Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
Good one, and Stallman still hates them for using Java.
Most are GPL because the authors chose to release it that way. And if they decide to release their $100,000 worth of code as GPL because they're facing a copyright infringement suit, you somehow think that's wrong. But you don't think it's wrong if someone's facing a copyright infringement suit from Microsoft and has to pay up $100,000.
Common Development and Distribution License
New BSD license
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL)
Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL)
And many others, in addition to these I dont have any fundamental problems with closed source licenses..
BTW, as far as sneaky clauses, have you seen some commercial software licenses? They'll sue you if you benchmark their application and publish the results. Surely you condemn that.
Yea just the other day I was programming and some buy from the FSF started buying me drinks, Next thing I remember I woke up in a strange server room and all my code had been released under the GPL....
I reject the premise that private property can't be given away.
Your buddy says 80 percent are GPL, you mean you're not going to question or insult him about it too? Why not? Because you're finally ready to admit 80 percent of all OSS is licensed by that "rabid anti-capitalist"? Might as well since you got blown out of the water trying to deny it.
insult him about it too?
No inslut intended, you have in the past posted that Linux only had a 10% share, when pushed for a source it turned out to be closer to 20%
Because you're finally ready to admit 80 percent of all OSS
If you count every little never got off the ground alpha project on sourceforge, maybe. But if you count mainstream in use software like the contents of a RedHat CD its far south of 80%.
"rabid anti-capitalist"
I have written some code that is GPL, never once did I have to clear anything with that nutball RMS..
Because I only said that's the high number I've heard. I don't claim it's true, only that's what I've heard. I remember numbers quite a bit lower than your 70%+ too. Like it matters anyway.
Absolutely. I'm against all licenses that steal from users or leave them vulnerable to lawsuits. Based on most legal analysis, Stallman's are the worst.
Do whatever you want, but those claiming the giving of private property to the community is the prime example of capitalism have definitely lost it.
Proof? Let's see it.
Just like those claiming that licensing your IP anyway you want is not Capitalism have lost it?
This I know to be a lie. You can admit it now or I will post the link shortly.
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html
Youll notice I find sources with a methodology listed.
Post it! You said 10-15% worldwide, the article said 15-20% in north America!
63% is not significantly less than 75%. Stallman's licenses are still the predominant licenses on even the commercial versions of Linux.
If you can't do what you want with your property it's not private nor are you free.
N3WBI3 says: "But if you count mainstream in use software like the contents of a RedHat CD its far south of 80%."
One: I never said far south of 75%, I said 80%. But just make up whatever you want, were used to it.
Two: 63 is only three quarters of 80, I know 25% might now be significant to you, at least its not when it suits you, but it is, in fact, significant.
Stallman's licenses are still the predominant licenses on even the commercial versions of Linux.
And yet RedHat is a growing, healthy company kinda shows the the GPL and capitalism are not incompatible... thanks for making my point, it took me awhile to lead you here but that statement was worth the time..
That's almost every commercial license out there, as they usually curtail your fair use rights.
Specifically, that clause I mentioned has been in in Microsoft's license for SQL Server for a while, and they have threatened legal action over benchmark results that were unfavorable to their product, stopping the publication. Using a license to quash freedom of speech, gotta love it. That is one evil software license, far worse than any free license I've ever seen.
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.