BSD license is a license to 'freeload' and gpl is a license to try and stop 'freeloading'.
Explicitly, NO. There is no freeloading in a unrestricted license. It is explicitly an unrestricted license to allow no give-back code contributions. If the code is freely given that way, it is not freeloading to use it and not contribute.
You can only have freeloading when there is a requirement or at least an expectation to give back. With MIT/BSD and other licenses there is no expectation. I have even been on projects where we were doing commercial funded work and the code from the research was BSD released. The original funding company used it as well as others, potentially competitors. With absolutely zero expectation any would give back. Our goal was to get widespread groups to become more common and completely unrestricted code did exactly that even though one of the using groups was a primary contributor. They didn't even get earlier access compared to any other company because from the beginning the project was specced as BSD license.
Quote:
i am not talking about that. if you think those companies are wanting the patents just so they can implement the code you are crazy.
i am talking about the patents. those companies want the patents because they believe that some core aspects of some critical 'open source' software out there infringes and these patents would be more ammunition for that.
you would get more positive and genuine consideration of your points if you refrained from using words like 'freetard'.
I used the term once, illustrating the beautiful hypocrisy of the Free Software devout posting here on AI. And now you won't quit, all worried about a socio-cultural label given to shorthand a cultural group with blind adherence to a techno-fundamentalist and radical social viewpoint. If you so want to associate yourself with such an identity, that's your call. There are plenty of folks the contribute to GPL projects that do so without the fundamentalism and radical rhetoric and they can clearly understand when commentary is being directed towards the aforementioned fundamentalists.
If you want to separate yourself from fitting into that group so perfectly I suggest you display the ability to comprehend what is written without twisting it through the "Free" rhetorical playbook. It's not hard for the rest of us to understand that large corporations primarily use patents defensively to fend off lawsuits. It just isn't worth the time, effort or bad press to go after FSF projects unless they step way out into the spotlight in an intentionally business-threatening manner like Google just did with WebM. That got WebM special case status right there that had nothing to do with FSF and everything to do with Google vs MPEG-LA. FSF is just a pawn in that fight because they hold the GPL Google decided to use as a public relations shield.
The patents in the Novell pertfolio probably aren't with the trouble of using offensively by the four ex-members, especially since the SCO debacle of trying to go after a non-FSF GPL2 Linux project. What a spectacular failure that was. The worst that normally happens is a corporation throws a bit of FUD and commercial users making money off related stuff usually stay with the non-FUDed commercial tech. The whole Ogg codec thing has followed that arc for years. It's nearly free to do the PR and interviews and that's enough to keep the big corporations happy. I might be a bit leery of small patent troll lawyer shops getting their hands on them though, you can be guaranteed many of those will end up in lawsuits. In that way, protesting the consortium was probably a self defeating thing to do even though it sounded good as long as nobody looked past the initial call to arms.
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) If someone want's to do a GPL project good for them, do what they want to do. Then leave those of us who want to contribute without the Free Software strings alone. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
it is so funny to see this type of talk on a forum. 'get better than you give', 'get to face the music'.
like you are some sort of threat or have some sort of 'power'.
if i wanted to be left alone i wouldn't be wasting time playing games here now would i?
oh and wasn't it you that said i shouldn't take offense to the use of 'freetard' since it wasn't directed at myself? (at the time).
and 'technically' yes, you can't 'be' freeloading under that license but just because someone doesn't have the ability to see that they are being taken advantage of....
Explicitly, NO. There is no freeloading in a unrestricted license. It is explicitly an unrestricted license to allow no give-back code contributions. If the code is freely given that way, it is not freeloading to use it and not contribute.
You can only have freeloading when there is a requirement or at least an expectation to give back. With MIT/BSD and other licenses there is no expectation. I have even been on projects where we were doing commercial funded work and the code from the research was BSD released. The original funding company used it as well as others, potentially competitors. With absolutely zero expectation any would give back. Our goal was to get widespread groups to become more common and completely unrestricted code did exactly that even though one of the using groups was a primary contributor. They didn't even get earlier access compared to any other company because from the beginning the project was specced as BSD license.
I used the term once, illustrating the beautiful hypocrisy of the Free Software devout posting here on AI. And now you won't quit, all worried about a socio-cultural label given to shorthand a cultural group with blind adherence to a techno-fundamentalist and radical social viewpoint. If you so want to associate yourself with such an identity, that's your call. There are plenty of folks the contribute to GPL projects that do so without the fundamentalism and radical rhetoric and they can clearly understand when commentary is being directed towards the aforementioned fundamentalists.
If you want to separate yourself from fitting into that group so perfectly I suggest you display the ability to comprehend what is written without twisting it through the "Free" rhetorical playbook. It's not hard for the rest of us to understand that large corporations primarily use patents defensively to fend off lawsuits. It just isn't worth the time, effort or bad press to go after FSF projects unless they step way out into the spotlight in an intentionally business-threatening manner like Google just did with WebM. That got WebM special case status right there that had nothing to do with FSF and everything to do with Google vs MPEG-LA. FSF is just a pawn in that fight because they hold the GPL Google decided to use as a public relations shield.
The patents in the Novell pertfolio probably aren't with the trouble of using offensively by the four ex-members, especially since the SCO debacle of trying to go after a non-FSF GPL2 Linux project. What a spectacular failure that was. The worst that normally happens is a corporation throws a bit of FUD and commercial users making money off related stuff usually stay with the non-FUDed commercial tech. The whole Ogg codec thing has followed that arc for years. It's nearly free to do the PR and interviews and that's enough to keep the big corporations happy. I might be a bit leery of small patent troll lawyer shops getting their hands on them though, you can be guaranteed many of those will end up in lawsuits. In that way, protesting the consortium was probably a self defeating thing to do even though it sounded good as long as nobody looked past the initial call to arms.
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) If someone want's to do a GPL project good for them, do what they want to do. Then leave those of us who want to contribute without the Free Software strings alone. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
i thought i would give some of your posts a look see to see if you have any stance on technology other than merely lecturing, correcting, sermonizing etc (since i get called a trol etc etc by others like you)...just the start of your responses was enough to make me see why you are here and what you are about. this short list just made me say 'lost cause, stop wasting your time'.
You are a gem, you know that? Well of course you do.*
You display you don't even know what the correct definition of an ad hom is!
You are scarily ignorant.
My gawd you try hard not to read.
Let's not. That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ.
Did you even read that?
This last sentence is just a gem. Are you a Birther and/or Truther too? Ignorance, cluelessness and fear go hand in hand.
stop being pedantic and assuming the rest of the world isn't smart enough to belong in the same conversation
Well. I'm sure the masses out there are willing to follow you blindly now. *
No. You are hopelessly munging the logic, taking advantage of the over-flexibility of the english language.*
QFT. Do you always wear your jealousy so obviously?
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) .
i don't think the majority of the 'faithful' (you really can't help being an ass can you?) in no way write code thinking 'this will threaten the proprietary world!'. its about freedom. you just can't seem to accept that or understand it.
and i see you are quick to cover your ass by throwing in the kernel and gcc as an exception. you should mention apache too. wouldn't see some of this 'proprietary software' without that nicely provided work by the 'faithful' to build upon. gcc? isn't that something from that sad, little man you hate so much?
Comments
BSD license is a license to 'freeload' and gpl is a license to try and stop 'freeloading'.
Explicitly, NO. There is no freeloading in a unrestricted license. It is explicitly an unrestricted license to allow no give-back code contributions. If the code is freely given that way, it is not freeloading to use it and not contribute.
You can only have freeloading when there is a requirement or at least an expectation to give back. With MIT/BSD and other licenses there is no expectation. I have even been on projects where we were doing commercial funded work and the code from the research was BSD released. The original funding company used it as well as others, potentially competitors. With absolutely zero expectation any would give back. Our goal was to get widespread groups to become more common and completely unrestricted code did exactly that even though one of the using groups was a primary contributor. They didn't even get earlier access compared to any other company because from the beginning the project was specced as BSD license.
i am not talking about that. if you think those companies are wanting the patents just so they can implement the code you are crazy.
i am talking about the patents. those companies want the patents because they believe that some core aspects of some critical 'open source' software out there infringes and these patents would be more ammunition for that.
you would get more positive and genuine consideration of your points if you refrained from using words like 'freetard'.
I used the term once, illustrating the beautiful hypocrisy of the Free Software devout posting here on AI. And now you won't quit, all worried about a socio-cultural label given to shorthand a cultural group with blind adherence to a techno-fundamentalist and radical social viewpoint. If you so want to associate yourself with such an identity, that's your call. There are plenty of folks the contribute to GPL projects that do so without the fundamentalism and radical rhetoric and they can clearly understand when commentary is being directed towards the aforementioned fundamentalists.
If you want to separate yourself from fitting into that group so perfectly I suggest you display the ability to comprehend what is written without twisting it through the "Free" rhetorical playbook. It's not hard for the rest of us to understand that large corporations primarily use patents defensively to fend off lawsuits. It just isn't worth the time, effort or bad press to go after FSF projects unless they step way out into the spotlight in an intentionally business-threatening manner like Google just did with WebM. That got WebM special case status right there that had nothing to do with FSF and everything to do with Google vs MPEG-LA. FSF is just a pawn in that fight because they hold the GPL Google decided to use as a public relations shield.
The patents in the Novell pertfolio probably aren't with the trouble of using offensively by the four ex-members, especially since the SCO debacle of trying to go after a non-FSF GPL2 Linux project. What a spectacular failure that was. The worst that normally happens is a corporation throws a bit of FUD and commercial users making money off related stuff usually stay with the non-FUDed commercial tech. The whole Ogg codec thing has followed that arc for years. It's nearly free to do the PR and interviews and that's enough to keep the big corporations happy. I might be a bit leery of small patent troll lawyer shops getting their hands on them though, you can be guaranteed many of those will end up in lawsuits. In that way, protesting the consortium was probably a self defeating thing to do even though it sounded good as long as nobody looked past the initial call to arms.
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) If someone want's to do a GPL project good for them, do what they want to do. Then leave those of us who want to contribute without the Free Software strings alone. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
it is so funny to see this type of talk on a forum. 'get better than you give', 'get to face the music'.
like you are some sort of threat or have some sort of 'power'.
if i wanted to be left alone i wouldn't be wasting time playing games here now would i?
oh and wasn't it you that said i shouldn't take offense to the use of 'freetard' since it wasn't directed at myself? (at the time).
and 'technically' yes, you can't 'be' freeloading under that license but just because someone doesn't have the ability to see that they are being taken advantage of....
Explicitly, NO. There is no freeloading in a unrestricted license. It is explicitly an unrestricted license to allow no give-back code contributions. If the code is freely given that way, it is not freeloading to use it and not contribute.
You can only have freeloading when there is a requirement or at least an expectation to give back. With MIT/BSD and other licenses there is no expectation. I have even been on projects where we were doing commercial funded work and the code from the research was BSD released. The original funding company used it as well as others, potentially competitors. With absolutely zero expectation any would give back. Our goal was to get widespread groups to become more common and completely unrestricted code did exactly that even though one of the using groups was a primary contributor. They didn't even get earlier access compared to any other company because from the beginning the project was specced as BSD license.
I used the term once, illustrating the beautiful hypocrisy of the Free Software devout posting here on AI. And now you won't quit, all worried about a socio-cultural label given to shorthand a cultural group with blind adherence to a techno-fundamentalist and radical social viewpoint. If you so want to associate yourself with such an identity, that's your call. There are plenty of folks the contribute to GPL projects that do so without the fundamentalism and radical rhetoric and they can clearly understand when commentary is being directed towards the aforementioned fundamentalists.
If you want to separate yourself from fitting into that group so perfectly I suggest you display the ability to comprehend what is written without twisting it through the "Free" rhetorical playbook. It's not hard for the rest of us to understand that large corporations primarily use patents defensively to fend off lawsuits. It just isn't worth the time, effort or bad press to go after FSF projects unless they step way out into the spotlight in an intentionally business-threatening manner like Google just did with WebM. That got WebM special case status right there that had nothing to do with FSF and everything to do with Google vs MPEG-LA. FSF is just a pawn in that fight because they hold the GPL Google decided to use as a public relations shield.
The patents in the Novell pertfolio probably aren't with the trouble of using offensively by the four ex-members, especially since the SCO debacle of trying to go after a non-FSF GPL2 Linux project. What a spectacular failure that was. The worst that normally happens is a corporation throws a bit of FUD and commercial users making money off related stuff usually stay with the non-FUDed commercial tech. The whole Ogg codec thing has followed that arc for years. It's nearly free to do the PR and interviews and that's enough to keep the big corporations happy. I might be a bit leery of small patent troll lawyer shops getting their hands on them though, you can be guaranteed many of those will end up in lawsuits. In that way, protesting the consortium was probably a self defeating thing to do even though it sounded good as long as nobody looked past the initial call to arms.
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) If someone want's to do a GPL project good for them, do what they want to do. Then leave those of us who want to contribute without the Free Software strings alone. Drag us into the fight and you'll get better than you give, flaunt your hypocrisy with faux indignation and you get to face the music. Go do your FS thing in peace and quiet, don't try to make our work your work or vilify non-Free Software viewpoints or licenses and we'll leave you alone.
i thought i would give some of your posts a look see to see if you have any stance on technology other than merely lecturing, correcting, sermonizing etc (since i get called a trol etc etc by others like you)...just the start of your responses was enough to make me see why you are here and what you are about. this short list just made me say 'lost cause, stop wasting your time'.
You are a gem, you know that? Well of course you do.*
You display you don't even know what the correct definition of an ad hom is!
You are scarily ignorant.
My gawd you try hard not to read.
Let's not. That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ.
Did you even read that?
This last sentence is just a gem. Are you a Birther and/or Truther too? Ignorance, cluelessness and fear go hand in hand.
stop being pedantic and assuming the rest of the world isn't smart enough to belong in the same conversation
Well. I'm sure the masses out there are willing to follow you blindly now.
No. You are hopelessly munging the logic, taking advantage of the over-flexibility of the english language.*
QFT. Do you always wear your jealousy so obviously?
I know the faithful want to think they are making software that threatens the proprietary world, but they aren't. The vast majority are just contributing good work and there's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps after bleeding edge tech marches past. (Yes there are exceptions like the Linux kernel and GCC which I accept as leading edge) .
i don't think the majority of the 'faithful' (you really can't help being an ass can you?) in no way write code thinking 'this will threaten the proprietary world!'. its about freedom. you just can't seem to accept that or understand it.
and i see you are quick to cover your ass by throwing in the kernel and gcc as an exception. you should mention apache too. wouldn't see some of this 'proprietary software' without that nicely provided work by the 'faithful' to build upon. gcc? isn't that something from that sad, little man you hate so much?