Oh and security? IIS6 has never been rooted, ever. Add-ons have been (asp.net for instance), but IIS6 has never been. That was the point to make it modular in the first place... if a fatal bug is discovered, they can blame it on the modules:)
I keep hearing about this nebulous "Spirit of the GPL", which in the Tivo case, seems to be nothing more than the FSF intruding where it has no business. The GPL ver.2 was written by the FSF, so I think they pretty much have a business here.
The intent of the GPL ver.2 is to give end-users the 4 freedoms... to use for any purpose, to redistribute, to modify, to redistribute changes. In Tivo's case, the freedom to modify the software is taken away.
You may say that the source code is available... but what's the point if I can't run it on my Tivo ? Should I invent my own Tivo clone just to run the modifications I make ?
The "intent" of the GPL 2 is explicit in the language of the GPL 2, and in the case of Linux, matches the intent of developers. And nobody is forcing the Linux developers to switch. In fact, nobody is forcing you or anybody else to use GPL ver. 3. There are other licenses out there more suited for the various types of products out there... MIT, BSD, MPL, CDDL, ASF... all licenses approved by FSF and OSI.
GPL ver.3 respects the 4 freedoms that Free Software licenses must respect, and it is also compatible with the OSI definition of open source and with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Nobody is complaining as much about the Microsoft's Shared Source initiative... which makes me think... how many FSF opponents are not corporate shills ?
This is a FSF scare tactic that just seems silly when you examine it rationally. Hardware functionality is replaced by software all the time, and vice-versa... that's why it is not silly. The Trusted Computing initiative is public, is transparent and it's for real.
And why are you so angry about it ? You don't have to agree with it you know... the GPL license explicitly states that, as long as you are not redistributing;)
What GPL 3 does do is protect the freedom of users who are too lazy to figure out how to hack their hardware and want the hardware maker to provide them with an easy way... If we are talking about DRM and Trusted Computing, and we are;) , under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act it is illegal to circumvent access control to copyrighted works, even if there is no infringement of copyright itself.
That means it is illegal to hack Tivo to allow new versions of the software in it... and besides, you'd make a mistake if you made a distinction between hardware and software.
... even if doing so would put the hardware maker into a legal or contractual bind that would drive it out of business. That hardware maker should have thought about the consequences of using other people's work. Tivo should have respected the spirit of the GPL, and should have given its customers the same freedoms Tivo received.
Here's a prediction... what if in the future all hardware will be tivoized, including PCs ? How are you going to vote with your wallet then.
Here's another awkward situation... you're the developer of a useful GPL application and upon buying a Tivo you notice that your application is used by it. But surprise, you can't upgrade to a newer version that has a lot of bug fixes, even if you're the developer of that application and even if the Tivo is your property.
If hardware makers want more freedom, there's always *BSD.
Unless Customers generally don't like GPL 3. The GPL is a copyright license that doesn't restrict usage of the software in any way. If by "customers" you mean end-users, why should they have anything against it ?
The license affects you only if you are a distributor of GPL software.
In GPL ver.2 there's an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided you with a copy won't sue you, or the people you redistribute copies to. GPL ver.3 extends that to not allow deals like the one by Microsoft-Novell to happen... and it is in the same exact spirit... if you want to protect customers, you'd better protect all of them or none.
The other thing that was added was the Tivoization clause... which only applies for hardware built for end-users, not businesses, btw.
Some people argue that a copyright license shouldn't dictate how hardware is built. But other people, including myself, argue that the difference between hardware and software is blurry and that nothing should restrict end-users freedoms to modify that GPL software.
The GPL 3 is a move away from Freedom and a step closer to Anti-Capitalism. Please define "freedom". Is Freedom the right to kill your neighbor ?
"Anti-Capitalism" ? Puh-lease... its as capitalist as it gets... want to use GPL software, you must pay the price of giving your customers the same freedoms that your received. Otherwise don't use it... nobody is forcing you otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
It will probably be the same as for the Windows version:
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/flexbuilder/
For Flex Builder 2 that's more or less 500 USD (depending on the country you live in).
Ah great, another message that links to a retarded blog post, ending with a rhetorical question: how can you not love it?
;)
If more and more people jump up and down (assuming they all jump at the same time) will it shift planet Earth off orbit?
Only time will tell
The intent of the GPL ver.2 is to give end-users the 4 freedoms
In Tivo's case, the freedom to modify the software is taken away.
You may say that the source code is available
Should I invent my own Tivo clone just to run the modifications I make ? The "intent" of the GPL 2 is explicit in the language of the GPL 2, and in the case of Linux, matches the intent of developers. And nobody is forcing the Linux developers to switch.
In fact, nobody is forcing you or anybody else to use GPL ver. 3.
There are other licenses out there more suited for the various types of products out there
GPL ver.3 respects the 4 freedoms that Free Software licenses must respect, and it is also compatible with the OSI definition of open source and with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Nobody is complaining as much about the Microsoft's Shared Source initiative
The Trusted Computing initiative is public, is transparent and it's for real.
And why are you so angry about it ?
You don't have to agree with it you know
That means it is illegal to hack Tivo to allow new versions of the software in it
... even if doing so would put the hardware maker into a legal or contractual bind that would drive it out of business. That hardware maker should have thought about the consequences of using other people's work.Tivo should have respected the spirit of the GPL, and should have given its customers the same freedoms Tivo received.
Here's a prediction
How are you going to vote with your wallet then.
Here's another awkward situation
If hardware makers want more freedom, there's always *BSD.
If by "customers" you mean end-users, why should they have anything against it ?
The license affects you only if you are a distributor of GPL software.
In GPL ver.2 there's an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided you with a copy won't sue you, or the people you redistribute copies to.
GPL ver.3 extends that to not allow deals like the one by Microsoft-Novell to happen
The other thing that was added was the Tivoization clause
Some people argue that a copyright license shouldn't dictate how hardware is built.
But other people, including myself, argue that the difference between hardware and software is blurry and that nothing should restrict end-users freedoms to modify that GPL software. The GPL 3 is a move away from Freedom and a step closer to Anti-Capitalism. Please define "freedom".
Is Freedom the right to kill your neighbor ?
"Anti-Capitalism" ? Puh-lease
Otherwise don't use it