Here is you post where you claim to ask me a question, in it's obscene, derogatory glory:
Perens is a whiner. There not one single shred of evidence that the code in question is GPL code.
If it is, all they have to do is make the source available, per that communist license that the bearded freak created. They are under no obligation to distribute as you or Perens see fit.
Now, you GNU freaks get upset when they don't follow your own little rules for using the license. They have not committed any violations. Stop making up the rules as you go. that, of course, is the Stallman way. "Do what I say, until I change my mind, again" and of course G**/Linux, the most disgusting appropriation of others' work ever.
Please kindly point out what you felt was a question.
Considering I'm able to express myself without swearing and attacking, I'd say I'm having a better day than you.
I never denied that Bruce posted here, I said we don't know for sure since he posted on technocrat and it could have been picked up by slashdot editors. It's since been pointed out that a quote in the story is "we have more over at technocrat..." thus indicating that he DID submit it. So I was wrong, and I give you credit for doing a background check on my other threads.
As for the accuations, Perens claimes that he found his copyright string imbedded in the BEOS library binary file. Since he would be pretty much kicked out of the Linux community if he just made this up, I'm assuming he is telling the truth. It's easy enough to check if I had BEOS where I am now.
What part of this whole story did you think involved ME making the accuations, Bruce made them, I simply discussed them in my original post.
Any while we are on the topic of baseless accuations:
There not one single shred of evidence that the code in question is GPL code.
Care to prove that?
They have not committed any violations.
Do you have the evidence to back this up? Other have claimed that they DO have the evidence to the contrary.
Boy 0 for 2 you are really bad at reading today. Yes, there is no question in the post I responded to. Perhaps you are confusing question with statement.
Political anarchy is the removal of a current government to replace it with a better one, and that still has nothing to do with pirating software as the previous poster indicated.
The bruce perens writes could mean that he wrote it on this site, I've seen sorties picked up before that weren't submitted by anyone per se that started the same way.
However, I missed the "we've got the full story over at technocrat.org" part at the end, so you ARE right.
Here's a free english lesson for you, if there is no question mark (?) then there is no question.
Nowhere in that offensive, rambling attack on everyone you could think of did I find a question.
Since you are asking one now, here goes:
(from the story) Electric Fence program, a malloc() debugging tool, is also part of Be's libroot.so . Electric Fence is under the GPL, not the LGPL. That license would not allow it to be part of a library with proprietary components, although Be could distribute it in a separate library. It turns out that not only is Electric Fence in Be's libroot.so, but Be is distributing it in object-code form, without source, as if it were one of their proprietary components.
I currently don't have the tools on my work computer to verify this for myself, so I'm going to take their word for it.
Next time you want to have a conversation with someone online, try acting civil and not like a whiny 5 year old that needs to sit in the corner.
the same people in this discussion, on the side of the GPL, are on the same side that believes that pirating music and software is part of their "free right"
Now THERE is a baseless generalization. Care to back that up in any way?
No, it implies nothing of the sort. The quoted text is taken straight from Bruce's website. Hemos could very easily been surfing his page and come across the story himself. The point is, we don't know what happened.
One assumption everyone is making is that Bruce submitted this to slashdot. I'm assuming he put it up on his little page, and slashdot picked it up and made it into a story. We really don't know what happened behind the scenes, Bruce may have e-mail BE, then started a thread on his site to let people know what was going on.
One mistake everyone seems to be making is assuming that Bruce submitted this to slashdot. He may have just put it up on his page (which is read by a comparativly small group of people). Since there is no submission credit, I assume that Slashdot editors just happened to pick it up from Bruce's site.
Before the flames attacking the GPL and how hard it makes life on software engineers come out in full force, let me remind everyone something.
Nobody put a gun to BE's collective head and forced them to use the code that Bruce had writen. They activly went out on the net (I'm assuming) and found it. When someone allows you to use their work under a license, you have a (moral and legal) obligation to read and follow their license agreement. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPLed code, it's that simple, folks.
BEOS decided to use someone else's GLPed code in their program, didn't follow the rules, and is being called on it. I'm sure they will comply and this will be settled quickly.
Finkployd
Re:The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
I disagree, Linux gained a massive amount of marketshare before these companies came into being (at least from the public preception, pre IPO)
If they fail, it's not anything to do with Linux pre se, it's because their business plan is flawed. Another company will spring up and take the place and perhaps have a different way to profit from Linux. Either way Linux is not going anywhere.
Re:The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
Linux cannot be a flash in the pan. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is the traditional view (that many take) that a product can only live as long as it's company. Well Linux has no company. If Andover, Redhat, Caldera, Linuxone, and all the rest vanish tomorrow, Linux will not go away. It will still be worked on, still continue to improve and people will still use it.
Slashdot is not journalism, Slashdot links to others stories that may be ov interest to Slashdot's community and allows us to discuss it. Yes Slashdot has an agenda, just like every other news source out there, difference is, we aren't subtle about it.
Gimp is nice, but I prefer Abiword and Gnumeric over Star-Office
Sorry to rile you up like that, I was trying to exaggerate a stupid position and post a parody. Unfortunatly, my parody was pretty close to the radical rantings of the actual defernders of the DVD/CCA
Just because you geeks have can't accept a "real" OS and need some kind of command line only junk
Just to put that comment in prespective, I'm a mainframe systems programmer who works on OS/390.:)
Anyway, look at my origional post and go to the web site at the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Bruce, but I have a gut feeling this guy isn't going to believe you unless you download BE in front of him, and grep the .o while he watches.
Finkployd
Note that the GNU Project recommends avoiding the term piracy since it implies that sharing copies is somehow illegitimate.
Yes, that's true. Perhaps that's because sharing copies of GNU software ISN'T illegitmate.
Finkployd
Here is you post where you claim to ask me a question, in it's obscene, derogatory glory:
Perens is a whiner. There not one single shred of evidence that the code in question is GPL code.
If it is, all they have to do is make the source available, per that communist license that the bearded freak created. They are under no obligation to distribute as you or Perens see fit.
Now, you GNU freaks get upset when they don't follow your own little rules for using the license. They have not committed any violations.
Stop making up the rules as you go. that, of course, is the Stallman way. "Do what I say, until I change my mind, again" and of course G**/Linux, the most disgusting appropriation of others' work ever.
Please kindly point out what you felt was a question.
Finkployd
Not a good day for you, eh?
Considering I'm able to express myself without swearing and attacking, I'd say I'm having a better day than you.
I never denied that Bruce posted here, I said we don't know for sure since he posted on technocrat and it could have been picked up by slashdot editors. It's since been pointed out that a quote in the story is "we have more over at technocrat..." thus indicating that he DID submit it. So I was wrong, and I give you credit for doing a background check on my other threads.
As for the accuations, Perens claimes that he found his copyright string imbedded in the BEOS library binary file. Since he would be pretty much kicked out of the Linux community if he just made this up, I'm assuming he is telling the truth. It's easy enough to check if I had BEOS where I am now.
What part of this whole story did you think involved ME making the accuations, Bruce made them, I simply discussed them in my original post.
Any while we are on the topic of baseless accuations:
There not one single shred of evidence that the code in question is GPL code.
Care to prove that?
They have not committed any violations.
Do you have the evidence to back this up? Other have claimed that they DO have the evidence to the contrary.
Finkployd
Boy 0 for 2 you are really bad at reading today. Yes, there is no question in the post I responded to. Perhaps you are confusing question with statement.
Political anarchy is the removal of a current government to replace it with a better one, and that still has nothing to do with pirating software as the previous poster indicated.
Finkployd
I must have read that as "they've got the whole story...". You're right.
Finkployd
The bruce perens writes could mean that he wrote it on this site, I've seen sorties picked up before that weren't submitted by anyone per se that started the same way.
However, I missed the "we've got the full story over at technocrat.org" part at the end, so you ARE right.
Here's a free english lesson for you, if there is no question mark (?) then there is no question.
Nowhere in that offensive, rambling attack on everyone you could think of did I find a question.
Since you are asking one now, here goes:
(from the story)
Electric Fence program, a malloc() debugging tool, is also part of Be's libroot.so . Electric Fence is under the GPL, not the LGPL. That license would not allow it to be part of a library with proprietary components, although Be could distribute it in a separate library.
It turns out that not only is Electric Fence in Be's libroot.so, but Be is distributing it in object-code form, without source, as if it were one of their proprietary components.
I currently don't have the tools on my work computer to verify this for myself, so I'm going to take their word for it.
Next time you want to have a conversation with someone online, try acting civil and not like a whiny 5 year old that needs to sit in the corner.
Finkployd
Yeah, you're right. I missed that end line. Chalk it up to debugging JCL all day.
:)
Finkployd
if he supports anarchy, then he would support my stealing of GPLed code
:)
Another AC with no idea what anarchy actually means...
Hey, if you don't support anachary, then you would support killing infants born with any disease
See I can make silly connections also
Finkployd
Angry little troll aren't you?
:)
Finkployd
the same people in this discussion, on the side of the GPL, are on the same side that believes that pirating music and software is part of their "free right"
Now THERE is a baseless generalization. Care to back that up in any way?
Finkployd
No, it implies nothing of the sort. The quoted text is taken straight from Bruce's website. Hemos could very easily been surfing his page and come across the story himself. The point is, we don't know what happened.
Finkployd
but since they distribute the object. via FTP, they'd probably have to distribute the source that way too.
:)
Well, the way I read the GPL, they could theoretically make the source available only in hardcopy mailed upon request and still be GPL compliant.
Course, the way a mainframe systems programmer reads a license and the way a lawyer reads it are probably worlds apart.
Finkployd
One assumption everyone is making is that Bruce submitted this to slashdot. I'm assuming he put it up on his little page, and slashdot picked it up and made it into a story.
We really don't know what happened behind the scenes, Bruce may have e-mail BE, then started a thread on his site to let people know what was going on.
Finkployd
One mistake everyone seems to be making is assuming that Bruce submitted this to slashdot. He may have just put it up on his page (which is read by a comparativly small group of people). Since there is no submission credit, I assume that Slashdot editors just happened to pick it up from Bruce's site.
Before the flames attacking the GPL and how hard it makes life on software engineers come out in full force, let me remind everyone something.
Nobody put a gun to BE's collective head and forced them to use the code that Bruce had writen. They activly went out on the net (I'm assuming) and found it. When someone allows you to use their work under a license, you have a (moral and legal) obligation to read and follow their license agreement. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPLed code, it's that simple, folks.
BEOS decided to use someone else's GLPed code in their program, didn't follow the rules, and is being called on it. I'm sure they will comply and this will be settled quickly.
Finkployd
I disagree, Linux gained a massive amount of marketshare before these companies came into being (at least from the public preception, pre IPO)
If they fail, it's not anything to do with Linux pre se, it's because their business plan is flawed. Another company will spring up and take the place and perhaps have a different way to profit from Linux.
Either way Linux is not going anywhere.
Linux cannot be a flash in the pan. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is the traditional view (that many take) that a product can only live as long as it's company. Well Linux has no company. If Andover, Redhat, Caldera, Linuxone, and all the rest vanish tomorrow, Linux will not go away. It will still be worked on, still continue to improve and people will still use it.
Finkployd
Slashdot is not journalism, Slashdot links to others stories that may be ov interest to Slashdot's community and allows us to discuss it.
Yes Slashdot has an agenda, just like every other news source out there, difference is, we aren't subtle about it.
Finkployd
Actually, hardware is the one thing I think Microsoft gets right. The intellimouse and their joysticks seem pretty high quality.
Finkployd
trolling".
Sometimes it's nice to play for the other team every now and then.
Finkployd
I have sigs turned off, so I didn't even see the link.
:)
I anticipated that, the link was not in the sig, it was part of the message.
Finkployd
Bell's Second Law of the Internet: No matter how facetious or satirical your message is, someone will take you seriously.
:)
That's great now, where were you an hour ago?
Finkployd
Have you ever used Linux?
:)
Using it now at work. Slackware 7.
Have you ever used Star-Office or Gimp?
Gimp is nice, but I prefer Abiword and Gnumeric over Star-Office
Sorry to rile you up like that, I was trying to exaggerate a stupid position and post a parody. Unfortunatly, my parody was pretty close to the radical rantings of the actual defernders of the DVD/CCA
Just because you geeks have can't accept a "real" OS and need some kind of command line only junk
Just to put that comment in prespective, I'm a mainframe systems programmer who works on OS/390.
Anyway, look at my origional post and go to the web site at the bottom.
Finkployd