Except just mentioning that you ran linux on top of vmware (which is what started this all off) isn't promoting a product. Maybe is he said something like "I ran linux on vmware which is the superior choice, much better then anything at the moment". Yeah, maybe then you'd have a point.
Problem is Stallman is suggesting (or telling for that matter) on the mailing list that they should censor posts for simply MENTIONING the name. That's completely stupid.
No, that's not the question at all. That's not what the article is talking about and it's not even related to gnome which only has one package that depends on Mono. Stop confusing Ubuntu's dependency on mono with Gnome's.
You can use GPL without having to release your code too. The GPL and BSD licenses only come into play when you try to give your modifications to someone else.
You, like many BSD fans before you have mis-understood what the GPL and BSD licenses are. A license agreement that focuses on redistribution. It's not an end user license agreement. You don't agree to it when using or downloading software.
I'm starting to think that people that are fanatic about the BSD license have no idea what they're talking about. Every time one of you comes on slashdot, every single time, it's full of nonsense or lies about the GPL. I don't care so much that you don't want to use the GPL. That's your choice however it really effects my oppinion of the BSD community that all of you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about.
This is simply based on years of observation on slashdot of course...
No, this is about this blog post being on the planet gnome and Stallman throwing a hissy fit for the mention of "vmware". Stallman then demands censoring all posts on the planet if they mention proprietary software.
It obvious you have no idea what is being discussed. People that work on Gnome are considering breaking away from the GNU project because now Stallman is telling them that their blog planet needs to be more focused on anti-proprietary software.
Stallman said that is suggests the "light approach" of censoring blog posts to come in line with his way of thinking. That's forcing people to follow his strict way of thinking and that's why people are voting to leave the GNU project.
The issue is about gnome planet being a place were people that work on it can post about their on goings.
The Gnome and Ubuntu planets are not about anti-proprietary software. If you want to read blog posts about anti-proprietary software then you and Stallman should go read the "bad vista" blog. Not attempt to censor blog posts because they don't agree to your way of thinking.
Reminds me of the "potential" the open moko had when it launched. Now the company making them has canceled its latest model and is focusing on the embedded market.
You can't have it both ways. Either the company accepts refunds as Jiro mentioned or Microsoft's EULA means nothing as there is no reasonable way to decline it.
Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides
on
How Google Uses Linux
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Could explain what tables scraps is?
- Their google summer of code program where they have invested millions of dollars into for many years now? - The huge open source android framework you can use on mobile phones? - The numerous number of useful projects they have released including the tools they used to make most of their products? - The free project hosting resources they give open source projects? - The government lobbying they have done to level the playing field for open technologies?
So then you would also agree that video game makers have every right to tell black and asian people "We don't want your business" too?
Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter who it's against. Changing the auction website to be W3C valid and bolting a scripting system on top of their game's GUI is a piece of cake and would probably cost less then it would to fight this lawsuit in court.
Not only is Pulse Audio the wrong way to do audio on linux (it's a program running on top of an API..Talk about hacks) it breaks compatibility with non linux systems. Rather then a programmer just using OSSv4 and have it work on linux, bsd, etc.. they have to code for this piece of shit "sound server" (not API) which will eventually get replaced just like all the other sound servers have done to date.
The design of pulse audio is flawed. Just because it's popular today doesn't mean a million Linux users won't switch later on when their distros include something just as shiny. OSSv4 has all the important features that PulseAudio has for normal desktop users such as per application switching. The only reason it hasn't taken off is the huge fanboism over this poorly designed sound server which is hindering it's adoption on distros.
Lastly, PulseAudio was rejected by the Linux standards committee because of these reasons although more elegantly put.
In several minutes of searching, I am able to find no credible, objective evidence of this
Well since you spent several minutes on a half assed google search obviously the parent is lying. To be honest you're both fail for not providing data to back up your claims however you getting modding +3 interesting for this piece of shit comment is pathetic. I hope the people that modding you up get hit by a bus because they're making slashdot dumber.
A community that cheers on Pirate Bay and other piracy that directly impacts what John Carmack does for a living?
For someone who has "If you're against copyrights, then you're also against the GPL which is a copyright license." in their signature it's extremely ignorant of you to believe that Linux users are software pirates or even support software piracy. In fact the opposite is true. Most Linux users care deeply about the legalities of software use and patents hence why they use what they use in the first place.
Nice graph however this one with versions is better. IE6 is what? over 5 years old? If you want to code for that be my guest. Knock yourself out, however my company will be spending time improving our products rather then constantly trying hack an old program to display pages correctly. We'll see who stays in business and who wastes time on 27% of the overall market who may not even bother visiting your site in the first place.
From what little I've read on this, it seems that Microsoft basically incorporated the plaintiff's product into Word. So essentially it would put the plaintiff out of business, and could result in irreparable damages to the plaintiff.
Yeah but this is exactly like the iPhone copy & paste app now being cut out the loop. If you're going to try and make it illegal for Microsoft to add features to its products simply because someone else is selling it then things will get ridiculous fast.
Just because you wouldn't use the product doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
It's not that I won't use it. There's almost little to no information on it with no demo or purchasing information.
You can call it Crapware all you like, but if they were making money off it, then that's all that matters.
How do you know they're making money from it? Or do you mean the vast sums of money they're about to be awarded because of their patent abuse?
If you were a developper on some widget for a program, you'd patented the methods and technology, and were making your livelihood off it, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I wouldn't be stupid enough to pour effort into something Microsoft could replicate in a day. When you're a bottom feeder the more success just means the bigger likelihood you'll be out of business. The fact that they didn't see this coming (and this is of course assuming they're legit) brings no sympathy.
The damages are a little excessive, but this is a company that's been put out of business by a developper with significantly more resources available to them deciding to ignore its patents.
$40 million is a little excessive? Do you honestly believe this company is capable of selling even 1% of that much within it's life time? and you've completely ignored that fact that this Canadian company is filing suit in Texas.
Just face facts, unless some new ones come out, it's a patent troll.
Well how about the fact that the company is in Canada and the lawsuit is taking place in Texas. You gotta be kidding, you seriously think this is legit? This company is a parasite. Even its "product" is just some crapware which plugs into word and it's suspect that there is even a product, it looks like they made that page simply for the court case.
However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.
However where is that stated anywhere in GPL 2 license? It's not. The thing that comes closest is in section 3 subsection b.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
If you're already providing a copy online then you're meeting the requirements. Mail is not "medium customarily used for software interchange".
Show me exactly where it says you must provide a physical copy if someone requests it. It doesn't.
Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course a web address is fine. I've bought tons of stuff with linux embedded on it such as motorola's A1200, HTCs G1, etc and I never got a damn disk of source code.
You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.
Slashdot Mirror
Except just mentioning that you ran linux on top of vmware (which is what started this all off) isn't promoting a product. Maybe is he said something like "I ran linux on vmware which is the superior choice, much better then anything at the moment". Yeah, maybe then you'd have a point.
Problem is Stallman is suggesting (or telling for that matter) on the mailing list that they should censor posts for simply MENTIONING the name. That's completely stupid.
No, that's not the question at all. That's not what the article is talking about and it's not even related to gnome which only has one package that depends on Mono. Stop confusing Ubuntu's dependency on mono with Gnome's.
You can use GPL without having to release your code too. The GPL and BSD licenses only come into play when you try to give your modifications to someone else.
You, like many BSD fans before you have mis-understood what the GPL and BSD licenses are. A license agreement that focuses on redistribution. It's not an end user license agreement. You don't agree to it when using or downloading software.
I'm starting to think that people that are fanatic about the BSD license have no idea what they're talking about. Every time one of you comes on slashdot, every single time, it's full of nonsense or lies about the GPL. I don't care so much that you don't want to use the GPL. That's your choice however it really effects my oppinion of the BSD community that all of you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about.
This is simply based on years of observation on slashdot of course...
Please read the blog post in question.. http://www.ogmaciel.com/?p=771
Does that look like promoting proprietary software? No, no it doesn't.
No, this is about this blog post being on the planet gnome and Stallman throwing a hissy fit for the mention of "vmware". Stallman then demands censoring all posts on the planet if they mention proprietary software.
It obvious you have no idea what is being discussed. People that work on Gnome are considering breaking away from the GNU project because now Stallman is telling them that their blog planet needs to be more focused on anti-proprietary software.
Stallman said that is suggests the "light approach" of censoring blog posts to come in line with his way of thinking. That's forcing people to follow his strict way of thinking and that's why people are voting to leave the GNU project.
The issue is about gnome planet being a place were people that work on it can post about their on goings.
The Gnome and Ubuntu planets are not about anti-proprietary software. If you want to read blog posts about anti-proprietary software then you and Stallman should go read the "bad vista" blog. Not attempt to censor blog posts because they don't agree to your way of thinking.
Reminds me of the "potential" the open moko had when it launched. Now the company making them has canceled its latest model and is focusing on the embedded market.
You can't have it both ways. Either the company accepts refunds as Jiro mentioned or Microsoft's EULA means nothing as there is no reasonable way to decline it.
Could explain what tables scraps is?
- Their google summer of code program where they have invested millions of dollars into for many years now?
- The huge open source android framework you can use on mobile phones?
- The numerous number of useful projects they have released including the tools they used to make most of their products?
- The free project hosting resources they give open source projects?
- The government lobbying they have done to level the playing field for open technologies?
Yes, you are!
So then you would also agree that video game makers have every right to tell black and asian people "We don't want your business" too?
Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter who it's against. Changing the auction website to be W3C valid and bolting a scripting system on top of their game's GUI is a piece of cake and would probably cost less then it would to fight this lawsuit in court.
If you think package managers are just for open source then it highlights your own ignorance.
Not only is Pulse Audio the wrong way to do audio on linux (it's a program running on top of an API..Talk about hacks) it breaks compatibility with non linux systems. Rather then a programmer just using OSSv4 and have it work on linux, bsd, etc.. they have to code for this piece of shit "sound server" (not API) which will eventually get replaced just like all the other sound servers have done to date.
The design of pulse audio is flawed. Just because it's popular today doesn't mean a million Linux users won't switch later on when their distros include something just as shiny. OSSv4 has all the important features that PulseAudio has for normal desktop users such as per application switching. The only reason it hasn't taken off is the huge fanboism over this poorly designed sound server which is hindering it's adoption on distros.
Lastly, PulseAudio was rejected by the Linux standards committee because of these reasons although more elegantly put.
Using them for what exactly? Do you run the latest 3D games? Games through wine? My guess is no.
Well since you spent several minutes on a half assed google search obviously the parent is lying. To be honest you're both fail for not providing data to back up your claims however you getting modding +3 interesting for this piece of shit comment is pathetic. I hope the people that modding you up get hit by a bus because they're making slashdot dumber.
For someone who has "If you're against copyrights, then you're also against the GPL which is a copyright license." in their signature it's extremely ignorant of you to believe that Linux users are software pirates or even support software piracy. In fact the opposite is true. Most Linux users care deeply about the legalities of software use and patents hence why they use what they use in the first place.
Nice graph however this one with versions is better. IE6 is what? over 5 years old? If you want to code for that be my guest. Knock yourself out, however my company will be spending time improving our products rather then constantly trying hack an old program to display pages correctly. We'll see who stays in business and who wastes time on 27% of the overall market who may not even bother visiting your site in the first place.
Yeah but this is exactly like the iPhone copy & paste app now being cut out the loop. If you're going to try and make it illegal for Microsoft to add features to its products simply because someone else is selling it then things will get ridiculous fast.
It's not that I won't use it. There's almost little to no information on it with no demo or purchasing information.
How do you know they're making money from it? Or do you mean the vast sums of money they're about to be awarded because of their patent abuse?
I wouldn't be stupid enough to pour effort into something Microsoft could replicate in a day. When you're a bottom feeder the more success just means the bigger likelihood you'll be out of business. The fact that they didn't see this coming (and this is of course assuming they're legit) brings no sympathy.
$40 million is a little excessive? Do you honestly believe this company is capable of selling even 1% of that much within it's life time? and you've completely ignored that fact that this Canadian company is filing suit in Texas.
Just face facts, unless some new ones come out, it's a patent troll.
Well how about the fact that the company is in Canada and the lawsuit is taking place in Texas. You gotta be kidding, you seriously think this is legit? This company is a parasite. Even its "product" is just some crapware which plugs into word and it's suspect that there is even a product, it looks like they made that page simply for the court case.
I see the following said about version 2..
However where is that stated anywhere in GPL 2 license? It's not. The thing that comes closest is in section 3 subsection b.
If you're already providing a copy online then you're meeting the requirements. Mail is not "medium customarily used for software interchange".
Show me exactly where it says you must provide a physical copy if someone requests it. It doesn't.
Daily WTFs aren't specific to PHP or open source. You obviously lack the experience to recognise this.
Report them anonymously to GPL violations.
http://gpl-violations.org/
Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course a web address is fine. I've bought tons of stuff with linux embedded on it such as motorola's A1200, HTCs G1, etc and I never got a damn disk of source code.
You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.