Provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty
And where do we have a statemtent that they do not?
PJ claims there's nothing on the cover (I haven't seen it) and then dismisses the EULA (mentioning the GPL in the EULA would be irrelevant, as has been previously overdiscussed on/. and elsewhere).
Every package states its license terms. I'm running JDS at the moment (sorry,/. don't seem to want me to use the PRE tag), and a full "rpm -qi" is apparently "junk"...
steve@fred:~> rpm -qi bash Name : bash License: GPL
That advertises quite clearly that it's "License: GPL". Sun's changes are more to the GNOME side of things, though; no one package (they're all GPL, trust me) so we'll pick one:
steve@fred:~> rpm -qi gnome-desktop Name : gnome-desktop License: LGPL
That's LGPL. A GPL Gnome package? Okay then:
steve@fred:~> rpm -qi gnome-media Name : gnome-media License: GPL
I'm sure Sun's lawyers would love an out-and-out accusation, as it would give them 5 minutes worth of entertainment.
-Java desktop may be violating the spirit if not the wording of the GPL.
"May be" (according to some vague allegations from PJ) but, I'm quite sure, *are not*.
Sun do employ their own lawyers, you know - they've been in this business over 2 decades, and without Sun buying and GPL'ing OpenOffice.org, it's hard to say where any other Linux distributer would be in the market. Abiword? Puhleease.
IBM... are providing... Linux kernel code.... because it helps stretch the kernel into doing the things they need it to do for their interests.
Well said. Nobody cares whether Linux run on a Z-series other than IBM, who are stuck with a pile of ancient mainframes their customers are threatening to throw out of the window.
Really, who here needs mainframe Linux? Enough to bother to port it? Anybody who's still got your hand up, put it down if you have an @ibm.com email address.
IBM contribute to Linux because it's better than AIX; Sun contribute to GNOME because it's better than CDE.
Neither have much choice - create your own, or join a GPL'd project under the terms of the GPL. Both seem perfectly willing to accept this.
Next time, I supppose we'll be hearing PJ having a go at IBM for not open-sourcing Lotus Notes, or because their mainframe technology is proprietary?
I agree entirely; let's also consider a world without Java - it'd be.NET or nothing. For the past decade, it would just be nothing.
Not my choice.
RMS accepted closed-source kernels, compilers, etc etc as a functional alternative to what the FSF could not create.
Complaining about Java translates to "I want.NET or no interoperability" which implies a total lack of understanding of how IT infrastructures are constructed.
I "gave it away", under the GPL, as a developer with the understanding that should any changes to my code would be "paid back" to me and the community. I "gave it away" with the understanding that if someone has the binary, they can ask for and recieve the original source code, so they could compile it themselves, make changes (if needed or wanted), and release these changes back to the world under the GPL - thus making (on the whole) the entire piece of software all the more better.
What did you give away, that Sun stole?
What changes have Sun made to any GPL code, without contributing them back?
Be specific. Fuck it, be vague, you won't find anything. They have read the GPL, and they do have lawyers, you know.
It's all above-board, and we all know it.
Within the words and spirit of the GPL.
Why the fsck do the/. crowd bleat "you bastards" so readily with no reason?
Grow up and RTFM (or at least, RTF GPL and RTFA)
This is another example how how un-free the GPL philosphy is, and why BSD licensing is the best way to go.
BS. It's another example of how FUD works both ways. This article is pure anti-proprietary FUD, and makes no reference to the GPL whatsoever (if it did, it would fall over its heels).
I love the work you've been doing on the SCO case on Groklaw, but this is just "anybody-proprietary-is-evil" blurb.
RealPlayer is closed-source, and available with JDS. Don't like it? Don't get it.
Ditto for StarOffice. You've got the Sun-sponsored OpenOffice.org (mainly staffed by Sun developers).
Where is anybody denying the GPL? The GPL expressly allows such an approach, indeed seems, if anything, quite in favour of it. Will you be bashing RMS next for selling tapes of Emacs?
JS: don't just add more lumps of source code into the source tree but deliver value to customers
PJ: Sick to your stomach yet?
He didn't say "don't add", he said "don't *just* add" - GNOME's internationalisation would be half what it currently is without Sun developers adding their contribution, let alone accessability, which seems to be driven almost entirely by people with @sun.com addresses.
JS: To us, it's really emblematic of the nature of the relationship we have with Microsoft, which is a deeply held belief that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that interoperability between Sun and Microsoft grows the overall market for both of our products rather than advantages one company versus another."
PJ: Microsoft? That Microsoft? The one twice found guilty of antitrust violations? That Microsoft believes that a rising tide lifts all boats? Is Sun in for a shock someday.
He's stating Sun's view, not claiming that it's MS's view. Where does he say that MS view it that way? He's saying that, whether MS like it or not, Sun's agreement with MS can benefit JDS (seems pretty obvious, and fully in line with the letter and meaning of the GPL).
If you look at the relationship between Sun and MS, it's pretty clear how Sun view the Evil Empire. I don't think they've suddenly bought a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
JS: We're very bullish on the future of the network and very bullish on the future of intellectual property in open source as well as in open standards to continue to drive that opportunity
If that was from RMS, it would be interpreted in the exactly oppsite way that JP interprets it. Granted, "either choice is a safe choice" is quite clearly untrue. Don't know what he'd just smoked at that point.
PJ:It will push open standards as being what you really want, not open source.
And isn't that what we really get from F/OSS? Would we all hate MS as much if.DOC was an open standard with closed source?.HTML is an open standard, so we can have Mozilla, Opera, even IE (when it chooses to implement standards).
Yes, there's a significant difference when it comes to certain points - I can incorporate your code into my own "larger" code, but in reality, open standards pretty much allow that already.
One major point of Free/Open Source software is that Sun can take Mozilla, GNOME, improve them, and feed them back to the community (who don't necessarily want *every* change Sun chose to make, but are desperate for the internationalisation and accessibility that Sun need to add to sell it to the standards their customers expect). The GPL means they can do it, and means they have to feed it back.
Are we getting offtopic here? Why do I need to remind PJ what the GPL says? Methinks PJ's got some FUD in her mind.
PJ: It [Sun] intends to be the substitute for free/open source software. Here you go: Brand X Linux. And it intends to destroy the Internet. If you think that sounds wonderful, stop and consider that if Sun gets its way, there would never be a Groklaw. Microsoft never did get the Internet. It thinks all we want to do is buy stuff. So, that's their plan, Stan.
"'The . in.com' wants to destroy the internet". That's a fine quote. Where did you find it in the previous statements?
The only statement in this paragraph anyone with any knowledge
Install Windows on the same PC; you're likely to experience the same problems.
I have a Dell Latitude C640, and reinstalled Win2K on it (having fdisk'd the HDD a few times). The built-in LAN (3c59x) card is totally unpredictable under Windows - may get a working connection, or it might show up as "disabled" (and not, apparently, enablable) - even two cards might show up, both disabled!
Works fine every time under Linux, and I can even switch from static / DHCP configs without (still!) requiring a reboot. I thought W2K didn't need to reboot anymore for such things, but it seems that it does.
My only need for Windows is that the laptop has a WinModem and my employer is too cheap to get a PCMCIA modem for the ~10 laptops with these non-modems.
Windows "just works" because someone else configured it, and even then, only just. To (randomly) fail to recognise a 3com LAN chipset is typical for SCO UNIX, not something I expect from a preinstalled OS.
Why do businesses standardise on MS?
While it's easiest to get MS Windows anyway, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and not the real reason.
People use Windows at home, so if they use the same thing in the office, employees provide free self-training to the employer.
Look at the job specs requiring "Word, Excel skills", or how "PowerPoint" has replaced "Slide show" as a generic word.
People will give *themselves* these skills to get jobs - there's no point learning OOo to put it on your CV, and there's no point advertising for OOo users.
Conversley, once someone is in a job, they will learn the tools they are given, be it a green-screen VT100, WinXP, OpenOffice.org, or anything else. If that's what is provided, and can do the job, that is what people will use.
The employer has the power to prescribe a (working) system and employees with MS skills simply have to relearn to keep their jobs.
I've seen this happen in countless businesses.
To counterbalance again, my wife is a secretary, loves MS Word, hates OOo simply beacuse it's different to what she knows - any failure to match her MS expectations are x100; any new feature not in MS offerings are considered insignificant.
Google is a black box - they have every right to be. Your unique product - do you tell all your competitors what makes your product unique, exactly how it works, how to hack it?
Thought not. Nor do Google.
I'm not particularly defending Google here, I'm just pointing out that they have a business, and you have a business. Neither of you are in the habit of publishing the business secrets which make you better than the rest.
The googlewatch.com site claims that a GET includes your IP address: "
your search terms end up on the same line as your IP address in standard web logs all over the world with the GET method.
"...
any http request is put over an IP packet which includes your IP address (otherwise you would not get a response,) but the GET itself does not:
http://www.google.com/search?q=linux
No IP addy's there.
What they are talking about is HTTP_REFERER [sic] logs. Still gets logged if you POST or GET. If you connect to me, tell me what you want, and who you are, I am capable of logging it. Tough.
Nothing to do with Google or search.
Your second link includes the quote:
"Google currently does not allow outsiders to gain access to raw data because of privacy concerns. Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address"
So, yes, Google, Slashdot, and every site you visit more likely than not stores such "fascinating" details about you as your browser version, IP address, time of visit, pages viewed, etc.
And?
Still, have to admit, Sendmail is a piece of sh*t.
Swapped it for Exim after 2003's first exploit, and sailed through the other ones with no grief.
Exim is much easier to configure, too - I run about a dozen domains, many with slightly different configs / requirements.
Exim handles it gracefully. No hacks required.
Nearly right.
HTML docs are "executable" because they can automatically invoke Java
You link to trojan-{ASDSADSAFHDAKFDJFJDA}-horse.pdf (where the {ASDASFADFDFA} crap is what tells IE that it's text/html, not PDF.
The "Open" dialog looks at the ".pdf" and says it's a PDF; when you click "Open", instead of launching Acrobat to view a PDF file, Windows says "the {ASDASASFAASD} tells me it's text/html - I'll use Internet Explorer, not Acrobat".
So you were expecting an innocent PDF document, and you get an HTML web page, presumably containing JavaScript or similar which will is executable.
Offsite recipient presumably means when your mail server is (legitimately) relaying email.
Eg, forwarding alice@example.com to alice@australia.example.com, Bill@example.com to bill@brazil.example.com, etc. Maybe even charlie@example.com to charlie@hotmail.com.
So it goes to their local mail relay.
Some totally irrelevant stuff, some porn, but as Walterk has pointed out, the article you're thinking of is not by Monty Python.
As a Python fan, I didn't have any idea what you were talking about - thanks Walter for translating his scrambled brain into coherence.
Google aren't responsible for translating your incorrect ideas into fact.
I think you're right; Sun's x86 strategy has been all over the place before Linux even came into the picture.
With JDS, they are finally getting that they can do the sums (the analysts knock them for doing only high-level stuff, the customers knock them for ignoring Linux) - remain one of the few high-end server companies, and get the so-called "volume" market (high volume, low margin, which Sun don't like) together.
Translation of Marketing Buzzwords: JDS=Java Desktop System; JES=Java Enterprise System - ignore the names (particularly the word "Java"); JDS=Desktop, JES=Server
A few hundred or thousand desktops (JDS) with a few (JES) servers behind them, actually fits in with Sun's 20-odd-year-old strategy pretty well - "the network is the computer."
A few big servers, a few thousand manageable clients. Sounds good to me, as a vendor, sysadmin, user, etc... and no MS licensing. Clear prices for the lot.
Ah, bless. Must be nice, in your world.
So the US will give up governance of Iraq in July. Actually, I find that very easy to believe. "We liberated you, the fact that you didn't want to be liberated isn't our problem any more, much less the anarchy we've left behind" - Pontious Pilate washed his hands, too.
Please look up the word "infidel" - anybody can use it against anyone else here; the fact remains that before 9/11, America had no control over Iraq's oil fields, and now it has control over them. You can shout until you're blue in the face (please do) that it wasn't about oil, but the end result is plainly visble. (even, risible).
We can, of course, choose to ignore history as suits best (something America seems so good at, as it has none) but America and the UK put Saddam into power in the first place.
Detail, of course;-)
SfU has existed for years, and does do more than include some GPL code (as I originally thought, 2 years ago), but what reason have they for relicensing now?
Slashdot Mirror
And where do we have a statemtent that they do not? /. and elsewhere).
PJ claims there's nothing on the cover (I haven't seen it) and then dismisses the EULA (mentioning the GPL in the EULA would be irrelevant, as has been previously overdiscussed on
Every package states its license terms. I'm running JDS at the moment (sorry, /. don't seem to want me to use the PRE tag), and a full "rpm -qi" is apparently "junk"...
That advertises quite clearly that it's "License: GPL". Sun's changes are more to the GNOME side of things, though; no one package (they're all GPL, trust me) so we'll pick one:
That's LGPL. A GPL Gnome package? Okay then:
I'm sure Sun's lawyers would love an out-and-out accusation, as it would give them 5 minutes worth of entertainment.
"May be" (according to some vague allegations from PJ) but, I'm quite sure, *are not*.
Sun do employ their own lawyers, you know - they've been in this business over 2 decades, and without Sun buying and GPL'ing OpenOffice.org, it's hard to say where any other Linux distributer would be in the market. Abiword? Puhleease.
Really, who here needs mainframe Linux? Enough to bother to port it? Anybody who's still got your hand up, put it down if you have an @ibm.com email address.
IBM contribute to Linux because it's better than AIX; Sun contribute to GNOME because it's better than CDE.
Neither have much choice - create your own, or join a GPL'd project under the terms of the GPL. Both seem perfectly willing to accept this.
Next time, I supppose we'll be hearing PJ having a go at IBM for not open-sourcing Lotus Notes, or because their mainframe technology is proprietary?
Not my choice.
RMS accepted closed-source kernels, compilers, etc etc as a functional alternative to what the FSF could not create.
Complaining about Java translates to "I want .NET or no interoperability" which implies a total lack of understanding of how IT infrastructures are constructed.
What did you give away, that Sun stole?
What changes have Sun made to any GPL code, without contributing them back?
Be specific. Fuck it, be vague, you won't find anything. They have read the GPL, and they do have lawyers, you know.
It's all above-board, and we all know it.
Within the words and spirit of the GPL.
Why the fsck do the /. crowd bleat "you bastards" so readily with no reason?
Grow up and RTFM (or at least, RTF GPL and RTFA)
BS. It's another example of how FUD works both ways. This article is pure anti-proprietary FUD, and makes no reference to the GPL whatsoever (if it did, it would fall over its heels).
RealPlayer is closed-source, and available with JDS. Don't like it? Don't get it.
Ditto for StarOffice. You've got the Sun-sponsored OpenOffice.org (mainly staffed by Sun developers).
Where is anybody denying the GPL? The GPL expressly allows such an approach, indeed seems, if anything, quite in favour of it. Will you be bashing RMS next for selling tapes of Emacs?
He didn't say "don't add", he said "don't *just* add" - GNOME's internationalisation would be half what it currently is without Sun developers adding their contribution, let alone accessability, which seems to be driven almost entirely by people with @sun.com addresses.
He's stating Sun's view, not claiming that it's MS's view. Where does he say that MS view it that way? He's saying that, whether MS like it or not, Sun's agreement with MS can benefit JDS (seems pretty obvious, and fully in line with the letter and meaning of the GPL).
If you look at the relationship between Sun and MS, it's pretty clear how Sun view the Evil Empire. I don't think they've suddenly bought a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
If that was from RMS, it would be interpreted in the exactly oppsite way that JP interprets it. Granted, "either choice is a safe choice" is quite clearly untrue. Don't know what he'd just smoked at that point.
And isn't that what we really get from F/OSS? Would we all hate MS as much if .DOC was an open standard with closed source? .HTML is an open standard, so we can have Mozilla, Opera, even IE (when it chooses to implement standards).
Yes, there's a significant difference when it comes to certain points - I can incorporate your code into my own "larger" code, but in reality, open standards pretty much allow that already.
One major point of Free/Open Source software is that Sun can take Mozilla, GNOME, improve them, and feed them back to the community (who don't necessarily want *every* change Sun chose to make, but are desperate for the internationalisation and accessibility that Sun need to add to sell it to the standards their customers expect). The GPL means they can do it, and means they have to feed it back.
Are we getting offtopic here? Why do I need to remind PJ what the GPL says? Methinks PJ's got some FUD in her mind.
"'The . in .com' wants to destroy the internet". That's a fine quote. Where did you find it in the previous statements?
The only statement in this paragraph anyone with any knowledge
Read http://today.java.net/jag/page7.html#59
Anyone can implement their own Java, have it tested against the suite, and call it Java.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it
So if the "preferred form" of programming a TI-83 is Assembly notated in hex, then that would seem to be okay.
I have a Dell Latitude C640, and reinstalled Win2K on it (having fdisk'd the HDD a few times). The built-in LAN (3c59x) card is totally unpredictable under Windows - may get a working connection, or it might show up as "disabled" (and not, apparently, enablable) - even two cards might show up, both disabled! Works fine every time under Linux, and I can even switch from static / DHCP configs without (still!) requiring a reboot. I thought W2K didn't need to reboot anymore for such things, but it seems that it does.
My only need for Windows is that the laptop has a WinModem and my employer is too cheap to get a PCMCIA modem for the ~10 laptops with these non-modems.
Windows "just works" because someone else configured it, and even then, only just. To (randomly) fail to recognise a 3com LAN chipset is typical for SCO UNIX, not something I expect from a preinstalled OS.
While it's easiest to get MS Windows anyway, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and not the real reason.
People use Windows at home, so if they use the same thing in the office, employees provide free self-training to the employer.
Look at the job specs requiring "Word, Excel skills", or how "PowerPoint" has replaced "Slide show" as a generic word.
People will give *themselves* these skills to get jobs - there's no point learning OOo to put it on your CV, and there's no point advertising for OOo users.
Conversley, once someone is in a job, they will learn the tools they are given, be it a green-screen VT100, WinXP, OpenOffice.org, or anything else. If that's what is provided, and can do the job, that is what people will use.
The employer has the power to prescribe a (working) system and employees with MS skills simply have to relearn to keep their jobs.
I've seen this happen in countless businesses.
To counterbalance again, my wife is a secretary, loves MS Word, hates OOo simply beacuse it's different to what she knows - any failure to match her MS expectations are x100; any new feature not in MS offerings are considered insignificant.
Psychology is more significant than technology.
That's what they're telling you to do.
Great protest.
Thought not. Nor do Google.
I'm not particularly defending Google here, I'm just pointing out that they have a business, and you have a business. Neither of you are in the habit of publishing the business secrets which make you better than the rest.
http://www.google.com/search?q=linux
No IP addy's there.
What they are talking about is HTTP_REFERER [sic] logs. Still gets logged if you POST or GET. If you connect to me, tell me what you want, and who you are, I am capable of logging it. Tough.
Nothing to do with Google or search.
Your second link includes the quote:
"Google currently does not allow outsiders to gain access to raw data because of privacy concerns. Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address"
So, yes, Google, Slashdot, and every site you visit more likely than not stores such "fascinating" details about you as your browser version, IP address, time of visit, pages viewed, etc.
And?
"hi, i'm home, its me, this is my pgp key, turn on the lights and wake up the studio ..." :-)
OMG!!! Hope nobody steals your jacket
In summary: :-)
Rock beats scissors, scissors beat paper, paper beats rock, and monopoly beats darwinism
Still, have to admit, Sendmail is a piece of sh*t.
Swapped it for Exim after 2003's first exploit, and sailed through the other ones with no grief.
Exim is much easier to configure, too - I run about a dozen domains, many with slightly different configs / requirements.
Exim handles it gracefully. No hacks required.
Nearly right.
HTML docs are "executable" because they can automatically invoke Java
You link to trojan-{ASDSADSAFHDAKFDJFJDA}-horse.pdf (where the {ASDASFADFDFA} crap is what tells IE that it's text/html, not PDF.
The "Open" dialog looks at the ".pdf" and says it's a PDF; when you click "Open", instead of launching Acrobat to view a PDF file, Windows says "the {ASDASASFAASD} tells me it's text/html - I'll use Internet Explorer, not Acrobat".
So you were expecting an innocent PDF document, and you get an HTML web page, presumably containing JavaScript or similar which will is executable.
Getting everyone still on 56k dialup to spend 3 hours a week downloading patches isn't easy, either.
Offsite recipient presumably means when your mail server is (legitimately) relaying email. Eg, forwarding alice@example.com to alice@australia.example.com, Bill@example.com to bill@brazil.example.com, etc. Maybe even charlie@example.com to charlie@hotmail.com. So it goes to their local mail relay.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea bagging
Not very work-safe.
Some totally irrelevant stuff, some porn, but as Walterk has pointed out, the article you're thinking of is not by Monty Python.
As a Python fan, I didn't have any idea what you were talking about - thanks Walter for translating his scrambled brain into coherence.
Google aren't responsible for translating your incorrect ideas into fact.
I think you're right; Sun's x86 strategy has been all over the place before Linux even came into the picture.
With JDS, they are finally getting that they can do the sums (the analysts knock them for doing only high-level stuff, the customers knock them for ignoring Linux) - remain one of the few high-end server companies, and get the so-called "volume" market (high volume, low margin, which Sun don't like) together. Translation of Marketing Buzzwords: JDS=Java Desktop System; JES=Java Enterprise System - ignore the names (particularly the word "Java"); JDS=Desktop, JES=Server A few hundred or thousand desktops (JDS) with a few (JES) servers behind them, actually fits in with Sun's 20-odd-year-old strategy pretty well - "the network is the computer." A few big servers, a few thousand manageable clients. Sounds good to me, as a vendor, sysadmin, user, etc... and no MS licensing. Clear prices for the lot.
Ah, bless. Must be nice, in your world. So the US will give up governance of Iraq in July. Actually, I find that very easy to believe. "We liberated you, the fact that you didn't want to be liberated isn't our problem any more, much less the anarchy we've left behind" - Pontious Pilate washed his hands, too. Please look up the word "infidel" - anybody can use it against anyone else here; the fact remains that before 9/11, America had no control over Iraq's oil fields, and now it has control over them. You can shout until you're blue in the face (please do) that it wasn't about oil, but the end result is plainly visble. (even, risible). We can, of course, choose to ignore history as suits best (something America seems so good at, as it has none) but America and the UK put Saddam into power in the first place. Detail, of course ;-)
SfU has existed for years, and does do more than include some GPL code (as I originally thought, 2 years ago), but what reason have they for relicensing now?