Talk:GPL - Revision history

Jukeboksi: changed to Company X. Please see the Rules

2003-06-24T16:24:14Z

changed to Company X. Please see the Rules

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 24 June 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	If we have GPL Schema and someone modifies it without notifying us (which they are allowed to do) and makes a document following the altered grammar and tries to input it into the system. The software checks it's validity against the Schema it has and determines it is not compliant and the document is not processed, because the software doesn't know how to process it.		If we have GPL Schema and someone modifies it without notifying us (which they are allowed to do) and makes a document following the altered grammar and tries to input it into the system. The software checks it's validity against the Schema it has and determines it is not compliant and the document is not processed, because the software doesn't know how to process it.

	:That's not the problem. "The software" is not one thing as you suggest. There will be competition there too. There will be a modified schema, AND modified software, because a [[self-interested fork]] almost always involves both. The modified software works with and even EXPECTS the altered grammar, and now you have a fork, and if the promoter of the new fork ([[~~Microsoft~~]~~], [[Monsanto]], [[oilco]]s~~) is powerful enough, they get content poured into the altered grammar that we can't get first, and (depending on content license) can't even copy. Then if that software serves the interests of retailers, say, it will be preferentially installed to use the [[hardware]] deployed to those retailers by [[Consumerium]], and, we're dead.		:That's not the problem. "The software" is not one thing as you suggest. There will be competition there too. There will be a modified schema, AND modified software, because a [[self-interested fork]] almost always involves both. The modified software works with and even EXPECTS the altered grammar, and now you have a fork, and if the promoter of the new fork ([[Company X]) is powerful enough, they get content poured into the altered grammar that we can't get first, and (depending on content license) can't even copy. Then if that software serves the interests of retailers, say, it will be preferentially installed to use the [[hardware]] deployed to those retailers by [[Consumerium]], and, we're dead.

	:The right way to address these problems is to lay out [[worst cases]] one by one, and eventually pick [[licenses]] for each deliverable that seem to make the worst cases not possible, or at least not easy. The wrong way is to do it by feelings and internal unshared ideas of what will happen.		:The right way to address these problems is to lay out worst cases one by one, and eventually pick [[licenses]] for each deliverable that seem to make the worst cases not possible, or at least not easy. The wrong way is to do it by feelings and internal unshared ideas of what will happen.

142.177.99.155 at 16:42, 22 June 2003

2003-06-22T16:42:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 22 June 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	If we have GPL Schema and someone modifies it without notifying us (which they are allowed to do) and makes a document following the altered grammar and tries to input it into the system. The software checks it's validity against the Schema it has and determines it is not compliant and the document is not processed, because the software doesn't know how to process it.		If we have GPL Schema and someone modifies it without notifying us (which they are allowed to do) and makes a document following the altered grammar and tries to input it into the system. The software checks it's validity against the Schema it has and determines it is not compliant and the document is not processed, because the software doesn't know how to process it.

	:That's not the problem. "The software" is not one thing as you suggest. There will be competition there too. There will be a modified schema, AND modified software, because a [[self-interested fork]] almost always involves both. The modified software works with and even EXPECTS the altered grammar, and now you have a fork, and if the promoter of the new fork ([[Microsoft]], [[Monsanto]], [[oilco]]s) is powerful enough, they get content poured into the altered grammar that we can't get first, and (depending on content license) can't even copy.		:That's not the problem. "The software" is not one thing as you suggest. There will be competition there too. There will be a modified schema, AND modified software, because a [[self-interested fork]] almost always involves both. The modified software works with and even EXPECTS the altered grammar, and now you have a fork, and if the promoter of the new fork ([[Microsoft]], [[Monsanto]], [[oilco]]s) is powerful enough, they get content poured into the altered grammar that we can't get first, and (depending on content license) can't even copy. Then if that software serves the interests of retailers, say, it will be preferentially installed to use the [[hardware]] deployed to those retailers by [[Consumerium]], and, we're dead.

			:The right way to address these problems is to lay out [[worst cases]] one by one, and eventually pick [[licenses]] for each deliverable that seem to make the worst cases not possible, or at least not easy. The wrong way is to do it by feelings and internal unshared ideas of what will happen.

142.177.99.155: "the software"?

2003-06-22T16:38:15Z

"the software"?

New page

From blog:

If we have GPL Schema and someone modifies it without notifying us (which they are allowed to do) and makes a document following the altered grammar and tries to input it into the system. The software checks it's validity against the Schema it has and determines it is not compliant and the document is not processed, because the software doesn't know how to process it.

:That's not the problem. "The software" is not one thing as you suggest. There will be competition there too. There will be a modified schema, AND modified software, because a [[self-interested fork]] almost always involves both. The modified software works with and even EXPECTS the altered grammar, and now you have a fork, and if the promoter of the new fork ([[Microsoft]], [[Monsanto]], [[oilco]]s) is powerful enough, they get content poured into the altered grammar that we can't get first, and (depending on content license) can't even copy.