Slashdot Mirror
Catching up with Wine
An anonymous reader writes "TransGaming's announcement of the availability of WineX 3.0 got a lot of pixel dust, but that wasn't the only recent news about WINE. The Microsoft monopoly also reached out to touch the project when Whil Hentzen, a leading proponent of Visual FoxPro (VFP) development on Linux, was contacted by an Microsoft manager and told it was a violation of the VFP EULA to run it on Linux." I guess thats one way to stop emulation. update Oh well, its a dupe. Whatever, it gives people something to complain about I guess ;)
This was posted yesterday afternoon, right here:0 45200&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=125.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/21/2
Is emulation a crime? Then what will happen with these guys? There must be some clever way to nuke redmond without harming any m$ lovers.
Girls are strange. They don't come with a man page.
-- Michael Mattsson
Does comic chat work yet?
But but but..
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator
????
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
There is in the life EULA a section about not beeing a prick against your fellow humans. I think working at MS violates it.
Christ.... It is a sick sick world when you 1. pay many dollars for your software 2. after paying many dollars, not allowed to use it in new innovative ways.
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
Can end users be penalized if they run something that uses statically or dynamically liked VFP code on Linux? Say, I get a screensaver and I decide to run it on Wine, (but for some reason the screensaver uses some VFP code, don't ask me why or how :) ), do I get into trouble?
How about once we find out they are dupes a flag can be set and we can remove the stories as part of our preferences...
Make the software capable of emulating VFP, but leave it up to the user to violate the EULA. Doesn't the user "agree" to the EULA anyway? The people involved in making the emulator have nothing to do with the end user breaking the EULA.
This Story Is Not New
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
..by telling him he is an idiot, and he doesn't understand it.
Or by calling your software X IS _NOT_ Y, and people still call it Y.
Again, WINE is translating windows system calls to X11 equivalents.
But seriously - here's a perfect example of the software-side of Microsoft preventing other companies from competing with the OS-side. How is it possible that they're still pulling this crap after years and years?
Bah! Is it even worth getting riled up anymore?
From comparing the two emulators, I find them to be slow and cumbersome when using apps on them. I recommend that people use a dual boot system, or have two machines on a switch box.
I mean look.. the icon on the right is clearly shows that this current article is not about wine.. (i.e. there is no Wine Icon).. and is really about the quip about MS using EULA violations to stem emulators of windows. The CD icon must mean comedy or something.. i'm not too sure.. not about WINE though.. definately not.
Ok maybe its just taco feeling his article post rate was lowering and need to throw something in.
Who makes you Sig?
just my 2 cents :) I never wanted to join the bash-taco-for-putting-up-a-dupe-dept., but this time it was just too tempting...
the german-halfgeek-in-sweden-reading-slashdot-dept.
-- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Slashdot articles having anything to do with MS have been heavily..well, slashdotted. Coupla' days back, I posted something to the Oregon bill stuff, and within 5 minutes, there was a databse crash at Slashdot...took a whole hour before the site was up, and then way too slow, as well.\
4 20 2&tid=103
Interestingly, my post which was a reply to a 'Good' post, mostly made of styrofoam peanuts, got relegated 5 pages down, by clever manipulative modding! Getting very curious these days. Should be interesting to see how long this article holds up.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/18/205
Windows is a sexy OS
AIDS is a sexy DISEASE!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Slashdot articles having anything to do with MS have been heavily..well, slashdotted. Coupla' days back, I posted something to the Oregon bill stuff, and within 5 minutes, there was a databse crash at Slashdot...took a whole hour before the site was up, and then way too slow, as well.
4 20 2&tid=103
Interestingly, my post which was a reply to a 'Good' post, mostly made of styrofoam peanuts, got relegated 5 pages down, by clever manipulative modding! Getting very curious these days. Should be interesting to see how long this article holds up.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/18/205
Windows is a sexy OS
AIDS is a sexy DISEASE!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
...I guess thats one way to stop emulation.
Mr. Bloggers:
Hey Anonymous Coward and Slashdot Editor, WHAT DO YOU THINK I'm about to say?
Mr. Bloggers:
Now that I'm wearing my green sweater, because I'm about to smash your fingers with the butt of my gun, let's ask Trolly(TM) what it wants to say. Troll-y? Hello, Troll-y where are you?
Troll-y:
*F#@$BLING sh*BLING... f*BLING as*BLING
Mr. Bloggers:
My oh my, you sound angry! What do you want to say to all of slashdot about Wine, Troll-y?
Troll-y:
fu*BLING as*BLING ho*BLING damnit Wine Is Not An Emulator! fu*BLING shi*BLING!
Mr. Bloggers:
And what do we do to bad journalists, Mr. Goa^H^H^HSaturday?
Goa^H^H^HSaturday:
We throw 'dem into der oven and bake them!
*everyone cheers*
To anyone who has followed MS's track record (as highlighted so vociferously here on /. over the past few years), this should come as no surprise at all.
Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.
Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that control is the name of the game in most of industry --MPAA and RIAA certainly included!
Some of the EULAs require that the software be run on a fully licensed microsoft operating system. IIRC some of the EULAs even go as far as to require that you access the software *from* a fully licensed microsoft operating system.
Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like. Towel boy.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Is it me, or have more dupes been posted in the past 3 months than in the past 4 years? I'm not trolling, I'm just generally curious if the editors actually read their publication (if it can be considered a "publication" or site or whatever).
/. But now, another dupe, and CmdrTaco is so oblivious to this it's really just sad.
This story was big news, at least, I thought so. I thought it was insightful and telling (especially of MS monopolistic practices), and that it got a lot of (deserved) attention, even more so that it's been on
It's okay if you don't agree. I can take the -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll if you wish. I can hear the karma sizzling...
As much as I like a good conspiracy theory, I think its just /. taking a /.ing itself.
At 9:10 am the parent post is rated: Score 5 - Informative. Let's watch how long this holds up at the top. My earlier reply to this post has already been docked a point - I guess by the MS sharks circling around here.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why are there no simple plug-n-play desktop DB solutions for linux? Mysql is a decent backend, why no front end?
Foxpro is something that would be relatively easy to replace with OSS.
- MS will continually introduce gratuitous and non-documented changes to the APIs to keep it from being fully functional
- Even if it worked perfectly, it just lets you continue to give money for applications to MS and to keep your data in closed formats dictated by Microsoft.
For these reasons, WINE is ultimately losing proposition IMHO. It's not the way to go Open Source. The criticial apps (browser, office suite) now exist in mature forms in open source."that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
link
The problem is that WINE is not a reverse engineer of Windows, but it is rather using the API calls from it's kernel to X-11 rather the Windows interface. That is why it is not emulation.
As far as complaining about a EULA, how does not liking the terms of a EULA equate with a need to bitch about GPL? If I think that a EULA is harsh (such as one trying to claim all of my IP that is created with it as proprietary works) why can't I complain about it? The logic there is...not. The argument is not about MS being a for-profit company. Lots of for profit company's are out there other then Microsoft, and yet they cannot use the same kind of threats and tactics as MS can.
But then again, I am not a MS publicist, so what the hell do I know...
WAR GATORS!!!
> It's the reason why I just use VNC to get to my Windows machine
;-)
Isn't that also something microsoft has been moaning about, in that when vnc'ing to a windows os tht you need 2 windows licences, 1 for the "windows" machine and 1 for the machine that vnc is running on (ie for you linux box!) Dunno what happened there, i'm sure it was introduced (licence change) in xp and a win 2000 service pack.
Ho hum, licenses suck! In fact pretty much everything that tells you you can't do sucks, but that doesn;t mean letting you do what you want would work either, unfortunatly people want to make money, and restricting others is a good way to do that,
hmmmm:
Patent application:
For a method of creating revenue by restricting the rights of others.
MONEY!!!!
+----------------- | What is the question!
As much as I dislike clickthru EULA agreements they are perfectly valid.
There is some question about this. You are required to agree to a contract that you can not see before purchasing, can not negotiate the terms of, nor return the product if you don't agree with the current terms.
It is like farming some work out to a contractor, but having to pay in advance of even deciding the terms of their work. Then when you can't come to a work agreement, you don't get your money back even though they never did any work and you never agreed to any contract at all.
There's something fishy about that.
... and is already a convicted criminal monopolist, but that doesn't matter anymore either here in the United Corporations of America where might makes right, you silly little fool.
You will have a hard time convincing anyone that they should not be able to use the software they purchased under another OS. Monkeyshines like this from Microsoft are just another good reason to not make the purchase in the first place. I got my junky old win98 sitting in the corner and it is rarely used.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's like hating a wall for being a wall.
Yeah, they used to have one of those in Berlin. Even a US president declared himself to be a jellyroll over that one.
update Oh well, its a dupe. Whatever, it gives people something to complain about I guess ;)
Oh yeah...and please, pretty please with a cherry on top....please subscribe to Slashdot. We need your money in order to bring you these wonderful posts again, and again, and again....
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
I hate to say it but people that complain about an EULA, should also complain about GPL, and other source code licenses. It's frustrating to hear hypocrisy and judgement based on the fact that Microsoft is for-profit and not hear the same for similar agreements in the open source world.
This has been said many times, and I'll say it again: the GPL is *NOT* a EULA. You don't have to agree to it at all in order to use the software. Repeat after me, the GPL is not a usage license, it is a copyright license! The GPL only affects you if you want to re-distrubute the software (a right you would not otherwise have).
If you don't agree to the EULA you can't even use the software you bought, and as another poster pointed out, you are unlikely to get your money back. If you don't agree to the GPL then you can still use the software to your heart's content, you just can't give it away to any one else - and not because the GPL forbids it, but because copyright law forbids it.
The intent of WINE is to run the literally thousands of apps written for MS Windows, not just MS apps (although MS Office is the one most publicized). Who are you to decide what a critical app is? There are many commercial programs written for MS Windows which do not (yet) have a FOSS equivalent. In any case, WINE can ease the transition off of Windows and is a Good Thing (tm).
It works under a different premise of law and performs a totally different purpose. It's been explained dozens of times and if you aren't clear on it now then you're either willfully ignorant or shouldn't be talking about things you haven't read.
MS does not support products under WINE. They never have. They likely never will. That's a given, and there's a huge difference between "not supporting a product" and "suing people who do unsupported things with your product". There seem to be alot of people here who can't understand that, either. If you aren't comfortable running important things under WINE, that's fine. Nobody will make you, especially not Microsoft. Although they've claimed that there aren't any undocumented APIs in Windows that're used for applications.
Here's another suprise - it IS perfectly okay to reverse engineer Windows. This is why MS hasn't sued Codeweavers or the WINE project. There's specific things you have to do to make sure you don't cross any legal lines, but as long as you do that you're fine. MS doesn't have to admit it - they don't have any say in the matter. WINE is a reverse engineering of the Win32 API from publically available documentation. Nothing wrong with that.
Next question: What makes you think that EULA's are "perfectly valid"? Just because they say they are?
You are hereby relinquished of all your duties at Slashdot.org; including, but not limited to:/ 132254&mode=nested&tid=185">stories
(1) Posting of duplicate a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/22
(2) Copy Editor/Spell Checker
(3) User Relations
(4) "Brains" of the "Operation".
Sincerely,
VA Linux
It means that CmdrTaco carefully avoids to read his own web site. I guess it speaks volume about what he thinks of the rest of us. :-)
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Microsoft has every right to declare violations in EULA's. If they don't comply at some point with state law, than of course they are invalid and you can more than likely ignore that portion of the EULA.
I hate to say it but people that complain about an EULA, should also complain about GPL, and other source code licenses. It's frustrating to hear hypocrisy and judgement based on the fact that Microsoft is for-profit and not hear the same for similar agreements in the open source world.
OK, I'll bite. The difference can be expressed int 3 little words - "Quid pro quo" as in when I buy FoxPRO from Microsoft I'd better get Quo for my Quid -- and a click-through license that I MUST AGREE TO and CANNOT GET MY MONEY BACK -- cannot in most states take away my Quo. In other words, the deal can not be changed AFTER you get my money, I can expect fair value, *NOT* Whatever the fuck you say I get. Open Source and Free Software licenses are *NOT* the same -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PAY FOR THEM -- YOU GAVE UP NOTHING (the Quid) AND YOU GOT SOMETHING (the Quo) THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO. I hate to shout, But I get the feeling I'm talking to a Microsoft Astroturfer, because this argument is BLATANT JUSTIFICATION, of the Monopolist point of view, that anything may be put into a EULA at any time, and if you don't like it, tough. And then try to accuse OS/FS of the same thing. Yep, I talking to the MS legal department
Have a Bad Day,
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
That was hilarious! Thanks!
You can not hate a business for being a business. It's like hating a wall for being a wall.
There was every reason to hate the Berlin Wall (among others) for the oppression it represented. Of course, after the Berlin Wall came down, many Germans were saying "build it back, three meters higher", just as old-time internet users felt overrun when the internet became generally available. In a similar vein, Microsoft as a monopolistic business is the result of very oppressive practices that persist because we tolerate or encourage them.
All businesses are not equal, any more than all people are equal. While I do not hate a person for being a person and trying to survive, I may greatly detest and oppose one like Sadaam the who's tactics, though very effective, are oppressive. Microsoft does not have to be as oppressive as it is, any more than we have to tolerate cancer cells within the body that would destroy much good.
If all corporations were as oppressive as Microsoft, it would be a good reason to call for the end of corporations. Such corporations in the past have certainly led to revolutions trying to do just that. If in our system, such oppressive corporations are the only ones that can survive, then something needs to be done about that. Or perhaps you think civilization is too unnatural to be worthwhile.
And all agreements are not equal. I have complained myself in the past about GPL, but over time, it seems more and more reasonable, and Microsoft's agreements are demonstrated as less and less reasonable. It is quite obvious to me analyzing in totality what is produced under Microsoft EULAs versus under GPL.
if only we could apply those lessons learned to /. , perhaps we wouldn't spend so much time reading the results of /. emulating /. of the past week.
The legal ability to reverse engineer is already guaranteed in law in the EU. IANAL - if anyone is, care to take this up?
> IANAL, but I do keep up with court cases; AFAIK there are very few valid EULAs (which appear solely online, BTW).
OMG, acronyms aplenty. LOL.
TTFN, IL½2BCNU
Yeah, like complaining about it being a dupe...
Oh, wait, was my post self-redundant?
-Daniel.
I just popped over the the CodeWeavers site and saw CrossOver Office 2.0.0 Ships today also. Changelog.
Still no FrontPage or Dreamweaver support, though. :(
Regarding EULAs, though, vmware is currently (I believe) good with MS.
This will likely become a thornier issue when Palladium comes around. There, the idea is that the OS (or its representative) hase some control over the machine. It might get cranky when the machine is virtual, as that might give control of the machine back to the owner (yes, note sarcasm).
I've always been iffy about the concept of using WINE to run any mission critical software from Windows world. It's the reason why I just use VNC to get to my Windows machine.
Were you defending the Microsoft EULA? Better check again. Since you agreed to the EULA, you are probably aware that you must also purchase a Windows2000 Workstation license in order to display a Microsoft application on any terminal / system other than the "host" system. Using VNC counts as a remote display. I believe Microsoft would consider running the app under WINE to also require a separate Windows2000 license (although I'm not sure.)
I know you purchased a license in order to run the Windows app on the host machine. But according to Microsoft's EULA, you must also purchase a separate Windows2000 license in order to view it remotely using VNC.
That's why I haven't used a Microsoft product in years on my home PC. At work, with RH8, I am also able to run Microsoft-free.
-jh
First off, WINE is not illegal. It simply accepts the documented Win32 API calls, and responds appropriately. Nothing illegal about that at all.
Second, one of the fundamental aspects of EULA law is that if it is binding at all, it is only binding on the parties involved: the seller (Microsoft) and the buyer (the developer). If the developer creates an executable application for a client, and the client installs it to run under WINE, there is no violation of the EULA. Microsoft cannot go after the developer's client, because they were not a party to the original EULA.
Third, with the legal finding that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly on the OS, tying an application like Visual FoxPro to the OS is one of the actions prohibited by law. So even if EULAs themselves are binding, this one isn't, since you cannot enforce an illegal provision of a contract.
State laws exist for contracts between parts, but these contracts are signed. Does the clicking of the 'agree' button equals a signature on a contract ? Can someone that sells a product on the market also force the way to use it ? I don't think any other product (other than software) has usage restrictions.
In my personal opinion (I am not a lawyer), an EULA is not valid unless validated from some government body or state organization. Of course, people (and companies!!!) should be paid for their work, but since I paid for my Office copy, why can't I use it with Linux ?
Is there a lawyer in the house ?
It MUST be a double bluff. MS want to create a stink about it so MORE people will run Visual Fox Pro on Lenux, thus delaying the development of several OSS projects.
.net and data access. One guy asked a question starting:
True Story:
I was at a MS seminar, and a MS employee was presenting a demo on
"I'm a developer with Visual Fox Pro..."
The MS guy just replied:
"I'm sorry."
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
TheInformationMinister.com Simply hysterical.
What's interesting is how so many people spend so much time and effort bitching about duplicates when it's so much easier to just ignore it. Anyone have any theories on why people act this way?
The only theory I can come up with is that it gives some people a feeling of superiority when they point out errors of people who they consider to be 'above them' (Slashdot editors), and in an effort to try to cover up their true intentions (which is to inflate their ego), they make claims that it is just *sooo* annoying.
Post your theories here!
Why do I keep typing pythong?
Nice example of moderator abuse. O.K, this time I'll repost it logged in, with my +1 bonus intact. I hate having to moan about moderators, because now it makes me look like a whinger. Bah!
Yes, I do realise that and I find it sad, but not all that surprising. Who wants to take all that time to read the licence and understand the issues? They want to watch a movie, or play Counter Strike. The MTV generation has an attention span of 3 seconds, and more than make up for it with an over abundence of apathy.[1]
I'll happilly tell you that back when Napster was new and exciting, I downloaded MP3's. When I got my Cable Modem, the first thing I did was to leech DivX;-)'s from Usenet. Then I realised that what I was doing was wrong, and as I was writing more and more GPL'd stuff, it was also hypocritical. I stopped doing all of that years ago.
I agree with you, though. It is easy to download warez, music and movies that you are not legally entitled to. Its a poor attitude, and it doesn't help that many people use the same argument as the grandparent poster, who attempts to justify theft with smoke and mirrors.
Sigh. Steal This Book indeed.
[1]: Now I feel like an old git! I'm 23, soon to be 24. Do I worry too much? I don't know...
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Ninnle Linux already IS Open Source!
Linus himself approved the kernal!
So screw Windoze!
I don't see why Microsoft has to be so 'strict'. I mean if you buy the software you SHOULD be able to do anything you want with it (except pirating it) but I don't see the harm of running the bought program under another operating system that "emulates" (or should I say: Can run..) windows programs. As you can clearly see, Microsoft is very scared of the Open Source community and the *nix scene. I don't know much about all this copyright law thing, but I don't see how this falls into it. Anyway, this is just how I see it!
Sigh. Time for some more slapping. One: The GPL is not an EULA. One more time: THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA.
They are different licenses (i.e., EULA, BSDL, GPL, LGPL), but they all use copyright law to enforce them. They are the same in that respect.
Here's how you do it.
Get a text search package.
Load the text of all stories into the search system.
Use the text of a potential story as a query into the system. Give additional weight to recent stories. Make this weighting function exponential, (1 - recency)^2, or something.
If a story passes a certain threshold weight, you probably have a dupe.
Easy.
MAME (and other console emulators) do NOT have a copy of the original console OS running on them. The creators have attempted, as well as possible, to recreate the API, but it ain't the same (as you will note by the occasional bug in games). Hence it *emulates* the original OS. Vmware, rather, provides virtual resources to a REAL OS (like windows - you DO need your own copy on vmware).
If you want to look at it this way, WINE is a windows emulator - vmware is a *computer* emulator.
To summarize: MAME emulates hardware *and* software. WINE emulates software, but not hardware. Vmware only emulates the hardware.
Best way to get stories actually posted -- submit a duplicate!
--
Vote for your hopes, not for your fears - Vote Third Party
The RIAA called, they said you were speaking out against Digital Rights Management...
Personally, I think he should just ignore M$, the claim is bigus. But on the chance that he doesn't have the billions it would take for an honest man to stand up against these crooks in court, the solution here is obvious. FoxPro wasn't always a Microsoft product. He should get a legal copy of a pre-microsoft version of FoxPro (ebay, or from some good soul who has it and will send it to him), and start demoing the hell out of it and wine to really piss of Microsoft. Microsoft's opposition to his doing this will only help make him ten times more visable, with a solution that they have no legal standing to object to at all.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
emulate Audio pronunciation of emulate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-lt)
tr.v. emulated, emulating, emulates
1. To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
2. To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
3. Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Look very closely at that third one. Allow me to also point out that the "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is not what WINE actually stands for despite popular belief that it does. Anyways, to further solidify WINE's status as an emulator, lets look up the word "imitate."
imitate Audio pronunciation of imitate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-tt)
tr.v. imitated, imitating, imitates
1. To use or follow as a model.
2.
1. To copy the actions, appearance, mannerisms, or speech of; mimic: amused friends by imitating the teachers.
2. To copy or use the style of: brushwork that imitates Rembrandt.
3. To copy exactly; reproduce.
4. To appear like; resemble.
Now please try to get over the means by which wine accomplishes its end of emulating windows. I remember when another emulator called UltraHLE came out, and people tried to claim it was not an emulator because it didn't follow the classical means of emulation. It used high level emulation. Despite that word emulation being in the type pf emulator it was, people still tried to claim it was not one. Emulation is an end, and an emulator is the software that produces that end. VMWare may be in a class of emulators called a virtual machine, but it is still an emulator. WINE may emulate windows by "translating windows system calls to X11 equivalents" (which btw is extremely vague), but that does not make it any less of an emulator.
An EULA does not (and cannot) rely on copyright law for it's power. It's some sort of bastardized version of contract law.
is easier.
This is about an attempted legal agreement. There are at least two possible problems.
Microsoft, a company convicted of abusing its operating system monopoly, might want to reconsider license terms that effectively bind their customers to their operating system.
Second, clickwrap EULAs remain an open legal debate. There has been weak precident set in a number of cases, but no case has national jurisdiction yet, and no case has clearly said, "clickwrap EULAs are enforceable" (even the famous, erm, Washington I believe, case was more about the legality of a contractor agreeing to a license but the contractee not doing so.) If you were to start selling any other copyright protected work, say a book, but add a wrapper around it that most people won't notice until they get home that says, "To read this book you must agree to the following," your EULA would be laughed out of court. That this is done for consumer software flies in the face of two hundred years of modern copyright law.
The only reason you should hate to say it is because it exposes your ignorance. You do not need to agree to the GPL to use it for any purpose (personal or business), or to make additional copies for personal use. (Yes there is some GPLed software that tries to make you agree to the GPL before you use the software. I suspect this is because the person who packaged it is clueless and doesn't understand this point.) The only thing putting any restrictions on you with GPLed software is not the GPL, but good old copyright law. Under copyright you you are not allowed to give copies to other people. The GPL is a grant of additional rights you didn't have (because copyright law restricted them). If you're willing to agree to the GPL, you gain these additional rights. If not, you can treat the GPLed software like any other copyright protected work like a book or CD.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Maybe I'm confused, but from what you're saying, if I paid for the Open Source software I can do whatever I want, and blatantly disregard the GPL? I mean, after all, I can expect fair value and not what you say I get, right?
I've followed a similar path. But I have to say that you are mild by comparison. I'm now into brown showers, coprophilia, nullo (or nullification), self asphyxiation, oversized insertions (I can now put a fire hydrant in my wife's pussy), snuff films and of course satanic ritual sex.
But I argue that porn is NOT addictive. The only thing that is happening to people like you and I is that we are becoming more honest with ourselves about what we have always secretly enjoyed. For example, I've eaten my own shit since I was a teen. I taught my high school girlfriend to do the same. There are a lot of people who do this, but there are only a scant few who admit to it. Just think about that for a minute. You likely know at least ten people out of 20 who are into advance coprophagea.
So, no... porn is not addictive. It's liberating.
My mistake. I thought it used copyright law. :)
Copying is not stealing.
In this case, it's theft of value. A piece of software it not a tangible item (like a car), but it does provide value, and you're suggesting that this value should be provided free and clear of any compensation- a notion with which I strongly disagree.
is easier...
Yes 3 of those L's use copyright law as an enforcement. It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out which.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
What should CmdrTaco do, Alex?
That's "denying company money they are rightfully owned for that product or service," which is not the same as "illicitly removing an object from someone's possession." Your credit card example is theft, because nobody cares about the "copying" of credit card numbers; they care about the thief removing your money from your possession.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Acceptance of the GPL isn't required to use software. The only time you have to accept the GPL is if you want to distribute GPL'd software (either the original or a derived version). Even then, you don't have to accept it because of an EULA; you have to accept it because if you don't, you have no right to distribute the software (since in absense of the GPL or any other license grant, copyright reverts to "All Rights Reserved" status).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, if you reread it, the guy never specifically said that the GPL was a EULA - he said it's a license, and it is. His point, I believe, simply is that both are licenses, and from some viewpoints, extremely restrictive. He finds it odd that people would criticize one and not the other, and perhaps feels that it derives from MS's fight of OSS. His point, while I may not agree with it, has some validity. If anything, you seem to be by his analogy, as it was at a bit of a slant.
You are of course correct that the GPL isn't a EULA, since you can do whatever you want with GPL'd software as long as you don't release it. So there are obviously no restrictions on the EU portion of the license.
It works under a different premise of law and performs a totally different purpose. It's been explained dozens of times and if you aren't clear on it now then you're either willfully ignorant or shouldn't be talking about things you haven't read.
Now that's a bit cranky! First, if he were talking about things he's not read he'd hardly know it, would he? Second, I don't think he claimed what you think anyway. Let's be a bit more tolerant shall we? Because I can assure you intolerance on the part of the *nix community is a great way to ensure M$'s continued domaninance on the desktop. We have to be willing to teach, even if it's the same thing, over and over.
Question: Does requiring the royalty free distributables in VFP to only be used on the Windows Platform amount to illegal tying under 15 USCA 1 (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act)? I contend it is not. As we have seen, tying, in the classic sense occurs when a vendor requires you to purchase another product based on another product purchase. i.e., if you buy an IBM computer, you would be required to buy an IBM printer because it is the only printer that would work. Note that product bundles are different (buying XBOX and 2 Xbox Games). If you bought an Xbox at Comp-USA, you would have ran into this. In this case, MS is not placing an all out ban on running VFP on Linux. Rather, MS is simply saying that you have to pay for it. That is why I framed the question the way I did above - by only emphasizing the royalty-free runtimes. This is the crux of the argument and the key to making Fox economically viable to some on Linux. After all, if one cannot distrbute royalty free with the current run-times, Fox becomes a MUCH less appealing alternative. So then, what is the justification for the EULA and only allowing the distributables to be run on the Windows Platform? The answer is......subsidy. IMO, the reason why we are allowed to distribute Fox apps royalty free is because sales of Windows Licenses help subsidize the cost. If you recall, Fox was not always royalty free. The Distribution Kit was $300.00 or thereabouts. This subsidy argument, IMO, is applicable to .NET as well.
FWIW, I don't think MS could dictate where you
intall the copy of softare your license covers.
Specifcally, if you want to install the DEV
version of VFP or office on Linux, not only can
you do so, I don't think MS could stop you even
if they wanted to. So long as the ratio of 1 lic
per machine exists, MS is not harmed and it
should not care. To try and stop this, IMO,
would amount to MS abusing its Monopoly power.
And that is where the distinction rests in this
case. That said, I don't think the royalty free
runtimes follow in the same vein. I contend that
the consideration given for the use of those run
times is the windows license that will host
those runtimes.
With this in mind, if you want to deploy VFP
apps on Linux, you don't get the benefit of the
Windows subsidy, and therefore, you have to pay
as you go. And FWIW, I think this argument equally applies to .NET.
On one hand, consumers need to be protected
against the abuses of monopoly power. On the
other hand, those protections cannot go so far
as to allow consumers to get something for
nothing.
No I agree with you. The net is full of really dumb people who can't really seem to see the forest for the trees. Hell, I pop onto slashdot every couple of days, at most, and so I never even SEE that the article is duplicated.
Hell, go onto Yahoo news, or FARK, you'll see duplicates right there on the home page. I don't hear people bitching. Fuck, how times have you see the same commericial play multiple times during a station break?
These are probably the same numbnuts who walk through an art museum and look for overspray and erasure marks. (I mean really, where are they storing these pictures, in somebodies basement? Grandma's wallpaper is in better shape than this DeVince!)
I think you are absolute right about people feeling high and mighty by nitpicking. Of course, me sitting here and nitpicking about them sinks me to their level. DAMN YOU SOCRATES!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"There never have been any repeat postings!" TheInformationMinister.com [theinforma...nister.com] Simply hysterical.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
There is a middle ground you do realize. I download and I buy. I tend to download the things I can't get any legit way.
For example, I am a big South Park fan but until two months ago our cable system didn't carry Comedy Central. So I have a complete set of divx files (except for ep614 dammit) through the end of season 6. But I haven't been in much of a hurry to go searching for season 7 because I have been in front of the TV on Wed night, now that I can. And I have the first season box set (with the commentary CDs since I ordered direct from Comedy Central) and will be in the pre-order list for Season 2 this summer. So do I feel the slightest twinge of guilt about having the DIVX collection? Not a bit. No different that if I'd asked a friend/relative in an area with Comedy Central to send me video tapes.
Democrat delenda est
There was money in your account, and it has been removed. There is no such removal taking place in the "loss of sales" scenario.
I'm not saying copyright infringement is not wrong, just that it is wrong in a different way from theft. One is wrong due to actual removal of someone's property, while the other is wrong due to denial of potential profits.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I see what you're saying now, but I don't think it works successfully for an EULA in the same way it does for the GPL. For it to work for an EULA, you would have to be commiting a default copyright violation by using the work without a license; however, you're not, since your are not making any copies, and only are in possession of one copy that was given to you by an authorized distributor. The GPL can work because it prevents you from making further copies (which invoke copyright law), but in absence of any copying taking place, I don't see how an EULA can employ copyright law for its enforcement.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
> As much as I dislike clickthru EULA agreements they are
> perfectly valid.
No they aren't. Unless you live in Virgina they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Don't believe the Big Lie.
> I hate to say it but people that complain about an EULA,
> should also complain about GPL, and other source code
> licenses.
Wrong. The GPL is NOT a EULA. A EULA attempts to remove rights that a user has under copyright law and the first sale doctrine. The GPL is an optional license that grants permissions above and beyond what ordinary copyright law would allow. There is no requirement to accept the GPL in order to make full use of a package. However unless you do accept the terms and conditions of the GPL you are forbidden by copyright law from redistribution.
> Supporting applications under WINE by omission of comment by
> Microsoft would be tacitly granting that it's perfectly OK
> to reverse engineer Windows.
They have no legal right to control the uses people make of their software other than to expect the protections of copyright law. A copyright holder cannot regulate what the owner of a copy does except to forbid copies (with certain exemptions and conditions such as Fair Use, etc... consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction, blah blah) and often they can forbid "public exhibition' of the work, but that probably doesn't apply to most computer programs.
For example, when I bought a copy of the new Harry Potter DVD last week AOL Time Warner can not control the brand of DVD player I stick it in. They can't even legally stop me from playing it with Xine. (The DVD Copy Control Assoc is trying to say I can't use Xine because it contains DeCSS to decrypt the movie, but that is another futile argument the industry is going to lose in the end.)
Now when we consider the current story of Microsoft Visual Foxpro we can apply the same reasoning and determine that Microsoft can not dictate the platform a user "plays" their copy of Foxpro on. Where they might get a bit of traction is in the details of their redistribution clause where they grant developers permission to redistribute the runtime to their customers. Haven't dug through it enough to offer an opinon and not being a lawyer I'd probbaly be a bit scared to offer one even if I'd read it for an hour or two. But if it is a GPL like grant of additional rights above and beyond copyright then you might be considered to have accepted it by redistributing the runtime.
Democrat delenda est
God, how many times do we have to hear *this* stupid argument again?
Copying is stealing.
You are obtaining their works without paying them for it. Yes, that is stealing.
When you steal a CD from a store, are they upset because you obtained a physical object from their store? No. They're upset because you didn't pay them for it. Likewise, obtaining music, even if there is no loss of a physical object, equates to a loss of payment they would have otherwise received. How can so many Slashbots miss this simple concept?
Accept it, deal with it, get over it. Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
true enough.. and stealing is crime. so copying is crime. and smoking pot is a crime.... doesn't mean we have to agree with the laws.
though i think the guy who said he doesn't pay for books, cd, software, etc is an idiot.
i buy shit when its good. i check out bands by copying there music, and go to their shows if they are good and buy their CDs. but i'm not some assclown free loader like the guy mentioned above.
Don't have to agree with the laws?
If Microsoft had been caught using GPL code without telling anyone, all of Slashdot would be up in a furious rage.
But it's clearly okay to steal movies, music, and whatever else you want because you are "pro-consumer" and "corporations are bad."
I love double standards because they destroy themselves with their own faulty logic.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Such corporations in the past have certainly led to revolutions trying to do just that. If in our system, such oppressive corporations are the only ones that can survive, then something needs to be done about that. Or perhaps you think civilization is too unnatural to be worthwhile.
HUH name me ONE revolution that was caused by a business corporation.... Even in America where we give quasi-legal citizenship to corporations we don't^H^H^H^H won't deprive a coporation of their "right" to hire other citizens and pay them nor do we require them to be likeable all we require them to do is follow the law just like John Doe. Is Corporation X too oppressive for you then don't have any dealings with it. Isn't there another choice? Yes there is another choice.... Don't use their product. Wait a minute you say that they control 90+% of the market so what.... racists used to control 90+% of "their" market and what has happened? Was it easy to defeat the concept of racism? Probably not but what makes America great is that a few good people given enough time can overcome even what was/is consisered impossible.
The American revoltution was made possible by some strong willed people that didn't fear for their lives and were willing to put their lives on the line for the good of the many.
You're argument is flawed in that your examples are all physical objects. If I owned a car, found a way to easily duplicate it verbatim and then started giving those duplicates away I would be denying the car manufacturer money that is rightly theirs.
:p ) from taxes taken from everybody. It's a concept that I find both horrifying and intriguing. Look at how Canada has a $1 fee on CD-Roms to compensate music companies. We already seem to be traveling in that direction.
I'd question whether the money in my wallet is "rightly theirs" if they're not paying for the material to make those new cars. Copying only steals a potential dollar, a planned dollar. I, the hypothetical Bikke the Car Pirate, never agreed to be a potential market. I was just over a barrel to get something I needed or wanted that they had and I didn't. The entire capitalist market had its roots in physical objects, and I wonder if we're not trapped in a lower level of thinking that's holding us back as we into the information age. The typical argument is to compare between information and a physical object like a car. It's a good thought exercise to think about easily reproducable cars, because once you start thinking about hypothetical concepts such as free/instant/limitless copies of physical objects you can no longer analogize back to the real world of physical copies to prove a point using "obvious" logic.
Granted, they won't make any more money on that car design when people already have a car and don't need to buy new ones. The car manufacturer is helplessly reliant upon that potential dollar.
Why should you get the benefit of someone's hard work and effort without paying them any compensation[?]
Considering that most people aren't going to follow that line of reasoning, opting instead for the much more persuasive "I want it, gimme" approach, our society might need to accept that arguments like yours won't have much impact and divert some effort into finding new ways for people to make money off of their non-physical hard work. Perhaps governments could track how much each IP product is copied in the free sea of information and then award annual royalties to the IP owners ( who are less and less frequently the creators, yaaay corporations
There is no way you can justify it.
At least not to people on the other side of the fence.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Copying is not stealing it is copyright infringement.
Here is a little thought experiment: Do you think that if everyone on slashdot that runs a windows operation system makes copies of their windows DLLs and then deletes them, that Microsoft loses money? What if i run a batch script in the background that constantly copies the DLLs and deletes them? I should pass the program out over the internet, and become the hero of the linux movement by bankrupting Microsoft.
stealing!=copyright infringment
Copying is not stealing it is copyright infringement.
It is also theft of profits. You are witholding money owed to them. You are essentially making off with their money.
Here is a little thought experiment: Do you think that if everyone on slashdot that runs a windows operation system makes copies of their windows DLLs and then deletes them, that Microsoft loses money? What if i run a batch script in the background that constantly copies the DLLs and deletes them? I should pass the program out over the internet, and become the hero of the linux movement by bankrupting Microsoft.
"[O]peration system?"
What does copying and deleting DLLs have to do with obtaining music without paying for it? You are obviously so desperate with such a weak position that you make up an unrelated scenario that proves nothing, except that you are even more foolish than I previously knew.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No. That's like saying that WINE's not an emulator because it runs real software. Here's the parallels you have to see to compare MAME to VMware to WINE:
ROM from game cartridge = software program
console BIOS (internal to machine, not the games) = OS
Console = computer
So, at what level does MAME emulate, and at what level does it actually replicate? You don't compare the software programs, as what is run is irrelevant. You compare the OS's - ie, if what you're running is the ORIGINAL OS, then it's NOT an emulator. MAME did NOT have the original OS - it had to reverse engineer it. See here to see how MAME works - they wrote the console BIOS from scratch, allowing it to *emulate* the console API. This is also how WINE works.
This is *not* how vmware works. VMware,again, runs an ACTUAL COPY of windows (the OS). VMware instead creates a "virtual machine" (hence the "VM") that a real OS is allowed to use.
Wine, on the other hand, does not - like MAME, it attempts to reverse-engineer the Windows API. Thus, the difference between something being an emulator (as it is classically defined) or not lies with the OS. It doesn't lie with the hardware. Obviously, console emulators perform both jobs - they create a sort-of virtual machine and then run an emulator on it. That's like they're running some software in WINE on top of VMware, so they have to perform the parallel functions of both.
But bottom line is VMware creates virtual machines. It doesn't emulate an OS as it dosn't have to.
If Microsoft was caught, they can be charged with the crime. It doesn't even matter what Slashdotters think. If you are caughting pirating you can be charged with the crime. If you are caught smoking marijuana, you can be charged with the crime. Yet people still smoke marijuana, so they are criminals now. People who sample music before buying it or going to a show are criminals too. I downloaded some tracks off of a file-sharing network for a band; last night I spent $8 to see them play live, and then $24 to buy both their albums. Yet I'm still a criminal.
I suppose your argument will be "that would be like Microsoft illegally using GPL code and then GPLing the software only after they were caught or had already made a huge profit."
Most people are criminals in one way or another, or at least break the law some time in their lives. We just have to accept it and face the consequences (and maybe try to change the law). Sure we commit the crimes, but can you give us a compelling reason to stop when there is no harm done? It is illegal for gays to give each other oral sex under sodomy laws of some states. What reason are you going to give them why they should stop, other than the fact that they can be arrested?
Do you know what a troll is?
"Sufferin' succotash."
I figured you'd give up so easilly.
Next.
No, they say you can't use it anyway you want. Whether or not that is legally enforceable is another question.
IANAL.
I would bet that these tying clauses might be illegal Microsoft has an acknowledged monopoly in one area and this may make it less than enforceable (because it would be a way of protecting their monopoly). Of course, follow at your own risk but if I really liked Microsoft dev software that much, I would run it on Linux.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Unrelated scenario? it's exactly the same scenario as ripping CDs that I own to mp3s and then copying the mp3s and deleting them over and over again. If i'm somehow stealing as people are saying, someone should lose money every time i copy them.
Please explain how that doesn't prove anything. I'm copying music files which you equate to stealing, so someone must be losing money, right?
But i guess you are right....I'm the foolish one for not believing you that every copy is stealing.
And you are right, i am much more foolish than you realized for even answering a troll such as yourself.
The solution is simple....
Give WINE a EULA that requires all Microsoft employies or people representing the interests of the Microsoft Corp release all the source code into the public domain. This way in the event that the Microsoft corp decides to enforce their EULA, people who represent Wine can tell the judge that Microsoft has to repsect their EULA.
They can be changed at anytime don't ya know.
While this would be silly, it would demonstrate a valid point the fact that EULA are not nessicarly legit contracts embedded in stone.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.