Other Open-Source / Linux Letdowns For 2018 From File Creation Time To Flatpaks

[pal666]

Sigh, you guys are missing the point. MS-DOS and Windows did not have users at the beginning either

they did. hardware vendors had to pay ms per cpu sold even when they didn't install windows

[jo-erlend]

not really. as usual that was canonical trying to do vendor lock-in. which is evil, unlike nih

The idea that the GPL license is suitable for vendor lock-in, is interesting. Can you elaborate more on that subject? It's new to me.

[pal666]

The idea that the GPL license is suitable for vendor lock-in, is interesting. Can you elaborate more on that subject? It's new to me.

add cla requiring all patches to give copyright to you. now it is gpl for everyone except you

[jo-erlend]

add cla requiring all patches to give copyright to you. now it is gpl for everyone except you

So I have invested ten million dollars in something and you demand the right to become an equal partner for three dollars. Why should I accept your proposal? It sounds stupid to me.

But you still haven't explained how this makes it a lock-in system. GNU operates this way for instance, so that would make it a lock-in system as well.

[Weasel]

So I have invested ten million dollars in something and you demand the right to become an equal partner for three dollars. Why should I accept your proposal? It sounds stupid to me.

But you still haven't explained how this makes it a lock-in system. GNU operates this way for instance, so that would make it a lock-in system as well.

Because "lock-in" and "walled garden" are two terms some special people will never understand properly.

[duby229]

So I have invested ten million dollars in something and you demand the right to become an equal partner for three dollars. Why should I accept your proposal? It sounds stupid to me.

But you still haven't explained how this makes it a lock-in system. GNU operates this way for instance, so that would make it a lock-in system as well.

Because their CLA allows them to sell copy's that are -NOT- GPL. That's why. -ONLY- if the GPL is the -only- option can it be considered free.

[jo-erlend]

Because their CLA allows them to sell copy's that are -NOT- GPL. That's why. -ONLY- if the GPL is the -only- option can it be considered free.

That's entirely false. For one thing, the GPL never applies to the developer, but only to people who have received the code from someone else. This is pretty basic stuff.

[Weasel]

Because their CLA allows them to sell copy's that are -NOT- GPL. That's why. -ONLY- if the GPL is the -only- option can it be considered free.

Look up the word "license" (that's what the GPL is, btw). The owner of the code is not restricted by the license, since he's the one who puts the license in the first place for interested 3rd parties (and that's who the license applies to).

Sorry to break it to you, but the GPL is not public domain, so ownership is not revoked.

[duby229]

That's entirely false. For one thing, the GPL never applies to the developer, but only to people who have received the code from someone else. This is pretty basic stuff.

The GPL does not protect the developer, it protects the code, so yes there will always be a gpl copy, the original. But in fact Canonical's CLA as an example does allow them to sell proprietary forks and they can do it without ever contributing anything back because open is not equal to free.... One protects code the other protects copywrite holder.... in fact it's the whole entire point is to sign over your copywrite.

EDIT: The copywrite holder can use any license they want, that's the whole entire point of a CLA....

[duby229]

Look up the word "license" (that's what the GPL is, btw). The owner of the code is not restricted by the license, since he's the one who puts the license in the first place for interested 3rd parties (and that's who the license applies to).

Sorry to break it to you, but the GPL is not public domain, so ownership is not revoked.

See the post above....