The government will place back doors in this machine to prevent the copying of porn (alreayd restricted on the Internet in Oz), and it already refuses to copy any books by David Irving, as well as Mein Kampf, and Butz's Hoax of the Century (Check out www.ihr.org)
Nonsense. These are clearly atomic orbits. They must have been drawing Caesium in excited states II and III. (The only other option is it being an element > 92, which I seriously doubt).
This is the third time I have mailed you. You are taking a long time to wake up to this problem.
I first mailed about a GPL violation with my company (under ND, so cannot discose - details follow). We then had hte PowerVR issue, where htey did not release source. And then we had hte FSFs comment on RTLinux (http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
So, there are three issues. RTLinux & patent, PowerVR not releasing source, and the linux binary driver GPL loophole described below. The primary copyright hoder, torvalds, is doing nothing about any of them. This is NOT what the linux community wants.
Speaking of GPL violations, I found a pretty flagrant one at work a few weeks ago... Microtest (now XStore [xstoreonline.com]) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x, Apache, the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sells it as their "DiscZerver [xstoreonline.com]" product line. Nothing wrong with the method, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
Previous 'Ask Slashdot':
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
This is the third time I have mailed you. You are taking a long time to wake up to this problem.
I first mailed about a GPL violation with my company (under ND, so cannot discose - details follow). We then had hte PowerVR issue, where htey did not release source. And then we had hte FSFs comment on RTLinux (http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
So, there are three issues. RTLinux & patent, PowerVR not releasing source, and the linux binary driver GPL loophole described below. The primary copyright hoder, torvalds, is doing nothing about any of them. This is NOT what the linux community wants.
Speaking of GPL violations, I found a pretty flagrant one at work a few weeks ago... Microtest (now XStore [xstoreonline.com]) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x, Apache, the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sells it as their "DiscZerver [xstoreonline.com]" product line. Nothing wrong with the method, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
Previous 'Ask Slashdot':
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
We invent the Internet so that computers on the other side of the world can appear to be in the next room, and jamie wants to go back to the old way of doing things where we have to be within range of the other user!
Is this perhaps a hidden agenda to prevent the spread of, say, neo nazi materials? (for isntance, ith this method, how do you get your stuff into the heart of Germany, without manking hundreds of hops?)
John Gilmore is an childish jerk. Julie Tampon, his "girlfriend", left him cause he wanted to butt fuck her to much. He now sticks with boys, with was the only reason for his butt fucking in the first place. He now has a bunch of friends who are well into his sordid and perverse practises, such as enemas, butt plugs (after an enema, fucking their friends while "full" of water), "docking" (ala Jon Katz, since Gilmore also dreams of having his very own foreskin).
Try using FreeBSD - it has a friendly licence, one where you can share if you want, but can keep things to yourselves if you want as well. There is none of the selfish "I want to see what you've written otherwise you can't use this" licence crap with BSD - the BSD authors are just PLEASED that it is used, regardless of whether the changes are returned to the community.
Never heard of infomercials? They've been around a while. They are adverts that are informational. For instance, the advert might tell you all about a disease called AIDS, what it does, how bad it is, how to see that you've got it, and how their pills address the problem.
Much better than stating "Protease Inhibitors for sale. Call Nigel on 555...", do you not agree?
most likely to be fired: jamie, for obvious and selfish manipulation and abuse of moderation system. All his posts get modded to +5, and anything he doesn't like (i.e. anything non-Jew) is -1 (and that's the stuff we see - God knows what isn't deleted - sorry, Jamie knows, not God knows....)
Wipo troll sounds like 'd like a beer with him.
Gay linux conspiracy was the most improved - I wish they'd improve on the taco snotting (perhaps adding Jon katz's "docking" to the FAQ)
Worst troll is the "using VB for kernel/linux" - aims were honourable, and it could have been a sensational troll, if it were not for a few minor slip ups.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you've never heard of sliding windows ...
But it's easier than BSD to distribute since there is no fussy regression test suite in the way.
Fucking hell, a mode oriented editor? Get a life.
Get some fucking windows too.
The world does NOT evolve around regular expressions.
Yeah, and if they hung out in your bedroom, they'd lock you all up for abusing little children.
OK, you may not have the right to have MP3s on the company computer, but it does not make it ILLEGAL. MP3s are perfectly legal.
No, the daft yanks are spending their money fighting it! (Why, you didn't think the FBI worked for free did you?)
The government will place back doors in this machine to prevent the copying of porn (alreayd restricted on the Internet in Oz), and it already refuses to copy any books by David Irving, as well as Mein Kampf, and Butz's Hoax of the Century (Check out www.ihr.org)
After all, unix is great! Windows even acknowledges that some of our code is worth having (e.g. the TCP/IP stack).
They should stick to bashing lunix instead.
Do a search on " The Gay Linux Conspiracy" for more details.
Nonsense. These are clearly atomic orbits. They must have been drawing Caesium in excited states II and III. (The only other option is it being an element > 92, which I seriously doubt).
THis should have been moderated 'redundant'.
He also called me a worthless piece of shit simply because I wasn't prepared to release my software (that I had written) under the GPL.
This is the third time I have mailed you. You are taking a long time to wake up to this problem.
I first mailed about a GPL violation with my company (under ND, so cannot discose - details follow). We then had hte PowerVR issue, where htey did not release source. And then we had hte FSFs comment on RTLinux (http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html
So, there are three issues. RTLinux & patent, PowerVR not releasing source, and the linux binary driver GPL loophole described below. The primary copyright hoder, torvalds, is doing nothing about any of them. This is NOT what the linux community wants.
Speaking of GPL violations, I found a pretty flagrant one at work a few weeks ago...
Microtest (now XStore [xstoreonline.com]) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x, Apache, the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sells it as their "DiscZerver [xstoreonline.com]" product line. Nothing wrong with the method, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
Previous 'Ask Slashdot':
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
This is the third time I have mailed you. You are taking a long time to wake up to this problem.
I first mailed about a GPL violation with my company (under ND, so cannot discose - details follow). We then had hte PowerVR issue, where htey did not release source. And then we had hte FSFs comment on RTLinux (http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html
So, there are three issues. RTLinux & patent, PowerVR not releasing source, and the linux binary driver GPL loophole described below. The primary copyright hoder, torvalds, is doing nothing about any of them. This is NOT what the linux community wants.
Speaking of GPL violations, I found a pretty flagrant one at work a few weeks ago...
Microtest (now XStore [xstoreonline.com]) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x, Apache, the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sells it as their "DiscZerver [xstoreonline.com]" product line. Nothing wrong with the method, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
Previous 'Ask Slashdot':
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
"Let the lawyers argue this one out" you say.
This is precisely the dunb-fuck attitude that produces all these lawyers in the first place!
Twat.
We invent the Internet so that computers on the other side of the world can appear to be in the next room, and jamie wants to go back to the old way of doing things where we have to be within range of the other user!
Is this perhaps a hidden agenda to prevent the spread of, say, neo nazi materials? (for isntance, ith this method, how do you get your stuff into the heart of Germany, without manking hundreds of hops?)
Only true for linux boys. Many BSD boys develop commercial software so the licence is important.
John Gilmore is an childish jerk. Julie Tampon, his "girlfriend", left him cause he wanted to butt fuck her to much. He now sticks with boys, with was the only reason for his butt fucking in the first place. He now has a bunch of friends who are well into his sordid and perverse practises, such as enemas, butt plugs (after an enema, fucking their friends while "full" of water), "docking" (ala Jon Katz, since Gilmore also dreams of having his very own foreskin).
THe world is better off without this twat.
Sir,
Try using FreeBSD - it has a friendly licence, one where you can share if you want, but can keep things to yourselves if you want as well. There is none of the selfish "I want to see what you've written otherwise you can't use this" licence crap with BSD - the BSD authors are just PLEASED that it is used, regardless of whether the changes are returned to the community.
Taco,
Never heard of infomercials? They've been around a while. They are adverts that are informational. For instance, the advert might tell you all about a disease called AIDS, what it does, how bad it is, how to see that you've got it, and how their pills address the problem.
Much better than stating "Protease Inhibitors for sale. Call Nigel on 555...", do you not agree?
Timothy, you said "sorry for spreading false information".
Why the change of attitude?
Solar powered torches remember?
Oh, Slashdot janitors:
....)
most hated: Jamie
most likely to be fired: jamie, for obvious and selfish manipulation and abuse of moderation system. All his posts get modded to +5, and anything he doesn't like (i.e. anything non-Jew) is -1 (and that's the stuff we see - God knows what isn't deleted - sorry, Jamie knows, not God knows
Wipo troll sounds like 'd like a beer with him.
Gay linux conspiracy was the most improved - I wish they'd improve on the taco snotting (perhaps adding Jon katz's "docking" to the FAQ)
I vote Taco Snotting for the crap flood material.
Worst troll is the "using VB for kernel/linux" - aims were honourable, and it could have been a sensational troll, if it were not for a few minor slip ups.
So you penetrated her instead? Which hole?