I see and hear this comment a lot. The perception may be there, but it's just plain false. There's no existing (or soon-to-exist, afaik) hw that comes even close to an XO... in particular (among others), its screen, battery-life, and mesh networking capabilities.
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
While DrDOS does look to be breaking the GPL (they need to provide the relevant sourcecode WITHOUT charging for it)
Go read the GPL again. It says one only has to privide sourcecode to those to whom you distribute your (GPL'd) product. If the product isn't free (ie, is commercial), then you are only obligated to provide source to your paying customers.
I saw no mention of Fedora Extras other than his packages requires it (ie, has dependancies on packages in Extras). Now if "working with them" involves more than that, please enlighten me.
I think that Fedora Core 4 was released two months too early. Another couple of months in rawhide development would have ironed out a few more of the kinks.
If you really feel that way, then simply wait for FC5.
Will this finally put KDE development on an equal footing with GNOME in Fedora? Will KDE improvements from KDE developers to the RPM packages in Fedora now be accepted? Right now KDE suffers a big disadvantage vs GNOME
Yours is a a common perception, unfortunately, but, IMO, pure FUD. Of course KDE improvements are accepted. I see no "big disadvantages" vs GNOME (if you do, enumerate them please, I'm curious).
I founded the kde-redhat project, and I can say without reservation that fedora/redhat has always (at least in the last 3-4 years) been very open to suggestions and improvements in KDE.
apt for i386-only systems. Only yum is "officially" supported/blessed, but apt is/will-be available in Fedora Extras , but not x86_64 because apt doesn't handle mixed i386/x86_64 systems (yet).
Doesn't matter. This is a directory for public (ie, the non-private portion of) OpenPGP keys, which are/should-be publically available anyway. Else, why use public/private pgp keys at all?
I use Fedora core 1 and 2 myself, but I don't recommend FC2 to anyone for a simple reason: it will erase your windows XP partition tables.
To be precise, the problem was limited to FC2's boot/install kernel, and it only corrupted partition tables for folks not using LBA (and it was fixable, by the way). For the record, all subsequent kernels (including what FC3 uses) has the issue fixed.
I can't believe how fast the FC1 has gone into legacy.
I can. Though I can't seem to find it documented anywhere off the top of my head, redhat has stated that they will only support (ie, provide updates) for the current and 1-release old version(s) of Fedora Core. Now that FC3 is around the corner, that means FC1 is being pushed out of the nest.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem,
http://rdieter.livejournal.com/14133.html
Enjoy. :)
> * Cheap netbooks will make the OLPC redundant.
I see and hear this comment a lot. The perception may be there, but it's just plain false. There's no existing (or soon-to-exist, afaik) hw that comes even close to an XO... in particular (among others), its screen, battery-life, and mesh networking capabilities.
http://www.kde.org/info/4.1.0.php
I am a little surprised that Fedora went with 4.0 as the only option. Short version: it would be a PITA.
Longer version:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/KDE4FAQ
Sorry, I tuned out everything after "SCO says..."
Hate rain on your parade, but neither does firefox/mozilla (for printing anyway):
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23509
-- Rex
Guess you missed the "QuickTime Standalone Installer" link on http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html?
Funny, I've always felt the other way around. To each his own...
Sigh, ok, you asked for it: (notice the "no" part)P LRequireAvailabilityToPublic:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheG
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
Go read the GPL again. It says one only has to privide sourcecode to those to whom you distribute your (GPL'd) product. If the product isn't free (ie, is commercial), then you are only obligated to provide source to your paying customers.
Note: System Requirements say:
The minimum JDK/JRE version required to use OpenOffice.org features that require java(emphasis mine)
So, java is *not* required to use ooo. You get extra features if you happen to have it installed, that's all.
True.
That's an interesting but (IMO) false interpretation of the LGPL.
I saw no mention of Fedora Extras other than his packages requires it (ie, has dependancies on packages in Extras). Now if "working with them" involves more than that, please enlighten me.
What be even *more* useful to more end-users would be to submit all those packages to Fedora Extras (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras)
I thought WindowsXP Group Policy already included policies related to removable media.
If you really feel that way, then simply wait for FC5.
Yours is a a common perception, unfortunately, but, IMO, pure FUD. Of course KDE improvements are accepted. I see no "big disadvantages" vs GNOME (if you do, enumerate them please, I'm curious).
I founded the kde-redhat project, and I can say without reservation that fedora/redhat has always (at least in the last 3-4 years) been very open to suggestions and improvements in KDE.
apt for i386-only systems. Only yum is "officially" supported/blessed, but apt is/will-be available in Fedora Extras , but not x86_64 because apt doesn't handle mixed i386/x86_64 systems (yet).
What's in need of fixing? The latest version, 5.0.10, WORKSFORME.
Oh, and you *did* report your problems/bugs to adobe at
http://www.adobe.com/misc/bugreport.html
right?
Now, it would be nice to get an update for new features, like those in version 7 for Windows.
Nope, Fedora Core's objectivesclearly state it will be comprised of only free/opensource software. Fedora Core will include HelixPlayer.
RedHat Enterprise(4), on the otherhand, will include Realplayer.
koffice anyone?
Doesn't matter. This is a directory for public (ie, the non-private portion of) OpenPGP keys, which are/should-be publically available anyway. Else, why use public/private pgp keys at all?
Well, it uses GTK and KDELIBS if that's what you mean.
To be precise, the problem was limited to FC2's boot/install kernel, and it only corrupted partition tables for folks not using LBA (and it was fixable, by the way). For the record, all subsequent kernels (including what FC3 uses) has the issue fixed.
I can. Though I can't seem to find it documented anywhere off the top of my head, redhat has stated that they will only support (ie, provide updates) for the current and 1-release old version(s) of Fedora Core. Now that FC3 is around the corner, that means FC1 is being pushed out of the nest.