just a quickie
my personal feelings are this
I think they seem to represent the arguments of one side here.
I have 2 different "modes" of coding, there is serious coding and fun
coding.
serious coding is stuff I don't want to share, its my baby, I might
distribute the binary and take info on fixes etc. And there is coding I do
for fun, stuff I don't mind giving away. That stuff I want other people to
use and hopefully send me a postcard, or money if they really feel guilty
lol.
thing is I have no problem with people using the software I write for fun in
their own proprietary app (though I would like that postcard). But for
serious work, that stuff is mine and I don't want to give it away. if I want
to write an app for nix or something I just plain wont if I had to rewrite
the c libs etc in order to do it, and it bugs me that somebody would want to
make me try.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of James Caska
> Sent: Friday, 27 February 2004 10:55 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux
>
>
> >However, unlike biological viruses, it's YOUR decision if you want to
> catch this virus.
>
> I think the other point was that at the time of this code being widely
> absorbed into the commercial codebase there was a general
> misunderstanding of the intention of the 'free software'. At the time of
> the absorbtion of the code I don't think the DECISION was as widely
> understood as it is now becoming more clear. You only need to consider
> the complexity of the debate on this list to forgive early adoptors of
> these cleverly written licenses that the impact of their DECISION to
> adopt such code has had unexpected and poorly understood consequences. I
> mean sure it was written into the license 'agreement' but so were the
> words FREE! Only now these licenses are starting to be tested in court
> is the actual DECISION being clarified and retrospectively it is having
> distruptive consquences.. Sounds like all the hallmarks of a trogan
> horse in addition to that of a virus.. A very clever strategy indeed.
>
> Let me clarify my personal position. I am in no way and by no means
> against open-source software, in fact an advocate, but the nature of
> some of the 'clever' licences is all a bit too clever for me. There is
> no doubt that huge open-source libraries is of enourmous benefit - look
> at suns open-source java model for example. You can look and see and
> learn and extend from opensource code.. And if you get enough value from
> it you can put back into the system.. Now that's what sharing is
> supposed to be about :-)
>
> The key point is, 'as intended'.. If people want to develop code and
> give it away for free that's fantastic and they should have no concern
> who uses it and for what purpose ( some good examples earlier on
> Microchip released code and others ) but deserve of course credit and
> glory where appropriate. However if people are developing code and
> giving it away for free with the intention or hope of being disruptive
> (#PC Alert - yes this is a generalisation) then this is as bad as anyone
> else out there attempting to be disruptive. The question really is..
> What purpose does the GPL license have other than to be intentionally
> disruptive? Perhaps there is a very good answer for that, and I don't
> buy into that whole pay it forward argument.. Although a good one ;-) ,
> but from many perspectives it appears intentionally distruptive ( and
> the consequences certainly seem to be) so then you must ask, what are
> the legalities of an intentionally disruptive paragidm? IMHO (The deeper
> issue is that it is frustratingly difficult to be rewarded for your
> efforts (despite your obvious brilliance) in this highly competitive
> deeply entrenched electronic jungle and there are all these evil
> software companies making all this money doing stuff you could do in a
> weekend.. Right? .. It's not fair.. Right?.. Sounds like a motive to
> me.. But that's another story.. For now Build-A-Bridge ;-) )
>
> Let people develop for free, let them gain glory, let them get their
> names in build releases, but don't let them get their glory by putting
> legal trogan horses in commercial software and then let their names go
> up in lights as they torpedo the commercial efforts of business
> enterprises based on the subtleties of what the legal meaning of 'free'
> really is..
>
> In the end the whole thing will fizzle out (eventually) because GPL etc
> will simply be Immune Responsed out of consideration.. Eventually your
> free code will just sit there with I'ts RED STIPES because no-one will
> take any interest in it until you change your license.. And that's just
> no fun now is it.  Besides someone else who is prepared to change their
> license to a newer more evolved license that will probably come from all
> this, maybe the license model that Wouter is looking for, will have
> their free software available for download with attached glory and
> whatever constitutes the revised agreement. That's the true beauty of
> this.. Its an evolutionary process through and through and discussions
> like this are in fact the survival-of-the-fittest selection process
> bringing forward all the excellent questions and thoughts raised by this
> list of what in fact Capital is and what rights are and who is allowed
> to do what etc... Maybe there just isn't an answer from our current
> models and something new will be invented to address it.. Now THAT would
> be exciting :-)
>
> But for now it has runnaway a little, like any new virus will, it's not
> a catastrophy or anything, it's hardly a hickup really in the scheme of
> things but it does give us all a reason to express some philosophy which
> makes for nice change of pace :-)
>
> Cheers all and thanks for the time to read the ramble.
>
> James Caska
> www.muvium.com
> uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Couture
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:51 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James Caska wrote:
>
> > >Please be precise in your flames -
> >
> > What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
> > specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
> > observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
> > licenses and virus's..
>
> However, unlike biological viruses, it's YOUR decision if you want to
> catch this virus.
>
> If you don't like the license terms of the code, just don't use it.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads