[nycbug-talk] lame...real lame Andy
Wed Jan 12 20:47:31 EST 2005
On Jan 12, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Sunny Dubey wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2005 14:13, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> The gpl, IMO, is anti innovation as far as software goes. Explain
>> this to the VC/shareholders:
>> 1: you used a gpled library in your commercial app.
> there was your single biggest mistake.
> if your employees are too stupid to take care of licensing regardless
> of open
> source or closed source, the manager and the employees need to be fired
Sunny, sorry to be curt, but this thread was about an article where
Andy Hertzfield made some ridiculously uninformed statements about how
Apple should use Linux, and generalized how Linux needs to be what
drives all of tech, from a business perspective.
But to take it sideways here, are you advocating above, that anyone
working at a company who pulls GPL code into anything at the company,
should be fired? ;)
>> 2: one of your customers figures it out
>> 3: said customer demands all your code, using a lawyer
>> 4: puts it up on sourceforge, along with his own compiled windows
>> 5: it is your only product and sales have droped off by +90%
> not the GPL's products fault
> did the GPL product visit your home at nite and threatened you with a
> gun if
> you didn't use it ?
Yes. It scared me and I called the cops.
> No, you ********** WILLINGLY *********** chose to use it and now must
> with the consequences of it.
> (May I repeat the key word .... WILLINGLY )
> its like unprotected sex with that random gal/guy at the bar last
> nite. You
> had fun (step 1), and now you've got huge problems (steps 2, 3, 4, and
>> the gpl is designed to destroy the value of software and it does a
>> very good job of doing it.
> Of course! clearly the authors behind Mplayer, GNOME, Pan, Gaim, Gimp,
> etc etc
> etc want to destroy the value of their hard work and labor.
No, but seriously, I've been involved with 3 Open Source projects which
have outright turned the project from GPL to LGPL and BSD Licenced,
insomuch as the initial author made an un-informed choice when they
decided to post their young project under the GPL. No arguments, no
fuss, and no misgivings. By the time they went to actually apply it in
a company or paying project, and bring their creation to a place they
work at all day, the GPL just didn't fly.
The authors simply didn't know any better when they started- but lucky
for them, the projects didn't include any other GPL'ed code to begin
with, so the change was easy. I believe a lot of projects are like
this- hackers, especially young ones, tend to pay attention to the
important stuff- hacking the code- not licensing and property...
> Do not attack the GPL if you ****WILLINGLY**** chose to use software
> under it.
See, Sunny, this is the NYC BSD Users Group, for the most part we're
here because we ****WILLINGLY**** chose to use BSD licensed software.
> That would be like going on NASA's Shuttle to space and complaining
> freeze-dried food (which tastes really really bad BTW).
Sunny, check your head and cop some humble man- GPL software doesn't
run everything, it's not somebody's only choice, by far, and I'd argue
that GPL code couldn't possibly constitute a majority of code in the
whole of Open Source.
I'm not meaning disrespect or flame-bait here, but we're all on this
list today because people ****WILLINGLY**** chose to openly share
source code long before there was any such thing called Open Source.
So please, I know your reading this using one of the various (and very
nice) GPL'd window managers right now, but please remember what much of
the source code of contemporary Linux userland comes from, BSD; freely
distributed to everyone, even free for people to blend up with the GPL.
And just to put this in context, I'll go back to watching a FreeBSD
compile using the GCC- and hoping we're both smiling.
More information about the talk