Come on folks, FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certainly easier than proprietary software licenses, and less punitive.
Really? You mean like not only complying with the letter of the license but having to receive all sorts of flak and hatred if you happen to violate all the unwritten rules and the "spirit" of the license? To be honest, it's FAR easier to comply with proprietary licenses because they don't have all the political baggage behind them.
Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.
Yes, when you purchased that property through illegal sources of money the government confiscates it. Boohoo. It's not as if they just trumped up a bunch of charges in order to steal his comic books.
Who ever claims that solar is for everyone despite a minority of kooks? Anyone sensible knows that you need to store excess generated energy in batteries for later or to have a backup generator for when night comes. What you are doing is the classic strawman.
or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.
Yeah, as opposed to the material coming out of "think tanks" populate by oil company shills. Those are the beacon of truth and honesty! What next? People actually still believe the extraordinary claims that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer! How dare accept those extraordinary claims after the cigarette makers have said otherwise and they have no reason to lie about that!
That's intentional on samzenpus' part. He knows that almost everyone filters idle so he posts idle stories usually under YRO or some other completely inappropriate categories so his shit is still polluting the front page.
Android is Linux when it benefits the people pushing market share numbers that are positive to Linux. When any negative news comes out about Android it no longer is Linux and people make sure to point out that Linux is just the kernel that Android uses.
But...but...they are his retirement fund! In 50 years he'll be able to sell them to some other obese nerd who will then put them away as their retirement fund! Comic books will never lose value! THEY HAVE COLLECTOR'S VALUE!!!!
Yeah, I also prefer they don't cater to the wants of their customers rather than the wants of the minuscule minority that are fighting some petty OS war.
And how is it not within the spirit of the license to take someone else work, fork it and rebrand it? That happens all the times. Many times with just as little change as probably happens between what is RHEL and what Oracle brands as Unbreakable Linux but no one complains unless it's someone like Oracle doing it. Hell the was an entirely new version of Pidgin whose only change was over a check box option.
What if a patch is something that does nothing but break an interface which you would like to maintain?
Sorry, that was worded wrong as it's parts of two different thoughts. It's really just meant to be "what if it is something that breaks an interface that you want to maintain". To claim that Red Hat never patches things that change interfaces is asinine.
You may want to change your terminology, then. Publicly admitting you like to leave some stuff broke isn't doing your reputation any favors.
Nice strawman. You assume that all these patches are security fixes or something of the like. What if a patch is something that does nothing but break an interface which you would like to maintain? If you are like Red Hat and things like API and ABI stability are important you aren't going to want to consume such a patch.
Red Hat is doing more heavy lifting than anyone else, but organizations like Oracle and CentOS are leeching off of Red Hat's hard work.
Boohoo? If you don't want people to leech your work then why would you release it under a license that specifically allows that?
They are absolutely meeting the requirements of the GPL.
And so are the people you claim are "leeching" off of Red Hat.
If these other organizations like Oracle and CentOS were saying "we're going to fork what Red Hat has done and come up with something different because we think we can do it better," like Mandrake did, that would be one thing. But Oracle and CentOS both pretty much have the same message: "we're going to take all the hard work that Red Hat has paid for, claim that ours is just like theirs, but make sure that Red Hat doesn't get paid for it."
But if they aren't violating the GPL, so what? You've basically constructed a double standard where it's okay for one party to use GPLed code however they want within the bounds of the license but yet you come back and whine about others who are doing the exact same thing. Once again, if you don't want people to use your code this way, why would you release it under a license that was specifically worded in order to allow this?
Also take a look at what they did to Word Perfect back in da day.
Which was what? Put out Word for Windows when at the same time WordPerfect refused to do so and by the time WordPerfect for Windows came out, which at version 5.1 was unstable and was a pain in the ass to install, no one cared about it anymore because they had long since moved on to Word? How evil of them to provide a product that people wanted!!! They clearly should have done the stupid thing like WordPerfect and be years behind the game.
Slashdot Mirror
He said "famous" not "fabulous". :-P
BSD and Apache license are FOSS. FOSS != copyleft
Come on folks, FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certainly easier than proprietary software licenses, and less punitive.
Really? You mean like not only complying with the letter of the license but having to receive all sorts of flak and hatred if you happen to violate all the unwritten rules and the "spirit" of the license? To be honest, it's FAR easier to comply with proprietary licenses because they don't have all the political baggage behind them.
Or maybe that person really COULD care less, but their current level of caring is so low it doesn't matter.
What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!
Then move to Somalia. You can have all the capitalism and small government to your hearts content.
Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.
Yes, when you purchased that property through illegal sources of money the government confiscates it. Boohoo. It's not as if they just trumped up a bunch of charges in order to steal his comic books.
And yet despite claims that they wouldn't miss them, they continue to lobby and fight against their removal.
No, that's why you have backup generators, usually natural gas, as do most generators of solar power.
Who ever claims that solar is for everyone despite a minority of kooks? Anyone sensible knows that you need to store excess generated energy in batteries for later or to have a backup generator for when night comes. What you are doing is the classic strawman.
Yeah, those subsidies clearly don't exist. That's why at one point Obama claimed he was going to cut $36.5 billion in them.
Yeah, won't someone think of those poor, misunderstood meth dealers!
or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.
Yeah, as opposed to the material coming out of "think tanks" populate by oil company shills. Those are the beacon of truth and honesty! What next? People actually still believe the extraordinary claims that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer! How dare accept those extraordinary claims after the cigarette makers have said otherwise and they have no reason to lie about that!
That's intentional on samzenpus' part. He knows that almost everyone filters idle so he posts idle stories usually under YRO or some other completely inappropriate categories so his shit is still polluting the front page.
Android is Linux when it benefits the people pushing market share numbers that are positive to Linux. When any negative news comes out about Android it no longer is Linux and people make sure to point out that Linux is just the kernel that Android uses.
But...but...they are his retirement fund! In 50 years he'll be able to sell them to some other obese nerd who will then put them away as their retirement fund! Comic books will never lose value! THEY HAVE COLLECTOR'S VALUE!!!!
Yeah, I also prefer they don't cater to the wants of their customers rather than the wants of the minuscule minority that are fighting some petty OS war.
A modern "x86" chip is RISC tardo. Way to be a decade or more behind the times when it comes to Intel chip designs.
And yet it will make another half billion for Lucas despite all the butthurt rage from the neckbeards.
And how is it not within the spirit of the license to take someone else work, fork it and rebrand it? That happens all the times. Many times with just as little change as probably happens between what is RHEL and what Oracle brands as Unbreakable Linux but no one complains unless it's someone like Oracle doing it. Hell the was an entirely new version of Pidgin whose only change was over a check box option.
What if a patch is something that does nothing but break an interface which you would like to maintain?
Sorry, that was worded wrong as it's parts of two different thoughts. It's really just meant to be "what if it is something that breaks an interface that you want to maintain". To claim that Red Hat never patches things that change interfaces is asinine.
You may want to change your terminology, then. Publicly admitting you like to leave some stuff broke isn't doing your reputation any favors.
Nice strawman. You assume that all these patches are security fixes or something of the like. What if a patch is something that does nothing but break an interface which you would like to maintain? If you are like Red Hat and things like API and ABI stability are important you aren't going to want to consume such a patch.
Red Hat is doing more heavy lifting than anyone else, but organizations like Oracle and CentOS are leeching off of Red Hat's hard work.
Boohoo? If you don't want people to leech your work then why would you release it under a license that specifically allows that?
They are absolutely meeting the requirements of the GPL.
And so are the people you claim are "leeching" off of Red Hat.
If these other organizations like Oracle and CentOS were saying "we're going to fork what Red Hat has done and come up with something different because we think we can do it better," like Mandrake did, that would be one thing. But Oracle and CentOS both pretty much have the same message: "we're going to take all the hard work that Red Hat has paid for, claim that ours is just like theirs, but make sure that Red Hat doesn't get paid for it."
But if they aren't violating the GPL, so what? You've basically constructed a double standard where it's okay for one party to use GPLed code however they want within the bounds of the license but yet you come back and whine about others who are doing the exact same thing. Once again, if you don't want people to use your code this way, why would you release it under a license that was specifically worded in order to allow this?
All the changes go together and implement one big patch. What "patch identifiers" RH used in their own patching process are is irrelevant as it gets.
It's not irrelevant at all. To know what patch goes to which fix is highly important if you don't necessarily want to consume all of those fixes.
Also take a look at what they did to Word Perfect back in da day.
Which was what? Put out Word for Windows when at the same time WordPerfect refused to do so and by the time WordPerfect for Windows came out, which at version 5.1 was unstable and was a pain in the ass to install, no one cared about it anymore because they had long since moved on to Word? How evil of them to provide a product that people wanted!!! They clearly should have done the stupid thing like WordPerfect and be years behind the game.
and the term "monopoly" has a negative connotation.
So what? That it has a negative connotation doesn't change the fact that Google is effectively a monopoly.