Posted on 07/26/2004 8:35:06 AM PDT by GeorgiaFreeper
I don't know about your analogy. It might be more like, hey your turn signal is out, it probably needs a new bulb. I'm not saying you have to provide a fix. But, you will find that things get fixed a lot faster if you do. Basically, it is not enough to complain about something, you should try to provide a solution.
Source logs?? Bu.. but all of this stuff is contributed anonymously and you can't tell where all of that code came from. Isn't that what you and your SCO and AdTI buddies have been saying for months now?
Setting up a dev environment is often fraught with problems (ie. "get these libs from this project, put your files at this location, set these environment variables, run this script first ...", etc, etc),
If, like most hackers, one installs the dev tools at system install time, most of the environment is already taken care of. I'll grant you that large projects will have external dependencies, but 99% of the time the distribution tarball will contain everything you need -- sources, headers, configure and install scripts, makefiles, documentation, etc. It usually comes down to a four-step process:
But if you need to make a change, everything is right there. Re-compile it, test it ("./myprog --debug"), if there's a hardware dependency then move it to a test box, run it though Change Control, install in production. No need to have SDKs installed everywhere, No special licensing arrangements. No rebooting of servers into a special test environment.
.. as long as there are commercial alternatives, it's often a better investment (in terms of time and effort) to purchase software which meets your needs than modify open source code yourself..
And no need to spend lots of money for a customized version when no COTS software will do the job. You have a license to do it yourself. You know exactly what it will take, so you have a solid schedule to present to the boss and no fear of having to explain that the vendor has slipped his schedule and now the whole thing is gonna be late.
And no need to buy a multi-year support contract for software that you don't own and code that you don't have. No need to follow a vendor's support schedule or fear what an upgrade will do to your environment -- if it's working perfectly to begin with, why upgrade?
unless you're not motivated by money/efficiency and want to share your labor with others.
And you don't have to share anything if you just keep it in-house and don't release it. You spend less time and money on deployment and you get to keep your own IP private.
So let me get this right. I have software need A. A proprietary software title exists that fits that need, and an OSS title exists that almost fits that need. I see a simple value judgement there: is my time worth the purchase price difference? I'm with you and would usually say no and buy the proprietary software title unless all that's needed is a little tweak to the OSS title (but then I don't have much spare time).
But if I have software need B, where neither proprietary nor OSS fully meets my needs I may have a few options. If the proprietary title has an open plug-in architecture (like Adobe InDesign), I could buy the software and write the plugin myself. Otherwise, I'm completely screwed in the proprietary arena unless I want to write an app from scratch. However, I could just modify any OSS apps myself.
BTW, I've often found that OSS project managers are more responsive to feature or GUI change requests. I have some requests that are in Adobe software, but they took a while and everybody but the beta testers had to pay the upgrade price to get them.
There's another possible option depending on the software. Here's an example. You use Gimp and modify it to do what you need, say some special trapping technique. You keep that to yourself.
Then you turn around and modify that code, using the basic revolutionary trapping core you built, to be a proprietary Photoshop plugin and sell it.
And it's also true that Mac OS X is far better than Windows or Linux in terms of usability and GUI refinements.
That would be the GPL license not the GNU license, and though many people throw the term viral around it is nothing of the sort..
No its not a varient it is exactly the GPL! read the GPL file that comes with linux than read the one on GNU's website how are the two different?.. You are allowed to link to GPL libraries so long as its a dynamic and not a static call. Many (not all are LPGL which let you statically link). The funny thing is stallman has no say in if the LPGL goes away or not, nore do I or Linus, someone can choose to use the GPL, LGPL, or the BSD license or they can choose not to, how is that viral??
communist father (or perhaps because he did), is more of a down-to-Earth realist than Stallman. If that weren't the case, Linux would be going nowhere fast.
Da comrade I am usink the Linux software... Gosh are you really going to get on his dad was a communist? get a life and stop throwing that around as if it mattered. Now I notice all the wonderful 'if' clauses in there, well noe of them have happened and the use of GPL and LPGL have created a software package that is going places very fast..
how are software and an automobile similar? how easy is it for me to 'make a copy' of my car? better yet how easy is it for me to improve my car without buying parts? Not that I think all software should/nt be free, I have no trouble paying for good applications but just because an app is free does not means its a problem.
Maybe we should start an "Open health care movement". Have a bunch of medically inclined hackers to get together and open a clinic. Isn't health care more important than software?
Youre saying that free clinics in poor areas are bad things??
The GPL is the "GNU General Public License". Did you really have any trouble figuring out which one I was talking about? Do I need to specify a version, provide a URL, and include a paragraph worth of legalese disclaimers to make sure that you understand that I'm stating my own opinions to avoid the wrath of the Open Source Nit-Picking Police?
and though many people throw the term viral around it is nothing of the sort..
Perhaps you'd prefer the term "sticky"? And, no, I'm not really interested in hearing yet another rehash of the FSF talking points.
Or it might just be possible that in the case of a web hosting service with a few large servers the cost of the software is not all that much... Ohh never mind youre right opensource sucks why would anyone use it, I Mean FR, *Google*, they have it all wrong.
Listen if you cant understand the support model than you cant understand it, They probably pay the people who maintain the Linux side servers as much as the they pay the guys who run the windows servers.
Do you want to know where Linux is free?? my home web-server, DB server, and mail server.. I would have to pay more than 10,000$ in licensing to MS to get the same functionality..
Ahh and there is the rub, where has anyone said that you should not be able to write your own software and change for it?
The one that comes with Linux includes a disclaimer that specifies (A) a particular version (not the most current one) and (B) how Linus Torvalds interprets it.
You are allowed to link to GPL libraries so long as its a dynamic and not a static call. Many (not all are LPGL which let you statically link).
GNU.org disagrees with you:
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library. - http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
The funny thing is stallman has no say in if the LPGL goes away or not, nore do I or Linus, someone can choose to use the GPL, LGPL, or the BSD license or they can choose not to, how is that viral??
If you apply the GPL license to your code, someone else cannot use it without accepting the GPL. That's "viral" or "sticky" or whatever the heck you want to call it. It's not "free" in the sense of "do whatever you want with it" or even in the BSD license sense.
Da comrade I am usink the Linux software...
So am I. And I've been using Linux in my job since version 1.0.9 since around 1994. But don't let that stand in the way of your once size fits all defense of all things Open Source.
Gosh are you really going to get on his dad was a communist?
My point (if you bothered to read it, rather than doing a keyword search and blathering out a set of standard talking points) is that Linus Torvalds is quite commercial software friendly, despite being brought up in a household with a real live communist.
get a life and stop throwing that around as if it mattered.
You are the one nit-picking about minutia on a day-old thread with someone that (A) has been using Linux and Open Source software for years, (B) has argued that there is nothing wrong with doing so here repeatedly, and (C) can't figure out what your point is, other than to show your mastery of the minutia of Open Source terminology. I have no trouble with the idea of Open Source software. In fact, I use a lot of it. But much of it is BSD-style licensed, not GNU. I prefer the BSD license model, which places fewer demands on the end user. I'm not complaining about Open Source software. I'm complaining about the GNU GPL. I'm not alone. There is a reason why Linux does not use the latest version, or perhaps you missed that?
Now I notice all the wonderful 'if' clauses in there, well noe of them have happened and the use of GPL and LPGL have created a software package that is going places very fast..
Software packages are not operating systems. You would not see commercial software ported to Linux if that software had to adopt the GPL in order to run on Linux, just as you would not see any commercial products built using Perl if one had to make all of their Perl programs GPL. People don't mind using GPL and LGPL software but commercial software vendors have little interest in releasing their products through the GPL, which is exactly what Richard Stallman would probably like them to do. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but it's the way things are. Linux is a success because Linus Torvalds made a conscious decision to allow Linux to be much more closed commercial software friendly than Richard Stallman would probably like.
Yes if someone takes my code they have to follow its license, gasp... I know thats a hard thing for MS kneepadders to understand but sometimes you should follow the license. Now talk to Oracle, BEA, Veritas, SunJava, and all the other companies who release closed source proprietary software for Linux..
Not really. The GPL doesn't pretend to be a EULA that restricts your use of the software. It only applies when you create a derivative work or redistribute it, activites which in the absence of the GPL are forbidden by copyright law.
Linux is a success because Linus Torvalds made a conscious decision to allow Linux to be much more closed commercial software friendly than Richard Stallman would probably like.
Very true.
PUT DOWN THE GNU TALKING POINTS MEMO. You sound like a parrot.
Yes, you can put whatever license you want on your code. But if you put a pile of power tools in your driveway and say they are "free", I'd be a little surprised to find that by using one of your tools, you now have the right to borrow anything that I made with it. Yes, it's certainly your right to put whatever strings you want on it but to call it "free" is misleading. The GPL has strings.
And, yes, if you are really serious about your code being "free" and letting anyone who wants to use it, there are other options like the BSD license. Plenty of Open Source developers are quite happy to let their code go, no strings attached.
I know thats a hard thing for MS kneepadders to understand [...]
Hmmmm. Let's see. I recommended and use Linux, PHP, Perl, and PostgreSQL at work. I've been using and promoting Linux at work since 1994. I used Linux as my primary desktop computer from 1994 through 1999, when I finally got an iBook. I now use a newer Mac iBook as my primary computer and promote them, too. The only Windows machine that I have at home is my wife's, and that runs Windows ME because, well, even she barely uses it (she has a Mac, too). I suppose in the bizarro universe that you inhabit, that makes me an "MS kneepadder". What are you? The Bush2000 of the Open Source movement? Anything less than 100% acceptance of anything Open Source makes one a tool of Microsoft and no heresy is too small before you attack?
but sometimes you should follow the license.
You should always follow the license. That's why the copies of Microsoft Office that are on my Macs at home are all licensed, as is the other software that I own. Oh, wait. I own MS Office. I suppose that qualifies me as a "kneepadder", right?
Now talk to Oracle, BEA, Veritas, SunJava, and all the other companies who release closed source proprietary software for Linux..
No kidding! And if Linux adopted the latest version of the GPL and adopted Richard Stallman's interpretation of the GPL, none of them would port their software to Linux, because they would have to release their software under the GPL to do so. That was my point.
I'm a programmer. By "use it" (in the Linux or, say, "readline" sense), I'm thinking "create a derivative work" by using bits of it in my own software or linking to it. You are correct that one can "use it" in the sense of running it without adopting the GPL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.