is it someone who would rather use something other than windows

is it someone who reaps a profit from others work that thay havent paid for (like Apple using free BSD for there O/S )

is it someone who find's that free software dose what thay need software to do

so just who are these free loaders that so meany of you are pissed off at ?
Posted on 2004-12-21 12:57:14 by rob.rice
Define:Freeloader

is it someone who would rather use something other than windows


like what? Mac? PS2? N64? Gamecube?

is it someone who reaps a profit from others work that thay havent paid for (like Apple using free BSD for there O/S )


hrm, if it's in accordance with the license I don't see anything wrong with it ;)

is it someone who find's that free software dose what thay need software to do


Freeware on Windows is an alternative I always consider before going out and paying for something else.

so just who are these free loaders that so meany of you are pissed off at ?


A freeloader is for example someone who uses shareware but didn't pay for it. Also it might be someone who invites itself for dinner, or doesn't flush the toilet.. There are many interpretations.
Posted on 2004-12-21 15:06:30 by JimmyClif
Posted on 2004-12-21 15:07:35 by Mirno
Just on point 2, well thats exactly whats so great about the BSD licence and indeed the attitude of the developers. All they want to do is make a great os, if someone else uses it, even to make themselves rich, they see it as a compliment to them.

After all simply taking free software is no way to make money, you have to improve it in some way if you hope to be able to sell it. (Either that or pump loads into advertising I suppose :) )
Posted on 2004-12-21 18:10:02 by Eóin
E?in,

That is why I prefer BSD license to GNU license. :-D
Posted on 2004-12-22 00:06:51 by roticv
is it someone who would rather use something other than windows

is it someone who reaps a profit from others work that thay havent paid for (like Apple using free BSD for there O/S )

is it someone who find's that free software dose what thay need software to do

so just who are these free loaders that so meany of you are pissed off at ?


The thing about most zealots is a persecution complex,this is true with Linux people as well. If a Linux user attacks Microsoft Windows and details all of the problems with it, they expect Windows users to sit back and agree with them. Otherwise they will continue to point out how completely Linux blows Windows away in everything conceivable up to and including making your toast in the morning. However, if someone points out that Linux is as close to insignificant as it can possibly be at only 3 or 4 percent of the market, then obviously they have it out for Linux users and must be hateful and definitely don't know what they're talking about. Linux is good server software, no doubt about that, but it is not yet a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop. If you are assuming that any attack on Linux or it's community is a personal attack and you take offense then you should consider Windows users in the same light when you spam the board with how much Windows sucks and Linux is great. Either that or just have a good time poking fun at the "competition" like I do.

As for "GPL"or the "Great Programming Lie", I am about as anti-GPL as anyone can possibly be. It is a stain in the programming world that is stiffling innovation by destroying the market with it's infectious liscense. I take great pains to make sure that I never use or even look at GPL code as I do not wish to infect my work with that junk. BSD is a much better alternative as it allows for commercial enhancement of the opensource code while still promoting source sharing. The problem with GPL is it only helps companies like Sun and IBM who have all the lawyers they need to protect their intellectual property from being infected, the little guy has to sell the farm to use it. At least it has allowed IBM to lay off programmers though, because now much of the groundwork they were paying them for is done for free while they still don't release any source from their own research.
Posted on 2004-12-22 01:32:21 by donkey
I take great pains to make sure that I never use or even look at GPL code as I do not wish to infect my work with that junk.


You can look at the GPL code and if you whant and can ;) you can rewrite it from scratch,here are some quotes ;).

Don't worry, copyright does not protect ideas, it just stops you from
copying the code
I will add that in the case of GPL to reuse the programm that have a source code :).

Software is just the same, copyright stops you copying a book, and
the same prevention applies to software. So feel free to read the
GCC code and borrow its ideas freely.


I have sayed that the diference is that with GPL and a book, is that in the book the knowledge aquired you can use elsewhere, without need to say where you aquire the knowledge and GPL dont let you do that, I was a little bad in that way, because like he say, is protected by copyright equal than a book, then I can read the source code equally like I reada book and use what I learn from there, equally that I can use the knowledge aquired from X book.

The point is that I can not modificate a little part of the book/source. But I can make my own :). They have spended 10 years from version 1 to 4 in the GCC and have some gret ideas, retargetting and other things is a nice source, dont know for example how is MS compilers done, but hey, we have some GPL sources out there (GCC, OpenWatcom), yes, some ones are a real crap, but others one are a real gem.


By the way, dont go to GCC to discuss license things like I have doit before, they say me for that exist: gnu.misc.discuss


Dont be afraid to read GPL code, you can read equally that you read a book and use the knowledge aquired there, equally that you can use the knowledge of what you learn from a book. GPL is more directed at redistribution of modifications or use like a base or part of other work.



By the way, also one the answer me, that if I whant to distribute a derived work, I always can ask the author if he can give me another license ;).

If you don't want to make your work available under the GPL, then you
can either avoid distributing it, or you can see if the author of the
original work will provide some other kind of licensing rights.
Posted on 2004-12-22 10:34:24 by rea
Hi rea,

That is wrong, for someone in the US or where-ever to make a blanket interpretation of how Copyright laws are enforced and the degree to which they are effective in another country shows how deceitful the GPL community is. You cannot just use the idea and write code from scratch, the Microsoft vs Apple case put an end to that for all time. A copyright does not only extend to the literal written work but can also extend to the idea or method use to acheive the result. For example if I wrote a book about a girl called Dorothy who went to Oz I would be in violation of the copyright even if the book was different.

Another issue is the use of compiled GPL libraries, for example a DLL, does it infect any code that calls it. The liscense is not clear on this point. The liscense is purposely blurred and obfuscated in order to allow the widest possible interpretation. Indeed that is it's strength and the reason it has never been successfully challenged, although no one has made a great effort as the quality of GPL software is generally sadly lacking.

I prefer to give my software away with or without source for free, and with no strings attached except that you cannot hide the fact that I wrote it. That is a fair liscense and not one that either stiffles the market or creativity. Certainly I would not use a liscense invented by a person who only did it to deny a university much needed research funds.
Posted on 2004-12-22 18:35:24 by donkey
Then you are saying me that copyright hold too the idea?? you are talking here about copyright and not GPL :), then a copyright is the same than a patent, because you can not use the idea????.

Then if I read a book that is protected too by the copyright, and then I use what I have learned there a idea, the autor of the book can demand me because I have using his idea?

By the way, if you copy the names of OZ and dorotie then you are copying them not?, but I have watched some things out there using such names, in a diferent way :), I can write a novel about a guy called Oz that know dorotie :).

In my feel, I think that you are talking about copyright in the first paragraph (and also look almost like a patent is), in the next (the one about DLL) you are talking about GPL, also I agree some way, I ahve questioned some things, specially clausule 6 and run any GPL program under Windows, that make Windows violate GPL :) and in some way contradicts the license ;).

Don't worry, copyright does not protect ideas, it just stops you from
copying the code

Software is just the same, copyright stops you copying a book, and
the same prevention applies to software. So feel free to read the
GCC code and borrow its ideas freely.

Patents are quite another matter (and definitely far off topic!)
But you don't have to worry about patents either when reading the
gcc code (or at least not much, no one can fully defend against the
more egregious effects of patents -- after all if you thought up an
idea yourself, you could still be running afoul of patents, but you
can never accidentally violate a copyright by independent creation).
Posted on 2004-12-22 21:42:40 by rea
I have this wonderful striped sweater - the kind most people laugh at. :lol: I've been gifted a sweater as an act to replace it - as if people thought I wore it because I couldn't afford a 'common' sweater.

What is a software feature verses a bug? That is the beauty in not writing a manual - once you define it someone points to something outside the definition. :)

First we must ask what the job is and by this I mean all the associated parameters of the job. If there is a tool that satisfies those parameters then the job can be done. If there are multiple tools that meet the parameters we will invariably add additional metrics and itterate. This is only limited by time if the job has a sense of completion within it's definition.

Multiple jobs - the process is the same.

Future jobs - can't predict the future.

Job experience - hidden parameters projected on current job. :lol:
Posted on 2004-12-22 22:38:17 by bitRAKE
:?
Posted on 2004-12-23 08:02:58 by Eóin
rea, in many countries, including the US the 'new' program would be deemed to be 'derivative' and it would be subject to clauses such as the GPL.

So if you read the book "Killer Crocodiles from Mars" and you'd write "Killer Crocodiles from Venus" afterwards, then yes, it could be called derivative and you could get into all sorts of legal issues.

Afaik you can't actually patent an idea, that's just the travesty software patents have become but you originally weren't supposed to be able to patent an idea, only an implementation. (the actual method of doing something)
Posted on 2004-12-23 17:34:34 by Hiroshimator
Still dosent understand....

Copyright http://www.copyright.gov/ the holder can do or permit: To reproduce, to prepare derivative works, To distribute copies or phonorecords, To perform the work publicly, To display the copyrighted work publicly, In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

What is not protected by copyright
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

I think I must first understand copyright for understand GPL :).

Then I say that a book that is copyrigted, for example Windows Programming, I read it, now I have acquired some concepts, ideas and procedures (Windows loops, messages), now I will do a x programm and I doit based in what I learn there, then like I understand copyright, the holder can come and say me "hey you cant use what you have learned there...", for what I say this??? (a derivation like I understand is some like: 3+3 => 1+1+2*2 => 6 => six => 3+3 => ?????? => seis => VI => add infinitum ;)), supose now I read a source code of X programm, then I get some ideas, concepts and I cannot use them, because they are protected by copyright... ??



The point here is that all can be a derivation...., even if you write a article like how poor is X source code (for example comments about a movie are a derivation of the movie....), is a derivation if you take all the complete meaning of a derivation, because you can refer the x source code....


You say me, that I can not read gcc code, because is covered by GPL and copyright. If I read a book on compilers is not the same that if I read the gcc source code? ie, Im getting ideas, concepts and procedures.... ?????





Now GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Is only a license over how to copy and distribute this rights are givd by the copyright and are restricted/modelated by the GPL, but is also based in the copyright (ie, it can not pass over the copyright.. or can?)


Dont know is very frustrating try to understand this not mathematical laws... they are not gived for interpretation, you know, a interpreter like I know, know all the instructions that can interpret and never is doing guessing in what is reading if find a incorrect use, then raise a error, the law is not provided in a mathematical way or at less for interpretation, is provided for confusion :P... (at lest this ones)
Posted on 2004-12-23 22:04:09 by rea
Everything is a derived work same as all land cannot be owned. :)

Do you know genes are copyrightable?
Something that exists in each person.

These system exist to shelter those who invest money into research or property. People with money are leary about doing anything with their money unless they are protected.
Posted on 2004-12-24 01:24:40 by bitRAKE
hehe, yes I supose, dont you think that is bad that a person is moved more for the money than by self movement?

I whant a clarification, donkey say:

You cannot just use the idea and write code from scratch, the Microsoft vs Apple case put an end to that for all time. A copyright does not only extend to the literal written work but can also extend to the idea or method use to acheive the result.


Altough in the page of copyright:

What is not protected by copyright
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration


Then how well is donkey and how well is the page.. or say.. in the case that say donkey, is always money more powerfull than the rules aplied to all? if they have extended the copyright to hold the idea or method?


Then the final question, because soruce code is first protected by copyright and then by licensing over copyright with X license (like I understand), for what I can make a derivation of a knowledge/ideas/procedures readed from X book and not from read X source code from X programm?

I question that, because the copyright is the first to mention the called "derivated works" and not GPL and because the talked about the derivation (I guess you acept the anterior, because a derivation mean that have some origin ).








I read (GPL quotation)
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: ...

Because how I apply my knowledge will be a derivation, then is covered?? I think no, because will be the same if aplied to a book (that also is copyrighted)... the author of the book can prohibit use what I lerned from read his book.


The GPL only refer to derivate works that use the programm, make modifications of the source, also here a quote from there:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License


Read source code like if where a book for use equally that I use a book is not covered by the license.. they have say that. Is my understand correct?


=================================
I add the other post here (joining them and delete the next one)
=================================

By the way, thinking in the derivated works, also remembering some time a go...

The paths for the knowledge are very diferent for each person, some ones can get in X place more easy or by coincidence where others have taked more time and work or only one of them;).

Because all can be a derivation supose: some one start at 6 => 3+3 => ... => ... => VI, but some one can lead there pheraphs in other way, that should be the called independent creation and not a derivation... even if the other first path taked can lead some time to demostrate that the independent work can be a derivation of or pheraphs cant demostrate at all that can be a derivation of the first path.

Then to read or not to read, that is the question?
To learn the path done by others or to do path by myself?

I guess the answer to them are: I can read and I can learn from others persons paths and from myself at the same time in paralel, the two anterior questions are wrong in esence because have a easy and pheraphs common answer, the question is

I will have troubles reading and learning from others persons paths?

by the way, I refer to legal troubles not troubles in understand what they have done in esence ;).
Posted on 2004-12-27 20:34:08 by rea
I tend to sit somewhere in the middle of the GPL v The World debate in that LINUX was produced with GPL and probably could not have been done otherwise. Where I draw the line is when the same licence that produced LINUX attempts to take over a system that was produce originally by IBM and then Microsoft that build the entire person computer market.

Like it or lump it, Microsoft are responsible for the vast majority of the PC market so when GPL tries to take it over Windows with Open Source projects, it is trying to reap the benefits of someone elses paid for work that it was and is incapable of producing in its own right.

Most in the commercial software market see GPL code as technically mediocre and while there are notable exceptions like Apache server software, there is little worth having from GPL LINUX for the Windows market.

Rather than take on a fight that they will lose against Microsoft when trying to clone Windows, the same manpower with some decent commercial style programming could improve the user aspect of LINUX in much the same way as Apple have done with a UNIX system so that the complete OS was usable at a desktop level.

There is no doubt that LINUX make very good secure web servers when its set up properly but it is still presented like amateur 1990 DOS style software in terms of presentation, usability and documentation. The various Window clone interfaces are in the class of TERRIBLE, SLOW, BLOATED and perform badly as well.

If apple can do it, there is no reason why it cannot be done with LINUX as well as the kernel code is robust and reliable, what is missing is a coherant professional approach to make it into a competitive operating system.
Posted on 2004-12-28 01:44:09 by hutch--
Apache is opensource, but not GPL :)
Posted on 2004-12-28 07:08:25 by f0dder
Makes sense, too much class for the Mickey Mouse Club. :-D
Posted on 2004-12-28 07:32:10 by hutch--