The Linux project is a special case because Linus doesn't hold the copyright. There are many projects though where there is a sole rights holder though and it would not be a problem to give permission to the hardware vendor. For example the FSF could dual license all their GNU tools to Microsoft if they wanted to because they have the majority (if not all) of the rights to the source code.
BUT that is not my point.
My point is that there are thousands of projects which just do not need to worry about the hardware clause at all. Web Applications and Desktop applications that won't run on embedded devices for example don't have to care about this clause at all.
In conclusion I think that there are very few projects that the hardware clause does actually apply to.
The point of the hardware provision is so that the rights that YOU have decided to let end users have when using and distributing YOUR code are not changed or loopholed around.
True but if your application is run at such a high level for example a PHP application then it would be a non-issue because it would never be included into an embedded device such as a phone.
It would be ridiculous for a web application project to be worrying about hardware restrictions for example because their project would never be included in an embedded device. I said it twice in case you missed my point the first time round.
So anyone arguing that they should not re-license their project to GPL 3 because of the restrictive hardware clause when their project would not be included in an embedded device anyway is just plain silly.
Now you can disagree with the FSF's statement. That's OK. You don't have to. But its THEIR license and the license reflects the values of the FSF. By using it I'm agreeing with it and applying the license restrictions to my code.
I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. In fact I said I switched TWO of my projects to GPL 3 from GPL 2. So from what I can gather you did not even read my post.
Why are people so bitched up over the FSF's license when Microsoft's license is FAR more restrictive AND you have to pay $$$ for it?
I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with anything or why you even brought them up. As for why people are "bitched up" (not sure what that means) is because you are not reading what anyone is saying and instead you are assuming what people are saying.
In conclusion I first thought you had posted to the wrong thread on closer inspection it seems that because I raised the issue of the hardware clause you just jumped up and down and started to flame me. Next time I hope you actually engage in a discussion rather then this lame excuse of a post.
The year 2000 called it wants its slashdot post back..
Linux isn't comfortable or not as it's an OS
Linux is NOT an Operating System it is a Kernel. An operating system is Gentoo, Red Hat, etc..
Until the day that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows/OS X and the professional application base is the same, the community will need to continue the push towards greatness.
Just because your personal opinion is that Windows or OSX is "better" doesn't make it true. Just as the opposite is true but based on your lack of even basic information on the subject I can't take anything you say seriously.
I am, it is just you are not getting it.
A movie doesn't suffer from software bugs. A movie is MOVING PICTURES. A game is pieces of software that you interacts your with operating system.
Software does have problems. Games are pieces of software. An author doesn't intend for an error to occure in the program. Having to restart a game because it has memory leaks isn't what the author intended and these pieces of software can cause security risks to your system too. How you can compare fixing memory leaks to "changing art" is ridiculous.
This is my situation NOW this is what I was describing in my original post which you have bought completely off topic.
I believe Linus just does not like the part about hardware in the license. He could always take the GPL 3 license and take that part out or whatever he wants to do, but the patent issue worries me for the Linux project. What if people start putting patented code into the kernel and launch a massive legal assault?
My projects are web applications so I decided to switch them over to GPL3 because of better internationalization in the license. I did not want someone from another country nit-picking the GPL2 license for mis-understood translations of the document in a foreign courtroom so I switched the license.
I understand both Linus's and the FSF point of view on controlling the hardware but since that part of the license doesn't effect my projects at all I do not see the point of letting a better worded license go to waste!
I think a lot of projects don't need to care about this hardware issue and hardware companies could always ask the copyright holder for permission anyway. I see a few problems with Linus's thinking.
1) Is it so hard for Motorola for example to just send an email off to the copyright holder.. "Hey mind if you put your stuff in our phone and not let anyone run the modifications? Could you send us that in writing? Thanks!" 2) How do we know these companies (example Motorola) are contributing back what they are putting into their linux smart phone? What is to stop them from giving out the pretend source code before they made modifications and then keeping the real code in house?
If it can happen it will happen and they can just claim thats stuff they wrote that runs on top no one will know any differently.
I don't really agree with anyones point of view on the hardware issue but you have to admit that there are unanswered questions with regard to Linus's thoughts on the matter.
That's the exact same for movies. "Oh it would be easier for people to remaster some old movies if they had all the original footage".
The original footage is there! You're watching it! With your eye balls! All that is required for a movie to survive is to make sure its in some raw format and that you are not blind.
That it *NOT* the *EXACT* same as programming and software where you are dealing with *ABSTRACTIONS* on *WHAT THE COMPUTER IS DOING*.
When the human eye evolves to be incompatible with *WATCHING* a *MOVIE* then you'll have a point.
The equivelant that you're asking for from a film perspective would be to have a movie studio release all the origional footage from a production. Every last second that got left on the cutting room floor.
It is not the same and here is why.
The movie equivalents would be keeping a copy of the original movie in digital format so that newer generations can see that movie.
Without opening up the source code there is no guarantee that the binaries produced today will work in 100, 200 even 300 years from now. Yes it means the game could be altered but then it would cease being the original game.
Look at Doom that was released by ID Software. There are many different ports of Doom but the game hasn't changed. Many people have also edited the doom engine and created something completely different but no one ever gets confused into thinking that the edited doom engines are the Doom game.
Say a game hasn't been touched in 30 years. During that time no one has played the game, new programming languages have come and gone and you attempt to restore the game. What is easier:
1) Figuring out what the binary is doing? 2) Figuring out what the source code is doing?
It is pretty obvious that it would be easier for future generations to figure out what the source code is doing.
Wait, hold on, how isn't the game industry not preserving anything? When a new video format comes out, movie companies re-release their old movies on the new media.
No, because re-releasing media that can still turn a profit and just dumping all the code in the trash because they are done making money on that thing are different. There is a cultural interest in keeping this stuff going, its not throw-a-way media.
Emulators are an abstraction on top of the game. There could be a bug in the game code or the emulator code you will never know which. The developers could easily release source code for games that don't make them any money since they own the rights to the source code. Bugs that are found in the game could still be fixed by members of that games community.
A lot of old games have bugs which makes running a server on a binary only game extremely difficult.
The "attempts to preserve them for the future" consist in writting emulators.
You're taking my quote out of context which was originally to do with the game industry not preserving anything. It has nothing to do with what the community are doing to restore what the game industry has tried to flush down the toilet.
I have been trying to get back the source code to a game made 9 years ago but its been a horribly difficult. Games are made and there is no attempt to preserve them for the future.
You can still watch a film/movie/moving picture made 50 years ago but with games you can't play a game made as recently as 5 years ago!!
It is the publishers/developers fault and they could do a lot more to help the situation such as putting out the source code to that game to ensure that its consumers can still play in the future when they're company doesn't exist any more. Instead we have 100's of games which the developers and publishers are not making money on any more which can not be played on today's hardware.
ID software leads the way in this respect and you can still play all their old games.
Until that happens any history on games where I can't actually play the game in question is bullshit. It is the equivalent of a Wikipedia entry describing a film which will never capture the emotion of the media in question.
Imagine if all of the programmer time and effort that goes towards packaging and installation programs for the various Linux distributions was spent on something important, like fixing bugs.....
It is obvious you have no idea of the process. Here is kind of how it works.
Programmers don't package their own programs. Programmers (AKA upstream) work on their projects and fixing bugs.
Distributions such as Debian package up the programs from upstream. Ubuntu synchronises Debian's packages with its own. Ubuntu then checks for problems and sends these problems (bug reports) upstream (to the programmer) to be fixed.
I prefer to comment on stories and not my rhetorical technique, so I won't be watching for responses to this post. If you'd like to discuss it further, feel free to e-mail me at waltergr@aol.com.
Oh man I don't know what is worse...
1) You gave up on your argument because you know you were wrong 2) You think OOXML is well.. an open format.. *pssthaha* 3) You use AOL
You can go on all day about how amazing an office format is but I don't care and I am going to stop listening because it only works on Microsoft Office.
Yes, yes whatever you have to add I do not care because you and all you other bullshitters never give examples of competitors being able to load up these proprietary formats which pretty much makes your argument that it is an open format pointless.
So being able to work with the superior office product with the superior file format is some kind of bad thing? There's no lack of excuses to use not use OpenOffice over MS Office - the fact that Office has a (hopefully good, I haven't tried it yet,) plugin for ODF certainly isn't one of them.
Whats superior about a file format. Its a FILE with TEXT in it. We are not talking about some kind of rocket science 3d gfx format here.
What makes a superior file format? One that I don't need a word processor to access my document.
Can you do that with any Microsoft format? NO! ODF is a zip file with stuff in it. I do not even need a word processor to access that document. That makes a superior file format not Microsoft's "oh your client/staff/boss/lecturer/AnyoneNotYou needs office 2007 to view that file" format.
Finally there is a format solution available to all who can now use whatever word processor they want.
Screw you and your pimping of Microsoft's lock in.
Also don't forgot that first world citizens from countries such as England, Germany and Japan need visas too. A lot of Americans on this forum are dumbing this issue down into a "slave labour" issue but I call BS on that.
There are many extremely bright people across the world and not letting them into America to train Americans just makes your country even dumber.
Wow, well good luck with your business. You've ruled it out without even evaluating it. Personally I think the tightened security alone is worth the upgrade. Now application developers will be forced to follow best practices, unless they want thier app triggering UAC constantly.
So not only do you get a load of "better security" hype (that you get with every windows release) you also getting a lot of annoying wack-a-mole pop ups when you're trying to work! That'll help those employees become more efficient good job!
Of course you then go on to blame all developers working on windows programs which is typical windows user style to never blame the operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
The Linux project is a special case because Linus doesn't hold the copyright. There are many projects though where there is a sole rights holder though and it would not be a problem to give permission to the hardware vendor. For example the FSF could dual license all their GNU tools to Microsoft if they wanted to because they have the majority (if not all) of the rights to the source code.
BUT that is not my point.
My point is that there are thousands of projects which just do not need to worry about the hardware clause at all. Web Applications and Desktop applications that won't run on embedded devices for example don't have to care about this clause at all.
In conclusion I think that there are very few projects that the hardware clause does actually apply to.
It would be ridiculous for a web application project to be worrying about hardware restrictions for example because their project would never be included in an embedded device. I said it twice in case you missed my point the first time round.
So anyone arguing that they should not re-license their project to GPL 3 because of the restrictive hardware clause when their project would not be included in an embedded device anyway is just plain silly.I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. In fact I said I switched TWO of my projects to GPL 3 from GPL 2. So from what I can gather you did not even read my post.I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with anything or why you even brought them up. As for why people are "bitched up" (not sure what that means) is because you are not reading what anyone is saying and instead you are assuming what people are saying.
In conclusion I first thought you had posted to the wrong thread on closer inspection it seems that because I raised the issue of the hardware clause you just jumped up and down and started to flame me. Next time I hope you actually engage in a discussion rather then this lame excuse of a post.
nothing at all, nothing at all!, NOTHING AT ALL!
Stupid sexy Flanders!
I believe Linus just does not like the part about hardware in the license. He could always take the GPL 3 license and take that part out or whatever he wants to do, but the patent issue worries me for the Linux project. What if people start putting patented code into the kernel and launch a massive legal assault?
My projects are web applications so I decided to switch them over to GPL3 because of better internationalization in the license. I did not want someone from another country nit-picking the GPL2 license for mis-understood translations of the document in a foreign courtroom so I switched the license.
I understand both Linus's and the FSF point of view on controlling the hardware but since that part of the license doesn't effect my projects at all I do not see the point of letting a better worded license go to waste!
I think a lot of projects don't need to care about this hardware issue and hardware companies could always ask the copyright holder for permission anyway. I see a few problems with Linus's thinking.
1) Is it so hard for Motorola for example to just send an email off to the copyright holder.. "Hey mind if you put your stuff in our phone and not let anyone run the modifications? Could you send us that in writing? Thanks!"
2) How do we know these companies (example Motorola) are contributing back what they are putting into their linux smart phone? What is to stop them from giving out the pretend source code before they made modifications and then keeping the real code in house?
If it can happen it will happen and they can just claim thats stuff they wrote that runs on top no one will know any differently.
I don't really agree with anyones point of view on the hardware issue but you have to admit that there are unanswered questions with regard to Linus's thoughts on the matter.
That it *NOT* the *EXACT* same as programming and software where you are dealing with *ABSTRACTIONS* on *WHAT THE COMPUTER IS DOING*.
When the human eye evolves to be incompatible with *WATCHING* a *MOVIE* then you'll have a point.
The movie equivalents would be keeping a copy of the original movie in digital format so that newer generations can see that movie.
Without opening up the source code there is no guarantee that the binaries produced today will work in 100, 200 even 300 years from now. Yes it means the game could be altered but then it would cease being the original game.
Look at Doom that was released by ID Software. There are many different ports of Doom but the game hasn't changed. Many people have also edited the doom engine and created something completely different but no one ever gets confused into thinking that the edited doom engines are the Doom game.
Say a game hasn't been touched in 30 years. During that time no one has played the game, new programming languages have come and gone and you attempt to restore the game. What is easier:
1) Figuring out what the binary is doing?
2) Figuring out what the source code is doing?
It is pretty obvious that it would be easier for future generations to figure out what the source code is doing.
Emulators are an abstraction on top of the game. There could be a bug in the game code or the emulator code you will never know which. The developers could easily release source code for games that don't make them any money since they own the rights to the source code. Bugs that are found in the game could still be fixed by members of that games community.
A lot of old games have bugs which makes running a server on a binary only game extremely difficult.
A forced meeting is going to produce no results. All it shows is the BBC unwillingness to solve the issues.
The only reason they're meeting is so that if this does go to the court they can claim they "tried to resolve the issues".
I have been trying to get back the source code to a game made 9 years ago but its been a horribly difficult. Games are made and there is no attempt to preserve them for the future.
You can still watch a film/movie/moving picture made 50 years ago but with games you can't play a game made as recently as 5 years ago!!
It is the publishers/developers fault and they could do a lot more to help the situation such as putting out the source code to that game to ensure that its consumers can still play in the future when they're company doesn't exist any more. Instead we have 100's of games which the developers and publishers are not making money on any more which can not be played on today's hardware.
ID software leads the way in this respect and you can still play all their old games.
Until that happens any history on games where I can't actually play the game in question is bullshit. It is the equivalent of a Wikipedia entry describing a film which will never capture the emotion of the media in question.
As an outsider I thought this was how the US worked. Your either with us or against us.
It is not about the issues in the US. Its about being part of the "team".
Programmers don't package their own programs. Programmers (AKA upstream) work on their projects and fixing bugs.
Distributions such as Debian package up the programs from upstream. Ubuntu synchronises Debian's packages with its own. Ubuntu then checks for problems and sends these problems (bug reports) upstream (to the programmer) to be fixed.
1) You gave up on your argument because you know you were wrong
2) You think OOXML is well.. an open format.. *pssthaha*
3) You use AOL
the horror...
Now it is the Internet's time for proprietary Microsoft fun!
Ingo please comment on this because I have read similar stories elsewhere and would like to hear a response.
You can go on all day about how amazing an office format is but I don't care and I am going to stop listening because it only works on Microsoft Office.
Yes, yes whatever you have to add I do not care because you and all you other bullshitters never give examples of competitors being able to load up these proprietary formats which pretty much makes your argument that it is an open format pointless.
Devils in the details. Microsoft's format works on only Microsoft's products.
If you truly believe that Microsoft is releasing an open format usable to all competitors then you are fucking retarded.
What makes a superior file format? One that I don't need a word processor to access my document.
Can you do that with any Microsoft format? NO! ODF is a zip file with stuff in it. I do not even need a word processor to access that document. That makes a superior file format not Microsoft's "oh your client/staff/boss/lecturer/AnyoneNotYou needs office 2007 to view that file" format.
Finally there is a format solution available to all who can now use whatever word processor they want.
Screw you and your pimping of Microsoft's lock in.
..and if you have to collaborate with a client on a text document outside the office via email?
Absolutely correct.
Also don't forgot that first world citizens from countries such as England, Germany and Japan need visas too. A lot of Americans on this forum are dumbing this issue down into a "slave labour" issue but I call BS on that.
There are many extremely bright people across the world and not letting them into America to train Americans just makes your country even dumber.
Good luck with that.
Would you care to explain since I am able to use visualization on many different operating systems including Windows XP.