Read Me, Read Me Not
-
Thought this was fun, from Wolfger ...
No programming knowledge necessary here. Install Trolltech's Qtopia Desktop, and then view the README file:
"These programs are part of Qtopia Desktop."
Well duh... I could tell that by the folder they were installed to. The kicker is, that is the *only* text in the entire README!
-
Nice... There is a little thing called the GNU coding standard that
requires the presence of certain documentation files in the software's
root directory. Now, according to the standard, these (including the
README) are supposed to contain useful information. Obviously, some
guys out there in Open Source land haven't read that part.
-
I would imagine that the individual who is not getting paid to do this couldn't be bothered to remember :)
-
Then he should only program for money, right? And BTW, Qtopia is a company product. I would guess they do get paid over there.
-
Fair enough... I guess my brain is stuck in the pattern "open source
=> written for free", which of course is not neccessarily true.
-
For that matter, as Red Hat and the other major Linux distros
demonstrate, open source does not necessarily mean 'distributed
for free'. Under most open source licenses, including the GPL, you can
charge for the service of distributing an open source program; you
simply can't charge for the program itself (either the binaries or the
source). More specifically, you can't forbid others from copying and
distributing it for free. Plenty of people will pay for a well-designed
distro, even now when bandwidth is dirt cheap.
-
You
see, Schol-R-LEA, the WTF here is some people in the open source
bussiness being stuck in the pattern Blue was writing about when they
ought to know better (and do a better job for that).
Well, I guess the world isn't yet quite ready for the open source philosophy :-)
-
@Schol-R-LEA said:
For that matter, as Red Hat and the other major Linux distros demonstrate, open source does not necessarily mean 'distributed for free'. Under most open source licenses, including the GPL, you can charge for the service of distributing an open source program; you simply can't charge for the program itself (either the binaries or the source). More specifically, you can't forbid others from copying and distributing it for free. Plenty of people will pay for a well-designed distro, even now when bandwidth is dirt cheap.
Actually you can charge any price you want for selling GPL software, BUT you must include a written offer to provide the source code for free if you customer wants it. Ofcourse your client can do the same, though I've noticed that they rarely do. Probably because they've paid good money for the product (or customization of some GPL software) and they don't want their competitors to have it. And because they cannot offer any support for the software no company would buy it from them.
-
It would be a rare Japanese who couldn't read at least that much English.
こにちは
-
@sas said:
It would be a rare Japanese who couldn't read at least that much English.
こにちは
WTF is the edit timeout? I tried within 10 seconds and couldn't do it. [:@]
I meant, of course こんにちは。
-
@felix said:
Nice... There is a little thing called the GNU coding standard that
requires the presence of certain documentation files in the software's
root directory. Now, according to the standard, these (including the
README) are supposed to contain useful information. Obviously, some
guys out there in Open Source land haven't read that part.
Qt isn't under the GPL.
-
@rsynnott said:
@felix said:
Nice... There is a little thing called the GNU coding standard that
requires the presence of certain documentation files in the software's root directory.
Qt isn't under the GPL.
“GNU coding standard” == “GPL”? WTF?While it’s probably not GNU coding standard directly, I have seen of a lot of free software that comes with empty README, NEWS, COPYING, and other files. That’s because
GNU autoconf, which is used very commonly, enforces the presence of these files.
