Nickname: JC

Review: To MCRocker: Well said. A lot of people seem to have the perspective that software was invented around 1990.

Date reviewed: Nov 4, 2006 7:26 AM

Nickname: JohnJ

Review: The article states: "Many large open-source companies don't use the GPL, or use it along with other licenses, for some of the most high-profile programs. These include Mozilla, which makes the Firefox browser..." Whatever licensing scheme Mozilla is using works for me. It's hard to argue with a superior product at no charge to the customer.

Date reviewed: Sep 10, 2006 2:55 PM

Nickname: Mrrm

Review: "It's more about the development of the society and less about the software license." You bet. It made me think right away of Douglas Engelbart, who invented the Windows system (Aristoteles did it, but there was not too much of chips around in those days), the mouse, the e-mail, the GUI, the videoconference and so on in order for us all to have workable computers in the first place. He went on to give away all of these little items to humanity. Most of all, Doug explained that these inventions were consequences of a piece of brilliant paralell thinking: the goal was and is to augment the human intellect. Linux can have it both ways, cause free means exactly that. If the Linux crowd can set the same goal as Doug did, than this fuss is nothing more than growth pains. Let's drag and drop 'em. MMartins-Portugal (GNU translation into portuguese volunteer)

Date reviewed: Sep 6, 2006 2:17 PM

Nickname: godie

Review: It's a matter of a business decision. Basically I would develop a close source product to offset the cost of my R&D, especially the cost of human resources required (it costs alot to provide proper education/training these days). But if these costs can be reduced like by free education (truly free, not the 'crippled' quality of education you get from public institution) then information can flow freely and advance faster. Finally we can concentrate and monetize on the distribution of technology rather than the creation of it which is IMHO the best way to advance open source.

Date reviewed: Sep 1, 2006 5:54 PM

Nickname: Keybounce

Review: The comment about TiVo makes me think. There are two questions: 1. Can the TiVo software run on any hardware? 2. Can other software run on the TiVo hardware? Hidden is the question: Is the DRM test in the TiVo hardware part of the software of the system? And if it is, can you have both GPL code and non-GPL code on the same box? The DRM hardware is code. No question. It has a clear boundary. Code on one side is GPL, code on the other side is not. Does mixing the two make GPL'd code viral? The concern of "You can use this code with your other code, without turning everything into GPL code" gave us the LGPL. Do we need to look at "hardware code" in terms of that?

Date reviewed: Aug 23, 2006 11:12 PM

Nickname: Mark

Review: To R.W.: I see your point about interoperability, but insisting that all software be open source would take away the profit incentive of some companies, and so their unique contribution to the marketplace would no longer exist. It seems to me you're forgetting that. You're saying "If everyone would do it the way I like it then everything would be okay." That's way too simplistic.

Date reviewed: Aug 23, 2006 11:12 PM

Nickname: Mark

Review: To Jay, Re: SQLite's license: With the exception of software written/maintained by the GNU Foundation, this is the way open source software used to be licensed before Linux became all the rage. It was commonly called Public Domain or "PD". To Lee Chen: The Founders of the U.S.A. were not theoreticians. They were idealists and pragmatists. It's a common misconception, but they did not found a democracy, but rather a republic with democratic processes. There's a difference. As to your other comment, I've heard about open source projects that are just as exploitative, as far as the workers are concerned, as are those of major corporations. For example, there are U.S.-based interests using open source developers in South America, who are paid a fraction of what developers in the U.S. make.

Date reviewed: Aug 23, 2006 11:10 PM

Nickname: Peter Rock

Review: Lacy says: "But the impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software." The wording by the author sends the wrong message. Free software advocates are not put off by any impetus to make profit. In fact, the commercialization of free software is extremely important. The question is how--not if--a profit is made. The "associated compromises" is interestingly put in parenthesis as if they are the secondary issue. They are the only issue. Freedom is what is important. As long as there is freedom, making money is perfectly acceptable. Making money by taking away another's freedom (which TPM/DRM backed by the DMCA enables) is not acceptable.

Date reviewed: Aug 23, 2006 3:26 PM

Nickname: pontke

Review: I am a supporter of free software and open source. I use Linux exclusively at home. However, it saddens me when I see more hostility on Linux forums than most others. A person gets flamed if they choose to use the GUI instead of the command-line. A person gets flamed if they want something to look like Windows for their family or friends. Or if someone chooses to buy a proprietary software because they could not find a free alternative that satisfies their needs. For Linux to ever succeed at the desktop, users should be allowed to mix free with proprietary to make the environment most comfortable for them. I agree that the GPL license should prevent companies from "stealing" and profiting from open code by closing it. However, we must be careful not to forbid any company from keeping trade secrets where it makes sense because they will just focus their efforts elsewhere like MS Windows. For example, hardware drivers.

Date reviewed: Aug 22, 2006 9:06 PM

Nickname: bigernelvis

Review: First of all, software is intellectual property. It is written utilizing various "languages" to create tools to perform general or specific tasks. These creative works should be able to be simply protected by copyright law. The authors should be able to profit from their works. Patent law generally applies to tangible things. If it is applied to "written" works, it produces a confusion of interpretations trying to fit around the "intangible." Software cteated to provide an operating environment (OS) should be made freeware that is provided with or embedded in the hardware that allows users to apply software tools that they purchase and use for productive tasks. We don't need "new" law. We have enough law. What we need is straightforward application and enforcement.

Date reviewed: Aug 22, 2006 7:18 PM