61–70 of 134 posts
It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility back up the chain.
It's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.
Wouldn't this be more accurately described as the choice of the Free Software Foundation, rather than Microsoft? The major feature of GPL3 was to prevent use in these type of "tivoized" applications. Seems that Microsoft is taking heat for respecting the wishes of the GPL. Talk about a can't win situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them. The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging d…
You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also hav…
That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philosophical disagreement over my choice of license, I take that into account in decisions on what to license in the future.
That's the approach to software that I wish more developers would take: I have listened to your feedback, and I will take it into consideration. Your attitude, which is what I disagree so very strongly with, is that you didn't have to open-source the software at all, your users are lucky that you did, and you'll be damned if you'll consider feedback on your choice of licensing. It's "take it or leave it," which to the occasional user that wants to embed your code in something else, sucks a lot.
There's been other comments in this thread to the effect of that "isn't [your] problem". If you're not interested in helping consumers of your software use it, why did you release it at all? I realize (believe me) that there is a line that must be drawn when it comes to listening to your users, but responding with "tough, rewrite it" is really a bummer to hear.
Realistically, I think you're working against yourself with that take on your users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?
There's no need to root most Android phones to install any software you want. Just go to Settings/Applications and check "Unknown sources Allow installation of non-Market applications" AT&T (and perhaps other carriers) disable that option, but even in that case, there's a workaround that doesn't require rooting. (Google "android non-market adb".)
This is useful, and I think more of what the OP was looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to disagree with something in a manner that I can read. I voted you up just for that. > I think you are taking it out of context. Edit: Oh, okay, on third read I see what you mean. I stand by my comment, though: sure, he says that the license doesn't take away your freedom, and implies that since you're free to rewrite your own, you are still free. How is that freedom to do what…
The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…
So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct).
You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch.
To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…
GPL and BSD are both mechanisms to promote freedom. One is the freedom of a bill of rights, the other is the freedom of anarchy.
How is that even remotely a good analogy? Both of them are licenses that let you read the source, redistribute it, and modify it. They differ in what you have to do when you redistribute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also hav…
> People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses. That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philos…
I apologize if my comments seeemed to imply that I had a "it's not my problem" attitude. This debate has gotten rancorous enough as it is. We probably agree on more than we know here...