...that you can't add additional restrictions to it? Let's face it, this one is pretty benign and I'm guessing it's in response to SCO
that's probably the most reasonable explanation that I've come across. Seeing what happened in respect to SCO using GPL software (Samba, god's know what else), I think that this is a reasonable defense against something like that ever happening again.
From what I can see of the license, all it would require would be for NVIDIA to include 4.4 sources and do a.configure && make && make install as part of their install
if only building XFree from source where that simple.
I agree with the parent, and prefer BSD/X style licensing to GPL. But isn't there already some code in Linux distributions now, that falls under the BSD license? Or is it completely free of any BSD licensed code? I find it hard to believe, but if so, could someone clarify?
I agree too. However, I believe that it would take decade's, if not centuries, to 'fix' all of the code mangling that's happened between GPL'd software and software that use's a BSD style license. It's the concept of 'don't re-invent the wheel if you don't have to' at work.
For a true BSD licensed OS, right about now, the closest you'll really get is OpenBSD (and even that has some, albeit not much, GPL software in it), Theo and crew are pretty diligent about either finding, or making, replacements for the GPL stuff that is BSD licensed.
For a GPL licensed one, I believe that Debian is really about as close as you get (not sure tho, there may be a better distro in this respect), at least until the GNU/Hurd actually appears.
...to XFree86 but I don't see them making any new friends by doing this kind of thing. As soon as alternatives are more mature, XFree86 will feel the heat.
Here's hoping that, yes, there will be alternatives (which are always good things) and the ATi,Nvidia, and the other 'big guns' will support them (little chancy right now, seeing as XFree is the 'defacto' standard).
And as for the Free in XFree86... Hmm.. still free, go read the license.
Ok, here's the original BSD license clause (apologies for the length):
2.2.2. UCB/LBL
Copyright (c) 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
This software was developed by the Computer Systems Engineering group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory under DARPA contract BG 91-66 and contributed to Berkeley.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' BLAH BLAH BLAH
and here's the new XFree license: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicence, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT, INC OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project.
Notice something? Nowhere in either license is it required to actively advertise these claims: by point: 1. Add it to the source code as a COMMENT 2-part 1: This is what help/about is for. 2-part 2: It's in the documentation, hrmmm, where is the problem here? 3. Again, a few sentences in the documentation. big whoop!
so you want them to list 1000 plus people on the box? and the ads? and the site? Cost prohibitive.
no. list them in pamphlet in the box (and yes, that satisfie's the BSD style advertising clause nicely). Not so cost prohibitive now, is it?
Again, I'll ask, what the hell is the problem wrt the GPL where it has this HUGE problem in giving credit where credit is fairly due?
well, you still didn't answer my question: what is wrong with giving credit where credit is due? Who care's if it's 200 page's of credit's? Your not explicitly being demanded to show this on execution, only in licensing/source code for christ's sake. Oh, and btw, I never mentioned, nor implied, that either license is imcompatible, just that there are some very strange clause's and mulish behavior in the GPL.
Jeesussss....... all this over a BSD'ish clause in the new licensing. Can someone give me a rational explanation as to why the GPL is so problematic in this area? What in hell is wrong with giving credit where credit is due (i.e.: I create something based on a BSD 1.x/MIT/X/Hi I require you to give me credit for being the basis of your creation license, and so , being the upright person that I am, I responsibly give credit.) How does this preclude software, any software created under these conditions from being free, unless the original licensing of the 'base' product I used to create my widget isn't going to allow me to give derivitave works away under my own licensing terms (as in free libre/beer, and if it wasn't going to allow me to do this, I'd drop it like a hot bullet and find something else to use)?
I am so glad that I use the *BSD's. Pretty much avoid mess's like this altogether.
And what disaster, of a scale requiring us to go back to antiquated ham radio for communication, would also fail to knock out power, thus removing the source of potential interference?
September 11, 2001 - Remember that? What the hell do you think that not only myself, but almost every other ham I know in the area where doing? Providing Emergency Communication Services to NYC. Try actually researching something before speaking out of your ass.
They should turn the store into a theme park for their cobranded culture droppings, and drop the pretense of retailing music.
Guess what? YOUR not in Virgin's target demo, boo hoo hoo. Guess what else? If your over 21 or so, (and this pretty much applies to anyone in the US), your not in it either. Get over it, it's one of the price's we pay for growing older. Don't like it? Shop online - the demo's are a bit different, and I'll practically garauntee you that your choice of selections will be better. You may not experience the 'instant gratification' feeling that so many shopper's become addicted to, but I'm sure, that eventually, you'll find exactly what your looking for. Remember that old quote 'One man's garbage is another man's treasure'? It's very true when it's applied to internet shopping.
ps: read my sig, in your case, it's very applicable.....
Yes, yet another example of *wood not being able to create anything original in the last 30 years. Leave anime alone, dammit, it's the only thing that's worth spending money on for entertainment.
Actually AOL started in the timeshare industry, backed by (I believe) TymeNET, then got into the dialup side of things after genie/prodigy/compuserve/etc got more popular. They ended up buying out the local isp I started way back when to 'kickstart' (thier word) local usage. It wasn't too bad back then (version 1.0 or something to that affect), but I thought at the time that the other services would trample them, but I didn't really care (by that time, I had discovered the wonderful world of partial T1's..:) )
my problem wrt steganography is that it 'feels' more like security through obscurity than an actual cryptographic regime (ala gpg encrypted attachments, etc). Other than that, neat stuff.
Well then "some people" can get off their butts, or cough up the cash to do it themselves. It's amazing how some people who use free software think that the developers owe them something.
Erm, no. They wrote it, they can do what they like, how they like and when they like. They don't have to put in features if they don't want to. They certainly don't have to justify their work or decisions to anyone except their contributing peers. If you don't like it please whine to somebody else. Nobody is stopping you from backporting code or doing it yourself.
rtfa. it actually talks about the 2.4 maintainer being retiscent about adding new features to 2.4, not the developers, who,as with the case of SGI, actually want to add something useful to the kernel without having the end-users go through the trouble of finding, patching, and compiling the code from 'other' sources.
Er, and how is a gun a deterrence to me unless I think you are a violent wacko who is going to shoot me with it?
It's very possible to deter you with a firearm w/o pointing it at you, much less loading it. Ever hear someone prime a pump shotgun? It's an almost universal sound these days.
so sayeth ScrewMaster:
It already is mandated that they be installed in all vehicles (in the U.S. at least.) It's called OBD-II (On-Board Diagnostics II) and all cars made since 1997 have been required to have them. It was forced on us in the name of emissions control, but obviously once you give the government a new source of data on its citizens it wants to use that data. I'm not sure if all OBD II systems have accelerometers in them, though. Have to look into that.
IIRC, I do believe that any car, domestic or foriegn, regardless of make, has had something similar built into it from 2001 on (I certainly know that my new Vibe does, as does my wife's '02 Camry).
Re:Today's kids = tomorrow's workers. Prepare them
on
Reading, Writing, RFID
·
· Score: 1
so sayeth Tackhead:
no, I'm not going to bother...
tell ya what. YOU first. Then tell us after how it feels when you have a completely unknown number of eye's watching you every moment of your waking, and perhaps even sleeping, life. I imagine that it would be a little creepy, if not downright spooky.
You really want children to grow up in this kind of world? Your children too?
Dystopian world view's like this belong strictly in fiction, not fact.
Essentially, it boils down to this: Everyone uses their software differently.
Your absolutely correct.
What's annoying to you is not annoying to everyone else. This is why Firebird exists; instead of giving everyone the "kitchen-sink" SeaMonkey approach,
I'll take the kitchen sink approach, thanks.
give them a lean browser
Lean? Yes. So lean that it's bereft of the majority of the features that endeared Moz to so many people.
, with a good set of default preferences, that the end user can configure however they want.
Good? Not. And not even arguable, really. And oh yeah, the end-user can configure it any way that they like, if they don't mind spending 2 hours or so finding and installing extensions that may or may not work correctly, and then praying that the extensions aren't broken in one form or another.
Finally, Firebird (Especially as of 0.7) is MUCH smaller & faster than SeaMonkey Mozilla builds.
So what? You save what in load time, a possible 2-3 seconds? If someone's that impatient, I suggest that they get a rj45 jack installed in thier head so that they can plug right into the net...
It flies on this P3 733 system I'm on, whereas the Mozilla App Suite crawls, and is much less responsive.
a) see prior comment, and b) this almost sounds like a configuration issue (I have 2 p3733's here, and they are both lightning fast).
I can't wait for the day that Firebird fully replaces Mozilla Seamonkey!
And then there are those of us who value productivity over 'bells and whistles'....
P.P.S. I like Automatic Downloading;)
Why am I getting the feeling that your a windows user???
.out of the last 5 motherboards I've purchased not a single one came with Phoneix BIOS on it, why should this be a big concern. Now if AMI, Phoenix, and others all got together and decided this, that would be different. But as it stands right now only one BIOS manufacturer makes it.
um.... guess what, yes you did. Award was bought out by Phoenix in 1998.
Right at the end of the article you will notice that the users will have an option to turn off the DRM...
Phoenix said the DRM-enabled CME was not part of Microsoft's NGSCB, but that the technology was complementary. The CME would allow PC makers to embed digital rights management directly into the hardware,
though they would have the option of allowing users to turn it off.
read the last sentence in that paragraph again.
though they would have the option of allowing users to turn it off.
does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer's are going to do this. and before you get on a rant about how "they'll cave to consumer demand", think again, WE, meaning myself, you, and all of the other assorted geektypes that hang out here, and especially 'joe-sixpack and brood', don't count. WE are NOT the major purchasers of these products, but I can tell you who is: VARS (Infinitech, CDW, etc), and OEM's (DELL, Compaq, IBM, etc), and for the most part, guess who's bios they use for the most part? Bing! Phoenix, in one shape or form, even compaq's and ibm's bios's are crosslicensed with phoenix on some devices. So.... again, guess what, we get the short end of the stick, and consumer choice lives in a fantasyland galaxy far, far, away.
Slashdot Mirror
that's probably the most reasonable explanation that I've come across. Seeing what happened in respect to SCO using GPL software (Samba, god's know what else), I think that this is a reasonable defense against something like that ever happening again.
From what I can see of the license, all it would require would be for NVIDIA to include 4.4 sources and do a .configure && make && make install as part of their install
if only building XFree from source where that simple.
I agree with the parent, and prefer BSD/X style licensing to GPL. But isn't there already some code in Linux distributions now, that falls under the BSD license? Or is it completely free of any BSD licensed code? I find it hard to believe, but if so, could someone clarify?
I agree too. However, I believe that it would take decade's, if not centuries, to 'fix' all of the code mangling that's happened between GPL'd software and software that use's a BSD style license. It's the concept of 'don't re-invent the wheel if you don't have to' at work.
For a true BSD licensed OS, right about now, the closest you'll really get is OpenBSD (and even that has some, albeit not much, GPL software in it), Theo and crew are pretty diligent about either finding, or making, replacements for the GPL stuff that is BSD licensed.
For a GPL licensed one, I believe that Debian is really about as close as you get (not sure tho, there may be a better distro in this respect), at least until the GNU/Hurd actually appears.
Thank you. You said it much more eloquently than I did, and I thank you for it.
alternatives are more mature, XFree86 will feel the heat.
Here's hoping that, yes, there will be alternatives (which are always good things) and the ATi,Nvidia, and the other 'big guns' will support them (little chancy right now, seeing as XFree is the 'defacto' standard).
And as for the Free in XFree86... Hmm..
still free, go read the license.
Ok, here's the original BSD license clause (apologies for the length):
2.2.2. UCB/LBL
Copyright (c) 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
This software was developed by the Computer Systems Engineering group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory under DARPA contract BG 91-66 and contributed to Berkeley.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' BLAH BLAH BLAH
and here's the new XFree license:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicence, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT, INC OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project.
Notice something? Nowhere in either license is it required to actively advertise these claims:
by point:
1. Add it to the source code as a COMMENT
2-part 1: This is what help/about is for.
2-part 2: It's in the documentation, hrmmm, where is the problem here?
3. Again, a few sentences in the documentation. big whoop!
so you want them to list 1000 plus people on the box? and the ads? and the site? Cost prohibitive.
no. list them in pamphlet in the box (and yes, that satisfie's the BSD style advertising clause nicely). Not so cost prohibitive now, is it?
Again, I'll ask, what the hell is the problem wrt the GPL where it has this HUGE problem in giving credit where credit is fairly due?
well, you still didn't answer my question: what is wrong with giving credit where credit is due? Who care's if it's 200 page's of credit's? Your not explicitly being demanded to show this on execution, only in licensing/source code for christ's sake. Oh, and btw, I never mentioned, nor implied, that either license is imcompatible, just that there are some very strange clause's and mulish behavior in the GPL.
Jeesussss....... all this over a BSD'ish clause in the new licensing. Can someone give me a rational explanation as to why the GPL is so problematic in this area? What in hell is wrong with giving credit where credit is due (i.e.: I create something based on a BSD 1.x/MIT/X/Hi I require you to give me credit for being the basis of your creation license, and so , being the upright person that I am, I responsibly give credit.) How does this preclude software, any software created under these conditions from being free, unless the original licensing of the 'base' product I used to create my widget isn't going to allow me to give derivitave works away under my own licensing terms (as in free libre/beer, and if it wasn't going to allow me to do this, I'd drop it like a hot bullet and find something else to use)?
I am so glad that I use the *BSD's. Pretty much avoid mess's like this altogether.
September 11, 2001 - Remember that? What the hell do you think that not only myself, but almost every other ham I know in the area where doing? Providing Emergency Communication Services to NYC. Try actually researching something before speaking out of your ass.
Guess what? YOUR not in Virgin's target demo, boo hoo hoo. Guess what else? If your over 21 or so, (and this pretty much applies to anyone in the US), your not in it either. Get over it, it's one of the price's we pay for growing older. Don't like it? Shop online - the demo's are a bit different, and I'll practically garauntee you that your choice of selections will be better. You may not experience the 'instant gratification' feeling that so many shopper's become addicted to, but I'm sure, that eventually, you'll find exactly what your looking for. Remember that old quote 'One man's garbage is another man's treasure'? It's very true when it's applied to internet shopping.
ps: read my sig, in your case, it's very applicable.....
Yes, yet another example of *wood not being able to create anything original in the last 30 years. Leave anime alone, dammit, it's the only thing that's worth spending money on for entertainment.
IBM rarely, if ever, settle's for less.
Actually AOL started in the timeshare industry, backed by (I believe) TymeNET, then got into the dialup side of things after genie/prodigy/compuserve/etc got more popular. They ended up buying out the local isp I started way back when to 'kickstart' (thier word) local usage. It wasn't too bad back then (version 1.0 or something to that affect), but I thought at the time that the other services would trample them, but I didn't really care (by that time, I had discovered the wonderful world of partial T1's..
good point. I need more coffee before I reply to these things...
my problem wrt steganography is that it 'feels' more like security through obscurity than an actual cryptographic regime (ala gpg encrypted attachments, etc). Other than that, neat stuff.
rtfa. it actually talks about the 2.4 maintainer being retiscent about adding new features to 2.4, not the developers, who,as with the case of SGI, actually want to add something useful to the kernel without having the end-users go through the trouble of finding, patching, and compiling the code from 'other' sources.
Care to tell us just what someone who can reliably throw an object 50 some odd yards is actually contributing to society at large?
It's very possible to deter you with a firearm w/o pointing it at you, much less loading it. Ever hear someone prime a pump shotgun? It's an almost universal sound these days.
so sayeth ScrewMaster:
It already is mandated that they be installed in all vehicles (in the U.S. at least.) It's called OBD-II (On-Board Diagnostics II) and all cars made since 1997 have been required to have them. It was forced on us in the name of emissions control, but obviously once you give the government a new source of data on its citizens it wants to use that data. I'm not sure if all OBD II systems have accelerometers in them, though. Have to look into that.
IIRC, I do believe that any car, domestic or foriegn, regardless of make, has had something similar built into it from 2001 on (I certainly know that my new Vibe does, as does my wife's '02 Camry).
tell ya what. YOU first. Then tell us after how it feels when you have a completely unknown number of eye's watching you every moment of your waking, and perhaps even sleeping, life. I imagine that it would be a little creepy, if not downright spooky.
You really want children to grow up in this kind of world? Your children too?
Dystopian world view's like this belong strictly in fiction, not fact.
um.... guess what, yes you did. Award was bought out by Phoenix in 1998.
read the last sentence in that paragraph again.
does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer's are going to do this. and before you get on a rant about how "they'll cave to consumer demand", think again, WE, meaning myself, you, and all of the other assorted geektypes that hang out here, and especially 'joe-sixpack and brood', don't count. WE are NOT the major purchasers of these products, but I can tell you who is: VARS (Infinitech, CDW, etc), and OEM's (DELL, Compaq, IBM, etc), and for the most part, guess who's bios they use for the most part? Bing! Phoenix, in one shape or form, even compaq's and ibm's bios's are crosslicensed with phoenix on some devices. So.... again, guess what, we get the short end of the stick, and consumer choice lives in a fantasyland galaxy far, far, away.
yep. you, apparently.
then you've been guilty of installing phoenix's bios on all of these people's machines.
phoenix and award merged in 1998.
the bios business has been slowly going down the crapper since.