OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 03/07/2006 6:43:17 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Open source gains another ally.
Read more here............
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1934261,00.asp
And they did it on their own, because it fits their business interests.
ping
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Every time a piece of software is open-sourced, Richard Stallman smiles and an angel loses its wings.
Seems to me that with products like GAIM and Trillian the reverse engineering has already occurred, so they might as well. I don't see this as a major event.
Don't tell them anything! He hasn't even tortured you yet!
Emergency! Everybody to get from street! Emergency! Everybody to get from street!
This seems reasonable, why can't all open source use licenses like this?
Because different people have different goals. Why do commercial licenses range from rather friendly to "You can't even release benchmarks without our permission"? Remember how Microsoft used that clause to stop the release of an unfavorable benchmark?
Personally, I think the BSD license is too loose, lets others take your code and not give anything back. I think the GPL is too restrictive, limiting too much how your code can be used. My favorite is the Mozilla Public License, business-friendly, but code improvements have to be given back to the community.
No kidding, like the difference between socialists and capitalists.
My favorite is the Mozilla Public License, business-friendly, but code improvements have to be given back to the community.
Who is the community? If it's a bunch of anonymous guys that can give those subsequent versions away for free, it's hardly "business friendly". Business friendly means they don't have to give anything to anyone unless they want to, and can charge for their resultant software without having to give the underlying code away at all.
ROFL!
I find it amusing. Sorry.
(said code owner) has the individual right to publish the code under the licence of their choice.
It's their property. They can do with it what they like. It's the capitalist way.
LMAO, according to your definition of capitalism, implementing socialism would be a form of capitalism! Funniest of all, that seems to be the best excuse you can come up with for why you support these whacko liberals.
Is this you over on another site?
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13542&limit=no&threshold=-1
Speaking of quote "recruits, and refering to open source as ""the cause""? LOL, are you serious? You sound just like the kind of freak I warn people about.
Or the difference between prohibiting valid computer research because it produces results you don't like and allowing people to do what they want.
Who is the community?
The community is the people who created the software in the first place. You know, the software the business got to use as a basis for its software, saving it lots of time and money.
Business friendly means they don't have to give anything to anyone unless they want to
They don't have to. They can always write it from scratch themselves or pay thousands of dollars for a developer license from a commercial company, and live with restrictive licensing terms and royalty payments.
You don't like the idea of giving away software for free to people without a return (it's "communist"), but you seem to like the idea of giving software away free to businesses without a return (where expecting a return is "communist" or theft).
Make up your mind. Is licensing code for free communist or not?
Don't bother. He lacks basic understanding of economics and OSS licenses. He misses the fact that OSS couldn't exist under communism, since the concept of private property (capitalism) must exist for a developer to be able to license code, even for free.
And, GE, this is not an open source license. It is a license to make plugins and custom clients for AOL. It's a way to save AOL development time while restricting the developers as much as possible. A developer can't even make a plugin or client that talks with other services -- only AOL is allowed. This is as nasty and restrictive as other proprietary developer licenses I've seen, the only difference being that they don't charge.
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.