Depends how it's done, I guess. It probably depends on whether it's an individual acting, or a company policy. (But of course, I'm no lawyer.)
A boycott is not at all illegal, for example. (In fact, it's usually more effective than voting if you want to actually change the world.)
Who was going to contribute, anyway?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Huh? What about Linux on the PPC?
The code being licensed is the low-level OS stuff; it could be very useful for Linux to be able to use some of this stuff. And in the process, Apple may see bugfixes and new ideas, if they follow what the Linux developers are doing, as I'm sure they will. This will be good for all of us, once the kinks get ironed out.
I for one am not trying to tell Apple how to license their code, but since they seem to be trying out the whole "open source" thing, they'll need input from the "open source" community. RMS is helping them achieve what they've explicitly stated they are trying to do. Nobody is bullying Apple here.
This is a new processor instruction, right? Let's say I have an application that calls this instruction, and I try to run it on a PII or something; it will generate an illegal instruction fault, right? If so, then the kernel's handler could spoof the instruction instead of killing the application with SIGILL.
So it seems to me that a PIII spoofer would be possible on an older Pentium system.
I agree. But he's not talking about the underlying windowing system, he's talking about the GUI toolkit (QT, in this case), which is a higher layer than X.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends how it's done, I guess. It probably depends on whether it's an individual acting, or a company policy. (But of course, I'm no lawyer.)
A boycott is not at all illegal, for example. (In fact, it's usually more effective than voting if you want to actually change the world.)
Huh? What about Linux on the PPC?
The code being licensed is the low-level OS stuff; it could be very useful for Linux to be able to use some of this stuff. And in the process, Apple may see bugfixes and new ideas, if they follow what the Linux developers are doing, as I'm sure they will. This will be good for all of us, once the kinks get ironed out.
I for one am not trying to tell Apple how to license their code, but since they seem to be trying out the whole "open source" thing, they'll need input from the "open source" community. RMS is helping them achieve what they've explicitly stated they are trying to do. Nobody is bullying Apple here.
This is a new processor instruction, right? Let's say I have an application that calls this instruction, and I try to run it on a PII or something; it will generate an illegal instruction fault, right?
If so, then the kernel's handler could spoof the instruction instead of killing the application with SIGILL.
So it seems to me that a PIII spoofer would be possible on an older Pentium system.
Maybe I'm way out in left field, though...
I agree; this is where the real heated debate appears.
But I do have to take issue with your threads comment; it should be the other way around.
I agree. But he's not talking about the underlying windowing system, he's talking about the GUI toolkit (QT, in this case), which is a higher layer than X.