You're confused. Open source is an adjective that describes a piece of software as having the original source code publicly available. "Open Source" is also the name of a marketing campaign and licensing lobbying movement. So this release is open source as the code is being made available. It does not comply with the desires of the "Open Source" movement though. The two are entirely different.
-Rick
No, you're trying to create confusion. Is it intentional?
The only way this is true is if you define a PC as an x86-compatible machine running Windows, which makes your point moot -- if you buy a Windows machine, of course you're forced to run Windows, because, guess what, you're buying a Windows machine!
What makes your point quite pointless, is that you don't buy a "apple" or "windows" machine, you buy a computer and licensing for some software that comes pre-installed as a "favour" they do to you, who are not capable of doing it yourself.
So in fact you are paying a tax when you buy your computer, which may very well be of a few hundreds of EUROS. A TAX most computer manufacturers will not let you abdicate from paying.
That is immoral and an abuse of competition law (anti-trust only comes in point if we're talking about a monopolist entering another market). Buying a good which binds you to buy a specific non-essential service is usually forbidden by law.
This could be easily solved if the pre-installed software would only work after you insert an activation code related to your license IF AND ONLY IF you bought said license as well as the computer, but it would have to be two quite different things.
"the problem"? "problem"? 25% more of nearly 700 pages (to add formulas) is 175 pages more, making it about 850 pages total. OOXML has over 6000 pages just in the direct information, which is absolutely lacking.
Plus: that's nearly 700 pages that are reutilized , so the bulk is just a few pages, most of which is already compatible with Excel's formulas (minus the bugs, I hope) and as such already used by software such as GNUmeric or OpenOffice.org
That's not a problem, that's a relief! It would be a problem if it got thousands more pages....
Theo de Raat, even though I don't agree with all he says, is a Free Software lover, and I don't believe for one minute that he would defend using a proprietary compiler for OpenBSD, an operating system designed for security.
That would mean Microsoft would be able to silently buy Portugal's vote, since they were able to buy the TC *before* it was formed by privately gathering puppets that would support their position, and who proposed to become "founding" members.
Instead I was able to join in and bring transparency to the meeting, even though the NB's representativy unilaterally decided to give less than 48h before refusing new members, as it saw that Microsoft's control would be wrestled out.
They don't give that excuse, of course, they mask it by room space (it could handle more and they chose not to use an auditorium) and representativity (just count the Microsoft Business Partners, or people with strong ties to Microsoft: 13 against 7).
Miguel deIcaza has been layout almost word by word what many Microsoft employees have been saying.
Miguel deIcaza has always been a fan of Microsoft technologies.
Miguel deIcaza is working for a company with a vested interest in the success of Microsoft.
How much trust can *you* conscientiously lay on him?
I for one, think his words are not worthy of trust anymore. He may be a good coder who did some good work on some Free Software, but he's basically wearing the one ring.
He's just provoking people for hit points on his articles.
As for me, I know where I stand:
increases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
decreases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: bad deed
Isn't it consistent and proper education to praise good deeds and criticize bad deeds? To call this standard and good behavior a double standard, is mischievous at best. It's trying to turn reality upside down, appealing instead to people to have a double standard.
Besides, isn't it a bit Gonzalish to do:
increases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
decreases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
Having software so "open" that responsibility cannot be assigned is actually a bad thing.
And this means to imply what? That business who sell support are figments of my imagination?
If you work at a place that needs someone to be responsible for the code, please buy support from us, companies who do sell it. We're eager to help you.
Other than that, you're just spawning Microsoft parrot-talk.
responsibility only comes in when you distribute those changes to others (or the use of modified bits can affect others).
Do you buy responsability from a book? If you didn't like how the story ended, can you demand a refund? This is idiotic, only software which has been sold to you with a guarantee or with another kind of responsability agreement can have that.
If it isn't a patent grant, it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Microsoft's promise not to sue is... incredible.
We'll allow you to commit infringement.
In Europe, Directive 2004/48/EC makes it a public crime, so Microsoft doesn't even have to act, the District Attorneys are mandated to act on public crimes, specially if denounced by someone.. who doesn't have to be Microsoft.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
yes
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
which libraries? how can you possibly imagine anyone will give you a straight answer when there are thousands of libraries? Are you even talking about the Kernel or confusing it with the greater GNU+Linux system?
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
You can even not publish it at all, why wouldn't you be able to obfuscate?
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
If you include software someone else wrote, you have to respect the conditions. If the conditions demand that you use the same license, you have two choices:
a) you comply with the license
b) you don't include the software someone else wrote
If you don't include any code you yourself didn't write, you are never forced to publish.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
I didn't say MythTV is easy. Freevo is much easier, and they're both Free Software (aka no DRM for you and me, thank you very much).
And I hope you're not intentionally trying to dillute the problem of DRM by merely calling it a dichotomy. To me there is no dichotomy at all. There is no choice but a Free Software media center, because the proprietary stuff is simply unacceptable.
The product is called Linux. The fact that GNU contributed some technology that they had lying around to Linus' product doesn't give them naming rights.
Do you read English? The program called Linux resides in http://www.kernel.org/, and nobody is trying to rename that program into GNU/Linux.
Quite the contrary, in fact. Some historical-facts-challenged people (like you) keep confusing that in a manner that can only be attributed to stupidity or mischievous intententions.
spyware (not the common hidden kind, Microsoft written spyware)
fewer formats supported
.
You also can't
use it for any purpose,
make custom changes,
copy it for your friends who liked it very much and would like to get a copy,
publish a modified version that, you know... removes said spyware and DRM, which everyone would like to but Microsoft and content providers don't want you to remove from Windows Media Center
Now... at the cost of maybe a little harder to use or set up, with MythTV or even Freevo which I like better than MythTV, you don't get DRM or spyware, you can play as many file formats as you want, and you have all the freedom you could ever need.
Is there *any* choice at all? O Rlly?
And to imply that Richard Stallman "politely asks" people to call it GNU/Linux is inaccurate. He rants and raves about it, and basically calls anyone who refers it by the name Linus gave it (ie. "Linux") bad people.
Linus only named a kernel named Linux, and Richard Stallman never asks people to call Linux as GNU/Linux. He asks people to call the operating system as GNU/Linux since the operating system is not the kernel alone.
Since you obviously keep repeating a mantra, instead of reading the plethfora of information I pointed you to, or you've never passed English 101, even though you appear to write it maybe it's something like the infinete number of monkeys, or you're a robot or a troll.
Choose your poison, but I'm betting on the last one.
The fact that GNU contributed some technology that they had lying around to Linus' product doesn't give them naming rights.
Well, let's gather facts:
not some, GNU project's software represents significant portions of any GNU/Linux variant. In fact, you can't even separate one from the other ever since it's 0.0.1 first release. Even Busybox/Linux variants require the GNU system in order to be built...
not past, as just suggested, even today GNU project's software is a very significant part of any GNU/Linux variant you have around the neighbourhood
not naming, the FSF and Richard Stallman are not taking credit after Linus' work. Linus' taking credit after *their* work. When Stallman asks people to say GNU/Linux, he's not renaming Linux. It is your wrong perception of what Linux is that leads you to think otherwise. All he's asking is for people to recognize the role of the GNU operating system, and to remember the freedom they have, instead of merely focusing on a popular but factually incorrect version of history. Even Linus said that Linux wasn't meant to be something big and professional like GNU. So there you go. At least then Linus didn't try to misappropriate the GNU project.
In fact, that's the WHOLE POINT of open source software--
You must be talking about another movement started much later on. Stallman talks about the Free Software movement, and he started it with the GNU project way back in 1983. Get your facts right!
If Stallman had wanted to keep marketing control over his invention, he shouldn't have open-sourced it.
Great scott! You mix trademarks with patents and we're only talking about copyright:)
Get your facts right: he's not wanting to keep control. He's asking and always in a polite form for recognition of GNU project's credit, and he never opensourced anything. He wrote it as Free Software from scratch.
Anyone can take GPL software and create a product and call it whatever they want, no matter what Stallman says or thinks. No one is forced to prepend "GNU/" to their product name.
That's not under discussion, and nobody is ever forced by Stallman to say GNU/Linux. That's why he asks, instead of forcing you at gun point. See the difference?
Thus, calling it GNU/Linux without written permission is diluting the Linux trademark and implying a business relationship with the Free Software Foundation, isn't it?
No:
A Trademark doesn't grant you omnipresent control on the word, and GNU/Linux is is way far from the controlled by trademark law parts
It's not diluting anything since he's not calling Linux by nother name, he's asking people to recognize the GNU project and not just merely the kernel of this particular variant.
For there to be a business relationship you have to have contracted something.
Your apparent anger seems to be strongly related to a distorted view of the facts. I hope you gather the courage to follow to links and learn a bit about recent history, instead of trusting someone else who didn't have the facts right either.
Don't botter replying with a repetition of your arguments, I likely won't reply back.
The addition of Linux to the GNU operating system results in the GNU/Linux variant, which is the GNU system running with the kernel called Linux
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing in any way Linus' fabulous work. A kernel is an essential part of an operating system! But far from *the* operating system.
So, you can still call a kernel an operating system and ignore the rest, ignore the importante of the GNU operating system, but then I hope you say Mach instead of Mac OS X, and kernel32.dll or whatever it's name is instead of Windows. At least be coherent, man!:)
In this view, saying GNU/Linux is not a misappropriation of the trademark Linux, it's actually using it quite properly, it's the GNU system and the kernel Linux.
and none of it relates to the First Amendment in the way that you suggest.
None... right... except the part where the First Amendment makes sure you have the freedom of speech, and the GPL makes sure you have software freedom.
The First Amendment restricts the ability to impeach your speech. The GNU GPL restricts the ability to impeach your software freedom.
You can ignore facts all they long and keep repeating misunderstanding as if by mere repetition it would become true, but you will not be very successful.
Slashdot Mirror
STFU Microsoftie.
Well, I don't advise to exactly *do* this, but it's probably a concrete example of how to value what is got at a free or very low price.
Let's make an equivalent to breathable air...
Think it's not valuable? Here's a nice plastic bag around your head. Wait a few seconds... Still think free isn't valuable? ]:-)
So in fact you are paying a tax when you buy your computer, which may very well be of a few hundreds of EUROS. A TAX most computer manufacturers will not let you abdicate from paying.
That is immoral and an abuse of competition law (anti-trust only comes in point if we're talking about a monopolist entering another market). Buying a good which binds you to buy a specific non-essential service is usually forbidden by law.
This could be easily solved if the pre-installed software would only work after you insert an activation code related to your license IF AND ONLY IF you bought said license as well as the computer, but it would have to be two quite different things.
"the problem"? "problem"? 25% more of nearly 700 pages (to add formulas) is 175 pages more, making it about 850 pages total. OOXML has over 6000 pages just in the direct information, which is absolutely lacking.
Plus: that's nearly 700 pages that are reutilized , so the bulk is just a few pages, most of which is already compatible with Excel's formulas (minus the bugs, I hope) and as such already used by software such as GNUmeric or OpenOffice.org
That's not a problem, that's a relief! It would be a problem if it got thousands more pages....
Theo de Raat, even though I don't agree with all he says, is a Free Software lover, and I don't believe for one minute that he would defend using a proprietary compiler for OpenBSD, an operating system designed for security.
If you *have* to wonder why, check Tusting Trust
And you might want to come back to reality, since it's JTC1 who's in *charge* of anything here.
They *may* or not ask Microsoft/ECMA (asking through ECMA, who approved OOXML virtually as is, and who'll forward back Microsoft's answers).
ECMA can't resolve a single character in the DIS29500 document. That's for JTC1 *alone* to decide what changes have to be done.
They *may* ask ECMA for a definition of autoSpaceLikeWord95, or they may add their own, or they may remove it completely.
Stop parroting Microsoft propaganda.
That would mean Microsoft would be able to silently buy Portugal's vote, since they were able to buy the TC *before* it was formed by privately gathering puppets that would support their position, and who proposed to become "founding" members.
Instead I was able to join in and bring transparency to the meeting, even though the NB's representativy unilaterally decided to give less than 48h before refusing new members, as it saw that Microsoft's control would be wrestled out.
They don't give that excuse, of course, they mask it by room space (it could handle more and they chose not to use an auditorium) and representativity (just count the Microsoft Business Partners, or people with strong ties to Microsoft: 13 against 7).
Zero pages has a lot smaller error ratio than 700, by definition.
In OOXML the errors and the explanation why they are real problems, would probably go well over it's 700 pages dedicated to formulas.
Don't tell me you know what day of the week is 1/1/1900 according to OOXML?
Miguel deIcaza has been layout almost word by word what many Microsoft employees have been saying.
Miguel deIcaza has always been a fan of Microsoft technologies.
Miguel deIcaza is working for a company with a vested interest in the success of Microsoft.
How much trust can *you* conscientiously lay on him?
I for one, think his words are not worthy of trust anymore. He may be a good coder who did some good work on some Free Software, but he's basically wearing the one ring.
As for me, I know where I stand:
- increases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
- decreases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: bad deed
Isn't it consistent and proper education to praise good deeds and criticize bad deeds? To call this standard and good behavior a double standard, is mischievous at best. It's trying to turn reality upside down, appealing instead to people to have a double standard.Besides, isn't it a bit Gonzalish to do:
- increases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
- decreases pool of software everyone is free to run, study, modify, republish: good deed
hmms? hmms?If you work at a place that needs someone to be responsible for the code, please buy support from us, companies who do sell it. We're eager to help you.
Other than that, you're just spawning Microsoft parrot-talk. Do you buy responsability from a book? If you didn't like how the story ended, can you demand a refund? This is idiotic, only software which has been sold to you with a guarantee or with another kind of responsability agreement can have that.
If it isn't a patent grant, it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
... incredible.
Microsoft's promise not to sue is
We'll allow you to commit infringement.
In Europe, Directive 2004/48/EC makes it a public crime, so Microsoft doesn't even have to act, the District Attorneys are mandated to act on public crimes, specially if denounced by someone.. who doesn't have to be Microsoft.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
yes
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
which libraries? how can you possibly imagine anyone will give you a straight answer when there are thousands of libraries? Are you even talking about the Kernel or confusing it with the greater GNU+Linux system?
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
You can even not publish it at all, why wouldn't you be able to obfuscate?
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
If you include software someone else wrote, you have to respect the conditions. If the conditions demand that you use the same license, you have two choices:
a) you comply with the license
b) you don't include the software someone else wrote
If you don't include any code you yourself didn't write, you are never forced to publish.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Neither GNU/Linux boxes.
I didn't say MythTV is easy. Freevo is much easier, and they're both Free Software (aka no DRM for you and me, thank you very much).
And I hope you're not intentionally trying to dillute the problem of DRM by merely calling it a dichotomy. To me there is no dichotomy at all. There is no choice but a Free Software media center, because the proprietary stuff is simply unacceptable.
Quite the contrary, in fact. Some historical-facts-challenged people (like you) keep confusing that in a manner that can only be attributed to stupidity or mischievous intententions.
- DRM,
- spyware (not the common hidden kind, Microsoft written spyware)
- fewer formats supported
. You also can't- use it for any purpose,
- make custom changes,
- copy it for your friends who liked it very much and would like to get a copy,
- publish a modified version that, you know... removes said spyware and DRM, which everyone would like to but Microsoft and content providers don't want you to remove from Windows Media Center
Now... at the cost of maybe a little harder to use or set up, with MythTV or even Freevo which I like better than MythTV, you don't get DRM or spyware, you can play as many file formats as you want, and you have all the freedom you could ever need. Is there *any* choice at all? O Rlly?Hey Mr... the Lesser GPL is also being revised, and you know what? It's basically GPLv3 with Exceptions A B and C :)
Since you obviously keep repeating a mantra, instead of reading the plethfora of information I pointed you to, or you've never passed English 101, even though you appear to write it maybe it's something like the infinete number of monkeys, or you're a robot or a troll.
Choose your poison, but I'm betting on the last one.
Well, let's gather facts:
- not some, GNU project's software represents significant portions of any GNU/Linux variant. In fact, you can't even separate one from the other ever since it's 0.0.1 first release. Even Busybox/Linux variants require the GNU system in order to be built...
- not past, as just suggested, even today GNU project's software is a very significant part of any GNU/Linux variant you have around the neighbourhood
- not naming, the FSF and Richard Stallman are not taking credit after Linus' work. Linus' taking credit after *their* work. When Stallman asks people to say GNU/Linux, he's not renaming Linux. It is your wrong perception of what Linux is that leads you to think otherwise. All he's asking is for people to recognize the role of the GNU operating system, and to remember the freedom they have, instead of merely focusing on a popular but factually incorrect version of history. Even Linus said that Linux wasn't meant to be something big and professional like GNU . So there you go. At least then Linus didn't try to misappropriate the GNU project.
You must be talking about another movement started much later on. Stallman talks about the Free Software movement, and he started it with the GNU project way back in 1983. Get your facts right!Great scott! You mix trademarks with patents and we're only talking about copyright
Get your facts right: he's not wanting to keep control. He's asking and always in a polite form for recognition of GNU project's credit, and he never opensourced anything. He wrote it as Free Software from scratch.
That's not under discussion, and nobody is ever forced by Stallman to say GNU/Linux. That's why he asks, instead of forcing you at gun point. See the difference?
No:
Your apparent anger seems to be strongly related to a distorted view of the facts. I hope you gather the courage to follow to links and learn a bit about recent history, instead of trusting someone else who didn't have the facts right either. Don't botter replying with a repetition of your arguments, I likely won't reply back.
- In 1983 Richard Stallman initiates the GNU project. That's the project to create a fully Free Software operating system.
- 8 years later, in 1991, Linus Torvalds first announces a kernel that works with GNU software, and later on releases the very first release of his kernel for an i386 computer to work with the GNU operating system
- The addition of Linux to the GNU operating system results in the GNU/Linux variant, which is the GNU system running with the kernel called Linux
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing in any way Linus' fabulous work. A kernel is an essential part of an operating system! But far from *the* operating system.So, you can still call a kernel an operating system and ignore the rest, ignore the importante of the GNU operating system, but then I hope you say Mach instead of Mac OS X, and kernel32.dll or whatever it's name is instead of Windows. At least be coherent, man!
In this view, saying GNU/Linux is not a misappropriation of the trademark Linux, it's actually using it quite properly, it's the GNU system and the kernel Linux.
The First Amendment restricts the ability to impeach your speech. The GNU GPL restricts the ability to impeach your software freedom.
You can ignore facts all they long and keep repeating misunderstanding as if by mere repetition it would become true, but you will not be very successful.
You must be against the USA's First Ammendment, then, because it is *also* "Restriction" (in the way you define it).
Just like the GNU GPL, it "Restricts" the ability of other people to impeach anyone's Freedom of Speech.
The GNU GPL, in fact, "Resctricts" the ability of other people to impeach anayone's software freedoms.
So yeah, the GNU GPL has a few rules so that everyone has freedom, and no one can remove it.
I'm perfectly fine with this kind of "rules of the game".
We don't need a Software Patent reform, we need it to have a quite sudden early retirement.
If you have a nice glass broken in two halves, you can consider glueing it together again.
If it's broken in thousands of miniscule pieces... you simple throw it away.
Software Patents are like glass broken in thousands of dangerous miniscule shards that if ingested only hurt the industry by the inside.
Retire it. Now!