My name is Corky and I work for The Free Software Foundation
-
@arh said:
Speaking of which, when will the "use JavaScript to make our mobile site 'tactile' and 'cool'"-trend going to end? When even SlashDot is bitten by the bug, who knows where this is going..
Why would you expect it to ever end?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@arh said:
Speaking of which, when will the "use JavaScript to make our mobile site 'tactile' and 'cool'"-trend going to end? When even SlashDot is bitten by the bug, who knows where this is going..
Why would you expect it to ever end?
I'm going to write my website completely in JavaScript. No server-side scripting for me! Give the user the best possible experience by sending them the entire database and computing the page locally!
-
@lucas said:
@El_Heffe said:
The Stallman/GPL/FSF definition of "freedom" essentially boils down to "In order to be free, you must do exactly as I say, without exception". Which I find to be quite Orwellian.
Pretty much this. If you are the author of the software, you and only you get to decide what license it is put under. If someone doesn't like the license people are free not to use your software.
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
-
@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
-
@Ben L. said:
@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
OK, strike Google because they're obviously insane, and replace it with Microsoft.
-
@beginner_ said:
Yeah like 1kb matters...
@beginner_ said:
minified JS is archaic BS
@beginner_ said:
CDN is useless, rather larger and lots of traffic.
Clearly you know what you are talking about! Especially with that last quote..
-
@Ben L. said:
I'm going to write my website completely in JavaScript. No server-side scripting for me! Give the user the best possible experience by sending them the entire database and computing the page locally!
That's actually not very far from how a lot of modern webapps work. The server-side layer is basically just transforming data from a database to JSON and sending it back--all the heavy lifting is done by the browser.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
I'm going to write my website completely in JavaScript. No server-side scripting for me! Give the user the best possible experience by sending them the entire database and computing the page locally!
That's actually not very far from how a lot of modern webapps work. The server-side layer is basically just transforming data from a database to JSON and sending it back--all the heavy lifting is done by the browser.
If my server goes down, my users can just use their cache. I don't even need a server if my users have already seen my site once! Just don't clear your cache. Ever.
-
@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
It relies on copyright still, and copyright is very important in the UK and the USA. Other licenses like creative commons etc also rely on copyright and asking to comply nicely does work btw.
The fact that these companies haven't done it in and other companies while open sourcing their works have gone to great lengths to ensure legality is proof that it will stand up in court. Again if an author wants to release his work under a GPL license that is their right and it should be respected.
I know plenty of places that have stolen it but most of it is pretty bespoke software, and tbh if they released the source to the client it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the lock-in they enjoyed.
-
@lucas said:
The fact that these companies haven't done it in and other companies while open sourcing their works have gone to great lengths to ensure legality is proof that it will stand up in court.
No, it's consistent with the hypothesis but far from proof. It's just as plausible that challenging GPL in that manner would be a fucking nightmare in terms of publicity and legal fees, and so a pyrrhic victory.
-
I have to agree.
-
@lucas said:
See, that's the problem though. Copyright doesn't mean anything to 90% of people any more, especially not to the Ciscos and Apples of the world.@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
It relies on copyright still, and copyright is very important in the UK and the USA. Other licenses like creative commons etc also rely on copyright and asking to comply nicely does work btw.
The fact that these companies haven't done it in and other companies while open sourcing their works have gone to great lengths to ensure legality is proof that it will stand up in court. Again if an author wants to release his work under a GPL license that is their right and it should be respected.
I know plenty of places that have stolen it but most of it is pretty bespoke software, and tbh if they released the source to the client it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the lock-in they enjoyed.
-
@drurowin said:
@lucas said:
See, that's the problem though. Copyright doesn't mean anything to 90% of people any more, especially not to the Ciscos and Apples of the world.@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
It relies on copyright still, and copyright is very important in the UK and the USA. Other licenses like creative commons etc also rely on copyright and asking to comply nicely does work btw.
The fact that these companies haven't done it in and other companies while open sourcing their works have gone to great lengths to ensure legality is proof that it will stand up in court. Again if an author wants to release his work under a GPL license that is their right and it should be respected.
I know plenty of places that have stolen it but most of it is pretty bespoke software, and tbh if they released the source to the client it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the lock-in they enjoyed.
Depends which end of the lawsuit they're on.
-
@Ben L. said:
@drurowin said:
Assume they've just appropriated Joe Bloggs' GPL code, removed the GPL caution, and are distributing it to make money for themselves.@lucas said:
See, that's the problem though. Copyright doesn't mean anything to 90% of people any more, especially not to the Ciscos and Apples of the world.@drurowin said:
Or just steal it and dare you to do anything about it. The GPL has never stood up in a UK court, much less a US one. I'm sure that the Motorolas, Ciscos, and Googles of the world could do just what they damn well please with software written by a bunch of smelly hippies if they found it useful.
It relies on copyright still, and copyright is very important in the UK and the USA. Other licenses like creative commons etc also rely on copyright and asking to comply nicely does work btw.
The fact that these companies haven't done it in and other companies while open sourcing their works have gone to great lengths to ensure legality is proof that it will stand up in court. Again if an author wants to release his work under a GPL license that is their right and it should be respected.
I know plenty of places that have stolen it but most of it is pretty bespoke software, and tbh if they released the source to the client it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the lock-in they enjoyed.
Depends which end of the lawsuit they're on.
