Active Topics
-
How many of you still use N900 as main phone? (595)
to Community by deutch1976 - 3 days, 9 hrs ago -
Big news (7)
to OS2008 / Maemo 4 / Chinook - Diablo by endsormeans - 4 days, 18 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (8)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by endsormeans - 4 days, 19 hrs ago - more...
JamesBond@ge |
2011-03-02
, 20:07
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 726 |
Thanked: 497 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Gravesend, UK
|
#201
|
Originally Posted by daperl
Haha. I think that abill_uk 'dun got himself owned by daperl.
|
|
2011-03-02
, 20:08
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 726 |
Thanked: 497 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Gravesend, UK
|
#202
|
Originally Posted by ysss
LMAO! Poor abill_uk.
above: abill_uk in action.
|
|
2011-03-02
, 20:14
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 726 |
Thanked: 497 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Gravesend, UK
|
#203
|
Originally Posted by cfh11
Hahaha, oh my god. On the ropes.
anyone else notice that the second abill_uk showed up ericsson was nowhere to be found? i have a theory: they are the same person. abill_uk is ericsson when he runs out of meds and whatever little hint of logic that was there goes out the window completely. also grammar and punctuation skills practically vanish. same combative attitude and aversion to facts though. a fascinating case study, really.
I must say that even though abill_uk is one of my UK brethren and I should at least try to defend him, he does seem like a gibbering, over opinionated but short on facts, foaming at the mouth nutcase.
Last edited by JamesBond@ge; 2011-03-02 at 20:47.
|
|
2011-03-02
, 22:27
|
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#204
|
Originally Posted by rm42
Well yes, they have restricted the licenses that don't fit the app store model and haven't excluded their own just because it's their license. So they haven't been hypocritical.
This affects much more than just the GPL. Even some of Microsoft's own open source licenses are excluded.
Sure there are some licenses that are considered open source that are acceptable to MS, as mentioned on the article above. But, those are not the licenses that most FOSS coders like to use.
People who knowingly restrict themselves from this are either ignorant or too imprisoned already by non-free software.
Maybe we should start to use the term copyleft more often to avoid confusion.
|
|
2011-03-02
, 22:41
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#205
|
Originally Posted by exo
Arguably Android gets close as possible without being as Free, nor as open, as most Linux distros (never mind their NIH syndrome.) But this isn't the software's fault. Suppose, for instance, if Google had gone with more standard *nix style base instead of the formerly proprietary blob that is Android?
Freedom is great but it seems that there still is no consumer-level free platform that can match the user experience provided by the less free commercial solutions
and it seems the vast majority of people prefer that and restrict themselves to everything that isn't a restrictive OSS license because the benefit simply isn't there (at least for them).
|
|
2011-03-02
, 23:13
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 974 |
Thanked: 622 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#206
|
Originally Posted by exo
In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch. What you are talking about is called value. The most fundamental of all factors in commerce. We are willing to pay large sums if what we get is valuable to us. For instance the N900, it wasn't exactly cheap, and most people would never buy one because they feel it is worthless. But to a few geeks it is priceless
The flipside of that is that the benefit isn't there for the majority of people. Freedom is great but it seems that there still is no consumer-level free platform that can match the user experience provided by the less free commercial solutions and it seems the vast majority of people prefer that and restrict themselves to everything that isn't a restrictive OSS license because the benefit simply isn't there (at least for them).
|
|
2011-03-03
, 00:22
|
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#207
|
Originally Posted by wmarone
Well then why is the GPL considered an OSS license then? Can you use GPL code in any way that you want? No, it places *restrictions* on how you can use that code.
"Restrictive" and "OSS" do not belong in the same sentence. Anyone who tells you they do, doesn't understand them.
EDIT: And just so you don't try to dance around the definition of 'restrictive' and to provide proof that you're wrong, have a look here, where the Open Source Initiative themselves refer to the GPLv2 as 'restrictive'.
http://ideas.opensource.org/wiki/help/license
In general permissive licenses tend to be compatible with other licenses and restrictive ones do not. For example it is easier to include code from the MIT license in other projects than it is to include code that is licensed under the GPL v2 or later.
Last edited by exo; 2011-03-03 at 00:30.
|
|
2011-03-03
, 00:25
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#208
|
Originally Posted by exo
No, it doesn't. It places restrictions on the redistribution of that code. At which point it's not you that is using it, but someone else. You can use the code anyway you'd like, internally, but you can't distribute it (which is what Copyright defines.)
Well then why is the GPL considered an OSS license then? Can you use GPL code in any way that you want? No, it places *restrictions* on how you can use that code.
The GPL is not about you, but about whomever you give it to.
|
|
2011-03-03
, 00:33
|
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#209
|
Originally Posted by wmarone
That's the same thing. The redistribution restrictions are part of the license, therefore the license is restrictive, just as the OSI quite clearly says. How are you not understanding that?
No, it doesn't. It places restrictions on the redistribution of that code.
You can use the code anyway you'd like, internally, but you can't distribute it (which is what Copyright defines.)
And see my above edit regarding the OSI referring to the GPLv2 as restrictive.
Last edited by exo; 2011-03-03 at 01:28.
 |
|
2011-03-03
, 01:48
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#210
|
Originally Posted by wmarone
I see that we're heading into a discussion on the merits of the GPL (in all its various flavors). The truth is, the GPL came about mainly as a reaction to the gradual corporatizaton of software in the universities. Bit by bit, code bases that had been passed relatively freely between students and teachers became encumbered with a variety of restrictive licensing agreements. Even code that started out completely free for anyone's use would, if the people maintaining it became part of a private organization, inevitably be relicensed as a product of that organization.
"Restrictive" and "OSS" do not belong in the same sentence. Anyone who tells you they do, doesn't understand them.
Thus, folks like Richard Stallman began to try and find ways to avoid the slow strangulation of the world of "open" source code (which, for at least a little while, really did look like it might be made obsolete). This is how the GPL was born. The GPL is a licensing agreement that states that the source code must be open, but far more importantly, adds the restriction that any further modifications to the code must also fall under the GPL. This, of course, is a rather draconian restriction!
However, the GPL has also proven to be the only truly successful open source license. Sure, there are major code bases out there under other open licenses (MIT, BSD, etc.), but most of them have major corporate backing to keep the code going; if the companies involved back out (or change their mind about licensing), the previously open codebase can become closed very quickly. Only the massively restrictive GPL can give the independent coder the assurance that what he writes isn't going to disappear inside some corporate project to which he has no access; if your code is under the GPL, then everything that anybody else does with it will also be under the GPL, forever.
So no, open is not the same as free. The surprising truth, in fact, is that free software becomes closed software very quickly...
 |
| Tags |
| bada rox, give me bada, meego rules, sir abill sir !, windowsce blows |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:37.