It's not *a* general public license, it's *THE* General Public License, and with the TLA "GPL" it's even more clear what is meant. One cannot, I would expect, sell an x86 CPU in a SPARC box merely because the x86 is (somewhat) scalable and is a processor architecture. Of course, neither of us are lawyers (thank god), so I guess our speculatiopns aren't worth much.
My GUI -- GNOME -- uses wildcards. Or regexps (at my option). Of course, it doesn't come anywhere near matching the functionality of find+xargs... but come on, that's what eterm is for:)
It's arguably fraud to call it "GPL" if it's not actually the GPL license as released by FSF. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's fraud, but I didn't want to make a definitive statement on the matter because I'm not a lawyer (see how I worked that in without saying ANAL?:)).
RMS doesn't "discourage using the LGPL for libraries", at least not for all libraries... If you see the FSF page, RMS lists under which exact situations he considers the use of the LGPL wise.
Specifically, he says that the LGPL should be used when a library is meant to compete with a commercial library, so that commercial software vendors can stop using the commercial library without changing their licenses... On the other hand, when a library provides unique functionality that cannot be gotten through another library, the GPL should be used with the hope that people who need that functionality will release their software under the GPL.
Thus, GNU libc, which competes with other libc's, is GPL. And GNU Readline, which among libraries is fairly unique in functionality, and mainly competes with application-specific implementations of the same functionality, is GPL.
Gnutella didn't have a worm. There was a trojan horse program that automatically put itself on Gnutella if the user had Gnutella on the box. But that's no more of a worm than is a sh script containing "cp $0 ~ftp/pub/run_this_as_root.sh"
But the vast majority of the OSCAR AIM protocol was already made available through reverse engineering. I don't see how this will make any real difference.
Gaim actually uses OSCAR; if my history is correct, a client called faim (free aim) reverse engineered the protocol, and then made libfaim for use by other clients. gaim uses libfaim.
Doesn't matter. As he downloaded the entire file, it doesn't matter whether his playing of it fell under fair use. It's still copyright infringement. If he had bought the movie, on tape or whatever, it would be a different story.
Of course, he may have asked the copyright holder of the film for permission. Shit, he may be a representative of the copyright holder.
"Every state has its own statutory definition of a felony. Most are in line with the federal definition of a felony as a crime which carries a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year or the death penalty (where applicable). Other states, like Louisiana, define a felony as a crime which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment at hard labor."
MacOS, AmigaOS, OS/2 -- all better than Windows. (There are dozens more, too). It's absurd to say that if MS hadn't become a company nobody would be using a computer. Windows's success is pure intertia (read: application support); if it didn't exist, some other OS (probably MacOS) would have gotten that same inertia and would be just as successful. An API is a standard of sorts, and whoever can monopolize the standards can continue to monopolize the industry. It was NOT quality that guaranteed the dominance of the Windows API, but it is the dominance of the Windows API that guarantees the dominance of Windows.
Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn?t be split or whatever.
I personally don't think MS should be split, for the practical reason that I don't expect it to actually increase competition. However, I do support some corrective action. Why? BECAUSE MICROSOFT BREAKS THE LAW; IT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO DICTATE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT MAKE COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS INCOMPATIBLE, THUS HURTING THE CONSUMER SOME BUT THE COMPETITOR MORE. As it happens, THIS IS ILLEGAL, and that is why MS has been found guilty.
Debian and RedHat have not engaged in such practices; there is no evidence of them ever harming the consumer in order to harm their competitors, and furthermore they are not monopolies so even if they had it would not be illegal. If Debian engaged in the same practices as MS, of course people would want action against it.
(and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. ?They have a monopoly! It?s bad!? Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?
Why do I care? How about because I cannot watch DVD's without breaking the law or buying another OS? You agree that MS has violated standards; well the entire point of standards is to allow communication with other OSes, applications, etc. If I'm using a non-MS OS and MS doesn't obey standards, that means I cannot communicate with MS -- i.e. 80% of the machines in the world. Obviously that affects me; as you can see, I am online. So are you. Obviously the ability to communicate is important to both of us. MS WANTS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE FROM THOSE WHO DO NOT USE WINDOWS. That is why I care. MS is attacking MY ability to use Kerberos, MY ability to share files with other computers on the LAN. MY ability to print files on the LAN. MY ability to write documents and share them with my friends. MY ability to get documents from my friends. MY ability to get digital music or video from my friends and view it. MS wants me to have to give those up for using an alternative OS, whether or not I am willing to write or buy or otherwise get the code necessary to do so, and that is why I care.
The SPA already shut down #cablewarez. The story made slashdot. IRC discloses all the information necessary to identify a person, if one has the cooperation of the police.
Re:When will they get it?
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
If it wasn't ported to Windows, they wouldn't *need* to stop it, because it would never take off.
Too bad they cooperated with Metallica
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
I think you're missing the point. Copyright would have prevented borrowing and derivation of music, at least some of the time. And it does so now. Puff Daddy is big enough that he can afford to sample (Beethoven would have been too, of course), but lots of people aren't.
See http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/art_a nd_music_sampling.paper http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/ and http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html for further reading on sampling.
Seriously now, RMS says that he copies music without a problem... so why on earth should the rest of us respect the copyright-based restrictions on GPL code any more than he respects the copyright-based restrictions on music? None of the other GPL zealots around here seem to have any cognitive dissonance with advocating music piracy in pretty much the same breath as advocating enforcing the GPL either, for that matter. Odd, isn't it?
That's because enforcing the GPL amounts to the same thing as sharing mp3s -- i.e. making more information available to more people. And violating the GPL is more similar to copyrighting music than it is to sharing it -- both involve keeping information away from people.
> Where did you read that? Of course you can do that, but it's not required at all to customize anything.
How absurd! OF COURSE it's necessary to have the source to customize it. Apple has the source! Are you saying THEY don't need it?
> I doubt that there will ever be a GNU/Darwin, since Darwin's license is not the GPL.
If it's really a free software license, that shouldn't matter.
> The orignal poster was complaining that he wouldn't be able to customize MacOS X like his Linux/FreeBSD boxes. I refuted that.
No you didn't. The only customizations allowed are the ones Apple can think of beforehand. Apple still has the source, and surely you agree that it will continue to make changes. So surely you agree that there is improvement to be done that can only be done with source.
> if enough people think the MacOS X GUI is so horrible, replacements will be made
Funny, I don't see any Windows-based replacements for the Windows GUI (yet there are plenty of programmers who think it is horrible enough that they would code a replacement).
MacOS X is a proprietary OS. The kernel is worthless by itself, and doesn't allow any power that anybody really needs. If the MacOS X GUI doesn't have every feature that every GUI has ever had, in addition to every feature that ever GUI could theoretically have, just don't tell me that it is as customizable as GNOME. Give up. You're not making sense. Apple still has the source and will use it, because they know that they need it to enhance the product. That's the bottom line. If the source really wasn't needed, Apple wouldn't continue to use it.
Yes, but why the hell would you want to? You're not going to be able to run MacOS X apps with KDE, and KDE apps on Darwin are going to require more than just a recompile. And for Mac hardware prices, you'd probably be better off getting yourself a low-end Alpha or a high-end SMP Intel box anyway.
Fuck, I forgot to select "plain old text". Shoulda looked like this:
* LEP (light-emitting plastic) foldable monitor. * Chord Keyboard, Englebert style (bitch to learn I'm sure, but magnificently portable). This could be foldable too.
* LEP (light-emitting plastic) foldable monitor. * Chord Keyboard, Englebert style (bitch to learn I'm sure, but magnificently portable). This could be foldable too. ETA: 3 years.
If you're just using the kernel and replacing all the applications, what is the point of using it at all? I mean come on. If you don't like Win95, you can always write a new OS and load it from DOS using a program similar to "linload"... But why?
What you're saying is that Mac OS X appeals to free software fans because you can delete everything but the free software kernel and then write free software replacements for the rest of it. HA! The only thing that differentiates MacOS X from other OSes is the proprietary software it has. Without the proprietary parts, NOBODY WOULD USE IT.
GNU/Darwin may come to exist, but you can be damned sure that, if it's a reasonable replacement to MacOS X, it will be the downfall of MacOS X, not proof of its agreeability with free software.
That comment about replacing the MacOS X GUI with XFree was the most hilarious... "Oh good, I get all the application support that comes with native Darwin apps for X11(!), and all I have to give up is support for MacOS X graphical apps!"
Slashdot Mirror
It's not *a* general public license, it's *THE* General Public License, and with the TLA "GPL" it's even more clear what is meant. One cannot, I would expect, sell an x86 CPU in a SPARC box merely because the x86 is (somewhat) scalable and is a processor architecture. Of course, neither of us are lawyers (thank god), so I guess our speculatiopns aren't worth much.
My GUI -- GNOME -- uses wildcards. Or regexps (at my option). Of course, it doesn't come anywhere near matching the functionality of find+xargs... but come on, that's what eterm is for :)
Oh right, you meant Windows. I was thinking GNOME... :)
Sorry, this is not for me... I don't buy MS products.
Except that they (compaq) are not putting Linux on the thing, they're putting Windows CE on it. So no, they WON'T "probably write a GUI" for Linux.
It's arguably fraud to call it "GPL" if it's not actually the GPL license as released by FSF. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's fraud, but I didn't want to make a definitive statement on the matter because I'm not a lawyer (see how I worked that in without saying ANAL? :)).
Specifically, he says that the LGPL should be used when a library is meant to compete with a commercial library, so that commercial software vendors can stop using the commercial library without changing their licenses... On the other hand, when a library provides unique functionality that cannot be gotten through another library, the GPL should be used with the hope that people who need that functionality will release their software under the GPL.
Thus, GNU libc, which competes with other libc's, is GPL. And GNU Readline, which among libraries is fairly unique in functionality, and mainly competes with application-specific implementations of the same functionality, is GPL.
Gnutella didn't have a worm. There was a trojan horse program that automatically put itself on Gnutella if the user had Gnutella on the box. But that's no more of a worm than is a sh script containing "cp $0 ~ftp/pub/run_this_as_root.sh"
But the vast majority of the OSCAR AIM protocol was already made available through reverse engineering. I don't see how this will make any real difference.
Gaim actually uses OSCAR; if my history is correct, a client called faim (free aim) reverse engineered the protocol, and then made libfaim for use by other clients. gaim uses libfaim.
Uhm, yes, ICQ is owned by AOL. At least, Mirabilis, who makes ICQ, was bought by AOL about a year ago. It made slashdot.
Of course, he may have asked the copyright holder of the film for permission. Shit, he may be a representative of the copyright holder.
Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn?t be split or whatever.
I personally don't think MS should be split, for the practical reason that I don't expect it to actually increase competition. However, I do support some corrective action. Why? BECAUSE MICROSOFT BREAKS THE LAW; IT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO DICTATE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT MAKE COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS INCOMPATIBLE, THUS HURTING THE CONSUMER SOME BUT THE COMPETITOR MORE. As it happens, THIS IS ILLEGAL, and that is why MS has been found guilty.
Debian and RedHat have not engaged in such practices; there is no evidence of them ever harming the consumer in order to harm their competitors, and furthermore they are not monopolies so even if they had it would not be illegal. If Debian engaged in the same practices as MS, of course people would want action against it.
(and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. ?They have a monopoly! It?s bad!? Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?
Why do I care? How about because I cannot watch DVD's without breaking the law or buying another OS? You agree that MS has violated standards; well the entire point of standards is to allow communication with other OSes, applications, etc. If I'm using a non-MS OS and MS doesn't obey standards, that means I cannot communicate with MS -- i.e. 80% of the machines in the world. Obviously that affects me; as you can see, I am online. So are you. Obviously the ability to communicate is important to both of us. MS WANTS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE FROM THOSE WHO DO NOT USE WINDOWS. That is why I care. MS is attacking MY ability to use Kerberos, MY ability to share files with other computers on the LAN. MY ability to print files on the LAN. MY ability to write documents and share them with my friends. MY ability to get documents from my friends. MY ability to get digital music or video from my friends and view it. MS wants me to have to give those up for using an alternative OS, whether or not I am willing to write or buy or otherwise get the code necessary to do so, and that is why I care.
PawSense[tm] detects whether cat or human is typing, and disables the keyboard if the former.
The SPA already shut down #cablewarez. The story made slashdot. IRC discloses all the information necessary to identify a person, if one has the cooperation of the police.
If it wasn't ported to Windows, they wouldn't *need* to stop it, because it would never take off.
Sort of set a suicidal precedent, eh?
I think you're missing the point. Copyright would have prevented borrowing and derivation of music, at least some of the time. And it does so now. Puff Daddy is big enough that he can afford to sample (Beethoven would have been too, of course), but lots of people aren't.
a nd_music_sampling.paper http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/ and http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html for further reading on sampling.
See http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/art_
> Where did you read that? Of course you can do that, but it's not required at all to customize anything.
How absurd! OF COURSE it's necessary to have the source to customize it. Apple has the source! Are you saying THEY don't need it?
> I doubt that there will ever be a GNU/Darwin, since Darwin's license is not the GPL.
If it's really a free software license, that shouldn't matter.
> The orignal poster was complaining that he wouldn't be able to customize MacOS X like his Linux/FreeBSD boxes. I refuted that.
No you didn't. The only customizations allowed are the ones Apple can think of beforehand. Apple still has the source, and surely you agree that it will continue to make changes. So surely you agree that there is improvement to be done that can only be done with source.
> if enough people think the MacOS X GUI is so horrible, replacements will be made
Funny, I don't see any Windows-based replacements for the Windows GUI (yet there are plenty of programmers who think it is horrible enough that they would code a replacement).
MacOS X is a proprietary OS. The kernel is worthless by itself, and doesn't allow any power that anybody really needs. If the MacOS X GUI doesn't have every feature that every GUI has ever had, in addition to every feature that ever GUI could theoretically have, just don't tell me that it is as customizable as GNOME. Give up. You're not making sense. Apple still has the source and will use it, because they know that they need it to enhance the product. That's the bottom line. If the source really wasn't needed, Apple wouldn't continue to use it.
Yes, but why the hell would you want to? You're not going to be able to run MacOS X apps with KDE, and KDE apps on Darwin are going to require more than just a recompile. And for Mac hardware prices, you'd probably be better off getting yourself a low-end Alpha or a high-end SMP Intel box anyway.
Fuck, I forgot to select "plain old text". Shoulda looked like this:
* LEP (light-emitting plastic) foldable monitor.
* Chord Keyboard, Englebert style (bitch to learn I'm sure, but magnificently portable). This could be foldable too.
ETA: 3 years.
* LEP (light-emitting plastic) foldable monitor. * Chord Keyboard, Englebert style (bitch to learn I'm sure, but magnificently portable). This could be foldable too. ETA: 3 years.
What you're saying is that Mac OS X appeals to free software fans because you can delete everything but the free software kernel and then write free software replacements for the rest of it. HA! The only thing that differentiates MacOS X from other OSes is the proprietary software it has. Without the proprietary parts, NOBODY WOULD USE IT.
GNU/Darwin may come to exist, but you can be damned sure that, if it's a reasonable replacement to MacOS X, it will be the downfall of MacOS X, not proof of its agreeability with free software.
That comment about replacing the MacOS X GUI with XFree was the most hilarious... "Oh good, I get all the application support that comes with native Darwin apps for X11(!), and all I have to give up is support for MacOS X graphical apps!"