I'll tell ya. Free beer refers to the price you pay for the software. Free speech refers to the freedom of the code.
Except that that analogy is total bullshit, if we're talking about the GPL. If, for example, I write a paper and quote copyrighted articles, as long as I'm not plagarizing and acknowledge my source, that's OK. Not so with GPL software. A good analogy is if I wrote a paper for my university, and there was a requirement that I do one of the following:
1.) use work only from other students (and only with explicit permission from the sources)
2.) get authors of other works to sign the papers over to my school under their copyright
3.) go to another school (and trash whatever papers I wrote while attending the current school, since they're copyrighted by them.)
The next time someone tries to tell you that GPL produces free speech software, tell them "bullshit." They won't appreciate it, but it'll at least be honest.
/*
I was very lucky to have been raised to have the self confidence and knowledge needed to fight for what I wanted (being born an incredibly stubborn person helped too). I was also fortunate to have supportive parents who are also clueful and stuborn enough to be an asset in those battles.
*/
Exactly. You were raised right. Your parents did a good job.
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., the general public seems dispositioned to attribute blame to teachers, to society, to drugs, to peer pressure...almost never to parenting.
Why not? I'd be willing to bet that most parents just don't want to have to raise kids. I don't have any kids yet, but if I have a daughter, I'm going to talk to her about persuing a tech career--and if she decides not to, so be it. I'm also going to try to teach her to assert herself. I grew up around too many females (avoiding the girl/woman issue, although they were girls at the time) who were absolutely too submissive. Yeah, you could blame teachers for just not allowing the girls to participate--but you'd be wrong (and I'd bet that you, the original poster, would be willing to agree with me.:^)
If your karma suffers for your insight, I pity you.:^)
Well, I've seen CS professors get pretty irate with female students. (I started out my college life as a CS student.)
But, you know what? It's the same for both men and women. If you let the beligerence of an older professor bother you, then, hell, that's your fault. If you just brush it off and act professional about it, you'll be fine. I went from the CS world to the journalism world, and I'll tell ya, there's no room for anyone who feels like they have to be treated right to do their job. You have to do your job, and you have to do it *now.* There are deadlines. There are arrogant bastards (both sexes.) And you just have to take it and work with it.
If you want to blame anyone, blame parents for not teaching their kids to have a spine.
I don't know; I'm a man, and I picked the low road.:^)
Why? I'd rather live a longer, healthier life than work 15 hours a day and have to go on meds by 30. I've heard (and been told) too many horror stories.
Businesses, for example, won't appreciate it if their "service" disappears because some asshole in Ohio just cut into an OC-3 line with a backhoe (oops, bad example.)
CVS is a way for developers to share code and develop for a common codebase. The CVS version of many projects isn't guaranteed to work. There may be some new code in there that someone wants to try out. Maybe it works; maybe it doesn't. But it stays there. Why? To give others the chance to *fix* it. Did you try to help fix the problem? No? Why, then, did you bother with the CVS? Why not the snapshots? Why not just stick with 1.x?
Personally, I find KDE2 to be quite a bit more developed than GNOME. The GNOME folks are going to have an uphill battle to compete with KDE2. They're going to have to lean on Eazel (a commercial venture, for chrissake) to give them something as good as Konqueror...and even then, it relies on a Bonoboized Mozilla. Ugh.
When I went to get RPMs for Mandrake, I got all kinds of dependencies for RPMs that, well, don't exist anymore. Why? Becaue they're obsolete.
Why would this happen? Because RPMs ain't magic. They're cpio archives with some extra crap thrown in. When they work, they're great. When they don't, they're not so great. What causes RPMs to, well, not be so great? The RPMs don't just magically build, they have to be built by people using the software. I've read into building them and, damn, I'd rather not.:^) I don't even remember how to.
The beauty of a system like Linux and the beauty of KDEs source being open is that you can take the source and compile it. That's what you'll have to do if you want to run KDE2 *now.* The KDE2 RPMs I tried were FUBAR. When I compiled from source, everything worked great. The panel works fine, the standard utils work fine, the KOffice stuff works fine...you get the picture.
So, for now, you'll need the source. Wait until someone with a fairly stock RH system builds you some RPMs. And don't blame it on KDE...you sound like a GNOME FUDmonger.:^(
It's a common tactic. The sites are publishing *rumor*. They're not publishing *fact*. It's fairly common to threaten to pull advertising to stop what is percieved as bad press. Apple's just (IMHO) trying to control how information about themselves is released to the press.
Get a grip, people. Apple's just a company, doing regular company stuff. They percieve possible damage, they do damage control. Big deal.
As for RPMs...hell, it's not done yet. Let RH help after KDE is stable (which it's damn close; I installed from source on a Mandrake system, and it rocks:^)
/*
btw, in case someone tries to tell me to compile it... ya, you sit through compiling it. If the RPM's weren't meant to work, they shouldn't have been on the site.
*/
I did install from source, and I did wait. It's sweet. It's stable. It rocks. The RPMs were made on a somewhat nonstandard install. It's a beta. Get over it.
While *you* may not like her (and that's your *opinion*) she's trying to do for the music industry what RMS tries to do for the software industry: she's trying to help protect the rights of the artists.
Universal sued MP3.com due to lost revenue. Universal should be doing this to represent its artists. If Universal refuses to help her regain lost revenue despite the fact that they've just gotten $100 million out of MP3.com, it proves the incencerity of Universal...and proves her point.
And frankly, no, she's not taking money from MP3.com. The money's been taken. She's just trying to get some of the money taken from MP3.com. There's an important difference...unless you choose not to see it.
The Ford/Firestone debate is the wrong way to go with this. The tool in question (AFAIK) allows object code compiled for Linux to be *converted* to object code for use on Solaris. AFAIK it's not used to convert source code. If it did, you could have the source code pretty much immediately.
Ford willfully used Firestones not rated for the vehicle it shipped with.
What Sun is doing is equivalent to a hypothetical case of, say, Remington building sniper rifles. It's not illegal, but it may be morally wrong and has the capability of doing illegal things. What Ford did was criminally negligent.
Sun can claim that the object code in question is noncommercial i.e. only an example of the capabilities and simply provide a name of a source for the code in question. This is permitted by the GPL.
1. There's no proof Sun's hiding source modifications.
2. If the tool itself modifies the source, then use the tool to modify the source, and you've got it. (Bingo.)
By hashing it out in a public forum, it's possible to give Sun a bad image without having any real proof of wrongdoing, and possible forcing Sun to pull a perfectly legal program.
You'd need proof that Sun has made *modifications to the source and are refusing to distribute said modifications* to prove they were violating the GPL.
/*If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
*/
This is offtopic, but as you may know, RMS is still persuing possible KDE GPL violations. I'm still of the opinion that KDE software is reasonably separate works from Qt.
AFAIK all this does is converts binaries for one OS to binaries for another OS. No source modified, therefore no need to distribute modifications. You can get the source from several sites.
If Sun distributed binaries, no source, it's still not clear, because of the following?
Was the source modified in any way?
If the answer is "no" then we've got people just being pissy hoping to prevent Sun from innovating. Quite frankly, if you can get enough people to yell "Wolf!" long enough, eventually someone will believe it, and some action will need to be taken.
Slashdot Mirror
What he did is illegal.
>but since the Linux kernel is not a FSF project (the FSF requires that copyright be assigned to the FSF)
:^)
Wha...? You mean, despite the fact that they nearly *require* people to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux?
"Frowned on" is a lot different than "refused".
If it's source you want, it's source you'll get, or else, provided the software really is GPL.
Uh, it's already there.
Read the document. You have to. Not in so many words, but it's there.
I'll tell ya. Free beer refers to the price you pay for the software. Free speech refers to the freedom of the code.
Except that that analogy is total bullshit, if we're talking about the GPL. If, for example, I write a paper and quote copyrighted articles, as long as I'm not plagarizing and acknowledge my source, that's OK. Not so with GPL software. A good analogy is if I wrote a paper for my university, and there was a requirement that I do one of the following:
1.) use work only from other students (and only with explicit permission from the sources)
2.) get authors of other works to sign the papers over to my school under their copyright
3.) go to another school (and trash whatever papers I wrote while attending the current school, since they're copyrighted by them.)
The next time someone tries to tell you that GPL produces free speech software, tell them "bullshit." They won't appreciate it, but it'll at least be honest.
/*
:^)
:^)
I was very lucky to have been raised to have the self confidence and knowledge needed to fight for what I wanted (being born an incredibly stubborn person helped too). I was also fortunate to have supportive parents who are also clueful and stuborn enough to be an asset in those battles.
*/
Exactly. You were raised right. Your parents did a good job.
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., the general public seems dispositioned to attribute blame to teachers, to society, to drugs, to peer pressure...almost never to parenting.
Why not? I'd be willing to bet that most parents just don't want to have to raise kids. I don't have any kids yet, but if I have a daughter, I'm going to talk to her about persuing a tech career--and if she decides not to, so be it. I'm also going to try to teach her to assert herself. I grew up around too many females (avoiding the girl/woman issue, although they were girls at the time) who were absolutely too submissive. Yeah, you could blame teachers for just not allowing the girls to participate--but you'd be wrong (and I'd bet that you, the original poster, would be willing to agree with me.
If your karma suffers for your insight, I pity you.
Well, I've seen CS professors get pretty irate with female students. (I started out my college life as a CS student.)
But, you know what? It's the same for both men and women. If you let the beligerence of an older professor bother you, then, hell, that's your fault. If you just brush it off and act professional about it, you'll be fine. I went from the CS world to the journalism world, and I'll tell ya, there's no room for anyone who feels like they have to be treated right to do their job. You have to do your job, and you have to do it *now.* There are deadlines. There are arrogant bastards (both sexes.) And you just have to take it and work with it.
If you want to blame anyone, blame parents for not teaching their kids to have a spine.
I don't know; I'm a man, and I picked the low road. :^)
Why? I'd rather live a longer, healthier life than work 15 hours a day and have to go on meds by 30. I've heard (and been told) too many horror stories.
Businesses, for example, won't appreciate it if their "service" disappears because some asshole in Ohio just cut into an OC-3 line with a backhoe (oops, bad example.)
Yeah. The university I attend took on ex-US senator Paul Simon as a prof. He spent years as an editor, and spent years as a politician.
Only problem? No degree.
There were a lot of ruffled feathers (although I wasn't a student yet, I followed it.) However, the point remains:
The man has valuable experience in the field, experience even those with a terminal degree (which is what a Ph. D. is) might learn from.
Don't belittle life experience.
Clue time.
:^)
CVS is a way for developers to share code and develop for a common codebase. The CVS version of many projects isn't guaranteed to work. There may be some new code in there that someone wants to try out. Maybe it works; maybe it doesn't. But it stays there. Why? To give others the chance to *fix* it. Did you try to help fix the problem? No? Why, then, did you bother with the CVS? Why not the snapshots? Why not just stick with 1.x?
Personally, I find KDE2 to be quite a bit more developed than GNOME. The GNOME folks are going to have an uphill battle to compete with KDE2. They're going to have to lean on Eazel (a commercial venture, for chrissake) to give them something as good as Konqueror...and even then, it relies on a Bonoboized Mozilla. Ugh.
Miguel, stop posting anonymously.
When I went to get RPMs for Mandrake, I got all kinds of dependencies for RPMs that, well, don't exist anymore. Why? Becaue they're obsolete.
:^) I don't even remember how to.
:^(
Why would this happen? Because RPMs ain't magic. They're cpio archives with some extra crap thrown in. When they work, they're great. When they don't, they're not so great. What causes RPMs to, well, not be so great? The RPMs don't just magically build, they have to be built by people using the software. I've read into building them and, damn, I'd rather not.
The beauty of a system like Linux and the beauty of KDEs source being open is that you can take the source and compile it. That's what you'll have to do if you want to run KDE2 *now.* The KDE2 RPMs I tried were FUBAR. When I compiled from source, everything worked great. The panel works fine, the standard utils work fine, the KOffice stuff works fine...you get the picture.
So, for now, you'll need the source. Wait until someone with a fairly stock RH system builds you some RPMs. And don't blame it on KDE...you sound like a GNOME FUDmonger.
It's a common tactic. The sites are publishing *rumor*. They're not publishing *fact*. It's fairly common to threaten to pull advertising to stop what is percieved as bad press. Apple's just (IMHO) trying to control how information about themselves is released to the press.
Get a grip, people. Apple's just a company, doing regular company stuff. They percieve possible damage, they do damage control. Big deal.
they work well.
:^)
As for RPMs...hell, it's not done yet. Let RH help after KDE is stable (which it's damn close; I installed from source on a Mandrake system, and it rocks
/*
btw, in case someone tries to tell me to compile it... ya, you sit through compiling it. If the RPM's weren't meant to work, they shouldn't have been on the site.
*/
I did install from source, and I did wait. It's sweet. It's stable. It rocks. The RPMs were made on a somewhat nonstandard install. It's a beta. Get over it.
And uninformed.
While *you* may not like her (and that's your *opinion*) she's trying to do for the music industry what RMS tries to do for the software industry: she's trying to help protect the rights of the artists.
Universal sued MP3.com due to lost revenue. Universal should be doing this to represent its artists. If Universal refuses to help her regain lost revenue despite the fact that they've just gotten $100 million out of MP3.com, it proves the incencerity of Universal...and proves her point.
And frankly, no, she's not taking money from MP3.com. The money's been taken. She's just trying to get some of the money taken from MP3.com. There's an important difference...unless you choose not to see it.
Wrong.
The Ford/Firestone debate is the wrong way to go with this. The tool in question (AFAIK) allows object code compiled for Linux to be *converted* to object code for use on Solaris. AFAIK it's not used to convert source code. If it did, you could have the source code pretty much immediately.
Ford willfully used Firestones not rated for the vehicle it shipped with.
What Sun is doing is equivalent to a hypothetical case of, say, Remington building sniper rifles. It's not illegal, but it may be morally wrong and has the capability of doing illegal things. What Ford did was criminally negligent.
Move over. It's my turn to throw up.
Sun can claim that the object code in question is noncommercial i.e. only an example of the capabilities and simply provide a name of a source for the code in question. This is permitted by the GPL.
Worse yet, since there's no clear violation.
1. There's no proof Sun's hiding source modifications.
2. If the tool itself modifies the source, then use the tool to modify the source, and you've got it. (Bingo.)
By hashing it out in a public forum, it's possible to give Sun a bad image without having any real proof of wrongdoing, and possible forcing Sun to pull a perfectly legal program.
You'd need proof that Sun has made *modifications to the source and are refusing to distribute said modifications* to prove they were violating the GPL.
/*If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
*/
This is offtopic, but as you may know, RMS is still persuing possible KDE GPL violations. I'm still of the opinion that KDE software is reasonably separate works from Qt.
AFAIK all this does is converts binaries for one OS to binaries for another OS. No source modified, therefore no need to distribute modifications. You can get the source from several sites.
Another question.
If Sun distributed binaries, no source, it's still not clear, because of the following?
Was the source modified in any way?
If the answer is "no" then we've got people just being pissy hoping to prevent Sun from innovating. Quite frankly, if you can get enough people to yell "Wolf!" long enough, eventually someone will believe it, and some action will need to be taken.
The article leaves much to be desired, and even states that the tool in question has been pulled.
How then are we to even prove/disprove the claims here?
What does it do? Is it just a cross-compiler? If none of the source is modified, then where's the violation????
You are correct, O Great One.
:^)
That's why I wanted to put forth that question in a public forum; I wasn't entirely sure. I'm glad to be wrong