MS annouces shared source implementation of subset of .NET (C# and CLI) for FreeBSD and Windows
-
I was hoping to read the non-bullshit stuff, but found nothing sensible. IBM, HP, Sun etc profits from GPL stuff. Maybe only MS has intellectual property. > The FSF is actively seeking to make non-GPL'd software extinct, and their goal > is to make all software GPL'd. That should make people scared. Very scared. > That's a political agenda that wishes to ban intellectual property from the > face of the earth. Sounds very childish. Looking up, your free love stuff, which made me feel you are over 50 gives a different picture. Sorry, nobody is seeking to make Windows GPL. I write commercial stuff for the company that is paying me to do so, and make GPL for my own stuff and do not own anybody an apology. Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
It seems to me that everyone is trying to bend the GPL around complete applications. Why would anybody in their right mind want to release the source code for a complete application simply because it uses a single GPL function or library. That's ludicrous, and I dare someone to prove *beyond the shadow of a doubt* that I used a GPL'd function in my compiled EXE. It simply can't be done. I don't mind sharing my code with other programmers because it's code that addresses a micro-problem in my ocean of programming experiences, and I think someone else might benefit from what I did. Do I expect code back in the form of a complete application? No. Do I expect the other person to post an expanded/improved version or superset of what I posted? No, but it would be nice if the person did that unless it contained what he/she considered to be proprietary routines. I think people have lost sight of what "open source" is all about. If any of the code here was GPL'd, nobody would be able to use it in programs they write at work (most likely 80% of all Windows programming done is for work).
-
> IBM, HP, Sun etc profits from GPL stuff. They sell expensive hardware for use with this GPL stuff. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com.pl
Well spotted :) cheers, Chris Maunder
-
It seems to me that everyone is trying to bend the GPL around complete applications. Why would anybody in their right mind want to release the source code for a complete application simply because it uses a single GPL function or library. That's ludicrous, and I dare someone to prove *beyond the shadow of a doubt* that I used a GPL'd function in my compiled EXE. It simply can't be done. I don't mind sharing my code with other programmers because it's code that addresses a micro-problem in my ocean of programming experiences, and I think someone else might benefit from what I did. Do I expect code back in the form of a complete application? No. Do I expect the other person to post an expanded/improved version or superset of what I posted? No, but it would be nice if the person did that unless it contained what he/she considered to be proprietary routines. I think people have lost sight of what "open source" is all about. If any of the code here was GPL'd, nobody would be able to use it in programs they write at work (most likely 80% of all Windows programming done is for work).
Please you are missing the point. There is GPL and LGPL. Libraries are normally released under LGPL, which gives you the right to use them in any type of application without having to give anyone your source codes. I am currently using/considering some LGPL libraries for commercial applications. Most were developed through long research programs, and why the toil now. Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
-
> IBM, HP, Sun etc profits from GPL stuff. They sell expensive hardware for use with this GPL stuff. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com.pl
Who cares? Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
-
> IBM, HP, Sun etc profits from GPL stuff. They sell expensive hardware for use with this GPL stuff. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com.pl
As do the owners of the slashdot site. The companies who work on the GCC compiler are generally CPU manufacturers who need a compiler for their chip so that people can write software for that chip. I don't think they develop it for the common good of mankind. "A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software." - Richard Stallman
-
As do the owners of the slashdot site. The companies who work on the GCC compiler are generally CPU manufacturers who need a compiler for their chip so that people can write software for that chip. I don't think they develop it for the common good of mankind. "A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software." - Richard Stallman
So by helping to develop a compiler which you can use to develop applications, which might run on their hardware, they are evil! You should as well say that commercials and advertisements are evil. Sounds funny. Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
-
Who cares? Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
Just to lighten this discussion before it turns into one of those bloodfests that usually occurs :-) http://fourstones.net/ct20010611.html Michael :-)
-
I was hoping to read the non-bullshit stuff, but found nothing sensible. IBM, HP, Sun etc profits from GPL stuff. Maybe only MS has intellectual property. > The FSF is actively seeking to make non-GPL'd software extinct, and their goal > is to make all software GPL'd. That should make people scared. Very scared. > That's a political agenda that wishes to ban intellectual property from the > face of the earth. Sounds very childish. Looking up, your free love stuff, which made me feel you are over 50 gives a different picture. Sorry, nobody is seeking to make Windows GPL. I write commercial stuff for the company that is paying me to do so, and make GPL for my own stuff and do not own anybody an apology. Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
IBM is only embracing the GPL for the OS, not for their applications. Nor is HP or Sun for that matter. And all of these companies make their profits off of hardware, something an application writer cannot do in most cases. Look at Corel, the only way they could sell WordPerfect for Linux was to bundle a complete OS with it. Is that what you really want? In order to use application Y you must first install their distro, and in order to use app Z you must install their distro. And yes, there are people seeking to make Windows GPL. Richard Stallman, the founder of the FSF states that *ALL* software should be GPL'd, and that he won't rest until that is the case. Did you even read my post? Or did you simply assume what it contained? All this was addressed in the post. No, I'm not 50. And while I might have been a bit over dramatic with the reference to "free love", it was basically to illustrate a point. The fact of the matter is, the GPL *IS* a political agenda. That's not my opinion, that's fact. Richard Stallman has stated that it is in fact a political agenda. You seem to be under the impression that it's not, which just illustrates my point that most of the GPL's advocates don't truly understand what it is they're advocating. I like free software. I love it. That's why I like the licenses such as the BSD license, or the X license, or the Apache license. All very good stuff, and none of those licenses have hindered those projects ability to create and extend their code, and lots of people DO contribute back to those projects. The GPL is a political agenda masquerading as "good will". It's not good will, it's simply another form of imposing your will on others.
-
Please you are missing the point. There is GPL and LGPL. Libraries are normally released under LGPL, which gives you the right to use them in any type of application without having to give anyone your source codes. I am currently using/considering some LGPL libraries for commercial applications. Most were developed through long research programs, and why the toil now. Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
LGPL is great, but there are restrictions that many people don't realize. For instance, nobody can statically link LGPL libraries to closed source, nor use LGPL code that inlines anything in the headers. The requirement of releasing something linked with LGPL is that anyone must be able to relink the application with a modified version of the LGPL code. This is fine and simple as long as all the LGPL stuff is in a .dll or .so, but people do need to be aware of the implications.
-
I'm sorry, but I find this attitude to be completely hypocritical and bullshit. I hear it a lot from GPL advocates. On one hand, they wax poetic about free software and being able to do whatever we want with it. Sort of like "free love" in the 60's. But the moment someone over 30 (er.. I mean a commercial software company) wants to use that "free code" then it's "well, we meant everyone but you". The very concept of telling me what I have to do with MY code is ludicrous. You are giving your code to the world, and lots of people will appreciate that and give code back to you. But saying "I'll only give you my code if you give me code back" is as free as saying "I'll let you live outside the prison if you send your children to live behind our bars". Either it's free or it's not, you can't dictate how it's used if it's free, otherwise it's not. That's not to say that you don't have a right to dictate the terms of the use of your code, but please, don't insult our intelligence by calling it "free" when you do. The typical response is "You're free to choose not to use it". Which would be the same as requiring you to pay to cross or use the street. You're free not to do it, but you'll only have a one block radius that you can move around in, and you'll eventually starve unless there happens to be a grocery store on your block. The FSF is actively seeking to make non-GPL'd software extinct, and their goal is to make all software GPL'd. That should make people scared. Very scared. That's a political agenda that wishes to ban intellectual property from the face of the earth. (don't believe me? Read Why Software Should Not Have Owners by the Free Software Foundation (creators of the GPL). Luckily, Much like communism, I don't believe that "free software" can withstand a capitalistic marketplace, but it can certainly do a lot of damage in the mean time. Very few people that espouse the GPL really TRULY understand it, nor do they know the motivations and political agenda put forth by the GPL's creators. Most people view it as simply "no cost code" and never bother to read the license or understand the repurcussions. Eventually, this will bite people in the ass and they'll wake up. The scientific communtiy has existed for centuries without requiring that everyone publish their derived works. Many do for various reasons, but its not a requirement. I think software will work the same way.
Couldn't agree with you more, Erik. I've spent the last 2.5 years working all my spare time and weekends and holidays to create a product that if I succeed means I won't have to worry about my RSI for the rest of my life. Damned if I'm going to give it away. If I'd spent that time building a car or a house instead of software, no one would be demanding I give the house or car away. Oh, and the for the open source LInux people, I've been a Linux user since 1994... Slackware if you must know, Red Hat at the moment. Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
-
As do the owners of the slashdot site. The companies who work on the GCC compiler are generally CPU manufacturers who need a compiler for their chip so that people can write software for that chip. I don't think they develop it for the common good of mankind. "A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software." - Richard Stallman
Well, actually, not anymore. VA Linux, the owners of OSDN (a bit of a misnomer as it is a pale shadow of MSDN), are getting out of the hardware business. Now what was the company valuation after it IPO'd - and now its getting out of the business that those shareholders invested in. Great value opportunity I'm sure. Of course ESR and those that made a small fortune out of this "we'll give our stuff away and still be millionaires" smokescreen, why should they care? I'm just glad I managed to persuade my Father not to invest in the Linux stocks. Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
