It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO).
You know, this is disturbing me. It seems that a lot of slashdotters are now resigned to the fact that some kernel code will have to be rewritten as a result of SCO's FUD campaign. It sounds like people have conceded SCO's claim that Linux has infringed on its IP, despite the fact that there is precisely zero actual evidence of infringement.
I know what you intend to say is "there's almost certainly no infringement, but even if (by some wild distortion of reality) there is, the code can be easily changed", but when you shorten that to "the code will simply have to be changed", then the terrorists (i.e., SCO) have already won.
Come on, Slashdot. Hold the line. "This far, no further", and all that.
(sorry to pick out your post dhodell; I've seen this all over slashdot recently)
This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws.
Well, as long as "whatever" means "software licensed under the GPL" then, yeah, I guess. But then your second sentence doesn't make any sense, so I guess I don't know what you are talking about.
"Did that software come with an EULA?" "Yes, the GNU GPL."
Not to be a stickler, but the GPL is not a EULA, it's a RDLA (Re-Distribution License Agreement). You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
Check out the documentaries on the FotR DVD. A lot of the stuff you probably think was "hokey" CG was actually made using older full-analog techniques, such as miniatures (they call them "biggatures", becuase the models are typically 1:4 or so) and forced-perspective. CG was only used where it made the most sense to do so.
Bummer. I will no longer be able to righteously correct slashdotters who ignorantly complain that SETI is "wasting" their tax dollars.:)
I was always kind of proud of SETI for making it on private donations alone; it seemed like losing federal funds was the best thing that ever happened to them. Anyway, this grant is just for the Astrobiology Institute partnership; they still have their own funds for their normal operations.
Yes, but I believe parent poster's point was that because the user need not agree to anything to use GPL'd software, it may not be possible to assert that the author has no liability wrt the software.
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...
NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.
Well, the fact is that the GPL permits you do do certain things and it prohibits you from doing other things.
No. The GPL does not restrict you from doing anything that you would not already be restricted from doing under standard copyright law. Cast in these terms, it is indeed true that the GPL itself grants you additional 'rights' while taking none away (since you never had arbitrary redistribution rights anyway).
The only thing that really worries me personally, as a MacOSX user, is that Apple has based it's browser on Trolltech's Qt toolkit.
Apple's browser (Safari) does not use Qt. It uses KDE's khtml renderer, but translated to its own native widgets. So you have nothing to worry about. However, even if Safari did use Qt, you'd still have nothing to worry about.
If Trolltech is indeed owned by Canopy...KDE might have some huge potential problems comming up as well.
Bah! Canopy owns 5.8% of TT's stock. TT's employees own 70%. Pray tell, how does that mean that TT is "owned" by Canopy?
Well, I know of an easy way to tell which USB you have, but I only reply to posts containing more than 36 exclamation points. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to press Shift+1 a few more times, then I can't be bothered to help you.
If your whole windows network goes down, and your group loses 5 days of work time, you can say "microsoft is to blame! sue them!" and your boss doesn't fire you.
Really? I've heard this argument before, but it sounds a bit fishy to me. Has MS ever been successfully sued because a corporate network went down, or a server crashed?
The string in grandparent post implied that the GCC compiler had been modified. They presumably don't ship a compiler binary with their router, they just use it in-house, to compile the router software (which they do ship as binaries).
The only source code they are required to make available is that for the binaries being distributed.
Bob has some interesting thoughts this week. The column is about how, IF there is UnixWare or OpenUnix code in Linux, it was most likely Caldera itself that put it there, not IBM. This isn't a new idea, but he provides quotes from Ransom Love at the time which sound pretty damning.
SCO/Caldera's motto at the time was "Unifying Unix with Linux for Business". To the extent that wasn't just hype, how can they blame anyone but themselves for migrating their UNIX code into Linux?
Yeah, but in one of those ironic Twilight Zone (tm) plot twists, the ATM only gives you pre-Euro European currency!! And then the guy in red greasepaint, horns and a goatee appears to laugh maniacally at you.
The point is not to be worried about this *particular* rock, it's to be worried about rocks of this class that are out there on Earth-crossing orbits, that we don't even know about yet. One of them could hit tomorrow.
Not that I am suggesting Impact insurance or anything, because the probability is obviously infinitesimal. Still, it does happen. It will happen again. It's just a question of when. Probably not in our lifetimes. Probably. Heh.
Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.
Why do you think that? I seriously do not understand this. Linux is and always has been of the hackers, for the hackers, and by the hackers. Who cares if Linux is adopted by the "enterprise" or not? Sure, it's nice to have the boost in development that large companies can bring, but to say that IT managers are more important than active members of the community just boggles my mind. Don't think of Linux as a business product. If we fall into that trap, they've won.
Nah, I've often seen it calld the "GNU GPL", so the G definitely stands for 'General', IMHO (but IANRMS, so YMMV)
Re:more a legal than technical issue Re:If you don
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
The GPL has never been tested in court, after all, and that's already something of a concern about it for enterprise level customers.
The shrink-wrap EULA has also never been tested in court, IIRC. Does that make MS software "something of a concern" for enterprise level customers?
Besides, it isn't clear to me what exactly about the GPL must be tested in court to mollify enterprise customers. If they are simply using GPL software, then the GPL doesn't even do anything. For pure users, GPL==freeware. The GPL restrictions come into play only if one chooses to redistribute GPL'd software. If you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then the software reverts to standard copyright law, under which you have no rights to redistribute it. I really don't see how one could invalidate the GPL without necessarily invalidating all software licenses at the same time (IANAL).
This could lead to the rise of the GNU/Hurd, the Second Coming of GNU!
(actually, I don't think GNU/Linux has anything to worry about)
Re:I love Gentoo, but...
on
Gentoo Games
·
· Score: 1
yeah, especially with Gentoo. One wonders why they even bother attaching a version number. Just do 'emerge sync; emerge -u world', and you have the latest stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Software licensed under an "open-source" license is
<it><b><blink>NOT </blink></b></it>
in the public domain!!1!!!oneone1
It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO).
You know, this is disturbing me. It seems that a lot of slashdotters are now resigned to the fact that some kernel code will have to be rewritten as a result of SCO's FUD campaign. It sounds like people have conceded SCO's claim that Linux has infringed on its IP, despite the fact that there is precisely zero actual evidence of infringement.
I know what you intend to say is "there's almost certainly no infringement, but even if (by some wild distortion of reality) there is, the code can be easily changed", but when you shorten that to "the code will simply have to be changed", then the terrorists (i.e., SCO) have already won.
Come on, Slashdot. Hold the line. "This far, no further", and all that.
(sorry to pick out your post dhodell; I've seen this all over slashdot recently)
This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws.
Well, as long as "whatever" means "software licensed under the GPL" then, yeah, I guess. But then your second sentence doesn't make any sense, so I guess I don't know what you are talking about.
"Did that software come with an EULA?"
"Yes, the GNU GPL."
Not to be a stickler, but the GPL is not a EULA, it's a RDLA (Re-Distribution License Agreement). You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
Thanks.
Check out the documentaries on the FotR DVD. A lot of the stuff you probably think was "hokey" CG was actually made using older full-analog techniques, such as miniatures (they call them "biggatures", becuase the models are typically 1:4 or so) and forced-perspective. CG was only used where it made the most sense to do so.
Bummer. I will no longer be able to righteously correct slashdotters who ignorantly complain that SETI is "wasting" their tax dollars. :)
I was always kind of proud of SETI for making it on private donations alone; it seemed like losing federal funds was the best thing that ever happened to them. Anyway, this grant is just for the Astrobiology Institute partnership; they still have their own funds for their normal operations.
Yes, but I believe parent poster's point was that because the user need not agree to anything to use GPL'd software, it may not be possible to assert that the author has no liability wrt the software.
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...
NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.
Well, the fact is that the GPL permits you do do certain things and it prohibits you from doing other things.
No. The GPL does not restrict you from doing anything that you would not already be restricted from doing under standard copyright law. Cast in these terms, it is indeed true that the GPL itself grants you additional 'rights' while taking none away (since you never had arbitrary redistribution rights anyway).
The only thing that really worries me personally, as a MacOSX user, is that Apple has based it's browser on Trolltech's Qt toolkit.
Apple's browser (Safari) does not use Qt. It uses KDE's khtml renderer, but translated to its own native widgets. So you have nothing to worry about. However, even if Safari did use Qt, you'd still have nothing to worry about.
If Trolltech is indeed owned by Canopy...KDE might have some huge potential problems comming up as well.
Bah! Canopy owns 5.8% of TT's stock. TT's employees own 70%. Pray tell, how does that mean that TT is "owned" by Canopy?
Well, I know of an easy way to tell which USB you have, but I only reply to posts containing more than 36 exclamation points. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to press Shift+1 a few more times, then I can't be bothered to help you.
If your whole windows network goes down, and your group loses 5 days of work time, you can say "microsoft is to blame! sue them!" and your boss doesn't fire you.
Really? I've heard this argument before, but it sounds a bit fishy to me. Has MS ever been successfully sued because a corporate network went down, or a server crashed?
The string in grandparent post implied that the GCC compiler had been modified. They presumably don't ship a compiler binary with their router, they just use it in-house, to compile the router software (which they do ship as binaries).
The only source code they are required to make available is that for the binaries being distributed.
Bob has some interesting thoughts this week. The column is about how, IF there is UnixWare or OpenUnix code in Linux, it was most likely Caldera itself that put it there, not IBM. This isn't a new idea, but he provides quotes from Ransom Love at the time which sound pretty damning.
SCO/Caldera's motto at the time was "Unifying Unix with Linux for Business". To the extent that wasn't just hype, how can they blame anyone but themselves for migrating their UNIX code into Linux?
If he wrote the program in his spare time, then why is the copyright assigned to Nullsoft, Inc.?
Nah, just let the market wreak its merciless justice...
Yeah, but in one of those ironic Twilight Zone (tm) plot twists, the ATM only gives you pre-Euro European currency!! And then the guy in red greasepaint, horns and a goatee appears to laugh maniacally at you.
I hate when that happens.
The point is not to be worried about this *particular* rock, it's to be worried about rocks of this class that are out there on Earth-crossing orbits, that we don't even know about yet. One of them could hit tomorrow.
Not that I am suggesting Impact insurance or anything, because the probability is obviously infinitesimal. Still, it does happen. It will happen again. It's just a question of when. Probably not in our lifetimes. Probably. Heh.
Parent poster didn't say the "5 stories" rule was false, he said it was pointless...
Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.
Why do you think that? I seriously do not understand this. Linux is and always has been of the hackers, for the hackers, and by the hackers. Who cares if Linux is adopted by the "enterprise" or not? Sure, it's nice to have the boost in development that large companies can bring, but to say that IT managers are more important than active members of the community just boggles my mind.
Don't think of Linux as a business product. If we fall into that trap, they've won.
Nah, I've often seen it calld the "GNU GPL", so the G definitely stands for 'General', IMHO (but IANRMS, so YMMV)
The GPL has never been tested in court, after all, and that's already something of a concern about it for enterprise level customers.
The shrink-wrap EULA has also never been tested in court, IIRC. Does that make MS software "something of a concern" for enterprise level customers?
Besides, it isn't clear to me what exactly about the GPL must be tested in court to mollify enterprise customers. If they are simply using GPL software, then the GPL doesn't even do anything. For pure users, GPL==freeware. The GPL restrictions come into play only if one chooses to redistribute GPL'd software. If you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then the software reverts to standard copyright law, under which you have no rights to redistribute it. I really don't see how one could invalidate the GPL without necessarily invalidating all software licenses at the same time (IANAL).
GNU/Linux may suffer, but not other systems.
This could lead to the rise of the GNU/Hurd, the Second Coming of GNU!
(actually, I don't think GNU/Linux has anything to worry about)
yeah, especially with Gentoo. One wonders why they even bother attaching a version number. Just do 'emerge sync; emerge -u world', and you have the latest stuff.
Mickey Mouse is Big Brother's bitch
I think it's the other way around...
Anyway, I don't know what to make of the reest of your post. You seem to be equating PBS with a state-run news agency. It isn't.