Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Java not free?
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Java not free?
This topic has 66 replies on 5 pages.    « Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next »

Posts:957
Registered: 3/31/04
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 12:44 PM (reply 15 of 66)



 
the guy struck me

the guy struck me as a communist.

There is a debate, renewed by SCO, that the GPL is
viral. I'm not an IP lawyer so I can't comment if
this is true or not but from my naive view it is.
Even if it isn't, I don't think it serves the
interests of capitalism.

That's why they say every rose has its thorn
And every night has its dawn
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 12:45 PM (reply 16 of 66)



 
I don't really think it's possible to have data that can only be used by one language.

The same arguments apply to all sorts of products, though, some of which use proprietary and closed data storage formats.

As fars as whether they continue to support it...
Well, that's a risk you take with almost anything,
open source included.

Yes, indeed.
 

Posts:6,147
Registered: 11/9/00
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 12:59 PM (reply 17 of 66)



 
Does Linux, the flagship of open source, serve capitalism. Not Bill Gates, of course, but quite a lot of capitalism is embracing linux with enthusiasm.

The OSF is a tad on the evangalistic side but their fundamental point, that IP can't really be handled like a physical comidity is sound.
 

Posts:11,200
Registered: 7/22/99
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:01 PM (reply 18 of 66)



 
There is a debate, renewed by SCO, that the GPL is
viral. I'm not an IP lawyer so I can't comment if
this is true or not but from my naive view it is.
Even if it isn't, I don't think it serves the
interests of capitalism.

The GPL indeed is viral: if you use for instance a GPL'd library in your software and release that software you have to release it under the GPL. This means that you can't leach on the developers/companies that have worked hard to produce that library without giving something back to the domain of GPL'd software, makes sense no? However this isn't always very practical so GPL is not the only license free/open source software is released under.

I don't see why everything should serve the best interest of capitalism but there's nothing in GPL that prevents you from asking money for your work and licensing software under GPL doesn't mean you have to hand out copies to everyone...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
 

Posts:759
Registered: 8/30/01
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:08 PM (reply 19 of 66)



 
Open Source has been a huge boon for Capitalism. Monopolies necessitated it. It would not have taken off if it weren't for IBM's (and countless others) getting behind linux and providing the professional resources needed to make it into the commercial entity it is. I don't get this "radical" "free-code" hippy foolishness. I understand that it is counter-productive to commerce to force some guy at home to pay $500 to get develpment tools to build a website. It makes perfect sense that a small company or person has the cheap resources to take advantage of the internet. This is why its a good thing. It is providing small governments with state of the art computer systems if they want them. Its "democratic" or "populist" in many ways, but its end is merely cheaper means to computer software, which in turns proliferates the development of software. Its not freeing the workers of the world.
 

Posts:11,200
Registered: 7/22/99
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:22 PM (reply 20 of 66)



 
I don't really think it's possible to have data that
can only be used by one language.

As fars as whether they continue to support it...
Well, that's a risk you take with almost anything,
open source included. There are many open source
projects that have languished. I think if Sun decided
it didn't care to support Java anymore, they'd just
make it open source.
I meant more in general than just Java; Java is fairly open, all the specs are available and there are a few independent implementations of the platform, so if Sun suddenly decides to stop R&D work on Java others would likely continue no matter what Sun says. At most Sun could say that the product could not be called "Java" anymore because they hold the trademark, but products have gone through name changes before. If Sun completely owned Java it might be different but as you say, there are risks with everything, and it's ridiculos to think they'd set out to destroy the platform...

I'm not against open source but I think there are some
issues with it. Chaotic systems work well when they
have bounds. Completely anarchy tends favors thugs,
bullies, and despots. I think that applies to
software too.

So you'd say the current state of software business is complete anarchy, favoring thugs, bullies, and despots? ;)
 

Posts:13,769
Registered: 00-11-29
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:34 PM (reply 21 of 66)



 
So you'd say the current state of software business
is complete anarchy, favoring thugs, bullies,
and despots? ;)

Well MS could be defined as a thug, bully, and despot but no, not completely. I think open source is cool but you need some sort of binding force to keep it from flying apart into thousands of pieces. If there are no rules as to what is Java, it's going to become a free for all. I think Java is a little restrictive now but I don't think things would be better if anyone could hack up the code and distribute it.

Communism and anarchy are really great ideas except that they ignore the fact that there's always some ******* out there waiting to screw everyone else.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:43 PM (reply 22 of 66)



 
I think open source is cool
but you need some sort of binding force to keep it
from flying apart into thousands of pieces.

How about... The Force? Or duct tape.
 

Posts:2,206
Registered: 8/15/02
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:53 PM (reply 23 of 66)



 
Captialism sucks.
 

Posts:13,769
Registered: 00-11-29
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 1:59 PM (reply 24 of 66)



 
Captialism sucks.

What's the alternative?
 

Posts:2,206
Registered: 8/15/02
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 2:13 PM (reply 25 of 66)



 
I think what would be better is some mix of communism and capitalism. I am all in favour of capitalism for things like TV's, vacuum cleaners and other consumer products. I would prefer a more "communist" approach for things like drugs, water, possibly power (in two minds about this one), and clean air ( I don't approve of the ability in the Kyoto protocol that allows nations to "trade" greenhouse emissions).

It is particularly drugs and water I have an issue with. I really dislike that drug companies develop things to treat something like HIV or Malaria, but then price them so high the people who really need them can't afford them. There was until last year a back door, since India did not regogize drug patents and made lower cost drugs which people could afford, but they caved in to US pressure (although I believe there was some MOU with the US and European drug giants)
 

Posts:349
Registered: 1/8/04
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 2:35 PM (reply 26 of 66)



 
It is particularly drugs and water I have an issue with.

There's just something about the 'survival of the fittest' mentality of capitalism that doesn't jive with health care. It's always seemed to me that the health of the nation would be one of the first things that the community (ie government) would address. In the US now, the government subsidizes Amtrack, as though my ability to ride on a train is more important than my ability to get a broken leg set or be immunized against Hepatitas.

Capitalists must admit that the US is not a pure capitalist economy. The next step is to look at what government actually subsidizes and what it doesn't as a statement of the government's values and goals.
 

Posts:13,769
Registered: 00-11-29
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 2:37 PM (reply 27 of 66)



 
OK. I think capitalism is good when it's bounded correctly. Complete free market capitalism doesn't exist because companies and/or indiviuals will interfere with the market in order to protect their interests. Why play fair when it means you might lose? Anarchy produces despotism. When there are no rules there are no rules against bending others to your will and in effect creating an organization.

But if you go too far the other way, like communism, the government tries to micromanage things that are better left to a chaotic system. The book "Chaos" explains it better than I can. The key is to keep the chaotics system going. Pure capitalism starts out as a chaotic system but after a while it stops being chaotic, like when a monopoly is formed.
 

Posts:2,206
Registered: 8/15/02
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 5:28 PM (reply 28 of 66)



 
Complete free market capitalism doesn't
exist because companies and/or indiviuals will
interfere with the market in order to protect their
interests.

And governments and bodies such as the World Bank and WTO. It was a bad day when the UK government privatised the Water industry.
 

Posts:2,821
Registered: 7/10/01
Re: Java not free?  
Jun 10, 2004 7:21 PM (reply 29 of 66)



 
Capitalism is flawed, it impedes scientific advancement and development,
down with capitalism, up with utopianism!!
 
This topic has 66 replies on 5 pages.    « Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next »