The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
This is why you don't hire non-tech tech Project Managers
I think it rather depends on your goal, doesn't it? His goal may not be to enhance OSS as a business tool... his goal, more than likely, is something you wouldn't even agree with as a good thing, but that doesn't mean he's a moron.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Originally posted by snoopy369
I think it rather depends on your goal, doesn't it? His goal may not be to enhance OSS as a business tool... his goal, more than likely, is something you wouldn't even agree with as a good thing, but that doesn't mean he's a moron.
His goal is to have open and free software for anyone and everyone. The GPL's viral characteristics exist for this reason: he wants as much software as possible to be open. The problem is he's genuinely not a very bright person, and he didn't forsee how such aggression in the license can inhibit its growth rather than power it.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If programmers use GPL software and 'close' their additional work, GPL isn't really growing, isn't it?
What?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
If it is licensed under the GPL, then the company will need to open source every component it is built with (including the software _we_ write that uses it). It's childish and inhibits adoption of OSS.
If they use the GPL then "close" their additional work, it violates the GPL...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Asher
If they use the GPL then "close" their additional work, it violates the GPL...
WTF?
1. He wants more GPL.
2. If you use GPL and then close the additional work, then there isn't more GPL.
3. Thus he won't allow it.
The rationale would be: adoption of GPL software is not worth it, if it doesn't result in more being created.
The counter-rationale would be that allowing it would gradually encourage people to be more open about GPL.
The counter-counter is that it's delusional to believe businesses would encourage it seriously (as it would run against their very interests). Thus he doesn't want them to 'freeride'...
Originally posted by Asher
If they use the GPL then "close" their additional work, it violates the GPL...
Um, no? You cannot *distribute* software that has GPL parts under any other license. If you hack, say, gcc to make it accept some wierd macro and use it inside your company, then you don't have to release it back into the wild.
Graffiti in a public toilet
Do not require skill or wit
Among the **** we all are poets
Among the poets we are ****.
Um, no? You cannot *distribute* software that has GPL parts under any other license. If you hack, say, gcc to make it accept some wierd macro and use it inside your company, then you don't have to release it back into the wild.
I do not know why this is difficult to comprehend. My company does not use the software we create, we sell it to other people.
Which means if we use GPL code in any way (dynamically or statically linked), then we need to release the source code for our work.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
1. He wants more GPL.
2. If you use GPL and then close the additional work, then there isn't more GPL.
3. Thus he won't allow it.
The rationale would be: adoption of GPL software is not worth it, if it doesn't result in more being created.
The counter-rationale would be that allowing it would gradually encourage people to be more open about GPL.
The counter-counter is that it's delusional to believe businesses would encourage it seriously (as it would run against their very interests). Thus he doesn't want them to 'freeride'...
WTF indeed.
I have no idea what the **** you are talking about, and I suspect this is because you have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
I understand his rationale behind it. It's just stupid for long-term widespread adoption of GPL code.
It's such an aggressive and demanding license that it's driving legit users of the code away, which prevents society from benefiting from it as a whole. I'm going to assume you haven't read the OSS manifesto, so perhaps this is why you're so clueless about the subject.
Compare the GPL to the BSD license. GPL software is still largely restricted to the flat and uninspiring Linux ecosystem, while BSD code is used on virtually every computer on the face of the planet. Microsoft Windows includes some BSD code, and Apple even leveraged an entire OS kernel under the BSD license to make OS X. It's this kind of permissive license that is driving OSS adoption in the real world, while the GPL's restrictions and draconian nature will keep it as a niche license that businesses tend to avoid.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Asher
I do not know why this is difficult to comprehend. My company does not use the software we create, we sell it to other people.
Which means if we use GPL code in any way (dynamically or statically linked), then we need to release the source code for our work.
In this case, yes, GPL is not really a good idea.
By the way, when you say "my company", do you mean your company or is it actually a company you work for?
Graffiti in a public toilet
Do not require skill or wit
Among the **** we all are poets
Among the poets we are ****.
Originally posted by Asher
Which means if we use GPL code in any way (dynamically or statically linked), then we need to release the source code for our work.
Except in this case, where it sounds like the GPL software is a standalone program that you could just invoke.
In this case, yes, GPL is not really a good idea.
By the way, when you say "my company", do you mean your company or is it actually a company you work for?
Company I work for.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Except in this case, where it sounds like the GPL software is a standalone program that you could just invoke.
It is not, it is a software library. It is a DLL. Which means it is dynamically linked to. Which means they cannot use it.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment