I'm talking specifically about cd/dvd drives, not hard drives. I got the DMA tip after a google search which turned up the relevant comments from Alan Cox; I'm too lazy to do the same search again, but he basically said some cd/dvd drives caused these lockups in Linux 2.4.x kernels and turning off DMA might help. In my case the system was locking up occasionally when firing up the SuSE package installation module, which does a lot of heavy I/O with the dvd when reading the package info. After turning off dma I never experienced the problem again. I still have dma enabled for my harddrive though.
Besides, the GPL says that "you must apply GPL when you make changes". SCO alleges that they didn't make changes to put their code in Linux- they say it was already there.
No, it says (I'm also paraphrasing) "you must release the GPL'ed work or its derivatives under the GPL -- if you release it". The GPL only applies to distribution. If you don't distribute it's just another copyrighted work which you have a copy of. Like a book, you can mark it up, cut and paste, put in the cat's litter box, whatever...
0- make new folder - 1 click, type name, return. 1- List directories details - 1 click 2- Sort by extension - 1 click 3- Click the first PDF file 4- Shift-click the last PDF file 5- Drag to new directory.
One small correction: Are you sure step 0 is one click? I'd be fascinated to see how you a get a new folder with just one click. Unless you've put a new folder button on the toolbar (which I assume is possible, though I couldn't find the button for it in W2k), it's either 3 clicks or click, wait (for the nested menu), click again.
Of course Konqueror isn't any better in this regard, which is why I even prefer: ctrl-t (for a terminal opened to the working directory), md [directory-name] (the SuSE alias for 'mkdir -p'), ctrl-d to close the terminal window. In fact I find the ability to switch back and forth from graphical to clt control one of my favorite things about konqueror, since I'm of the rare (at least it appears rare) camp that likes to combine gui and command line instead of preaching about the glories of one or the other. From your arguments, it appears you are also a fan of the middle ground:-)
Yes. It is a contract; but, in the sense that it is an agreement between 2 parties. I should have said 'privileges' rather than 'rights'; in any case, like most contracts, the GPL provides you with privileges in exchange for obligations. The GPL states that if you distribute this copyrighted product (a privilege), or a derivitave (and derivatives are covered by copyrights) you are required to distribute the source to *that* product as a whole (your obligation). The only way your code becomes involved, is if it makes up part of the derivative. Copyright law forbids you from distributing copyrighted material (or its derivatives) without permission from the author(s). That permission is given in a blanket license that gives you unlimited distribution rights provided you distribute the source to those products covered by the GPL. If you modify GPL code in-company, and use it there, you are not required to distribute your changes. It's only when you have decided to distribute your code, in the form of modifications to GPL'ed code, that the GPL says "you must provide any recipient of this code, with the source."
This is completely normal copyright law in the sense that you may only distribute derivatives by agreeing to the conditions set by the author of the original code. It's not forced upon you, you have the choice: 1) distribute source or 2) don't distribute any of the code covered by the GPL with your code mixed in.
Of course, option 2 also leaves you free to use modified code in-house without distributing anything and/or distributing only unmodified GPL code (i.e. not containing code from you), with any code of yours cleanly separated. In the specific case of the Linux kernel, the license even explicitly allows non GPL'ed kernel modules, so its not like your hands are tied.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion whether GPL is a 'good' license, but you certainly can't claim that it is a restrictive license.
No. EULA's have nothing to do with copyright. They are an attempt to claim you are entering a legally binding contract by clicking a button (never mind my 4-year-old could have clicked that button). GPL doesn't remove any rights you already have, it gives you the additional right to distribute (copy) code which is copyrighted by others. Those others have put an out-of-the-box license with their code saving you the trouble of contacting them personally for permission to distribute. You may not distribute the code without the GPL... because of copyright law, not because of anything in the GPL.
It has *everything* to do with whether they distributed it. That's all the GPL applies to. If you get GPL'ed code you can change it to your hearts content and don't have to release a single line of source. The only place the GPL can apply is for those cases when copyright law would require you to get permission from the author to distribute... *Then*, the act of distribution constitutes an agreement to the GPL, unless of course you have some other permission from the author(s). Thus, by distributing code which is copyrighted by others, they are either: a) violating copyright (by distributing without a license) or b) violating the GPL
It's that simple. Someone else who is not authorized putting code in there would certainly not be covered by GPL/Copyright, etc; but the second SCO distributed it, they were agreeing to the GPL. They *might* have just gotten out of it by claiming ignorance of the presence of their (alleged) code (not sure about this), but certainly not after they filed the suit.
I think a lot of geeks end up going on the principle "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", or... "a **** in the bush is worth a lot more than one in the hand".;-) *groan*, i know it's bad
The palm folks laughed but look at palms stock price now? It was $.80 a share the last time I looked! MS took over 75% of the market in less then 2 years!
According to this article from Gartner it's more like: PalmOs: 55.2% Windows CE (sic): 25.7% That's as of January.
PC World has similar numbers: PalmOS: 48.6% Pocket PC: 30% That's as of October.
What was your source of info again? And did you wash afterwards?;-)
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code.
Then you misunderstand how GPL uses copyright law. Whether or not Linux contains code from them it definitely contains copyrighted code from Linus, Alan, etc. They have no right to distribute copyrighted code without permission from the copyright owner. This permission is given in the form of a license -- the GPL -- which allows you to distribute said copyrighted code and/or derivatives with the provision that you distribute it under the same license. Thus either SCO is guilty of copyright violation themselves (of a much greater magnitude, since even they aren't claiming their code is the majority of the Linux code), or they have implicitly agreed to the GPL in order to distribute Linux legally.
I don't know how the argument goes regarding their awareness of own code in the kernel, but -- as others have pointed out -- once they distributed a copy after knowing, it's a moot point. Beyond a doubt, every subsequent copy of the Linux kernel they distributed is either a copyright violation (of Linus et al's code) or an implicit release of the alleged code under GPL.
Um, well, no. If a court were to rule that the code was released under the GPL without the authority of the proper copyright holders, then the GPL release would be voided.
Except copyright law doesn't care about 'releasing' per se, only copying and distributing. Regardless of the legality of the 'original' release of that code, the moment SCO knew some of their IP was (supposedly) in there and distributed one copy, they were releasing said code under that license. I'm not even sure if the 'knowingly' is necessary. In any case SCO would have 'the right' to release that code making the license valid.
The only interesting or insightful bit in this bout of verbal diarrhea.
Moderators who modded this interesting must have meant: interesting in the same way the raving lunatic on the corner shouting about the end of the world is 'interesting';-)
Who the hell mesures the size of objects in volume?
People who are interested in knowing how much space something will take up? Face it, you're not parking the player like a car in a parking spot, and you're not interested in how much wallpaper you'd need to cover it. You want to know how much space it will take in your pocket, bag, etc. That's generally volume.
Actually, from what I understand, with only a few exceptions (such as government supported monopolies like utilities and national security interests), it is illegal for the US Government to fund projects that directly compete with commercial interests.
I'm not sure if that's true, but, even if it is, it doesn't apply, since this isn't about funding but using, and I'm pretty sure there is no way you could, for example, start a company that sells air and then say the government is no longer allowed to use the free stuff because it 'competes' with your commercial interest.
Maybe you should understand which libraries they are using for what before you shoot from the hip. For example, by just using KDE's file-open dialog they don't merely gain the obvious advantage of a look-and-feel which is consistent with the rest of a KDE desktop, they also gain the ability to open and save directly to any (psuedo-)protocol implemented in the kio-slaves (also part of the KDE library); this includes ftp, ssh, sftp, webdav, and http, to name a few. That's not bloat, those are really useful functions for an html editor to have.
Also, by using the existing libs the coders are reusing existing code... surely a good thing, right? I'm sure there are lots of other examples which people more familiar with the code could name, but you can also actually take a look at the code before you decide about whether they chose the 'right' libraries.
Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument Christians use to try to refute the possibility of evolution?
use a desktop computer and desktop software that actually works - to be productive instead of to feel technically and morally "superior" (whatever that means).
I'm under the distinct impression that believing you are the paragon of rationality who would never even conceive of using anything but the best tool for the job (in your opinion) actually makes you feel morally and technically superior.
They built the initial pieces of it, and then gave it to the Universities. MIT and UC Berkeley, and a handful of other colleges are responsible for the open framework of the Internet. Ever see an implementation of TCP/IP that WASN'T "Based on Berkeley sockets"? I don't think I have either, except for Berkeley's.
Psssst. I'll tell you a little secret: U.C. Berkeley is a public university, which means.... you got it! It's the government!
Gee, that reminds me of Carl Sagan's observation: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.";-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking specifically about cd/dvd drives, not hard drives. I got the DMA tip after a google search which turned up the relevant comments from Alan Cox; I'm too lazy to do the same search again, but he basically said some cd/dvd drives caused these lockups in Linux 2.4.x kernels and turning off DMA might help. In my case the system was locking up occasionally when firing up the SuSE package installation module, which does a lot of heavy I/O with the dvd when reading the package info. After turning off dma I never experienced the problem again. I still have dma enabled for my harddrive though.
-chris
Uh, you mean besides the huge court case they won against MS? The one Bush's DOJ settled after it was won?
-chris
I had symptoms like that on my laptop with my dvd drive. Turning off dma for that drive solved it. Don't know if that applies to your situation.
-chris
Besides, the GPL says that "you must apply GPL when you make changes". SCO alleges that they didn't make changes to put their code in Linux- they say it was already there.
No, it says (I'm also paraphrasing) "you must release the GPL'ed work or its derivatives under the GPL -- if you release it". The GPL only applies to distribution. If you don't distribute it's just another copyrighted work which you have a copy of. Like a book, you can mark it up, cut and paste, put in the cat's litter box, whatever...
-chris
but is there a real case of "plausible deniability" on record?
If it were 'on record' it wouldn't be very plausibly deniable now would it?
-chris
0- make new folder - 1 click, type name, return.
:-)
1- List directories details - 1 click
2- Sort by extension - 1 click
3- Click the first PDF file
4- Shift-click the last PDF file
5- Drag to new directory.
One small correction: Are you sure step 0 is one click? I'd be fascinated to see how you a get a new folder with just one click. Unless you've put a new folder button on the toolbar (which I assume is possible, though I couldn't find the button for it in W2k), it's either 3 clicks or click, wait (for the nested menu), click again.
Of course Konqueror isn't any better in this regard, which is why I even prefer: ctrl-t (for a terminal opened to the working directory), md [directory-name] (the SuSE alias for 'mkdir -p'), ctrl-d to close the terminal window. In fact I find the ability to switch back and forth from graphical to clt control one of my favorite things about konqueror, since I'm of the rare (at least it appears rare) camp that likes to combine gui and command line instead of preaching about the glories of one or the other. From your arguments, it appears you are also a fan of the middle ground
-chris
Yes. It is a contract; but, in the sense that it is an agreement between 2 parties. I should have said 'privileges' rather than 'rights'; in any case, like most contracts, the GPL provides you with privileges in exchange for obligations. The GPL states that if you distribute this copyrighted product (a privilege), or a derivitave (and derivatives are covered by copyrights) you are required to distribute the source to *that* product as a whole (your obligation). The only way your code becomes involved, is if it makes up part of the derivative. Copyright law forbids you from distributing copyrighted material (or its derivatives) without permission from the author(s). That permission is given in a blanket license that gives you unlimited distribution rights provided you distribute the source to those products covered by the GPL.
If you modify GPL code in-company, and use it there, you are not required to distribute your changes. It's only when you have decided to distribute your code, in the form of modifications to GPL'ed code, that the GPL says "you must provide any recipient of this code, with the source."
This is completely normal copyright law in the sense that you may only distribute derivatives by agreeing to the conditions set by the author of the original code. It's not forced upon you, you have the choice: 1) distribute source or 2) don't distribute any of the code covered by the GPL with your code mixed in.
Of course, option 2 also leaves you free to use modified code in-house without distributing anything and/or distributing only unmodified GPL code (i.e. not containing code from you), with any code of yours cleanly separated. In the specific case of the Linux kernel, the license even explicitly allows non GPL'ed kernel modules, so its not like your hands are tied.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion whether GPL is a 'good' license, but you certainly can't claim that it is a restrictive license.
-Chris
-Chris
No. EULA's have nothing to do with copyright. They are an attempt to claim you are entering a legally binding contract by clicking a button (never mind my 4-year-old could have clicked that button). GPL doesn't remove any rights you already have, it gives you the additional right to distribute (copy) code which is copyrighted by others. Those others have put an out-of-the-box license with their code saving you the trouble of contacting them personally for permission to distribute. You may not distribute the code without the GPL... because of copyright law, not because of anything in the GPL.
It has *everything* to do with whether they distributed it. That's all the GPL applies to. If you get GPL'ed code you can change it to your hearts content and don't have to release a single line of source. The only place the GPL can apply is for those cases when copyright law would require you to get permission from the author to distribute... *Then*, the act of distribution constitutes an agreement to the GPL, unless of course you have some other permission from the author(s). Thus, by distributing code which is copyrighted by others, they are either:
a) violating copyright (by distributing without a license)
or
b) violating the GPL
It's that simple. Someone else who is not authorized putting code in there would certainly not be covered by GPL/Copyright, etc; but the second SCO distributed it, they were agreeing to the GPL. They *might* have just gotten out of it by claiming ignorance of the presence of their (alleged) code (not sure about this), but certainly not after they filed the suit.
-chris
He was on the Microsoft antitrust case and the Napster case. . . and he lost them both.
:-(
FYI, He *won* the Microsoft case. It just doesn't seem like it since the Bush DOJ let them off the hook with the settlement.
-chris
I think a lot of geeks end up going on the principle "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", or... "a **** in the bush is worth a lot more than one in the hand". ;-)
*groan*, i know it's bad
-chris
The palm folks laughed but look at palms stock price now? It was $.80 a share the last time I looked! MS took over 75% of the market in less then 2 years!
;-)
According to this article from Gartner it's more like:
PalmOs: 55.2%
Windows CE (sic): 25.7%
That's as of January.
PC World has similar numbers:
PalmOS: 48.6%
Pocket PC: 30%
That's as of October.
What was your source of info again? And did you wash afterwards?
-chris
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code.
Then you misunderstand how GPL uses copyright law. Whether or not Linux contains code from them it definitely contains copyrighted code from Linus, Alan, etc. They have no right to distribute copyrighted code without permission from the copyright owner. This permission is given in the form of a license -- the GPL -- which allows you to distribute said copyrighted code and/or derivatives with the provision that you distribute it under the same license. Thus either SCO is guilty of copyright violation themselves (of a much greater magnitude, since even they aren't claiming their code is the majority of the Linux code), or they have implicitly agreed to the GPL in order to distribute Linux legally.
I don't know how the argument goes regarding their awareness of own code in the kernel, but -- as others have pointed out -- once they distributed a copy after knowing, it's a moot point. Beyond a doubt, every subsequent copy of the Linux kernel they distributed is either a copyright violation (of Linus et al's code) or an implicit release of the alleged code under GPL.
-chris
Um, well, no. If a court were to rule that the code was released under the GPL without the authority of the proper copyright holders, then the GPL release would be voided.
Except copyright law doesn't care about 'releasing' per se, only copying and distributing. Regardless of the legality of the 'original' release of that code, the moment SCO knew some of their IP was (supposedly) in there and distributed one copy, they were releasing said code under that license. I'm not even sure if the 'knowingly' is necessary. In any case SCO would have 'the right' to release that code making the license valid.
-chris
Check these facts out for yourself...
;-)
The only interesting or insightful bit in this bout of verbal diarrhea.
Moderators who modded this interesting must have meant: interesting in the same way the raving lunatic on the corner shouting about the end of the world is 'interesting'
Ummm, right?
-chris
LOL. I have to say that despite the fact the Information Minister jokes are already starting to wear thin, this just seems so fitting.
-chris
Who the hell mesures the size of objects in volume?
People who are interested in knowing how much space something will take up? Face it, you're not parking the player like a car in a parking spot, and you're not interested in how much wallpaper you'd need to cover it. You want to know how much space it will take in your pocket, bag, etc. That's generally volume.
geez.
-chris
Actually, from what I understand, with only a few exceptions (such as government supported monopolies like utilities and national security interests), it is illegal for the US Government to fund projects that directly compete with commercial interests.
I'm not sure if that's true, but, even if it is, it doesn't apply, since this isn't about funding but using, and I'm pretty sure there is no way you could, for example, start a company that sells air and then say the government is no longer allowed to use the free stuff because it 'competes' with your commercial interest.
-chris
Maybe you should understand which libraries they are using for what before you shoot from the hip. For example, by just using KDE's file-open dialog they don't merely gain the obvious advantage of a look-and-feel which is consistent with the rest of a KDE desktop, they also gain the ability to open and save directly to any (psuedo-)protocol implemented in the kio-slaves (also part of the KDE library); this includes ftp, ssh, sftp, webdav, and http, to name a few. That's not bloat, those are really useful functions for an html editor to have.
Also, by using the existing libs the coders are reusing existing code... surely a good thing, right? I'm sure there are lots of other examples which people more familiar with the code could name, but you can also actually take a look at the code before you decide about whether they chose the 'right' libraries.
-chris
I don't think that sanctioning dangerous research will prevent it from happening.
;-)
I agree. Reverse psychology will only get you so far
I'm not generally one of the 'grammar nazis' here, but your sentence means exactly the opposite of what (I think) you meant:
See the second entry (transitive verb) of sanction.
-chris
Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument Christians use to try to refute the possibility of evolution?
:-) Awesome comparison.
You just made my day
-chris
use a desktop computer and desktop software that actually works - to be productive instead of to feel technically and morally "superior" (whatever that means).
:-)
I'm under the distinct impression that believing you are the paragon of rationality who would never even conceive of using anything but the best tool for the job (in your opinion) actually makes you feel morally and technically superior.
Heh, this alone earned you your insightful mod
-chris
They built the initial pieces of it, and then gave it to the Universities. MIT and UC Berkeley, and a handful of other colleges are responsible for the open framework of the Internet. Ever see an implementation of TCP/IP that WASN'T "Based on Berkeley sockets"? I don't think I have either, except for Berkeley's.
Psssst. I'll tell you a little secret: U.C. Berkeley is a public university, which means.... you got it! It's the government!
-chris
Gee, that reminds me of Carl Sagan's observation: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." ;-)
-chris
SGKMODS - State Gnome/KDE Municipal Open Desktop System.
(with apologies to John Belushi and Dan Akroyd)
-chris