Slashdot Mirror
More Companies Jump on the Linux Train
I had a thought while I was typing the words above: should Slashdot do periodic "roundups" of new Linux ports and support announcements? With so many hardware and software vendors now moving into the "Linux marketplace" (which is how many of them see Linux -- as a marketplace), these announcements are no longer "news" in the sense of being unique or unusual events, but they're still good to know about.
Should we make a weekly post out of all these announcements? Or, because they don't come in at an even rate, should we save them up until we have 10 or so and post them all then whether that takes two days or three weeks?
So, besides posting any new Linux product/support announcements you've seen lately, how about a little advice on how Slashdot might best handle these announcements in the future? I promise to read every comment with a moderation level of zero or higher.
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
And we're supposed to be pleased with this?
"...Is this world not a call I can screen out" --
When I heard about their full suport to linux I went after info on my scanner (IBM idea scanner) linux suport. Their web site is a maze but I manage to find a suport mail form, I mailed my question and they ansawered that my scanner don't have or will have linux support. I am really pissed off.
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
At the risk of coming off as some unholy Stallman-wannabe, I have to say this.
Linux isn't what's important. Free Software is.
Linux is software, and software comes and goes. Whether some company or other jumps on the Linux bandwagon is irrelevant in the big picture. What is truly important is to spread Free Software in general - not only the software itself, but the accompanying meme that says, essentially, that "sharing is profitable". The catch is to ingrain this idea into our culture in the same way that sharing is already ingrained in the scientific and mathematical communities.
Once we've done that, we'll have achieved something much greated than pressuring a lot of companies to support a Free operating system. We'll have dominated the world. Because world domination is not achieved by actually taking over the world, but by having the world think that you're in control of it.
(Again, sorry for the rant. I'm in extended no-sleep mode.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
In answer to roblimo's question, I find that Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.net) already does an excellent job of such roundups. This isn't something slashdot needs to duplicate.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I would image in the best way to go about this would to have a Linux announce page, which would have a submission form for companies or observant end-users to give their announcements to slashdot. This would be off of the main page, and once a /. moderator looked at the email acct or whatever where the submissions went to, he/she could post them on the page.
How is this accessible on the main page? A slashbox of course! Make it a default one so everyone can see what's been announced in a box on the main page.
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
Personally I'm -very- excited about this one. Enterprise level mass storage (there's more to veritas than just filesystems) is one of few sticking points for linux making the move from utility to work horse. Having the same bullet proof, flexible FS on my linux box as I have on my Solaris box.... drool.... :)l l/000121E29E
http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/a
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
I took a look at the released linux drivers posted at Aureal's site and they seem to be violating the stock-GPL lisence they distribute it with!
The driver is released in the form of a single C "wrapper" file that links with the main portion of the driver, which is binary-only. Does this seem to any of you to be a sneaky way to say they are delivering source, but in fact are not?
IANAL, but from what I have always believed the GPL meant, you can't link GPL code with binary-only modules.
Can anyone knowledgable comment on this?
________________________________
I'm happy to note that finally Linux is getting recognised as an opportunity by the hardware guys themselves.. as its more difficult for the open source developers to sit and figure out how a particular hardware device works, especially without the help of the vendor. Still all the hardware isn't that well supported, hope that changes quickly.
Prakash
Prakash
FreeOS.com - The resource center for free operating systems.
I noticed over at Gear's web page that they say a Linux version is coming "soon." I have been looking for VideoCD software for quite a while, either recording or playing 'em. Hopefully this will be one step closer.
Don't you just love that merketing-buzzword fluff!??
It's funny, laugh.
_________________________
Sorry, I beg to differ and I bet a lot of other people do to.
I don't require that everypiece of software is GPL'ed, or even that every piece of software is freely available in any form.
Binary only software distribution has it's place and so does (gasp horror) binary only software that you have to pay money for.
What is important about linux gaining mainstream driver support (even in binary only form) is that people now have a real choice in the future on intel rather than being forced to use Microsoft operating systems by default.
With the mostly collapse of non-intel architecture unix platforms in the workstation market (Sun, SGI, HP etc) we needed a robust unix based low cost alternative.
Linux is it, and I don't care if some software is binary only or I have to pay money for it.
I've been beta-testing houdini on linux:
... no prob. Worked like a charm.
http://www.sidefx.com
sweet. I even used the renderer and scene generator under FreeBSD
I use Linux on an Intel Processor, but what about those who don't work on Intel machines? Remember that Linux is the most widely ported OS. Binaries will serve the Intel population, but not all Linux users. And again you are forgetting about other OSs like BSD. I will be replacing windoze with Open BSD about July (after graduation). Drivers matter to me. Source for the drivers will help in selling more hardware for these companies.
Which is why the Open Source/ Free Software meme is more important than the OS itself. Remember, the idea is to support the meme, not an OS on one platform.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
www.vmware.com
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
I wouldn't smile at this list though if every company on there was only releasing closed source and proprietary products, though.
To get community support, you need to be friendly to the community. That means you can't try any lock-in bullshit, nor obfuscated code, nor "OH, THAT'S PRIVATE INFORMATION. WE HAVE NEEDS, SORRY :))".
How about we only post products that are 100% open source? Tbat means that you are in fact giving publicity to products that would support this community, and in turn be providing a true community service, and you'd also, indirectly, encourage them to strive to get on your list.
Open source as in, not some cheapassed Acme Public License, but one that is recognized and accepted.
Of course, there are also those people who just want a Windows clone without Microsoftian dominance. Our viewpoints differ here. Oh well.
--Michael Bacarella
The company I work for, RIMS, and a vendor of ours, Merant, will have a joint press release out tomorrow. The process release will be about Merant's porting of their Micro Focus Object COBOL stuff to Linux and our efforts to port our QicClaim/2 product to the COBOL port on Linux. <marketing speak>QC/2, as with all our software, is aimed at the healthcare verticle market. QC/2 is used to administrate health benefit programs, mostly used be third party administrators.</marketing speak>
No, its not open sourced, but its the start of greater use of Linux and open source projects within my company. Something I've been fighting a year for. We hope to have some open source stuff out there in the near future. We're deceiding the what, where, and when of all that. But I'm pretty excited as I'll be a big part of all of it.
I think i'd like a combination of some of the above ideas.
First create a anounce section, in which every 'anouncement' is an article. This gives people the option to discuss every anouncement, eg those aurol 3d drivers seem to be a nice discussed item, so why stomp the discussions.
Then create a slashbox, to show the most N-recent anouncements. This alows people who are interested to see all the recent trafic on the 'anounce list', but ppl who dont care dont have to be confronted.
Then every once a 'period' eg week, biweekly or whatever, do a roundup, as we do quickies every-once-in-a-while (Tm) currently, on the main page.
This way people who want to read, and reply to everything, can.
People who have questions on this release/anouncements, have a place to discuss.
People who just care a little bit, can just read the slashbox, to get a @ a glance impression.
People who care even less, will see an article commin by every week/ every other week, and get a quick glance @ what happend, and is of intrest...
This way we should serve all people, and all desire levels.
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
First, there is a difference between free and open source software. You are talking about free software. The problem here is that in the scientific and mathematical communities it is not companies that are doing work but individuals, who cannot profit from their work. Companies are also into scientific research beacause they can make profit from patents. It is the same with software. Companies are in it because they can make a profit. With this profit thousands of programmers feed their children. Those same programmers maybe write free software in their free time. Now the problem is that non-software companies would use free software and make a profit of their own. Now why are you willing to help a large corporation by reducing their cost on software expenditure.
Besides, software is not a mathematical truth or a scientific discovery. It is more like a machine. All machines cost money.
Writing software involves a lot of creativity. Why don't artists give away their paintings for free? Because they have to eat maybe?
Imagine a large and sophisticated CAD package. Say 100 programmers spent a year developing it. Why should it be free?
Taking over the world? Give me a break.
I herd there was this company who makes like drawing programs and stuff like that porting it all to Linux. Could that have something to do with everybody playing follow the Copeland ?
:).
:).
:). Trust me on this one. It's gona be wild over the next 12 months.
Ohh and Oracle brought everybody to the server
Yes. A periodic roundup of "These people joined the bandwagon over the past month" would be nice. Also list "these old timers have put down deeper roots". IBM isn't the only company pushing more into Linux each day you know
A subsection for "Slashdot PR" would be nice too. Just like we have an "Ask Slashdot". You may well need an editor for handling just the PR chores ( I volunteer. A small salary and a few stock options is payment enough
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
My impression was that while they were discouraged, binary-only *modules* did not violate the GPL. Both Stallman and Torvalds have said so on a few occassions. (Binary-only *drivers* on the other hand, do violate the GPL.)
I think this type of announcements are not longer different from any announcement on Freshmeat, and should hence be moved over there, perheaps bundled in a pack of tens of them at once. /. and Freshmeat are now Andover.net sites, I have seen little or no cooperation between them, at least in the content field (I don't know about code cooperation).
While both
This may be regarded as troll, non-/.-ish or whatever, but please read it and think twize, before you moderate or comment.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
For what you seem to describe we have a situation with the following schema:
Binary driver --> C file (wrapper) -->Linux kernel
Given that Linus specifically allowed binary drivers these are not violating the GPL FOR LINUX ONLY (Linus said it was Ok, but this only apply to Linux).
They have a good reason to do this wrapper:
Linus don't care that much if new kernels break the compatibility with binary-only driver (and IMHO he is right), so doing a wrapper to the driver allow them to just change this wrapper to keep the compatibility, they can also put the wrapper under the GPL (or, better for them, the LGPL) and hope that people using their hardware will help them keep the compatibility between kernels.
It's a first step in the right direction (full Free Software driver) and this give them a first taste of Free Softare and we can only encourage them in it (by helping them keeping the compatibility and, when you submit the patch, tell them how great this would be for you and them if the driver was fully GPL'd).
Of course your post didn't mention wether the wrapper was Free (speech) but there would be little advantage to give this wrapper otherwise.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
>"I e-mailed Sigma Designs asking them about Linux >support for the RealMagic Hollywood Plus
:-(
>DVD Decoder, and they say they're working on >supporting Linux for a future product."
And you think this good ?
Sigma Design is taking is customer for *cash COW*:
They said , we will not release ANY infos about
our current card, but we will develope new card
for use with the linux operating system...
And all people which already have a card must
buy a new one....
This is called business
I will *NEVER* buy any sigma design card.
People should boycot sigma.
Handspring has had a tech contact the developer of the Visor module for Linux USB serial support. This module is already part of the 2.3.40 kernel and some people have reported success in hotsync'ing using it at limited speeds. But it is nice to see Handspring offer assistence with the on-going effort.
I haven't had any problem with the whay you are posting the new information. In fact its helped alot on knowing what apps or companies I can go to.
Thanks Sherm
I think the enterprises turning to Linux must have a concrete policy about the forms of returns (in U$S, % or others currencies) to the community.
RetroCool
What you have to do is get a message to their marketing group that they do actually have Linux users and that demographic will get bigger for their hardware if they provide drivers. The best ways to do that is to E-Mail their tech support requesting that they send your message on to marketing or to open a suggestion defect requesting drivers and support for Linux. The justification is that the Linux market segment is growing and that Linux is the only non-MS OS on the market which is exhibiting such growth. Thus supporting Linux makes much more sense than supporting, say, OS/2, which IBM has been actively trying to kill for the last 5 years.
The more requests of this nature that go into the company, the more you'll see OSS awareness in the company grow. It'll probably be a couple of years yet before the entire company is completely clueful on the subject but I think that day will come.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...we need a web page. With summaries of each company's existing support (and non-support), the structure of this support (closed driver vs. published specs vs. open source driver), and announced plans. That web site could then have a weekly news report of new announcements.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
We may sneer at hype here, but that's what drives big companies. Huge IPOs, hundreds of articles, and industry analysts coming out asking the question "Is Linux a Windows Killer?" all go to convince big companies that there's something interesting in the OSS model. And OSS can actually fit into the corporate mentality. And programmers obviously can still make a living programming, witness all the companies currently picking up programmers to do coding for OSS projects on company time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm getting really pissed at this, why is their almost no support for other OSs, like BeOS, *BSD, QNX4 etc.
I mean, you people hate companies, you only want GPL and free beer.
We, the others, how really care about free speach get almost zero support.
If all of you that own Sigma-cards could send
a polite mail to arthur_bao@sdesigns.com
asking for Linuxsupport for current products.
The polite part can't be stressed to much.
I was surfing the newsgroups from sigma designs.. I am also an owner of the H+ DVD Decoder.. They are not releasing a linux driver for this product.. they are releasing a linux driver for a _future_ product and not the H+..
This really sucks..
Write sigmadesigns and tell them we want an H+ Driver.
ChiefArcher
Just a suggestion, add an optional box to the side of slashdot's main page for new products supporting linux.
~~~ They call me Little John, but don't let the name fool you...in real life I'm very big.
But your wrong... How many "Big-business" companies are still holding onto m$ products for dear life? The fact is, most big businesses dont like change, and will stay with one thing as long as possible, and when the do finally make a change, its going to be for a long time.
~~~ They call me Little John, but don't let the name fool you...in real life I'm very big.
anyways, just my $0.02 US
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
It looks like a cheap way to make a buck. All they are doing is making a fancy table with check marks that tell you the exact same thing the distrib web site would tell you.
Plus there is a "Testing Fees" link - that's pretty lame.
Munky_v2
Jay
So overhaul Slashdot. Or if that's too hard, just make it a Slashbox and put it off on another page (or heck, another website even -- maybe someone else creating a website for this purpose and, through an rdf file, having a Slashbox, would be the best (or should I say easiest for /.) solution to the issue).
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
The "weekly roundup" sounds like it makes plenty of sense to me.
There's no reason for a sig here.
Yeah. If you wait until you have six - ten items to report it may spread out the "Slashdot effect" enough to make it easier to log onto these servers.
Well, I just got the word from VMWare:
Tommorow there will be a public beta of VMWare 2.0, and they included support for SCSI, Sound-in, Major improvment of running Windows 95/98 as a guest, Shrinking disk, Larger then 2GB Virtual disk support, and other goodies.
Check tommorow: http://www.vmware.com
Hetz (Heunique)
I think the news today has changed from what company is offering support to how said companies are providing support. For a time it was important we could show Linux was viable comercially but now that the bandwagon has started we don't need push it as much as steer the wagon in directions we want.
I want to read about companies that have support, not just anounce it. And new OS projects that are starting or are significantly changing. Is IBM doing anything for Linux? Does Creative have linux software? I want to hear about companies offering software not just drivers. Does Iomega have Gnome Zip utilities? Who is GPLing anything?
I may be the only one but I bought the Linux Version of Quake because ID is supporting Linux not just announcing support. I could give feed back with my $$
I'd like to see Linux news follow my perspective and start tracking companies involvment in Linux not just read about catch up by every company under the sun.
YMMV.
Cheers Andrew
...the OSS movement in the company is still largely driven by the lower employees rather than management.
Indeed. In fact, I would expect most companies to be like this. Management is generally only good at keeping people in line and on the job (and sometimes not even that). It always seems to be the engineers and techies "in the trenches" who know which way the wind is blowing first. No great surprise there. Of course, with a company as large as IBM (Incredibly Big Monolith), inertia plays that much bigger a role, reaction time is much slower, and some parts of IBM will still be swinging around when The Next Big Thing is happening.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You can't get everyone to use an operating system without applications. Even if people are paying for closed applications, we have already taken over the operating system with Free Software. It's impossible to come up with a complete replacement for all software with Free equivalents simultaneously.
If you check the latest stable Linux kernel - you'll find (I think) the S/390 Linux port.
The poster was asking where the S/390 port of NetBSD was. He makes the valid point that both NetBSD and Linux are widely ported to a large variety of platforms, and quibbling over who has the most support for obscure platforms is a waste of time and bandwidth.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
By the same token I have room in my philosophy to buy binary-only software such as games. However, show half-assed support for the game (Such as a huge feature mismatch between Windows and Linux versions) and I may get pissed off and never buy anything from your company again. If you're not going to open the source up, you damn well better be willing to commit to maintaining it yourself. DOS/Windows users might be willing to accept game companies doing half-assed jobs on their software -- certainly I've seen enough games where the coding was obviously done by brain dead chimpanzees. Linux users are a more demanding crowd, though. If you're going to put out software that sucks, we don't want you here.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Responding to the great popularity of Linux and other open source things sweeping the hot Internet arena, Friut of the Loom is expected to announce the availability of "Geek Straps" in addition to their line of athletic "Jock Straps". Responding to the special needs of caffiene guzzling coders, easier access will be provided for "streaming". Also, because of the long hours of sitting causing heat buildup, a high-tech method of dispersing this waste heat has been incoporated into the design. No details of this configuration were available at press time. While only available for men, sources say that there are plans for a line of special line of products for the female coder. The new products will be marketed under a new "Penguin" brand. FotL plans to spin this line off in an attempt to catch the wave of Linux related IPO's sweeping the planet. "We figure that with just a little bit of effort we can make millions by associating our product in some way with the Linux community.", our source said. "We are looking for endorsement candidates but we have to be picky ... Fruit of the Loom supports Cox probably wouldn't fly." , he added.
Unless he agreed this with ALL contributors to the code, he doesn't have any power to override the existing licencing terms. Those terms (GPL) eitehr permit binary only drivers (or are unable to prohibit them) or they don't.
True, but I didn't hear about any developer complaining, in which case they would have to retire his code from the kernel.
If you are not happy you can fork the kernel and make it truly GPL, but don't count on us to follow you and don't forget to call it otherwise than Linux (Lunix if you want, or Trollix).
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I have never seen a binary distributed linux program, except for some old stuff on sunsite. When they point at a rpm at contrib.redhat.com, or a different site, you can always fetch the SRPM. And if you use an Alpha, it's always possible to use the x86 emulator.
They've got over a dozen people working on the project, including both coders and artists. There's definitely room for more help though. (I'm not directly involved in the project, although I will be as soon as I can find more time.)
Click the link in my sig for more info.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
http://helllabs.org/~claudio/alsa/ rms-aureal.txt
Any news about Logitech providing specs for the Quickcam VC? It would be a good moment for Logitech to do so and jump in the open specs bandwagon. (Yes, I happen to have one of the stupid balls in our lab, and I would like to use it for a webcam instead of a clown hat for my monitor.)
Creative Labs has the Creative Open Source web page with the Sound Blaster Live! sound card module (the emu10k1).
I may be the only one but I bought the Linux Version of Quake because ID is supporting Linux not just announcing support. I could give feed back with my $$.
You're not the only one, buddy! I bought Q3A for Linux too. Now if only I can get my tin box soon...
Off-topic: Assuming the Sigma people did finish their Linux-compatible DVD decoder product, what will the OpenDVD and LiViD people think of it? If the Linux software to run the decoder is GPL'd (assuming the decryption engine is done in hardware only -- programming calls to access the engine, but not the engine itself), will the OpenDVD/LiViD people still be satisfied with the source code?
--
As I think was clear from my comment I'm not at all sure that the GPL does (or can from the way it's constructed) prohibit linking to binary modules.
Of course it does, this is the very point of the GPL to do so, unless you call it by its "normal" interface you have to put it under the GPL (i.e. if you integrate Gnu tar in your program, then your program must be GPL'd but if you make a front-end to Gnu tar that call it like if you were in a shell then your program doesn't have to be GPL'd).
I do not find at all acceptable your notion that the licence under which people have provided their code can be ignored just as long as they don't actively complain. Do you extend this principle to all licence violations?
I don't either but this is a particular case where the originator of the software, a person respected by millions of people, decided to interpret the GPL in a particular way (change that make it look like the LGPL BTW), if he was to change it to proprietary software (which would be a MAJOR change) then a lot of people would fight him I think.
Anyway, at the beginning Linux's license was more strict than the GPL given that you couldn't sell it for money, he then changed it to the GPL, would you prefer to have Linux under this older license?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Oracle and Lotus spring to mind among others.
Andy Armstrong
LWN seems to do an excellent job of rounding up various products each week. Maybe they could do a company profile page detailing the level of support you can expect from the company and whether buying from them would be a safe move or not. Rate the company on some scale (Maybe -10 to +10?) and sort on the rating. Then I can go see at a glance who I want to buy from.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Agreed. Most definitely.
After all, why should Linux and BSD users restrict themselves purely to OSS/freeware? There are some very nice commercial products out there, why ignore them just because they're commercial? Wouldn't we be ignoring the vast majority of the available software out there?
OSS shouldn't be seen as a replacement system, but as an augmentation to the existing system. Maybe lots of people think otherwise, sorry RMS, but in a world where greater freedom of choice is perhaps the most important thing to come from the OSS sea change, why should we be eliminating choices because of unbending freeware ideology?
If one chooses not to address non-open software, that is a valid choice, but no-one should seek to limit choices available to others. Let them make their own choices.
In that light, let us be aware of all possible options, OSS or Closed or the many points in between.
-M
although I wish they had a "email notify on update for this product" thing
I vote "weekly roundup", as well as a masterlist for after-the-fact reference.
Thanks
---------
Once in a while you get shown the light,
---------
Once in a while you get shown the light,
In the strangest of places, when you look at it right -
Thank you, Mr Hugo, for putting it so very concisely. I wish my writing made half as much sense as yours. :)
:)
On a side note, I'm glad that I could help provoke such intelligent talk with my original post, and help show that good things still come from Slashdot.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I'm assuming you mean a BINARY ONLY distributed program...
:)
becuase RPMs and DEBs are binary unless otherwsie specified (SRPMs and debian source archives)
Just wanted to make things clear
--
Talon Karrde
Sorry, but Lunix is already taken.
--
The GPL restricts distribution, not use. The binary only, or otherwise non-GPL module is distributed as a distict entity from the GPLed code, and as such is not subject to the GPL. The GPLed code, as distributed, contains no non-GPL code. It is the user that links the two together at runtime, which also is not prohibited. As long as the user doesn't distribute a core dump or other post-link binary, there is no violation.
--
If those companies are unwilling to answer to our cries I saw just move on. If the company wants to lose vital business so be it. It will be their own fault if open operating systems plunge into more mainstream products. Fortunately there will always be competition, so if one company refuses, I saw move on to the next, and the next, and so forth. Oh well.... :\
------- What exactly is real?
Well Dell seems to have taken a liking to Linux - I had a support person on the phone on friday explaining to me that the reason my speaker amp isn't working (er - hardware?) is that Windoze isn't exactly the best operating system available. Any excuse!!
> Big-business is so fickle and once they sense Linux has 'had its day' they'll drop it. All this support also creates more distros which we dont need!
You're forgotting it COSTS big business to change. If they have something that
a) works, and
b) is well supported, &
c) is usually free,
WHY would they jump off the Linux bandwagon?
Cheers
Think about the software availability of software on any architechture besides x86. One of the main complaint I hear about Macintosh is shoddy software selection. So, when the same companies start making software for Linux, it's only natural that there are going to be more companies making software for Linux on x86, not PPC or Alpha.
OPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCE
Anyway, as the song goes, "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" :-)
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
if you amend a GPL'd program (entirely in accordance with the licence) then you decide what the "normal" way of calling it henceforth will be
By normal I meant "not linked to", that is Gnu tar (to take my example) is still an outside program even if I call him from my proprietary program.
Apparently your point is that somebody could modify a GPL'd library to make it a GPL'd program (which serves as a wrapper to the library) and make calling it with some options from the command line the "normal" way to call it.
This would work but they would have more overhead than by calling a library function and the program they would do to allow it would be under the GPL given that he links to the library, so this would work but we could easily make our own interface using the program they made that links against the library, and they must distribute/propose the source code when they sell their binaries (except the one of the main program which do the interface).
At least that is how I understand it.
I don't think whether someone is "well respected" or not has any bearing on the validity of changes they purport to make to licence terms.
Not in court per see, but the fact that anyone could have forked the kernel and stop contributing code to Linux when Linus said it was Ok to link the kernel with binary modules is a form of implicit apporvement.
Either they have the power to do so or they don't. I think in this case that Linus does not have the power to change the express written terms under which it (including other people's code) is licenced, and you seem to've stated that you agree with me.
He doesn't have the legal right, right, but if anobody having contributed code to Linux wasn't agreing they would have had the possibility to complain or even to sue him and Linus would have had to remove his (the plaintiff's) code from Linux, the fact that nobody complained speaks for itself.
I don't understand what you mean by saying that he "decided to interpret the GPL in a paricular way", you have said that you believe (indeed have very firmly stated as fact) that the GPL cannot be interpreted that way.
Well if I may have said that but after thinking more about it it doesn't seem clear to me. In a case of a program linking a compile time or when ld is called their is no doubt, but in the case of a Linux module you can have your kernel running, add the module somewhere, issue a few commands and without any recompilation have the module charged into Linux, so Linux works perfectly well without it and perfectly well with it. RMS himself said that it was against the spirit of the GPL (he would prefer all drivers to be GPL'd as I do) but given that Linus said it was authorised he didn't have any problem with it (it was in an interview that was posted a while ago (maybe be4 Xmas) on
Again, I simply don't think that's the point. His code is now linked, and built upon, other people's GPL'd works.
That is exactly the point, at the time he made the change, people already had contributed code, there were a lot fewer of them but they where there nonetheless, so if he couldn't make the change for binary drivers then he couldn't make the change to go the GPL way and then we should all sue Redhat, Caldera, Suse,... because they make money of selling Linux (even if they are IMPOV making money by selling services in a nifty box).
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Could you point out the section of the GPL that prohibits non-GPL modules, rather than talking about the "very point" of the license which means absolutely nothing in court?
Yup, you caught me, the GPL prohibit linking to non-GPL code in things like new code added or libraries (which is was their was the KDE-non-free QT (at the time) problem), but in a case of a module as in Linux use them (code that can be loaded/unloaded after the start without impairing the ability of the main code to be run) the GPL doesn't say anything (at least I can't find it) which is why Linus said it was Ok to do so (given that nobody did know he choose a solution).
But you can't deny that the GPL has been done with the specific aim to avoid having people linking non-GPL'd code to GPL'd code.
The GPL restricts distribution, not use.
Yup, but what good is it to you if you can't redistribute it without breaking the GPL?
The binary only, or otherwise non-GPL module is distributed as a distict entity from the GPLed code, and as such is not subject to the GPL
I don't think you are right to be as categoric, after all,a library is distinct from the software that links against it, so I could modify a GPL'd software to link with a non-(L)GPL library given your reasoning. While this is possible if you are the author of the GPL program (like it was the case with KDE-QT) it is not allowed if you were modifying someone else's GPL'd program.
In the case of a module though, this is much less clear and I don't think the GPL as it stand says it a way or another, and Linus choose to say that for Linux it was as you said, but this only applies for Linux, the vagueness (correct word???) remains for other GPL'd software, so I wouldn't be as definite as you on this.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Dear Kit,
Thank you for your kind letter.
It is our intention to release a fully legitimate, licensed and legal driver
and navigator for DVD playback under Linux. For technical and legal reasons,
we cannot do this with our Hollywood Plus product, only with our new
NetStream 2000 product. There is no logical argument which you can provide
me which will convince me to break the law or the legitimate copyright and
patent agreements to which we abide.
No company in the world, except for Sigma Designs, has announced support for
DVD under Linux. Other companies have offered to support an Open Source
effort, but as you know, the legality of these efforts is currently under
litigation, and those products do not have complete feature sets. They
cannot navigate DVD menus and take advantage of all of the features of DVD.
[Poster's note: I have quoted a bit of the introduction from the OpenDVD.org - Journalist's fact sheet. This paragraph below is a response to the first few statements about the Linux user's privilege to play DVD's in Linux.]
You mentioned in your quote, when you started your letter, that the DVD
industry has refused to support Linux. This is untrue, as you know that we
have announced support for Linux.
When The Matrix was released on DVD, there were two scenes were some Dolby
Digital decoders skipped audio for 1/2 of a second. Our customers demanded
that we fix the problem, and we did. This is the kind of product we make. It
is the best. It is the one which gets the "Kick Ass" awards.
That's about all I can say, except that I get these requests every day, and
it is very unfortunate that the Linux community has singled us out to
attack, when we are the ones who hired the programmers and spent the money
to develop a product for Linux.
Maybe you can come and visit us at LinuxWorld.
Marshall
[P.S: Well, what do you think, kids? I've heard of the name of the product, so we must Politely ask about it in LinuxWorld, eh?]
--
Sure - and make sure you email them with high priority to anyone on your list who indicates an outlook mail client - it might persuade some of us die-hard (or is that wavering) NT types to reconsider that win2k migration.
have the day of your choice...
I'd like to see periodic roundup articles on topical things like this. The roundup would basically have a line or so describing the product's publisher, name, and field of application, with a link both to a real slashdot article and to the publisher's relevant web page.
If the product is already known to everyone, then there would be a non-link labelled "established product" instead of the link to the slashdot announcement.
Perhaps one of the Linux sites could (or has already) make this list a permanent page and Slashdot could post monthly discussion seeds about what's new on it.
You can distribute the unlinked executable; you can't distribute a statically linked binary or the image in memory formed by dynamically linking with non-GPL code.
I don't think you are right to be as categoric, after all,a library is distinct from the software that links against it, so I could modify a GPL'd software to link with a non-(L)GPL library given your reasoning.
That was my point. What is the difference, legally speaking, between a module and a dynamically loaded library? Even in the technical sense, modules are usually implemented as dynamic libraries which, instead of being automatically loaded along with the program, are loaded with a call to dlopen().
In both cases, the distributed executable, and certainly the distributed source code, contain no non-GPL code.
Besides, if you really think about the consequences of your interpretation, it leads to absurdities. Suppose there is a program distributed under the GPL which requires a dynamically linked proprietary library to function. According to you, this would violate the license. Then, a compatible replacement library is released under the GPL. This release, which is completely independent of the code in question, now makes distribution of the original program under the GPL legal. It's even worse the other way around: Suppose that the original library is under the GPL, but all copies of said library are destroyed. All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
--
You can distribute the unlinked executable; you can't distribute a statically linked binary or the image in memory formed by dynamically linking with non-GPL code.
In other word you can redistribute the object file and ask your user to link it themselves, I still don't find it very useful, it would cause less problem to reimplement the GPL program than to try to cirumvent the GPL, but what they can do is use it (the GPL'd prg) internally while they make their own replacement software, and remove any GPL'd code afterward.
Besides, if you really think about the consequences of your interpretation, it leads to absurdities. Suppose there is a program distributed under the GPL which requires a dynamically linked proprietary library to function. According to you, this would violate the license. Then, a compatible replacement library is released under the GPL. This release, which is completely independent of the code in question, now makes distribution of the original program under the GPL legal.
This was the case with KDEback when QT wasn't Free (speech), and that was why redistributing KDE wasn't legal, and this is why some people began the Harmony project (make a GPL'd QT).
All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
Suppose that the original library is under the GPL, but all copies of said library are destroyed.
The library probably wasn't very useful in this case
All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
If I understand you, you mean as if KDE was QT and Harmony compatible (we will say that Harmony was finished and provided 100% interoperability with QT for the sake of the argument) and that Harmony was totally obliterated from the face of the Earth then KDE couldn't be distributed.
That's exactly that, the old versions of KDE had such problem, the KDE team could release KDE even if this was breaking the GPL (because they were not giving the code of QT under the GPL) because they were the original authors, but other people weren't legally permited to redistribute it given that they were distributing a free software with a non-free library. Luckily nobody was crazy enough to go straight on a suit against those that made that but prefered either begin their own project (Harmony to replace QT and Gnome to replace KDE) or lobby Troll Tech to make QT free (which is the case of QT 2.0 with the QPL).
There still is a legal problem with the old versions of KDE but given that it will resolve itself over time (when KDE arrive and people switch to it) nobody care anymore.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
More specifically, it would be ld.so (or equivalent) running on the user's system that links it for you. All the user has to do for this to happen is run the binary.
I still don't find it very useful, it would cause less problem to reimplement the GPL program than to try to cirumvent the GPL
I'm not advocating the circumvention of the GPL; however, to many corporations, putting their extensions in a proprietary library looks a lot more attractive to them than either releasing them under the GPL or reimplementing the GPLed code. And to be honest, if I absolutely have to use proprietary code, I'd rather have the amount which is proprietary be as little as possible; given a choice between a GPL core and a proprietary library, and a completely proprietary program, I'll choose the GPL core.
--