Re: The Show So Far
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> > 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
> That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
> algorithm from an application. I can use it in my own programs, and
> improve other, unrelated things with it, or learn from it, or critique
> But it doesn't let me improve the application that it's from at all,
> since I don't have its source. Likewise, Google releasing source
> might have lots of other benefits, but it doesn't let me improve Google
> in any way, and I believe those "other benefits" are peripheral.
But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want. I
don't see why "altering the application you actually run" is the only
goal that's allowed for Free Software. These aren't "side effects" --
they're primary, important goals in themselves. Indeed, giving copies
to friends (another freedom of Free Software) is a primary goal.
> Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and
> In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
> improve Google--period.
You could, with funding, run your own Google (with spidering and
everything). You could also submit patches to the Google team.
> In the case of BarInterface, it *may* be reasonable to run a separate
> copy of the server on my own system, with my enhancements.
This is reasonable with Google, too -- that's what the yellow box Google
> I do think these two cases should be considered independently. The
> "provide the source to users of a webpage" discussion revolves around
> #1, which I think is distinct, and doesn't help #2 at all.
In the case where #2 has this quine code, it does help.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson