What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Sony(R) Reader view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers sing about the Sony(R) Reader as the perfect gift for just about anyone.
4 Comments
- ciaran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think IBM will continue to back free software, but you should remember that IBM didn't make GNU/Linux. In fact, IBM's contribution, compared to all the free software that has been written, is very small. Most free software has been written by the community.
The changes in GPLv3 are not so big. Many good explanations are in the transcripts of the international GPLv3 conferences:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/#transcripts - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you don't like GPLv3, then the answer is simple: DON'T USE IT. Stick with GPLv2. No harm, no fowl, no "killing of open source".
But of course, if you want a front page article and all of the buzz in the world, and most importantly some fodder to feed the Microsoft Anti-Open Source crowd, then by all means digg this article. - alisonalive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DRM (digital rights management) is just another scam to get users to pay for something over and over again. Apple's iPOD never lets you actually "own" a song (you can't port it easily to other formats and other types of players), and now Microsoft is doing the same nonsense with Zune (and with Zune it doesn't even play "PlaysForSure" files! How retarded is that?).
DRM, of course, is in GPLv3 - and that's only one objection I have.
Anyone remember when TV was free, over the air? Sure, there were only a few channels in all but the biggest markets, but at least you got major sports, major news shows, and quality programming based on advertising-supported free TV. Now, you HAVE to pay Time-Warner, or DirecTV, or Hughes, or Comcast, or whomever just to get ANY TV ... that is the hidden agenda of the HD-TV scam.
Coercion. Force. Control. The antithesis of the open source movement. Remember when software companies were satisfied to get users to pay a couple hundred bucks for a program and then left them ALONE? No planned obsolescence. No virus invasions. No attempt to CONTROL the user. The simplest of "copy protection", or none at all.
Nowadays, there are far FEWER software companies out there making packaged software (thanks for NOTHING, Microsquish) and average Jane and Joe Programmers can't make a living doing it. So open source comes along, and offers programmers a chance to maybe make a few ducats on support, training, bug fixing, customizations, etc. and BLAM! GPL licensing issues screws THAT up, too.
Ever wonder why people just ignore your silly licensing rules? Ask a lobbyist to buy you a clue. Or download a virus to infect your brain to give you temporary clarity.
Alison - Nahor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have a very bad feeling about GPL3, and this artilce just reinfoces that feeling. If I were microsoft I would donate big time to the FSF to keep them going down this path because it seems like they are about to kill the popularity of open source all by themselves. (I can't see IBM et al backing open source projects if this gets applied to everything GPL'ed).
They are cutting off thier nose to spite their face.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is