The following link contains an interesting article on Free and Open
Source Software licenses.
It seemingly refutes the views of some regulars in this newsgroup :)

[url down]

Use this if the above link fails:

[url down]

"santosh" <santosh.k83> écrivait
news:1135005509.773081.274800:

> The following link contains an interesting article on Free and Open
> Source Software licenses.
> It seemingly refutes the views of some regulars in this newsgroup :)
>
> [..]
> 074d7068606

Good, but it does not say a word about the reasons why
those "some regulars" -namely, Randall Hyde, Hutch, and
Fodder- invest so much efforts in the contra-propaganda,
whereas they have nothing to sell by themselves.

The strength of the Anti-GPL mouvement driven by the main
nerds of the Win32Asm gang-band (the Evil Board) and of
the MASM so called "users", still succeeds to impress me,
occasionaly.

:)

Betov.

< [url down] >

Betov wrote:
> "santosh" <santosh.k83> écrivait
> news:1135005509.773081.274800:
>> Good, but it does not say a word about the reasons why
> those "some regulars" -namely, Randall Hyde, Hutch, and
> Fodder- invest so much efforts in the contra-propaganda,
> whereas they have nothing to sell by themselves.
>
> The strength of the Anti-GPL mouvement driven by the main
> nerds of the Win32Asm gang-band (the Evil Board) and of
> the MASM so called "users", still succeeds to impress me,
> occasionaly.
>
> :)
>
> Betov.
>
> < [..] >

Nor does it have much to say about the restrictions in the RPL (RosAsm
licence); there are numerous threads on ala about its anti-GPL nature,
and not all from the "Evil Board". Licences are about choice; I would
rank them (in order of decreasing obnoxiousness) RPL, MS EULA, GPL,
public domain.

"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd> écrivait
news:1135008051.310000.68850:

> in order of decreasing obnoxiousness

Forgive me for having missed your name in the list
of nerds: It seemed to me a forgetable name.

:)

Betov.

< [url down] >

santosh wrote:
> The following link contains an interesting article on Free and Open
> Source Software licenses.
> It seemingly refutes the views of some regulars in this newsgroup :)
>
> [..]
>
> Use this if the above link fails:
>
> [..]

Interesting, indeed. Thanks, Santosh!

I thought the best part was where he says, "contact your attorney for
definitive answers." :)

Interesting that the PowerPoint EULA prohibits using it to produce
"scandalous" work! Getting busted for "scandalous" work might make for
an amusing day in court. :)

Best,
Frank

If I characterised both extremes at both ends of the market it is a
contest between unbridled greed on one hand and unbridled mediocrity on
the other and neither ends stands on the high ground.

Idiot fringe highly restrictive commercial licencing as it was in the
late 80s and early 90s died a natural death as customers avoided it
like the plague and the vendors went bust.

At the other extreme you have the freeloaders who don't write much code
but want other peoples code to pinch bits out of for their own work who
are flogging the "everything should be free" line.

Somewhere inbetween the work must be done by programmers and somewhere
along the line these people deserve to be paid for the amount of work
they have done. Big vendors like Microsoft pay an army of programmers
to write software yet much of their competition freeload on the
programmers who spent years writing the core of Linux and they DON'T
pay for it.

I have yet to see that Sun Microsystems or IBM or SGI or any of the
others getting onto the Linux bandwaggon are any better than Microsoft
in terms of their trading practices and all they are doing is cashing
in on years of work done by unpaid programmers around the world so they
can extend their own market.

I see that it is perfectly reasonable that this large number of unpaid
yet highly skilled programmers should receive financial support from
the corporations that are trying to make money out of their work.

The PC market as we know it was largely created first by IBM then
dramatically expanded by Microsoft. The people who were not happy with
this eventually produced Linux which is an entirely different concept
and was licenced under the GPL method so that the OS was completely
open and accessible to any who were interested.

I am as equally hostile to any attempts to commercially take over Linux
as I am to the infiltration of the commercial market by GPL, they are
different systems that are not compatible and need to be seen that way.
The one that does make sense to me that does not suffer the extremes of
either end is FreeBSD.

Regards,

hutch at movsd dot com

santosh wrote:
> The following link contains an interesting article on Free and Open
> Source Software licenses.
> It seemingly refutes the views of some regulars in this newsgroup :)
>
> [..]
>
> Use this if the above link fails:
>
> [..]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this article really says nothing about
FOSS licenses. It talks about some commercial EULAs and promises more
about FOSS next month.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

"randyhyde" <randyhyde> écrivait
news:1135111229.147045.259950:

> Maybe I'm missing something

Yes.

:)

Betov.

< [url down] >

Betov wrote:
> "randyhyde" <randyhyde> écrivait
> news:1135111229.147045.259950:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something
>
> Yes.
>
> :)
>
> Betov.
>


IOW, you didn't bother reading the article and just started shooting
off your mouth with no idea about what you're talking about.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

"randyhyde" <randyhyde> écrivait
news:1135125088.877236.57000:

> IOW, you didn't bother reading the article and just started shooting
> off your mouth with no idea about what you're talking about.

Ass-hole, i aready know what will be written in the
second article: As predictable as you own bullshits.

:)

Betov.

< [url down] >

Betov wrote:
> "randyhyde" <randyhyde> écrivait
> news:1135125088.877236.57000:
>
> > IOW, you didn't bother reading the article and just started shooting
> > off your mouth with no idea about what you're talking about.
>
> Ass-hole, i aready know what will be written in the
> second article: As predictable as you own bullshits.
>
> :)
>
> Betov.
>
> < [..] >

I too know exactly what you will write before you write it.

It is nice to see the occasional well-written post around here, enough
that I may just wanna start up a debate :)

hutch-- wrote:

> Somewhere inbetween the work must be done by programmers and somewhere
> along the line these people deserve to be paid for the amount of work
> they have done. Big vendors like Microsoft pay an army of programmers
> to write software yet much of their competition freeload on the
> programmers who spent years writing the core of Linux and they DON'T
> pay for it.

Believe it or not, some people actually don't feel the need to be paid
for their work. As for those who do, their argument generally stems
from the good old "They can pay me to modify this already existing
codespace to this business's specific needs".

> I have yet to see that Sun Microsystems or IBM or SGI or any of the
> others getting onto the Linux bandwaggon are any better than Microsoft
> in terms of their trading practices and all they are doing is cashing
> in on years of work done by unpaid programmers around the world so they
> can extend their own market.

Yes, but Sun or IBM also lose control of their code; because of the way
the GPL is written, if any of these companies decide to go "Well, sorry
folks, but we don't feel like distributing the code anymore", the users
can technically sue for infringing on the GPL, as their work would
essentially be a fork, or a

[snip]

> I am as equally hostile to any attempts to commercially take over Linux
> as I am to the infiltration of the commercial market by GPL, they are
> different systems that are not compatible and need to be seen that way.
> The one that does make sense to me that does not suffer the extremes of
> either end is FreeBSD.

Ahh, the BSD projects are lovely aren't they. Strange how they are
easily the most practical of the bunch, but have so little user-base
compared to the Linux Crowd or the Microsoft crowd.

I'll try BSD again whenever my computer actually reads their disks...
they work on my old computers but with this new "E-machine", the disk
just doesn't get read :-/

As far as commercially taking over Linux, or Commercial market with
GPL, I just don't see it possible, aka, it is a non-issue. To take over
Linux would require not only taking over the code base (easy, just
download the stuff), but to take over the user-base. And a great
user-base it is.

When XFree86 license change was considered hostile to the community,
the community quickly forked the project into the X.Org project, and
after that, developers left XFree86 (or maybe it was before that?).

So if Linux was taken over, I am sure the userbase would switch over to
Kinux or something. (Minux being too similar to Minix, so lets go back
a letter instead of forward :-p )

As for GPL in the commercial market, it doesn't seem compadible with
the shrink-wrapped style of "Pay $50 and you get software", and the
newer "pay $20 a month for a subscription" model doesn't seem popular
outside of anti-virus software... Frankly, it is something i just don't
see comming any time soon.

--Dragontamer

prtiglao writes:
> It would be nice to see the occasional well-written post around here, enough
> that I may just wanna start up a debate :)

IFYPFY.

> hutch-- wrote:
> > Somewhere inbetween the work must be done by programmers and somewhere
> > along the line these people deserve to be paid for the amount of work
> > they have done. Big vendors like Microsoft pay an army of programmers
> > to write software yet much of their competition freeload on the
> > programmers who spent years writing the core of Linux and they DON'T
> > pay for it.

c:\> strings.exe c:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Phil

Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged> wrote:
>> hutch-- wrote:
>> > Somewhere inbetween the work must be done by programmers and somewhere
>> > along the line these people deserve to be paid for the amount of work
>> > they have done. Big vendors like Microsoft pay an army of programmers
>> > to write software yet much of their competition freeload on the
>> > programmers who spent years writing the core of Linux and they DON'T
>> > pay for it.
>
> c:\> strings.exe c:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe | grep Copyright
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

To add to that:

C:\WIN2K>grep -sr " Regents of " *
Binary file $NtUninstallKB818349$/nslookup.exe matches
Binary file ServicePackFiles/i386/ftp.exe matches
Binary file ServicePackFiles/i386/nslookup.exe matches
Binary file ServicePackFiles/i386/rsh.exe matches
Binary file system32/dllcache/finger.exe matches
Binary file system32/dllcache/ftp.exe matches
Binary file system32/dllcache/nslookup.exe matches
Binary file system32/dllcache/rcp.exe matches
Binary file system32/dllcache/rsh.exe matches
Binary file system32/finger.exe matches
Binary file system32/FTP.EXE matches
Binary file system32/NSLOOKUP.EXE matches
Binary file system32/rcp.exe matches
Binary file system32/rsh.exe matches

Please note this only includes older BSD code with the
obnoxious advertising clause. AFAIK, newer BSD code may be
included without notice.

-- Robert