Lol
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Feb 17, 2005 12:31 AM EDT |
"A commercial version of the GPL." What a silly idea. As if the FSF's primary concern would be the GPL being suitable for business. I hope not. Sun creates their own stupid CDDL license and now they are blaming OSI? It is the devisers of all these "specific" licenses that created this "problem". If people would not create their own license for every piece of software they release (Sun, are you listening?) then we would not have "too many licenses" in the first place. It is everyones right not to use the GPL and create their own license. If they choose to do so, they have to live with the consequences. We neither need a monopoly nor oligopoly of FOSS licenses. If the licenses are compatible, fine. If they are not, fine because that probaly is what the creator of the software intended (e.g. Sun). Companies can easily re-release their software under a different license, or even do multi-licensing. Community projects have much more difficulties to do so, as that requires the consent of all copyright holders. So why should companies whine about, then? |
| devnet Feb 17, 2005 6:23 AM EDT |
I think its more along the lines of "less work for us businesses mean less money spent." They want to have their cake and eat it too. What they forget is that anyone developing GPL Linux isn't going to give two squirts about enterprise applications, they're just looking to offer an alternative that is viable to microsoft desktops. When did enterprise become a concern in any distro's plan? It hasn't. Only those that offer a server line would be concerned with the enterprise application of their software. This article is just plain nonsense. They make it sound like this is a main concern for the OSI...but examine it closer: "Although no specific plan has been put in place, the OSI considers the number of open-source licenses an industrywide problem, said Russell Nelson, who became president of the OSI earlier this month. "Certainly a lot of people are upset about the license proliferation problem," Nelson said." Wait! What? He stated 'a lot of people' are upset?' Does that mean that the OSI considers the # os licenses an industrywide problem? Where was that quote again? It's not there. So let's mislead the reader a bit here...right Mr. Martin LaMonica? Bottom line is that this article is rubbish. It's a bunch of businessmen who want less hassle in their legal departments getting together and whining like a bunch of baby's who got their candy taken away from them. While they may be concerned with whether we need a commercial GPL...I doubt that it is on the forefront of every Open Source advocates mind. Devnet |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2005 8:40 AM EDT |
Ummmm..... How about fewer licenses = fewer headaches if you're running a business? Mind you, I don't know why a "business version" of the GPL is needed -- unless it's simply to freeze a set of terms into place. The FSF folks haven't been too bad to date, but some of their talk is a little on the Whacko side, especially when they start hyper-ventilating over web services. And what's with all this anti-business crap? Last I looked, that's how most people make their livings. Businesses don't exist to be loved, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. |
| devnet Feb 17, 2005 10:23 AM EDT |
dino-matic, Nothing against businesses...just against business practices filtering their ways into areas where they aren't needed. Linux has never been about business and these guys are specifically discussing how the license pertains to enterprise Linux and EL apps. It just sours me to think of the early days of Linux and then to think of now and see how some distros have commercialized completely while others have stayed relatively commercialization free. I sure hope that somewhere in the mix things don't go for the worse. Anytime you mix people trying to make money with those that just love to 'play the game' (think college football) you cheapen things a bit along with tainting the game. :/ Just my take on it, for what it's worth :p |
| PaulFerris Feb 17, 2005 10:41 AM EDT |
"Linux has never been about business" devnet: That's your opinion. It has always been about business to me. It's about whatever to whomever, typically -- to some people it's the ultimate desktop, some it's the ultimate mainframe os, some it's the best thing for embedded apps -- to say it's one thing (your thing) is not really a good idea. When it comes to licensing, a lot of desktop end users really don't care, but businesses care. |
| TxtEdMacs Feb 17, 2005 11:24 AM EDT |
I thought I scanned the article in question in one forum or another, but what struck me of paramount importance is the incompatibility of licenses. Read that as: advances in one project most likely cannot be applied to another unrelated project due to the wording of the license. This should be seen this is a retarding factor to the advancement of F/OSS software. That seems to outweigh the business interests that are being crabbed about here. |
| devnet Feb 17, 2005 2:05 PM EDT |
Paul, Always? It's been about the business for all areas of your Linux experience? If so, congrats...you're one of the few. When I started with Linux in 1996 it wasn't about the business...it was about an alternative to Microsoft that was free and fun to use. Throw business in there for most of the common desktop users and you'll leave a sour taste in our mouths. Interestingly enough, an extremely high percentage of distros are geared toward the desktop for home use. That doesn't spell Linux being about the business. But perhaps there are those out there that have share your sentiment that Linux is about the business...who knows right? TxTEdMacs, Multiple licenses mean variety...similar to multiple distributions. When projects hit a wall because of interoperability problems...they just change to a different license...they aren't bound by anything. To me, I see more licenses as a sign that open source is growing. The more, the merrier. The only thing preventing projects from advancing through incompatibility of license is the project developers themselves...they can decide at any time to adopt a license or rewrite theirs. All it takes is concentration on forward development instead of making a buck. |
| PaulFerris Feb 17, 2005 4:09 PM EDT |
devnet: okay, I'll admit that in 1993, when I first got a copy of Ygdrasil plug-and-play Linux (oh, what a misnomer that was, btw) loaded on a screaming 486DX33, I was playing around. I almost immediately wanted it to be a part of my working experience, however. I'll admit, however, that most of my coworkers thought I was joking. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2005 6:49 PM EDT |
I haven't been at it as long as you have, Paul, not so much as logging into a linux box til 1996 or building my own until 1998. I am a babe in these woods. However ... I do know that the Linux box I started out using was a skunkworks development machine in a cross-platform (HP-UX, AIX, and DEC/OSF) Unix shop developing high-end business software. While not about business a la Microsoft or Oracle, Linux has always been about business so far as getting things done. Fun to play with, incredibly useful to play with, especially when it's hard to get the budget approval for purchases. It wasn't magic pixies dust that got folks like IBM and Oracle and Lucent and whomsoever else using and/or selling Linux. People began picking it up, sticking it places, depending on it. It's been that way nearly from the beginning. |
| PaulFerris Feb 17, 2005 8:21 PM EDT |
Dean, probably both of us looked at Linux that way because: A) Our Linux experiences were more "Unix-Like" -- we came from using Unix at work, and wishing we could use it at home (speaking more for myself now) -- then when I got it at home I realized it had things that Unix didn't have and I wanted it at work. B) I don't know about you, but until I got Linux on my home PC I really couldn't do much in the way of what I would call "heavy lifting" -- multi-processing/multi-user type stuff. That was always a frustration with Windows -- it would do things that appeared to be heavy lifting, but in a pinch (especially the 2.0/3.0 Windows days), it fell apart like a house of cards. C) We both (speaking from what I know about you personally) love what we do from a technical standpoint at work. I know a lot of people approach technology as a job and they don't find the joy. I do, seriously, find a lot of creativity at work, and especially with Linux and Unix-like things. I'm kind of on the wierd side that way, I know. It's not everyone that cries the first time they get Linux to boot up (out of joy, no less). *sigh* |
| tuxchick Feb 17, 2005 9:46 PM EDT |
Don't make the mistake of thinking that "business" is a term with a precise definition. Though it is a convenient shorthand, usually with negative connotations. Businesses are run by people, and express the values of the people running them. It's also a mistake to assume that all businesspeople are smart. They're not- a lot of them are the same obnoxious assholes we beat up in grade school just for being intolerably annoying. They're successful only because they are pushy and persistent, and made their way into the correct circles via birth or college. But for some reason silly ideas like "a business would not do that, not if it weren't a smart move" get lodged in people's heads. Businesspeople make idiotic decisions every day. But it's not all negative. The good guys don't get a lot of attention, because good guys never do. I'm too lazy to look them up now, but all manner of businesses have been funding and supporting F/OSS projects from the very earliest days. So, whatever this has to do with anything, there it is. :) |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2005 10:38 PM EDT |
Is true, Chickie (if I may call you Chickie. Is infinitely preferable to Smelly Piece of Wombat Excrement). In the end, business is Yet Another Human Endeavor. Some good, some bad. And, hey, we gotta pay the bills. |
| tuxchick Feb 17, 2005 11:19 PM EDT |
Just don't call me late for dinner. ;) |
| PaulFerris Feb 18, 2005 5:18 AM EDT |
How about paying for dinner? TakesCheck? -or- Dressy for dinner? TuxedoChick? -or- Redneck linux gal: TuxCrick? -or- Into a different kind of birds? DucksChick? -or- Wildly successful? BucksChick? -or- Into serial communications? MuxChick? -or- The gambler? LucksChick? Lemme know Tuxxy, I wouldn't want to call you by the wrong name :-) |
| SeanConnery315 Feb 18, 2005 6:15 AM EDT |
Or how about drinking too much coffee early in the morning and posting annoying replies to LXer threads? AnnoyingFerris? FerriCaffeine? LatteCyde? -Tool |
| devnet Feb 18, 2005 7:04 AM EDT |
I think it may be close to "Doubleshot" of expressoCyde... |
| PaulFerris Feb 18, 2005 10:35 AM EDT |
SeanConnMan404: Listen tool, what makes you think you can just go onto a message board and make fun of someones name?!?! How rude. |
| peragrin Feb 18, 2005 11:16 AM EDT |
Damn boys It's one girl and you guys are fawning all over her. What's scary is that your "mostly" grown men. Now Tuxchick I would say slap them down but they might enjoy that, so continue what you are doing and ignore them. That or tease them until they become so stupid they must use Windows again. |
| tuxchick Feb 18, 2005 1:12 PM EDT |
Peragrin, I took a vow to not abuse my awesome feminine wiles. "With great power comes great responsibility." Anyway I'm certain it is my awesome intelligence that is shining through, and captivating yet more admirers. It's a curse, but somehow I live with it. |
| PaulFerris Feb 18, 2005 2:40 PM EDT |
tuxchick: don't forget your self-defacing humility too! |
| SeanConnery315 Feb 18, 2005 4:57 PM EDT |
Ferris, you TOOL!
You made fun of MY name? Tread lightly, else more SNL references will find their way into your threads! -The ORIGINAL Tool P.S. I heard there might have been some "hidden extras" in one of your articles recently, but haven't been able to find. Any idea what I'm talking about? |
| peragrin Feb 19, 2005 4:20 AM EDT |
Sean if you read his articles closely look for the following letters I L O V E M I C R O S O F T So you can see where he really stands |
| PaulFerris Feb 19, 2005 4:30 AM EDT |
sean: alas, I removed the comments from that article. It was an artifact of creation and a joke that only a few would understand ;) I'll email it to you. --Paul |
| SeanConnery315 Feb 20, 2005 8:37 PM EDT |
Thanks for that insight, peragrin! I nearly missed out that Ferris was actually a MS spy trying to sway me to use Windows and IE so he can write malware and infect my PC! Darn him!!! Still waiting on the email, Ferris! I think more people caught it than you realize - the source that I heard it from was someone you probably wouldn't have suspected. Be careful - it's like I always said when I "worked" there; the walls have teeth ;-) -Tool |
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!