Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Mundie Clarifies Open Source Position 7 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Why didn't we have a written statement ready?
    That's what happens when you're up against old
    hands at the propaganda game, I guess.
  • I'd love to chop this up when I have more time, but I'm about out the door for work. So, just this for now:


    > There are some licensing models that can
    > undermine the integrity of a program's code
    > base, possibly leading to the distribution
    > of incompatible versions


    Examples please? How is Microsoft immune? Will shareing their source suddenly prevent them from making incompatible versions of software? Whatever license they used in the past didn't prevent this problem.


    > some licens
  • Seems like they are trying to play up the infighting between the OSS and the FSF. Isn't that how the Romans worked? Makes sense for them to attack the GPL though, since the BSD license allows them take stuff without giving back. Didn't they already do this? I guess they haven't heard of the LGPL...
    --
    Waiting on the Road to Eventually, I lost my Place On Line

  • See the To: field, it was widely disseminated within Microsoft, not to the press. (Although Chip's idea of having a statement is a good one.)

    Seems to me that they are readjusting their message and they want everyone in MS to sing on key. No more embarassing "unamerican" quotes.

    The old message, attempting to tar all open source with the same brush, wasn't working so well. So now, MS is not against open source at all. And never was. (We have always been at war with Eastasia.) Now it's just that they are "

  • While I understand Mundie's opinion that government-funded code should be public domain, there is more to it than that. Say a government agency (let's say, the NSA) had two choices:
    • Under the "Shared Source" initiative, make changes to the Windows operating system to make it more secure
    • Hire a couple developers and have them hack the Linux kernel to make it more secure

    Which are they likely to do? More importantly, which benefits the taxpayers the most? With the first option, they are writing code that

  • As an academic, I have to say I love the GPL. It does not hinder collaboration between the private and public sectors. Historically, acadamic research was funded for the public domain with government funds. Nowadays, the government is trying to introduce commercial funds into research in ways that don't cripple the traditional open atmosphere of acadamia. A large number of professors are turning research projects into startups, or selling the products of their research. Whether this is good or bad is a sepe
  • >> Some of these would lead us back to the
    >> computing model of the 1970's, when users
    >> received from hardware companies software
    >> that was offered for free, but was provided
    >> at the expense of tying customers to a
    >> single hardware vendor.

    >Explain please. On it's face, this seems like an
    >outrageous claim. Take perl. Take linux. Take
    >gcc. How have these things lead to this model?
    >What the hell is he talking about, exactly?

    I think this is a dig a
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.