X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,f7d991da3cc3c27e X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 06:58:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: Jave1.1 released References: <3B4D80FB.63F9A3ED@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <3B519ABC.49126441@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <9iv2go$d4a$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk> From: Russell Marks Lines: 72 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: Date: 01 Aug 2001 14:53:38 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.15.119 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 996674021 62.252.15.119 (Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:53:41 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:53:41 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:6845 Sniper zaps a wand of undead turning at the thread!--More-- [long lines wrapped] Sniper wrote: > Captains Log Star Date 16 Jul 2001 15:50:48 GMT,alien life > enxrah@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk (ROBERT HART) contacted us and said: [...] > >I have not tried using Jave, simply because it is a closed-source > >program. > > Why, Closed source != Bad. Your opinion. Some people *do* think closed source is bad. > If you have no need for Jave, then why should it make a difference, if See above. > you have a need for it, but want one open source, write it. If not, If I did, I would. > >Seriously, unless you plan to release Jave as a commercial product, > >you can only benefit by talking the Free Software route. You do not > >lose anything by opening the source - you still own the copyright, > >you still have control of the project, and you can still make jave > >better. > > ????? > > How does one make profit from a free application? the point | v ______ . _________. . . huh? why? what? eh? `---' ^ | you The point here is that Jave *isn't* commercial, and is already being distributed in executable form for free. Now, reread the above in that context. > >outside help and advice. However, the linux kernel is independant > >of Linus, and so is unlikely to ever dissapear. > > Actually, this is not true. Linus still has copyright on the code, if > he decided to start charging for it, then there would be problems. Wrong. Linus does not hold copyright on the majority of the kernel these days; he couldn't relicence it unilaterally. And *anyone* can charge for Linux, you just can't stop other people giving it away. > >Nobody can force you to Open Source Jave, and it's no skin off my > >nose if you don't, sooner or later, somebody else will do something > >similar, and Jave will die. > > This is not the case I think, if Jave is better, then most people will > use it. This is naive IMHO. Most people will use what they're familiar with. > Hell why do you think more people use closed source software > than open? See above. And ad-numerum arguments are not especially convincing. -Rus.