Slashdot Mirror
MandrakeSoft Buys Bochs, LGPLs It
Direct from the mouth of Gael Duval, we've gotten word that MandrakeSoft (Yes, the folks who make Mandrake-Linux. No, it has nothing to do with Mandrake of Enlightenment fame. ) have purchased Bochs and hired Kevin Lawton. Now that Bochs is LGPLed, the Plex86 development can be speed up as well.
Good show MandrakeSoft! The importance of having this technology LGPLed is inestimable. I already use Linux-Mandrake, but you just won my loyalty for the long term.
But what is wrong with copying a disk and giving it away ... isn't the whole point to get people to listen to music? The person who gets the gift might even become a fan and buy more music later. Err oh yeah I forgot the point is for companies and a few dozen artist to make MASSIVE SICK mounts of money while the vast majority of musicians starve. It's all marketing and crass consumerism. The RIAA isn't suffering too much - so I say rip away baby. "Fair use" is a traditional part of IP law.
But tradition doesn't matter for big money $ucking shit like RIAA. The RIAA has surely hired big CompSci guns to figure out ways of laying tracks with harder to rip formats than CDDA - soon everything they sell will be locked up tight and need special hardware to play. Of course we would have been able to reverse engineer methods of decrypting and decoding it in the past, but once STUPID FUCKING governments around the world make it illegal to do this we'll have no option (UCITA, Mattel, and the DeCSS madness is the tip of the iceberg - it's gonna get WAY worse)....
No option that is except to make our OWN MUSIC.
Duh, QT IS themeable you goob.
It's amazing the rocks that people live under...Qt has been themable for over a year now.
I say lets do a "Fight Club" - blow them all up and reclaim what is ours ;-)
when we're all back living in caves beating drums one of them can offer me a well cooked animal leg and maybe I'll play a concert.
And get them to quit with the 2000.00$ license to distribute commercially crap. If not MIT/BSD/GPL then maybe 90% reduction ... or 0$ plus a % of sales up to some limit or something.
NeXT Developer cost less than that and it came with friggin' fantastic easy to use TOOLS.
Borland cost 49$ and they made a ton of money and were installed widely.
I demand MORE parts to this series!
Another distribution turned Good Guy. I always viewed Mandrake as a Red Hat ripoff, but now that they've contributed something very real and very significant, I'll have another look.
Someone just needs to do this for Qt now.
World of difference, here. IMO, the ego-stroking clause is bad news....
Get harmony up to scratch so it can run KDE - after that kiss Qt goodbye.
BTW comparing the cost of a *commercial development license* the cost of a some whiz bang NeXT IDE, or a bloody DOS compiler is like comparing apples and hub caps.
Now that Bochs will be free, us Ninjas will be able to buy more pancake mix and Power Macs...and still be able to run Windoze and Linux at the same time! We humblely bow to the man who has done this great work, and make him an honourary Ninja! Wayzoo!
As a practical matter, this will not help WINE, even if they want to support emulation, because WINE is committed to a BSD-like license, not LGPL.
You wrote: The part that rubbed me the wrong way was when he put "I'll change the license for this if you give me a job" on the Bochs site. Not that he's not entitled to do that, but it seems counter to the concept of the Open Source universe to use the promise of a license as a bargaining chip for the author's benefit. It kind of misses the point of the sharing thing Open Source is all about, and just feels wrong to me.
Then you haven't understood anything. Even Richard Stallman of Free Software fame claims that the way to make a living for programmers (just to survive) should be to be paid for creating a work, not for copying.
Now he had nobody that paid him upfront for the work instead of just copying it, but he still offered that if anybody were to do so afterwards, he'd be fine with it.
So he was open to Open Source the stuff as long as he got paid for the work he did eventually. Not much I find wrong with earnestly trying to get paid for the work you did instead of leeching off perpetually from the work you once did.
Ok, we'll need to wait for the stock crash of them first which might take a year or two, but just think what possibilities would be there. Just GPL all their stuff, and all Free Software development would grind to a halt as all programmers would try finding out what the Microsoft code actually does. In a few centuries, most of the critical bugs would have been recognized, and the design mistakes understood. And then one could start fresh.
I dont think buying SSH is worthwile, what with the pretty mature OpenSSH and all, but buying Qt would be a good move, especially since Mandrake pays the salaries of a fair few KDE developers.
Then the only thing stopping KDE adoption would be NIH syndrome on the part of american companies such as RedHat, since KDE and Qt could all be LGPLd (N.B. due to the FreeQT legal agreement, Qt might have to become new-style (GPL compatible) BSD licensed, in the event of Troll being bought out.)
We have qualms about the RIAA/MPAA telling us what we can/cannot do with their discs. We don't care if somone uses our GPLed code. No hypocrisy yet, right? We don't like people using our code to further their ends when their ends involve restricting our use of the code they write. Still no hypocrisy, just a very consistent idea that one should not prevent others from sharing your creations when they are freely duplicable. In the case where people are using our code, WE HAVE POWER OVER THEM. So we use that power to make them behave nicely (i.e. not restrict others use of their code.) If the MPAA/RIAA said "here, use our content how you like, but don't try to use it to restrict other people", we would not complain - this seems obvious, since we are not the least bit interested in restricting other people. I hope that help you see that the two philosophies are complementary, not contradictory. -Greg
> Others have said that NAT (network address translation, read "masquerading") in Windows 2000 might have lifted a little bit from linux.src.tgz.
Oh PLEASE, now Linux invented NAT? Linus also wrote Unix too, didn't he? Get over yourselves.
- the Little Linguist
bochs source has *always* been available. just not under a gpl-friendly license.
Just curious...
That's quite funny. (In case you weren't trying to be funny, emulating the Pentium doesn't violate Intel's copyrights. It could potentially violate Intel patents, but it doesn't seem to.)
I don't think you get good bang for the buck if you buy established companies like SSH, TrollTech, or Rational. Why not support existing, non-commercial open source projects more? For each of the commercial products you mention, there are good non-proprietary projects that are 90% "there".
Please, Zico, (if that's what your mother calls you), don't pretend to be the typical Slashdotter.
I agree that you don't have the high moral ground on any IP issues, but you don't speak for the rest of us. Thank You.
But, yeah, the fact that he didn't open it up previously, choosing instead to dangle GPL/LGPL on his site as a carrot'n'stick device to get a job, well, that's all about the money, now, innit?
You are being cruel. Not everyone has a job where an employer pays for open source software to be created. The fact that he was able to parlay the sweat of his brow into something of benefit to himself and others does not mean that he is some money grubbing capitalist pig.
Comments like this remind me why I have such a distaste for open source marxism. Don't get me wrong -- I very much like open source software. But I don't think that people should be compelled to give up things they produce without compensation other than the obsequious fawning of the open source community. That doesn't pay the rent, put food on the table, or buy the latest EvilDead video game.
The moderators must be on crack again today... Why was that post bumped down to -1?
./configure
./make comment
./make post
Sounds like it'll be nifty but not vital.
:)
Wine is released under a very free (artistic-style) license, so anyone can integrate the Wine codebase with whatever else and sell it. In this case, we could make something from the Bochs code that we could link to Wine, or we could stick it all together under the LGPL. But it probably wouldn't help the core Wine project that much. That's my take on it, anyhow.
However, Wine on non-x86 would be cool. It'd be WABI all over again.
I LEFT MY CELL FONE IN PRISON! KAN U HELP???
Ah, you're right, I missed the thrust of your comment; I thought you were saying that since Lawton was both Bochs' author and part of the plex86 team, the LGPL relicensing is not relevant to the 'interpollenation' of the two that the article implies is going to speed up.
But, yeah, the fact that he didn't open it up previously, choosing instead to dangle GPL/LGPL on his site as a carrot'n'stick device to get a job, well, that's all about the money, now, innit?
Apologies, I was off in the weeds somewhere....
--
Unless I misunderstand RMS' position completely, he'd allege that the license should have been GPL all along, AND that the author should have been compensated for it -- a completely defensible position.
I think he'd side with me on the idea that licensing terms being held hostage to promise of compensation is not OK.
--
...when not running on a real x86. So if you want to run your x86 Windows apps anywhere else, yes, this code could potentially be directly useful to WINE.
(Building a launcher as you describe would be very tricky -- it would have to boot Windows in the virtual machine, copy the app into the VM's virtual partition and run it there -- not trivial or fast.
I had a pleasure talking to Kevin about bochs, Vmware, open source etc. when he was in Paris, two weeks ago. He was very happy about getting to Mandrake and about open-sourcing the bochs. The guy really likes the work he is doing, and now he can actually do it withouth having to vorry about the financials.
:-))
Since Kevin did not take part in slashdot discussion so far, here are some of the quotes from our conversation:
- I always wanted to go open-source, but I also wanted to live from working on bochs. I am very happy to be able to have both at the same time
- You folks at Mandrake are really cute. The atmosphere here is so good that I may even consider moving to Paris.
- VmWare guys have asked me to have acces to bochs source code for 'educational purposes' several years ago. Later they went commercial. No idea how much bochs code (if any) they actually used for VMware.
- I think plex86 will become actually usefull for "office" work in less than one year.
- The speed should be comparable to VMware, and I have some very interesting ideas about the memory managment, which might even give us some advantage in multi-user env..
- Having an open licence for bochs was very important for plex86 project. There is quite a lot of code which can be reused.
DISCLAIMER: We had some alcohol in blood, and I was not taking notes (now, THAT would be a good one!), so do not even try to pin me (or Kevin) on details.
Now that the Bochs source is available, could this be used to make a library that virtualizes more of those pesky x86 instructions?
I'd be really happy if DOSEmu and Wine finally had full protected mode support. DOSEmu has great Linux FS support, and low memory usage, and can run Win 3.1 minus the protected mode stuff. If it had that, I don't think anything would stop it from running modern Windows, or more importantly DOOM!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, okay, I'll find a *different* protected mode app to use for my examples. DOSEmu already runs a bunch of stuff, though. I just wish it did sound better...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Nonsense. I can sell you the source of a program I write for a gazillion dollars and make it public domain the next day if I want, since I *own* the program, and you just license it.
In fact, I can license it to you for a gazillion dollars *after* I make it public domain, if I want.
I say fine. It means better software for Windows users (and there are a lot of Windows users), so it sounds all right to me. Although I'm not exactly a huge fan of copyrights, so, you know, you'd better get some salt. The actual copyright holder of Linux' ip-mask may have a different opinion, though :).
It's hard to go an entire day without seeing some Slashdotter raging at the RIAA for trying to protect their investments. For people here to question any other company ripping off GPL'd code is more than a little hypocritical. The typical Slashdotter is far from having the moral high ground on any IP issues.
Excuse me? Are you simply ignorant of what the word hypocritical means, or are you just too stupid to apply the concept properly?
The fact that you can't go a day without seeing some Slashdotter say something anti-IP does not may ones saying pro-IP things hypocrits unless it's the same person! The fact that some Slashdotters disagree with other Slashdotters is not hypocracy. And frankly, it irks me that there are so many idiots reading Slashdot that think all Slashdotters have one opinion on any issue -- we see far too many comments like the one above pointing out that some Slashdotters have opinions that are inconsistant with the opinions of other Slashdotters, and that therefore there's something hypocritical about the fact that we don't always agree on everything. And last but not least, even if you can name some individuals who have been anti-RIAA but pro-GPL, how is that hypocritical? If you think all of us who dislike the RIAA don't think they have the right and responsibility to defend their IP rights, you'd badly misunderstood what those of us who are critical of the RIAA are complaining about. It is not at all inconsistent to both acknowledge that piracy is wrong and believe that the RIAA is wrong to step on the rights of law-abiding consumers. Get a clue. If you actually bother to try to understand what the issues are, you won't be so surprised when some Slashdotters consistently defend people's rights, and thus rage about the RIAA and rage about ripping of GPL'd code. That's consistency, not hypocracy.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
(For the record, it's "hypocrisy"...)
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I hope we see more stories from the buy-stuff-and-give-it-away dept. in the future :) I love that move. What stuff is out there that the open-source community would like to have bought and freed? Napster? (then we could take out the part that ignores TCP congestion control, and make some other improvements, and release a new version on all platforms.)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
One of the most important parts of the GNU GPL is that people (and especially big companies) can't use the fruits of your labour without making their source available. The idea is that this makes it harder for closed-source stuff to be as good as the open-source stuff, so people are more likely to use the open-source stuff. Better software for Windoze users is ok, as long as it is open source. Making a closed-source project better is very much against the rules, and very much pisses off many people.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
*whispering*
Are you..
*more whispering*
it's GPL'd? Oh, uhh.. er.. *quietly putting mouse down*
Hi,
I have VMWare 1.1.2, and am very happy with it.
I have been looking into switching my main workstation over to FreeBSD, and was dissapointed to learn that VMWare wouldn't work (well) under BSD.
Bochs will, so what's the speed like? Is it usable? Does it network? Will it work w/ SVGA drivers, a la VMWare, and what's the status on VMWare under BSD? (I've seen encouraging posts on Deja)
Thanks,
Ben
How many years would it take to start an app (assuming you're platform isn't an Alpha cluster)?
Remember that it is an emulator running wine, but if yo want to run windows apps why not just use the emulator with windows?
I mistyped. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but just to clear it up, I meant to say, "I'm not saying that you download things for which you don't already own the disc..."
Damn, I'm feeling like osu-neko now. Hopefully I won't have to reply again to correct this post. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Hey dont knock on them. if Rhat would fix the bugs before they relase a distro the eratta wouldnt be 5 pages long for each version.
PLus RedHat is GPL so if Mandrake wants to add some stuff and resale it its withen the Law
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
This was posted to bochs.com:
Feb 10 2000: FreeMWare/Bochs author looking for stock in exchange for GPLing bochs/employment
Looks like it finally happened. well almost anyway
This was posted to bochs.com:
Feb 10 2000: FreeMWare/Bochs author looking for stock in exchange for GPLing bochs/employment
Looks like it finally happened. well almost anyway
Agreed, this has got to be a big win for Mandrakesoft. bochs is a truly useful tool and a credible technical achievement. Plex86 will go to do more, and by being associated with it, Mandrakesoft will gain enormously.
I think Plex86 has potential to be in the top 5 Linux apps, along with X, gcc, the WM of your choice and Netscape<duck>!</duck>
-Cam
Why is this post 0? It seems very relevant to the discussion.
Sela
very funny guy, but the scary thing is that such a suit could be actually passed, and even more scarier is that some stupid judge will agree to it.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
it shouldnt be too bad. emulators usually work at 1/4 the CPU speed so a 600MHz alpha will feel like a 100Mhz pentium at worst..which is pretty usable for most stuff.
Female Prison Rape in NY
wow.. I honestly didn't think he could do it. I remember sending an email to Kevin requesting that he at least guarentee that the source would remain open and that people would be able to use it for free if they contributed some development. The "I'll GPL it if someone gives me a job / stock" was a bit of a shock but it appears that it paid off. Good luck man, now where can I download? :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
sure, this could be important. Integrate the emulation into wine and you could run windoze binaries on non-x86 platforms.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Hopefully this will help speed along other Bochs related efforts, such as BeBochs.
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
EverCode
-bugg
Maybe I'm all alone on this one, but the reason i don't adopt Qt has nothing to do with the licensing. I have one major and one minor problem with Qt. The minor issue is that it isn't themeable. So, it looks like shit, or more to the point, like windows, on my system. The major issue is that it binds to C++, and that's it. I program in C mostly, but also Perl, Python, Tcl, bash, Smalltalk, Eiffel, and every once in a great while I get forced into using C++. Gtk+, Qt's main competition in the toolkit market, suits my needs much, much more often than Qt. And it looks nice, too. =)
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
I don't begrudge either the developer or Mandrake. Both give back to the open source community and I hope they profit from it.
It's kind of ironic that companies that consistently lose money (as virtually every Linux related company does so far) can not only make their owners rich but can even buy out other companies with "virtual equity". I think there's a certain justice in it. It just proves that you can gain wealth and help the community (as opposed to Microsoft who abuses the public and their competitors to achieve wealth). Maybe the good guys do get to win once in a while.
r/
Dave
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
It's because some authors put too much faith into companies. It's a virtuous thing to do, like the BSD-license, but it may also be a naive move..
;-)
I guess some people don't mind proprietary solutions at all. After all it's good for "competition".
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
amen, my brother.
no excuse, no excuse.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
I love:
;)
"...Great distro! These guys are the ones to watch", said Kevin Lawton.
... think he got some stock options he'd like to hype for?
But anyway, this is great. If this ends up running fast on the new generation of 64 bit chips, Linux could wind up being the best platform for running legacy apps on new hardware!
If I am not mistaken, this would allow commercial products to bundle or use the Bochs codebase in their own proprietary products. The GPL does not allow this. As I recall, this confusion was a main reason why the LGPL "Library" GPL was renamed "Lesser" GPL.
> I don't think anything would stop it from running ... DOOM!
:-)
Well, you probably already know this, but Linux has had a (semi-official) Doom port for quite a while. And since iD released the source, there are at least 2 more ports under active development right now.
I'll also take this opportunity to shamelessly plug psDooM again.
ZicoKnowsShit,
no-one's building derivative works off of MP3s. This is Zico trolling at his best.
*borkborkbork*
This is ridiculous.
The guy says that he uses bochs of OS developement and gets -1'd?
What the hell?
I for one am happy about the LGPL release of bochs, as I'm building a simulator to deconstruct linux viral code. (Oh, you're one of those people who don't believe in linux virusses.. right...)
*borkborkbork*
I am wondering why RedHat didn't do anything to support this.. This could have been a great publicity move for them. Offcourse RedHat will probably benefit from this move too..
Mandrake is leeching off RedHat.. So maybe this time it is RedHat's time to leech of Mandrake..
Somewhat symbiotic relationship. In the end they all win..
Having said that, its difficult/impossible for large companies to completely audit all the code going into their products vs known "Open Source" code. So there's always the potential that some lazy programmer will cut and paste some GPL into his/her code and just change some variable and function names, etc.
Furthermore, if DeCSS is illegal in NY and California, that doesn't means it's illegal elsewhere in the world.
Then, we must not forget that arguments against DeCSS are mainly based on stupidity. I won't explain why here, it should be off-topics, but with normally brained lawyers, these arguments won't be receivable.
sigmentation fault
Please.
Too bad lawyers don't donate their time and expertise like OS programmers do!
Actually, they do. It's called working pro-bono and it seems to be something that most lawyers do at least some of the time. In fact, it might even be the case that a larger fraction of lawyers have worked pro bono at some point in their life than OS programmers!
My Freakin Blog
It might not help WINE directly, but it might be interesting to build a smart launcher for Windows software. If the executable is known to work well under WINE, use WINE (which would be faster). Otherwise, use BOCHS, which would provide better emulation at the expense of relatively slow execution.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
If you want to require the developer to give back changes to your code, yet still allow it to be used as part of proprietary programs without the technical difficulties of the LPGL, the MPL is a good alternative.
QT is themable.
KDE2.0 adds makes it easier to theme. (with their theme engine -- allowing gradients and such.)
As for C++, some would say that it is a benefit.
Besides, there _are_ bindings for perl and python. There also exists some C bindings, but they are for an old version of QT.
Once you bring KDE's xmlrpc stuff into the picture, any language can be used.
-- Thrakkerzog
Most of the anti-copyright crowd do seem to be pro-GPL which strikes me as inconsistent , since the GPL is a copyright ( a lot of the anti-RIAA noise is made by people who completely oppose any kind of copyright protection ) . They usually try to push the (false) theory that the GPL wouldn't be necessary in the absence of copyright.
So yes, there are a lot of hypocrites on slashdot ( even though you don't appear to be one of them ).
I think this is really great news. Emulators are important because they will allow us to access current data and programs long past the time when the hardware that ran it has stopped being made. And putting Bochs under GPL or LGPL will likely cause it to be much more widely used and ensure long term maintenance and enhancements. Great job and kudos to both Kevin and the people at Mandrake!
I do not debate your claim that the CPU design itself is probably copyrighted. If I tried to fab some Pentium 120s in the local pizza oven, I should expect to be sued. However, the instruction set itself is not necessarily copyrighted. Considering that it has been restated many times over in documentation, I doubt they can claim any ownership over it anymore, if they ever did.
If Intel had such a powerful claim with regards to the x86 architecture, do you think I could be sending this from a K6-2 today?
It's hard to go an entire day without seeing some Slashdotter raging at the RIAA for trying to protect their investments. For people here to question any other company ripping off GPL'd code is more than a little hypocritical. The typical Slashdotter is far from having the moral high ground on any IP issues.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
He means that they may have lifted some Linux code and put it in Windows 2000 either verbatim or as a derivative work. This is illegal. Linus did not illegally take any code from any Unix. The point is not that Windows 2000 lifted the "invention" from Linux but that they may have illegally taken code.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Because if you run windows than there is a whole lot more going on. Look at what Corel is doing with WINE, they run their Linux Office Suite in it, and the reviews I've read say it preforms very well( although this is without using emulation). Next look at VMware, it uses up many many more system resources to get an almost perfect windows environment at about half speed, once again still no emulation. The other issue is RAM, to get VMware to run well for me I have to give it at least 64meg of RAM, while a single app would only need a fraction of that. WINE is also meant as a library for doing native ports of code, so even if you wanted to just run all of windows it's a worthwhile project to keep around.
treke
Too bad lawyers don't donate their time and expertise like OS programmers do!
Isn't that what the ACLU is for? Read the THE FINANCIAL PICTURE at bottom of their info page
- passion
I hope that in a year or two MandrakeSoft will be a major Open Source player. So far they proven to me that they are moving in the right direction.
--
Mike
Actually, they're getting around to it
cat
Though I know VMWare would never do such a thing, I just thought I'd bring it up to see what you guys thought of the possibility.
Too bad lawyers don't donate their time and expertise like OS programmers do!-Dan (danpbrowning@email.com)
Daniel
Could any of the more Linux/Emulator scene savvier programmers out there give us a bit of an idea as to whether or not this will help the Wine effort at all, or is it tangential to the effort to getting Win32-code working in Linux?
(I would think its tangential, but not sure...)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
make deal -> press release -> slashdot -> sign legal agreements -> update official home page
sure, that makes sense.
How we know is more important than what we know.
While Linux users are happy at the GPLing of the software, BeOS and other alternative OS users (BTW. Linux is getting to the point where BeOS is to Linux as Linux used to be to Windows :) should be happy for the code merge. Because Bochs has already been ported to many platforms (Be), if Plex86 uses bochs for the core, then it should be pretty easy to get Plex86 working on BeOS. This will have to be done by BeOS developers since Plex86 doesn't have any plans for supporting non-UNIX OSs, but I'm sure there are enough of those.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
That's what Open Source is about, after all.
If they take it unmodified, they're within LGPL.
If they take it and modifiy it, they have to distribute the mods under LGPL. Under GPL it infects their code if they use more than a Fair Use worth. (Isn't that about 10 lines.)
If they get in a situation where they are supposed to distribute all their source, and don't, they're on borrowed time. Piss off a developer and he might blow the whistle. Then the owners of the original copyright(left) can sue for the rest of the source, and use discovery to pry out internal documents to prove the case.
Who knows how the courts will rule - but it's a big risk to the company, so they'll probably try to keep it clean, least they get raked over the coals and maybe catch fire. Courts tend to favor the little guy if his story is good and his lawyer doesn't screw up. And Copyleft is set up so anything that breaks it proabably also breaks the parts of IP law that let the proprietary software people write and license their own stuff. B-)
Remember that copyright violation penalties, unlike most civil penalties, are puntative and draconian (at least partly to make up for the low probability of getting caught), not limited to the damages directly incurred by the copyright holder.
Meanwhile the whole software species improves, and the proprietary shops have about a 5-to-1 disadvantage in development speed, so they'll keep falling behind even with cannibalization.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
According to the recently-passed Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it is illegal to develop, posess, or traffick in software whose primary purpose is the subversion of copyrights. This is a known legal fact: courts in California and New York have already issued injunctions agains distributors of DeCSS, a tool designed to break the DVD encryption system. Now, the primary purpose of Bochs, and its companion plex86, seems to be the emulation of the Intel instruction set, thus alleviating the need for an actual Central Processing Unit. However, this has legal ramifications: Intel's CPU (and by extension, instruction set) is copyrighted. Using Bochs allows you to execute programs which use Intel's copyrighted instructions without an actual processor, much in the way that DeCSS allows you to view a DVD without a DVD player. It is not a giant leap therefore, to suppose that as Bochs and DeCSS serve a similar purpose, they should have the same legal status. In accordance with this principle, it becomes obvious that the possession, development, or trafficking of Bochs is illegal under the laws of the US.
I am asking, then, that all law-abiding Slashdot readers (which are perhaps a minority given the anarchistic leanings of Linux users), to cease the use, development, and distribution of Bochs and similar copyright-defeating programs. In the end, it will probably save you from a lawsuit from Intel's (well funded) legal team. This is not a threat, but rather a warning. The Open Source Community must realize that you do not have free reign to develop just any software you please, but rather only that which is in strict accordance with he laws. MandrakeSoft is placing itself in a position which you certainly don't want to be yourself, you can bet on that.