no you're not
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Jan 18, 2007 12:57 AM EDT |
"Am I nuts" asks Matt: Nah, you're not. You're just a clueless consumer who doesn't understand software licensing. You think the only way to make your preciousssss hardware work is to bow down and include all that non-free crap nobody really needs that desperately. The alternative of re-releasing all that non-free crap as Free Software doesn't even come into your mind. It's been done before, you know. Look at mozilla, openoffice, slowlaris and even java. If all these non-free drivers, flashy players and whatnot were GPL'ed, the dilemma you write about wouldn't exist in the first place. See his spin on BSD? Well, isn't that just the stuff microsoft tries to brainwash us with all the time? One might get silly ideas... Then come the nuggets of this article: "First off, BSD is an OS, not a distribution of any kind whatsoever." and "BSD has had one major success on the desktop for the casual user and that is with PC-BSD." Oh thank you, Matt. Thank you so much. That's the ultimate proof to show you're clueless as a windows fanboi. No, I'm doing injustice to windows fanbois, most ms fanbois I know actually have some sound reasons to support their opinion with. |
| bigg Jan 18, 2007 6:57 AM EDT |
I don't know if we want to blame just him, though. Look at all the excitement we had that Flash 9 was released for Linux. Adobe screwed us repeatedly, did their best to support the Windows monopoly, and then Linux users rejoiced about getting a Flash Player that is old news on Windows. I use it on some machines, but generally avoid using it if possible. I also let websites know whenever possible. As you say, the problem is not the GPL. The problem is that there is still software that is not released under the GPL. If I were to slap my colleagues on the back of the head everytime they use Windows, they might be more open to using Linux, but that doesn't mean Windows is flawed. I seriously doubt that most free software developers (myself included) would donate their time if someone could come along later, make a slight improvement on what we have done, and make it proprietary. My motivation is that the world is a better place, and my life is easier, if we have quality free software. If I don't have an assurance of reciprocity, I don't have a lot of motivation to share in the first place. So my answer is that if someone prefers the proprietary world, leave my code alone and make a better proprietary product with your own effort. I do not write code simply so that other people can enjoy themselves. I do it to build a free software community. If that is not your goal, then you can use whatever license you want. But if I'm donating my time, I should be able to do as I wish with my code. I don't appreciate someone coming along later and saying "why don't you do X". I don't do X because I don't want to. |
| incinerator Jan 18, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
Yye, the hype about The Flashy Nine Dead Flies is quite annoying, indeed. I must have spent the last ten years in the sahara or why is it that flash seems to have become teh killa application in them interwebs tubes nowadays? Oh, right, futube and my5h1t3 and googly vids are everthing the posh teenager has to be after these days. There's a problem with flash, though: there's no comparable free format available yet. Well, actually there is SVG, but how many mature plugins can you get for that..... |
| tuxchick Jan 18, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
There was a recent article that I can't find, that claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application. Anyone know the one I mean? It appeared in the past couple of weeks. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
>claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application. Depends on your definition of "locking it up". You absolutely can use BSD code in a closed, proprietary application. You never need to provide source, etc. However, you can't keep anybody else from using that BSD code, which, to me, is an essential element of "locking it up." |
| incinerator Jan 19, 2007 12:26 AM EDT |
tuxchick, you're probably looking for this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179 That article has been widely criticised, though. Even the University of California has denied the conclusions the article came up with. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 19, 2007 3:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:There was a recent article that I can't find, that claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application. Anyone know the one I mean? It appeared in the past couple of weeks. The article was flawed but the basic premesis is true. If you take a piece of BSD code and stick it in your closed source product, the code you took is *still* under the BSD license. It cannot be relicensed under a different license. But you can distribute it inside your differently licensed program as much as you want. Practical example: If Novell gets to see Windows' source code, then they can grap the files from the TCP/IP stack, remove MS's changes (not needed if they are trivial) and publish it on the internet. MS can't complain because the BSD stack it took is *still* licensed under a BSD license. Just not MS's changes to it. |
| bigg Jan 19, 2007 7:55 AM EDT |
> If you take a piece of BSD code and stick it in your closed source product, the code you took is *still* under the BSD license. Certainly that is the case because you don't own the code that you borrow from someone else. Nonetheless, as an example that would never happen, I would not like Adobe to take my code, make a few changes, put it in the Flash Player and release Flash just for Windows, using it as a tool to aggressively attack Linux. They are able to build on what I have done, yet prevent me from accessing their small modifications. In that case I have little reason to share in the first place. I don't think the author of the article gets this point. |
| jdixon Jan 19, 2007 8:12 AM EDT |
> They are able to build on what I have done, yet prevent me from accessing their small modifications. In that case I have little reason to share in the first place. I don't think the author of the article gets this point. And that's why folks who prefer the GPL use it rather than the BSD license. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!