What is there to stop people from making their own implementations of compilers for swift?
What we've seen from other languages is that patents can potentially be a problem, but I don't know if that's applicable in this case.
Open sourcing the future design of swift however means apple may lose control of how the language develops and could be a hindrance to it's primary use in developing software for it's OSes.
Apple might loose control if someone else makes a better implementation, and that users switch to it. That would be a good thing and motivate Apple to improve their original implementation which might otherwise stagnate.
I don't know about that necessarily. Some has contributed a nontrivial amount of work to LLVM and especially the clang project. That has certainly been appreciated outside the Applesphere.
No one is demanding anything, but some of us believe that distributing your software as free and open source software is better for everyone including the original developer. There's nothing wrong in suggesting it.
Take the Nexus 5. I know people who dual boot Android and Sailfish on it, two very different operating systems. There are no technical reasons whatsoever that you couldn't do the same with an iPhone.
It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.
That's because the iPhone (which really should be called a computer) is locked down in the firmware by the manufacturer to only run operating systems provided by them. If they would disable this blocking then alternative operating systems could run on the iPhone. It has in the past when good hackers were able to work around Apples attempt to dominate the user, but that has not been successful recently.
"Red Hat will not issue any more security advisories for the MySQL 5.0 packages (mysql-5.0.* and related packages). Security advisories will be provided only for MySQL 5.5." https://access.redhat.com/docu...
Plus, RedHat are the one pushing for new and untested systemd. That's another example of something you don't expect of a stable server distribution.
It's not new and untested, it's been used in at least Fedora since Fedora 15.
No, RedHat is not 'cool' or stable. They're fishing for consulting dollars, and they're trying to monopolize Linux mindshare by pushing systemd (themselves being the authors), and injecting it as a dependency everywhere else.
Yeah exactly, Red Hat supports a project that they ships as part of their product. That's outrageous, or something.
The problem is that Richard Stallman is a fucking egocentric hypocrite and the gpl contract should be voided. If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.
Yes that is ridiculous, that's why it doesn't work that way.
Linux has no unix code(different algorithms but same results) but it looks like unix and it runs like unix, wouldn't this be a violation of unix patents?
GPL and LGPL is not OSS, it's free software which is fundamentally different from OSS. It considers the user to be more free by eliminating the risk that someone will restrict them. It does not consider freedom to restrict freedom as something positive, rather it's negative in the freedom dimension.
Contributing your changes upstream was of course a good thing to do but you actually didn't have to. You have misunderstood the GPL. It only requires that you pass on the freedoms when you distribute the software. Therefore, if you don't distribute the program then you don't have to distribute your modifications. And if you distribute your program then you only have to pass on the source code to whoever you distribute it to, not who you got it from.
There's nothing in the LGPL that prevent you from linking statically. Static linking is not even mentioned. You just have to be able to relink it, so shipping your object files is fine. That's essentially why VLC moved to LGPL, they wanted to be compatible with Apple's mobile app store where it has to be linked statically.
The simple solution is of course trivial, license your program under a compatible license.
Slashdot Mirror
What is there to stop people from making their own implementations of compilers for swift?
What we've seen from other languages is that patents can potentially be a problem, but I don't know if that's applicable in this case.
Open sourcing the future design of swift however means apple may lose control of how the language develops and could be a hindrance to it's primary use in developing software for it's OSes.
Apple might loose control if someone else makes a better implementation, and that users switch to it. That would be a good thing and motivate Apple to improve their original implementation which might otherwise stagnate.
I don't know about that necessarily. Some has contributed a nontrivial amount of work to LLVM and especially the clang project. That has certainly been appreciated outside the Applesphere.
In this context it's a programming language for the Objective-C runtime developed by Apple.
No one is demanding anything, but some of us believe that distributing your software as free and open source software is better for everyone including the original developer. There's nothing wrong in suggesting it.
Or create a free reimplementation. I don't know if there's anything going on there but I know there have been talks about it in the GNUstep community.
That's very useful to know now.
No but you can borrow someone else's Mac and get it there.
Take the Nexus 5. I know people who dual boot Android and Sailfish on it, two very different operating systems. There are no technical reasons whatsoever that you couldn't do the same with an iPhone.
The Mac App Store.
It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.
That's because the iPhone (which really should be called a computer) is locked down in the firmware by the manufacturer to only run operating systems provided by them. If they would disable this blocking then alternative operating systems could run on the iPhone. It has in the past when good hackers were able to work around Apples attempt to dominate the user, but that has not been successful recently.
I suggest that you stop providing your services until Google stops ignoring you.
Nope, they will need their permission. That doesn't necessary include financial compensation.
If your app doesn’t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved.
Not long ago Apple used to be niche market.
Really?
"Red Hat will not issue any more security advisories for the MySQL 5.0 packages (mysql-5.0.* and related packages). Security advisories will be provided only for MySQL 5.5."
https://access.redhat.com/docu...
Yep. A lot of entry-level systems start at around $500 to $1000.
Plus, RedHat are the one pushing for new and untested systemd. That's another example of something you don't expect of a stable server distribution.
It's not new and untested, it's been used in at least Fedora since Fedora 15.
No, RedHat is not 'cool' or stable. They're fishing for consulting dollars, and they're trying to monopolize Linux mindshare by pushing systemd (themselves being the authors), and injecting it as a dependency everywhere else.
Yeah exactly, Red Hat supports a project that they ships as part of their product. That's outrageous, or something.
Yep, even RHEL 5 (seven years old) ships with MySQL 5.5.
Oh, my mistake. Wrong browser. :-)
It is 64 bit, check about:buildconfig.
RHEL 6.5 uses Upstart. It does not have Systemd.
Take an extra look at your Minecraft folder. There's lots of native libraries there. Java is only used for the top UI layer.
The problem is that Richard Stallman is a fucking egocentric hypocrite and the gpl contract should be voided. If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.
Yes that is ridiculous, that's why it doesn't work that way.
Linux has no unix code(different algorithms but same results) but it looks like unix and it runs like unix, wouldn't this be a violation of unix patents?
Patents has not a lot to do with copyright.
GPL and LGPL is not OSS, it's free software which is fundamentally different from OSS. It considers the user to be more free by eliminating the risk that someone will restrict them. It does not consider freedom to restrict freedom as something positive, rather it's negative in the freedom dimension.
Contributing your changes upstream was of course a good thing to do but you actually didn't have to. You have misunderstood the GPL. It only requires that you pass on the freedoms when you distribute the software. Therefore, if you don't distribute the program then you don't have to distribute your modifications. And if you distribute your program then you only have to pass on the source code to whoever you distribute it to, not who you got it from.
There's nothing in the LGPL that prevent you from linking statically. Static linking is not even mentioned. You just have to be able to relink it, so shipping your object files is fine. That's essentially why VLC moved to LGPL, they wanted to be compatible with Apple's mobile app store where it has to be linked statically.
The simple solution is of course trivial, license your program under a compatible license.