On 2009-07-13, amicus_curious <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Homer" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:2supi6-csl.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> SFLC challenges Black Duck to open source code
>>
>> How strange that a company founded to improve accountability through
>> transparency, should be so clandestine and opaque with its own software
>> and methods.
>>
> Not at all, Homer. The Black Duck products have commercial value and are
> therefore protected from copyright theft unless you pay to receive that
> value. It is not like FOSS software that is free as in beer and so has no
> commercial value to protect.
>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | A recent report from Black Duck Software suggests there has been a
>>> | five per cent decline in the use of GPL licences since 2008.
>>
>> So, who is Black Duck, and what's their real motives?:
>>
> Their motive is rather obvious, I would think, namely to make some money by
> servicing customer's needs to keep track of the crazy quilt of licenses of
> any open source software that they might want to use. In a sense FOSS has
It's almost as if every bit of software out there is owned by it's
own distinct entity and therefore might have any set of random licesning
terms that owner wants. It's almost if each and everyone one of them can
draw up their own 1000 page contract/license completely distinct and
apart from all the other ones.
[deletia]
6 billion different EULAs... imagine that.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.
|
|
