Whether or not the license makes sense is up for debate, and I completely agree with you that it is ridiculous. You're wrong, however. Become familiar with the LGPL. Here's a hint: it's quite a bit different from the GPL. Here's a simple explanation if you're so inclined to learn: About the LGPL. There is indeed a distinction made by the LGPL between using and modifying an LGPL work in connection with your rights to link your own code against it.
You're completely full of shit. Here's section 6 of the LGPL:
Umm, not quite. Indeed that is from the LGPLv3, but the Section 6 that I am referring to is from the much more widely used LGPLv2.1. Sorry to confuse your simple mind.
In theory, yes. In practice, however, it seems volunteers and companies contribute a lot more to GPL'ed projects than to BSD'ed ones, otherwise we'd be arguing for the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop" instead of Linux.
That's just because we've already seen the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop." It's called Mac OS X.
But seriously, you'll have to provide a citation with your assertion that companies contribute more to GPL'd projects than projects of other licenses. The only major GPL projects with corporate contributions that come to my mind immediately are Linux and MySQL. On the other hand, many, many non-GPL projects with corporate contributions immediately come to mind. All Apache projects, postgresql, ffmpeg, BSD, memcached, OpenOffice.org, QT, postfix, bind, all Mozilla software, webkit, need I go on?
The sad truth is, the actual value of the GPL is a lot less than everybody thinks. It doesn't protect code from suddently becoming non-free because 1) corporations can't do that anyway, and 2) companies that do use non-GPL code tend to give back their improvements anyway, even though they are not legally obligated to do so. They may do it to keep good karma amongst developers rather than a strong believe in Free software, but who cares? What then is the value of the GPL? I propose it has negative value, considering the incompatibilities it introduces (ZFS anyone?) and the needless complexity it brings, but of course that's just my opinion.
Exactly. The reason for the GPL is not to "protect" code or keep code free. Code will be free forever under any open source license. Big Bad Corporation can't take your code and lock it up so nobody else can use it; it's still free! The only reason for the GPL is to "stick it" to corporations and anyone else to whom it isn't convenient to fully comply with all the strings (restrictions) attached to and imposed by the GPL. In my opinion, GPL code is counter-productive because of the complexity and ambiguity of the license itself, as well as the incompatibilities that come along with a "viral" license. Case in point: How stupid is it that ZFS can't be incorporated into the Linux kernel, not because of any technical reason, but because two "free" license aren't compatible with each other. Seriously? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
BUT if you modify the LGPL code and want to link against it either dynamically or statically, your work is considered "work based on the library" under the LGPL, and Section 6 applies, meaning you are required to also release your code under the LGPL license.
And I'll clarify just in case I wasn't clear. All your code that you link against a modified LGPL library must be released under the LGPL according to the conditions in Section 6, not just the changes that you make or add to the library source files. Again: There is no such requirement if you don't modify the library in question.
Surprisingly, you are not correct. Unlike the GPL, the LGPL applies differently to a project depending on whether you make changes to the LGPL code or not. I'll summarize:
If you use LGPL code without modifying it, you can write code which links against it (either dynamically or statically--this is something not generally understood about the LGPL, although if you choose to statically link, you must provide the source or object files so somebody can recompile or at least relink--this doesn't apply if you dynamically link) and release your own code under whatever license you want. Your code would be considered a "work which uses the library." (Section 2c)
BUT if you modify the LGPL code and want to link against it either dynamically or statically, your work is considered "work based on the library" under the LGPL, and Section 6 applies, meaning you are required to also release your code under the LGPL license.
If you were to get your changes applied upstream, you would be in the clear because you would be able to "use" the library rather than "base" a work off of it (i.e. by building on it or even changing it, according to the terms of the LGPL). Now, it may be unlikely that the copyright owners of the library you are using will care whether you use their library the way you are (and if that's the case, they should add an explicit exception to their license), but this is indeed a little nuance of the LGPL you should keep in mind.
Personally, I always stick with BSD-like licenses for my own code because I like using a license that mere mortals can easily understand without hiring a lawyer. Speaking of which, IANAL.
So will Linux get to roll around in the muck with us Windows users as the economy continues to sour and more begin looking for ways to monetize their FLOSS?
Nope. Ubuntu does not equal Linux. If users are not happy with what Canonical is doing with their distro, they will move to another one. That's the beauty of having choice, and that feature comes automatically with the concept of open source software. Therefore, the theoretical situation you describe is impossible. As a Windows user, if you become unhappy with how Microsoft is building or selling their operating system (and I'm surprised there are any nerds who aren't), there is no other Windows operating system for you to go to.
It's wonderful not being locked in. You should try it sometime.
Many people have problems with sound in Linux. The situation is certainly less than ideal. However, on most computers, sound in Linux works flawlessly. If you have problem with sound in Linux, you are part of the exception, rather than the rule.
That depends on how you define "works." I agree that most people who install something like Ubuntu will get sound working without fuss. My main beefs with audio on Linux are with some terrible design decisions along the entire sound stack. For example, ALSA (ditching OSS completely) was a bad idea. PulseAudio is a good idea for some (very few) specific situations, but it doesn't belong as the fixture it has been made by several of the common distributions. It solves problems nobody knew they had only to introduce other important problems (i.e. latency).
I'm not discouraged at all by the audio situation on Linux. Like you said, it mostly works (setting aside audio production concerns). There are a lot of problems, though, and the best solutions may require some hurt egos. That's always a tough thing.
I actually find it interesting, considering that a few years ago you often had to go through hell just to get anything to come out of the sound card using linux.
On the other hand, many still do have trouble getting anything to get out of their sound card on Linux. I agree that the story is "interesting," but those of us serious Linux users will have to admit that the audio situation here is far from ideal, to put it positively. Alsa.... pulse.... awful. Compound this with the noticeable lack of good software and drivers for audio production equipment, and I will have to admit that the vast majority of professional audio people are much better of staying with Apple at the moment.
A zero-day (or zero-hour) attack or threat is a computer threat that tries to exploit computer application vulnerabilities that are unknown to others, undisclosed to the software vendor, or for which no security fix is available.
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is.
Obviously. However, you would be very misguided if you thought that this issue (global warming, climate change, whatever) is not already extremely political. I know Al Gore tries to convince everybody that it's not about politics, and far be it from me to argue that some (perhaps many) people do not have some sincere motives, but it is quite telling that a major figure in the Democrat Party is the major champion for this cause rather than a scientist. Compound that with the fact that all the "solutions" of global warming (cap and trade) ironically line up perfectly with what the Democrats wish to accomplish.
I don't blame them. I'm sure Republicans only wish they could find an issue they could milk as well. I agree that it's too bad this issue has to be subject to so much politics, but it's really silly to deny that politicking is occurring when it so obviously is. As an issue which potentially effects such a large number of people (i.e. the whole world), of course politics will play a roll.
Even with HTML5 the big companies like Apple and Google are pushing how THEY want things done and have them already done, versus the guys like Opera and Firefox that want clean specs first, then implementation.
I would just point out that this is far better than the alternative. The "internet" belongs to all of "us," and many of us have an interest in changing it in ways that we think will profit us. At least the ones with the money and interest are working on standards rather than each creating their own browser plug-ins to accomplish everything they need. That's what the alternative would be. Yeah, so the end result spec isn't going to be as "clean" as implementors want, but what more can we hope for given the many and varied interests people have in the internet?
No kidding. This issue with the browsers is just small potatoes, and the result is just stupid anyway. This slap on the wrist may come with a little more string that Microsoft is used to, but it's still just a slap on the wrist and the real problem isn't being addressed.
If I can go out and get a certificate signed by "FishWithAHammer" for a couple dozen bucks from some CA which happens to have its root certificate in your browser by default (and I can), even CA-signed certificates aren't worth much. Actually, the fact that you think a CA-signed cert is much better than a self-signed one means to me that they are causing more harm than good in the form of false security.
Apple seems to have the a premium (or premium priced) PCs. Though it has held Linux threat on the netbook side at bay, it did so by extending the life of XP, thus slowing down Vista adaptation.
Ironic this story is coming from kdawson. He's like the Fox News guy from Slashdot.
The story doesn't have to be true if it garners a ton of posts.
Can you point to one or several Fox News stories that are absolutely false (as opposed to just having conservative leanings which of course don't automatically make the story false)? I know it's popular to dislike and bash Fox News around here (because we're all so "enlightened"), but I personally haven't heard or read about any of their stories that was clearly not true. Frankly, I think it's much more enlightening to get my news from several sources in order to average out any reporter bias, and I certainly don't rule out Fox News.
I agree; Microsoft is just interested in making cash; When GPL becomes...
The same exact thing can be said about IBM, the former Sun, and a myriad of other publicly traded companies who traditionally have "embraced" open source. They are all just trying to make money the best they know how, and the fact that they have had anything at all to do with open source is just an expression of them trying to corner a niche or make software available to increase their own marketability. Yay for the invisible hand.
I laugh every time I read someone saying that publicly traded company X is good and publicly traded company Y is "evil." Repeat after me: Companies which are no longer tightly controlled by a leader, who may or may not himself had praiseworthy motives when he started the firm, are not altruistic. Google's founders probably had good motives when they pledged to "do no evil," but that motto will become less and less meaningful as others begin to control Google (and it was necessarily much less meaningful on the day Google became publicly traded). Microsoft has had no reason to have anything to do with open source (as long as they could avoid it) because of their market position. As Microsoft's market share drops, they will inevitably have more and more to do with open source, not because they will suddenly be concerned about the "community," but because their viability depends on it.
Personally, I don't think any of this is a bad thing. The markets generally run well, and the work of the invisible hand is significant (yep, I'm a capitalist pig). Just don't be tricked into thinking that there is any public company that is really altruistic.
Some distros (notably Slackware, Mandriva, and Sabayon themselves) went from being based on other distros and started at some point doing the package integrations themselves.
I could be wrong, but I believe Sabayon still uses portage and the Gentoo portage repository directly. They potentially have their own packages in their overlay, but AFAIK you can't really say they do the package integrations themselves. They still very much rely on upstream Gentoo.
Furthermore, how can Apple really make any deep decisions like this? I don't upload code. They don't compile it. They look at raw binary code.
Do you not think it is trivial to tell which system and library calls your binary app is making? I don't know anything about which iPhone API's are allowed or disallowed, but let me assure you that it is quite simple to know exactly which calls a binary executable is making. Having the source code wouldn't make that any easier.
Android will only be a success to the degree that it matches what consumers actually want. Here's a hint: The vast majority of consumers don't even want to "control [their] own hardware." They just want a device that works well enough and has the features they care about. Android may very well help phones be just that, but love it or hate it, the iPhone is there already.
I'm confused as to why you think the iPhone and Apple's "crap" should die. Why do you care what other people use as long as there is a product (non-Apple, whatever) that meets your needs. I can only assume it has something to do with jealousy, but you should realize that that is pretty silly. People like the iPhone. Good for them. You don't like the iPhone. Good for you. Get something you like and let other people enjoy what works well for them, and there's not need to feel spiteful about it.
It's like Apple can't learn from Microsoft's mistakes.
Except they're not "mistakes" (for Apple) unless there is a negative aspect for them, and there won't be. There will be no backlash, and Apple is ever the more successful during a time when many others are not. How do you expect Apple to learn from "mistakes" that seem to be good for them? They know pretty well by now what works, what doesn't, what they can get away with, and what they can't get away with.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not the license makes sense is up for debate, and I completely agree with you that it is ridiculous. You're wrong, however. Become familiar with the LGPL. Here's a hint: it's quite a bit different from the GPL. Here's a simple explanation if you're so inclined to learn: About the LGPL. There is indeed a distinction made by the LGPL between using and modifying an LGPL work in connection with your rights to link your own code against it.
You're completely full of shit. Here's section 6 of the LGPL:
Umm, not quite. Indeed that is from the LGPLv3, but the Section 6 that I am referring to is from the much more widely used LGPLv2.1. Sorry to confuse your simple mind.
In theory, yes. In practice, however, it seems volunteers and companies contribute a lot more to GPL'ed projects than to BSD'ed ones, otherwise we'd be arguing for the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop" instead of Linux.
That's just because we've already seen the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop." It's called Mac OS X.
But seriously, you'll have to provide a citation with your assertion that companies contribute more to GPL'd projects than projects of other licenses. The only major GPL projects with corporate contributions that come to my mind immediately are Linux and MySQL. On the other hand, many, many non-GPL projects with corporate contributions immediately come to mind. All Apache projects, postgresql, ffmpeg, BSD, memcached, OpenOffice.org, QT, postfix, bind, all Mozilla software, webkit, need I go on?
The sad truth is, the actual value of the GPL is a lot less than everybody thinks. It doesn't protect code from suddently becoming non-free because 1) corporations can't do that anyway, and 2) companies that do use non-GPL code tend to give back their improvements anyway, even though they are not legally obligated to do so. They may do it to keep good karma amongst developers rather than a strong believe in Free software, but who cares? What then is the value of the GPL? I propose it has negative value, considering the incompatibilities it introduces (ZFS anyone?) and the needless complexity it brings, but of course that's just my opinion.
Exactly. The reason for the GPL is not to "protect" code or keep code free. Code will be free forever under any open source license. Big Bad Corporation can't take your code and lock it up so nobody else can use it; it's still free! The only reason for the GPL is to "stick it" to corporations and anyone else to whom it isn't convenient to fully comply with all the strings (restrictions) attached to and imposed by the GPL. In my opinion, GPL code is counter-productive because of the complexity and ambiguity of the license itself, as well as the incompatibilities that come along with a "viral" license. Case in point: How stupid is it that ZFS can't be incorporated into the Linux kernel, not because of any technical reason, but because two "free" license aren't compatible with each other. Seriously? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
BUT if you modify the LGPL code and want to link against it either dynamically or statically, your work is considered "work based on the library" under the LGPL, and Section 6 applies, meaning you are required to also release your code under the LGPL license.
And I'll clarify just in case I wasn't clear. All your code that you link against a modified LGPL library must be released under the LGPL according to the conditions in Section 6, not just the changes that you make or add to the library source files. Again: There is no such requirement if you don't modify the library in question.
Surprisingly, you are not correct. Unlike the GPL, the LGPL applies differently to a project depending on whether you make changes to the LGPL code or not. I'll summarize:
If you use LGPL code without modifying it, you can write code which links against it (either dynamically or statically--this is something not generally understood about the LGPL, although if you choose to statically link, you must provide the source or object files so somebody can recompile or at least relink--this doesn't apply if you dynamically link) and release your own code under whatever license you want. Your code would be considered a "work which uses the library." (Section 2c)
BUT if you modify the LGPL code and want to link against it either dynamically or statically, your work is considered "work based on the library" under the LGPL, and Section 6 applies, meaning you are required to also release your code under the LGPL license.
If you were to get your changes applied upstream, you would be in the clear because you would be able to "use" the library rather than "base" a work off of it (i.e. by building on it or even changing it, according to the terms of the LGPL). Now, it may be unlikely that the copyright owners of the library you are using will care whether you use their library the way you are (and if that's the case, they should add an explicit exception to their license), but this is indeed a little nuance of the LGPL you should keep in mind.
Personally, I always stick with BSD-like licenses for my own code because I like using a license that mere mortals can easily understand without hiring a lawyer. Speaking of which, IANAL.
So will Linux get to roll around in the muck with us Windows users as the economy continues to sour and more begin looking for ways to monetize their FLOSS?
Nope. Ubuntu does not equal Linux. If users are not happy with what Canonical is doing with their distro, they will move to another one. That's the beauty of having choice, and that feature comes automatically with the concept of open source software. Therefore, the theoretical situation you describe is impossible. As a Windows user, if you become unhappy with how Microsoft is building or selling their operating system (and I'm surprised there are any nerds who aren't), there is no other Windows operating system for you to go to.
It's wonderful not being locked in. You should try it sometime.
Many people have problems with sound in Linux. The situation is certainly less than ideal. However, on most computers, sound in Linux works flawlessly. If you have problem with sound in Linux, you are part of the exception, rather than the rule.
That depends on how you define "works." I agree that most people who install something like Ubuntu will get sound working without fuss. My main beefs with audio on Linux are with some terrible design decisions along the entire sound stack. For example, ALSA (ditching OSS completely) was a bad idea. PulseAudio is a good idea for some (very few) specific situations, but it doesn't belong as the fixture it has been made by several of the common distributions. It solves problems nobody knew they had only to introduce other important problems (i.e. latency).
I'm not discouraged at all by the audio situation on Linux. Like you said, it mostly works (setting aside audio production concerns). There are a lot of problems, though, and the best solutions may require some hurt egos. That's always a tough thing.
I actually find it interesting, considering that a few years ago you often had to go through hell just to get anything to come out of the sound card using linux.
On the other hand, many still do have trouble getting anything to get out of their sound card on Linux. I agree that the story is "interesting," but those of us serious Linux users will have to admit that the audio situation here is far from ideal, to put it positively. Alsa.... pulse.... awful. Compound this with the noticeable lack of good software and drivers for audio production equipment, and I will have to admit that the vast majority of professional audio people are much better of staying with Apple at the moment.
Yeah.... I'm pretty sure I've seen this on X-Files.
You have a lot of nerve calling emacs "bloated" when you have a whole desktop full of bloated gnome or KDE stuff running.
Actually, I run fluxbox. Nice try.
Also, there is support for starting emacs in the background, so you can pop up new emacs windows in the blink of an eye.
It will be a sad day indeed when I have to run my text editor in the background just so it will start up in a reasonable amount of time.
Fortunately, I use Vim, so that day is further off.
A zero-day (or zero-hour) attack or threat is a computer threat that tries to exploit computer application vulnerabilities that are unknown to others, undisclosed to the software vendor, or for which no security fix is available.
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is.
Obviously. However, you would be very misguided if you thought that this issue (global warming, climate change, whatever) is not already extremely political. I know Al Gore tries to convince everybody that it's not about politics, and far be it from me to argue that some (perhaps many) people do not have some sincere motives, but it is quite telling that a major figure in the Democrat Party is the major champion for this cause rather than a scientist. Compound that with the fact that all the "solutions" of global warming (cap and trade) ironically line up perfectly with what the Democrats wish to accomplish.
I don't blame them. I'm sure Republicans only wish they could find an issue they could milk as well. I agree that it's too bad this issue has to be subject to so much politics, but it's really silly to deny that politicking is occurring when it so obviously is. As an issue which potentially effects such a large number of people (i.e. the whole world), of course politics will play a roll.
Oh, so it's a bonus for Canonical. Increased support costs... decrease software quality... more support contracts... profit?
Even with HTML5 the big companies like Apple and Google are pushing how THEY want things done and have them already done, versus the guys like Opera and Firefox that want clean specs first, then implementation.
I would just point out that this is far better than the alternative. The "internet" belongs to all of "us," and many of us have an interest in changing it in ways that we think will profit us. At least the ones with the money and interest are working on standards rather than each creating their own browser plug-ins to accomplish everything they need. That's what the alternative would be. Yeah, so the end result spec isn't going to be as "clean" as implementors want, but what more can we hope for given the many and varied interests people have in the internet?
No kidding. This issue with the browsers is just small potatoes, and the result is just stupid anyway. This slap on the wrist may come with a little more string that Microsoft is used to, but it's still just a slap on the wrist and the real problem isn't being addressed.
If I can go out and get a certificate signed by "FishWithAHammer" for a couple dozen bucks from some CA which happens to have its root certificate in your browser by default (and I can), even CA-signed certificates aren't worth much. Actually, the fact that you think a CA-signed cert is much better than a self-signed one means to me that they are causing more harm than good in the form of false security.
Apple seems to have the a premium (or premium priced) PCs. Though it has held Linux threat on the netbook side at bay, it did so by extending the life of XP, thus slowing down Vista adaptation.
I thought we were talking about Apple...
Ironic this story is coming from kdawson. He's like the Fox News guy from Slashdot. The story doesn't have to be true if it garners a ton of posts.
Can you point to one or several Fox News stories that are absolutely false (as opposed to just having conservative leanings which of course don't automatically make the story false)? I know it's popular to dislike and bash Fox News around here (because we're all so "enlightened"), but I personally haven't heard or read about any of their stories that was clearly not true. Frankly, I think it's much more enlightening to get my news from several sources in order to average out any reporter bias, and I certainly don't rule out Fox News.
I agree; Microsoft is just interested in making cash; When GPL becomes...
The same exact thing can be said about IBM, the former Sun, and a myriad of other publicly traded companies who traditionally have "embraced" open source. They are all just trying to make money the best they know how, and the fact that they have had anything at all to do with open source is just an expression of them trying to corner a niche or make software available to increase their own marketability. Yay for the invisible hand.
I laugh every time I read someone saying that publicly traded company X is good and publicly traded company Y is "evil." Repeat after me: Companies which are no longer tightly controlled by a leader, who may or may not himself had praiseworthy motives when he started the firm, are not altruistic. Google's founders probably had good motives when they pledged to "do no evil," but that motto will become less and less meaningful as others begin to control Google (and it was necessarily much less meaningful on the day Google became publicly traded). Microsoft has had no reason to have anything to do with open source (as long as they could avoid it) because of their market position. As Microsoft's market share drops, they will inevitably have more and more to do with open source, not because they will suddenly be concerned about the "community," but because their viability depends on it.
Personally, I don't think any of this is a bad thing. The markets generally run well, and the work of the invisible hand is significant (yep, I'm a capitalist pig). Just don't be tricked into thinking that there is any public company that is really altruistic.
Some distros (notably Slackware, Mandriva, and Sabayon themselves) went from being based on other distros and started at some point doing the package integrations themselves.
I could be wrong, but I believe Sabayon still uses portage and the Gentoo portage repository directly. They potentially have their own packages in their overlay, but AFAIK you can't really say they do the package integrations themselves. They still very much rely on upstream Gentoo.
Furthermore, how can Apple really make any deep decisions like this? I don't upload code. They don't compile it. They look at raw binary code.
Do you not think it is trivial to tell which system and library calls your binary app is making? I don't know anything about which iPhone API's are allowed or disallowed, but let me assure you that it is quite simple to know exactly which calls a binary executable is making. Having the source code wouldn't make that any easier.
Long live Android!
Android will only be a success to the degree that it matches what consumers actually want. Here's a hint: The vast majority of consumers don't even want to "control [their] own hardware." They just want a device that works well enough and has the features they care about. Android may very well help phones be just that, but love it or hate it, the iPhone is there already.
I'm confused as to why you think the iPhone and Apple's "crap" should die. Why do you care what other people use as long as there is a product (non-Apple, whatever) that meets your needs. I can only assume it has something to do with jealousy, but you should realize that that is pretty silly. People like the iPhone. Good for them. You don't like the iPhone. Good for you. Get something you like and let other people enjoy what works well for them, and there's not need to feel spiteful about it.
It's like Apple can't learn from Microsoft's mistakes.
Except they're not "mistakes" (for Apple) unless there is a negative aspect for them, and there won't be. There will be no backlash, and Apple is ever the more successful during a time when many others are not. How do you expect Apple to learn from "mistakes" that seem to be good for them? They know pretty well by now what works, what doesn't, what they can get away with, and what they can't get away with.