Originally posted by deanjo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
LLVM Replaces libstdc++ Library With libc++
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by stan View PostI expect Apple will eventually slap a draconian EULA on the compiler suite (think "Can only compile under OS X on Apple-made hardware") and charge an exorbitant amount for it. Plus, they'll make key components of the suite proprietary so that the open source version is worthless by iself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View Postthus slavery
BS, utilizing a BSD license you serve nobody but yourself. If I choose to slap a piece of code out there that everybody can use then all the better. That is my choice and allows others that may not share my same views to still benefit from my code.
I still don't see the issue with that. My code remains free for everyone to use. It just means that I'm not saying "You can only use my code if you have th same set of blinders on". GPL in my eyes is no better then any other license that prohibits "true" free use of the code.
You are is essence enslaving everybody that would want to use that code.
Hey I was the one that got hammered on by mentioning that a person is not limited to the GPL universe.
I wasn't the one that started "OMG the sky falls down if you use a BSD license.". My personal code carries no license at all. It's all PD.
Comment
-
Weeeeee! lol
The BSD license does allow more freedom, the freedom to not be a "slave" by being forced to keep things open.
The GPL enforces being nice in that way, enforcing freedom for downstream users and developers.
Originally posted by Svartalf View PostUnfortunately, there is a reason that many GPLed projects are flourishing and many of the BSD licensed ones are not. If you ponder for a moment why that might be, you might understand things better. You might not wholly agree with the tenets, but there IS something to it all.
What's more fun though is trying to speculate on whether or not software would be further along than it is today had there never been any controlling laws to begin with. I believe it would be, since even if there were more attempts at keeping code closed, leaks of that code would bust everything open and the amount of source code circulating throughout the public would be much more advanced as everything could much more easily be built upon. Money would be generated purely by services and bounties (paid development sprints), what I believe will eventually be the future and most likely have to take place before it is finally realized that licensing laws deprive everyone of a better quality of life due to the needless wasteful money spent in courtrooms that it causes. At least until money itself is abolished.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yfrwlf View PostWeeeeee! lol
The BSD license does allow more freedom, the freedom to not be a "slave" by being forced to keep things open.
And that reason you're beating around the bush about is this: if you have the intention of legally (until licensing laws are abolished) allowing others to use your code, most developers would rather say, "Hey, I'm contributing MY code for YOU to use, so I would like to legally make you contribute YOUR code for ME to use in return as thanks for doing so!"
It's basically like a software bounty, except instead of receiving money for it later on, you receive more time and code by others who wanted to build on your project.
You could say the GPL is more selfish basically because it's more restrictive, but since the restriction enforces/encourages/demands freedom for others, in that way it is the opposite.
Comment
Comment