So it's the OSS folks' fault that businesses commit to extreme licensing terms and get beat up by the BSA for doing so? That's an, erm. interesting POV.
Indeed. For other folks: this is a must-read. HW makers are and have been driven crazy by MS' requirements for drivers that have anything to do with multimedia. The gist of it is that they *must* work with media player only, and they must fully support "tilting" bits and the whole shebang. If not: blacklist/bankruptcy. Very, very interesting read. And we're only seeing the beginning of this mob game right now.
16:9 and HD are not really related. Our (LCD) TV is SD but it switches to 16:9 whenever a real 16:9 signal is detected (it's just an extra voltage ramp-up somewhere), for letterbox you can select the best fit from several zoom-like functions (and 14:9 as well as good ol 4:3). The incoming signal is just (analog) cable.
What's tauted as "HD-ready" often means just that I think, that it can do 16:9.
"increase the download speed and stability Flashget can increase download speed from 6-10 times. It uses MHT (Multi-server Hyper-threading Transportation) technique and optimization arithmetic and it"
Just a paragraph from their 'features' page, copied verbatim. People who believe this kind of crap deserve whatever they get.
You're thinking of dogs, cat's aren't like that Correct. Cats tend to seek your companionship when you *don't* want them around. Pondering whether or not that is a sign of empathy is... well, tiring. That's why they sleep so much I reckon.
"However, if you take GPL source and modify it, you HAVE to release your changes/additions under the GPL. You can't release your changes under a different license."
Sure you can, as long as you comply with the terms of the GPL. The main difference is that GPL wants to rule over what the next guy does with it, while the BSDL doesn't. But if I make my changes/additions (real original additions would be stronger for this argument I think) BSDL and provide source code, there's nothing wrong with that. It's the next guy's responsibility to also comply with the GPL in as far as the GPL'd source is used of course.
The whole "must be GPL also" is a myth. It's nowhere in the GPL(2) text, only in the FAQs. Obviously "GPL also" takes care of the next guy and further downstream, but BSDL/MIT/.. code with source provided is in principle good enough to comply with the GPL(2). In fact, it stipulates that no further restrictions are allowed.
They can never force a developer to use certain licensing terms on his own original work (derivative or not), but they can force terms of compliance. That seems like a small difference but it's a big one. It's also one that pops up ever so often. It's not the license that's "viral", it's the terms.
I'm not sure how this is with GPL3 BTW. It's very convoluted, hard to read, and seems more restrictive than GPL2, and it may just be the case that the difference described above is neutered by GPL3 in which case GPL3 is not only incompatible with GPL2 but also with BSDL.
Wooah... you mean you not only transfer your copyright but you also have to *pay* the FSF for legal costs concerning "protecting" the code of which you transfered any and all (copy)rights to the FSF?
I know a great cult for you, it's called scientology. There you can get even much better legal protection after giving them your first born.
Or heck, just ask the mob for "protection" of your house and store after you give it to them. Fool.
I don't think so, considering that the license has a copyright notice and requires it to be retained (some strip down the license even more, explicitly removing this requirement but they keep in the second requirement or rather disclaimer..).
If anything it's an opt-out of public domain, because of the second principal part of a BSD license, which is waiving any warranty or liability. This is important because with PD you not only give up your copyright but also any such disclaimer, which means you could be sued by a user.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a great design dies anyway, would it? No interest, no momentum, no extra sales. That's a whole different thing than technical merits.
And yeah, even if I don't have one, my FreeBSD ports do support and should compile and run properly on sparc64 (It's considered tier-1), but I can only read what the build cluster's or some random user's results were. And that's the whole point, for the vast majority of developers and users, it's just not going to stick because almost noone has it. And I don't think that will change.
Not hindered by any actual knowledge about the processor, but this was my first thought:
Considering it's Sun, this to me seems to have all the hallmarks of a farewell bid by "going open source" and hoping to hop onto the momentum it generates, if any.
Five years from now, sparc will be history. Not for being bad or outdated, but because nobody really cares. And I think they know it.
I might be wrong but I think that i386, and perhaps more specifically AMD/64 ultimately are just not possible to compete with, with specs going up (relatively) and costs going down (relatively).
It's quite possible that sparc is much better but like I said, no one will care (also relatively).
You must abide to the *terms* of the GPL. That does not imply that your own work should be GPL licensed also. Suggestive FAQs (hello TrollTech and MySQL) do not change the text of the license. In fact, if they were to put the requirement 'you must GPL your own work too' in the license they wouldn't be allowed to call the license GPL anymore because (a) the license is copyrighted as-is, and (b) it would add an extra restriction which is explicitly disallowed in the GPL test.
That blackhat link (warning: big pdf) is very interesting. So much obfuscation and encrypting, while there's no clear need for any in a piece of software like this. Scary indeed.
You really want to use send-pr(1) for sending bug reports. The web interface is indeed horrible. Here's a great guide on sending PRs. There's also a GTK frontend for send-pr in ports.
Have a working release. Package it for one or more distros. Don't count on people to join or help you. It's great if they do, but my experience has been that if any, my feedback consists of the odd bug report (which I may or may not be aware of) and few people who actually want to try experimental code that I've hacked up for them.
I don't think you should assume any bigger than what feedback suggests. And remember that few feedback may also mean that it works fine for most people who try it.
I know that my project is quite widely used but I couldn't gather it from download stats or anything like that. Let alone from feedback. http://sourceforge.net/projects/kbtv
That is so true. Questions to special interest MLs or forums will generally remain unanswered, as they're typically not interested in projects that merely use some of their stuff in a secondary manner.
Also, feedback will generally be sparce and lousy. Try to get the most out of the few users who do contact you. If they're merely annoying or beating a dead horse, ignore them. Little feedback may simply mean that the people who are using your software have no or few problems with it.
I only put my project up on SF.net after I'd already been distributing it via my own website for about a year (basically to have a first download location on SF.net in case I or my site would disappear at some point -- you never know what can happen). Once in a while I simply do an exhaustive google to see if people are talking about it on forums. I found it's included in RelaxBSD, whatever that may be, listed with FF, OOo, etc. Hurray!?
One thing that I think was helpful in my case is because it is for FreeBSD (only ATM), from the first release I've been maintaining and submitting the port for it. That put it on the map. If you develop for Linux, do create and submit a package for your favorite distro.
And, yeah, write and maintain documentation, both for devs and for users.
"I found your contact information on the Internet. I am interested to know your openness to new job opportunities and find out more about your past work experience."... etc
A few months ago I got a few like these (not copies of the same text). A bit spammish but with restrain. I remember being surprised and wondering how many people were getting these. I wouldn't want to relocate to another country so I never replied. I'm also not a big Google fan personally (call me paranoid). Especially the cultivated "kool-aid factor" (aka PR) ticks me off.
The one person (other than RMS) that's always pointed to by the more rabid GPL adherents, whenever they run out of ammo themselves, now abandon ships. He's not going to make sure (by his or RMS' super powers) that the GPL3 is going to prevail in court. What does that make you think? I think that your legal idol doesn't want to risk the cross. Now, how about you? How certain does that make you feel?
Slashdot Mirror
So it's the OSS folks' fault that businesses commit to extreme licensing terms and get beat up by the BSA for doing so? That's an, erm. interesting POV.
Throw AC some mods, mods
Indeed. For other folks: this is a must-read. HW makers are and have been driven crazy by MS' requirements for drivers that have anything to do with multimedia. The gist of it is that they *must* work with media player only, and they must fully support "tilting" bits and the whole shebang. If not: blacklist/bankruptcy. Very, very interesting read. And we're only seeing the beginning of this mob game right now.
16:9 and HD are not really related. Our (LCD) TV is SD but it switches to 16:9 whenever a real 16:9 signal is detected (it's just an extra voltage ramp-up somewhere), for letterbox you can select the best fit from several zoom-like functions (and 14:9 as well as good ol 4:3). The incoming signal is just (analog) cable.
What's tauted as "HD-ready" often means just that I think, that it can do 16:9.
"increase the download speed and stability Flashget can increase download speed from 6-10 times. It uses MHT (Multi-server Hyper-threading Transportation) technique and optimization arithmetic and it"
Just a paragraph from their 'features' page, copied verbatim. People who believe this kind of crap deserve whatever they get.
"However, if you take GPL source and modify it, you HAVE to release your changes/additions under the GPL. You can't release your changes under a different license."
Sure you can, as long as you comply with the terms of the GPL. The main difference is that GPL wants to rule over what the next guy does with it, while the BSDL doesn't. But if I make my changes/additions (real original additions would be stronger for this argument I think) BSDL and provide source code, there's nothing wrong with that. It's the next guy's responsibility to also comply with the GPL in as far as the GPL'd source is used of course.
The whole "must be GPL also" is a myth. It's nowhere in the GPL(2) text, only in the FAQs. Obviously "GPL also" takes care of the next guy and further downstream, but BSDL/MIT/.. code with source provided is in principle good enough to comply with the GPL(2). In fact, it stipulates that no further restrictions are allowed.
They can never force a developer to use certain licensing terms on his own original work (derivative or not), but they can force terms of compliance. That seems like a small difference but it's a big one. It's also one that pops up ever so often. It's not the license that's "viral", it's the terms.
I'm not sure how this is with GPL3 BTW. It's very convoluted, hard to read, and seems more restrictive than GPL2, and it may just be the case that the difference described above is neutered by GPL3 in which case GPL3 is not only incompatible with GPL2 but also with BSDL.
Wooah... you mean you not only transfer your copyright but you also have to *pay* the FSF for legal costs concerning "protecting" the code of which you transfered any and all (copy)rights to the FSF?
I know a great cult for you, it's called scientology. There you can get even much better legal protection after giving them your first born.
Or heck, just ask the mob for "protection" of your house and store after you give it to them. Fool.
"BSD is an opt out of copyright"
I don't think so, considering that the license has a copyright notice and requires it to be retained (some strip down the license even more, explicitly removing this requirement but they keep in the second requirement or rather disclaimer..).
If anything it's an opt-out of public domain, because of the second principal part of a BSD license, which is waiving any warranty or liability. This is important because with PD you not only give up your copyright but also any such disclaimer, which means you could be sued by a user.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a great design dies anyway, would it? No interest, no momentum, no extra sales. That's a whole different thing than technical merits.
And yeah, even if I don't have one, my FreeBSD ports do support and should compile and run properly on sparc64 (It's considered tier-1), but I can only read what the build cluster's or some random user's results were. And that's the whole point, for the vast majority of developers and users, it's just not going to stick because almost noone has it. And I don't think that will change.
Not hindered by any actual knowledge about the processor, but this was my first thought:
Considering it's Sun, this to me seems to have all the hallmarks of a farewell bid by "going open source" and hoping to hop onto the momentum it generates, if any.
Five years from now, sparc will be history. Not for being bad or outdated, but because nobody really cares. And I think they know it.
I might be wrong but I think that i386, and perhaps more specifically AMD/64 ultimately are just not possible to compete with, with specs going up (relatively) and costs going down (relatively).
It's quite possible that sparc is much better but like I said, no one will care (also relatively).
Please people, get this straight:
You must abide to the *terms* of the GPL. That does not imply that your own work should be GPL licensed also. Suggestive FAQs (hello TrollTech and MySQL) do not change the text of the license. In fact, if they were to put the requirement 'you must GPL your own work too' in the license they wouldn't be allowed to call the license GPL anymore because (a) the license is copyrighted as-is, and (b) it would add an extra restriction which is explicitly disallowed in the GPL test.
Talk about FUD.
That blackhat link (warning: big pdf) is very interesting. So much obfuscation and encrypting, while there's no clear need for any in a piece of software like this. Scary indeed.
They only got alt.binaries.gay.interracial
See, even then it Just Worked (TM)
Or something.
You really want to use send-pr(1) for sending bug reports. The web interface is indeed horrible. Here's a great guide on sending PRs. There's also a GTK frontend for send-pr in ports.
"He is also founder of The Yankee Group.."
Surely you all remember miss Didio and her corperate horse whispering.
Have a working release. Package it for one or more distros. Don't count on people to join or help you. It's great if they do, but my experience has been that if any, my feedback consists of the odd bug report (which I may or may not be aware of) and few people who actually want to try experimental code that I've hacked up for them.
I don't think you should assume any bigger than what feedback suggests. And remember that few feedback may also mean that it works fine for most people who try it.
I know that my project is quite widely used but I couldn't gather it from download stats or anything like that. Let alone from feedback.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kbtv
Mods! This is at least worth a +1 Funny.
Amen
That is so true. Questions to special interest MLs or forums will generally remain unanswered, as they're typically not interested in projects that merely use some of their stuff in a secondary manner.
Also, feedback will generally be sparce and lousy. Try to get the most out of the few users who do contact you. If they're merely annoying or beating a dead horse, ignore them. Little feedback may simply mean that the people who are using your software have no or few problems with it.
I only put my project up on SF.net after I'd already been distributing it via my own website for about a year (basically to have a first download location on SF.net in case I or my site would disappear at some point -- you never know what can happen). Once in a while I simply do an exhaustive google to see if people are talking about it on forums. I found it's included in RelaxBSD, whatever that may be, listed with FF, OOo, etc. Hurray!?
One thing that I think was helpful in my case is because it is for FreeBSD (only ATM), from the first release I've been maintaining and submitting the port for it. That put it on the map. If you develop for Linux, do create and submit a package for your favorite distro.
And, yeah, write and maintain documentation, both for devs and for users.
I'm not on one of those. SF.net maybe.
That's possible, London and various US locations mentioned, but also IIRC in Switzerland. That might have been a new office.
"I found your contact information on the Internet. I am interested to know ... etc
your openness to new job opportunities and find out more about your past
work experience."
A few months ago I got a few like these (not copies of the same text). A bit spammish but with restrain. I remember being surprised and wondering how many people were getting these. I wouldn't want to relocate to another country so I never replied. I'm also not a big Google fan personally (call me paranoid). Especially the cultivated "kool-aid factor" (aka PR) ticks me off.
Anyone else been contacted this way?
The one person (other than RMS) that's always pointed to by the more rabid GPL adherents, whenever they run out of ammo themselves, now abandon ships. He's not going to make sure (by his or RMS' super powers) that the GPL3 is going to prevail in court. What does that make you think? I think that your legal idol doesn't want to risk the cross. Now, how about you? How certain does that make you feel?
Mod me down, I have karma burps.