Free?

[Chante]

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j822kv$7jf$2 at digitalmars.com...
> Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:
>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j81ve0$7jf$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
>>>> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:j81rap$1f50$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and
>>>>> it
>>>>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily 
>>>>> use
>>>>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and 
>>>>> will
>>>>> remain available with further distributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going 
>>>>> to
>>>>> infect you without your consent.
>>>>
>>>> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or 
>>>> some
>>>> software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that 
>>>> exposure.
>>>> Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is
>>>> especially
>>>> "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just
>>>> wanting
>>>> to learn programming or build some software will download the viral
>>>> code
>>>> and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to
>>>> make
>>>> decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's
>>>> like
>>>> marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code 
>>> can
>>> never again work at another company because he is tainted.
>>
>> It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very
>> deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?).
>> Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to
>> keep the possibilities open.
>>
>
> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
> has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
> In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
> touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
> having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a 
> bonus.

While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the 
first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a 
differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to hire 
programmers, the role description would be something like you stated 
above.

> Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the
> Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and
> related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying
> GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.

That is one, pervasive (but how did it become to be pervasive?) scenario, 
but hardly the only one, as I have noted.

>
>> It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of
>> "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral
>> source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source
>> code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big 
>> a
>> risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn
>> programming, they should think about where they want to go with that 
>> in
>> the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the
>> possibilities. Caveat emptor.
>>
>
> I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want
> to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering. 
> Sounds
> like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.

I was coming from the perspective that no one like that is going to get 
anywhere near my codebase. I don't care what other people do/are doing. 
If there comes a point when I have to use someone else's code, I'll think 
long and hard before making any association. The ideal, for me, is 
allying with others who are also not "tainted". If I have to, and if I 
get the opportunity to, I will "grow" these people. Viral source code is, 
to me, like I described it in my first post. If there was any "message" 
in what I brought forth, it is surely, to not follow blindly and not to 
fall into "traps" placed by someone else's agendas. Use the ol' noggin, 
IOW. What one knows may not be as important as what one does not know.

>
> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
> a hindrance for a job?
> Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
> bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
> (Or both - "depends on the job"?)

"Job" is but one thing, freedom is another. "Job" may be the only option 
once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room" 
development for a product they offer from their own company once they 
have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or 
another company's source code.

While these may be novel thoughts, they are not hard to grasp. Maybe I'm 
the only one who values "untainted" (for lack of a better word at the 
moment), but maybe just for the time being. While I'm not quite yet ready 
to seek such associations, I don't mind hearing from others who have the 
same/similar value(s). I may have to get on with that. Obviously I can't 
"code the world over" by myself. Right now I'm reeling with what 
first-to-file means for me, where I can "find" the money to talk with 
good patent attorneys or find the time to do in-depth research into those 
matters. I certainly don't expect a "cure" to become available in my 
lifetime, :-(, but haven't lost hope completely for sueh. (And, for the 
record, there is no viral source code that I wish to use. I consider it 
"crap code". The patent issues in the other realm, DO bother me however).