What he was doing there?
Telling them to use GNU/Linux.
Actually I think “Microsoft subsystem for GNU+Linux” rolls off the tongue better
Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
121–130 of 170 posts
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true What are you talking about? Let say we have code A licensed as MIT and code B licensed GPL. You can combine A with B and distribute it. You can combine B with A and distribute it. AB or BA is both a legal combination that a distributor can do. In both cases the distributor need to follow the condition of both MIT and GPL. You can not distr…
Okay, so we have A licensed as MIT and B licensed as GPL, your example. Let's specify that B is licensed under GPL3 so it's clear: Under MIT, Microsoft can take code from A and put it into the source code of Visual Studio, provided that they keep the copyright and license with the code they've copied. Visual Studio can then be licensed however they want. Let's say that project A takes code from project B. Now because…
>> Now because they have GPLed code, A has to be distributed with terms at least as open as the GPL3's terms,
Doesn't it have to be licensed as GPL3?
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell are the downvotes for? Seriously?
You are being downvoted because you're preaching a terrible game programming mistake as the only reasonable approach. I didn't downvote you, but I wrote enough games to hope no young programmer takes your advice. Games, as iteratively developed creative products, always interweave engine with content. Trying to write a generic engine in parallel to your game is a surefire way to never release a game. Even if you set…
Thank you for making the point. I find it utterly silly that something that is taken from granted as Best Principles (tm) in other fields is considered harmful in game programming. I've programmed a few small games, never with features grand enough to have any sort of assets management but I would think that the scope of any AAA game would be such that assets and code were kept separate. Watched the Blizzcon video from the WoW classic team and they talked about the 3 pillars of their product being Code, Data and Assets. It's an interesting story. I recommend watching it.
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#124Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#125An English language article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard... Also Pedro Paulo explained what the content of the talk was: > Mostly standard talk. Importance of free software, GPL v3, GNU vs Linux. However, he had a list of "small requests": make Github push users to better software license hygiene, make hardware manufacturers to publish their hardware specs, make it easier to workaroun…
Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)
Why are you against clear licensing? That is strange. You want more ambiguity in licensing? Surely you mean something different.
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#126Without sounding too sacrilegious, Dr. Stallman is the Free Software Jesus--he preaches the gospel of Free Software to the whole world and associates with "sinners" calling them to repentance. If he can bring "the truth" of Free Software to Microsoft employees and help them "see the light", why wouldn't he? He certainly looks the part of Free Software prophet when dressed as Saint Ignuicius: https://stallman.org/sain…
> Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity—but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Now there's a quote that didn't age well... That whole page is just... strange...
I love trees as much as anybody else, yet I still pine for a time when everybody didn't have sticks up their ass.
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Story sounds like data to me. Data should not be in the repo, just the means to fetch it.
What the hell are the downvotes for? Seriously?
From [the guidelines](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so we have A licensed as MIT and B licensed as GPL, your example. Let's specify that B is licensed under GPL3 so it's clear: Under MIT, Microsoft can take code from A and put it into the source code of Visual Studio, provided that they keep the copyright and license with the code they've copied. Visual Studio can then be licensed however they want. Let's say that project A takes code from project B. Now because…
>> Now because they have GPLed code, A has to be distributed with terms at least as open as the GPL3's terms, Doesn't it have to be licensed as GPL3?
It's been a while since I read the GPL3, so I just read it again.
I'm no lawyer, but if I'm understanding correctly, yes, it does have to be licensed under the GPL3, but it doesn't have to be licensed only under the GPL3. With a license like MIT, the could apply a second license which would, for example, amend the MIT license to require you to pay for the software.
However, the "No Further Restrictions" paragraph in the GPL I think puts a much stronger set of requirements:
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
This is why I think Stallman often uses the language "licensed with terms at least as open as the GPL" instead of saying "licensed under the GPL"--yes, it has to be licensed under the GPL3 but that doesn't quite capture the whole story. Someone can apply another license (i.e. Apache 2, to explicitly grant patents) so their licensing might not be just the GPL3, but further licenses can only expand freedoms, not restrict them.
I would encourage anyone who is interested in this sort of thing to read the license for themselves. Don't get intimidated and assume it's all in legalese: while I'm hesitant to think I understand it since the law is not my area of expertise, the GPL is written in what seems like fairly straightforward English.
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#129I attended this. Here are a few notes: * This was organized like any other guest talk held at Microsoft Research, of which there are ~5/week, mostly by academic guests. * His host was Microsoft's Chief Economist, Michael Schwarz. Michael did his PhD work on free software and got to know Stallman then. * After hooking his computer up to the projector 10-15 minutes before the talk began he displayed a quite provocative…
>* At one point he did state "Sometimes there is a use for windows."
Did hell just freeze over?
Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week
#130Without sounding too sacrilegious, Dr. Stallman is the Free Software Jesus--he preaches the gospel of Free Software to the whole world and associates with "sinners" calling them to repentance. If he can bring "the truth" of Free Software to Microsoft employees and help them "see the light", why wouldn't he? He certainly looks the part of Free Software prophet when dressed as Saint Ignuicius: https://stallman.org/sain…
> Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity—but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Now there's a quote that didn't age well... That whole page is just... strange...
It reads like a professor's quirky landing page to me. I've seen a few of those.