No I fully respect anybody that wishes to place their code under a license. It is their code after all. If they don't want to make their code to benefit all that is their right.I have no problem at all with BSD licenses, or with public domain code. But i do think the authors of the code should have the right to make that choice for themselves. It sounds to me like you would take away that choice and force them to license their code just the way you prefer, which seems a little arrogant to me. (And definitely not fitting with your previous definition of freedom, which is more accurately described as anarchy).
Na it's not so much that it was horribly optimized as it still used a lot of legacy foundations that could finally be turfed when they decided to cut pre intel support. Plus alot of the technology has either evolved or simply didn't exist when 10.5 came out.However did this thread get pulled off on this tangent anyway? Does anyone have anything to say about OSX? Anyone else think that the huge speed improvements here prove that 10.5 was pretty horribly optimized?
So because they hurt growth and adoption, you choose the ones that hurt even more. Very working solution indeed. It's obvious, you pretend that you like a way of sharing that is totally unrealistic just to have the right then to say everything else is the same shit. How can someone who lauds intellectual property thus much, puts in the same cesspit proprietary and free it's indeed amusing.As a user of a 3rd parties product I prefer working solutions that fit my needs, nothing more, nothing less. Just like the vast majority of end users out there. I could give a rats ass if it's GPL, APL, MS, BSD, etc because the idea of licensing any intellectual property in my opinion hurts growth and adoption.
Last edited by Apopas; 08-29-2009 at 07:59 PM.
But, IMHO, the question about "if and how" this site should review deeply proprietary and locked-in products (like EVERY Apple product is), it's not so trivial, and i don't see any Michael reply about this topic.
Let's take a recent example: the MS hypervisor drivers they released for Linux under the GPL. Does anyone think they would have done that if Linux was under PD? No, they would have kept their code private. But because they had to release under the GPL, now any other OS out there can try to integrate that code themselves.
So yes, the GPL does restrict the code from being used anywhere, but it also provides an incentive for releasing that code to a lot more places than it would have been otherwise. This kind of reminds me about discussions of capitalism. It's full of flaws and ugly sides, but ultimately it works because even if it isn't perfect it harnesses the reality of the world which is that people work in their own interests. I think the GPL is similar, lots of people would write PD code, but the GPL gives those who wouldn't a good incentive to come part way.
Hey, I have a crazy idea. Why don't we let the people who fund and/or write the code choose what license they want to use and stop pretending that one license is better in all cases ?
That way developers who want to make their work broadly available but are not comfortable with companies using it for proprietary products can use GPL, developers who want to make their work used as broadly as possible *including* in proprietary products can use something like BSD or PD, and developers who implement proprietary features can release them under a proprietary license ?
The problem comes when people think their favorite license is "the one true way" and that anyone using a different license is somehow wrong or evil. In practice BSD/PD and GPL end up having almost the same results, so it really boils down to choosing which risk you are most comfortable with.
Using GPL reduces the chance of your work disappearing into a proprietary product and having your original code stagnate, but I don't think that has actually happened very much unless you want to count the "Unix wars" (and I don't believe GPL would have helped there anyways).
In theory projects like X/DRI/Mesa should have been stolen by evil companies a long time ago, but the reality is that everyone keeps contributing to the public code base because that works out best for the contributors. The code could have been locked down under GPL but the most likely outcome from that is the code simply not being used in as many places, rather than seeing more contributions as a result.
Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009 at 09:28 PM.
Well, it stops you from having freedom with someone else's property, yes.
The question is whether you have the right to expect unrestricted use of someone else's property in the first place. If they want to give you that freedom, fine - they can put it out under GPL or BSD or PD or whatever... if they don't want to give you that freedom, it *is* their software, right ?
This might sound odd coming from a corporate guy, but I think Stallman will go down in history as one of the more important philosophers of the 20th century, and I think FSF has done a fantastic job of building an environment where developers can volunteer their efforts and feel confident that the results will be used in a way that pleases them.
I just don't think it makes sense to *demand* (or even to expect) that companies which make big investments in proprietary software development turn over all rights to their work *and* lose the ability to make use of third party improvements in their own future products. The big benefit of proprietary licenses is that they make it possible to fund larger investments in development effort than we have been able to achieve today for projects where the resulting code is publicly available and can't easily be turned into a stream of revenues to provide a return on the original investment.
Do I think that corporate development and proprietary licenses are the only solution ? Absolutely not, I just don't want to see that model attacked or dismantled until we have something that works at least as well to replace it.
Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009 at 09:54 PM.
The same with software. Proprietary software licenses packets few lines of mathematics and claim them as their own, thing that is unacceptable. Can you imagine if Pythagoras had done the same with his work? How much he would have struggled science? But that's exactly what proprietary software does and hell on top of that they even force me to use the software I've paid for in the way they want. They even consider a crime to help people who can not afford the money by installing the software in their pcs. I find more illegal to forbid the help to someone rather than the use of their software in a differnet way they want.
Last edited by Apopas; 08-29-2009 at 09:48 PM.