Interesting read
Moderator: General Moderators
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: Interesting read
Ugh, there are so many errors, mistruths and purposefully biased statements there that if it was a post on slashdot, I'd give it a "-1 Troll". No digg, no ping back.Hockey wrote:http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
Practically worthless.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: Interesting read
I found it interesting...or humourous at leastRoja wrote:Ugh, there are so many errors, mistruths and purposefully biased statements there that if it was a post on slashdot, I'd give it a "-1 Troll". No digg, no ping back.Hockey wrote:http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
Practically worthless.
Obviously any paper on the subject is going to be bias in one direction or the other...but I always try and keep an open mind in favour of boths sides...
But I'm curious to get your input on why it's full of fallacies?
-
d3ad1ysp0rk
- Forum Donator
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
I've found the best resource for getting the information on what the GPL really means for programmers, customers and everyone else!
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Never trust anyone besides yourself
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Never trust anyone besides yourself
Re: Interesting read
Honestly, its not worth it. Doing so would be feeding the troll (the site owner, not you).Hockey wrote:But I'm curious to get your input on why it's full of fallacies?
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful???d3ad1ysp0rk wrote:I've found the best resource for getting the information on what the GPL really means for programmers, customers and everyone else!
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Never trust anyone besides yourself
- Christopher
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 13596
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: New York, NY, US
Re: Interesting read
First we should get your input on why or what specific parts you found interesting. No use pointing out things you might already know.Hockey wrote:But I'm curious to get your input on why it's full of fallacies?
(#10850)
Re: Interesting read
I really would like to hear your opinion. If you are going to make a statement and refuse to back it up, I suggest not making it at all.Roja wrote: Honestly, its not worth it. Doing so would be feeding the troll (the site owner, not you).
If you are going to say something is basicaly BS, explain why or you have just as much credibility as the author, none. I would believe that website over you because you dont explain what is wrong with it.
I found it interesting and think that reading a different view is good. Everything has bias, but this is first hand, and it is interesting stuff.
-steve
Re: Interesting read
Fair enough commentary. By commenting at all, I did, to a degree, feed the troll. However, I've become a bit exasperated at the increase of posts that are of the same style.waradmin wrote:I really would like to hear your opinion. If you are going to make a statement and refuse to back it up, I suggest not making it at all.
Namely, post a "Huh, what do you guys think of this", and link to a site that is as contrary to logic, documented and discussed opinion and industry consensus as possible, with the hope that it will insult/anger enough people to get a response.
Thats trolling, plain and simple. The "net etiquette" suggested method to deal with it is to ignore it. As you said, I should have done so here. But on the flip side, I'd argue that as good citizens of the forum, we seriously need to make clear that trolling is just not welcome!
If someone comes and posts a link that says the earth is flat, do I need to state my credentials to doubt it? Do I need to point-by-point refute their logic?waradmin wrote:If you are going to say something is basicaly BS, explain why or you have just as much credibility as the author, none. I would believe that website over you because you dont explain what is wrong with it.
No. Because on its face, it is laughably inaccurate. The page linked is exactly the same. I've already cited the general issues I have with it: errors, mistruths, and biased statements.
And no, I won't delve into the details, for the same reason that I won't debunk the earth being flat. Because it gives the argument weight - as a point that isn't decided (under debate), instead of the truth - that it is patently absurd.
You are right, I shouldn't have replied at all. I should have ignored the troll. My bad. But in my defense, I'm just sick of the trolling.
-
d3ad1ysp0rk
- Forum Donator
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
Not quite, because the GPL isn't trying to sell you anything or hide anything. The entire license is there for you to read and analyze. If what I linked to was a description OF the license, that comparison would be completely true.Hockey wrote:Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful???
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Look the article I linked to...I simply found it interesting...maybe because of the authors comparison to animal farm...no idea...don't care...d3ad1ysp0rk wrote:Not quite, because the GPL isn't trying to sell you anything or hide anything. The entire license is there for you to read and analyze. If what I linked to was a description OF the license, that comparison would be completely true.Hockey wrote:Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful???
I know that I enjoy some GPL'ed code, but not enough to say everything should be open source...
I'm not an OSS zealot, nor do I fully support proprietary code...I'm middle ground so I enjoy reading articles on both...
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Wow, a "Let's flame Richard Stallman" thread... This is going to be hugely productive.
Seriously...
It's your software. You make the license. Let others have the source or not, it's up to you. Just don't take someone else's work and try to sell it off as your own.
Oh yeah, another key point. We, as developers, have the option of using open-source software as a base for our software. We can choose to use it or choose to start from scratch. There is no license by-law that says you have to use open-source. The only by-laws come from the license in the open-source app, which we all read and choose what we want to do from there.
</stepping down from my soapbox>
Aren't there some PHP questions to answer around here?
Seriously...
It's your software. You make the license. Let others have the source or not, it's up to you. Just don't take someone else's work and try to sell it off as your own.
Oh yeah, another key point. We, as developers, have the option of using open-source software as a base for our software. We can choose to use it or choose to start from scratch. There is no license by-law that says you have to use open-source. The only by-laws come from the license in the open-source app, which we all read and choose what we want to do from there.
</stepping down from my soapbox>
Aren't there some PHP questions to answer around here?
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Quit responding then...honestly I don't get some of you...not once did I give any indication as to wanting to start a flame war...Everah wrote:Wow, a "Let's flame Richard Stallman" thread... This is going to be hugely productive.![]()
Seriously...
It's your software. You make the license. Let others have the source or not, it's up to you. Just don't take someone else's work and try to sell it off as your own.
Oh yeah, another key point. We, as developers, have the option of using open-source software as a base for our software. We can choose to use it or choose to start from scratch. There is no license by-law that says you have to use open-source. The only by-laws come from the license in the open-source app, which we all read and choose what we want to do from there.
</stepping down from my soapbox>
Aren't there some PHP questions to answer around here?
I simply posted a link to an article which I thought others might find interesting...obviously many of you prefer to keep an closed mind in favour of open source...
You clearly didn't read the article, cuz the article actually attacks Donald Knuth...or at least targets him as the father of OSS - not Stallman.
I realize there is no one holding a gun to my head making me use OSS...but I think it's important to keep both sides of the story in constant disscussion...they both have their ups and downs!!!
Will someone (aka MOD) please drop this thread...if another person repsonds with an attack on me for being some lunatic closed source supporter...I think I'm gonna cry...or go drink a beer anyways
- Christopher
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 13596
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: New York, NY, US
Except he doesn't do a comparison to Animal Farm. He mentions Animal Farm in the first paragraph, and then in the second paragraph talks about cows, which are animals, but the analogy besides being wrong has nothing to do with Animal Farm.Hockey wrote:I simply found it interesting...maybe because of the authors comparison to animal farm...no idea...don't care...
The first analogy given is that if you were given a free cow that had a GPL license on its genetics -- you would have to give away its milk and calves for free. That is completely incorrect as everyone knows that the GPL does not prohibit selling. But the writer then segues into a slightly different analogy that if you continued to breed the GPL cow, you would need make the new breed available. He actually says, "you must give the new breed of cows away for free" which sounds a little like the first analogy of not being able to sell the cows that we know is not correct. In reality, if you got a genetic GPL cow you would be free to sell it, its offspring, or its milk, but I suppose if you bred it further you would have to do something like make your breeding instructions available or allow those you sold the calves to to breed them if they agreed to the license. Sounds a lot like license restricted capitalism to me. And I like how he neatly ignores the value of the original cow. That's what licenses are all about -- they are a restrictions for value agreement.
The articles are opinion, and the statements here are opinion. It is not necessarily closed minded to have an opinion.Hockey wrote:I simply posted a link to an article which I thought others might find interesting...obviously many of you prefer to keep an closed mind in favour of open source...
As evinced by this nasty attack on Knuth in his conclusion: "We really need more Donald E. Knuths in the world and less Richard M. Stallmans. The free/open software movement should look to DEK for inspiration, not RMS."Hockey wrote:You clearly didn't read the article, cuz the article actually attacks Donald Knuth...or at least targets him as the father of OSS - not Stallman.
Sort of a "Teach the Controversy" idea, but what is the controversy? All I see are a number of people who at one point or another expressed a dislike for a person or a license.Hockey wrote:I realize there is no one holding a gun to my head making me use OSS...but I think it's important to keep both sides of the story in constant disscussion...they both have their ups and downs!!!
(#10850)