"In the usual announcement to the Ubuntu developer list Ubuntu founder Mark Suttleworth this morning announced the name of the next Ubuntu release plus one, due out in October 2007: Gutsy Gibbon. Gutsy will follow Feisty Fawn due for release on April 19. But, more interestingly, Shuttleworth also talked of a new ultra-free version of Ubuntu that can be expected alongside Gutsy Gibbon."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
"As you say, the whole point is the attitude that a developer has no right to their own work. The FIRST person (who doesn't have to contribute much more than an idea) gets to dictate their terms to all who follow, no matter what they add."
And how exactly is that a bad thing? You create it -> you make the rules. Why shouldn't the author make the rules for his own creation? Seems fair to me. I don't hear anybody complaining about not being able to copy source code from Microsoft.
"The only option is to reinvent from scratch every time, exactly what OSS is intended to prevent, given acceptable terms."
OSS isn't intended to prevent reinvention, it's intended to have an open development model. But that doesn't mean, nor does it have to mean, that there are absolutely no strings attached. You said it yourself, "given acceptable terms". Just because you don't think the GPL terms are acceptable doesn't mean they're unacceptable to everybody. I find GPL's terms to be very acceptable.
"I won't touch MS's SSL either, but at least they're honest about its aims."
What part of the GPL isn't honest about the aims? ALL of this is documented either in the license itself, or the GPL FAQ. There are no hidden agendas.
Member since:
2005-07-07
You're just a leecher, nothing more.
I think I've been out-trolled!
As you say, the whole point is the attitude that a developer has no right to their own work. The FIRST person (who doesn't have to contribute much more than an idea) gets to dictate their terms to all who follow, no matter what they add. The only option is to reinvent from scratch every time, exactly what OSS is intended to prevent, given acceptable terms. I won't touch MS's SSL either, but at least they're honest about its aims.
And I don't use anyone else's code, for that reason. If I don't ever plan to release, however, I feel free to use the rights that were explicitly given me by the first (true believer) author and subsequent (victim) authors.
If I gave anything "back" it would be a BSD-licensed clone (perhaps readline or malloc, since both have specifically been used to abuse the rights of authors of much larger projects in moneyless but otherwise patent-trollish ways.)