Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on Windows, OSX, Unix, Linux and which uses an open standard for locking, authentication, encryption, ACLs etc.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio. Clippy, the Microsoft assistant, was found dead in his Redmond, Seattle apartment this morning. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Microsoft ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Microsoft (obviously) also "protects" their customers from all those same patents.
That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.
The Novell case is different because Novell is distributing, and Microsoft owns (or possibly will own in the future) patents in that code. So while Novell are bound by the GPL in this particular case, Microsoft isn't.
Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place?
The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software. What you can't do is link GPL'd software with closed source.
I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims.
Are you thinking of the "Affero Hack" ? That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code. AIUI, that will be an *optional* addition in the GPL 3.
How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well?
All of that is fine, because those programs don't link with GPL code.
What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?
Because many see it as a deliberate attempt to get around section 7 of the GPL, by having one group provide the patent "protection", and another group doing the actual distribution.
It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.
The GPL *is* forking. There will be version 2 code, and version 3 code. But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL (any version). If you read the current version, and the proposed draft, then you will find that most of your questions have already been answered.
A better one would be, is your house more secure if you publish the blueprints and photos of it online, and allow any architect or security specialist in the world to view them, suggest changes, and if you like the suggestions, they will come to your house and carry out the work for you (often for free).
On the other hand, every thief in the world can also study those blueprints and photos...
There is no problem with anybody distributing GPL code, provided they abide by the law and the spirit of the GPL.
The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.
The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).
1. If patented code is in there, its being placed there knowingly/mistakenly by Novell, the project can deny it knew it was patented and further, can take steps to remove the offending code.
Sure they can, but imagine the disruption that would cause. Having to post an update that provides less features is not good publicity for Free Software.
2. Is this any different from an employee (ex or current) adding patented code into a GPL project? There is no ban/special treatment of employees of companies with software patents.
You are correct, but most developers would try to avoid patented code. Whereas Novell have an incentive to actually include patented code in GPL projects.
3. Code still has to be accepted into a project. Why not let the individual project leaders decide if they trust Novell or not?
So what are you saying ? *All* patches from Novell employees should be rejected ?
Why is it, that people sound so surprised whenever Apple does something they don't like ? Apple is not some kind of charity or a philanthropic society, it's a business like any other, and they will do whatever it takes to make a profit.
Whether that means adding DRM to music, locking out rival operating systems, or only selling certain music to certain people because the labels don't want them to, if it increases their profit, they will do it.
Slashdot Mirror
...never mind all that, does it run on Linux ?
a) Have you ever actually used Open Office ? How recent a version ?
b) What features were missing from OO which you use in MS Office ?
Just curious.
Well, that was the idea with CIFS. Microsoft embraced it, and then extended it to become SMB.
Good link.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio. Clippy, the Microsoft assistant, was found dead in his Redmond, Seattle apartment this morning. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
This means nothing to me
Oh Vienna
...and you'll need all 5 if you want to run the Aero Glass interface in Vista.
That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.
The Novell case is different because Novell is distributing, and Microsoft owns (or possibly will own in the future) patents in that code. So while Novell are bound by the GPL in this particular case, Microsoft isn't.
Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place?
The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software. What you can't do is link GPL'd software with closed source.
I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims.
Are you thinking of the "Affero Hack" ? That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code. AIUI, that will be an *optional* addition in the GPL 3.
How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well?
All of that is fine, because those programs don't link with GPL code.
What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?
Because many see it as a deliberate attempt to get around section 7 of the GPL, by having one group provide the patent "protection", and another group doing the actual distribution.
It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.
The GPL *is* forking. There will be version 2 code, and version 3 code. But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL (any version). If you read the current version, and the proposed draft, then you will find that most of your questions have already been answered.
Your analogy is also wrong !
A better one would be, is your house more secure if you publish the blueprints and photos of it online, and allow any architect or security specialist in the world to view them, suggest changes, and if you like the suggestions, they will come to your house and carry out the work for you (often for free).
On the other hand, every thief in the world can also study those blueprints and photos...
There is no problem with anybody distributing GPL code, provided they abide by the law and the spirit of the GPL.
The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.
The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).
Well, a temporary situation I hope :-)
No video editing for Ubuntu ?
Here you go:
http://www.getdeb.net/release.php?id=265
That was meant as a reply. I screwed up.
Mods on crack again ?
Sure they can, but imagine the disruption that would cause. Having to post an update that provides less features is not good publicity for Free Software.
2. Is this any different from an employee (ex or current) adding patented code into a GPL project? There is no ban/special treatment of employees of companies with software patents.
You are correct, but most developers would try to avoid patented code. Whereas Novell have an incentive to actually include patented code in GPL projects.
3. Code still has to be accepted into a project. Why not let the individual project leaders decide if they trust Novell or not?
So what are you saying ? *All* patches from Novell employees should be rejected ?
Use more zeros and fewer ones.
Since I can't view the flash, would somebody be kind enough to explain the article in *English* ?
So how many Free Software projects has Bill's charity funded ?
How much have they donated to the OLPC project ?
Is that the American word for "missile" or something ?
To help people identify and avoid Digitally Restricted products, many of them are now tagged on Amazon:
Link
You join a network, and it forces you to run a p2p program or something ? How does that work then ?
Did you forget ? deCSS was developed by a Norwegian, and he *won a prize* from the Norwegian govt. for developing it.
Why is it, that people sound so surprised whenever Apple does something they don't like ? Apple is not some kind of charity or a philanthropic society, it's a business like any other, and they will do whatever it takes to make a profit.
Whether that means adding DRM to music, locking out rival operating systems, or only selling certain music to certain people because the labels don't want them to, if it increases their profit, they will do it.
So your original post was wrong - DRM does stop me doing something with the disc.
So I will be able to play it on my Linux system then ?
That's good to know.