Openoffice???? I would imagine that such a little computer would be far better of with light weight programs.... abiword and gnumeric come to mind... I have run them on a 120Mhz pentium and it worked just great.
Because a laptop with a reasonable battery and a good powersupply will let you work on sub standard power grid.... Your desktop pc is going crazy as soon as the ac outlet produces something funny.
It is not reasonable at all... I am being falsly accused and fined for violating someones copyright everytime I buy a CD-R even though the contents I burn on them are perfectly legal. (i.e. the last CDs I burned were linux distros)
Yep. No problems here. Tridge didn't know that he was accessing something that wasn't for public access, didn't know that it was a BitKeeper daemon, and didn't know that there was a pesky license agreement that forbade what he was doing.
Downloading something from a publicly accessable server using no authentification whatsoever is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with the bitkeeper license. If I download a html file from a http server the Apache foundation can say whatever they want but they couldn't stop me...
In most jurisdictions connecting to a server and simply requesting data (e.g. sending a GET to a HTTP server) is perfectly legal regardless what license the http daemon was distributed with. Only when you have to circumvent authentification (i.e. pretend to be someone else) it gets nasty.
If you connected to my system and got some stuff off my webserver it would be perfectly fine. If you used a rootkit to get a shell you would be in trouble.
Often computers are just thrown into a classroom expected to do miracles on their own.... Add to that teachers that know less about them than the students and you get a nice mess....
Computers can do wonderfull things but you have to use them right, they should only be used to add something usefull like better representations. They should be used to teach things USING computers not just to teach 'computer'.
You might be using it, but it makes you look stupid if you want to be taken serious in the linux world. The same with your second point. While just dumping crap on the doorstep might make you a few friends you won't get the same kind of welcome as when you release nice clean code and play along with the other kids.
Read the codingstyle document and look at what others are putting into the kernel! The biggest mistake is some idiot using unusual function names, spreading his driver over atleast ten files and using 2 character indents or no indentation at all. Especially if your source is ported from windows (or the programmer has only windows experience) make sure you do this right.
Section 3c:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
This means that if you get a binary with offer you can give a copy to your neighbour (no money involved, noncommercial) and just supply him with a copy off the original offer (from the guy you got it from) instead of offering the source code yourself.
So if cherryOS was distributed noncommercially they could just put a note on it saying you can get the source at pearpc. But only if they got the binaries from pearpc and it seems they made their own.
They have to offer the source (even if not modified) if they distribute binaries. There is an exemption in the GPL if it is really small scale distribution (ie your neighbour) but they are aiming to high for that.
Under the GPL any software can be "hijacked" and sold on the commercial standpoint as another name.
Yes you can sell it under another name and ask a billion for it... But you still have to acknowledge that there is GPL code in it and have to supply the source code upon request.
The GPL doesn't permit just distributing binaries wihtout informing the receivers what the License terms are. They should atleast put a notice with it saying 'This contains GPL code, send your request for the source here:'
You mean besides lying about it, and not telling people they have a right to the source code? (He should have supplied the License allong with the binary)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you an American?
(That would explain why you don't know shit about Kilo, Mega and Giga....)
Openoffice????
I would imagine that such a little computer would be far better of with light weight programs.... abiword and gnumeric come to mind... I have run them on a 120Mhz pentium and it worked just great.
Because a laptop with a reasonable battery and a good powersupply will let you work on sub standard power grid....
Your desktop pc is going crazy as soon as the ac outlet produces something funny.
They are offering a fixed-price deal to NASA....
Wow, you have one shitty excuse for an astronomy book.... Does it mention the canals?
Because they have yet to find intelligence on the other side of the pond.
It is not reasonable at all...
I am being falsly accused and fined for violating someones copyright everytime I buy a CD-R even though the contents I burn on them are perfectly legal. (i.e. the last CDs I burned were linux distros)
GUN Linux
Eric, is that you?
Cubesats are 10cmx10cmx10cm, or sometimes three of such blocks connected together. You don't use a P4 on such a satellite for obvious reasons.
No, throwing a stone through your neighbour's window is illegal.....
He has said that a specialized network sniffer was used for the BitMover reverse engineering.
When/where did he say that?
The rest off the world he told he used a specialized tool called 'telnet'....
Jeroen
It is what he did... He accessed a publicly available server and after saying 'help' the server assisted him in getting the data.
Jeroen
Yep. No problems here. Tridge didn't know that he was accessing something that wasn't for public access, didn't know that it was a BitKeeper daemon, and didn't know that there was a pesky license agreement that forbade what he was doing.
Downloading something from a publicly accessable server using no authentification whatsoever is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with the bitkeeper license.
If I download a html file from a http server the Apache foundation can say whatever they want but they couldn't stop me...
Jeroen
In most jurisdictions connecting to a server and simply requesting data (e.g. sending a GET to a HTTP server) is perfectly legal regardless what license the http daemon was distributed with.
Only when you have to circumvent authentification (i.e. pretend to be someone else) it gets nasty.
If you connected to my system and got some stuff off my webserver it would be perfectly fine. If you used a rootkit to get a shell you would be in trouble.
Jeroen
Yep, GPL (v2)...
Its in the file called 'COPYING'.....
Often computers are just thrown into a classroom expected to do miracles on their own....
Add to that teachers that know less about them than the students and you get a nice mess....
Computers can do wonderfull things but you have to use them right, they should only be used to add something usefull like better representations.
They should be used to teach things USING computers not just to teach 'computer'.
Jeroen
You might be using it, but it makes you look stupid if you want to be taken serious in the linux world.
The same with your second point. While just dumping crap on the doorstep might make you a few friends you won't get the same kind of welcome as when you release nice clean code and play along with the other kids.
Jeroen
Read the codingstyle document and look at what others are putting into the kernel!
The biggest mistake is some idiot using unusual function names, spreading his driver over atleast ten files and using 2 character indents or no indentation at all.
Especially if your source is ported from windows (or the programmer has only windows experience) make sure you do this right.
Jeroen
Couldn't you force them to pay you the money they would have had to spend if they had someone write it for them legally?
Section 3c:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
This means that if you get a binary with offer you can give a copy to your neighbour (no money involved, noncommercial) and just supply him with a copy off the original offer (from the guy you got it from) instead of offering the source code yourself.
So if cherryOS was distributed noncommercially they could just put a note on it saying you can get the source at pearpc. But only if they got the binaries from pearpc and it seems they made their own.
Jeroen
They have to offer the source (even if not modified) if they distribute binaries. There is an exemption in the GPL if it is really small scale distribution (ie your neighbour) but they are aiming to high for that.
Jeroen
Under the GPL any software can be "hijacked" and sold on the commercial standpoint as another name.
Yes you can sell it under another name and ask a billion for it... But you still have to acknowledge that there is GPL code in it and have to supply the source code upon request.
Jeroen
The GPL doesn't permit just distributing binaries wihtout informing the receivers what the License terms are.
They should atleast put a notice with it saying 'This contains GPL code, send your request for the source here:'
Jeroen
You mean besides lying about it, and not telling people they have a right to the source code?
(He should have supplied the License allong with the binary)
Jeroen
With a GPL'd driver, you can't have this running on other platforms. At least not legally.
You can use the gpl'd driver as documentation for writing a new driver....
You just can't cut and paste it.