161–170 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.
Protecting Stallman's narrow, weird definition of freedom that I don't agree with, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.
Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.
And super permissive licenses like MIT hurt developers too, because it means I oftentimes can't see the source code that someone else has modified, even though it would help me a lot to be able to do so. With GPL-licensed software, I am always guaranteed this freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also don't forget Rob Mensching[0] in 2004. [0]: http://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2004/4/5/windows-installe...
Thanks, I forgot about Rob. I'm sure there's loads of others I've missed, Jon Galloway for example.
This is like saying: "I was really getting into open source. But I also wanted to contradict myself whenever it was convenient and profitable, as long as no one noticed. Its not really my fault that my left brain doesn't know what my right brain is doing as I am a large organization". While Microsoft may indeed be so big as to have such a dysfunctional brain, the rest of us don't suffer from such debilitations.
[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/android/is-android-being-stifl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I forgot about Rob. I'm sure there's loads of others I've missed, Jon Galloway for example.
Your comments would actually make sense if, say, Microsoft wasn't simultaneously going after Android phone makers to impose an "Android tax" during that very same period [1]. This is like saying: "I was really getting into open source. But I also wanted to contradict myself whenever it was convenient and profitable, as long as no one noticed. Its not really my fault that my left brain doesn't know what my right brain…
"however Google has not been willing to indemnify Android device makers against infringement claims"
Kinda says to me that Google clearly know exactly what they're doing apropos patent infringement. I'm not saying it's ideal, but at the end of the day MS are legally permitted to defend those patents (at the very least have working implementations as opposed to the usual patent troll nonsense).
Also that's a six year old article full of speculation from the dying days of MS's attempts at getting into the phone biz. Life has moved on and Android has hardly been extinguished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder how current-Bill feels about previous-Bill saying things like that.
I'm sure current-Bill is too busy enjoying his billions to worry about things like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.
Software, in general, has a lot more people using it than writing it. Successful software, anyway. And super permissive licenses like MIT hurt developers too, because it means I oftentimes can't see the source code that someone else has modified, even though it would help me a lot to be able to do so. With GPL-licensed software, I am always guaranteed this freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't most concerns with companies who exploit open source software without contributing their changes back? If we have source code and can determine it is derivative of open source but improperly licensed, does it matter? At that point we have the code and we know it's derivative and thus can infer the license. It's not like the publisher could come back at us for taking it back. I don't see the value in such a too…
> Aren't most concerns with companies who exploit open source software without contributing their changes back? Companies get away with this because developers don't understand licensing in the first place. Pushing a false message that "once it's out, anything goes" is detrimental to that state of things. > If we have source code and can determine it is derivative of open source but improperly licensed, does it matte…
So, for example, when a Router manufacturer consumes GPL code and doesn't contribute their changes back it's a failure of the developer who GPL'd the code they used? Why is the person sharing responsible for policing and enforcing? That burden encourages developers to either not share, or to share without restrictions.
> Of course it does, a license is a license, you cannot selectively apply only some of it.
Yes you can selectively enforce your own license. But enforcement isn't the point. Developers don't necessarily want the burden of enforcement that you're mandating they must do as part of sharing.
My point was that, if you can determine someone's code is derivative of GPL'd or MIT'd code but with a license stripped, you can still use it. If the person who stripped the license tries to come down on you, you're still protected by the original license that they stripped away.
> That's not a problem. Opensource doesn't run on generosity, but on publicity - a currency that can be converted into actual cash.
I would argue that your perspective is the problem. Open source is or isn't just about money. People who share aren't necessarily trying to do it for currency, social or monetary.
While I freely admit my contributions are limited, I have never sought any currency with them. My contributions fall into two categories, the first was to make a consistent problem I had with some code I consumed go away and the second was to share tools or utilities I made to solve my own problems because I thought someone else might like them.
Your opinion of open source puts unnecessary burdens on people who just want to share and results in much of the drama we see. Look no further than uBlock or WiringPi for examples of developers trying to move away from the burdens you're imposing.
Some people just want to share something they did without burden but you're basically saying "no, sharing comes with obligations like license enforcement, currency, or user support that you're required to invest in"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Can you cite the source for your Unity history quote? It's interesting and info I've not read before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't comment on it, he asked a question, to which he received an interesting and constructive answer. Your comment on the other hand didn't do any good, and it made boring reading.
He asked a question in the form of a comment – I'm pretty sure that's what 'comment' is referring to in the guidelines; not the content of the comment itself. And you seem to be wrong about by comment about the guidelines. The other user was informed or reminded about the guidelines and we even had a nice little 'comment chat' about them. Any kind of online forum inevitably requires participants to remind each other…