How much is the version of Solaris you would use on a Workstation? I'm sure that more than $189 which after all is a recommended retail price. Prices for OEMs are much lower.
Not anymore. Try $75 for a media kit and license to use on an UNLMITED number of workstations or servers, SPARC or Intel-based.
Well, as long as those machines have 8 or less processors in them...;-)
Lovely how the "Lameness Filter" (COPYRIGHT 2000 Slashdot Thought Police. All rights reserved.) didn't catch this but refuses to let me post the following:
"If I Ever Meet The Inventor Of RSH I Will KICK HIS ASS!"
Finally, someone realizes that X needs to be revamped, and actually has a list of what is needed. And we owe it all to KDE and Gnome showing us just where the limits of X are!
I only wonder that when they're done with it, whether it will be fair to call it X anymore, or if it'll need a zippier name than X12R1:-)
The issue with linking is not that it's modifying, but that it is is creating a derived work from the library. Or so says Elder God Richard M. Stallman. I have serious doubts.
I can see where static linking makes a derived work out of a main program and a library, because the code in the library gets replicated into the executable image.
However, dynamic linking works completely differently! When a program is dynamically linked to a library, some information is placed in the resulting executable as to what library files need to be accessed. No portion of the library code is placed in the executable image. Why is that creating a derived work from the library?
Finally, what about programs that use dlopen()? The library code isn't even loaded until that segment of the executable code is hit -- how could that be a "derived work"?
If someone can give me a reasonable explanation of this, I'll be happy to accept it.
I think it's pretty clear that the 333,000 people who are distributing Metallica's songs through Napster are in violation of copyright law.
Did the copyright holder (I'm assuming the standard predatory practices are in effect and the record label holds the copyrights for all the songs in question) give all people who bought Metallica CDs permission to freely copy AND DISTRIBUTE the songs on those CDs?
No?
Then all that remains is whether Metallica or the record company owns the copyrights. If the record company does, Metallica will lose because they can't sue over something they don't own. If not, it's likely they will win.
And dare I say it: This action is ESSENTIAL if artists want to be able to make a living off of their art. If you can't sell albums because your music can be downloaded by anyone for nothing, and you can't make money from tours, why bother?
Moderate down as necessary, Slashdot sheep. But what if it happened to you, especially if you can't really afford it like Metallica can?
About the only thing I can argue against is how they determined that the 333,000 offenders were, in fact, offenders...
P.S. Really, there is only one question to be asked:
Did Metallica do this on their own, or are they "only following orders" from their label?
I OBJECT to the Amiga being classified as obsolete!
I know for a fact that Time Warner Wisconsincable (which sucks) has one running the old-style "TV Guide Channel" channel in the Milwaukee area. (but they still suck)
How do I know this?
One day I was channel surfing and came upon a channel (which turned out to be the aforementioned TV Guide channel) displaying the Amiga boot screen and asking for an infinite number of disks!!!
(I guess -- I never got to use an Amiga, which is B.S., but I guess the boot screen if you don't have the boot disk inserted shows an infinite nummber of disks going into a disk drive and not coming back out.)
P.S. For some reason we didn't lose our ABC station. Go figure.
_One_ library file has been created that contains object code deriving from both proprietary and GPL sources. Therefore, it's pretty clear to me that the result is a derived work.
What is not clear to me, however, is:
1. Whether a program which is dynamically linked to a library (meaning that the program and library are seperate files, and the library is loaded when the program needs a function from it) is a derived work under the law;
2. Whether the GPL does in fact prohibit dynamically linking programs under any other license to GPLed libraries.
1. That's outside the Terms and Conditions, so it's not real clear that would have any actual legal force if the rest of the T&C had been followed to the letter.
2. "Incorporating your program into proprietary programs" has not been clearly defined within the License. It is conceivable that a court of law would rule that dynamic linking is not incorporating a GPL program into a proprietary program.
That, of course, would depend on who would have the better (read: better-paid) lawyers, assuming a case ever went to trial:-(
That's odd. I though I was still logged in as Mr. Piccolo! (Get it? Mr. Piccolo and Kami-sama are one?*)
Oh well, Slashdot needs a "cancel" function (well, its S/N is getting lower than USENET, so it could use some USENET features!) -- Are you listening, Commander Taco?
*Well, not really, as the current Mr. Piccolo is sort of like the offspring of the original Piccolo, which WAS one with Kami-sama, but you wouldn't know that unless you know the ENTIRE original Dragon Ball story. Americans got screwed out of that AND get the other explanation in our poorly done episodes of Dragon Ball Z!
And that's why any programmer who uses the GPL for a library deserves to have their code fall into disuse.
The GPL is fine for programs, but EXTREMELY (and IMNSHO overly) restrictive for libraries, unless some court of law says otherwise.
What happens if GPLed code is dynamically linked? Statically linking code means a copy of the library is merged with the program code, and the entire thing written back to disk as a single executable file.
Dynamically linked code seems completely different. The library sits on disk, UNCHANGED, while the program is written to disk as an executable with external references to functions within the library. When the code is executed, the program is loaded into memory, and when it hits a call to an external function, the appropriate library is loaded into memory separately. No actual merging of the code ever takes place!
I think the FSF has never heard of dynamic linking, or at the very least has a grave misunderstanding of what dynamic linking really means. I also dispute the claim that dynamic linking of a program to a library makes the program a derivative work of the library, and I invite RMS, the FSF's lawyers, or any other interested party to point me towards precedent-setting court cases, or U.S. Copyright laws, that state otherwise.
In any case, the Terms and Conditions of the GPL version 2 do not explicitly state that dynamically linking a program to a library constitute creating a derivative work of the library.
Finally, <THE_ROCK>IT DOESN'T MATTER whether I'm a lawyer or not!</THE_ROCK>
Slashdot Mirror
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
It's called BLINK.
Not anymore. Try $75 for a media kit and license to use on an UNLMITED number of workstations or servers, SPARC or Intel-based.
Well, as long as those machines have 8 or less processors in them...
You can find out for yourself how well UNIX V7 runs on a PDP-11, as simulators from DEC are still available!
Be prepared to do without modern conveniences like vi, though... heh heh heh.
Lovely how the "Lameness Filter" (COPYRIGHT 2000 Slashdot Thought Police. All rights reserved.) didn't catch this but refuses to let me post the following:
"If I Ever Meet The Inventor Of RSH I Will KICK HIS ASS!"
Moderation is a failure.
Finally, someone realizes that X needs to be revamped, and actually has a list of what is needed. And we owe it all to KDE and Gnome showing us just where the limits of X are!
:-)
I only wonder that when they're done with it, whether it will be fair to call it X anymore, or if it'll need a zippier name than X12R1
What's REALLY funny is that when you use the correct compiler (hint: it ain't GCC) the Alpha wins on floating-point!
The issue with linking is not that it's modifying, but that it is is creating a derived work from the library. Or so says Elder God Richard M. Stallman. I have serious doubts.
I can see where static linking makes a derived work out of a main program and a library, because the code in the library gets replicated into the executable image.
However, dynamic linking works completely differently! When a program is dynamically linked to a library, some information is placed in the resulting executable as to what library files need to be accessed. No portion of the library code is placed in the executable image. Why is that creating a derived work from the library?
Finally, what about programs that use dlopen()? The library code isn't even loaded until that segment of the executable code is hit -- how could that be a "derived work"?
If someone can give me a reasonable explanation of this, I'll be happy to accept it.
Yes, Sol-what's-the-deal-with-this-virtual-memory-syste m-anyway-how-come-it-pages-so-much-with- 64-MB-nothing-else-does-aris has a package manager.
:-)
So does FreeBSD, and I would assume NetBSD and OpenBSD as well.
Now, why can't all the BSD folks get together and patent the ports collection?
They do have a "wink and nod" relationship... to their concert performances.
It's the copyrighted studio recordings (and rightfully, IMHO) they are going after.
If you had read the chat transcript you would have known that.
Where do I sign up?
I read the page, and I don't see anything wrong with what Metallica is doing: going after the _real_ offenders.
I would assume it didn't take much to find out what computers the files are on.
I see I got here too late...
I think it's pretty clear that the 333,000 people who are distributing Metallica's songs through Napster are in violation of copyright law.
Did the copyright holder (I'm assuming the standard predatory practices are in effect and the record label holds the copyrights for all the songs in question) give all people who bought Metallica CDs permission to freely copy AND DISTRIBUTE the songs on those CDs?
No?
Then all that remains is whether Metallica or the record company owns the copyrights. If the record company does, Metallica will lose because they can't sue over something they don't own. If not, it's likely they will win.
And dare I say it: This action is ESSENTIAL if artists want to be able to make a living off of their art. If you can't sell albums because your music can be downloaded by anyone for nothing, and you can't make money from tours, why bother?
Moderate down as necessary, Slashdot sheep. But what if it happened to you, especially if you can't really afford it like Metallica can?
About the only thing I can argue against is how they determined that the 333,000 offenders were, in fact, offenders...
P.S. Really, there is only one question to be asked:
Did Metallica do this on their own, or are they "only following orders" from their label?
I heard Americans are the ones with reversed wings, so the original poster is correct in British (European?) terms.
I OBJECT to the Amiga being classified as obsolete!
I know for a fact that Time Warner Wisconsincable (which sucks) has one running the old-style "TV Guide Channel" channel in the Milwaukee area. (but they still suck)
How do I know this?
One day I was channel surfing and came upon a channel (which turned out to be the aforementioned TV Guide channel) displaying the Amiga boot screen and asking for an infinite number of disks!!!
(I guess -- I never got to use an Amiga, which is B.S., but I guess the boot screen if you don't have the boot disk inserted shows an infinite nummber of disks going into a disk drive and not coming back out.)
P.S. For some reason we didn't lose our ABC station. Go figure.
Hmmm... If you can fit it into a Color Classic, you could probably also fit it into an LCII, although heigh (1.5" or so?) could be a problem...
Correction -- were.
Once Bob Rock became their producer, everything went downhill.
Ummm... A better answer might have been everything.blockstackers.org ;-)
Yes there is. All the advertising clause said is that if you advertise the software, you must mention the author in all advertisements.
Now you don't have to do that, but you still must include the original copyright notice with the software.
If that's the case, then why does every proprietary software package come with a 1000-word essay on what you may not do with the software?
Why doesn't the software just say
Copyright (c) 2000 Fooco. All rights reserved.
and be done with it?
In a word: Yes, or rather, I would say yes.
_One_ library file has been created that contains object code deriving from both proprietary and GPL sources. Therefore, it's pretty clear to me that the result is a derived work.
What is not clear to me, however, is:
1. Whether a program which is dynamically linked to a library (meaning that the program and library are seperate files, and the library is loaded when the program needs a function from it) is a derived work under the law;
2. Whether the GPL does in fact prohibit dynamically linking programs under any other license to GPLed libraries.
The world may never know...
1. That's outside the Terms and Conditions, so it's not real clear that would have any actual legal force if the rest of the T&C had been followed to the letter.
:-(
2. "Incorporating your program into proprietary programs" has not been clearly defined within the License. It is conceivable that a court of law would rule that dynamic linking is not incorporating a GPL program into a proprietary program.
That, of course, would depend on who would have the better (read: better-paid) lawyers, assuming a case ever went to trial
Use
static char[] copyright = "(C) 1999 blah, inc"
except don't be so obvious about it, I guess.
You did too.
hehe
That's odd. I though I was still logged in as Mr. Piccolo! (Get it? Mr. Piccolo and Kami-sama are one?*)
Oh well, Slashdot needs a "cancel" function (well, its S/N is getting lower than USENET, so it could use some USENET features!) -- Are you listening, Commander Taco?
*Well, not really, as the current Mr. Piccolo is sort of like the offspring of the original Piccolo, which WAS one with Kami-sama, but you wouldn't know that unless you know the ENTIRE original Dragon Ball story. Americans got screwed out of that AND get the other explanation in our poorly done episodes of Dragon Ball Z!
And that's why any programmer who uses the GPL for a library deserves to have their code fall into disuse.
The GPL is fine for programs, but EXTREMELY (and IMNSHO overly) restrictive for libraries, unless some court of law says otherwise.
What happens if GPLed code is dynamically linked? Statically linking code means a copy of the library is merged with the program code, and the entire thing written back to disk as a single executable file.
Dynamically linked code seems completely different. The library sits on disk, UNCHANGED, while the program is written to disk as an executable with external references to functions within the library. When the code is executed, the program is loaded into memory, and when it hits a call to an external function, the appropriate library is loaded into memory separately. No actual merging of the code ever takes place!
I think the FSF has never heard of dynamic linking, or at the very least has a grave misunderstanding of what dynamic linking really means. I also dispute the claim that dynamic linking of a program to a library makes the program a derivative work of the library, and I invite RMS, the FSF's lawyers, or any other interested party to point me towards precedent-setting court cases, or U.S. Copyright laws, that state otherwise.
In any case, the Terms and Conditions of the GPL version 2 do not explicitly state that dynamically linking a program to a library constitute creating a derivative work of the library.
Finally, <THE_ROCK>IT DOESN'T MATTER whether I'm a lawyer or not!</THE_ROCK>