| reply to Matt3
Re: Dumb... said by Matt3:said by B:I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done. Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers? I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral". That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow!  Lesser companies don't even think twice. -- B P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent... The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL? We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us. |
|
| reply to Matt3
Dont you know that PostgreSQL is released with the same license that mysql is using? So you better pull the plug on that move quickly.  |
|
| reply to Matt3
I will stand corrected, the PostgreSQL server is released under the BSD license. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to B
said by B:I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done. Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers? I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral". That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice. -- B P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent... I don't know where you came up with anybody being "mad" at authors of GPL applications. I don't hate the people, I dislike the license. I'm sure I may offend a lot of people but I see the GPL as a "hippie" license with the bravado of "hey may, everything should be free man".
It hinders commercial software development on two fronts, one, a commercial software company that doesn't release source code for trade-secret reasons can't use it and two, even if a company agreed to release the source, they can't charge for their own improvements.
If you look at the BSD community you will find a different story. Software is truly free and open-source. Companies can improve it, resell it for profit whether the source is re-released or not. The BEST example ever of this is Apple and OS X. Apple was able to take the BSD operating system and use it under the hood and not be worried by GPL clauses. They also in turn were able to recontribute back to the base BSD operating system teams without fear of GPL licensing war-mongers.
The bottom line is this, if you want to give it away, give it away and let it be free. Don't be anti-greedy with the "I don't want to sell so dammit, nobody else can make any money either, even if they improve it." In general I'm sure most GPL authors don't really care, they just end up with that license because it's trendy and more than likely they have something in there code that is GPL licensed.
Honestly, as my argument is what it is I am thankful for tools like GNU's compiler and the various Linux flavors. And if the authors only thought they would be successful under the GPL, so be it. On that note I should say that I'm a NetBSD user/supporter and eventual developer if ever have the time. That said, any code I work on will either be BSD or commercially licensed. If it's going to be free, it's going to be free.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
 TransitManPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-05
Dayton, OH
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Prediction Comes True Was predicted by your truly several days ago in this forum post - »Re: Xubuntu vs. Piracy
I knew from the looks of it that the MPAA was up to some nasty shenanigans, trying to skirt the GNU license for their own nefarious purposes.
--
PROUD TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CRUNCHENSTEIN ASSOCIATION AND THE HOST OF CRUNCHENSTEIN #2 |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to dda
Re: something I never understood said by dda:I'm sure it did motivate them but I find it very hard to believe that they had no resources and so had to pirate movies and music. Well I agree-- with some exceptions. I suspect most pirated stuff are things that people wouldn't of paid for anyway.... And I also believe that people who have copied DVD's or MP3's also still spend money buying some DVD's and Music they really like.
I strongly believe, that let's say piracy was somehow impossible, that it wouldn't lead to sudden massive sales by RIAA and MPAA members. I suspect 99% of the pirated content would simply be done without.
Teenagers are an exception.... they have a limited amount of money, but are large consumers of entertainment. I believe many teenagers copy music, games, movies etc because they really don't have the money to just buy them. Nonetheless this group still purchases large amounts of various entertainment, they just have to be selective.... and they often will pirate the rest.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
| reply to dadkins
Re: Do as we say...not as we do Movies aside, some games DO allow you to make back up copies to keep them same.
But these days I buy online/download about 80% of my games (steam direct2drive etc).
Back to original topic:
I laughed so hard at this. I especially love the fact they ignored all attempts to contact them. That's just great. It reminds me of a parent screaming at a kid "JUST DO WHAT I SAY NOT WHAT I DO!" |
|
| reply to Jameson
Re: Wow. Aint it kinda funny |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to Matt3
Re: Dumb... said by Matt3:We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. |
|
 JamesonPremium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
kudos:1 | reply to NoOneButMe
Re: Wow. yep totally |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to swhx7
Re: Excellent. said by swhx7:The GPL is commonly thought of as a "copyleft" or some sort of anti-copyright. In reality, however, it relies on copyright law just as much as any conventional licence or infringement action does. So what has been exposed here is pure hypocrisy. The Hollywood cartel talks about respect for copyright when it makes them money, but just like the pirates they crusade against, they don't want it applied to limit their own behavior. Remember folks, whenever anyone spouts some rubbish about copyright enforcers being the good guys: corporations are sociopaths, and a cartel of corporations is even worse. They have no principles, only greed. Yeah, well... It's not like this is the first time code has been stolen by an *AA or an *AA member in their bids against piracy. One of Sony's anti-piracy self-installing malware a year or so back consisted, in part, of stolen code. The *AA's also love to plagiarize the various anti-IP websites for their own campaigns. The list goes on and on. But, since the *AA's have an army of lawyers and the ones they rape, pillage and burn don't, they run roughshod over everyone.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
| Copying When a Movie company makes a movie and there is a "Master" disc. That should belong to the company or group of people that make it. Now, the DVD gets copied mass produced and put out for the masses. Are the copyrights for the disk broken when the "Master" is duped for mass production, then sold at profit to the end user who might have already paid once to see it in the theater? Just a question that should needs some light shone on it. IMO when you go to the movies and PAY to see it there, when you leave you should be able to get a copy of the DVD when you leave. I mean you did just basically, rent the movie when you go to theater. If I'm going to pay today's going rate at the theater, I want more than just popcorn stuck between my teeth when I leave. Just my thoughts. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to wtansill
Re: Dumb... said by wtansill:said by Matt3:We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
| reply to KrK
Re: something I never understood said by KrK:said by dda:Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure. Oh, Puhhlease.... Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme. The understatement of the year!!
"The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme."
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to Lumberjack
Re: Dumb... said by Lumberjack:said by wtansill:said by Matt3:We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves. My point was exactly that -- find code that uses another license, but it was late, and I did not make my point clearly. D'oh!
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster
|
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
| reply to Lumberjack
said by Lumberjack:said by wtansill:said by Matt3:We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves. Not exactly. I can write an application that uses MySQL for database storage but that doesnt mean I need to make my code GPL. Of course if I include MySQL binaries to make install easier I need to distribute the source for MySQL and MySQL will always be licensed under GPL.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Correct joako.
But if I used a GPL based library that's not GPL-lite to interact with MySql, then I'd have to release my code as well. So instead I'd have to write that shared library all over again (from my own invention, even though it's going to be the same functionality) to prevent having to release under GPL terms.
A lot of companies avoid GPL just because of what you said... they don't want to be hammered by having to re-release source because they use a binary even though they don't have their own product in GPL domain. They also then are concerned by customers not wanting to buy it because GPL authors can wash their hands of any liability where people that reuse it (as in your MySql) example can not.
Forum: Sorry for my GPL comments taking the news thread way off topic .
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Caught Red-Handed and you are persuaded that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in the darkness, a corrector of the unreasonable ones, a teacher of babes and having the framework of the knowledge and of the Truth in the Law. Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You the one preaching "Do not steal", do you steal?...
Romans 2:19-21
--
"Suddenly everything is fainting, falling from a broken ladder's rung. There's a jolt exhilarating from the phone I'm holding...
I hear the words of what I'll become, how eager the hands that reach for love." - Blind Melon - New Life |
|
| reply to snipper_cr
Re: Dumb... One day you'll find this in Webster's dictionary... it'll be listed under "Irony".
I'm LMAO too. |
|
