Lyfe
Green Marine
Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01 |
@Ladna:
1: Losing relevance and losing support are different. I still believe that the GPL no longer has a purpose.
5: RMS has stated before that in his opinion, all code which links to the GCC std-lib (libc, which is all code compiled with gcc) should be GPL. Yes, you can find this online. Just because the FSF says it isn't the (current) case doesn't mean the intention wasn't there in the GPL originally.
2: You brought the terrorist concept into it. Extremist & bigot have nothing to do with terrorism. Hell, I even gave you the description of why extremist is a good word, and you still brought the "terrorist" concept into it.
3: Example: I create project X. I release project X to the world as GPL. You submit me code for project X under the assumption (since I failed to say otherwise) that the code you submitted is GPL. I then wish to re-used project X in project Y under a different license (say because my employer likes the library, and we can seriously utilize it). I cannot do so, because project X contains code from someone else, who's intention is that it's completely GPL. Thus, the code is now owned by the license, not by the user. True, I can ask you to allow me to utilize your code in a different license, but lets be honest, you wouldn't. You're a GPL purist. Thus, "my" library is no longer mine, but now held largely by the GPL.
4: Sure, but the example is poor in that the example (to me) is suggesting a failure for Chocolate Doom's usage with Compet-N. A win for open source, a failure for usability.
Additionally, from a user standpoint, it has little to do with license (and more to do with pricetag):
GIMP vs Photoshop. Photoshop, hands-down. More features, better performance, better interface, better support.
Perhaps more controversially: Libre Office, vs MS Office. Libre office has made great advances at what they do. They still have a boatload of issues, a smaller support base, and the accepted "standard" in business is still the MS doc format.
I suppose I'm arguing that open source doesn't inherently make a product better.
I'll concede only in saying that it doesn't make a product bad. OpenSSH is a fantastic example of a great open-source product. However, it's adoption on the user-side has nothing to do with it being open-source, and everything to do with server administrators. Server administrator's adoption of it has to do with a level of trust of the product, which does come from it's many-eyes open-source approach. Microsoft RDP has wide adoption as well, though, regardless of that it has been the target of attacks.
6: Integration into X-Code was not a licensing issue with gcc. They released X-Code for years while utilizing gcc. The further integration of extra features including static analysis, real-time inspection of debug-compiled apps, etc. Plus, gcc produces really REALLY ugly binaries. If Clang/LLVM is slower at some construct, it is marginally slower. If you want to argue this point, I'm going to tell you to search google for current statistics (as opposed to old statistics from what Clang/LLVM was new). After that, I'll point out that they're both terrible compilers compared to msvc++.
7: Just because it's true doesn't make it apply to all cases. Additionally, not all cases are about licensing. Most are probably marketing.
8: You have a habit of including examples which correlate on 1 small detail (but vary on all others), take 4 paragraphs to explain, and then complain about people skimming/ignoring your commentary (which they have to do in order to stay awake). I'm hoping to avoid that.
Slight aside: you made this comment to Blzut3, and I'd like to comment on it a bit:
Ladna said:
You say, "at some point you have to draw the line where your property ends", and I would reply, "when I buy something, I get to do whatever I want to it, without the manufacturer putting in a self-destruct switch"
I know the Tivo scenario is different, but ignore that for this discussion.
You released your code to the world. You "give" me your code. I can see it. I can read it. I can understand it. If I print it out, I can even touch it. You gave it willingly, and without payment. Then I read that it came with baggage. You didn't give it to me. You licensed it to me for a payment of $0. The license came with restrictions. I cannot do what I want with it. This SUCKS.
Hardware is a little different. There's a physical cost involved. Obviously, that's the part that goes to court. I'm not qualified to have a discussion on the hardware portion, plus it's inconsequential to the part about software licensing I'm trying to have a discussion about.
|
11-19-12 20:02 
