Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
- Exactly.
- If I make a website that has a 10GB database and another with a 10,000GB database, the cost of the second is not 1000 times that of the first. The second site would perhaps cost more to host, but...
- Google may not provide monetary consideration to those who create the content that helps enable Google to generate revenue, but so what? The search engine-web publisher transaction is a purely...
- Adam -- Another very well written piece. When I get these by email, however, the author's name doesn't appear at the top, as it does on this page. I assume different authors on published in...
2 years ago
Yup.
2 years ago
Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.
So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.
If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code.
It really is THAT SIMPLE.
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
I don't think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets "side" IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.
2 years ago
enigma_factory,
That's why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache's projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla's projects, need I go on?
2 years ago
"Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft"
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/...
And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.
2 years ago
I'm curious, what is your defination of 'something better'? Is it something along the lines of 'I can claim the code as my own'?
2 years ago
"But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power."
And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an "anti-freedom" light, which is basically a smear.
Freedom is what the GPL is all about.
"You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?"
Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.
As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.
But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.
2 years ago
I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds' statements on GPL out of context. He said he's "pleased" that the latest draft of GPL3 is "better than the first draft", but he's made it clear that it's still not good enough for him to submit to.
The money guys who actually fund Linux development - IBM and HP - aren't on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago