Group items tagged

Any viral licence is a bad license...

I'm pretty confident I'm about to open a can of worms, but mind explaining why? :)

I am less worried about the can of worms ... actually eager to open it ... so why????

Well, the topic GPL vs other open-source licenses (e.g., BSD, MIT, etc.) is old as the internet and it has provided material for long and glorious flame wars. The executive summary is that the GPL license (the one used by Linux) is a license which imposes some restrictions on the way you are allowed to (re)use the code. Specifically, if you re-use or modify GPL code and re-distribute it, you are required to make it available again under the GPL license. It is called "viral" because once you use a bit of GPL code, you are required to make the whole application GPL - so in this sense GPL code replicates like a virus. On the other side of the spectrum, there are the so-called BSD-like licenses which have more relaxed requirements. Usually, the only obligation they impose is to acknowledge somewhere (e.g., in a README file) that you have used some BSD code and who wrote it (this is called "attribution clause"), but they do not require to re-distribute the whole application under the same license. GPL critics usually claim that the license is not really "free" because it does not allow you to do whatever you want with the code without restrictions. GPL proponents claim that the requirements imposed by the GPL are necessary to safeguard the freedom of the code, in order to avoid being able to re-use GPL code without giving anything back to the community (which the BSD license allow: early versions of Microsoft Windows, for instance, had the networking code basically copy-pasted from BSD-licensed versions of Unix). In my opinion (and this point is often brought up in the debates) the division pro/against GPL mirrors somehow the division between anti/pro anarchism. Anarchists claim that the only way to be really free is the absence of laws, while non-anarchist maintain that the only practical way to be free is to have laws (which by definition limit certain freedoms). So you can see how the topic can quickly become inflammatory :) GPL at the current time is used by aro

whoa, the comment got cut off. Anyway, I was just saying that at the present time the GPL license is used by around 65% of open source projects, including the Linux kernel, KDE, Samba, GCC, all the GNU utils, etc. The topic is much deeper than this brief summary, so if you are interested in it, Leopold, we can discuss it at length in another place.

Thanks for the record long comment - am sure that this is longest ever made to an ACT diigo post! On the topic, I would rather lean for the GPL license (which I also advocated for the Marek viewer programme we put on source forge btw), mainly because I don't trust that open source is by nature delivering a better product and thus will prevail but I still would like to succeed, which I am not sure it would if there were mainly BSD like licenses around. ... but clearly, this is an outsider talking :-)

I would be very very skeptic on this results and am actually ready to take bets that they are victims of something else than "new physics" ... some measurement error e.g.

Assuming that this system is feasible, and taking the results of Chinese team (Thrust of 720 mN http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion), I wonder whether this would allow for some actual trajectory maneuvers (and to which degree). If so, can we simulate some possible trajectories, e.g. compare the current solutions to this one ? For example, Shawyer (original author) claims that this system would be capable of stabilizing ISS without need for refueling. Other article on the same topic: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results

To be exact, the chinese reported 720mN and the americans found ~50microN. The first one I simply do not believe and the second one seems more credible, yet it has to be said that measuring such low thrust levels on a thrust-stand is very difficult and prone to measurement errors. @Krzys, the thrust level of 720mN is within the same range of other electric propulsion systems which are considered - and even used in some cases - for station keeping, also for the ISS actually (for which there are also ideas to use a high power system delivering several Newtons of thrust). Then on the idea, I do not rule out that an interaction between the EM waves and 'vacuum' could be possible, however if this would be true then this surely would be detectable in any particle accelerator as it would produce background events/noise. The energy densities involved and the conversion to thrust via some form of interaction with the vacuum surely could not provide thrusts in the range reported by the chinese, nor the americans. The laws of momentum conservation would still need to apply. Finally, 'quantum vacuum virtual plasma'.. really?