ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Active Network Forums Beta Test

Time: 14:41 EST/19:41 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein

As you may or may not know, we have decided to implement open source forums that have already been in place, better tested, and more efficient than our current ones. We are very close in achieving our goals, but now we need a group of beta testers willing to test everything out on the new forums so we can get all the kinks, bugs, etc. worked out prior to the rollover. Please e-mail us if you would like to help out. Note: We haven't received too many responses yet, we need people to come in and play around with these things, so please help! They are pretty cool!

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 9 of 9

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 2960 (156.80.34.36) at Monday, April 11, 2005 01:44:22 PM

This aughta be a fun thread to watch :)

#2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Monday, April 11, 2005 02:48:07 PM

I don't think it's OSS in the RMS sense (what I like to call NaziOSS or PsychoGirlfriendOSS).

It's a commercial product to which you can get the source and rights to use with special conditions (i.e. display their logo and a link to them, etc).

And it's not viral (like GNU), so it won't hose our entire site like GNU software would.

#3 By 12071 (203.217.72.18) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 06:32:09 AM

#3 OSS = http://www.opensource.org/
Go learn something before you make even more embarrassingly ignorant comments like "hose our entire site like GNU software would". Open Source != GNU GPL, GNU GPL is just one of the licenses under which the developer can choose to distribute their code. Plenty of commercial software makes use of GNU GPL code without "hosing their entire software suite" - perhaps you can ask them how they do it!

#4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:34:55 AM

kabuki - Considering open source existed prior to OSI, I reject the assumption that only they have the authority to dictate what is open source.

And your understanding of the GPL is naive.

#5 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:20:10 PM

No one fully understands the implications of the GPL, not even the people who wrote it. Since it's never been tested in court fully, no one knows.

People like RMS and such make off-hand comments about what it means, but they don't really know. And you can't just say "Oh yeah, that's what we meant when we wrote that" and expect that intent/meaning to hold up in court. The judge is going to interpret his/her own way to the best of his/her ability give the text in front of him/her (man, I wish English had a gender-neutral pronoun).

GPL is viral in that the boundaries of when it stops are not fully understood. The intent is that GPL software should only be used with other GPL software. And if it's not, the GPL can/may/should apply to that non-GPL software.

With a certain interpretation, a company that references a GPL library might be forced to open the source to their entire product.

It's just not known how it will fall out in court. And since the GPL is poorly worded and not clearly defined, it's best just to avoid it like the plauge rather than test it and hope for the best.

#6 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 02:53:57 PM

Well, here's your chance, OpenSourcers, help us prove that Open Source is viable! Beta test the forums today!

Email chad@activewin.com and bobstein@activewin.com!

This post was edited by daz on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 14:54.

#7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 04:30:08 PM

RMS's views on the GPL are not hidden or cryptic. He has specifically stated that the goal of the GPL is to eliminate copyright protections. He's also stated that the goal of the GNU foundation is to deprive developers of their livelihoods. This is all in the GNU Manifesto, if you'd care to read it.

There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, as long as you understand the implications and choose to abide by them. But it's disengenuous to claim that the GPL doesn't mean what it means in the hopes that you'll sucker people into using it so later on you can use the courts to take away their intellectual property.

#8 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 07:32:25 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that RMS isn't clear about what he wants. What I meant is that people have asked him what his thoughts on how this or that technical situations applies to the GPL. He gives cryptic answers and off-hand conjectures like "Oh, don't worry about that, you'll be safe" when, in fact, no one knows that if you do "that" or "this", that you'll be safe from the viral nature of the GPL.

There is an FAQ on the Gnu site about various "What if" scenarios and their legal implications, but the Gnu foundation can't tell you for sure if that's 100% golden. Their interpretation or will may not be the courts' interpretation or will in any given circumstance.

#9 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:45:18 PM

#5 "I reject the assumption that only they have the authority to dictate what is open source"
So you reject the definition of OSS as defined by the OSI but choose to accept the definition of OSS = GPL... and you call me naive!!

"And your understanding of the GPL is naive"
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. My understanding of the GPL is based on a lot of information, none of it limited to OSS == GPL! Having said that, I personally do not like the GPL for a number of reasons but I in no way believe the FUD that incorporating GPL will "hose" anything. Symantec (as well as many other commercial companies) currently incorporate GPL'ed components (if you have any of the Norton suite of application installed, have a look at the GPL in the installation directory if you'd like to confirm) into their products and it hasn't been viral in nature. The viral FUD comes from those that believe that OSS == GPL and GPL is anti-american, anti-capitalism, communist (and feel free to throw in any other FUD like comments here).

#6 "Since it's never been tested in court fully, no one knows." http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
"You know how in almost every FUD article about the GPL, they always say that the GPL has never been tested in a US court? That isn't actually true."

"People like RMS"
RMS is an extermist political/ideological individual, you just need to remember that when reading his comments/listening to him speak. In this regard he is no different to any other extermist political/ideological individual that you care to name.

"With a certain interpretation, a company that references a GPL library might be forced to open the source to their entire product."
Go right ahead, tell Symantec that they have to give you all their source code because they've included GPL components - and let me know when they've finished laughing. Like I've mentioned to sodablue, I'm in no way pro-GPL, I just don't like the assumption people have that OSS == GPL.

replica watches