[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 23:57:10 +0200
>> OpenCM is currently forced to be released under the GPL because it
>> incorporates some GPL code (the gdiff library). However, its
>> authors dislike the GPL because they claim it does not adequately
>> protect patent rights. They are actively working to remove the GPL
>> code, after which then intend releasing OpenCM under the IBM Common
>> Public Licence (which is also an OSI-approved open source licence).
> It also links with OpenSSL, which is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
All this licensing stuff drives me crazy. With all this OpenSource
stuff, licensing is a _problem_ as has never been before.
My favourite license is actually the BSD one but I admit that we live in
a world that don't have enough Good Common Sense to support it. So we
fight licensing stuff with even-more-perverse licensing stuff (GPL). Of
course, actually I'm releasing almost everything under LGPL, which seems
an adeguate compromise to me.
The need of copywrong headers in source files (IMHO actually bloating
the code) _really_ irritates me. The next step will be copyright dates
around source statements like /* (c) 2003 by me */ 1 + 1 /* end */ = 2
Don't know [speaking randomly here]... I have a couple of personal ideas
about OpenSource in general (going reeeally OT here...):
I see a _strange_ interest in opensource from big companies like IBM. In
particular directed to linux. Why? IMHO, because hardware vendors have
absolutely nothing to lose in dropping theyr operating systems and/or
compilers. With a very small team of developers contibuting to linux, an
hardware vendor can actually DROP the R&D department dedicated to the
operating system and compilers. May the "Let the users do
everything(tm)" motto become popular in the future? This makes me think
things like 'Is this really a >good< thing?'..
OBVIOUSLY, I'm _absolutely_certain_ that the IBM plan consists of making
even more money. So, where's the deal? Cutting down R&D stuff and
selling more hardware instead?
Looking forward... it's pretty clear to me that opensource has serious
advantages for hardware vendors, but may knock out small companies. The
world is full of bastards that don't pay for things that they can get
for "free". The world is also full of people that say "Umm, I really
want to support this thing, but today I want this neat mp3 player...
maybe tomorrow". Bastarts at power two? Just look at the politics
stuff to get a concrete example of how far the thing can go..
I actually think of two mayor scenarios:
- The economy changes and the "source code" becomes like math (free in
every sense). People gets payed for theyr day-to-day assistance.
Apparently, that's how OSS should work. Is this working? Red Hat is
here, so apparently it CAN work even without changing the economy.
IMHO, souch a radical change may necessarely consist of an economy
model change.. but I'm not an economist.
- Maybe opensource is arrived too late here.. we saw it already: web
services of any kind.
That is. You don't even _need_ the source. For any reason. You pay for
something, or look those flashing banners. You pay the bandwidth (ISN'T
FREE), and you ALSO pay the service. Ah... We closed the circle: If you
don't pay, you don't have any service.
Tecnology regressions every day (the sentence "I must be getting old")
makes me feel _strange_ recently. I see people that don't even know what
a MUA _IS_. PHP boards are INVADING the net (uurgh), google groups used
to completely replace a news client - heh, some of my colleague don't
even know what NNTP is. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING! (sigh... I DO work for
one of these companies...).
And what happens to the real research? Admittedly, I hate Intel for
invading and crushing other vendors to the edge, actually killing many
GOOD alternatives, like Alpha. Now that they got something _really_ new
(Ia64&co), they're in a risky condition, loosing market, reducing
themselves to the server side, leaving the crappy AMD to lead the
market. The funny thing is that an important voice like Linus can
actually _condition_ the future because of it's very own opinitions. I
don't love Intel, but I see it's condition reversed for reasons that
(again, IMHO) shouldn't. It's "funny", it's just make me thinks..
Heh, it's a money deal afterall. Like always... The problem is: I _DO_
work for my pleasure even without it (in fact, I do have financial
problems for that reason). For every person that belives in what he's
doing, there are a dozen that wants only the side effect: MONEY.
And sorry for the bad english (I get even worse when I discuss about
non-tecnical things). Please correct me...
'(wave++ "Yuri D'Elia" "http://www.yuv.info/")
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] DARCS, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Miles Bader, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Miles Bader, 2003/09/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Zack Brown, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM,
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Colin Walters, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Shlomi Fish, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Zack Brown, 2003/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Zack Brown, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Tom Lord, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] DARCS, Tom Lord, 2003/09/06