Microsoft increases open efforts, contributes to JQuery

[Jan]

Microsoft adds to open efforts

Microsoft, the company least-likely to be associated with open source software, has made good on earlier promises to contribute to open source projects.

 

[bleh69]

woot! a billion dollar company contributes the equivalent of a lone developer working in his spare time for two weeks. Well done microsnot. You impress the bajeezuz out of me.

 

[kingrob]

Remember what ol' Steve Ballmer once said?

"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"

I'll only start taking Microsoft's open efforts serious when M$ gets rid of this clown.

 

[Aragon]

Remember what ol' Steve Ballmer once said?

I think he was referring to the GPL, and he was right. It is a cancer.

 

[hawker]

woot! a billion dollar company contributes the equivalent of a lone developer working in his spare time for two weeks. Well done microsnot. You impress the bajeezuz out of me.

To be perfectly honest, it is better than them not doing anything at all.

 

[Valerion]

I think he was referring to the GPL, and he was right. It is a cancer.

How so? It's only a cancer if you want to sell it without complying with the license.

 

[Jan]

I think he was referring to the GPL, and he was right. It is a cancer.

How so? It's only a cancer if you want to sell it without complying with the license.

I'd say it's closer to a virus. It self-replicates (so in computer security terms it's more like a worm?). Basically if you use GPL'ed code in a project your forced to use the GPL for that project... The way I understand it you then can't license your work under any other license, even other open source licenses that you might prefer over the GPL.

 

[fskmh]

I think he was referring to the GPL, and he was right. It is a cancer.

Cancer implies a pathogen, which has a prejudicial connotation of disease/death that is at odds with reality. Open source software allows developers to build on the work of others and make a beneficial contribution to humanity, without the fear that their work will succumb to commercial interests that prey on someone else's IP. Accumulating the work of other programmers for market leverage and locking users into an EULA seems more like a disease or cancer to me than the GPL does.

I'd say it's closer to a virus. It self-replicates (so in computer security terms it's more like a worm?). Basically if you use GPL'ed code in a project your forced to use the GPL for that project... The way I understand it you then can't license your work under any other license, even other open source licenses that you might prefer over the GPL.

Why should anyone be able to license someone else's work for their own financial gain? Using GPL software is like standing on the shoulders of the people who contributed to the point where the software became of use to humanity. Basically, all that the GPL requires from developers and distributors, is the preservation of the rights that were allowed to them when they freely accessed the code, so that the recipient of the product can enjoy the same rights.

Nefarious concept that, I can see how it would scare people who rely on strategies like market share and software patents to keep the profits ticking over by milking their [-]cows[/-] customers.

 

[tracyanneb]

I always thought Globalisation was about trade. Or more synically where large American Coporations set up sweat shops in poor countries to manufacture goods which they ultimately sell at hugely inflated prices in the rich countries.

I thought the process of making Dates Times and other locality specifics legible to the local language/culture was Internationalisation or Localisation.

Silly me.

 

[Polemus]

I always thought Globalisation was about trade. Or more synically where large American Coporations set up sweat shops in poor countries to manufacture goods which they ultimately sell at hugely inflated prices in the rich countries.

I thought the process of making Dates Times and other locality specifics legible to the local language/culture was Internationalisation or Localisation.

Silly me.

+1 ..... but seriously dude... 4AM ... wtf?

 

[w1z4rd]

I always thought Globalisation was about trade. Or more synically where large American Coporations set up sweat shops in poor countries to manufacture goods which they ultimately sell at hugely inflated prices in the rich countries.

I thought the process of making Dates Times and other locality specifics legible to the local language/culture was Internationalisation or Localisation.

Silly me.

+1 ..... but seriously dude... 4AM ... wtf?

I have to ask about the post and the +1... what does it have to do with the discussion in hand?

 

[Jan]

Why should anyone be able to license someone else's work for their own financial gain? Using GPL software is like standing on the shoulders of the people who contributed to the point where the software became of use to humanity. Basically, all that the GPL requires from developers and distributors, is the preservation of the rights that were allowed to them when they freely accessed the code, so that the recipient of the product can enjoy the same rights.

The GPL isn't supposed to preclude financial gain. But you'll receive no argument from me regarding standing on the shoulders of giants and making sure people pay it forward.

My point is simply...

Nefarious concept that, I can see how it would scare people who rely on strategies like market share and software patents to keep the profits ticking over by milking their [-]cows[/-] customers.

It's not nefarious. Just a statement regarding my perception of the nature of the GPL. It's a "viral" license that "infects" any code that comes into contact with it. Those words have a negative connotation, though I don't intend the statement negatively. I can't really think of positive equivalents to "viral" and "infects." Maybe "fecund" and "imprints?"

 

[Valerion]

In the commercial world, you can buy a software library that has a license, e.g. pay me $xxx for this once off or per day/month/year, or pay me $xxx for each app you sell that uses this. If you want to use the library, you are bound by the license terms. This compensates the designer.

In the GPL world, if you want to use a library, you must make the resulting code available for others (unless it falls outside the GPL clauses, or in one of the exceptions). This "compensates" the designer, though not in a monetary way.

Not much different in this case. Case 1 gets "infected" by a royalty fee, while case 2 gets "infected" by having to release the software. So you can see it in the same way.