Requests from particular hosts can be blocked by
setting Apache configuration files. So if one host really takes more resources of other host, than this one wants, it is up to him to restrict or farther deliver those resources.
Restricting can also easily be done by firewall rules or even simple scripts which block the IP address if it behaves too paranoid.
It is up to webmaster/system operator to make decisions about that and NO complainings should be done.
The GNU Lesser General Public License says in section 6b
that if you're linking with a shared library that's already present on the user's machine,
you don't have to provide source code. (You still have to cite their copyright notice,
though.) Meanwhile, at Red Hat's Developer Network page, they say the C library is
covered by the GPL, not by either LGPL. The GNU page is surprisingly silent on the
topic.
If C library was released and LGPL, and when Red Hat company makes changes to it, they can put it simply under GPL and only under GPL.
Here is the quote from the LGPL:
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
instead of to this License.
So, my dear friend, if you are using Red Hat's modified C library (or not modified), consider it as GPL if they say so.
GNU site is about that not silent - they have put the explanation simply in ever LGPL and consider that people should be reading by themselves, as so many copies are distributed. Consider that putting libraries under LPGPL is from FSF discouraged.
Now, the GNU License discourages the in-house programmer to make changes to GPL
code, or to link to GPL libraries, because according to the license that programmer has
to publish the changes. So the programmer does all the work, and then gives the fruit of
the work to the competition. Nope -- he will be forced into a commercial solution.
I don't understand why should any programer or company which doesn't want to respect GPL, use any GPLed program?
There are enough commercial C-libraries, enough commercial GUI libraries and enough resources which can be bougth for money and used without restriction in own programs.
GPL is companies and programers who want to share with others, and want to make software free. If the intention isn't like that, there is really no need for them to use it.
> because I'm a nice person like that, but someone with fewer manners and more lawyers
may be able to challenge this successfully.
Dear
obviously you don't get the point about the GPL. Its intention was not only to protect free software, but also to encourage other companies and programers to make more free software.
It shouldn't be challenged in the court, and that was not intention. Therefore that "someone" with fewer manners and more layers, would be nothing else but totally out of exchange.
That "someone" would now use and link to software which he didn't even make, and later clame that he doesn't want to respect wishes of authors of that free software. That is criminal, as "someone" would be out of exchange. He would be taking something without giving, what is expected, back.
Slashdot Mirror
Requests from particular hosts can be blocked by setting Apache configuration files. So if one host really takes more resources of other host, than this one wants, it is up to him to restrict or farther deliver those resources. Restricting can also easily be done by firewall rules or even simple scripts which block the IP address if it behaves too paranoid. It is up to webmaster/system operator to make decisions about that and NO complainings should be done.
If C library was released and LGPL, and when Red Hat company makes changes to it, they can put it simply under GPL and only under GPL.
Here is the quote from the LGPL:
So, my dear friend, if you are using Red Hat's modified C library (or not modified), consider it as GPL if they say so.
GNU site is about that not silent - they have put the explanation simply in ever LGPL and consider that people should be reading by themselves, as so many copies are distributed. Consider that putting libraries under LPGPL is from FSF discouraged.
Marko
I don't understand why should any programer or company which doesn't want to respect GPL, use any GPLed program? There are enough commercial C-libraries, enough commercial GUI libraries and enough resources which can be bougth for money and used without restriction in own programs.
GPL is companies and programers who want to share with others, and want to make software free. If the intention isn't like that, there is really no need for them to use it.
Marko
Dear obviously you don't get the point about the GPL. Its intention was not only to protect free software, but also to encourage other companies and programers to make more free software. It shouldn't be challenged in the court, and that was not intention. Therefore that "someone" with fewer manners and more layers, would be nothing else but totally out of exchange.
That "someone" would now use and link to software which he didn't even make, and later clame that he doesn't want to respect wishes of authors of that free software. That is criminal, as "someone" would be out of exchange. He would be taking something without giving, what is expected, back.
Marko