Re:Update by HeUnique:the license for this QT is I
on
Qt For The Console
·
· Score: 2
Qt is not fucking GPL.
Well, I don't know about its sexual relationship with Wildebeests, but it is GPL. From the Trolltech site:
The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support.
" A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater,"
A review comment along the lines of "The grass animation in Shrek is inferior to that of Sully's fur in Monsters Inc" can not be backed up with an excerpt from a handheld camera in a cinema; therefore the DMCA is quite capable of preventing normal fair use as laid down in section 107 of Title 17 of US law. This right was not removed by the DMCA although certain judges have choosen to ignore this fact when preciding over cases where their ex-employer and long standing friends from the MPAA were prosecuting.
Didn't stop Cameron making up details (and lots of them) for "Titanic"; how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder. Probably a question Yassir Arafat is asking himself about now...
My question for you is: How is a system that can't run mozilla equivelant to a linux system?
"Doesn't" is not the same as "can't". A system that can't run Mozilla is either not Linux or just less than 1Ghz+512M RAM. A system that doesn't run Mozilla is simply showing good taste.
Windowmaker doesn't provide any framework for running apps.
By framework I mean a means by which the user launches apps, not the technical whats-actually-doing-the-drawing. Windowmaker gives me a place to put icons for the apps I use a lot and a menu for the others, that is the sort of framework I was referring to.
By the way, the apps I can launch from WM are not pre-configured and I can add either to the workspaces or menu at will.
Yes, WindowMaker is a window manager plus a handful of other features. KDE is a whole load of bloat beyond that, I agree. In fact that was my point.
The mistake you are making is that you think I care about the probably myriad extra classes and objects KDE base library makes available on top of the QT ones upon which it is based. I don't. They serve very little purpose as seen by the fact that I can run the few QT applications I have without any problems while KDE is a dependancy nightmare which is a waste of time given that the end result is to ape Windows which I haven't had any use for for 4 years now.
you'll understand that the notion of building a toolkit on top of a window manager doesn't even make sense.
I never said it would.
Does it help you to see the difference between Windowmaker and (say) KDE?
Never had any confusion on the subject.
The bottom line is that users want to use apps and the main thing they're interested in is getting their work done. KDE can perform the first of these tasks insofar as it includes the functions of a window manager, the latter it has failed to do fairly consistantly. KOffice is a joke and most of the working K-apps are little more than shells around pre-existing software that works fine without the overhead of KDE's libraries.
Do we have any proof that there is a sea underneith?
Not proof but the surface of Europa has so few craters and so many faultlines that there's very little else that would account for it other than that the ice is moving on a liquid base.
But you critisised RMS for setting up a paper tiger and framed this within the assertion that one does not patent ideas. This is both idealistic (nothing wrong with that) and wrong.
Certainly the original intent of US patent law was to not allow patenting of ideas, but the current practice has changed.
Ideas are being patented on purpose. I saw the head of the USPO being interviewed on the television and he specifically said that he had no problem with issuing patents on ideas.
So the reality is that RMS is right in saying that ideas are being patented and it is not due to oversight, it is current policy at the USPO which in turn has the tacit agreement of the Dept of Trade.
I thought from your reply that you wished to see "good" patents being issued to cover software and I argued that this, even if desirable, is impossible to do correctly. Were the points you made directed at non-software patenting only, then?
When you say that you never proposed patenting the idea behind a program I assume that you understand that patenting software is the same as patenting the idea behind the software unless this type of patent is synonymous with copyright.
Look - every one acts in their own enlightened self interest.
No, they don't. Many people act on their percieved short term interest which is very different.
Perfection/utopia is not an option so don't give me arguments that insist upon this objective
I was arguing against making things worse, not for giving up trying to make them perfect. Again, I'm not clear here if you are restricting your argument to "normal" patents or are arguing that the safeguards you suggest would make software patents acceptable.
The highest court it might get to is the European Court of Human Rights if the copyright holders take the line that their right to reward for their work is under attack by the Dutch decision. At that point anything can happen as the ECoHR is bizarre and arbitary in the extreme in its decisions.
What would you say to the idea that all of those points fail in the real world due simply to the mass of software and the numbers of programmers. That, in fact, there simply is no possibility of quality peer review or patent checking in a world where literally millions of people write code every day.
This is totally unlike any previous situation that the patent system has ever been applied to (or attempted to be applied to). Within the US, how many programmers are writing Javascript every day? How can they be checked for a patent violation? How could a fair system ever hope to regulated this industry in the way patents regulate the physical industries? It just can't be done and any attempt to do so is doomed to be unfair to the majority of people while favoring the minority that can afford to throw their legal weight around.
I have no problem with copyright on code, but patenting something as ephemeral as the idea behind a program is less workable and more unjust than prohibition ever was.
A little stronger than copyright, because you'd have to also prove that you weren't influenced by seeing or hearing of the patentholder's implementation.
Surely that's the basis of most plagarism suits; it's pretty rare for a copyright case to be on the basis of an exact duplicate (I doubt that sort of case would get as far as court), particularly in the music industry.
The article is/.ed now and I hadn't got to the end so does it say who was there? It doen't matter if RMS preaches to the converted, it only matters if someone with power was listening. In the UK that boils down to: Tony Blair's wife, Alister Campbell, George W Bush, any very rich Person who one of the preceeding likes/works with/wants to work with in the future.
Simply allow the fact that an inventor discovered/invented a thing independantly of the patent as a defense against patent violation. Of course, there are evidentiary problems
In the case of software what you are proposing is just copyright: you can duplicate as long as you don't copy (and can prove it).
Patents promote a developing market. It encourages you to get your ideas out in the open.
It seems to me that what they do is strike fear into the heart of all but the richest inventors, the legal fight to prove that you are not infringing a patent is more than most people can afford even when they are right. Patents encourage the small inventors to scrap the whole thing and just keep their day job, then everybody loses.
This is not an effect we need in the software industry where so much progress is made by individuals.
From what I gather the biggest flaw with patents are the clerks not the laws.
Software moves so fast that no prior-art system is ever going to be able to keep up. The only way to fix the clerk problem is to slow down the entire field to the point where they can cope. Sacking the idiot in charge of the USPO would help, too; paying clerks on the number of patents they approve is hardly professional or responsible.
If it weren't for these patents, none of those big, bad companies like Microsoft would make any money,
Name a patent that MS has made money off, or even enforced.
Patents on lists of thing to do are a stupid idea, even when you get a computer to do them for you.
Very very few companies have made money off software patents and many have made money off non-patented software.
It is very hard to make money off free software but that's got nothing to do with patents, and nor is the fact that it's a lot easier to make money off private software.
you'll go wtih Closed-Source proprietary, patented software.
Closed-source software is not normally patented, and there's no reason it should be.
Apple's financial situation is well known: Mediocre profits and sales this year so far ($38m and $1.3b Q1-2002) following on from several disaster years (loss of $195m on $100b in Q1-2001) which led to restructuring for the company just to survive through last year (~$50m including sales of equity).
At the moment every year is practically make-or-break for the company. I'm not saying that they're not going to make it but I'd be surprised if they did in the event of Jobs having a sever accident of any sort.
Depending on one persion is what I call financially insecure.
Here's a shortcut:
pressing ctrl-shift-left arrow to highlight previous word. ctrl-c to copy. down arrow, end key to move to end of next line. ctrl-v to paste.
Yes, that is a shortcut and a very good one. But in situations where there are multiple windows and locations involved it is quite rare to not need cursor manipulation during the paste (unless you're pasting just one thing onto the tail of the last one). The keyboard sucks for cursor manipulation so I find that I'm using the mouse at that point anyway.
You are _precisely_ the "people problem" - the "30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage" in the linux community that the original post mentioned. Your post illustrated his point so beautifully that it was almost artistic.
Care to elaborate, fuck face? To repeat, yet again, I am not anti-newbie, I have converted a lot of people to Linux and I help newbies every day. The original poster was talking shit based entirely on his/her own opinion that newbies are some sort of low-grade morons. I happen to think, from experience, that they aren't.
And the character development so far roughly matches what's in the first book
The main characterisation in the first book revolves around Frodo and the big misses in the film are:
The Ford. Frodo, alone against the assembled Nazgul defies them even though wounded. In the film he is rescued and so we do not see why Gandalf had faith in him.
The scene with Bilbo at Rivendell where Bilbo almost begs for the Ring. The film came so close to doing this but opted for the stupid "bug eyed Bilbo" cheap shock instead of playing one of the most moving parts of the whole of LotR straight.
Sam is shown what later turns out to be a vision of the future of the Shire in the Mirror and, although tempted, remains with Frodo. This entire scene was dropped even though it refers to something even Jackson will have to put in in the third film.
Frodo leaves without a word. He takes the responsibility on his own shoulders alone; Sam joins him after the decision. In the film Frodo checks it out with Aragon first, greatly weaking his character.
For me those are the big characterisation blunders although every character, particularly "Mad Jack McGandalf, winner of the all-Shire break-dancing cup three hundred years running", suffers similar treatment. Frodo's is the worst since he is the central character.
you refer to newbies as "simpletons that can't handle difficult words like 'directory'."
If you read the post I was replying to you will see it contained an implication that users are confused by the term "directory". I was saying that such people would have to be simpletons; I do not believe that people really are confused by these terms. I was being sarcastic!
I mean anybody there. Particularly after its made clear that the trolls are a well-known story in the Shire it's totally unrealistic that, faced with an actual legend in the "flesh" no one would say anything about it.
I can't believe you claim that the film wasn't even attempting to adapt the book. It was a masterful adaptation.
Masterful?!?!!! The characters were little more than gutted fish. The Nazgul were pathetic, highly inflamable clowns, Frodo is never allowed to act independantly or show why Gandalf had faith in him - he just gets rescued or runs to Aragon for permission, the Balrog was wrong (although spectacular, but BALROGS DONT HAVE WINGS, otherwise why would the breaking of the bridge matter?), also the Balrog actually rescues them (leading into the farcical scene of balancing the huge rock tower - "Lean, lean!" for god's sake!), the Council of Elrond was just plain silly with particularly Gimli acting like an idiot, Aragon's character seems to have been introduced from another book. Loth Lorian and the continuity errors... Oh, I give up!
If you can watch that laughable fight between Gandalf and Sauruman and still call this pile of shite "Masterful" then it's obvious nothing I can say will change your mind.
Not only was it never a real attempt at an adaption (that is a film of story in the book, with the changes and compressions needed when you've "only" got a minute to film each page) I really don't believe Jackson ever read it, he might have skimmed over every page but I can't believe he actually read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't know about its sexual relationship with Wildebeests, but it is GPL. From the Trolltech site:
The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support.
TWW
A review comment along the lines of "The grass animation in Shrek is inferior to that of Sully's fur in Monsters Inc" can not be backed up with an excerpt from a handheld camera in a cinema; therefore the DMCA is quite capable of preventing normal fair use as laid down in section 107 of Title 17 of US law. This right was not removed by the DMCA although certain judges have choosen to ignore this fact when preciding over cases where their ex-employer and long standing friends from the MPAA were prosecuting.
TWW
Didn't stop Cameron making up details (and lots of them) for "Titanic"; how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder. Probably a question Yassir Arafat is asking himself about now...
TWW
"Doesn't" is not the same as "can't". A system that can't run Mozilla is either not Linux or just less than 1Ghz+512M RAM. A system that doesn't run Mozilla is simply showing good taste.
TWW
I got tired of Mozilla's half-assed browser implementations some time ago.
thing _this_ is linux, even though it doesn't even run Mozilla.
So? Are you worried that people might think that there are high quality applications available for Linux?
TWW
Pity it's shit, slow, fat, and four years late. As you say, it's just as well we have a choice.
TWW
By framework I mean a means by which the user launches apps, not the technical whats-actually-doing-the-drawing. Windowmaker gives me a place to put icons for the apps I use a lot and a menu for the others, that is the sort of framework I was referring to.
By the way, the apps I can launch from WM are not pre-configured and I can add either to the workspaces or menu at will.
Yes, WindowMaker is a window manager plus a handful of other features. KDE is a whole load of bloat beyond that, I agree. In fact that was my point.
The mistake you are making is that you think I care about the probably myriad extra classes and objects KDE base library makes available on top of the QT ones upon which it is based. I don't. They serve very little purpose as seen by the fact that I can run the few QT applications I have without any problems while KDE is a dependancy nightmare which is a waste of time given that the end result is to ape Windows which I haven't had any use for for 4 years now.
you'll understand that the notion of building a toolkit on top of a window manager doesn't even make sense.
I never said it would.
Does it help you to see the difference between Windowmaker and (say) KDE?
Never had any confusion on the subject.
The bottom line is that users want to use apps and the main thing they're interested in is getting their work done. KDE can perform the first of these tasks insofar as it includes the functions of a window manager, the latter it has failed to do fairly consistantly. KOffice is a joke and most of the working K-apps are little more than shells around pre-existing software that works fine without the overhead of KDE's libraries.
TWW
Not proof but the surface of Europa has so few craters and so many faultlines that there's very little else that would account for it other than that the ice is moving on a liquid base.
TWW
Certainly the original intent of US patent law was to not allow patenting of ideas, but the current practice has changed.
Ideas are being patented on purpose. I saw the head of the USPO being interviewed on the television and he specifically said that he had no problem with issuing patents on ideas.
So the reality is that RMS is right in saying that ideas are being patented and it is not due to oversight, it is current policy at the USPO which in turn has the tacit agreement of the Dept of Trade.
I thought from your reply that you wished to see "good" patents being issued to cover software and I argued that this, even if desirable, is impossible to do correctly. Were the points you made directed at non-software patenting only, then?
When you say that you never proposed patenting the idea behind a program I assume that you understand that patenting software is the same as patenting the idea behind the software unless this type of patent is synonymous with copyright.
Look - every one acts in their own enlightened self interest.
No, they don't. Many people act on their percieved short term interest which is very different.
Perfection/utopia is not an option so don't give me arguments that insist upon this objective
I was arguing against making things worse, not for giving up trying to make them perfect. Again, I'm not clear here if you are restricting your argument to "normal" patents or are arguing that the safeguards you suggest would make software patents acceptable.
TWW
TWW
This is totally unlike any previous situation that the patent system has ever been applied to (or attempted to be applied to). Within the US, how many programmers are writing Javascript every day? How can they be checked for a patent violation? How could a fair system ever hope to regulated this industry in the way patents regulate the physical industries? It just can't be done and any attempt to do so is doomed to be unfair to the majority of people while favoring the minority that can afford to throw their legal weight around.
I have no problem with copyright on code, but patenting something as ephemeral as the idea behind a program is less workable and more unjust than prohibition ever was.
TWW
Surely that's the basis of most plagarism suits; it's pretty rare for a copyright case to be on the basis of an exact duplicate (I doubt that sort of case would get as far as court), particularly in the music industry.
TWW
How?
TWW
Anyone that was there fit the bill?
TWW
Simply allow the fact that an inventor discovered/invented a thing independantly of the patent as a defense against patent violation. Of course, there are evidentiary problems
In the case of software what you are proposing is just copyright: you can duplicate as long as you don't copy (and can prove it).
TWW
It seems to me that what they do is strike fear into the heart of all but the richest inventors, the legal fight to prove that you are not infringing a patent is more than most people can afford even when they are right. Patents encourage the small inventors to scrap the whole thing and just keep their day job, then everybody loses.
This is not an effect we need in the software industry where so much progress is made by individuals.
From what I gather the biggest flaw with patents are the clerks not the laws.
Software moves so fast that no prior-art system is ever going to be able to keep up. The only way to fix the clerk problem is to slow down the entire field to the point where they can cope. Sacking the idiot in charge of the USPO would help, too; paying clerks on the number of patents they approve is hardly professional or responsible.
TWW
Name a patent that MS has made money off, or even enforced.
Patents on lists of thing to do are a stupid idea, even when you get a computer to do them for you.
Very very few companies have made money off software patents and many have made money off non-patented software.
It is very hard to make money off free software but that's got nothing to do with patents, and nor is the fact that it's a lot easier to make money off private software.
you'll go wtih Closed-Source proprietary, patented software.
Closed-source software is not normally patented, and there's no reason it should be.
TWW
At the moment every year is practically make-or-break for the company. I'm not saying that they're not going to make it but I'd be surprised if they did in the event of Jobs having a sever accident of any sort.
Depending on one persion is what I call financially insecure.
Informative enough?
TWW
Now, call me a fuck face to feel better about yourself and watch the karma roll in.
Well, first you have to make an unreasonable personal accusation with no attempt at an argument, then I can call you whatever you'd prefer.
TWW
Yes, that is a shortcut and a very good one. But in situations where there are multiple windows and locations involved it is quite rare to not need cursor manipulation during the paste (unless you're pasting just one thing onto the tail of the last one). The keyboard sucks for cursor manipulation so I find that I'm using the mouse at that point anyway.
TWW
TWW
Care to elaborate, fuck face? To repeat, yet again, I am not anti-newbie, I have converted a lot of people to Linux and I help newbies every day. The original poster was talking shit based entirely on his/her own opinion that newbies are some sort of low-grade morons. I happen to think, from experience, that they aren't.
TWW
The main characterisation in the first book revolves around Frodo and the big misses in the film are:
For me those are the big characterisation blunders although every character, particularly "Mad Jack McGandalf, winner of the all-Shire break-dancing cup three hundred years running", suffers similar treatment. Frodo's is the worst since he is the central character.
TWW
If you read the post I was replying to you will see it contained an implication that users are confused by the term "directory". I was saying that such people would have to be simpletons; I do not believe that people really are confused by these terms. I was being sarcastic!
TWW
I mean anybody there. Particularly after its made clear that the trolls are a well-known story in the Shire it's totally unrealistic that, faced with an actual legend in the "flesh" no one would say anything about it.
I can't believe you claim that the film wasn't even attempting to adapt the book. It was a masterful adaptation.
Masterful?!?!!! The characters were little more than gutted fish. The Nazgul were pathetic, highly inflamable clowns, Frodo is never allowed to act independantly or show why Gandalf had faith in him - he just gets rescued or runs to Aragon for permission, the Balrog was wrong (although spectacular, but BALROGS DONT HAVE WINGS, otherwise why would the breaking of the bridge matter?), also the Balrog actually rescues them (leading into the farcical scene of balancing the huge rock tower - "Lean, lean!" for god's sake!), the Council of Elrond was just plain silly with particularly Gimli acting like an idiot, Aragon's character seems to have been introduced from another book. Loth Lorian and the continuity errors... Oh, I give up!
If you can watch that laughable fight between Gandalf and Sauruman and still call this pile of shite "Masterful" then it's obvious nothing I can say will change your mind.
Not only was it never a real attempt at an adaption (that is a film of story in the book, with the changes and compressions needed when you've "only" got a minute to film each page) I really don't believe Jackson ever read it, he might have skimmed over every page but I can't believe he actually read it.
TWW