It looks like we are finally getting somewhere. You say "the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work". Can you give me an authoritative reference on this, or should I take your word for it? For example, has this been challenged in court?
By the way, in case you get lost regarding the subject of the thread, you can always consult the title of the original post.
I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.
If I distribute Linux with a GUI on top, many people (of the general public) would qualify the total package as a derived work. I cannot do such a thing with Windows. I can do it with Linux, but some restrictions might apply. What these restrictions are seems to be not 100% clear (except to you maybe).
Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.
I can dynamically link my code to one of the Windows redistributables and distribute the complete software without GPL-like restrictions, because the license allows me to. The GPL license does not automatically give me this right.
It's interesting that you think that Linus' preamble does exempt Linux from some of the GPL requirements. Personally, I thought so too, but quite a few people here (and online in general) have a different opinion.
I fail to see how the fact that "I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun." and "I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots" sheds any light on the relationship between Linux and the GPL. Maybe the reasoning is that if I were a proper slashdotter then I'd know that Linux and the GPL are near-perfect and I wouldn't be asking these irrelevant, trolling, astroturfing questions?
What kind of a worthless argument is that? Read the Windows license. It's nothing at all like the GPL. Besides, Linus' comment in the copyright file does not necessarily have legal value. One judge might take into account, another might not.
By the way, I like you ad hominem argument at the end of your reply. It illustrates well the value of your comments.
I see. So, depending on the country where a device is distributed, one might get sued for shipping a device based on linux and not GPLing the applications running on it?
Interesting. So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer? The layer itself of course would be GPL.
To protect its IP, the CE company that I work for does not allow the use of GPL or LGPL code in production software. It's a good thing that Linux system calls are excepted from the normal GPL rules, otherwise we wouldn't have seen its massive success in embedded devices.
I'm afraid it goes much further than that. There was no warning whatsoever about the facial hair shown in the video. I had to get up 3 times last night to calm down my daughter. She happened to sit next to me when I played the video.
symbolset, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Maybe you should find yourself another forum, where people are more gentle?
It was already the 6th when I posted the message, but just not so in your timezone. Anyway, the RTM was not yet available through MSDN, so I was wrong saying that people were already downloading it. So, the reviewer must indeed have gotten it from a different source.
I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun. I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots. I do have an older account, with an ID much smaller than yours, but I don't see much point in using it these days.
If you don't like the UI of MS Office 2007, just don't use the software. Microsoft is not forcing you and nobody is forcing you to work at a company that requires you to use it.
Same thing goes for Open Office. If you don't like the upcoming version, don't use it.
Personally I like change, even if it means learning new stuff. But I do understand that quite a few people don't want to change their ways.
- reactionary: a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
My colleague sitting in front of me doesn't like the ribbon. I do. But all this is anecdotal evidence.
Point is:
- statistically, over the entire group of test subjects, people like it
- statistically, over the entire group of Slashdot commenters, people don't like it
As far as your use of vi goes, what's wrong with ed? Check out lynx too in case you haven't yet. And nroff!
The average Slashdot commenter dislikes the 'recent' UI changes in Windows and Office. Maybe it's just a way to express a dislike of Microsoft. Still, the prototypical Slashdotter loves (or pretends to love) ancient technology like vi, emacs and latex. For these people WYSIWYG seems to be a dirty word. Do Slashdotter long for the pre-Microsoft area when IBM ruled the world and IT people wore lab coats?
Everybody who's interested can download it from MSDN. Actually, that's what the professionals are doing right now in order to properly evaluate the thing.
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 902,000 for "cannot shutdown linux".
Maybe you should try using Linux once instead of fantasizing about it. For example, I'm sure that you will be enchanted by some of the more curious properties of X Server, especially if you have only one machine at your disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are written by women rather than by men, then the chance that they are crappy is higher, no?
I'm basing this statement on my experience as a Java teacher and as a developer. Does anybody feel that this generalization is wrong?
gcc is great, but I still haven't figured out how to get the sound working.
Have you heard of Hadoop?
It looks like we are finally getting somewhere. You say "the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work". Can you give me an authoritative reference on this, or should I take your word for it? For example, has this been challenged in court?
By the way, in case you get lost regarding the subject of the thread, you can always consult the title of the original post.
I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.
If I distribute Linux with a GUI on top, many people (of the general public) would qualify the total package as a derived work. I cannot do such a thing with Windows. I can do it with Linux, but some restrictions might apply. What these restrictions are seems to be not 100% clear (except to you maybe).
Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.
I can dynamically link my code to one of the Windows redistributables and distribute the complete software without GPL-like restrictions, because the license allows me to. The GPL license does not automatically give me this right.
It's interesting that you think that Linus' preamble does exempt Linux from some of the GPL requirements. Personally, I thought so too, but quite a few people here (and online in general) have a different opinion.
I fail to see how the fact that "I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun." and "I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots" sheds any light on the relationship between Linux and the GPL. Maybe the reasoning is that if I were a proper slashdotter then I'd know that Linux and the GPL are near-perfect and I wouldn't be asking these irrelevant, trolling, astroturfing questions?
Very well. Let's leave it up to the lawyers and the judges then. Lovely.
What kind of a worthless argument is that? Read the Windows license. It's nothing at all like the GPL. Besides, Linus' comment in the copyright file does not necessarily have legal value. One judge might take into account, another might not.
By the way, I like you ad hominem argument at the end of your reply. It illustrates well the value of your comments.
I see. So, depending on the country where a device is distributed, one might get sued for shipping a device based on linux and not GPLing the applications running on it?
I'm confused now. Is the GPL document clear on this or not? It's supposed to be a legal document, no?
Interesting. So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer? The layer itself of course would be GPL.
Actually, you have a point. There seems to be no exception.
But then, if a company ships Linux with a layer on top of it, couldn't one argue that it is a derivative work?
That's interesting. Do you mind providing links?
To protect its IP, the CE company that I work for does not allow the use of GPL or LGPL code in production software. It's a good thing that Linux system calls are excepted from the normal GPL rules, otherwise we wouldn't have seen its massive success in embedded devices.
I'm afraid it goes much further than that. There was no warning whatsoever about the facial hair shown in the video. I had to get up 3 times last night to calm down my daughter. She happened to sit next to me when I played the video.
Thank you, symbolset, for your valuable contribution to this thread. Now please go see your mummy, because you diaper needs changing.
symbolset, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Maybe you should find yourself another forum, where people are more gentle?
It was already the 6th when I posted the message, but just not so in your timezone. Anyway, the RTM was not yet available through MSDN, so I was wrong saying that people were already downloading it. So, the reviewer must indeed have gotten it from a different source.
I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun. I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots. I do have an older account, with an ID much smaller than yours, but I don't see much point in using it these days.
If you don't like the UI of MS Office 2007, just don't use the software. Microsoft is not forcing you and nobody is forcing you to work at a company that requires you to use it.
Same thing goes for Open Office. If you don't like the upcoming version, don't use it.
Personally I like change, even if it means learning new stuff. But I do understand that quite a few people don't want to change their ways.
- reactionary: a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
My colleague sitting in front of me doesn't like the ribbon. I do. But all this is anecdotal evidence.
Point is:
- statistically, over the entire group of test subjects, people like it
- statistically, over the entire group of Slashdot commenters, people don't like it
As far as your use of vi goes, what's wrong with ed? Check out lynx too in case you haven't yet. And nroff!
The average Slashdot commenter dislikes the 'recent' UI changes in Windows and Office. Maybe it's just a way to express a dislike of Microsoft. Still, the prototypical Slashdotter loves (or pretends to love) ancient technology like vi, emacs and latex. For these people WYSIWYG seems to be a dirty word. Do Slashdotter long for the pre-Microsoft area when IBM ruled the world and IT people wore lab coats?
Everybody who's interested can download it from MSDN. Actually, that's what the professionals are doing right now in order to properly evaluate the thing.
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 902,000 for "cannot shutdown linux". Maybe you should try using Linux once instead of fantasizing about it. For example, I'm sure that you will be enchanted by some of the more curious properties of X Server, especially if you have only one machine at your disposal.
They did not 'review' a prerelease, but the RTM. Are you by any chance a moron?
Why don't these people just put in a new battery?
They are not eliminating the competition. They are replacing it with their own baby, that's all. Bye bye, Mozilla...