.
--
Rick
Daniel Rudy
listened as Daeron spoke these words of wisdom...:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135078,00.asp
> --- quote ---
> Is It Time for BSD?
> Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
> ---
>
> Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
> for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
> of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
> of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
> want a BSD-based system that has an excellent—maybe even the
> best—desktop and user application environment, there's always
> Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
>
> I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
> court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
> friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
> --- unquote ---
>
> I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
> nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
> often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
>
> 'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
> on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
> a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
>
Actually, FreeBSD will run most Linux desktop apps under ABI (Alternate
Binary Interface). It runs pretty good. OpenOffice, Mozilla, Acrobat
Reader, CorelPHOTOPAINT, etc.
FreeBSD is the king of the hill when it comes to server type
applications. And for security, OpenBSD holds the crown.
--
Daniel Rudy
Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
Freeride
Can you give an example of "company B"? :)
T. Max Devlin
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:25:29 +0100, Daeron wrote:
>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135078,00.asp
>> --- quote ---
>> Is It Time for BSD?
>> Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
>> ---
>>
>> Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
>> for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
>> of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
>> of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
>> best¡Xdesktop and user application environment, there's always
>> Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
>>
>> I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
>> court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
>> friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
>> --- unquote ---
>>
>> I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
>> nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
>> often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
>>
>> 'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
>> on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
>> a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
>
>so I really have no clue what this guy is on about.
He's on about your bullshit concerning the GPL.
>Further, you have a
>complete inability to seperate the license from the OS.
That's not him, that's just Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
T. Max Devlin
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>
>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>
>Very simply this:
>
>So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
Use? You don't need to make modifications to use software, Simon.
>That's not 'altruistic'.
>
>Altruism:
>altruism noun [U]
>willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in
>disadvantage for yourself:
I think the key word is "if". We know that letting trade-secret/"proprietary
software" vendors modify public code can result in drastic harm to not just
its customers but the entire market. There is no "if". You want not
altruism, but stupidity.
Stupidity:
stupidity noun [U]
willingness to do things which benefit other people even though it results in
disadvantage for yourself.
Simon Cooke
Yes, but very little credence would be given to it, because it's not the
license which was agreed to.
> ANd the license is specific. If you don't
> distribute it, you don't have to publish source.
Define *DISTRIBUTE*.
Law.com doesn't have a definition other than in the probate sense; however,
under copyright law (which is what the GPL is based on), distribution and
publication are tied, and if you copy copyrighted material, you're
certainly infringing under the distribution control clauses of the USC
code.
You have agreed that if you do any of the following:
=====================================================================
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
distribute verb [T]
to give something out to several people, or to spread or supply something:
=====================================================================
Then you have to release your changes under the GPL.
If you don't, you're using it illegally. This is *regardless* of anything
in the FAQ.
Simon
ps. IANAL, and neither are you.
T. Max Devlin
>>> OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
>>> modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by
>>> someone else, I have to provide my modifications.
>>
>> Not -quite- true. A company can use the code in-house and not release the
>> code/
>
>Not true either; that's never specified in the GPL.
Why would it be? It is specified in copyright law.
>All they use is the
>phrase "distributed" with no qualifier to specify scope. But if you want to
>risk a lawsuit...
...agree to end user license agreements. If you want to avoid both lawsuits
and eula fees, use GPL.
;-)
>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>
>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS the
>> altrusistic part.
>
>It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
It is entirely altruistic, whether you and Erik understand it or not.
Rick
It is the 'plain English" explanation of the License written by the
License creator.
>
>> ANd the license is specific. If you don't
>> distribute it, you don't have to publish source.
>
> Define *DISTRIBUTE*.
>
> Law.com doesn't have a definition other than in the probate sense; however,
> under copyright law (which is what the GPL is based on), distribution and
> publication are tied, and if you copy copyrighted material, you're
> certainly infringing under the distribution control clauses of the USC
> code.
>
> You have agreed that if you do any of the following:
>
> =====================================================================
> (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
>
> distribute verb [T]
>
> to give something out to several people, or to spread or supply something:
> =====================================================================
>
> Then you have to release your changes under the GPL.
Correct. But a -company- can use and modify its software and not have to
give the chnages to anyone else unless it -distributes-, as in publishes
the software outside the company, the software. That is because the
company is legally viewed as a single entity.
>
> If you don't, you're using it illegally. This is *regardless* of anything
> in the FAQ.
>
Correct, except that a company internally using and modifying the software
and then not publishing it is not doing anything illegal as far as the GPL
is concerned.
--
Rick
Bo Grimes
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>>>
>>>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>>>> the altrusistic part.
>>>
>>> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>>
>> What's with all the typo corrections lately?
>>
>> It *is* altruistic. I have a complete, usable, stable, secure, home
>> system that I could have had sans cost if I had so chosen.
>>
>> I can write documents, presentations, send email, use the vast resources
>> of the Web, listen to music, watch movie clips, read usenet, manage my
>> finances, keep my schedule, etc. and I got it all because of those
>> altruistic coders who wanted to share it.
>>
>
> Actually, the point that Simon tries to bring across, is that there are
> "strings" attached to the software.
>
> As a user, the strings are non-binding (pun intended) but someone seeking
> to "build upon" the efforts of others will have to be aware of the "cost"
> of the software.
I know, but he seemed to be insisting that the software was not libre for
the user; therefore, the coder could not be altruistic.
It *is* free for me. There may be string attached, but they can *not* apply
to me because I am incapable of modifying the software. You're free to
flap your arms and fly away; you just can't do it.
There is a difference, and I was trying to highlight the fact that because
there are restrictions on distribution does not mean he can argue that it's
not free for users. It's easy to sign a license that prevents you from
doing what you're incapable of doing already.
That's point one. Point two is that *nowhere* in the definition of
altruistic Simon posted is there the absurd implication that in order to be
altruistic one must always *maximize* the benefit to others and cost to
self.
>
>
>> They even hope others will make money off of it, in terms of not having
>> to pay for other programs that do the same thing and thus have
>> productivity that allows them to maximize profit.
>>
>> All they ask is that others not turn around and use their IP in a
>> *non*-altruistic way.
>>
>
> I would see it in a different perspective, the "cost" of development, in
> using GPL software is the licence. If you don't agree to this cost, then
> do not "buy" the software. However, the licence also states that this
> "cost" is passed on to the people who receive it subsequently and seek to
> build upon it.
>
> Some people, would not see this as beneficial or the best model for the
> idea they want to express in a particular piece of software, and therefore
> the "cost" to them would be to develop the same functionality
> independently. Either way, there is a "cost".
>
> "Earnings" is a very different animal, and the traditional model where
> after having incurred the "cost" of development, the expectation for
> "earnings" from licensing or selling the software so produced is *NOT*
> realised the same way for GPL software, is where people baulk.
>
> However, this does not mean that the benefits and earnings from the *USE*
> of the software is negated.
Which was exactly my point even if I don't know the correct jargon.
>
>> I don't know what life experience you have had that you don't define that
>> as
>> altruistic. If I lend you my lawnmower, free of charge, to use whenever
>> you need to cut the grass is it non-altruistic for me to ask that you
>> don't sell the damn thing?
>>
>
> This is not quite a correct analogy, since at the end of it, there is
> still a limited resource, the single lawnmower, and you are deprived of
> it's use if the person sells it.
That I am deprived of its use has nothing to do with the point I was making
about altruism.
Mark Kent
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:25:29 +0100, Daeron wrote:
>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135078,00.asp
>> --- quote ---
>> Is It Time for BSD?
>> Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
>> ---
>>
>> Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
>> for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
>> of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
>> of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
>> Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
>>
>> I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
>> court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
>> friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
>> --- unquote ---
>>
>> I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
>> nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
>> often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
>>
>> 'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
>> on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
>> a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
>
> altruistic, while people who use GPL claim all the time to be really really
> altruistic people giving their all for the good of the community, when in
> fact they're doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>
And you're here with no ulterior motive? How much to you get paid to
troll this group with anappropriate nonsense, I wonder?
--
| Mark Kent -- Take out the ham to mail me. |
Natural laws have no pity.
Mark Kent
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like altruism or freedom to me.
>>>>>
>>>> And yes, you do have to provide the source when distributing. That IS
>>>> the altrusistic part.
>>>
>>> It may be altrusistic, but it's certainly not altruistic.
>>
>> What's with all the typo corrections lately?
>>
>> It *is* altruistic. I have a complete, usable, stable, secure, home
>> system that I could have had sans cost if I had so chosen.
>>
>> I can write documents, presentations, send email, use the vast resources
>> of the Web, listen to music, watch movie clips, read usenet, manage my
>> finances, keep my schedule, etc. and I got it all because of those
>> altruistic coders who wanted to share it.
>>
>
> Actually, the point that Simon tries to bring across, is that there are
> "strings" attached to the software.
>
> As a user, the strings are non-binding (pun intended) but someone seeking to
> "build upon" the efforts of others will have to be aware of the "cost" of
> the software.
>
Let me understand you here - you're saying that person X has taken a
stack of work done by maybe hundreds or even thousands of other people,
and he can use it without restriction.
don't really see an issue here
And, if that person wishes to change that software, they can do so in
any way they wish.
still no issue here.
If they wish to distribute the changes to someone else, or to some other
organisation, then they have to give credit to the hundreds or thousands
of people who wrote the stuff in the first place, and make their own
change available *in exactly the same way as they received the work
in the first place*.
I still see no issue.
Sure - you're not allowed to pretend you did it all yourself, unless
you actually /did/ do it all yourself.
You're not allowed to make changes without passing those changes on,
if you distribute the code on (although you can do what you like if
you don't distribute any further).
Now that's software in chains, isn't it? I can take it, do what I like
with it for my own purposes, or within my business or organisation,
use it in any way, change it, whatever, without paying a penny to anyone,
or even thanking anyone. What a tough world this is.
Mark.
Mark Kent
Yes it is. You have taken a load of other people's work and profited
by it, without offering any compensation.
If you read the GPL information and the GNU site in detail, you will see
that if you want to 'close' the source to something, you are quite within
your rights to attempt to do so, *but* you have to have the explicit
permission to do it from each contributor. The GPL doesn't prevent
you taking such action at all. To put this another way, you're wrong.
>
> I really need to start describing the software I put in the Public Domain
> as "ULTIMATE Free Software", or "Really Open Source", or "Exceptionally
> Free Software" to distinguish it from the hijacked terms used by the OSS
> guys.
>
That kind of demonstrates how far away your understanding is from the
reality of the GPL.
Lee Wei Shun
> Lee Wei Shun wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Actually, the point that Simon tries to bring across, is that there are
>>"strings" attached to the software.
>>
>>As a user, the strings are non-binding (pun intended) but someone seeking
>>to "build upon" the efforts of others will have to be aware of the "cost"
>>of the software.
>
There is a reason I use quotemarks liberally.
>
> I know, but he seemed to be insisting that the software was not libre for
> the user; therefore, the coder could not be altruistic.
>
Yes, I believe he is being deliberately obtuse.
> It *is* free for me. There may be string attached, but they can *not* apply
> to me because I am incapable of modifying the software. You're free to
> flap your arms and fly away; you just can't do it.
>
Exactly. The beautiful thing is that you can see how it is done, and at
some point, have the *possibility* of making yourself capable of it. (I
don't mean the flying part.)
> There is a difference, and I was trying to highlight the fact that because
> there are restrictions on distribution does not mean he can argue that it's
> not free for users. It's easy to sign a license that prevents you from
> doing what you're incapable of doing already.
>
Not incapable, but it's just that the clause is not applicable.
> That's point one. Point two is that *nowhere* in the definition of
> altruistic Simon posted is there the absurd implication that in order to be
> altruistic one must always *maximize* the benefit to others and cost to
> self.
>
IMHO, RMS was quite aware of human nature when codifying the GPL, having
been at the recieving end. Indeed, he had lawyers to help him, and we
know the deep insight they have into that. ;)
>
>>
>>>They even hope others will make money off of it, in terms of not having
>>>to pay for other programs that do the same thing and thus have
>>>productivity that allows them to maximize profit.
>>>
>>>All they ask is that others not turn around and use their IP in a
>>>*non*-altruistic way.
>>>
>>
>>I would see it in a different perspective, the "cost" of development, in
>>using GPL software is the licence. If you don't agree to this cost, then
>>do not "buy" the software. However, the licence also states that this
>>"cost" is passed on to the people who receive it subsequently and seek to
>>build upon it.
>>
>>Some people, would not see this as beneficial or the best model for the
>>idea they want to express in a particular piece of software, and therefore
>>the "cost" to them would be to develop the same functionality
>>independently. Either way, there is a "cost".
>>
>>"Earnings" is a very different animal, and the traditional model where
>>after having incurred the "cost" of development, the expectation for
>>"earnings" from licensing or selling the software so produced is *NOT*
>>realised the same way for GPL software, is where people baulk.
>>
To elaborate, they cannot stomach the fact that the GPL has pre-empted
the very human desire to "take" what isn't theirs (and use it's
exclusivity to gain some advantage over another.)
>>However, this does not mean that the benefits and earnings from the *USE*
>>of the software is negated.
>
>
> Which was exactly my point even if I don't know the correct jargon.
>
You're welcome.
>
>>>I don't know what life experience you have had that you don't define that
>>>as
>>>altruistic. If I lend you my lawnmower, free of charge, to use whenever
>>>you need to cut the grass is it non-altruistic for me to ask that you
>>>don't sell the damn thing?
>>>
>>
>>This is not quite a correct analogy, since at the end of it, there is
>>still a limited resource, the single lawnmower, and you are deprived of
>>it's use if the person sells it.
>
>
> That I am deprived of its use has nothing to do with the point I was making
> about altruism.
>
>
Sorry, I thought you had meant to emphasise how it applied in the case
of the GPL.
Bo Grimes
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>> Lee Wei Shun wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>>Actually, the point that Simon tries to bring across, is that there are
>>>"strings" attached to the software.
>>>
>>>As a user, the strings are non-binding (pun intended) but someone seeking
>>>to "build upon" the efforts of others will have to be aware of the "cost"
>>>of the software.
>>
>
> There is a reason I use quotemarks liberally.
>
>>
>> I know, but he seemed to be insisting that the software was not libre for
>> the user; therefore, the coder could not be altruistic.
>>
>
> Yes, I believe he is being deliberately obtuse.
>
>
>> It *is* free for me. There may be string attached, but they can *not*
>> apply
>> to me because I am incapable of modifying the software. You're free to
>> flap your arms and fly away; you just can't do it.
>>
>
> Exactly. The beautiful thing is that you can see how it is done, and at
> some point, have the *possibility* of making yourself capable of it. (I
> don't mean the flying part.)
Darn! I was really hoping to fly. :-)
I know it's theoretically possible for me to learn how to (modify software,
not fly by flapping) but it's also a practical impossibility because I have
no intention of learning how to.
>
>> There is a difference, and I was trying to highlight the fact that
>> because there are restrictions on distribution does not mean he can argue
>> that it's
>> not free for users. It's easy to sign a license that prevents you from
>> doing what you're incapable of doing already.
>>
>
> Not incapable, but it's just that the clause is not applicable.
True. I'm not trying to be quite that precise, though. Right now I am
incapable, so it doesn't matter to me if the clause is applicable or not,
but I'm veering sharply into pedantic mode.
Exactly, and the irony is they say that therefore it's non-altruistic.
>
>
>>>However, this does not mean that the benefits and earnings from the *USE*
>>>of the software is negated.
>>
>>
>> Which was exactly my point even if I don't know the correct jargon.
>>
>
> You're welcome.
Well, I was indeed glad to see it better and more properly articulated.
>
>>
>>>>I don't know what life experience you have had that you don't define
>>>>that as
>>>>altruistic. If I lend you my lawnmower, free of charge, to use whenever
>>>>you need to cut the grass is it non-altruistic for me to ask that you
>>>>don't sell the damn thing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is not quite a correct analogy, since at the end of it, there is
>>>still a limited resource, the single lawnmower, and you are deprived of
>>>it's use if the person sells it.
>>
>>
>> That I am deprived of its use has nothing to do with the point I was
>> making about altruism.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I thought you had meant to emphasise how it applied in the case
> of the GPL.
Of course all analogies are flawed and break down at some point, and I *was*
trying to make a point about the GPL. I just didn't think it needed to be
all that precisely and specifically analogous since it's hard to find
examples other than software and music that are so easy to copy.
I was more concerned with showing that altruism is not negated simply
because you ask that what you share freely with one must be shared freely
with all, and do so in such a way that it's legally binding and easily
discoverable when breached because it's open.
Again, it's hard to think of examples, but imagine I have a limitless well
in an arid land, and I share the water with anyone who wants it. It's not
non-altruistic for me to stipulate in contract that the people I give it to
can not turn around and sell it to others I would freely give it to if
asked.
So my point was really more about altruism in general and then how the GPL
does fit as a specific example under that general definition.
Simon Cooke
> First you blubber about "use" and how it requires you to publish the
> source, and then you can't take it when someone calls you for your lies
> und FUD? Has Erik F given explicit instructions to his FUD-team to talk
> about the "viral" GPL because his masters at MS said so?
Unlike you, some posters here don't require permission to start thinking.
Simon
Simon Cooke
How much do YOU get paid to post in this group, Mark?
I've seen your type before. You're a shill for Robertson.
Simon
Simon Cooke
Irrelevent. If it doesn't get included with every copy of the contract,
it's not a valid license, and it doesn't matter if it says that the GPL
doesn't mean anything - it's still not the contract which was agreed to.
>>
>>> ANd the license is specific. If you don't
>>> distribute it, you don't have to publish source.
>>
>> Define *DISTRIBUTE*.
>>
>> Law.com doesn't have a definition other than in the probate sense; however,
>> under copyright law (which is what the GPL is based on), distribution and
>> publication are tied, and if you copy copyrighted material, you're
>> certainly infringing under the distribution control clauses of the USC
>> code.
>>
>> You have agreed that if you do any of the following:
>>
>> =====================================================================
>> (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
>>
>> distribute verb [T]
>>
>> to give something out to several people, or to spread or supply something:
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> Then you have to release your changes under the GPL.
>
> Correct. But a -company- can use and modify its software and not have to
> give the chnages to anyone else unless it -distributes-, as in publishes
> the software outside the company, the software. That is because the
> company is legally viewed as a single entity.
You seem to be exceptionally dense, Rick.
*distribute* does not mean "anything other than inside a specific company".
*distribute* means *copy and hand out*. Which means that the moment one
person makes changes to that software, and then hands it to *any other
person*, he is distributing and can be held in violation of the GPL.
>>
>> If you don't, you're using it illegally. This is *regardless* of anything
>> in the FAQ.
>>
> Correct, except that a company internally using and modifying the software
> and then not publishing it is not doing anything illegal as far as the GPL
> is concerned.
Wrong. The GPL is not specific, and the copyright-law use of the term
distribute is very broad, and that's what the GPL license falls back on.
Simon
Simon Cooke
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Simon Cooke say:
>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:45:50 GMT, Rick wrote:
> [...]
>>>> OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
>>>> modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by
>>>> someone else, I have to provide my modifications.
>>>
>>> Not -quite- true. A company can use the code in-house and not release the
>>> code/
>>
>>Not true either; that's never specified in the GPL.
>
> Why would it be? It is specified in copyright law.
Exactly my point. And copyright law doesn't limit the scope of the meaning
of distribution to "anything outside the company the person works for".
> It is entirely altruistic, whether you and Erik understand it or not.
No; BSD is altruistic; Public Domain is altruistic... GPL is not.
Believe me, I know; I've released more source code *for free, as in
Exponentially More Free Than GPL Software* than you have.
Simon
Simon Cooke
No, it's not. The other people have not lost anything. They made their
choice to release their code for free, forfeiting the right to
compensation.
> If you read the GPL information and the GNU site in detail, you will see
> that if you want to 'close' the source to something, you are quite within
> your rights to attempt to do so, *but* you have to have the explicit
> permission to do it from each contributor. The GPL doesn't prevent
> you taking such action at all. To put this another way, you're wrong.
Which makes it nigh on impossible to do because of the volume of people
involved. And someone can always claim "well, this guy did it, but we lost
his address, so you can't get permission, so NO".
>>
>> I really need to start describing the software I put in the Public Domain
>> as "ULTIMATE Free Software", or "Really Open Source", or "Exceptionally
>> Free Software" to distinguish it from the hijacked terms used by the OSS
>> guys.
>>
>
> That kind of demonstrates how far away your understanding is from the
> reality of the GPL.
Or it demonstrates how far away your understanding is from it. When I
release my software into the Public Domain, it is free as in Freedom. As
in, you AND ANYONE ELSE has the freedom to do with it *whatever* you want,
until the end of time.
That's true freedom.
Simon
Rick
It is relevant.
>
>
>>>> ANd the license is specific. If you don't distribute it, you don't
>>>> have to publish source.
>>>
>>> Define *DISTRIBUTE*.
>>>
>>> Law.com doesn't have a definition other than in the probate sense;
>>> however, under copyright law (which is what the GPL is based on),
>>> distribution and publication are tied, and if you copy copyrighted
>>> material, you're certainly infringing under the distribution control
>>> clauses of the USC code.
>>>
>>> You have agreed that if you do any of the following:
>>>
>>> =====================================================================
>>> (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
>>>
>>> distribute verb [T]
>>>
>>> to give something out to several people, or to spread or supply
>>> something:
>>> =====================================================================
>>>
>>> Then you have to release your changes under the GPL.
>>
>> Correct. But a -company- can use and modify its software and not have
>> to give the chnages to anyone else unless it -distributes-, as in
>> publishes the software outside the company, the software. That is
>> because the company is legally viewed as a single entity.
>
> You seem to be exceptionally dense, Rick.
You seem to be exceptionally dense, Simone.
>
> *distribute* does not mean "anything other than inside a specific
> company". *distribute* means *copy and hand out*. Which means that the
> moment one person makes changes to that software, and then hands it to
> *any other person*, he is distributing and can be held in violation of
> the GPL.
A company can use the software -internally- becasue it is doing so as a
single legal entity. If ti distributes the software... it must provide
source. Using it internally is not distribution.
>
>
>>> If you don't, you're using it illegally. This is *regardless* of
>>> anything in the FAQ.
>>>
>> Correct, except that a company internally using and modifying the
>> software and then not publishing it is not doing anything illegal as
>> far as the GPL is concerned.
>
> Wrong. The GPL is not specific, and the copyright-law use of the term
> distribute is very broad, and that's what the GPL license falls back on.
>
And the GPL does not prohibit a legal entity from modifying and keeping
those modifications.
--
Rick
Rick
(snip)
>> And you're here with no ulterior motive? How much to you get paid to
>> troll this group with anappropriate nonsense, I wonder?
>
> How much do YOU get paid to post in this group, Mark?
>
> I've seen your type before. You're a shill for Robertson.
>
... and you're just ignorant.
--
Rick
Erik Funkenbusch
>> *distribute* does not mean "anything other than inside a specific
>> company". *distribute* means *copy and hand out*. Which means that the
>> moment one person makes changes to that software, and then hands it to
>> *any other person*, he is distributing and can be held in violation of
>> the GPL.
> A company can use the software -internally- becasue it is doing so as a
> single legal entity. If ti distributes the software... it must provide
> source. Using it internally is not distribution.
Wow, if that's true, it's the loophole of the century. If I want to use
GPL'd software, and not distribute the source, I need only create a
non-profit organization which considers every person on the planet to be a
member. Then, I can give or sell it to anyone without having the GPL
apply.
Is that really what you want to suggest?
T. Max Devlin
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:10:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Simon Cooke say:
>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:45:50 GMT, Rick wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> OK; let's get specific then: if I use GPL'd software and make any
>>>>> modifications to it, the moment it leaves my hands and is used by
>>>>> someone else, I have to provide my modifications.
>>>>
>>>> Not -quite- true. A company can use the code in-house and not release the
>>>> code/
>>>
>>>Not true either; that's never specified in the GPL.
>>
>> Why would it be? It is specified in copyright law.
>
>Exactly my point. And copyright law doesn't limit the scope of the meaning
>of distribution to "anything outside the company the person works for".
In this case it does. There is plenty of common law (court precedent
interpreting existing statute) covering the scope of the meaning of
distribution of software by a business both internally and externally.
>> It is entirely altruistic, whether you and Erik understand it or not.
>
>No; BSD is altruistic; Public Domain is altruistic... GPL is not.
>
>Believe me, I know; I've released more source code *for free, as in
>Exponentially More Free Than GPL Software* than you have.
BSD isn't altruistic; it is short-sighted. It attempts to be altruistic, it
ends up being stupid. GPL is altruistic, though it is not naive.
Public domain isn't altruism, either; it is age.
Michael Vester
Erik, you need to take a break from the GPL thread for a while. I know
your Microsoft overlords have devoted much attention to the GPL. You
are really starting to grasp at straws.
It hardly seems worth arguing about. Microsoft can take any GPL code,
integrate it into a closed source product and no one could do a dam
thing about it. Who is going to stop them? Microsoft has already proven
they can out lawyer the US government.
The one piece of evidence that demonstrates Microsoft has not
integrated GPL code into its products is quality. You think that if
they were stealing GPL code, their products would be better.
--
6:50pm up 34 days, 9:04, 1 user, load average: 1.09, 1.05, 1.01
108 processes: 106 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 0.9% user, 1.2% system, 0.1% nice, 0.7% idle
To email me, change .com to .ca Linux Counter Registration #126647
end
Lee Wei Shun
> Again, it's hard to think of examples, but imagine I have a limitless well
> in an arid land, and I share the water with anyone who wants it. It's not
> non-altruistic for me to stipulate in contract that the people I give it
> to can not turn around and sell it to others I would freely give it to if
> asked.
>
Heh, I've gotta strech this one a little more. :)
In the case of the GPL, charging for the act of transportation and bottling
of the water is allowed, (heck, add the "secret" formula for coke in for an
additional charge! i.e. a proprietary payload) but they are not allowed to
hide the "source" of the water - your well - from the other person.
It may take effort to travel to your well, and others may prefer to pay the
intermediary (e.g. a bottling plant - i.e. a distro maker) to do the dirty
work for them, but this in no way nullifies the intermediary's obligation
to reveal the source and the original offer.
> So my point was really more about altruism in general and then how the GPL
> does fit as a specific example under that general definition.
>
>
The more FUD dispelled, the better.
Regards,
WS
--
Change to leews to mail. Linux user #61399
The beginning of the
end
Rick
You're an idiot.
--
Rick
The Ghost In The Machine
<simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:36:54 GMT
<4vr9gmfq02ph$.18wrlkfeegzi8$.d...@40tude.net>:
> On 30 Jun 2003 18:52:59 GMT, Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
>> In article <od3rfjcr8870.1o...@40tude.net>, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:35 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Very simply this:
>>>>>
>>>>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only if you define "use" as "distribute".
>>>> But you knew that already, lying MS shill
>>>
>>> Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
>>> definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying to
>>> argue about this?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
>>>
>>> Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
>>> language to suit their political agenda.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>
>> Freedom does not include the freedom to deny freedom.
>
> Deny freedom to whom? You seem to have this odd idea that if someone takes
> GPL'd software, and bases a closed-source product on it, that you've lost
> something.
You have. You've lost the ability to hide your modifications. :-)
Whether this is a serious loss -- I don't think so; most people will
be glad to distribute mods to already-GPL software incorporated into
their products, I would think, especially if it's a bugfix.
Whether the usage of GPL makes the *entire product* GPL is not clear.
Again, the key word is "derivative", and the simplest example is
arguably the incorporation of the GPL readline library into a
CAD or other type system. Is that CAD system a "derivative work"?
I hope not. But that's probably a different issue.
> You haven't. You still have exactly the same amount of open
> source code that you had at the start. And nobody's freedom
> is being denied by that.
>
> I really need to start describing the software I put
> in the Public Domain as "ULTIMATE Free Software", or
> "Really Open Source", or "Exceptionally Free Software"
> to distinguish it from the hijacked terms used by the OSS
> guys.
Why not just call it "Public Domain Software"? Simple, direct, and
accurate.
>
> Simon
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Yin Duo Lai
> Why not just call it "Public Domain Software"? Simple, direct, and
> accurate.
>
>>
>> Simon
it a gnu thing.
you just wouldn't understand
Erik Funkenbusch
> begin OEflaw.vbs Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:22:35 GMT, Rick wrote:
>>
>>>> *distribute* does not mean "anything other than inside a specific
>>>> company". *distribute* means *copy and hand out*. Which means that
>>>> the moment one person makes changes to that software, and then
>>>> hands it to *any other person*, he is distributing and can be held
>>>> in violation of the GPL.
>>> A company can use the software -internally- becasue it is doing so
>>> as a single legal entity. If ti distributes the software... it must
>>> provide source. Using it internally is not distribution.
>>
>> Wow, if that's true, it's the loophole of the century. If I want to
>> use GPL'd software, and not distribute the source, I need only create
>> a non-profit organization which considers every person on the planet
>> to be a
>> member. Then, I can give or sell it to anyone without having the GPL
>> apply.
>>
>> Is that really what you want to suggest?
>>
> Erik, you need to take a break from the GPL thread for a while. I know
> your Microsoft overlords have devoted much attention to the GPL. You
> are really starting to grasp at straws.
I'm not grasping at straws. I just can't believe that Rick would be
suggesting that being a member of an organization makes one immune to the
GPL, and pointed out the glaring flaw in that reasoning.
Erik Funkenbusch
> You're an idiot.
Typical denial response. If in fact it is true that the GPL does not apply
to those inside an organization, the scenario I laid out would, in effect,
be a major loophole around the GPL.
Simon Cooke
I bet you get paid to post here too, Rick.
Simon
Peter Köhlmann
You did nothing of that sort.
You can't just nilly willy create your org and claim everyone on the
planet as member since you have no right to do so. Or can you show some
paper which says that I am willing to be a member, or some other sort of
agreement?
In the case of a company there *is* an agreement, since the people working
there have a contract. Those people clearly are members of that
organization
You are acting again the stupid FUD-shill you really are
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Linønut
You're an idiot.
--
Rejuventate your hardware with Linux!
Linønut
>> Why not just call it "Public Domain Software"? Simple, direct, and
>> accurate.
>
> it a gnu thing.
> you just wouldn't understand
I don't think the public domain provides the protections that GNU has in
mind.
Rick
Take it up with RMS.
--
Rick
Rick
Take it up with RMS. He seems to agree with the statements made in the FAQ.
--
Rick
Rick
Try gambling for a living, Simone. They you'd be ignorant and broke.
--
Rick
Minderbinder
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
> <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net>
> wrote
> > GPL'd software, and bases a closed-source product on it, that you've lost
> > something.
>
> You have. You've lost the ability to hide your modifications. :-)
>
Aha, now you're onto something.
I would argue that GPL'd software is free, but "free" as a democratic
country is. For example, Canada may be free, but that doesn't mean
that the USA is welcome to "take" it and make it a 51st(?2nd?) state.
Hmm, maybe this isn't going quite where I'd hoped... right, let's try
again:
The point is, GPLd software contains within its license the ability to
protect itself from takeovers and hijackings: that is, to protect its
own freedom. Consider the BSD license, which has a major weakness when
it comes to public (FREE) standards: large corporations can slowly
modify the code with proprietary extensions over time, using their
market share to "hijack" the standard and cripple or destroy the
open-sourced varients. For example, Microsoft has been accused of
attempting to hijack a number of standards (links for Kerberos, XML):
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M000430.html
http://www.iapplianceweb.com/story/OEG20020327S0023
Anyone who uses a non-Microsoft web browser (on Windows or otherwise)
knows the pain caused by browser-specific proprietary extensions to
HTML.
Under the GPL, any derived works cannot hijack the standard, as
everyone has access to the changes.
> Whether this is a serious loss -- I don't think so; most people will
> be glad to distribute mods to already-GPL software incorporated into
> their products, I would think, especially if it's a bugfix.
>
> Whether the usage of GPL makes the *entire product* GPL is not clear.
> Again, the key word is "derivative", and the simplest example is
> arguably the incorporation of the GPL readline library into a
> CAD or other type system. Is that CAD system a "derivative work"?
> I hope not. But that's probably a different issue.
>
Contrary to statements made by certain high-profile spokepeople, the
GPL does not "contaminate" everything it touches. It is perfectly
possible to develop proprietary, closed-source software using GPL
tools and libraries. Take, for example, Ximian Connector, Mac OS X
(which includes proprietary components such as Aqua and GPL components
such as the gcc compiler) and even Microsoft's Services for UNIX. Many
open-sourced libaries are released under weaker licenses such as the
LGPL which allows the object code to be used in proprietary programs:
thus, you may incorporate the libraries into your program without
problems (although if your program includes changes to these libs, you
must distribute the changes you made to those libs only). As for the
readline lib - it's strict GPL so yes, only GPL programs can be build
on it.
On the other hand, GPLd software isn't "free" in the sense that, say,
AOL could take the source code for GAIM and release AOL-IM two days
later under a commercial license (without even giving credit).
Regards,
Minderbinder.
Baby Peanut
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:25:29 +0100, Daeron wrote:
>
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135078,00.asp
> > --- quote ---
> > Is It Time for BSD?
> > Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
> > ---
> >
> > Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
> > for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
> > of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
> > of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
> > best?Xdesktop and user application environment, there's always
> > Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
> >
> > I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
> > court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
> > friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
> > --- unquote ---
> >
> > I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
> > nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
> > often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
> >
> > 'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
> > on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
> > a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
>
> Actually, I think you'll find that it's because the BSD license actually is
> altruistic, while people who use GPL claim all the time to be really really
> altruistic people giving their all for the good of the community, when in
>
> Simon
But it's a pretty good ulterior motive, IMHO. It is one of the few
things that is standing in the way of the tyranny of the aristocracy.
Baby Peanut
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Very simply this:
>
> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>
> That's not 'altruistic'.
>
> altruism noun [U]
> willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in
> disadvantage for yourself:
>
Where did you get that defintion? What citation can you produce?
Here's some defintions for altruism with citations:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Altruism \Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It.
altrui of or to others, fr. L. alter another.]
Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the
interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
{egoism} or {selfishness}. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
altruism
n : the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
[syn: {selflessness}] [ant: {egoism}]
xx
Freeride wrote:
>
> Can you give an example of "company B"? :)
>
Need it really be posted? We all, more or less, can come up with an example.
Simon Cooke
> While restarting Outlook, Yin Duo Lai grumbled:
>
>>> Why not just call it "Public Domain Software"? Simple, direct, and
>>> accurate.
>>
>> it a gnu thing.
>> you just wouldn't understand
>
> I don't think the public domain provides the protections that GNU has in
> mind.
I don't think GNU has the same aims as the Public Domain. P-D in the
copyright sense aims to provide a sound basis for the good of all; GNU
serves to provide a sound basis for those who support GNU. BIG difference.
Note: When a copyright expires, it does not get released under GPL. What
does *that* tell you?
Simon
Simon Cooke
"Tyranny of the aristocracy"? What are you smoking?
Simon
Simon Cooke
Oh, Rick... I feel for you... you sad pathetic moron.
Simon
Simon Cooke
One wonders if you can come up with an example and the necessary proof to
back up the claim...
Simon
xx
If you read the post to which Freeride responded, you will notice I made
no specific claim, but in fact, posed an example of how public domain
code could be made unfree in practice.
Bob Hauck
<simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:24:36 -0500, Linųnut wrote:
>> I don't think the public domain provides the protections that GNU has in
>> mind.
>
> I don't think GNU has the same aims as the Public Domain.
Indeed not.
> Note: When a copyright expires, it does not get released under GPL. What
> does *that* tell you?
It tells me that GPL is a license and "public domain" isn't. When a
copyright expires, it doesn't get released under _any_ license. Not
that it matters to those of us in the US, since there won't be any more
copyrights expiring in our lifetimes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Mr. Berserker
> few binary only programs that aren't also ported to FreeBSD.
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
I know NetBSD had lots of great stuff as well. It made a beautiful KDE
desktop right out of the box. However, you don't see OEM deals,
movements to standardise on *BSD, etc. And have fun installing and
configuring it. Compared to Linux, *BSD is harder to work with on a
low level, in CLI, for instance. I never liked that 'slices' stuff,
for one. Or their bootloader. Plus M$ can always rip off BSD,
compensating for deficit of skill. No such thing with GPL/Linux.
Mr. Berserker
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Very simply this:
>
> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
So what? They want to impose a little order upon the software they
legally own. They want to prevent freeloaders, basically, and forking.
You are painting with a broad brush when you say that all of them
claim to be super altruistic. However, Debian, for example, *are*
generous. No FUD about that. They just want to ensure that everyone
has the same rights.
Mark Kent
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:32:20 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> espoused:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:25:29 +0100, Daeron wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1135078,00.asp
>>>> --- quote ---
>>>> Is It Time for BSD?
>>>> Jim Rapoza, June 23 2003
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Probably the biggest weakness in the BSD operating systems,
>>>> for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack
>>>> of good desktop applications. However, the BSDs have plenty
>>>> of strengths in back-office applications. And if you really
>>>> best—desktop and user application environment, there's always
>>>> Mac OS X, which is based on BSD.
>>>>
>>>> I firmly believe that when all is said and done in and out of
>>>> court, Linux will be fine. If you're not facing any corporate
>>>> friction about deploying Linux, there's no reason to stop.
>>>> --- unquote ---
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed fuddie wafting lyrical here about the superior
>>>> nature of the BSD license as compared to the nasty GPL. I've
>>>> often wondered why. But I think this article gives us a clue.
>>>>
>>>> 'lack of good desktop applications'. See BSD don't encroache
>>>> on Microsoft Desktop territory. How soon after someone produces
>>>> a BSD desktop will fuddie start to rubbish it here ?
>>>
>>> Actually, I think you'll find that it's because the BSD license actually is
>>> altruistic, while people who use GPL claim all the time to be really really
>>> altruistic people giving their all for the good of the community, when in
>>>
>>
>> And you're here with no ulterior motive? How much to you get paid to
>> troll this group with anappropriate nonsense, I wonder?
>
> How much do YOU get paid to post in this group, Mark?
>
> I've seen your type before. You're a shill for Robertson.
>
I get paid nothing. What is your ulterior motive?
--
| Mark Kent -- Take out the ham to mail me. |
He who is content with his lot probably has a lot.
Mark Kent
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:42:40 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> espoused:
>>>
>>>> In article <od3rfjcr8870.1o...@40tude.net>, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:35 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very simply this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you knew that already, lying MS shill
>>>>>
>>>>> Hang on a minute, Peter... I'm not lying. GPL is NOT altruistic, by
>>>>> definition. It is also NOT free, by definition. Are you honestly trying to
>>>>> argue about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, perhaps, the real agenda of GPL fanatics is to alter the English
>>>>> language to suit their political agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> Freedom does not include the freedom to deny freedom.
>>>
>>> GPL'd software, and bases a closed-source product on it, that you've lost
>>> source code that you had at the start. And nobody's freedom is being denied
>>> by that.
>>
>> by it, without offering any compensation.
>
> No, it's not. The other people have not lost anything. They made their
> choice to release their code for free, forfeiting the right to
> compensation.
>
I didn't say they'd lost anything. Perhaps you should read it again?
Just in case it wasn't clear the first time, you've have taken a load
of other people's work and profited by it, without offering compensation.
>> If you read the GPL information and the GNU site in detail, you will see
>> that if you want to 'close' the source to something, you are quite within
>> your rights to attempt to do so, *but* you have to have the explicit
>> permission to do it from each contributor. The GPL doesn't prevent
>> you taking such action at all. To put this another way, you're wrong.
>
> Which makes it nigh on impossible to do because of the volume of people
> involved. And someone can always claim "well, this guy did it, but we lost
> his address, so you can't get permission, so NO".
Not impossible, indeed there have been examples of it. Again, you're
wrong.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote in message news:<mrwqbvej41t1.6pg99w7mbem8$.d...@40tude.net>...
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>
>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>
>> Very simply this:
>>
>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>>
>> That's not 'altruistic'.
>>
>> Altruism:
>> altruism noun [U]
>> willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in
>> disadvantage for yourself:
>>
>
> Where did you get that defintion? What citation can you produce?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2383&dict=CALD
Simon
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote in message news:<mrwqbvej41t1.6pg99w7mbem8$.d...@40tude.net>...
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:15:04 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:46 +0000, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> doing it all with an ulterior motive.
>>>
>>> And? What is this so called "ulterior motive" Simon?
>>
>> Very simply this:
>>
>> So that no-one can use it without also publishing their modifications.
>
> So what? They want to impose a little order upon the software they
> legally own. They want to prevent freeloaders, basically, and forking.
So it pisses me off when people claim to be doing a wonderful good thing,
and giving away all this stuff for free, and doing a great social work,
when in fact they're not a patch compared to me and the other people who
REALLY have been doing that.
> You are painting with a broad brush when you say that all of them
> claim to be super altruistic. However, Debian, for example, *are*
> generous. No FUD about that. They just want to ensure that everyone
> has the same rights.
I don't see how you can claim that they want everyone to have the same
rights. The rights they're giving out are "everyone can use it for free in
any way they want, except people who want to use it in their own software".
Simon
Simon Cooke
Neither do I, and I don't have one. What's yours?
Simon
Simon Cooke
... oh, and why should I believe that you get paid nothing to post here?
Prove it.
Simon
Erik Funkenbusch
I don't really see how an opt-out membership would be illegal.
> In the case of a company there *is* an agreement, since the people working
> there have a contract. Those people clearly are members of that
> organization
In the US, contracts for employment are rare. Usually it's considered
employment "at will" which means either side can terminate their employment
at any time without any contract.
One need not be employed to be a member of an organization either.
> You are acting again the stupid FUD-shill you really are
It would be trivial to have a click-through agreement that says "You agree
to be a member of our organization in exchange for downloading this
software".
Erik Funkenbusch
Why? RMS is blinded by his ideals.
Wayne Throop
::: That's not 'altruistic'.
Actually, it is. By your own definition (see below).
::: Altruism: altruism noun [U] willingness to do things which benefit
::: other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself:
:: Where did you get that defintion? What citation can you produce?
: Simon Cooke <simon...@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net>
: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2383&dict=CALD
Look at your own definition. Willing to do things which benefit
other people, even if it results in disadvantage for oneself.
There's no mention that there MUST be a disadvantage, and there's
no mention that ALL people must benefit in ways THEY want rather
than the ways the altruist may want.
For comparison, suppose you give a million dollars to a charity.
But you make it a provision of the gift that neither it, nor interest
earned by investing it, may be used to pay manager salaries; it must all
go directly to the actual work of the charity.
It's still philanthropy.
And acting to the benefit of others by attempting to ensure that
they have unimpeded access to source code is still altruistic, even if
there's a provision that neither this donation of source, nor work based
on it (ie, the interest) may be kept secret; it all has to go to actual
altruism to people who want source code, and not into "IP" vaults.
It's still altruism.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Peter Köhlmann
You try again to prove your point with semantics? It would be illegal in
major parts of the world. Try it. And see how your "loophole" is shredded
>> In the case of a company there *is* an agreement, since the people
>> working there have a contract. Those people clearly are members of that
>> organization
>
> In the US, contracts for employment are rare. Usually it's considered
> employment "at will" which means either side can terminate their
> employment at any time without any contract.
>
There is no need for a written contract. And you know it.
> One need not be employed to be a member of an organization either.
>
Right. And not every organisation would count as one entity for the GPL.
>> You are acting again the stupid FUD-shill you really are
>
> It would be trivial to have a click-through agreement that says "You
> agree to be a member of our organization in exchange for downloading
> this software".
And it would be still legally not binding in major areas of the world
(just like those stupid MS EULAs)
You know all this, and yet you continue with your FUD. Why?
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Mark Kent
So what is your motive for posting here?
--
| Mark Kent -- Take out the ham to mail me. |
Many aligators will be slain,
but the swamp will remain.