Joe Steeve wrote:
Free software is not developed by careless developers. It is developed by volunteers. Volunteers who love to program. Who love computing. These volunteers cannot be compared with regular programmers employed in software production houses. Here, the programmers are usually forced to do something that they probably dont like. One of my friends working in Infosys hates computers (He is a EEE engineer).
Ok, that clarifies my point.
He is programming today for a living. Please note., there is a difference in programming for a living and programming for passion. A passionate programmer puts his best effort to make beautiful programs. He knows the trade very well.
Exactly. A person who loves programming and passionate about it always strives for improving it and (I know) really does not mind sharing his/her software unrestricted in any form with his/her like-minded friends.
Have you ever used gcc + binutils + gdb. Do you think the people who programmed that are "careless developers??". Please look into the autotools (Autoconf + Automake + Libtool). That is not some mediocre joke. It is so professional that even propreitary production houses shamelessly use it. Can someone think of having a network of GUIs?? Did a "careless developer" think of making the X so powerful that I can actually open two GUI applications on a remote machine whose display comes on my terminal? Did a "careless developer" develop Guile.. I dont see even one single "heavily funded" proprietary software development house bring out something so smart and neat as Guile.
Looks like I am facing fury, I did not intend to offend anyone. All I said was there is a fairly good chance of computer-illiterate people getting cheated by malicious people.
Coming to the concept of Digital Signatures, I have not seen for myself nor seen my administrators bother anything about digital certificates/signatures. "Find a link, download, install and use...." is a very common concept among the vast majority of non-software companies who are interested in using a popular software, if it is free. Now, dont you think that cheating such a company is easy? Honestly, one can mutate a program (atleast the C source code is in plain ASCII?) and then take the CD to that company saying he/she has downloaded that software and install it (and the company feels happy that their time and money is saved from getting used for downloading it, esp. if its large). The above is just one possibility (and I say so after having witnessed disasters caused by similar methods). My point here was that apart from promoting free software, it is also our responsibility (the free software community) to see that the public (i again mean the non computer literate) are not cheated by such people, therby creating a false notion about free software (which in-turn reduces the support for the struggle)
I wrote all the above based on my personal observations and mindset of many people in business (non-computer-related) that I came across. I am very much in support of Free Software. I have just started working with gcc toolchain (after an initial port of it to one of our companies custom processor architecture) and it truely represents the Spirit of Programming. Honestly, I accept, I've never seen such beautiful software ever released from the software mafia (proprietory companies).
I do hope to be of some help to the community that I love (even if my comments, out of ignorance sometimes, seem to raise brows of the guru's).
Cheers and Wishes, Harsha.
Sriharsha Vedurmudi said on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:16:31PM +0530,:
Coming to the concept of Digital Signatures, I have not seen for myself nor seen my administrators bother anything about digital certificates/signatures. "Find a link, download, install and use...." is a very common concept
That is a problem with the people, not the movement, the concept underlying it, this institution, or the technology.
among the vast majority of non-software companies who are interested in using a popular software, if it is free. Now, dont you think that cheating such a company is easy? Honestly, one can mutate a program
You are wrong here. You have a very wrong notion of the community.
(atleast the C source code is in plain ASCII?) and then take the CD to that company saying he/she has downloaded that software and install it (and the company feels happy that their time and money is saved from getting used for downloading it, esp. if its large).
1. Mr. L. User, the boss here, deserves the sysadmin he has.
2. The sysadmin deserves the software he gets.
3. You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
(and I say so after having witnessed disasters caused by similar methods). My point here was that apart from
Ah. A /disaster/? Can I have details? Please ask the master mind behind the disaster to give the full source code to his modifications. If you are sure that the guy who modified was acting with malicious motives, why did you not take appropriate action??
On the other hand, if your point is that a guy simply downloaded a program off the net for free, and installed it for you for a fee, well, it is intended to work that way. If you did not get what you wanted, remember, when you pay monkeys, you get peanuts!!!
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
- You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
By clubbing M$'s "shared source" program with Opensource, you exhibit the same ignorance of Opensource as others have of GPL. Just as others take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open source" literally.
Do read the Opensource definition at least once - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
I quote: ============================ Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
1. Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. [...]
2. Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. [...]
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. [...]
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. [...]
[...] =============================
Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
- You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
By clubbing M$'s "shared source" program with Opensource, you exhibit the same ignorance of Opensource as others have of GPL. Just as others take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open source" literally.
Do read the Opensource definition at least once - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read definitions by third parties?
X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he pleases. X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing. The OSI has chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for the expression "Open Source". Please understand that merely because OSI has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the expression does not loose its generic meanings. Non-free software can fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about it. Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free software is not open source within the meaning of their private definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us. Open air, open court, open fire, etc. have existed for a long time and there is nothing special about open source.
You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to elicit answers to clear your doubts. Try to free your mind - that should help.
You may also try your luck asking the OSI, if the OSI has an open mailing list like this.
I quote:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
- Free ...
[the redundant stuff snipped by me]
Ramanraj K wrote:
Do read the Opensource definition at least once - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read definitions by third parties?
So that when you go to the town explaining the virtues of your philosophy and trashing others, you dont end up sounding misinformed. To actually espouse a cause for a revolution, first understand what you are revolting against.
X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he pleases. X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing. The OSI has chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for the expression "Open Source". Please understand that merely because OSI has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the expression does not loose its generic meanings.
and pray how is that different from FSF claiming new meanings for the expression "Free software". Do you mean to say that this term can also be used interchangeably with its generic meanings?
Non-free software can fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about it. Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free software is not open source within the meaning of their private definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us.
Yes, OSI can say that it is not OSI compliant.
The same happens when people come and say (ignorantly) that Linux and GNU programs are freeware or free software.
You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to elicit answers to clear your doubts. Try to free your mind - that should help.
If by showing respect you mean that I should blindly accept whatever others say without being able to argue their position, ... well I am sorry for being disrespectful.
You may also try your luck asking the OSI, if the OSI has an open mailing list like this.
:) Why this animosity to OSI? I am not trying to defend OSI or anything! I merely said that just as people are touchy about the usage of the word "Free", they should also be careful of their usage of other similar terms. Dismissing Microsoft's shared source program as Opensource is hypocritical to say the least, and offensive for some.
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
- Free ...
[the redundant stuff snipped by me]
I am sure you didnt read it this time too. :)
I am here because I have the highest of respect for the great work FSF is doing. But that work gets demeaned with exhibition of dismissiveness and contempt of others who have atleast partly the same social goals as you do.
- Sandip
Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Do read the Opensource definition at least once - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read definitions by third parties?
So that when you go to the town explaining the virtues of your philosophy and trashing others, you dont end up sounding misinformed. To actually espouse a cause for a revolution, first understand what you are revolting against.
Nonsense.
X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he pleases. X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing. The OSI has chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for the expression "Open Source". Please understand that merely because OSI has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the expression does not loose its generic meanings.
and pray how is that different from FSF claiming new meanings for the expression "Free software". Do you mean to say that this term can also be used interchangeably with its generic meanings?
Reading the license that accompanies the computer program usually helps a lot to understand if the computer program is free or non-free. But, you have already been told about this rather elaborately.
"Free software" is a generic expression that could be aptly used to describe computer programs released under the GPL or like free licences. It has nothing to do with other incidental matters.
Non-free software can fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about it. Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free software is not open source within the meaning of their private definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us.
Yes, OSI can say that it is not OSI compliant.
The same happens when people come and say (ignorantly) that Linux and GNU programs are freeware or free software.
Gnu/Linux and Gnu programs _are_ free software.
Our friend Sriharsha modestly said that he is new to free software, but was fairly accurate on many issues. I am surprised that someone from lug-delhi.org, who could be expected to be mature, should troll unabashedly here.
You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to elicit answers to clear your doubts. Try to free your mind - that should help.
If by showing respect you mean that I should blindly accept whatever others say without being able to argue their position, ... well I am sorry for being disrespectful.
Please make you point without abusing anyone here.
I am here because I have the highest of respect for the great work FSF is doing. But that work gets demeaned with exhibition of dismissiveness and contempt of others who have atleast partly the same social goals as you do.
Please make an effort to _show_ some respect :)
"Open Source Initiative" is after all a marketing program for Free Software. The OSI says it, we know it, and everybody but legislatures seem to know it. Its time you knew about it.
Recently, a thread was initiated by Bharathi, touching upon introducing free software in school syllabuses but was never discussed with this sort of vigour. Showing vehement interest in such issues as well, could make a big difference in taking free software to all.
Bye :)
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Open Source Initiative" is after all a marketing program for Free Software. The OSI says it, we know it, and everybody but legislatures seem to know it. Its time you knew about it.
Thanks for explaining the obvious to me. :)
Lets get some terminology correct, shall we? "Open Source Initiative" is a marketing program for _Open source_ Software. You still dont seem to get my point in this whole thread. My whole point is that be consistent of the terminology that you use.
And yes, do explain to me: When the "Opensource Initiative" promotes their "brand" of software, you put it down as "marketing". But when FSF does it, it is "taking it to the people"?
- Sandip
P.S. I still dont get your repeated requests for respect in every mail. What do you want me to do exactly for you? :-S
P.S2. Regardless of any further provocation or name-calling in this thread, this is my last mail on the subject.
Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Open Source Initiative" is after all a marketing program for Free Software. The OSI says it, we know it, and everybody but legislatures seem to know it. Its time you knew about it.
Thanks for explaining the obvious to me. :)
Lets get some terminology correct, shall we? "Open Source Initiative" is a marketing program for _Open source_ Software. You still dont seem to get my point in this whole thread. My whole point is that be consistent of the terminology that you use.
And yes, do explain to me: When the "Opensource Initiative" promotes their "brand" of software, you put it down as "marketing". But when FSF does it, it is "taking it to the people"?
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php <quote> How is "open source" related to "free software"?
The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism have. See the discussion of marketing for hackers for more. </quote>
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_hackers.php <quote> But the real reason for the re-labeling is a marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term "free software" has been misunderstood by business persons, who mistake the desire to share with anti-commercialism — or worse, theft.
Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy "free software." But if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to "open source" — that, experience has proven they will buy. </quote>
All this is fine for businesses, but not appropriate at all places.
P.S. I still dont get your repeated requests for respect in every mail. What do you want me to do exactly for you? :-S
Just avoid calling people "ignorant" etc. If you think yourself knowledgeable, please tell us why and how plainly and directly.
P.S2. Regardless of any further provocation or name-calling in this thread, this is my last mail on the subject.
If you would like to have the last word on a subject, please finish with content that makes sense.
,----[ Ramanraj K ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in ] | http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_hackers.php | <quote> | But the real reason for the re-labeling is a marketing one. We're | trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a | winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been | awful. The term "free software" has been misunderstood by business | persons, who mistake the desire to share with anti-commercialism | or worse, theft. | | Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy "free software." | But if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the | same free-software licenses and change the label to "open source" | that, experience has proven they will buy. </quote> | | All this is fine for businesses, but not appropriate at all places. `----
After the Free Software community succeeded in achieving its mission of a "Complete Free Operating System", the corporates feared running out of proprietary patented software businesses. Their goal was to make money, not Freedom. (Do you think IBM or Novell or RedHat cares for Freedom?). They were not able to demonstrate a money making business model out of Free Software to the VCs and hence the term Open Source (just another new name).
If you look at the old archives, you wont be surprised to find even Larry Augustin using the term Free Software, because Free Software was always Free Software, from the beginning.
It all started with Netscape and VA Linux.
Free Software community will succeed even without RedHat or Novell, but the not the converse.
Forgetting or not giving the importance to the Free Software Philosophy can one day lead to collapse of the movement.
,----[ Ramanraj K ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in ] | > P.S. I still dont get your repeated requests for respect in every | > mail. What do you want me to do exactly for you? :-S | | Just avoid calling people "ignorant" etc. If you think yourself | knowledgeable, please tell us why and how plainly and directly. `---- For others who are not aware, Ramanraj is not only a Free Software Hacker, but also a full time Lawyer. He understands enough about licensing.
Anand Babu wrote:
After the Free Software community succeeded in achieving its mission of a "Complete Free Operating System", the corporates feared running out of proprietary patented software businesses. Their goal was to make money, not Freedom. (Do you think IBM or Novell or RedHat cares for Freedom?). They were not able to demonstrate a money making business model out of Free Software to the VCs and hence the term Open Source (just another new name).
Not plugging for Red Hat here, but AFAIK, unlike any other commercial Linux vendor, they have released each and every bit of software under FSF licences only. Do you think their reluctance to use the term Free software could have more to do with the fact that they felt it confused people? If that is the case, then wouldnt it be in FSF's interest that they work *along* with such entities to see that they give Free software enough emphasis?
Just curious, is calling a piece of software "GNU software" instead of "Free software" diminish the intentions of FSF?
As far as I see, the nomenclature has two purposes: 1. Giving the term Freedom enough credit. 2. Giving FSF enough credit.
The term "Free software" used without widespread and all-pervasive publicity, doesnt give (1) and (2). *Practically* speaking. Even if you say, convince a newspaper about the benefits of Free software, if they go ahead and print a story of Free software with all good intentions, they are bound to be misinterpreted and both (1) and (2) will be missed.
However, emphasising "GNU software" will give FSF enough credit, and concentrating on FSF's image in the public domain, can bring about better recall.
- Sandip
Sandip Bhattacharya said on Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 11:22:10AM +0530,:
Just curious, is calling a piece of software "GNU software" instead of "Free software" diminish the intentions of FSF?
As far as I see, the nomenclature has two purposes:
- Giving the term Freedom enough credit.
- Giving FSF enough credit.
There is something the GNU project, whose objective is to create the GNU operating system. That project has everything required to run a full fledged operating system. That project uses the Hurd kernel, and currently, the only distribution based on GNU/Hurd is Debian.
The GCC, bash, *everything* in coreutils package, the glibc, etc. are part of the GNU Project. GNU software is software which is part of the GNU project.
Your software need not be GNU software to be free. To make it free, it is sufficient that you release your software under a free license.
But, all GNU software *is* free software.
HTH,
,----[ Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org ] | However, emphasising "GNU software" will give FSF enough credit, and | concentrating on FSF's image in the public domain, can bring about | better recall. `---- Absolutely!.
Unfortunately FSF is not credited for many of its own important contributions. Some times people call GNU software as Linux and Open Source.
More than crediting FSF, it is about letting the world know the existence of the GNU project and its motives.
Your suggestion is very valid.
There is a formal GNU evaluation team that does a verification and approval, before one can prefix GNU to the project name. It is a trivial process, just to ensure eligibility.
To know more about what it means for a program to be GNU software, please visit http://www.gnu.org/evaluation/evaluation.html
Note that, A GNU software - need not be copyrighted to FSF - need not be hosted on www.gnu.org or savannah.gnu.org - need not be licensed under GNU GPL
Anand Babu wrote:
Note that, A GNU software
- need not be copyrighted to FSF
- need not be hosted on www.gnu.org or savannah.gnu.org
- need not be licensed under GNU GPL
Can you elaborate in the third point? If not GPL what other licenses are accepted? Any major GNU project uses any other licenses?
raj
,----[ Rajkumar S s_raj@flashmail.com ] | Anand Babu wrote: | | > Note that, | > A GNU software - need not be copyrighted to FSF - need not be | > hosted on www.gnu.org or savannah.gnu.org - need not be licensed | > under GNU GPL | | Can you elaborate in the third point? If not GPL what other licenses | are accepted? Any major GNU project uses any other licenses? `---- Any GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses will do. You can get a list of them from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses
Apart from most GNU projects under GNU GPL, GNU LGPL and GNU GFDL, you can also find * Kawa - Scheme and Emacs Lisp on a Java VM Licensed under Kawa. * Ncurses - Displays and updates text on text-only terminals Licensed under an X11-style license. * Ninpaths - Paths Survey reporting program Licensed under PublicDomain. * slib - Portable scheme library Licensed under SimplePermissiveNonWarranty * Speex - Speech compression format Licensed under Xiph.org license.
Anand Babu wrote:
- need not be licensed under GNU GPL
Can you elaborate in the third point? If not GPL what other licenses are accepted? Any major GNU project uses any other licenses?
The Original BSD License is not a Copyleft license., but it is still a Free Software license. Check out., http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
Cheers, Joe
Just as others take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open source" literally.
That in essence captures the whole debate.
I think that the common man can get confused by both "open source" and "free software" and each of the supporting groups are trying to address it in their own ways.
I see validity in both the terms, however FSF wants to talks about "free as in freedom" and thinks that "free software" is more appropriate and less prone to misuse than "open source", as the last few years have shown.
There are precendents for using "free" to mean freedom, as in "free people, free country".
FSF uses "free" because it wants to bring "freedom of software" to the notice of people. The people who use "open source" typically tend to give less importance to freedom. e.g. Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html In which RMS lays out the case for copyrights of shorter length etc..
I would sum up the philosophy of FSF to be that of "Software Should Not Have Owners" http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
That is the real difference between FSF and its supporters and supporters of "open source".
For whats its worth I use "Free(dom) Software" in writing, and "Freedom software/Free Software" interchangebly when talking.
Thanks Krishna
===== To Reflect, to Inspire and to Empower http://www.employees.org/~krishnap/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Sriharsha Vedurmudi said on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:16:31PM +0530,:
among the vast majority of non-software companies who are interested in using a popular software, if it is free. Now, dont you think that cheating such a company is easy? Honestly, one can mutate a program
You are wrong here. You have a very wrong notion of the community.
I did earlier, but Joe Steeve in his last mail cleared all my doubts. I think you have not read the subsequent posts, you can find them in our archieves at: http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2004-September/date.html if you did not receive the mails. As far as I am concerned, if a question is answered or a doubt is clarified, there is no need for other good samaritans to dig out the question from older mail and re-answer it, unless the answer already given is incorrect and/or adds ambiguity. So, kindly refrain from it.
(atleast the C source code is in plain ASCII?) and then take the CD to that company saying he/she has downloaded that software and install it (and the company feels happy that their time and money is saved from getting used for downloading it, esp. if its large).
Mr. L. User, the boss here, deserves the sysadmin he has.
The sysadmin deserves the software he gets.
You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you
cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
If you would have read my mails/posts properly, I again-and-again said that I was talking specifically about many small-time NON-COMPUTER related firms who would'nt have a Full-Time Administrator also. DONT EXPECT MOST OF THEM TO BE WISE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS OF FREE SOFTWARE, COMPILATIONS, DIGITAL CERTIFICATES JUST LIKE YOU DO. Maybe they are few in number when compared to others, but they still exist. All they use computers is for simplifying (if possible) their works and entertainment. Now, if you say, I DONT CARE ABOUT SUCH PEOPLE and OFFICES, LET THEM GO TO HELL, well, I resign from trying to put forth my point.
(and I say so after having witnessed disasters caused by similar methods). My point here was that apart from
Ah. A /disaster/? Can I have details? Please ask the master mind behind the disaster to give the full source code to his modifications. If you are sure that the guy who modified was acting with malicious motives, why did you not take appropriate action??
Are you going to compensate for the losses incurred? A few hundreds or thousands may look like peanuts to you, but not to everyone. Do you expect that the mastermind will bring his mutated code for your kind perusal and dance and make merry when you discover that it is not original? Coming to why I did not take action, I got in touch with them after the damage was done. Ofcourse the problem was solved.
-Harsha.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Sriharsha Vedurmudi wrote:
If you would have read my mails/posts properly, I again-and-again said that I was talking specifically about many small-time NON-COMPUTER related firms who would'nt have a Full-Time Administrator also. DONT EXPECT MOST OF THEM TO BE WISE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS OF FREE SOFTWARE, COMPILATIONS, DIGITAL CERTIFICATES JUST LIKE YOU DO. Maybe they are few in number when compared to others, but they still exist. All they use computers is for simplifying (if possible) their works and entertainment. Now, if you say, I DONT CARE ABOUT SUCH PEOPLE and OFFICES, LET THEM GO TO HELL, well, I resign from trying to put forth my point.
they == NON-COMPUTER related/Any firm
Even for buying Rs.5/- vegetable people will ask 1K Qus. So if they want implement anything, then they have to consult correct person. If they took wrong decision then community will not be responsible for that.
It is similar to pvt chet funds, X took the decision and X lost the money.
In FSF Community, they can get help/guide from the mailing lists. I hope, Thats all community can do.
Bye :)
Sriharsha Vedurmudi said on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:12:23PM +0530,:
Are you going to compensate for the losses incurred? A few hundreds
Why did you pay the `mastermind' then?
Do you expect that the mastermind will bring his mutated code for your kind perusal and dance and make merry when you discover that it is not original? Coming to why I did not take action, I got in touch with them
THAT is, why, my dear, we have the concept of `COPYLEFT'. If the software was free, and also `copylefted', using a free license with strong copyleft provisions, like the GNU GPL (and NOT a mere open source license), this master mind certainly can be forced to spew out the code and his modifications.
Have a look at sections 2 and 3 of the GNU GPL.
after the damage was done. Ofcourse the problem was solved.
Ah. But surely, this is the first mail you say this? Or did I miss any of the previous mails?
It really is not fair (or useful) to complain about a solved problem, without telling us what it was, and how you solved it. If you tell us how it arose, AND ALSO how you solved it, we might be able to identify the flaws (if any) involved in the community process and fix it. That way, you would be helping the community by assisting the community to fix the problem you encountered, and thus ensuring that another person or user does not face a similar problem in the future.
-
Anand Babu -
Bharathi S -
Joe Steeve -
Krishna Pagadala -
Mahesh T. Pai -
Rajkumar S -
Ramanraj K -
Sandip Bhattacharya -
Sriharsha Vedurmudi