Of course not. To clarify: The GPL states that no restrictions to user's rights to use and distribute the software for any purpose, beyond those present in the GPL license, may be added. It states that if you can not comply with this requirement due to patents, for instance, then you can not distribute the software.
Due to that clause, mp3 codecs can not be distributed under the terms of the GPL. The license specifically forbids it. Therefore, Red Hat has no valid license to distribute most of the mp3 software that's available.
The situation would be different if the software were BSD licensed. That license would not forbid distribution with patent restrictions, and Red Hat would at least be able to decide whether or not they want to risk distributing a patent encumbered piece of software. However, where GPLd software is concerned, liability doesn't even come into the picture.
We bring authors to RealNetworks from time to time, and I had the chance to meet Mr. Jacobs a short while ago. He was running a few minutes late (he was supposed to talk at noon), and tried to excuse himself by explaining that they used to adjust hours according to the day so that an hour was shorter during shorter days of the year. That's a good anecdote, but I pointed out that noon would be at the same time anyway.
We all had a laugh. I haven't read the book yet, but I may at some point. He's an interesting guy.
Re:They're improving the file dialogs...
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
although I'm sure this some kind of psychological effect
I don't think it was. The way I understand the Composite extension, all windows draw to an off-screen buffer, which the compositing manager displays. When using the a compositing manager, you don't have to ask the client applications to redraw themselves when exposed by moving a window, so moving windows should be considerably less CPU/network/context switch intensive.
/lib and/usr/lib are separate for similar reasons./lib holds system libraries, while/usr/lib holds user-installed libraries. It makes threat containment easier.
The "usr" in "/usr" stands for Unix System Resources, it's not short for "user". User-installed binaries and libraries belong in "/usr/local/".
"/" should contain only the binaries and libraries that are needed to boot the system, and "/usr" should contain all other vendor-supplied binaries and libraries.
you just have to accept that there is a much higher chance of it being filtered by a spam filter, no matter who you send it to.
That's not true. If you (or your ISP) publish no SPF records in DNS, then there will be no penalty for sending mail from any location. SPF only applies a penalty when you publish the appropriate records AND send mail from a host that those records indicate should not be sending mail with your return address.
It means that IF the administrators of your domain publish SPF records indicating that only specific hosts are allowed to send mail with their domain as the "from" address, AND you send mail from a host not listed, THEN your mail may be filtered as spam.
The system relies on action on your part to prevent the forgery of your domain name in return addresses. Nothing forces you to participate.
Backward compatibility is generally pretty good, so building a package on FC1 and installing on FC2 is probably no black art. The reverse may not be true.
I think that the reason you see software rebuilt on every point release is that distros want to take full advantage of the developments in each new release. If that weren't the case, I think you'd see more distros providing a real "core" release with a single repository of software compiled on LSB platforms.
If the GPL were for users or developers, everyone would be thanking this company for providing drivers that did not exist.
Nonsense... The GPL is for everyone who values their freedom.
The GPL is used by many developers who distribute the fruits of their effort for nothing beyond the expectation that anyone who finds their work useful enough to build their own products upon will provide said products under the same license. Even if those products are sold for profit, the derivative work should be as Free to those who purchase it as was the original work. From that perspective, the GPL is absolutely for developers.
Similarly, many users choose to purchase and use GPL products because they know that this license protects their rights to use and customize their software for their own purposes, in perpetuity. The GPL is absolutely for users.
Your MS friends are right in one way that comes to mind. The weakest link in security is almost always the user. Social engineering is often the easiest "hack" in any system. As a reference, consider the virus plagues that spread widely despite requiring users to do stupid things.
Making the system more "user friendly" means that users with less education regarding the issues inherent to computer systems will use it. Less educated users are more likely to fall victim to social engineering attacks. Thus, a system which is more user friendly will be more open to attack.
IBM has, for a long time now, said that they do not want a single vendor for Linux OS offerings. They've had excellent support for both SuSE and Red Hat for quite a while. This is quite a different scenario than some people in this forum are currently suggesting: that this marks a "switch" to SuSE.
From the article (credits to Linux Today for the link):
This week, that changed with Red Hat becoming the first major Linux distributor to Sign an agreement with IBM to make the operating system available pre-loaded on IBM's POWER based servers.
Looks to me like IBM is strengthening its ties with BOTH vendors. Cheers to all involved.
Blackdown is just a port of Sun's software to Linux. It carries the same license as Sun's Java. You won't find the source code to it anywhere, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's even "Open Source".
In any case, the real problem is that there's no Free Software Java platform, so Java is not and will not be distributed with Free Software distributions like Debian or Fedora Core.
...Or was the poster ranting about GDM's behavior because he's bent on finding *something* wrong with Fedora Core which justifies his decision to use something else?
GNOME 2.6 is expected to be available before FC2's release. Including 2.5 now means they get more testing on the beta desktop before the final release, and as a result get a better final release.
It seems odd that your game had no warning. I don't believe that I've ever purchased a game that did not have a list of warnings including the possibility that the game may trigger epileptic attacks, and that you should break from the game at least once an hour. Where did you find this game?
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. And if you really don't like all the standards you just have to wait another year until the one arises you are looking for. -A. Tannenbaum, introduction to Computer Networks
With a binary format the data can usually in whole or part be mapped direct onto a C structure. In other words the parsing is down for you in a few lines and uses up bugger all CPU.
Anyone who believes that deserves the buffer overflows that they are about to receive.
Technically I see a difference, as there's nothing forcing you to call it GNU/Linux. But morally it's the same thing.
I'm glad there's no "morality" clause in the GPL. Such a thing would lead to developers taking liberties with the software so licensed and arguing their case on moral grounds.
The GPL is very clear: In order for another license to be compatible, it must not place restrictions on users or developers above or beyond those of the GPL. The advertising clause does so. Regardless of how you judge it to be moral or immoral, convenient or inconvenient, additional restrictions/requirements are just that, and are not compatible with the GPL.
I haven't had to actually push this issue, but a coworker of mine and I looked in to it... The two items which I think applied most in our situation were:
#1) In order to be exempt from overtime, your job just require of you independant authority and discretion. In our case, both of us go through extensive change control and approval from IT managers. That's not independant discretion.
#2) You must not spend more than 20% of your work week involved in activities which aren't covered by the definition of "exempt". In our case, we both spend more than 20% of our time assisting users. Tech support is definitely not covered by the definition of "exempt".
When you do talk to your lawyer, ask him about those points.
glib, gobject, gdk and gtk ARE a common package... in most if not all distros
Which? I've never used one. At least Debian, SuSE and Red Hat/Fedora package them separately, and those are the major dists.
GTK+ is not built on glib and gobject : they belong to GTK+.
You're just wrong there. Many projects use glib and its gobject, and have no runtime dependency on gtk+. I, myself, have developed projects in C using glib on systems that do not have gtk+ installed.
Observe that glib is not linked to gtk+ on a Fedora system: [gordon@wanderlust:~]$ ldd/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
libc.so.6 =>/lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x002f1000)/lib/ld-linux.so.2 =>/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x004c8000)
Further, observe that KDE's "arts" includes libgmcop which uses glib and not gtk+: [gordon@wanderlust:~]$ ldd/usr/lib/libgmcop.so.1.0.0
libmcop.so.1 =>/usr/lib/libmcop.so.1 (0x009e9000)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 =>/usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x0015b000)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 =>/usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x00111000)
libdl.so.2 =>/lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00425000)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 =>/usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00c68000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 =>/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00224000)
libstdc++.so.5 =>/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x0082d000)
libm.so.6 =>/lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x002f2000)
libc.so.6 =>/lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x0044a000)
libgcc_s.so.1 =>/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00fb0000)/lib/ld-linux.so.2 =>/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00c2d000)
libpthread.so.0 =>/lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x00ef0000)
Slashdot Mirror
distributing GPL software is not against the GPL.
Of course not. To clarify: The GPL states that no restrictions to user's rights to use and distribute the software for any purpose, beyond those present in the GPL license, may be added. It states that if you can not comply with this requirement due to patents, for instance, then you can not distribute the software.
Due to that clause, mp3 codecs can not be distributed under the terms of the GPL. The license specifically forbids it. Therefore, Red Hat has no valid license to distribute most of the mp3 software that's available.
The situation would be different if the software were BSD licensed. That license would not forbid distribution with patent restrictions, and Red Hat would at least be able to decide whether or not they want to risk distributing a patent encumbered piece of software. However, where GPLd software is concerned, liability doesn't even come into the picture.
We bring authors to RealNetworks from time to time, and I had the chance to meet Mr. Jacobs a short while ago. He was running a few minutes late (he was supposed to talk at noon), and tried to excuse himself by explaining that they used to adjust hours according to the day so that an hour was shorter during shorter days of the year. That's a good anecdote, but I pointed out that noon would be at the same time anyway.
We all had a laugh. I haven't read the book yet, but I may at some point. He's an interesting guy.
although I'm sure this some kind of psychological effect
I don't think it was. The way I understand the Composite extension, all windows draw to an off-screen buffer, which the compositing manager displays. When using the a compositing manager, you don't have to ask the client applications to redraw themselves when exposed by moving a window, so moving windows should be considerably less CPU/network/context switch intensive.
/lib and /usr/lib are separate for similar reasons. /lib holds system libraries, while /usr/lib holds user-installed libraries. It makes threat containment easier.
The "usr" in "/usr" stands for Unix System Resources, it's not short for "user". User-installed binaries and libraries belong in "/usr/local/".
"/" should contain only the binaries and libraries that are needed to boot the system, and "/usr" should contain all other vendor-supplied binaries and libraries.
...some being somewhat nicer than the average and some somewhat harsher
No way! In a group of sources, some are above average and some are below? Who could have guessed?
you just have to accept that there is a much higher chance of it being filtered by a spam filter, no matter who you send it to.
That's not true. If you (or your ISP) publish no SPF records in DNS, then there will be no penalty for sending mail from any location. SPF only applies a penalty when you publish the appropriate records AND send mail from a host that those records indicate should not be sending mail with your return address.
It means that IF the administrators of your domain publish SPF records indicating that only specific hosts are allowed to send mail with their domain as the "from" address, AND you send mail from a host not listed, THEN your mail may be filtered as spam.
The system relies on action on your part to prevent the forgery of your domain name in return addresses. Nothing forces you to participate.
Backward compatibility is generally pretty good, so building a package on FC1 and installing on FC2 is probably no black art. The reverse may not be true.
I think that the reason you see software rebuilt on every point release is that distros want to take full advantage of the developments in each new release. If that weren't the case, I think you'd see more distros providing a real "core" release with a single repository of software compiled on LSB platforms.
Back in my day, we called them smoke signals.
If the GPL were for users or developers, everyone would be thanking this company for providing drivers that did not exist.
Nonsense... The GPL is for everyone who values their freedom.
The GPL is used by many developers who distribute the fruits of their effort for nothing beyond the expectation that anyone who finds their work useful enough to build their own products upon will provide said products under the same license. Even if those products are sold for profit, the derivative work should be as Free to those who purchase it as was the original work. From that perspective, the GPL is absolutely for developers.
Similarly, many users choose to purchase and use GPL products because they know that this license protects their rights to use and customize their software for their own purposes, in perpetuity. The GPL is absolutely for users.
Your MS friends are right in one way that comes to mind. The weakest link in security is almost always the user. Social engineering is often the easiest "hack" in any system. As a reference, consider the virus plagues that spread widely despite requiring users to do stupid things.
Making the system more "user friendly" means that users with less education regarding the issues inherent to computer systems will use it. Less educated users are more likely to fall victim to social engineering attacks. Thus, a system which is more user friendly will be more open to attack.
I've always hoped to see an anthology of the old NES Castlevania games for GBA.
How about evidence to the opposite:
http://www.it-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=
From the article (credits to Linux Today for the link):
Looks to me like IBM is strengthening its ties with BOTH vendors. Cheers to all involved.
Hopefully, your overuse of commas, will end here.
Let me rephrase then: the problem at hand is that there's no complete, modern, Free Software Java platform.
Blackdown is just a port of Sun's software to Linux. It carries the same license as Sun's Java. You won't find the source code to it anywhere, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's even "Open Source".
In any case, the real problem is that there's no Free Software Java platform, so Java is not and will not be distributed with Free Software distributions like Debian or Fedora Core.
...Or was the poster ranting about GDM's behavior because he's bent on finding *something* wrong with Fedora Core which justifies his decision to use something else?
GNOME 2.6 is expected to be available before FC2's release. Including 2.5 now means they get more testing on the beta desktop before the final release, and as a result get a better final release.
It seems odd that your game had no warning. I don't believe that I've ever purchased a game that did not have a list of warnings including the possibility that the game may trigger epileptic attacks, and that you should break from the game at least once an hour. Where did you find this game?
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. And if you really don't like all the standards you just have to wait another year until the one arises you are looking for.
-A. Tannenbaum, introduction to Computer Networks
With a binary format the data can usually in whole or part be mapped direct onto a C structure. In other words the parsing is down for you in a few lines and uses up bugger all CPU.
Anyone who believes that deserves the buffer overflows that they are about to receive.
Technically I see a difference, as there's nothing forcing you to call it GNU/Linux. But morally it's the same thing.
I'm glad there's no "morality" clause in the GPL. Such a thing would lead to developers taking liberties with the software so licensed and arguing their case on moral grounds.
The GPL is very clear: In order for another license to be compatible, it must not place restrictions on users or developers above or beyond those of the GPL. The advertising clause does so. Regardless of how you judge it to be moral or immoral, convenient or inconvenient, additional restrictions/requirements are just that, and are not compatible with the GPL.
I haven't had to actually push this issue, but a coworker of mine and I looked in to it... The two items which I think applied most in our situation were:
#1) In order to be exempt from overtime, your job just require of you independant authority and discretion. In our case, both of us go through extensive change control and approval from IT managers. That's not independant discretion.
#2) You must not spend more than 20% of your work week involved in activities which aren't covered by the definition of "exempt". In our case, we both spend more than 20% of our time assisting users. Tech support is definitely not covered by the definition of "exempt".
When you do talk to your lawyer, ask him about those points.
glib, gobject, gdk and gtk ARE a common package ... in most if not all distros
/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x002f1000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x004c8000)
/usr/lib/libgmcop.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/libmcop.so.1 (0x009e9000) /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x0015b000) /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x00111000) /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00425000) /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00c68000) /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00224000) /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x0082d000) /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x002f2000) /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x0044a000) /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00fb0000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00c2d000) /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x00ef0000)
Which? I've never used one. At least Debian, SuSE and Red Hat/Fedora package them separately, and those are the major dists.
GTK+ is not built on glib and gobject : they belong to GTK+.
You're just wrong there. Many projects use glib and its gobject, and have no runtime dependency on gtk+. I, myself, have developed projects in C using glib on systems that do not have gtk+ installed.
Observe that glib is not linked to gtk+ on a Fedora system:
[gordon@wanderlust:~]$ ldd
libc.so.6 =>
Further, observe that KDE's "arts" includes libgmcop which uses glib and not gtk+:
[gordon@wanderlust:~]$ ldd
libmcop.so.1 =>
libgobject-2.0.so.0 =>
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 =>
libdl.so.2 =>
libgthread-2.0.so.0 =>
libglib-2.0.so.0 =>
libstdc++.so.5 =>
libm.so.6 =>
libc.so.6 =>
libgcc_s.so.1 =>
libpthread.so.0 =>
On the up side, OggFile means that non-gsteamer projects get better support for the various codecs, too.