Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • krazy
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward.
    At first glance, your argument has merit, but I think there are several benefits to copyleft licenses such as the GPL which PD does not offer.

    A major issue with PD is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If you develop a useful piece of software, what is to stop a large corporation from taking your code, creating an extended clone of your software, and using their greater marketing power to render your code effectively obsolete?
    This is similar to what Microsoft tried to do with their implementation of Java (they developed their own code so this isn't directly analogous with PD licensing, but there are similarities so please bear with me ).
    Sun sued Microsoft for $35 million in 1997, saying Microsoft breached its contract by trying to extend Java so it would work differently, and presumably better, on Windows computers.
    ...
    Sun executives said they were able to use Microsoft as a distribution tool to get Java into the hands of users when the software was in its infancy. Then Sun's lawsuit froze Microsoft's plans to modify Java for its own benefit, and Java became established in the meantime.
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-251401.html

    Recall that Java was explicitly designed to be "Architecture Neutral and Portable". Had Java been released under a more naive licence, then there would have been nothing stopping MS from using their enormous market power to crush Java's cross-platform interoperability - effectively taking over control of the technology by ensuring their 'version' was most widely used. Surely if Java apps were only usable on Windows, this is a "step backwards". (it's also no coincidence that C# and .NET appeared at about this time)

    Thus I think that while PD is obviously the least restrictive license, that is not enought in the "real world": GPL and similar licenses do more to protect the freedom of users and developers.

    Also note that Microsoft's proprietary JVM implementation ceased development in 2001 (after they lost the lawsuit and thus the right to use "Java Compatible" trademarks). Hence, due to their licensing, any improvements/modifications they made to Java are now lost forever and so any "steps forward" that were made are also lost.

    Of course, it is your choice to license your code however you wish. So as long as you don't mind having someone embrace, extend and then place restrictions your code for their own benefit there's no problem. However I'd argue that society as a whole loses in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • yotambien
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    You insulted me in a previous thread and now you want to begin again a conversation? Thanks but no.
    If you want to know what I mean, just read carefully my posts in this current thread.
    wha-what?

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by yotambien View Post
    What are those human rights you talk about? And who is not 'respecting you as a human being'?
    You insulted me in a previous thread and now you want to begin again a conversation? Thanks but no.
    If you want to know what I mean, just read carefully my posts in this current thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • yotambien
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    As long as the conditions I set up respect the freedom and human rights, while the other's don't then I am correct. Whatever you do and how well you justify it is wrong if the result doesn't respect you as human being.
    What are those human rights you talk about? And who is not 'respecting you as a human being'?

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward. If that derived code takes a open or closed path is up to the person that is doing the modifications. If a restriction on it's use is placed you have no guarantee that a person that would otherwise use the code won't simply look for an alternative solution anyways which still does not contribute to the original project. The person doing that patch should have the right to determine what his work is worth and how it is used just as much as the unmodified code.
    We just disagree what is someone's right and what's not and since we are both mature it won't change even if we discuss it till the end of the days.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Despite that everyone can take the code, make a proprietary closed source application under a very restrictive license that forbids me from using it freely? No I can't...
    It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward. If that derived code takes a open or closed path is up to the person that is doing the modifications. If a restriction on it's use is placed you have no guarantee that a person that would otherwise use the code won't simply look for an alternative solution anyways which still does not contribute to the original project. The person doing that patch should have the right to determine what his work is worth and how it is used just as much as the unmodified code.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Can you show me one example where PD has hurt anyone?
    Despite that everyone can take the code, make a proprietary closed source application under a very restrictive license that forbids me from using it freely? No I can't...

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    As long as you consider anarchy and freedom one and the same, then yes they are almost the same shit.
    Can you show me one example where PD has hurt anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Hey, if you want to keep something to yourself then by all means do so. It is you code after all. This can be achieved though GPL or Proprietary licenses (again same shit different pile). If you want to benefit all however you use PD.
    As long as you consider anarchy and freedom one and the same, then yes they are almost the same shit.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    I just got a funny vision while travelling in a bus. What if all software would be judged on originality and if a required degree of originality isn't achieved, it would automatically go to Public Domain since copyrights are only applicable to original pieces of work anyway? (yeah, I was a bit bored)
    End conclusions: most GUI's including Gnome's, KDE's, Apple's and Microsoft's would automatically become Public Domain since they're not really that original.
    Heh alternatively we would all have Xerox systems.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X