Board index » kylix » Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

2003-08-13 01:24:37 AM
kylix2
JQP wrote:
Source" way.
Remember that *eveyone*, including MS, copied TCP/IP from Unix.
Ok. MS version was from FreeBSD. <g>
Rosimildo.
 

"Rosimildo da Silva" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
that uses the Internet would have to publish it's source code.
 

"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Subtract the GNU {*word*99} ... er, uh stuff and you're left with "public domain"
which existed long before the GPL or the phrase "Open Source".
The internet protocols were mostly developed as government funded "public
domain" projects and are truly "free" as in free beer, free speech and free
of socio-political agendas.
 

{smallsort}

RZ>Commercial companies can hire/buy scientists (ehi, you don't think
RZ>MS employees are "scientst", don't you? <g>) using money.
RZ>The more money they have, the more innovative they can be.
Yes. As we all know money - representation of resources. You can convert
money into resource or production. If commercial company buy something
pretty good for use instead of develop it internally, i don't see anything
bad.
RZ>Microsoft surely has a lot of money, but evidently they are not used
RZ>the right way.
I think MS better know how use their money.
RZ>Anyway, I think this is OT in this thread.
MS can't be so stupid.
 

E>Yes. As we all know money - representation of resources. You can
E>convert money into resource or production. If commercial company buy
^^^^^^^^ - research, sorry.
 

JQP wrote:
license. AFAIK there are other licenses used in open-source projects
wich don't require open-sourcing derivative works.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

JQP wrote:
Open source is essentially "open source" =>source code can be freely
distributed.
Don't be so tied to the GNU ideology (now I understand why you referred
to community/communal property etc... :-)
There's not only GNU out there in the "open-source space" :-)
term to call them).
And they were innovative at their time.
So open-source projects were at least once innovative.
Ok, thank you for your kind confirmation ;-)
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Ender wrote:
I'm reading something about a particular kind of data (image)
compression, well it has theoretical bases dated around 1890~1910, then
nothing for about 70 years. I think this has to do with the "rule N.1"
of engineers that you clearly posted at the end of your message,
basically there was no need/possibility to translate theory into usable
products. But what's interesting is that once the time has been mature
enough, theoretical researches are boosted by consequence of the
engineering needs. In all this activity, spread in a long time, it's
very difficult to find a narrow spot where innovation is concentrated...
I was thinking about all this when this thread came up :-)
interpretation of the word "innovation" :-)
If we are stuck with the restrictive interpretation of "something new,
never seen before", I doubt that we can find something innovative in all
the engineering works ever done. That's because they are (nearly) always
applications of theoretical works, so eventually only the original
theoretical works can be considered innovations.
That's why I think this interpretation is sterile.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:31:05 -0400, JQP wrote:
So in your interpretation code licensed under MPL is not "open source"? Or
one of the other zillions of licenses that are used?
johannes
--
 

"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
gray between "public domain" and "Open Source". Most lean one way or the
other.
The MPL implements enough GNU characteristics to qualify as OS.
On the other hand, the LGPL pays lip service to GNU but is "quite different
from the ordinary GPL". In a practical sense, LGPL is "public domain"
spelled out using a lot more words<g>. As might be expected, this doesn't
make RMS very happy.
 

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
--
Iman
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:39:54 -0400, JQP wrote:
There's no way LGPL is even close to PD, or even the BSD license.
johannes
 

JQP wrote:
view of the public domain/open source/<whatever you want to call it>world.
There are many developers who are involved in OS projects. Are all these
just mad, or communists, or whatever seems to terrorize you?
No, I don't think so.
like this :-P ), despite of your personal creed.
Remember: nothing is destroyed, all is changed. That's a rule of phisics.
If time will prove that OS development is not suitable for whatever
reason, we will change accordingly. Maybe RMS will not be so happy, but
who cares? <g>
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

JQP wrote:
"open source" is just another way to say "public domain". It just
indicates that source code is in the public domain (giving credit to the
author[s]).
You just give "open source" a wrong legacy to the GNU project.
Indeed, projects under the GPL license are only a part of all the open
source projects alive.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:08:02 +0200, Roal Zanazzi wrote:
Lets say I have a piece of code that is very interesting to a lot of
Delphi developers. Now if I open source it under the MPL, then you may not
distribute a modified version without sending me back modifications.
If OTOH I make it public domain, you may do that.
Both would be referred to as open source.
johannes