no, i havent read the GPL. The first software i released was on CPAN
- for license i just put 'same as perl'. Later, for my sf projects i
chose GPL because it was the first choice on the sf list.
So is not 'F' the first character of FOSS? And dont you use NRC-FOSS as your signature? If you have not read/understood the GPL then that 'F' does not make any sense to you. Before going any further, let me tell you such behaviour will severely reduce your credibility.
people who write FOSS code are too busy to bother themselves with the complexities and nit picking of the GPL and prefer a less obtrusive license which allows them to concentrate on what they do best - producing code. So I will probably be shifting my projects to a BSD style license in the near future.
Ah. Brilliant. Concentrate on what they do best? Why dont you go to Microsoft. They have projects in Sourceforge, and the best thing is they will give you one laptop and a desktop (the very best ones) plus a fat paycheck. That will ensure you can keep concentrating on your code, and reap the benefits (point 13 of BG's mail).
Write code for Microsoft or Apple?
a suprising amount of foss code *is* written for those platforms - see the top 20 on sourceforge
Thats what. Microsoft IS the place for you. By the way Microsoft took its TCP/IP stack code from a BSD-style license only.
Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS lawgon@au-kbc.org http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
NRC-FOSS, eh?
Cheers, Debarshi
Quoting Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray debarshi.ray@gmail.com:
no, i havent read the GPL. The first software i released was on CPAN
- for license i just put 'same as perl'. Later, for my sf projects i
chose GPL because it was the first choice on the sf list.
So is not 'F' the first character of FOSS? And dont you use NRC-FOSS as your signature? If you have not read/understood the GPL then that 'F' does not make any sense to you. Before going any further, let me tell you such behaviour will severely reduce your credibility.
you mean postgresql, apache, subversion, zope, python are all not FOSS? So what happens to your credibility - you work on python/zope/subversion.
kg
From discussion on the arrival of RMS to people who dont know RMS to mail
servers to GPL to speculation of oss success to origins ..... phew ... i learnt a lot trying to find out where and when RMS is comming .... he he ... totally tripped out man ... what r u guys on ....
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 04:12 pm, Steven Joseph wrote:
From discussion on the arrival of RMS to people who dont know RMS to mail
servers to GPL to speculation of oss success to origins ..... phew ... i learnt a lot trying to find out where and when RMS is comming .... he he ... totally tripped out man ... what r u guys on ....
GNU. A few are on BSD.
Sometime on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:12:01PM +0530, Steven Joseph said:
From discussion on the arrival of RMS to people who dont know RMS to mail servers to GPL to speculation of oss success to origins ..... phew ... i learnt a lot trying to find out where and when RMS is comming .... he he ... totally tripped out man ... what r u guys on ....
Steven, leave this thread as it is :-) I'll post an announce later with date, time and venue of the public lecture.
Anurag
On 16/08/06 08:43 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote: <snip>
Thats what. Microsoft IS the place for you. By the way Microsoft took its TCP/IP stack code from a BSD-style license only.
The goal of the BSD license is to promote the development of useful software. How it is used and what benefits the end users gain (or lose) are not relevant to the programmers who want to contribute code under this license.
If I want to see my software widely used and don't care about the fact that the end user may not be able to modify it, I would choose the BSD license.
The GPL, OTOH, is intended to keep software modifiable by the end user.
If I want to keep software modifiable by the end user, even if most of my users will never do that, I would use the GPL.
This is the primary philosophical difference between the two licenses.
BSD license fans were happy to see their code being reused by MSFT. They point out that this is a strength of the BSD license. GPL license fans will point out that all of Microsoft's changes weren't made available back to the BSD community and claim that this is a weakness.
BSD is a gift to the programming community, GPL is a gift to the second generation onwards of programmers and users.
You may notice that almost all the FOSS used on Windows is because it is free as in beer, not free as in speech. A lot of people care only about getting work done now, since freedom of speech may mean financial survival.
Devdas Bhagat
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 12:53, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
BSD license fans were happy to see their code being reused by MSFT. They point out that this is a strength of the BSD license. GPL license fans will point out that all of Microsoft's changes weren't made available back to the BSD community and claim that this is a weakness.
BSD license is kinda short sighted. The community grows and benefits when everybody contributes BACK to the community. What did MSFT contribute to the BSD community? They just leeched! :/
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
BSD license is kinda short sighted. The community grows and benefits when everybody contributes BACK to the community. What did MSFT
Tell that to the large BSD community.
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:45, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
BSD license is kinda short sighted. The community grows and benefits when everybody contributes BACK to the community. What did MSFT
Tell that to the large BSD community.
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior code / technology thats used by the masses. Look at M$ Windoze :). By far and large Linux is much well known, is more widely used and has a larger community.
On 8/17/06, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior code / technology thats used by the masses. Look at M$ Windoze :). By far and large Linux is much well known, is more widely used and has a larger community.
BSD is fairly well known in technical circles. BSD had the first TCP/IP network stack. It was the first free Unix to be widely available for commercial use.OpenBSD is very well known in the security community. NetBSD is used on a lot of embedded systems. FreeBSD is also very widely for hosting sites and still is.
Some of the systems and paradigms you take from granted in the Linux world were conceptualised and implemented in BSD first. (e.g package managemnet systems such as portage)
-- Vinayak
PS. This is degenerating into a BSD versus GPL. and Linux Vs BSD thread. Both have a place in the FOSS world. Debating won't take it anywhere.
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:48 pm, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
PS. This is degenerating into a BSD versus GPL. and Linux Vs BSD thread. Both have a place in the FOSS world. Debating won't take it anywhere.
I did not see anybody denigrate either. It's just a discussion on the licence and the pros and cons. As u said all types have a reason to exist - they would not if nature did not have a reason.
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior
Marketing.
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 17:56, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior
Marketing.
Well there you go. Marketing killed the amiga, clearly a superior product, ahead of its time. Much better than the Macs or IBM PCs. Marketing will kill BSD if they dont do anything about it ;).
On Thursday 17 August 2006 06:55 am, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 17:56, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior
Marketing.
Well there you go. Marketing killed the amiga, clearly a superior product, ahead of its time.
Intepreted basic ran faster on Amiga than assembly on the PC ! It's not merely marketing - according to an ancient BYTE review. Innumerable factors contribute to the success / failure of a product. Much as managments would like u to belive that it was their magic mantra that made a success, most of the time it's just a fortuios set of circumstances that make it so. Acorn computers plonked into their corner of the circumstances mud pool and is florushing beyond anybody's wildest dreams in the form of the ARM and thanks in no small measure to GNU and Linux. No Acorn did not dream up set top boxes or pdas or cell phones or POS or smartcards or gps or RDX sniffers.
Quoting Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:45, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
BSD license is kinda short sighted. The community grows and benefits when everybody contributes BACK to the community. What did MSFT
Tell that to the large BSD community.
Umm...not to belittle BSD community but BSD isn't not exactly known widely, is it? Sure, they have great stuff but its not always superior code / technology thats used by the masses. Look at M$ Windoze :). By far and large Linux is much well known, is more widely used and has a larger community.
well as mentioned before, python, apache, postgresql, subversion, lighttpd, zope among others are all under bsd style licenses - also fairly well known.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/2006 01:18 AM, Dinesh Joshi cobbled together some glyphs to say:
BSD license fans were happy to see their code being reused by MSFT. They point out that this is a strength of the BSD license. GPL license fans will point out that all of Microsoft's changes weren't made available back to the BSD community and claim that this is a weakness.
BSD license is kinda short sighted. The community grows and benefits when everybody contributes BACK to the community. What did MSFT contribute to the BSD community? They just leeched! :/
Well, but ironically the BSD people don't agree on this ... they just cry, beg for money and blame people for not giving back [1]. Technically they are one of the best in the world, but they are wrong in expecting that people would give back for something which is essentially thrown into the public domain. This is something which the GPL cures. On the other hand, BSD licenses may good for proof-of-concept stuff or some standard which you want to be accepted quickly. Regards, BG
[1] http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/239/1/
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
Quoting Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com:
This is something which the GPL cures. On the other hand, BSD licenses may good for proof-of-concept stuff or some standard which you want to be accepted quickly.
huh? even your favourite programming language has shifted from GPL to a bsd style language (unless you forked version 3 and are using that)
Quoting lawgon@au-kbc.org:
Quoting Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com:
This is something which the GPL cures. On the other hand, BSD licenses may good for proof-of-concept stuff or some standard which you want to be accepted quickly.
huh? even your favourite programming language has shifted from GPL to a bsd style language (unless you forked version 3 and are using that)
s/license/language/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/2006 08:17 AM, lawgon@au-kbc.org cobbled together some glyphs to say:
This is something which the GPL cures. On the other hand, BSD licenses may good for proof-of-concept stuff or some standard which you want to be accepted quickly.
huh? even your favourite programming language has shifted from GPL to a bsd style language (unless you forked version 3 and are using that)
BSD Style, yes. But it being GPL compatible, I am perfectly happy with it. BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
Quoting Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:
The goal of the BSD license is to promote the development of useful software. How it is used and what benefits the end users gain (or lose) are not relevant to the programmers who want to contribute code under this license.
If I want to see my software widely used and don't care about the fact that the end user may not be able to modify it, I would choose the BSD license.
are you sure bsd-style licenses forbid enduser modification? Most of the internet is down for me, so i couldnt verify this
Sometime on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:58:13PM -0700, lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
If I want to see my software widely used and don't care about the fact that the end user may not be able to modify it, I would choose the BSD license.
are you sure bsd-style licenses forbid enduser modification? Most of the internet is down for me, so i couldnt verify this
It is not modifiable onces it is incorporated into proprietary product, which is what end user may get most of the times.
Anurag
On 17-Aug-06, at 11:30 AM, Anurag wrote:
If I want to see my software widely used and don't care about the fact that the end user may not be able to modify it, I would choose the BSD license.
are you sure bsd-style licenses forbid enduser modification? Most of the internet is down for me, so i couldnt verify this
It is not modifiable onces it is incorporated into proprietary product, which is what end user may get most of the times.
once it gets into a proprietory product, that product is no longer under a bsd style license, but the main branch is still available and modifiable
Sometime on Aug 17, A cobbled together some glyphs to say:
It is not modifiable onces it is incorporated into proprietary product, which is what end user may get most of the times.
Ah, but that's not a problem with the licence. The licence makes it possible for users to use the code whether it's in an open or proprietary product. It's up to these users to vote for their choice of openness by choosing not to use the proprietary solution.
If the user doesn't know any better, it isn't because of the licence.
-
Anurag -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
lawgon＠au-kbc.org
-
Philip Tellis -
Steven Joseph -
Vinayak Hegde