Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Relicensing

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the too-many-cooks-spoil-the-license dept.

Mozilla 312

bluephone writes: "Today, the bits go into the tree to relicense Mozilla under a triple license, MPL/GPL/LGPL. What this means, for those of you who aren't too up on this stuff, is that when YOU take the code, and make your own product, you now have a triple choice as to what license you want to distribute your code under. Read the FAQ here."

cancel ×

312 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

cmowire (254489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322548)

first post!!!

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322581)

this is precisely as relevant as some crap about some license from mozilla which will never ship anyway so I don't give a fuck

Ship? (2)

matty (3385) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322781)

SHIP???

I'm not familiar with what you mean, I'm afraid. I'm using Mozilla0.9.4 under Debian 2.2r3 to send this and for ALL my web browsing. It is (finally) a browser that is as good as the latest versions of IE.

P.S. I know you're a Troll, but sometimes I just can't help it.

BWAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322605)

I'll remember this post whenever I get mod points and see a post by you... I'll mod them all down, faggot "first post"er... I don't care if people M2 me unfair, i'm helping get rid of fag users like you...

Your days of karma whoring are over!

Re:BWAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322635)

I'd return the favor, for somebody who takes the flamebait, but you didn't have the ballz to post using your real slashdot ID. ;)

Re:BWAHAHA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322647)

I do all my trolling and flamebaiting as AC. you'll never find out my karma whoring account.

Re:BWAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322659)

But what's the fun in that?

Re:BWAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322744)

ROFL, don't we all? :)

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322613)

hmm, take a look at this guy's past posts... maybe he got 50 karma and needed to lower it so he could get more?

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322628)

Or maybe it's just damn funny to, once you have achieved the greatness that is 50 karma, to blow it in various stupid ways. ;)

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322792)

look here [slashdot.org]
Quote from previous comment by cmowire:
And most of the time, when people work more than 9 hours, they are likely to spend a lot of time trying to get first posts to slashdot, making cubicle art, etc.

Aparently this guy's been dreaming of doing a first post for awhile. Finally, success.

Damn I wish my lifelong dream was this simple. :( So was today a longer than 9 hour day?

mozilla (-1, Offtopic)

obi327 (458822) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322555)

its about time more people bash gay microsoft

Re:mozilla (0)

obi327 (458822) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322694)

offtopic my ass, anyone that opposes microsoft in any form i support

Second (-1, Offtopic)

grepnyc (442959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322558)

Second Post!!

Another user to add to my moderation hit list :-) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322675)

From now on, just because of that one little troll, whenever you post something, I'll always mod it down no matter what. I have a document that lists all the Slashdot users that have ever trolled, so don't think I'll ever forget. Hahaha!

Re:Another user to add to my moderation hit list : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322691)

Which will likely mean that you'll post these messages, maybe mod one or two people down once, and then give up on it.

Unless you are a looser. Which is, of course, a distinct possibility.

Re:Another user to add to my moderation hit list : (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322695)

Nah, I have a cron script that automatically mods them down.

Dear GOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322561)

What shall we do.

Thar's gonna be trouble! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322562)

Wait 'till Sheriff Stallman hears about this!

What I would like to see happen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322564)

the next time osama does the world a favour, could he please take out redmond, nothing there but whores

what this means (-1)

robsmama (416178) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322566)

is that we will now be restricted in 3 ways, since none of these is an OPen license. Down with commie linux.

losers
MOM

Re:what this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322603)

I have an idea for how we can increase national security without trampling on anyone's rights. Require everyone to call their Mother once every day or so. (If you don't call your Mother, you should be locked up anyway.) You must tell your Mother everything you've been up to lately. This does not violate any civil rights, since you don't have any with your Mother anyway. Then, the FBI can go ask all the Mothers in the country if their kids have been up to no good. In fact, the Mothers will probably call the police first, and tell them you've been into some shady business, and need a good talking to to put some sense into your head, and maybe you'll get a decent job with normal hours.

Hope this helps - don't blow us up, please
Mohammed al-Fakwadi

Nat Portman pours purple potatoes down her pants! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322570)

Lookout!

IMPORTANT: we aren't done (5, Informative)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322571)

Note: we have only relicensed 6,000 files, using Netscape's ability to relicense files under the NPL. We have a bunch more of those to do (with different comment structure), and then we have to ask permission for the ones covered by the MPL.

This is the very beginning of the process. The story erroneously implies it's finished. It's not.

Gerv

Re:IMPORTANT: we aren't done (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322656)

6000 (butt)fucking files?! Damn, and I thought microsoft was bloated!

Re:IMPORTANT: we aren't done (3, Informative)

bluephone (200451) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322683)

Yes, I meant to have the word BEGIN after the word bits. It should have read "Today the bits begin to go in..."

MOD THIS FUCKING COCKGOBBLING NIGGER UP NOW!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322770)

i order you to m0d this post up too u fucking homo bastards!!

dont you know freedom=anarchy and anarchy is chaos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322771)

the same republicans who want a free market economy and all that rot are going to give the airlines a bunch of tax money to keep them in buisness...
glad to know the free market works.....

stupid capitalists.

Why can't the GPL just go away (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322572)

I really wish people would get off this the GPL is "holier than thou" crap. Free mean free. Not whacko RMS's opinion of free. Thank goodness for the BSD license.

Re:Why can't the GPL just go away (2, Insightful)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322607)

This relicensing is all about letting more members of the free software community use our code, while maintaining at least the standards of copyleft required by the MPL. It's not about any license being better or worse than another.

Gerv

Re:Why can't the GPL just go away (2)

kevin@ank.com (87560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322717)

FWIW I think this is a wonderful thing. When the Moz team first started relicensing parts of the source base about a year ago it made it much easier to convince our lawyers to let us fiddle with the code.

3 choices: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322574)

Would you like to go out of business: A) Next week, B) In a few months, or C) Kicking and screaming in about a year or two?

C) is really only available to the independently wealthy, as venture capitalists have figured out that FREE MEANS FREE, as in NO beer money.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322576)

This is exciting news. One step nearer total non-NPL-ness!

Interesting (1)

Angreallabeau (263172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322577)

Our company is seriosuily looking at Modzilla for a variety business applications. Having total control of the product gives up the flexibility to create some really cool app. for our clients. I think Mozilla, if marketed correctly, could start regaining market share from MS. Honestly, technology trends start at the fortune 500 level (in my opinion) - start there and it may have a chance to succeed. Grass roots support is not enough to take it forward.

Cheers,

-Angreal

Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322580)

In and around the lake
mountains come out of the sky
and they stand there

Cool (0)

Guillaume Ross (517391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322584)

Now people will say dumb stuff about THREE licenses at the same time, because they never read it.

number of choices (2, Funny)

jesser (77961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322587)

when YOU take the code, and make your own product, you now have a triple choice as to what license you want to distribute your code under

It's better than that -- you now have 8 choices for licensing when you redistribute Mozilla, because you can distribute the code under any combination of licenses. (The empty set is a choice because both the BSD and the MPL allow distributing just binaries.)

Re:number of choices (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322644)

Ok, I'm an idiot. Mozilla is being relicensed under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL, not the BSD as I implied above.

Hoo Ya (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322589)

This post is >= post[1] and <= post[position(last)].

I rule.

Re:Hoo Ya (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322788)

>= post[1]

???

Not that it's wrong, but are you a VB programmer, by any chance?

License Question (2)

Whyte Wolf (149388) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322591)

If some of the original files (dbm, expat, jpeg etc.) are still being licensed under their original licenses (BSD, MIT etc.) how is that going to affect the overall GPL compatiablity of the triple-license scheme for the whole project? And if, as I suspect, it will make the whole Mozilla project incompatible with the GPL, what was the point of the tripple licensing scheme?

just wondering.

Re:License Question (2, Informative)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322595)

Files under those licenses can be combined with GPLed code, so it's not a problem.

Gerv

Re:License Question (1)

Dauphin (16435) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322766)

Actually, the dbm files appear to be under the *original* BSD copyright (ie, the one with the advertising clause) so they are not compatible with the GPL. Haven't we been over this before?

the error messages are being homosexual... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322592)

Slow Down Cockboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful cocksucking to allow everyone a fair chance at sucking cock.

It's been 1 minute since you last successfully sucked a cock

---------

Post Comment
Anal filter encountered.

Your penis violated CmdrTaco's anal filter. Buttfuck aborted

But... (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322594)

What about the Artistic license? The Python license? The Common Public License? The Sleepycat license? The Nethack General Public license?

Why did they choose just 3 licenses, when the Open Source Initiative approves of 23 licenses?

Re:But... (1)

dveditz (11090) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322634)

Because MPL/NPL code can already be combined with code under all those other licenses. Due to its restrictive nature the GPL must be specially accomodated in order to combine MPL and GPL code.
Since mozilla.org would like to see Mozilla used as widely as possible they have decided to do the extra work required to make this combination possible

Because those are not copyleft licences (2, Informative)

dmoen (88623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322803)

Read the FAQ. Mozilla is not relicensable under the Artistic license, the Python licence, etc, because those other licences are not consistent with the Mozilla project's goals. Quote:
Why didn't you just relicense the Mozilla code under a non-copyleft license (like the MIT or BSD licenses) that would be compatible with all other possible licenses?

Because historically Mozilla code has always been released under some form of copyleft licensing, and we wish to continue to use copyleft provisions to promote sharing of modifications to Mozilla code.

Note that the Mozilla code can be combined with code licenced under many other Open Source licences, like the Python or BSD licences, so there isn't a licence compatibility problem with these licences.

Ooooh Ahhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322596)

Licensing... so fucking what. I'll do whatever I damn well please with it. Fuck what the 'developers' want. I'll piss in their eye and blow my putrid shit up against their face so hard they'll wish they were dead. So fuck licensing. I'll do whatever I want with Mozilla. I have no respect at all for software developers. They're probably gay anyways.

MOD THIS COCKSUCKING GARBAGE DOWN NOW!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322731)

if you are a moderater then you are a piece of shit. JEWS SUCK.

Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failure (1, Offtopic)

Proud Geek (260376) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322600)

The Mozilla project is a great success of the Open Source Community. It has spawned so many good projects like Bugzilla and Tinderbox. It has also ushered in a new era of cooperation between commercial entities and the community with the release of both Mozilla and the proprietary Netscape browser based on the same source code. The resources required to organize a project of this size and complexity were until recently thought to be beyond the range of Open Source.

Even though the browser itself is a technical failure, being slower and more buggy than Opera and Konqueror, and even Internet Exploder, the project is one of the great successes of our Community. This relicensing is a further ambitious step for the good of the community that hasn't been tried on a project of this scale before. I wish the best of luck to the Mozilla people, and may your name live on long after your browser has died!

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (1, Offtopic)

Xiphoid Process (153566) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322633)

Damn, I hadn't realised that the Mozilla browser had failed as I use it daily on 5 different computers without having had it crash for well over a month. I guess the fact that it is the most standards compliant browser ever made and that it is a joy to use are sure signs of its failure. It must all be an illusion. ;-P

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322737)

Yeah, I guess if it doesn't crash for you, therefore everyone else's problems must be an illusion.

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322802)

"a joy to use"

Oh puh-leez. Mozilla is slow and bloated as ever.

People that try and say Mozilla is better than IE are just liars.

Either their lying for karma or for the great free software empire or just to themselves, which exactly i don't know.

But i do know saying mozilla is fast and stable is a lie.

TTechnical Failure? (2)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322648)

This seems to be rather a back-handed compliment.

You obviously haven't tried 0.9.4 . It's really quite good, both faster and much less buggy than previous releases. I was very pleasantly surprised.


Hey, I've had my own criticisms of Mozilla. But it looks as if they may have been right, and the rest of us may have been wrong.

Bruce

Re:TTechnical Failure? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322682)

hahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHA you misspelled technical. hahahaha i can't stop laughing hahaHAHAH

Re:TTechnical Failure? (1)

bluephone (200451) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322707)

But it looks as if they may have been right, and the rest of us may have been wrong.

Thanks. It takes a big person to even admit they MIGHT be wrong. :)

Not a failure (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322655)

The Mozilla browser is far from a failure. Recent releases preform very well against konq and opera. Mozilla is the only serious alternative to IE. Although Netscape 6 may be a failure in the market due to questionable positioning of product release, it should be a force to reckon with if Windows loses grip of the market.

Re:Not a failure (1)

agdv (457752) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322687)

Mozilla is the only serious alternative to IE.


No way. Opera is pretty darn good too. And while I also have Mozilla, I don't think I'll be switching to it as a default browser under Windows till they support mouse gestures. Gotta love them. And having each web page as a child window is nifty too.

Re:Not a failure (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322797)

Opera isn't viable for most people because its user interface is very confusing. For example, to import your Internet Explorer favorites into Opera's hotlist (which Opera doesn't do automatically), you have to right-click on an item in your hotlist, choose 'File' from a context menu with 10 items and 2 submenus, and then choose 'Import Internet Explorer Favorites...'. To disable javascript, you have to look in the "plugins" section of preferences.

There are also a few places where Opera is clearly sacrificing usablility for speed. Context menus don't appear until you lift the right mouse button, because of the gesture feature, which is great for power users but not very useful for most users. Accidentally moving the mouse cursor a tiny bit while trying to invoke a context menu causes the context menu to not appear, and sometimes results in a destructive action such as closing the window. Browser windows are constrained as MDI children, allowing them to appear faster, but making it difficult to use the browser for separate tasks at the same time.

It also has a few infuriating bugs, such as the way the command "opera http://www.slashdot.org/" opens a window containing both my home page and slashdot.org, with my home page in front.

I have to admit, though, Opera is amazingly fast, and the threaded javascript is impressive (you can interact with the browser or a web page while javascript on the page is caught in an infinite loop).

Re:Not a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322782)

Why do i need an alternative to IE? IE is fucking awsome. All the other browsers say "almost as fast as IE, almost as stable as IE, almost as this as IE, almost as that as IE". Fuck it, just run the real McCoy. IE is the best browser available, there's no need to use an imitation.

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322662)

Yeh, right, the browser is a total flop. That's why major companies are using Gecko (Mozilla's HTML engine).

That's why my friends, both geek and non-geek, choose Mozilla >= 0.9.3 for their daily browsing over IE 4/5?

That's why there is now a browser that works, for all intents and purposes, on every modern OS? Jeez, this thing already runs on OS X, it runs on Linux, it runs under BSD and Solaris and Win32.

Not only that, the Modern skin is just fucking schweet :) (posting from Moz 0.9.4)

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (2, Insightful)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322674)

Have you tried Mozilla recently? Since 0.9 I haven't found a serious bug, and it gets faster every release. If you think it's still too slow, try Galeon, which is Mozilla with everything non-essential stripped away.

Besides, Mozilla are the only free, complete, platform-independent browsers available (not counting thing based on Mozilla's components). Take a look at the list:

  • Opera: Not free
  • Konqueror: Tied to the KDE platform
  • Netscape 4.x: Not free, and buggy as hell
  • All the smaller browsers like Amaya lack support for one thing or the other: CSS, scripting, plugins, ...

This alone is enought to ensure that Mozilla never dies.

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (2)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322676)

Mozilla is more corrent, more stable, and faster than Konqueror and Opera. The constant whining of the KDE sycophant class cannot change this fundamental fact. Mozilla is designed to render HTML and XML documents, and to expose the DOM API to programs, according to W3C specifications. Konqueror is designed to increase the zeal of its sycophants. Both projects appear to be successful.

More people use Mozilla than you may realize. Mozilla is embedded in Galeon, the ascending champion of GNOME web browsers. It is also embedded in GNOME's file and desktop manager Nautilus. Also, it is embedded in the windows client for Bloomberg, the premier financial data and news service. It is not as prolific as Internet Explorer, but that is due less to technical merit than to market reality.

Mozilla Slow and Buggy is Myth (2)

AT (21754) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322723)

The idea that mozilla is slow and buggy is a myth. While it may have been true a six months ago, the most recent releases are extremely fast and stable. No surprise -- the basic functionality has been completed for a while, and most of the recent development has targeted speed and stability.

It now renders most content faster than IE. It is still a bit sluggish with some types of DHTML and Javascript, and the startup time is behind most other browsers.

It is extremely stable, mostly due to the talkback bug reporting system. Talkback automatically allows users to submit back bug reports complete with stack trace to the developers when a crash occurs. This system allowed the moz developers to target the bugs that make the most difference.

The browser may arguably be a failure, but not a technical failure.

Re:Mozilla Slow and Buggy is Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322772)

You are flat out lying. Stop it.

Re:Mozilla Project Success; Mozilla Browser Failur (2)

sfe_software (220870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322729)

I use Mozilla as my primary browser. I don't believe I've yet experienced a crash. Maybe the Windows version isn't as stable, but on Linux, Mozilla is about the best browser available (with Konqueror coming in a very close second).

It's not without its problems, but it's quite a good browser. You have to keep in mind that it's still in development (and probably always will be).

I do agree that the Mozilla project itself is doing all sorts of great things. It takes a lot of work to manage such a huge project (and its associated side projects), but I would not consider Mozilla a "technical failure"...

As for Opera, I've only used it a couple of times, but the MDI interface is just terrible, especially if you have more than one monitor. It's fast, but I just can't get used to the interface.

unnecessarily confusing (1)

surfacearea (219926) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322604)

Netscape lost the browser war in the yesteryear, so perhaps this is a scheme to boost morale among its developers. "today we shall fight a licensing war! AGAINST OURSELVES!"

and so on, and so forth.

Is it just me... (1)

cdraus (522373) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322606)

or is licensing (in this case at least) getting out of control? Sheesh, I have enough trouble understanding the nuances of ONE license let alone THREE. Then you have interactions between each of the licenses, mutual exclusions maybe... my mind shudders at the mere thought of it. I'm sure the lawyers have thought about all this, but it just seems strange to me to have three different licenses. Oh yeah, the FAQ confuses me even more... maybe I'm just a confused person.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322730)

They're just fixing an old mistake. People have been complaining for a long time that Mozilla wasn't GPL. Now they let you choose.

What are the effects of this? Simple:

  • Netscape chooses their Netscape/Mozilla Public License, and can still do their binary only releases.
  • People developing things based on Mozilla, like the Galeon team, can treat Mozilla like any other piece of GPL code.

Releasing code with multiple licenses isn't so unusual. For example, for Perl you can choose between the GPL and the Artistic License.

There are no interactions between the different licenses, you just pick one and ignore the other(s).

Re:Is it just me... (1)

mvc (38569) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322750)

What this means is that you can choose to license it under any ONE of the three licenses. That means if you already understand one of them, you don't have to bother with the others. Easier, not harder.

Re:Is it just me... (2)

ZxCv (6138) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322753)

There isn't any conflict from having three licenses. The licenses are compatible (meaning no conflicting terms between them) and having the multiple licenses is mostly for the benefit of those redistributing the code-- that person is free to license it under any one or combination of the licenses.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322780)

Not quite.

The three licenses may be compatible, but that's besides the point.

If you have the copyright on the code, you can release it under as many (possibly incompatible) licenses you want. The person using the software then picks which of the licenses he wants to adhere to.

I.e., I can release my own software under proprietary and GPL terms. You pick. This is for instance how Qt works (you pay $$, you get a proprietary license. else you get GPL). You _don't_ get to mix and match clauses from the different licenses though. It's 'atomic'.

Bugroff License? (1)

refactored (260886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322614)

Sigh! NPL,GPL,LGPL! It sounds like its past time for the Bugroff licence.

http://www.geocities.com/cy_ent/bugroff.html [geocities.com]

Simply stated, the Bugroff license says...
The answer to any and every question relating to the copyright, patents, legal issues of Bugroff licensed software is....

Sure, No problem. Don't worry, be happy. Now bugger off.

Follow the link for more on my reasoning and why the GPL is cosmically speaking a bad idea.

Re:Bugroff License? (1)

dveditz (11090) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322684)

Good idea or bad, the GPL exists and its terms prevented GPL'd projects from taking advantage of Mozilla code. This is a workaround on the Mozilla end so GPL'd projects can embed our engine as easily as proprietary projects can.

Re:Bugroff License? (2)

kevin@ank.com (87560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322778)

His entire argument seems to rest on the idea that laws are worthless. Quite aside from ignoring the genuinely beneficial impacts of a system of laws, simply ignoring power and control structures isn't a very promising strategy.

It is as if he were arguing that to win a soccer game you should stop all that messing around with the feet stuff, pick up a notepad and start writing poetry instead. Arguing that the rules are stupid because they don't allow you to use the most useful appendages you have misses the point.

The legal system simply is. We live within it. Pretending it doesn't exist is even more useless than spending all of your life worrying about it.

Re:Bugroff License? (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322748)

From the Bugroff license page:


The GPL is just begging somebody to take it to court.

People often say this. But nobody has ever taken it to court. The reason? The lawyers can't find a loophole or error in it, so nobody dares to risk it.

Re:Bugroff License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322796)

People often say this. But nobody has ever taken it to court. The reason? The lawyers can't find a loophole or error in it, so nobody dares to risk it.

Occam's Razor: GPL'd software is of such low quality that it doesn't behoove anyone to steal the code.

Three times the flames!!! (1)

rvaniwaa (136502) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322617)

I guess this now means that there are three times as many people on /. that will flame one for releasing a derived product.

Licenses ??? (1)

Red Moose (31712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322619)

This is great news, and one day, in the future, maybe even GNU/Stallman/Linux will be Really Free under the joint MPL/GPL/LGPL license.

And they say the corporate world is full of beurocracy (OK I know I can't spell that)? What happened to just old-fashioned bloody copyright: "I made it, shove off". Give it away for free if you want, and then if the company every goes bust, the source is made available. And this would also stop crap companies being rescued by last-minute buyouts as they would have no software assets.

Problem solved.

Next: how to prove that I own the idea of software.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322620)

People still use Mozilla? They must be morons. Konqueror and IE6 are so much better.

Just Submitted! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322629)

Mozilla Repenising
Posted by michael on Wednesday September 19, @05:21PM
from the too-many-cocks-spoil-the-ass dept.
bluepenis writes: "Today, the dick goes into the mouth to relicense Mozilla under a triple penis, MPL/GPL/LGPL. What this means, for those of you who aren't too up on this cock, is that when YOU take the ass, and make your own buttfuck, you now have a triple choice as to what penis you want to distribute your ass under. Read the FAG here."

Licenses are getting too confusing. (2, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322632)

To solve the licensing issues once and for all, I propose the following Inconsistent Public License: (IPL)

You may only distribute this work under the following terms:

  1. If you distribute this work, it must not be distributed in a manner that satisfies these terms.
End of license.

Naaah. (2)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322669)

You haven't used a self-referential and self-negating acronym. Essential for any Free Software project. Thus, it should be NCL, for NCL's a Consistent License.

Bruce

Re:Naaah. (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322752)

NCL's a Consistent License.

Shouldn't that be NIL for: NIL's an Inconsistent License?

Re:Licenses are getting too confusing. (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322681)

Call it "Godel's Public License" (GPL) and it could become very popular among the already confused.

weird stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322654)

Lgpl *and* GPL, why not just the GPL, geesh

LGPL is automatically dual GPL/LGPL (1)

clausen (126202) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322666)

LGPL is automatically dual GPL/LGPL. To quote from the LGPL:


3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.

Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.


Andrew

Re:LGPL is automatically dual GPL/LGPL (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322760)

Yes, but note that it says that you must alter the all the copyright notices. With several thousand files (and several comment styles), this is rather inconvenient. Thus the dual GPL/LGPL license.

A triple choice (1)

ez76 (322080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322678)

Three different ways to make no money off your labors ...

What will they think of next ...

Re:A triple choice (0)

philipm (106664) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322777)

I think the money issue is kind of tricky.

You see, one can only put a value on actual property, not on information. That means that one can only protect property, since that is the only thing that has value.

The GPL attempts to treat information as property. One can not sell or buy information. One can only sell thin air and hope that some loser pays you for some noexistent property than he now thinks he has.

So you see, the GPL really protects "information" from being shared freely - exactly the opposite of what RMS wants.

So let them change the licences all they want, it doesn't actually affect the con job necessary to get the money from the customer.

Just write the damn software (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322702)

It's a shame you hippies can't get on with writing the damn software instead of spending countless hours arguing over the damn licensing of the product.

Or, like the BSD folks, making sure things work together instead of the Linux hippies which pull sources from everywhere and just hope it works.

Not good enough (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322709)

When asked if he was finally satisfied, Richard Stallman was quoted as saying, "You know, it should really be called GNU/Mozilla."

Why not BSD license? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322711)

I'm stunned that the BSD license is not being used. The BSD license has historically been on the forefront of increasing the freedom of users and developers alike. The GNU license is actually designed to further Stallman's communist political philosophy, which even the most cursory examination of the GPL would illustrate. I think the BSD license has the most flerbage too, yes, the GPL is very deficient in the flerbage department.

Re:Why not BSD license? (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322728)


because the *BSD license is dying.

loooozer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322733)

laaaah-hooooserrrrrrrrrr.

My post violated the comment oppresion filter.

how much (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322714)

How much cock could a cocksucker suck if a cocksucker could suck cock?

hurrah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322721)

Osoma Bin Stallman says this is the one of the greatest days for free software fundamentalists.

fucking liars (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322765)

I'm sick of these liars who try and say mozilla is better than IE. That's just not true. It's such bullshit. Mozilla is slow, and buggy and bloated. Sorry IE is fast as hell and everything works. IE6 is so fucking awsome. I spend most of my time in linux using mozilla. When i go to a windows box to do something and i check out a website or two with IE6 it's like oh my god this is fucking fast as hell, all the sites work properly and despite the fudsters it crashes alot less than mozilla. I use linux constantly and i think free software is important, but face facts, IE smokes mozilla in a major way. Mozilla is a perpetually beta peice of bloatware. Each release some bugs get fixed, but other bugs pop up. In fact posting to slashdot sucks ass in 0.9.4, becuase if you hit replyto fast in less than 20 seconds, then hit back, the form is empty. And since slashdot has multiple filters that do this, it becomes close to unusable. 0.9 was a big improvement. But every release after that is just a wack-a-mole of kill some bugs here, some others pop up somewhere else. Sorry IE6 is fast and stable and everything just works. I wanted mozilla to be good, but lets get realistic, it's time to give up hope on that floundering project. The Hurd will probably be finished before mozilla.

For the "betterment of society"... (1)

Brad Wilson (462844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2322769)

They should've made the code public domain. I mean, really, the only point of the GPL is to be anti-business. If you really are out for the betterment of humanity, that includes corporations...

Oops, shhh, I didn't mean to reveal the secret purpose of GPL. :-p

Re:For the "betterment of society"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2322795)

What vested interest do you have in most corporations that you would give to them freely without having them give you anything in return?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>