411–420 of 501 posts
...On the way to writing a new hypertext protocol that uses ASN.1, of course.
...Which I can then write a browser for.
I, too, am not sure if this will ever finish, but I figure that at least, at some point, I will definitely be able to tell you why ASN.1 didn't win the protocol wars. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL is not required for such a commons to flourish. Most Rust projects are published under a permissive license, and that scene is flourishing just fine. I think that open source software as a whole, not the GPL specifically, is what has enabled the flourishing you mention. It seems to me that in the counterfactual world where Linus chose to use the BSD license for his kernel, Linux would thrive just as much as i…
The reason we have custom roms on android phones, is because of Linux's copyleft license: Phone vendors are required to publish their kernel modifications shipped with their devices. This already reduces e-waste by lowering the purchases of new phones, when old ones are perfectly functional. Thus, copyleft helped the environment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are describing must have been written by someone who does not believe in software freedoms. That seems to be a common sentiment, that preferring non-GPL projects is about exploitation, and I don’t think it makes any sense. The GPL is a contact that takes away some rights of the people using it, and that makes everyone freer? I understand the goal of wanting users to have rights that they would not otherwise…
> The GPL is a contact that takes away some rights of the people using it, and that makes everyone freer? It is not that simple. The GPL "takes away" some rights of the distributor of the software (their ability to restrict redistribution for example), but grants rights to the end user (the ability to modify and redistribute) of the software. It's all perspective. As the developer the GPL may feel limiting, but as a…
I'm not saying that's a bad trade off to make, but it is absolutely a fact that the GPL takes away some rights. Or, since it is a copyright license, where the default in copyright is you get no rights, you might instead say it does not give all possible rights. I think it's important to recognize that sometimes "the greater good" comes at a price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's a fact? It sounds like you're evangelizing willful ignorance and hedonic helplessness, while blindly accepting multinational corporate authoritarianism but shirking any responsibility because closing our eyes makes us feel better. Peace in Europe is shattered. The former President of the United States has been indicted for attempting to overturn an election. R&D on the killer robots + AI from RoboCop and Termi…
I strongly recommend you read the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling. It’s clear you feel strongly about these issues but have been misled by profit seeking media into doomscrolling news meant to keep you engaged at the cost of your mental wellbeing. This book will help you recalibrate your worldview.
"Doomscrolling"? "Mental wellbeing"? Everything is great, a-okay for me, the problem is I've read enough history and know enough about contemporary technology to see quite clearly where this all is going. Don't you?
I strongly recommend you read something by, say, Vandana Shiva or Arundhati Roy and consider decalibrating from the authoritarian agenda.
OP here. Thanks for the pos/neg/neutral comments everybody. Some remarks: Yes, there are a lot of browsers out there where I can contribute to which would be more efficient. But that would result in just a few browsers instead of a lot of browsers. I'm all for the last one, as this would give people options. This IS a pet project. I never told anyone otherwise. I would start writing it even when I wasn't fed up with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental problem I have with the GPL, and I think is echoed elsewhere here, is that the GPL is not about my code. It is trying to force my will on other people’s code. It is inherently less free because it is trying to exert dominance over things I do not own and have never been involved in. In theory, a 10 liner GPL Python script could infect an org with 20 millions lines of closed source code and try to dict…
The GPL started when RMS wanted to fix his printer and Xerox said "No."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> As a developer my problem with the GPL is that it's less free than other licenses. The freedom to deny other people the freedom you are enjoying is not compatible with the notion of freedom. It's hypocrisy. That's not to say there is no place for MIT/BSD licenses, but it is not with general application software or libraries used to build such.
The fundamental problem I have with the GPL, and I think is echoed elsewhere here, is that the GPL is not about my code. It is trying to force my will on other people’s code. It is inherently less free because it is trying to exert dominance over things I do not own and have never been involved in. In theory, a 10 liner GPL Python script could infect an org with 20 millions lines of closed source code and try to dict…
Yes, you need to be careful when you integrate GPL and LGPL code into your proprietary code base, and in some cases you just cannot do it. But so what? You are not entitled to use of that code. If you can't use it because of its license, then that's life: move on and find something else that you can use, or write it yourself.
And you also seem to think that if you screw up, and do depend on a GPL library (for example) in a proprietary code base, then you're required to give away the source for your 20 million proprietary lines of code. But that's not the case. There are many different remedies possible. One (common) remedy might be to cease distribution of the infringing code, remove the GPL component, replace it with something else, and re-release.
I think there are very few copyright owners who release their code under the GPL who would immediately push for the remedy to be your company releasing all of their proprietary code under the GPL. At least certainly not at first contact, if the company is capable of acknowledging their mistake and working in good faith to correct it. And even if a copyright owner did decide to push for this, it is ultimately up to a court to decide, and it seems vanishingly unlikely that a court would order that remedy, especially if the company was offering less-extreme, good-faith options.
> It is trying to force my will on other people’s code
I just wanted to call this out specifically, because, again: absurd. Please look at it from the default state: you do not get to use someone else's code at all. That's what copyright law says, in the absence of another agreement. Even if you have the source code to my library (or whatever), you cannot use it in your product unless I have given you a license to do so.
If you are considering using someone else's code in your project, one of the first things you should do is look at the license. If you see GPL, and don't want to abide by the terms of that license, you move on and find something else. That code is not trying to "force its will" on you. You are free to use it and follow its licensing terms, or move on. You are no poorer because that code is there, as you are not entitled to use it without a license anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyleft was a good idea, but its real world utility is a lot less than anyone would like. I once inherited a GPL project, but I couldn't muster any community interest in working with it. Plugin authors would have been compelled to use GPL and no one seemed interested. We had to burn the project to the ground and start over with a new MIT licensed project. Now there's a flourishing community of plugin authors working…
Why would plugins have to also be GPL? The whole point of plugins is (typically) to allow distribution separately. IANAL but it would seem to me that unless you distribute your "plugin" as a statically linked binary that includes the main app, then the GPL would be irrelevant. If I'm wrong I'd love to be informed
Most people want to write software, not worry about licences. MIT seems easier, so people use it. For commercial as well as pure hobby projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said Blockchain, not Bitcoin. Bitcoins "value" it that it's a pyramid scheme along time, early "investors" profit when they get out. Market cap means nothing when you run out of difficulty ;) Anyhow I'll leave you to your delusions and get on with my life. Toodle-oo!
>I'll leave you to your delusions and get on with my life That's easy to say when you are living in a country with access to a healthy financial system, this is a luxury, not norm.
I could be anywhere in the world. Even nextdoor to you ;)
You and GP still would be deluded however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gemini is an interesting educational project but the lack of ability to serve even static pictures or video is an absolutely crippling mistake.
Gemini can, in fact, serve up images, audio and even video. The specification disallows inline display of such types, but it can serve them fine.