"Windows XP (original release) wasn't really much more stable than Win98."
Win98 could not prevent an application with a bad pointer to crash it since there was no process isolation. Such a crash would be impossible on Windows XP.
It's really too bad. For those who are too young to remember, prior to Ninetendo's entry into the console market, anybody could make a console game if they could reverse engineer the console and the console maker got nothing.
The courts should have ruled such non-competitive licenses invalid.
"Bad news: it took 200,000 lines of manually-generated proof and approximately 25 person-years by PhDs to verify the aforementioned microkernel."
Of course I didn't read the article. When you use the phrase "manually-generated proof" does that imply that some of the proving was done by humans? If so, how do we know those PhDs didn't make a mistake?
"It's you that cannot prove that there is no more hidden data on the drive, unless the decrypted partitions you provided keys for account for the size of the whole drive."
In US Courts you can't be convicted of anything based on being unable to prove your innocence. If the prosecution can't prove there is more hidden data then they're SOL.
Since you don't think what I described is an "organization" what is your definition of one? Is all this redefining (freedom, organization, etc) a GPL supporter thing?
"That is not surprising in the least since the GPL is there for the USER's benefit, NOT the developers or corporations."
So the U-s-e-r-'-s great benefit is the source code they have no chance to do anything with? Why not just pick a few users and offer to add features they might want free of charge?
The whole point is that there's doubt that copyright infringement will have occurred - the GPL allows distribution within an organization and what I'm proposing (as thought problem, which I assumed you would understand) is exactly that.
There's nothing in the GPL that limits intra-organizational distribution to organizations that don't charge a fee for membership. A judge could just as easily conclude that if such an intent was desired by the framers of the GPL they could have simply put such a clause in the license. Since the GPL wasn't negotiated as part of an arms-length process by both parties but is merely offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the copyright holder has a greater responsibility for its content.
So I think the court outcome would be in significant doubt.
I'm never suggested that there's no difference between a BSD project and a GPL project, only that the "freedom" of their project isn't compromised by forking in either case because forks lie beyond the bounds of their project.
I agree that the terms of the GPL force people to provide their added source code when they distribute it, thus increasing the probability somewhat that the community will benefit, but this has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
I don't understand why GPL proponents can't just stick with the facts instead of equivocating between the original source and the code added to it.
The whole point of this sub-thread is comparing the GPL to the BSD. I'm just saying that "keeping the project as a whole "free"" isn't a logical reason to use the GPL instead of the BSD because in both cases forks done by other individuals aren't part of the project.
If this were not the case, I could change one byte of the Linux kernel and claim I should have commit privileges because my code is part of the Linux kernel (i.e. part of the project).
Who said anything about employees? Not me or the GPL.
From the GPLv2 FAQ:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company âoedistributionâ?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
Ignoring the issue of whether the content of the FAQ is really a legally binding part of the license, allowing distribution within an organization is a pretty broad exception.
Take the AARP. It charges its members a membership fee and it's clearly an organization just as much as the FSF or IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you think any OS shouldn't be given another chance after a mistake, you'll run out of OSs to use eventually.
"Windows XP (original release) wasn't really much more stable than Win98."
Win98 could not prevent an application with a bad pointer to crash it since there was no process isolation. Such a crash would be impossible on Windows XP.
Ruined? I thought they were the founders.
There was a lot of garbage but also a lot of great games that wouldn't have seen the light of day with today's licenses.
It's really too bad. For those who are too young to remember, prior to Ninetendo's entry into the console market, anybody could make a console game if they could reverse engineer the console and the console maker got nothing.
The courts should have ruled such non-competitive licenses invalid.
I was just responding to your claim that they "did not release an exploit to the wild or we wouldve known it sooner."
How exactly would you have known?
Is that because so many linux users scan their computer daily with anti-virus software?
Apparently F/OSS's "many eyes" were too busy looking at porn for the last 8 years.
"Bad news: it took 200,000 lines of manually-generated proof and approximately 25 person-years by PhDs to verify the aforementioned microkernel."
Of course I didn't read the article. When you use the phrase "manually-generated proof" does that imply that some of the proving was done by humans? If so, how do we know those PhDs didn't make a mistake?
"They're not all blue collar union members who refuse to learn new skills."
Sure, it's not as if CS graduates are using a variation of a 1970's OS or Lisp-like editors from that period.
And the circle begins again.
"What if the documents are written in Arameic? Does the fact that they can't read them mean they haven't been seized?"
The appropriate equivalent in this scenario would be if the police arrested you because you didn't translate the documents into English for them.
Tough crowd.
"There's no reason to protect the key, either"
You don't need a reason to keep what's legally yours, they, however, do.
I think that's a rather circular argument. If you've already been incriminated, there's no legitimate reason to ask you for the key.
"lets not forget about illegal wiretaps, shipping us citizens of to gitmo where they are "enhancedly interrogated" in a legal limbo."
Those were criminal acts that aren't part of our legitimate legal framework. Nevertheless, they are a problem.
Works great until the cop drops his donut on the controls and performs the switch too early.
"It's you that cannot prove that there is no more hidden data on the drive, unless the decrypted partitions you provided keys for account for the size of the whole drive."
In US Courts you can't be convicted of anything based on being unable to prove your innocence. If the prosecution can't prove there is more hidden data then they're SOL.
Since you don't think what I described is an "organization" what is your definition of one? Is all this redefining (freedom, organization, etc) a GPL supporter thing?
He was doing it for the users ... and the children.
"That is not surprising in the least since the GPL is there for the USER's benefit, NOT the developers or corporations."
So the U-s-e-r-'-s great benefit is the source code they have no chance to do anything with? Why not just pick a few users and offer to add features they might want free of charge?
The whole point is that there's doubt that copyright infringement will have occurred - the GPL allows distribution within an organization and what I'm proposing (as thought problem, which I assumed you would understand) is exactly that.
There's nothing in the GPL that limits intra-organizational distribution to organizations that don't charge a fee for membership. A judge could just as easily conclude that if such an intent was desired by the framers of the GPL they could have simply put such a clause in the license. Since the GPL wasn't negotiated as part of an arms-length process by both parties but is merely offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the copyright holder has a greater responsibility for its content.
So I think the court outcome would be in significant doubt.
I'm never suggested that there's no difference between a BSD project and a GPL project, only that the "freedom" of their project isn't compromised by forking in either case because forks lie beyond the bounds of their project.
I agree that the terms of the GPL force people to provide their added source code when they distribute it, thus increasing the probability somewhat that the community will benefit, but this has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
I don't understand why GPL proponents can't just stick with the facts instead of equivocating between the original source and the code added to it.
The whole point of this sub-thread is comparing the GPL to the BSD. I'm just saying that "keeping the project as a whole "free"" isn't a logical reason to use the GPL instead of the BSD because in both cases forks done by other individuals aren't part of the project.
If this were not the case, I could change one byte of the Linux kernel and claim I should have commit privileges because my code is part of the Linux kernel (i.e. part of the project).
Who said anything about employees? Not me or the GPL.
From the GPLv2 FAQ:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company âoedistributionâ?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
Ignoring the issue of whether the content of the FAQ is really a legally binding part of the license, allowing distribution within an organization is a pretty broad exception.
Take the AARP. It charges its members a membership fee and it's clearly an organization just as much as the FSF or IBM.