本文介绍了负责许可证的处理方法,对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值,需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧! 问题描述 29岁程序员,3月因学历无情被辞! 软件是一项有趣的发明。软件有这个有趣的 属性,它可以无需成本复制,就像复制 钱一样。历史上从未有过可重复使用的商品。但是随着计算机的发明,短暂的非物理程序打破了b / b 这个规则。在数字形式下,节目,音乐和书籍都会以无限的数量变成商品。 一切都很好,除了数字形式的坏处也可以同等倍增, 就像货物一样。众所周知的例子是计算机病毒和电子邮件 垃圾邮件。 unix morons的众所周知的是软件坏事。在一个 unix moron的脑海中,黑客中最主要的讽刺是你的代码在哪里?b $ b,,明白了黑客的心态声望是 判断他为社区贡献了多少代码。 因此,每个他妈的铆钉和幸福快乐的蠢货都会把他们的 网上的家庭作业,带有免费的大邮票,并为他们的贡献而感到自豪。致全世界。这些数字坏事,包括 不负责任的程序,协议和语言,像病毒一样传播 ,直到他们获得了STARDARD或大部分的宣传权 热门产业,似乎表明了卓越的品质。例如: C,Perl,RFC,X-Windows,Apache,MySQL,漂亮的主页(以及几乎所有来自unix的b $ b)。病毒的危害是直接的。 不负责任的软件(特别是肆无忌惮的促销)的危害是整整一代坏思维和猴子编码器的创造。 的比例可以比作将一颗子弹放在一个人脑中, 而不是用大屠杀后果创造一个信条。 软件的分发很容易像污染一样。我想到了一个法律 ,它会禁止分发软件坏事,或者像现代社会那样收取垃圾收集费用。问题是难以确定什么是好的,什么是坏的。就像在很多事情上一样,我认为最终的帮助是让人们意识到的;所谓的 教育;我相信,如果让人们了解到b 所说的情况,那么不负责任的软件会减少,无论是否有任何个人意见。 - 应对不负责任软件给行业带来的巨大伤害的最重要措施是从开始负责许可证,以便软件的生产者对通过其软件造成的损害承担责任。我们知道,今天的'b $ b软件许可证带有免责声明,基本上说 软件按原样出售,制作人不负责任何 损坏,也不保证软件的功能。这就是这个,它允许各种各样的邋and和他妈的时尚和神话在软件行业中肆虐和生存。一旦软件生产者对他们的产品负责,就像桥梁或飞机或 运输或房屋建筑商负责他们的事情 建立,然后有害的时尚和信条(Perl,编程 模式,极限编程,通用建模语言...)将通过dint自动消失没有任何人的市场力量 规定。 在我们已建立的软件和行业基础设施中 的做法是所以已经被现有的假货搞砸了,我们不能立刻期待软件许可证中的约定从0到b $ b到100%的责任。我们应该逐渐让他们负起责任。并且这不是来自人工力量,而是逐渐建立了软件专业人士及其消费者的意识。 (制作人 包括单个个人到软件公司,消费者包括 ,不仅仅是妈妈和流行音乐,而是从IT团队到军队。) http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html Xah xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.htmlSoftware is a interesting invention. Software has this interestingproperty, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copyingmoney. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But withthe invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs breaksthat precept. In digital form, program and music and books all becomegoods in essentially infinite quantity.All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,just as goods. Wellknown examples are computer viruses and emailspams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons is software bads. In aunix moron''s mind, the predominant quip among hackers is "where isyour code?", singnifying the mentality that a hacker''s prestige isjudged on how much code he has contributed to the community.Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put theirhomework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud oftheir "contributions" to the world. These digital bads, includingirresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like virusesuntil they obtained the touting right of being the STARDARD or MOSTPOPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary areC, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almostanything out of unix). The harm of a virus is direct. The harm ofirresponsible software (esp with unscrupulous promotion) is thecreation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. Thescales can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain,versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a lawthat would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging forgarbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficultyof deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, ithink the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-callededucation; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation ispoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless anyindividual''s opinion.--The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm thatirresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin withresponsible license, such that the producer of a software will beliable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today''ssoftware licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says thesoftware is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for anydamage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It isthis, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and mythsto rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when softwareproducers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane ortransportation or house builders are responsible for the things theybuild, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, ProgramingPatterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) willautomatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone''sstipulation.In our already established infrastructure of software and industrypractices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can notimmediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liabilityto 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. Andthis, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment ofawareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producersincludes single individual to software houses, and consumers includesnot just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.) http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.htmlXahxahlee.org http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html推荐答案 xa*@xahlee.org (Xah Lee)没有写任何关于clc的主题 - 为了争论,没有必要理解 。xa*@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote nothing topical to c.l.c.--It is not necessary to understand thingsin order to argue about them. ___________________ / | / | | | || __ || |请做| / OO \__ NOT | / \喂了| / \ \ trolls | / _ \ \ ______________ | / | \ ____ \ \ || / | | | | \ ____ / || / \ | _ | _ | / \ __ || / / \ | ____ | || / | | / | | - | | | | // | ____ - | * _ | | _ | _ | _ | | \ / / * - _-- \ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // | / * / \_ / - | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C / \C_c_c_c ____________ - M?ns Rullg?rd mr*@users.sf.net___________________/| /| | |||__|| | Please do |/ O O\__ NOT |/ \ feed the |/ \ \ trolls |/ _ \ \ ______________|/ |\____\ \ ||/ | | | |\____/ ||/ \|_|_|/ \ __||/ / \ |____| ||/ | | /| | --|| | |// |____ --|* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/*-- _--\ _ \ // |/ _ \\ _ // | /* / \_ /- | - | |* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________--M?ns Rullg?rd mr*@users.sf.net Xah Lee < xa*@xahlee.org>在消息中写道 新闻:7f ************************** @ posting.google.c om ..."Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote in messagenews:7f**************************@posting.google.c om...应对不负责任的软件对行业所造成的巨大伤害的最重要措施是从开始负责许可,这样一来,软件将对因软件造成的损害承担责任。据我们所知,今天的软件许可证附带了免责声明,基本上说软件按原样销售,生产商不对任何损害负责,也不保证其功能。软件。这就是,它允许各种各样的邋and和他妈的时尚和神话在软件行业中肆虐和生存。一旦软件生产商对他们的产品负责,就像桥梁或飞机或运输工具或房屋建造者对他们构建的东西负责一样,那么就像(Perl)那样有害的时尚和信条,编程模式,极限编程,通用建模语言......)将在没有任何人的规定的情况下通过市场力量自动消失。 The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today''s software licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and myths to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) will automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone''s stipulation. 这会摧毁自由软件社区。你可以尝试免除免费的b $ b软件,但那样你就可以成功摧毁低成本的软件社区。 (而且,无论如何,由于免费软件实际上不是免费的,所以你很难免除自由软件社区。 许可条款,即使没有明确规定以美元计算,与他们相关的费用为。) 任何两个非强制人员完全了解这些条款的协议是 公平的定义。如果我不想购买软件,除非制造商 承担责任,我已经可以自由接受这些条款。所有你想做的就是从买家那里取消自由谈判的权利,以换取更低的价格来承担责任。 如果你认真考虑政府监管以减少人们的软件购买选择可以生产出更可靠的软件,那么你就生活在与我生活的世界不同的世界。事实上,如果所有公司都需要为他们的软件承担责任,那么生产更多可靠软件的公司不能选择承担责任作为竞争优势的b $ b边缘。因此,你会降低竞争对制造商施加压力的能力,即制造可靠的软件。 制造商只需购买更昂贵的责任保险, 提高其软件的价格,并继续生产不再可靠的软件。一个更糟糕的意外后果 - 当一个错误被发现时,一个公司可能会破产而没有人和 没什么可以维护这个软件。 DSThat would destroy the free software community. You could try to exempt freesoftware, but then you would just succeed in destroying the ''low cost''software community. (And, in any event, since free software is not reallyfree, you would have a hard time exempting the free software community.Licensing terms, even if not explicitly in dollars, have a cost associatedwith them.)Any agreement two uncoerced people make with full knowledge of the terms isfair by definition. If I don''t want to buy software unless the manufacturertakes liability, I am already free to accept only those terms. All you wantto do is remove from the buyer the freedom to negotiate away his right tosue for liability in exchange for a lower price.If you seriously think government regulation to reduce people''s softwarebuying choices can produce more reliable software, you''re living in adifferent world from the one that I''m living in. In fact, if all companieswere required to accept liability for their software, companies that producemore reliable software couldn''t choose to accept liability as a competitiveedge. So you''d reduce competition''s ability to pressure manufacturers tomake reliable software.Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability insurance,raise the prices on their software, and continue to produce software that isno more reliable. An even worse unintended consequence -- when a bug wasdiscovered, a company would likely go out of business leaving nobody andnothing to maintain the software.DS 这篇关于负责许可证的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持! 上岸,阿里云!