And Google's cache ought to stop anyone from getting any ad revenue.
I don't think so. Google only caches the page's main HTML file. The images,
IFRAMEs, Flash movies, etc. are still loaded from their original webservers,
and that goes for the ads too; it's therefore very likely they are counted.
I think it's much more likely that the database contains cryptographic hashses of GPL'ed code, that cannot be reduced to the code itself. In that case there would not be a GPL violation.
Replying to myself because I've been silly. Scratch the part in parentheses of the parent post. The GPL includes a clause that automatically terminates your rights to use the code in question if you violate the GPL, so open-sourcing your product would in fact not remedy anything and would, if anything, be an additional violation.
My employer already uses an internally-developed GPL-scanner tool which is required to be run across all sources before we release a new product version. The company also requires all developers to take yearly training on the issues of OSS and GPL. We do support the ideas of OSS and GPL, and put out OSS offerings of our own, but it would be financially devastating to us if our commercial products were forced to be open-sourced.
It's a widespread and unfortuate myth that your product automatically becomes subject to the GPL if you (accidentally or otherwise) violate the GPL by including GPL'ed code. In such a case, a copyright violation has been committed and you have to remove the code in question, and possibly pay damages -- but your product will not become open source (unless, of course, you choose to make it open source as a way of remedying the license violation).
Re:Big woop now it's only 3 years behind. FP and F
on
Sarge is Now Frozen
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The comparing methaphor is indeed appropriate, because Debian is a complete
software distribution, not just an OS. The equivalent situation would be
Microsoft not updating
any
of their software for three years.
Also, Windows XP SP2 could well be considered a release of its own,
considering the depth and breath of the changes (as well as the widespread
application breakage).
Sure you can start them concurrently! Just add strategic "&" signs after the commands that start them up and they will start up in background processes of their own.
Let's start with his argument that Linux didn't spring from nothing, which is the same bit you talk about. Uhhh, nobody claimed it did and by claiming that it didn't, he is being disenginious as to what it is people are claiming.
Umm...
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. (From kernel.org, emphasis mine)
Of course, it's a lie (see Minix and GNU) but that is what Mr. Torvalds has always claimed.
but the GPL will be modified so that developers need to comment and document every single change they make
Funny thing is, I think you could argue that the GPL already more or less requires this:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. [...]
Now it doesn't say that the changes actually have to be documented, but I am reading "the date of any change" to mean that the date for each single change needs to be specified, which would necessitate specifying what change belongs to which date, which comes pretty close to documenting the changes.
To get back on-topic, I'm actually curious if Apple is complying with this rule, and if so, with what interpretation of it.:-p
Use command-line commands safely on HFS+ files. Utilities such as cp, mv, tar, rsync now use the same standard APIs as Spotlight and access control lists to handle resource forks properly.
This feature... is so huge.
IOW, it took Apple four years and as many $129 upgrades to finally make their own CLI utilities work with their own fscking file system!
Yeah, that's huge allright. Hugely absurd and laughable.
Note that Apple chose FreeBSD not OpenBSD as the base.
Um, the base of Mac OS X is Darwin, and not any other single
*BSD. Darwin includes parts of different BSD distributions as well as
Apple's own additions.
You have evidently not dealt with OSX very much, either. The menu bar, starting
with the Apple menu, is opened with Ctrl-F2. For further keyboard combinations (and the ability
to customize them), go to the Keyboard and Mouse control panel, under the
Keyboard Shortcuts tab.
You can do almost anything with the keyboard under
Mac OS X, but of course, you have to bother to find out how (duh). How is that
different from any other OS?
Of course, you conveniently ignored the "2.6.10 is looking much better" part as well as the fact that we are at 2.6.11.7 by now (which is incidentally rock-solid over here). I also seem to have heard a thing or two about FreeBSD 5.x problems and that many are sticking to 4.x for that reason. As fir Apple, they finally fixed a well-known, trivial root exploit last week which was discovered back in fscking January! Try again.
What would be cool is if the linux distros had default kernel options, much the way some of the majors have Workstation, Server, etc... that would adjust the kernel based on how the machine was being used.
Slackware has this (or something rather like this) -- it comes with a whole set of kernels compiled for different kinds of hardware.
SELinux is already in the linux kernel, at least I get it as an option when compiling 2.6.11. Of course, most distributions have not turned it on yet, but that's a different matter.
There is no way to continue to use GPL code in a violating way, period.
Exactly. And the cheapest way to get rid of licensing troubles is to release source code of your derivative works (or switch to a better licence).
Too late. The GPL violation has occurred, ergo your license to use the software was automatically revoked at the time of the violation (read section 4 of the GPL). Any such release would simply be a further copyright violation.
Yeah, I'm sure it really helps the average user to be called a fscking n00b and to go RTFM before bothering the developers with their dumb questions.
Developers like to develop, not to support, and most have atrocious people skills. They are not necessarily good support people and relying on them for support is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. Google only caches the page's main HTML file. The images, IFRAMEs, Flash movies, etc. are still loaded from their original webservers, and that goes for the ads too; it's therefore very likely they are counted.
$ tar -cf bill-hilf | feather > bill-hilf-the-traitor.tar.feather
$ _
OK boss, now what? Shall we cat him to /dev/null straight away, or let /dev/urandom loose on him first?
I think it's much more likely that the database contains cryptographic hashses of GPL'ed code, that cannot be reduced to the code itself. In that case there would not be a GPL violation.
Replying to myself because I've been silly. Scratch the part in parentheses of the parent post. The GPL includes a clause that automatically terminates your rights to use the code in question if you violate the GPL, so open-sourcing your product would in fact not remedy anything and would, if anything, be an additional violation.
It's a widespread and unfortuate myth that your product automatically becomes subject to the GPL if you (accidentally or otherwise) violate the GPL by including GPL'ed code. In such a case, a copyright violation has been committed and you have to remove the code in question, and possibly pay damages -- but your product will not become open source (unless, of course, you choose to make it open source as a way of remedying the license violation).
The comparing methaphor is indeed appropriate, because Debian is a complete software distribution, not just an OS. The equivalent situation would be Microsoft not updating any of their software for three years.
Also, Windows XP SP2 could well be considered a release of its own, considering the depth and breath of the changes (as well as the widespread application breakage).
Because Google can't do HTML/CSS properly either, maybe? They're quite the match, when it comes to that.
Sure you can start them concurrently! Just add strategic "&" signs after the commands that start them up and they will start up in background processes of their own.
Umm...
Of course, it's a lie (see Minix and GNU) but that is what Mr. Torvalds has always claimed.
Funny thing is, I think you could argue that the GPL already more or less requires this:
Now it doesn't say that the changes actually have to be documented, but I am reading "the date of any change" to mean that the date for each single change needs to be specified, which would necessitate specifying what change belongs to which date, which comes pretty close to documenting the changes.
To get back on-topic, I'm actually curious if Apple is complying with this rule, and if so, with what interpretation of it. :-p
Well -- at least the guy's obviously got balls.
Umm.. ever heard of kernel modules and the plethora of kernel configuration options and methods? I honestly cannot see how you could get even more 'componentized'
So do you really work for Apple, or are you just an elaborate troll?
IOW, it took Apple four years and as many $129 upgrades to finally make their own CLI utilities work with their own fscking file system!
Yeah, that's huge allright. Hugely absurd and laughable.
...and makes a DoS attack trivial.
Um, the base of Mac OS X is Darwin, and not any other single *BSD. Darwin includes parts of different BSD distributions as well as Apple's own additions.
You can do almost anything with the keyboard under Mac OS X, but of course, you have to bother to find out how (duh). How is that different from any other OS?
I use lightweight window and file managers (IceWM and ROX-Filer) and the speed is very acceptable.
Of course, you conveniently ignored the "2.6.10 is looking much better" part as well as the fact that we are at 2.6.11.7 by now (which is incidentally rock-solid over here). I also seem to have heard a thing or two about FreeBSD 5.x problems and that many are sticking to 4.x for that reason. As fir Apple, they finally fixed a well-known, trivial root exploit last week which was discovered back in fscking January! Try again.
Slackware has this (or something rather like this) -- it comes with a whole set of kernels compiled for different kinds of hardware.
This proud owner of an AMD K6 300 MHz has compiled and runs Linux 2.6.11.7 without a hitch, and continues to not see the problem.
SELinux is already in the linux kernel, at least I get it as an option when compiling 2.6.11. Of course, most distributions have not turned it on yet, but that's a different matter.
Too late. The GPL violation has occurred, ergo your license to use the software was automatically revoked at the time of the violation (read section 4 of the GPL). Any such release would simply be a further copyright violation.
Yeah, I'm sure it really helps the average user to be called a fscking n00b and to go RTFM before bothering the developers with their dumb questions.
Developers like to develop, not to support, and most have atrocious people skills. They are not necessarily good support people and relying on them for support is silly.
What's more, it's not even his sig. I have sigs turned off, but I still see it -- so the troll inserts it manually in every message.