When are we going to see some real improvements to the X protocol??
[...] Gripe 1: A packet gets sent EVERY TIME THE CURSOR BLINKS!!! Why the fsck is that needed?? Even when I am on a separate virtual desktop and not viewing the app the traffic is STILL SENT!!
The latter is a problem with the app, not with the X protocol. The X protocol allows it to notify an app when its windows are mapped or unmapped, so the app needn't attempt to make the cursor blink in an unmapped window.
Gripe 2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???
That's a problem with the capabilities and/or configuration of the X server, but not with the X protocol. The protocol allows backing store and save under.
Re:Software is void, revoked and terminated.
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Can one really "revoke" a gpl computer license?
No. But note that a piece of software is not necessarily licensed under the GPL just because it is accompanied by a text which claims so. Otherwise, I could legally redistribute (e.g.) Microsoft Windows by claiming it is under the GPL.
If someone from Nullsoft posted the software to the website, they are acting as Nullsoft, even if they do so amidst objections of their co-workers.
Most likely, the copyright of the software is and always was held by Nullsoft, not the author. Therefore, the author didn't have the right to license the software under the GPL (or any other license) in the first place. Same thing as the Microsoft analogy.
This is also the reason why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright disclaimers from the employers of software authors. They don't want to suddenly find out that they never had any rights to a software which they allegedly distributed under the GPL.
Of course, the Passive Aggressive way would be to simply decompile the byte code.
[...] Of course, if you did this, you would almost certainly need to find a good lawyer ahead of time.
In fact you would, as you would infringe their copyright by doing so. Remember that you have no right to their code.
Unlike what certain FUD-spreaders want you to believe, their creating a derivative work of your GPLed code and their own code does not force their code under GPL. All you can legally demand is that they remove your code (and possibly pay you damages). Of course, they may choose to release the derivative work under GPL, but you cannot force them to do so.
The former director of the planetarium in my town reportedly once shot out a light in the middle of a field because it was blocking his view.
In this overcrowded country where I live (Germany), you usually have to deal with more than a single light.;-)
Fortunately, the street lamps are designed so that when you kick them in the right spot, they go off for maybe half an hour without being damaged. When I was younger, we once turned several streets dark in this way. It wasn't completely satisfactory though: only one person could use the telescope, while several people had to spend their time running around and making sure the lights stayed off.
Well, it not uncommon to have to make uninformed decisions. Imagine you are in a supermarket and want to buy washing powder. To your utmost confusion, a choice of washing powders from different manufacturers is offered. Neither do you know which one is best, nor is there a report about detailed studies which compare various washing powders attached to the shelf.
Please note that your choice will have a big inpact on your future.
If a Linux distributor incorrectly claims that the choice of desktop environment cannot be changed later, I recommend to avoid that distributor. But it can hardly be blamed on Linux in general if a single Linux company lies to its customers.
I booted up and was presented with a somewhat confusing login screen, and here for me is where it all went wrong - right there I had the option to choose multiple 'desktop environments' - [...] for me, this was confusing.
I find it highly amusing that although Linux (as opposed to Microsoft Windows) offers what is a key advantage of capitalistic economical systems over communistic ones - choice between alternatives - it is so often associated with communism.
Serious question though: What is so "confusing" about decision making? We often have to make decisions in our everyday's lifes, yet I don't see people constantly wandering around like confused maniacs.;-) What's so different about computers?
True, but Outlook seems to be misconfigured by default to misformat everything until it's almost unreadable. So the Outlook user who posts to Usenet without first configuring Outlook carefully will annoy a lot of people, whereas most Unix newsreaders (in fact, all I have experience with) behave resonable by default.
> But isn't that already the case? Most people use
Outlook
> (or Outlook Express? I never got the difference)
and
> they can access newsgroups already. In some
cases
> this attracts some annoying people, but there
are
> a lot of stubborn, annoying
slrn/gnus/yourfavouriteunixnewsreader
> users as well.
Not in most parts of Europe. The copyright there explicitly permits disassembling and reverse engineering.
I don't know what you mean by most parts of Europe, but an EU directive makes disassembling and reverse engineering explicitly illegal. This directive must be made the law by all EU member countries, and already has by many.
Well, according to section 3 [...] complete source code means [...] the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
If I were a judge in a court case about this question, I would interpret that to mean that they must provide whatever is necessary to get the executable into the hardware.
I realize, of course, that real courts might see this very differently.
Are you sure you're not infringing your countries' laws by fiddling around with the internals of the router
If this is so, the manufacturer is not allowed to embed GPL'ed code (not written by the manufacturer himself) in the router at all. He would violate section 7 of the GPL:
[...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. [...]
Never assume such things cannot happen. Actually, Deutsche Telekom (Germany's telecommunications monopolist) is sueing a small company (not even a competitor) for usage of the letter T.
They have been unsuccessful in sueing companies for usage of the color magenta in the past, though.
Huh, I consider gets to be a minor (!) snafu compared to the vile mind poison of:
int foo, *bar;
Why? It is perfectly possible to write a C program that contains int foo, *bar; and performs correctly for all inputs. The same is not true for a C program that calls gets.
Saying that there's a 33% increase from 1.2% to 1.6% is not sound. Maybe the numbers 1.2% and 1.6% are the results of rounding 1.2499% and 1.5500%, respectively. Whoops, now it's only a 24% increase.
A more correct statement would have been that the increase is between 24% and 43% - that's really everything which can be derived from the given numbers. Remember, numbers without error/uncertainty estimates are almost always useless.
My first attempt was googling for flowers -store, and to my surprise, a site with the word "store" not only on its web page, but even in the summary shown by Google, showed up as the fourth hit.
Do I misunderstand what the "-" character is supposed to do? Can someone explain this behaviour?
So what you're left with is a program that's GPLed but still has the BSD no-endorsement restriction, and I've never seen that in a source.
<shameless plug>
Well, just follow the link in my signature and you'll see such a program.:-)
</shameless plug>
(In this case, it's not the BSD license, but a similar license which also has a no-endorsement clause.)
IANAL, but I consider the no-endorsement clause merely a clarification of the obvious. If the clause didn't exist, would I really have the right to claim that my product is endorsed by the University of California (or whoever is the author of the code in question)? I find that hard to believe.
Doesn't the BSD no-advertisment clause count as an additional distribution restriction forbidden by the GPL?
No, the advertizing clause (i.e., you must advertize the Regents of the University of California) in the original BSD license is GPL-incompatible.
Nothing in the GPL permits you to claim that the software is endorsed by the University of California, therefore the no-advertizing clause does not restrict any right under the GPL.
The SPD, along with partners, has voted for the 33% more expensive Linux solution. Of course SPD has to justify it's decision to voters in the upcoming election.
The idea is that the Linux solution is less expensive in the long run, but even if it were not, one could argue that 33% more tax money going partially to a German company is better than less tax money spend to a U.S. company.
SPD might have some difficulties to explain their decision to their voters facing unemployment.
How so? Unemployment in Germany is a major argument in favor of going with Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
The latter is a problem with the app, not with the X protocol. The X protocol allows it to notify an app when its windows are mapped or unmapped, so the app needn't attempt to make the cursor blink in an unmapped window.
That's a problem with the capabilities and/or configuration of the X server, but not with the X protocol. The protocol allows backing store and save under.
No. But note that a piece of software is not necessarily licensed under the GPL just because it is accompanied by a text which claims so. Otherwise, I could legally redistribute (e.g.) Microsoft Windows by claiming it is under the GPL.
Most likely, the copyright of the software is and always was held by Nullsoft, not the author. Therefore, the author didn't have the right to license the software under the GPL (or any other license) in the first place. Same thing as the Microsoft analogy.
This is also the reason why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright disclaimers from the employers of software authors. They don't want to suddenly find out that they never had any rights to a software which they allegedly distributed under the GPL.
I think they want to extend their monopoly to the market of failing ISPs...
In fact you would, as you would infringe their copyright by doing so. Remember that you have no right to their code.
Unlike what certain FUD-spreaders want you to believe, their creating a derivative work of your GPLed code and their own code does not force their code under GPL. All you can legally demand is that they remove your code (and possibly pay you damages). Of course, they may choose to release the derivative work under GPL, but you cannot force them to do so.
In this overcrowded country where I live (Germany), you usually have to deal with more than a single light. ;-)
Fortunately, the street lamps are designed so that when you kick them in the right spot, they go off for maybe half an hour without being damaged. When I was younger, we once turned several streets dark in this way. It wasn't completely satisfactory though: only one person could use the telescope, while several people had to spend their time running around and making sure the lights stayed off.
Can someone please explain how another proprietary application ported to Linux benefits the open source community?
This benefits Linux users, particularly users who don't care about software freedom at all, but only about technical aspects.
Is the definition of open source community "everybody who runs at least one open source program as a user"? Well, that's certainly not my definition.
Well, it not uncommon to have to make uninformed decisions. Imagine you are in a supermarket and want to buy washing powder. To your utmost confusion, a choice of washing powders from different manufacturers is offered. Neither do you know which one is best, nor is there a report about detailed studies which compare various washing powders attached to the shelf.
If a Linux distributor incorrectly claims that the choice of desktop environment cannot be changed later, I recommend to avoid that distributor. But it can hardly be blamed on Linux in general if a single Linux company lies to its customers.
I find it highly amusing that although Linux (as opposed to Microsoft Windows) offers what is a key advantage of capitalistic economical systems over communistic ones - choice between alternatives - it is so often associated with communism.
Serious question though: What is so "confusing" about decision making? We often have to make decisions in our everyday's lifes, yet I don't see people constantly wandering around like confused maniacs. ;-) What's so different about computers?
True, but Outlook seems to be misconfigured by default to misformat everything until it's almost unreadable. So the Outlook user who posts to Usenet without first configuring Outlook carefully will annoy a lot of people, whereas most Unix newsreaders (in fact, all I have experience with) behave resonable by default.
> But isn't that already the case? Most people use
Outlook
> (or Outlook Express? I never got the difference)
and
> they can access newsgroups already. In some
cases
> this attracts some annoying people, but there are
> a lot of stubborn, annoying
slrn/gnus/yourfavouriteunixnewsreader
> users as well.
I don't know what you mean by most parts of Europe, but an EU directive makes disassembling and reverse engineering explicitly illegal. This directive must be made the law by all EU member countries, and already has by many.
Well, according to section 3 [...] complete source code means [...] the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. If I were a judge in a court case about this question, I would interpret that to mean that they must provide whatever is necessary to get the executable into the hardware.
I realize, of course, that real courts might see this very differently.
If this is so, the manufacturer is not allowed to embed GPL'ed code (not written by the manufacturer himself) in the router at all. He would violate section 7 of the GPL:
Never assume such things cannot happen. Actually, Deutsche Telekom (Germany's telecommunications monopolist) is sueing a small company (not even a competitor) for usage of the letter T.
They have been unsuccessful in sueing companies for usage of the color magenta in the past, though.
Why? It is perfectly possible to write a C program that contains int foo, *bar; and performs correctly for all inputs. The same is not true for a C program that calls gets.
Saying that there's a 33% increase from 1.2% to 1.6% is not sound. Maybe the numbers 1.2% and 1.6% are the results of rounding 1.2499% and 1.5500%, respectively. Whoops, now it's only a 24% increase.
A more correct statement would have been that the increase is between 24% and 43% - that's really everything which can be derived from the given numbers. Remember, numbers without error/uncertainty estimates are almost always useless.
martin@feynman:~ > su -
Password:
feynman:~ # apt-get remove libc6
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
a2ps aalib1 adduser adjtimex alsa-base alsa-modules-2.4.20-6
alsa-modules-2.4.21-1 alsa-source alsa-utils alsa-xmms anacron apache
apache-common apt apt-show-source apt-show-versions apt-utils at audacity
autoconf automake1.7 autotrace barcode base-files base-passwd bash bc
bible-kjv bible-kjv-text biff bind9-host binutils binutils-dev bison
bittorrent blender bsdgames bsdmainutils bsdutils buffer build-essential
bzip2 ca-certificates calc cdda2wav cdrdao cdrecord cdtool cflow
checksecurity console-common console-data console-tools console-tools-libs
coreutils countrycodes cpio cpp cpp-3.3 cracklib-runtime cracklib2 cron
cutils cvs db4.1-util dc debbugs-el debconf debconf-utils debhelper
debianutils debmake deborphan debsigs debsums debview defoma devfsd
devscripts dh-kpatches dh-make dialog dict dict-devil dict-easton
dict-elements dict-foldoc dict-gcide dict-hitchcock dict-jargon dict-vera
dict-wn dictd dictionaries-common dictzip diff diffstat dlocate dnsutils
doc-base dpkg dpkg-dev dpkg-dev-el dselect dsniff e2fsprogs eboard ed
electric-fence elisp-manual emacs-lisp-intro emacs21 emacsen-common enscript
ethereal ethereal-common exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light
expect expectk fakeroot fdutils fetchmail ffmpeg figlet file fileutils
findutils finger flex fontconfig fortune-mod fortunes fortunes-bofh-excuses
fortunes-min fping freeciv-client-gtk freeciv-server ftp fvwm g++ g++-3.3
gawk gcc gcc-3.3 gdb gdk-imlib1 gettext gettext-base gettext-el gimp1.2
gimp1.2-perl gimp1.2-print gnuchess gnuchess-book gnupg gnuplot gperf grep
grep-dctrl groff groff-base grub gs gs-common gsfonts gsfonts-x11 gtksee gv
gzip hdparm help2man hostname html-helper-mode html2text iamerican ibritish
icmpinfo id-utils ifupdown imagemagick imlib-base imlib-progs indent info
ingerman initscripts iogerman ipmasq iptables iptraf ircii ispell jackd
jhead jpeginfo jpegoptim jpegpixi kdelibs-bin kdelibs4 kernel-image-2.4.20-6
kernel-image-2.4.21-1 kernel-package kernel-patch-2.4-preempt
kernel-source-2.4.21 klogd ksymoops lame less lesstif2 libao2 libart-2.0-2
libarts1 libasound2 libatk1.0-0 libaudio2 libaudiofile0 libautotrace3
libblkid1 libbz2-1.0 libbz2-dev libc6 libc6-dev libcap1
libcompress-zlib-perl libcupsys2 libcurl2 libdb1-compat libdb2 libdb3
libdb4.0 libdb4.1 libdb4.1-dev libdns8 libdps1 libesd0 libexpat1 libfam0c102
libfluidsynth1 libfontconfig1 libfreetype6 libft-perl libg2c0 libgcc1
libgcrypt1 libgd-gif1 libgdbm-dev libgdbm3 libgdbmg1 libggi-target-x libggi2
libggimisc2 libgii0 libgii0-target-x libgimp1.2 libgimpprint1 libglib1.2
libglib2.0-0 libgmp3 libgmp3-dev libgnutls5 libgnutls7 libgpmg1 libgtk-perl
libgtk1.2 libgtk2.0-0 libgtk2.0-common libgtkxmhtml1 libid3-3.8.3 libid3tag0
libidl0 libidn9 libimage-info-perl libio-string-perl libisc4 libjack0.50.0-0
libjack0.71.2-0 libjpeg-progs libjpeg62 libjpeg62-dev libkpathsea3 libkrb53
liblame0 liblcms1 libldap2 liblocale-gettext-perl liblockfile1 libltdl3
libltdl3-dev liblwres1 liblzo1 libmad0 libmagic1 libmagick++5.5.7
libmagick5.5.7 libmikmod2 libmldbm-perl libmng1 libmpeg1 libnasl2
libncurses5 libncurses5-dev libnessus2 libnet1 libnet1-dev libnetpbm9
libnetpbm9-dev libnids1 libnss-db libogg0 libopencdk4 libpam-cracklib
libpam-dotfile libpam-modules libpam-pwdfile libpam0g libpam0g-dev
libpango1.0-0 libpango1.0-common libpaper-utils libpaper1 libpcap-dev
libpcap0.7 libpcre3 libperl-dev libperl5.6 libperl5.8 libpisock4 libplot2
libpng10-0 libpng12-0 libpng12-dev libpng2 libpng3 libpopt0 libpstoedit0
libqt3c102-mt libreadline4 libreadline4-dev librecode0 libsasl-modules-plain
libsasl2 libsasl7 libsdl-mixer1.2 libsdl1.2debian libsdl1.2debian-oss
libsmpeg0 libsndfile1 libssl-dev libssl0.9.
"The german Web Server of SCO Group is presently not available."
LOL!!
(The German suffix -bar is very similar to the English suffix -able. Erreichbar means available here.)
While this was true in the original IPv6 proposal, it was decided in 1997 to increase the minimum MTU for IPv6 to 1280 bytes.
My first attempt was googling for flowers -store , and to my surprise, a site with the word "store" not only on its web page, but even in the summary shown by Google, showed up as the fourth hit.
Do I misunderstand what the "-" character is supposed to do? Can someone explain this behaviour?
It is definitely incorrect to state that distributions don't include programs which are licensed under the GPL.
Well, the per capita GDP is $26,600 for Germany and $36,300 for the USA. Note that these numbers are from different years.
OTOH, Germany has a growth rate of 0.4%, while the USA has 0.3% (again, different years).
<shameless plug> :-)
Well, just follow the link in my signature and you'll see such a program.
</shameless plug>
(In this case, it's not the BSD license, but a similar license which also has a no-endorsement clause.)
IANAL, but I consider the no-endorsement clause merely a clarification of the obvious. If the clause didn't exist, would I really have the right to claim that my product is endorsed by the University of California (or whoever is the author of the code in question)? I find that hard to believe.
No, the advertizing clause (i.e., you must advertize the Regents of the University of California) in the original BSD license is GPL-incompatible.
Nothing in the GPL permits you to claim that the software is endorsed by the University of California, therefore the no-advertizing clause does not restrict any right under the GPL.
No.
Cliff Stoll did something like this when he was tracking down hackers at LBL.
The article probably wouldn't have mentioned Cliff for using this technique if he hadn't. :-)
The idea is that the Linux solution is less expensive in the long run, but even if it were not, one could argue that 33% more tax money going partially to a German company is better than less tax money spend to a U.S. company.
How so? Unemployment in Germany is a major argument in favor of going with Linux.