Page 1 of 1

Interesting read

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:38 pm
by alex.barylski

Re: Interesting read

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:07 pm
by Roja
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.

Practically worthless.

Re: Interesting read

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:05 pm
by alex.barylski
Roja 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.

Practically worthless.
I found it interesting...or humourous at least :)

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?

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:34 pm
by d3ad1ysp0rk
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 ;)

Re: Interesting read

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:40 pm
by Roja
Hockey wrote:But I'm curious to get your input on why it's full of fallacies?
Honestly, its not worth it. Doing so would be feeding the troll (the site owner, not you).

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:44 pm
by alex.barylski
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 ;)
Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful??? :P

Re: Interesting read

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:59 am
by Christopher
Hockey wrote:But I'm curious to get your input on why it's full of fallacies?
First we should get your input on why or what specific parts you found interesting. No use pointing out things you might already know. ;) Those articles seem to be opinions about people, not licenses. So what's interesting about them?

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:29 am
by Grim...
d3ad1ysp0rk wrote:Never trust anyone besides yourself
And even then you should assume you're lying ;)

Re: Interesting read

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:47 am
by waradmin
Roja wrote: Honestly, its not worth it. Doing so would be feeding the troll (the site owner, not you).
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.

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

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:16 pm
by Roja
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.
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.

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!
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.
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?

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.

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:59 pm
by d3ad1ysp0rk
Hockey wrote:Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful??? :P
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.

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:20 pm
by alex.barylski
d3ad1ysp0rk wrote:
Hockey wrote:Wouldn't that be like asking a hairdresser if bald was beautiful??? :P
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.
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...

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...

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:33 pm
by RobertGonzalez
Wow, a "Let's flame Richard Stallman" thread... This is going to be hugely productive. :roll:

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?

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:05 pm
by alex.barylski
Everah wrote:Wow, a "Let's flame Richard Stallman" thread... This is going to be hugely productive. :roll:

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?
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...

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 :)

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:40 am
by Christopher
Hockey wrote:I simply found it interesting...maybe because of the authors comparison to animal farm...no idea...don't care...
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.

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.
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...
The articles are opinion, and the statements here are opinion. It is not necessarily closed minded to have an opinion.
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.
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: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!!!
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.