We have a legal right to make archive copies of the media we purchase. It would seem that this technology is infringing on that right.
If this is the case then DVD's too would be outlaw, given that they are copy protected with a system that doesn't allow fair use copying.
The CCA is very clever in the way they handle it
on
DeCSS Author Arrested
·
· Score: 2
First they attack people in America using the DMCA and the Trade Secret Act, using the fact that this kind of case hasn't been tried in Norvegian court up to now and with the help of a norvegian law expert, and when they manage to have a restraining order against us they attack the guy back home and they can point out that the American Justice is "supporting them".
I know that a restraining order is far from being a definite judgement, it just says that it may be illegal and it may harm the CCA so while waiting for the end of the trial you must not redistribute it, BUT the problem is that everybody don't know that and are therefore more easily manipulated into thinking the American law said it was criminal.
You can distribute the unlinked executable; you can't distribute a statically linked binary or the image in memory formed by dynamically linking with non-GPL code.
In other word you can redistribute the object file and ask your user to link it themselves, I still don't find it very useful, it would cause less problem to reimplement the GPL program than to try to cirumvent the GPL, but what they can do is use it (the GPL'd prg) internally while they make their own replacement software, and remove any GPL'd code afterward.
Besides, if you really think about the consequences of your interpretation, it leads to absurdities. Suppose there is a program distributed under the GPL which requires a dynamically linked proprietary library to function. According to you, this would violate the license. Then, a compatible replacement library is released under the GPL. This release, which is completely independent of the code in question, now makes distribution of the original program under the GPL legal.
This was the case with KDEback when QT wasn't Free (speech), and that was why redistributing KDE wasn't legal, and this is why some people began the Harmony project (make a GPL'd QT). All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
Suppose that the original library is under the GPL, but all copies of said library are destroyed.
The library probably wasn't very useful in this case;), but that's not the point.
All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
If I understand you, you mean as if KDE was QT and Harmony compatible (we will say that Harmony was finished and provided 100% interoperability with QT for the sake of the argument) and that Harmony was totally obliterated from the face of the Earth then KDE couldn't be distributed.
That's exactly that, the old versions of KDE had such problem, the KDE team could release KDE even if this was breaking the GPL (because they were not giving the code of QT under the GPL) because they were the original authors, but other people weren't legally permited to redistribute it given that they were distributing a free software with a non-free library. Luckily nobody was crazy enough to go straight on a suit against those that made that but prefered either begin their own project (Harmony to replace QT and Gnome to replace KDE) or lobby Troll Tech to make QT free (which is the case of QT 2.0 with the QPL).
There still is a legal problem with the old versions of KDE but given that it will resolve itself over time (when KDE arrive and people switch to it) nobody care anymore.
Anyone for a ride on a warship running linux? I sure wouldn't. I'd want its own OS, and i'm sure its builders would too.
I would prefer it to have its own OS too but if I had to choose between a warship running Linux and one running NT I definitely would took the one running Linux, I would fear less to remain dead in the water.
The problem is that/. is read by a lot of newbie that may want to try it ("it has been posted on/., it must be coll, hey") and may post themselves in an unstable system because of bugs in the development kernel and/or bad configuration from there part. Furthermore these same people may afterward look for help on the kernel development mailing list, which can be VERY annoying.
If you are really interested in having this kind of news without leaving slashdot there is a slashbox that does exactly this (see http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=preview&bid=linuxh q), but putting it on the main page is an error that can cause confusion.
Could you point out the section of the GPL that prohibits non-GPL modules, rather than talking about the "very point" of the license which means absolutely nothing in court?
Yup, you caught me, the GPL prohibit linking to non-GPL code in things like new code added or libraries (which is was their was the KDE-non-free QT (at the time) problem), but in a case of a module as in Linux use them (code that can be loaded/unloaded after the start without impairing the ability of the main code to be run) the GPL doesn't say anything (at least I can't find it) which is why Linus said it was Ok to do so (given that nobody did know he choose a solution).
But you can't deny that the GPL has been done with the specific aim to avoid having people linking non-GPL'd code to GPL'd code.
The GPL restricts distribution, not use.
Yup, but what good is it to you if you can't redistribute it without breaking the GPL?
The binary only, or otherwise non-GPL module is distributed as a distict entity from the GPLed code, and as such is not subject to the GPL
I don't think you are right to be as categoric, after all,a library is distinct from the software that links against it, so I could modify a GPL'd software to link with a non-(L)GPL library given your reasoning. While this is possible if you are the author of the GPL program (like it was the case with KDE-QT) it is not allowed if you were modifying someone else's GPL'd program.
In the case of a module though, this is much less clear and I don't think the GPL as it stand says it a way or another, and Linus choose to say that for Linux it was as you said, but this only applies for Linux, the vagueness (correct word???) remains for other GPL'd software, so I wouldn't be as definite as you on this.
if you amend a GPL'd program (entirely in accordance with the licence) then you decide what the "normal" way of calling it henceforth will be
By normal I meant "not linked to", that is Gnu tar (to take my example) is still an outside program even if I call him from my proprietary program.
Apparently your point is that somebody could modify a GPL'd library to make it a GPL'd program (which serves as a wrapper to the library) and make calling it with some options from the command line the "normal" way to call it.
This would work but they would have more overhead than by calling a library function and the program they would do to allow it would be under the GPL given that he links to the library, so this would work but we could easily make our own interface using the program they made that links against the library, and they must distribute/propose the source code when they sell their binaries (except the one of the main program which do the interface).
At least that is how I understand it.
I don't think whether someone is "well respected" or not has any bearing on the validity of changes they purport to make to licence terms.
Not in court per see, but the fact that anyone could have forked the kernel and stop contributing code to Linux when Linus said it was Ok to link the kernel with binary modules is a form of implicit apporvement.
Either they have the power to do so or they don't. I think in this case that Linus does not have the power to change the express written terms under which it (including other people's code) is licenced, and you seem to've stated that you agree with me.
He doesn't have the legal right, right, but if anobody having contributed code to Linux wasn't agreing they would have had the possibility to complain or even to sue him and Linus would have had to remove his (the plaintiff's) code from Linux, the fact that nobody complained speaks for itself.
I don't understand what you mean by saying that he "decided to interpret the GPL in a paricular way", you have said that you believe (indeed have very firmly stated as fact) that the GPL cannot be interpreted that way.
Well if I may have said that but after thinking more about it it doesn't seem clear to me. In a case of a program linking a compile time or when ld is called their is no doubt, but in the case of a Linux module you can have your kernel running, add the module somewhere, issue a few commands and without any recompilation have the module charged into Linux, so Linux works perfectly well without it and perfectly well with it. RMS himself said that it was against the spirit of the GPL (he would prefer all drivers to be GPL'd as I do) but given that Linus said it was authorised he didn't have any problem with it (it was in an interview that was posted a while ago (maybe be4 Xmas) on/. or LinuxToday).
Again, I simply don't think that's the point. His code is now linked, and built upon, other people's GPL'd works.
That is exactly the point, at the time he made the change, people already had contributed code, there were a lot fewer of them but they where there nonetheless, so if he couldn't make the change for binary drivers then he couldn't make the change to go the GPL way and then we should all sue Redhat, Caldera, Suse,... because they make money of selling Linux (even if they are IMPOV making money by selling services in a nifty box).
As I think was clear from my comment I'm not at all sure that the GPL does (or can from the way it's constructed) prohibit linking to binary modules.
Of course it does, this is the very point of the GPL to do so, unless you call it by its "normal" interface you have to put it under the GPL (i.e. if you integrate Gnu tar in your program, then your program must be GPL'd but if you make a front-end to Gnu tar that call it like if you were in a shell then your program doesn't have to be GPL'd).
I do not find at all acceptable your notion that the licence under which people have provided their code can be ignored just as long as they don't actively complain. Do you extend this principle to all licence violations?
I don't either but this is a particular case where the originator of the software, a person respected by millions of people, decided to interpret the GPL in a particular way (change that make it look like the LGPL BTW), if he was to change it to proprietary software (which would be a MAJOR change) then a lot of people would fight him I think.
Anyway, at the beginning Linux's license was more strict than the GPL given that you couldn't sell it for money, he then changed it to the GPL, would you prefer to have Linux under this older license?
Unless he agreed this with ALL contributors to the code, he doesn't have any power to override the existing licencing terms. Those terms (GPL) eitehr permit binary only drivers (or are unable to prohibit them) or they don't.
True, but I didn't hear about any developer complaining, in which case they would have to retire his code from the kernel.
If you are not happy you can fork the kernel and make it truly GPL, but don't count on us to follow you and don't forget to call it otherwise than Linux (Lunix if you want, or Trollix).
I can't believe this flame has been moderated up as "insightful"
Well, first I didn't moderate myself as insightful so I won't discuss that point (there should be a moderation like "constructive criticism" i think) but i don't think that it is flame. Is it flame to tell them that I think they were wrong to post this news and try to find valid reason why they would have posted this news (reason that don't seem to have applied to this kernel release).
1) Whining and moaning about how much cooler your version of slashdot would be takes no intelligence or insight of any type. If you want to whine about the quality of/. news, go the route of advogato and have the balls to do it yourself. That would be insightful.
This is not only a coolness factor, but development kernels aren't to put in every hand (otherwise they wouldn't be labeled as such, note also that I don't claim to be in the group savvy enough to use them, far from it) and put in some hands (newbies that have heard about "this Linux thing" and about "this Linux site called slashdot") this can be a problem. If they were posting a new stable kernel this probably would be more useful since there are fewer of them (13 or 14 against 40) and they generally are issued to fix an existing problem with the old one, so i think that there are good reason to whine here, not for me (I can easily ignore these news) but for the newbie (well, not 100% newbie if he is able to compile his kernel and use Lilo) that may be confused and for the kernel-dev mailing list that may have clueless questions from the aforementioned newbies.
2) This issue has been re-hashed on slashdot for a long, long time. This is nothing that hasn't been posted literally a thousand times- it's not creative or new. It probably ranks right up near "first post" in the length of time and amount of times it's been said.
This is precisely the problem with this news. Each time this come up people are complaining that/. isn't the place for such announcement, if they kept only stable kernels and new branches (like 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4-pre when it comes) this would be far enough, but each time they post a development kernel people complain about it, they should know by now that this isn't the place to post them, so we do like we do with kids when they don't learn their lesson, we repeat it until they remember it.
3) Are you contributing anything? Are you saying anything? No, you are whining that nothing insightful has been said instead of going to the source and finding out for yourself whether there are new features or fixed bugs.
I followed the link provided but couldn't find a good summary of the changes, furthermore i don't care if they fixed a bug in linux/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c, this doesn't qualify to be posted on/., what would qualify would be the addition of a new feature that is extremely useful (e.g. a journaling fs has been added to the kernel maybe) or symbolic (e.g. John Carmack began to rewrite the Linux IP stack and his code has been included as alpha code), other less important changes (not to downplay the work of those that made them) are expected in a development kernel and are not newsworthy.
So I complained, yes, but their where valid reason to do so (IMHO) and reason known by the/. crew.
I sincerly hope this was a mistake and they won't do it again, all this can do is bring confusion.
For what you seem to describe we have a situation with the following schema:
Binary driver --> C file (wrapper) -->Linux kernel
Given that Linus specifically allowed binary drivers these are not violating the GPL FOR LINUX ONLY (Linus said it was Ok, but this only apply to Linux).
They have a good reason to do this wrapper: Linus don't care that much if new kernels break the compatibility with binary-only driver (and IMHO he is right), so doing a wrapper to the driver allow them to just change this wrapper to keep the compatibility, they can also put the wrapper under the GPL (or, better for them, the LGPL) and hope that people using their hardware will help them keep the compatibility between kernels.
It's a first step in the right direction (full Free Software driver) and this give them a first taste of Free Softare and we can only encourage them in it (by helping them keeping the compatibility and, when you submit the patch, tell them how great this would be for you and them if the driver was fully GPL'd).
Of course your post didn't mention wether the wrapper was Free (speech) but there would be little advantage to give this wrapper otherwise.
Re:Trying to convince investors /. is a Linux site
on
Linux 2.3.40 released
·
· Score: 2
"Linux hype is what attracts investors' billions these days, so it's important for everyone to pretend their business is "all about Linux"."
This would be false to pretend that/. is "all about Linux" but/. is definitely biased in favor of posting a lot of Linux news and is frequented by a lot of Linux/Free Software fans, both making/. a Linux related site.
I thought there was a consensus that it was far better to let other sites post news about new kernel, especially for development kernels.
Does this kernel have some exceptional new thing integrated beside his number (Oh yes, we have reached the 40th release of 2.3 WHAT A NEWS) to justify to be posted??? Is it the first kernel of a new serie (like 2.2.0 or 2.3.0?)??? Does it fix a big bug??? No, then don't post it.
Those that are interested by cutting edge kernels know where to find them, those that are not able to find it by themselves probably aren't able to cope with the possible problems that may arise from a development kernel.
(this is not meant as a flamebait but/. isn't the place for this kind of news, otherwise they may want to post the news that my cat is dead yesterday at 4PM due to an EVIL DVD player that felt upon him).
Well, I think this is a good opportunities to express yourself and your position (and please DON'T FLAME, this would be worse than a suicide because you would cause harm to every consumer) but I am an European and I would like to know if they would accept letters from us non-American.
I ask that because they say "This notice requests written comments from all interested parties" and given that America has a distasteful habit to put pressure on other countries to adopt their ways (like the software patent stuff) I feel myself concerned with the outcome of all this.
Do you think I should send them a letter and specifiy clearly that I a not a citizen of the US of A???
On the same subject, if you are not American I don't think this would be a good idea to mess things up by posturing AS an American, this would be as bad (if not worse) as flaming them.
"Linux Care is different in that it capitalizes on the service portion of things, and have no commodity hardware or GPL handicap."
I don't see in what it is that different from Redhat, after all a distribution is just a service: the install help and the book, all this in a nice package.
So Redhat is a service company like LinuxCare but Redhat has something more: their name.
Linuxcare cannot say they are the expert #1 in any distribution because they don't do any, while Redhat is not only a service company BUT also an expert in a well known distribution.
It's true that anyone can take their distro and make another, like Mandrake, but this isn't a problme, this just further the number of distributions they are expert in (Mandrake being 99% like Redhat like they themself say).
In the end their will be concurrence and the best comanies will stay alive, isn't that what we all want to see???
All these minority groups without counting the minorities inside the white geek dominant group.
I am myself a white geek but don't share the same culture as most white geek here because I have an European culture (and more specifically a French one) and not an American one.
yup, I begin to think that their are as much minorities as their are individuals.
"Has the idea of trying to remove backwards compatability hardware problems and issues. (Crusoe with code morphing, MAJC with Java)."
Nothing prevent Transmeta on providing a Java morphing, thus acting like MAJC, or transforming a bytecode program into a morphed langage (like other compiled programs) thus eliminating the performance drawback of using bytecode.
The bytecode would then be just one more processor/instruction set.
(But thanks from all those that can't see it directly nor hear it:()
It also apply to proprietary licenses
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 2
Let's say that what Fare talks about is possible, then I can do exactly the same with proprietary licenses.
Of course I don't have their code but I could buy a version of Windows and redistribute it inside such an organisation with a small entry fee to the organisation.
This would allow me to redistribute proprietary software without paying royalties.
Of course some may say "This won't work because you have the license for x person" but this isn't a problem given that in this interpretation the organisation is a person.
given that there is no way a judge would sustain this view (or maybe an anarchist judge???) I don't think there is such a big problem.
"However I haven't killed my hope that Microsoft can improve. Can anyone truly say they believe that Microsoft has no talented people working for them?"
I hope they will.
If they would make the same kind of philosophy changes IBM went through during the last 10/15 years i think people wouldn't have more problem with MS than they have now with IBM.
but detested computer studies, despite excelling at it.
Despite or because?
I hated some pseudo computer science courses where all were were doing was using computer (yeah, and in mechanic courses do they teach driving?), or at best this was basics of programmation which I already knew.
Luckily I am lazy enough so I took it as an occasion not to have to do anything instead of being bored i was "in the clouds" (I hope this expression works in English;)).
Slashdot Mirror
We have a legal right to make archive copies of the media we purchase. It would seem that this technology is infringing on that right.
If this is the case then DVD's too would be outlaw, given that they are copy protected with a system that doesn't allow fair use copying.
First they attack people in America using the DMCA and the Trade Secret Act, using the fact that this kind of case hasn't been tried in Norvegian court up to now and with the help of a norvegian law expert, and when they manage to have a restraining order against us they attack the guy back home and they can point out that the American Justice is "supporting them".
I know that a restraining order is far from being a definite judgement, it just says that it may be illegal and it may harm the CCA so while waiting for the end of the trial you must not redistribute it, BUT the problem is that everybody don't know that and are therefore more easily manipulated into thinking the American law said it was criminal.
They really are vicious.
You can distribute the unlinked executable; you can't distribute a statically linked binary or the image in memory formed by dynamically linking with non-GPL code.
In other word you can redistribute the object file and ask your user to link it themselves, I still don't find it very useful, it would cause less problem to reimplement the GPL program than to try to cirumvent the GPL, but what they can do is use it (the GPL'd prg) internally while they make their own replacement software, and remove any GPL'd code afterward.
Besides, if you really think about the consequences of your interpretation, it leads to absurdities. Suppose there is a program distributed under the GPL which requires a dynamically linked proprietary library to function. According to you, this would violate the license. Then, a compatible replacement library is released under the GPL. This release, which is completely independent of the code in question, now makes distribution of the original program under the GPL legal.
This was the case with KDEback when QT wasn't Free (speech), and that was why redistributing KDE wasn't legal, and this is why some people began the Harmony project (make a GPL'd QT).
All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
Suppose that the original library is under the GPL, but all copies of said library are destroyed.
The library probably wasn't very useful in this case
All that remains is a compatible proprietary replacement. Now the original program can no longer be distributed under the GPL.
If I understand you, you mean as if KDE was QT and Harmony compatible (we will say that Harmony was finished and provided 100% interoperability with QT for the sake of the argument) and that Harmony was totally obliterated from the face of the Earth then KDE couldn't be distributed.
That's exactly that, the old versions of KDE had such problem, the KDE team could release KDE even if this was breaking the GPL (because they were not giving the code of QT under the GPL) because they were the original authors, but other people weren't legally permited to redistribute it given that they were distributing a free software with a non-free library. Luckily nobody was crazy enough to go straight on a suit against those that made that but prefered either begin their own project (Harmony to replace QT and Gnome to replace KDE) or lobby Troll Tech to make QT free (which is the case of QT 2.0 with the QPL).
There still is a legal problem with the old versions of KDE but given that it will resolve itself over time (when KDE arrive and people switch to it) nobody care anymore.
Anyone for a ride on a warship running linux? I sure wouldn't. I'd want its own OS, and i'm sure its builders would too.
I would prefer it to have its own OS too but if I had to choose between a warship running Linux and one running NT I definitely would took the one running Linux, I would fear less to remain dead in the water.
The problem is that
If you are really interested in having this kind of news without leaving slashdot there is a slashbox that does exactly this (see http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=preview&bid=linux
Could you point out the section of the GPL that prohibits non-GPL modules, rather than talking about the "very point" of the license which means absolutely nothing in court?
Yup, you caught me, the GPL prohibit linking to non-GPL code in things like new code added or libraries (which is was their was the KDE-non-free QT (at the time) problem), but in a case of a module as in Linux use them (code that can be loaded/unloaded after the start without impairing the ability of the main code to be run) the GPL doesn't say anything (at least I can't find it) which is why Linus said it was Ok to do so (given that nobody did know he choose a solution).
But you can't deny that the GPL has been done with the specific aim to avoid having people linking non-GPL'd code to GPL'd code.
The GPL restricts distribution, not use.
Yup, but what good is it to you if you can't redistribute it without breaking the GPL?
The binary only, or otherwise non-GPL module is distributed as a distict entity from the GPLed code, and as such is not subject to the GPL
I don't think you are right to be as categoric, after all,a library is distinct from the software that links against it, so I could modify a GPL'd software to link with a non-(L)GPL library given your reasoning. While this is possible if you are the author of the GPL program (like it was the case with KDE-QT) it is not allowed if you were modifying someone else's GPL'd program.
In the case of a module though, this is much less clear and I don't think the GPL as it stand says it a way or another, and Linus choose to say that for Linux it was as you said, but this only applies for Linux, the vagueness (correct word???) remains for other GPL'd software, so I wouldn't be as definite as you on this.
if you amend a GPL'd program (entirely in accordance with the licence) then you decide what the "normal" way of calling it henceforth will be
By normal I meant "not linked to", that is Gnu tar (to take my example) is still an outside program even if I call him from my proprietary program.
Apparently your point is that somebody could modify a GPL'd library to make it a GPL'd program (which serves as a wrapper to the library) and make calling it with some options from the command line the "normal" way to call it.
This would work but they would have more overhead than by calling a library function and the program they would do to allow it would be under the GPL given that he links to the library, so this would work but we could easily make our own interface using the program they made that links against the library, and they must distribute/propose the source code when they sell their binaries (except the one of the main program which do the interface).
At least that is how I understand it.
I don't think whether someone is "well respected" or not has any bearing on the validity of changes they purport to make to licence terms.
Not in court per see, but the fact that anyone could have forked the kernel and stop contributing code to Linux when Linus said it was Ok to link the kernel with binary modules is a form of implicit apporvement.
Either they have the power to do so or they don't. I think in this case that Linus does not have the power to change the express written terms under which it (including other people's code) is licenced, and you seem to've stated that you agree with me.
He doesn't have the legal right, right, but if anobody having contributed code to Linux wasn't agreing they would have had the possibility to complain or even to sue him and Linus would have had to remove his (the plaintiff's) code from Linux, the fact that nobody complained speaks for itself.
I don't understand what you mean by saying that he "decided to interpret the GPL in a paricular way", you have said that you believe (indeed have very firmly stated as fact) that the GPL cannot be interpreted that way.
Well if I may have said that but after thinking more about it it doesn't seem clear to me. In a case of a program linking a compile time or when ld is called their is no doubt, but in the case of a Linux module you can have your kernel running, add the module somewhere, issue a few commands and without any recompilation have the module charged into Linux, so Linux works perfectly well without it and perfectly well with it. RMS himself said that it was against the spirit of the GPL (he would prefer all drivers to be GPL'd as I do) but given that Linus said it was authorised he didn't have any problem with it (it was in an interview that was posted a while ago (maybe be4 Xmas) on
Again, I simply don't think that's the point. His code is now linked, and built upon, other people's GPL'd works.
That is exactly the point, at the time he made the change, people already had contributed code, there were a lot fewer of them but they where there nonetheless, so if he couldn't make the change for binary drivers then he couldn't make the change to go the GPL way and then we should all sue Redhat, Caldera, Suse,... because they make money of selling Linux (even if they are IMPOV making money by selling services in a nifty box).
As I think was clear from my comment I'm not at all sure that the GPL does (or can from the way it's constructed) prohibit linking to binary modules.
Of course it does, this is the very point of the GPL to do so, unless you call it by its "normal" interface you have to put it under the GPL (i.e. if you integrate Gnu tar in your program, then your program must be GPL'd but if you make a front-end to Gnu tar that call it like if you were in a shell then your program doesn't have to be GPL'd).
I do not find at all acceptable your notion that the licence under which people have provided their code can be ignored just as long as they don't actively complain. Do you extend this principle to all licence violations?
I don't either but this is a particular case where the originator of the software, a person respected by millions of people, decided to interpret the GPL in a particular way (change that make it look like the LGPL BTW), if he was to change it to proprietary software (which would be a MAJOR change) then a lot of people would fight him I think.
Anyway, at the beginning Linux's license was more strict than the GPL given that you couldn't sell it for money, he then changed it to the GPL, would you prefer to have Linux under this older license?
Unless he agreed this with ALL contributors to the code, he doesn't have any power to override the existing licencing terms. Those terms (GPL) eitehr permit binary only drivers (or are unable to prohibit them) or they don't.
True, but I didn't hear about any developer complaining, in which case they would have to retire his code from the kernel.
If you are not happy you can fork the kernel and make it truly GPL, but don't count on us to follow you and don't forget to call it otherwise than Linux (Lunix if you want, or Trollix).
I can't believe this flame has been moderated up as "insightful"
Well, first I didn't moderate myself as insightful so I won't discuss that point (there should be a moderation like "constructive criticism" i think) but i don't think that it is flame. Is it flame to tell them that I think they were wrong to post this news and try to find valid reason why they would have posted this news (reason that don't seem to have applied to this kernel release).
1) Whining and moaning about how much cooler your version of slashdot would be takes no intelligence or insight of any type. If you want to whine about the quality of
This is not only a coolness factor, but development kernels aren't to put in every hand (otherwise they wouldn't be labeled as such, note also that I don't claim to be in the group savvy enough to use them, far from it) and put in some hands (newbies that have heard about "this Linux thing" and about "this Linux site called slashdot") this can be a problem. If they were posting a new stable kernel this probably would be more useful since there are fewer of them (13 or 14 against 40) and they generally are issued to fix an existing problem with the old one, so i think that there are good reason to whine here, not for me (I can easily ignore these news) but for the newbie (well, not 100% newbie if he is able to compile his kernel and use Lilo) that may be confused and for the kernel-dev mailing list that may have clueless questions from the aforementioned newbies.
2) This issue has been re-hashed on slashdot for a long, long time. This is nothing that hasn't been posted literally a thousand times- it's not creative or new. It probably ranks right up near "first post" in the length of time and amount of times it's been said.
This is precisely the problem with this news. Each time this come up people are complaining that
3) Are you contributing anything? Are you saying anything? No, you are whining that nothing insightful has been said instead of going to the source and finding out for yourself whether there are new features or fixed bugs.
I followed the link provided but couldn't find a good summary of the changes, furthermore i don't care if they fixed a bug in linux/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c, this doesn't qualify to be posted on
So I complained, yes, but their where valid reason to do so (IMHO) and reason known by the
I sincerly hope this was a mistake and they won't do it again, all this can do is bring confusion.
For what you seem to describe we have a situation with the following schema:
Binary driver --> C file (wrapper) -->Linux kernel
Given that Linus specifically allowed binary drivers these are not violating the GPL FOR LINUX ONLY (Linus said it was Ok, but this only apply to Linux).
They have a good reason to do this wrapper:
Linus don't care that much if new kernels break the compatibility with binary-only driver (and IMHO he is right), so doing a wrapper to the driver allow them to just change this wrapper to keep the compatibility, they can also put the wrapper under the GPL (or, better for them, the LGPL) and hope that people using their hardware will help them keep the compatibility between kernels.
It's a first step in the right direction (full Free Software driver) and this give them a first taste of Free Softare and we can only encourage them in it (by helping them keeping the compatibility and, when you submit the patch, tell them how great this would be for you and them if the driver was fully GPL'd).
Of course your post didn't mention wether the wrapper was Free (speech) but there would be little advantage to give this wrapper otherwise.
"Linux hype is what attracts investors' billions these days, so it's important for everyone to pretend their business is "all about Linux"."
This would be false to pretend that
and that they won't do it again, because this can only cause confusion to newbies and loss of time to the kernel developers.
I thought there was a consensus that it was far better to let other sites post news about new kernel, especially for development kernels.
Does this kernel have some exceptional new thing integrated beside his number (Oh yes, we have reached the 40th release of 2.3 WHAT A NEWS) to justify to be posted??? Is it the first kernel of a new serie (like 2.2.0 or 2.3.0?)??? Does it fix a big bug??? No, then don't post it.
Those that are interested by cutting edge kernels know where to find them, those that are not able to find it by themselves probably aren't able to cope with the possible problems that may arise from a development kernel.
(this is not meant as a flamebait but
Well, I think this is a good opportunities to express yourself and your position (and please DON'T FLAME, this would be worse than a suicide because you would cause harm to every consumer) but I am an European and I would like to know if they would accept letters from us non-American.
I ask that because they say "This notice requests written comments from all interested parties" and given that America has a distasteful habit to put pressure on other countries to adopt their ways (like the software patent stuff) I feel myself concerned with the outcome of all this.
Do you think I should send them a letter and specifiy clearly that I a not a citizen of the US of A???
On the same subject, if you are not American I don't think this would be a good idea to mess things up by posturing AS an American, this would be as bad (if not worse) as flaming them.
It's at copyleft.net
Imagine the kind of thing you could look at if somebody cracked this site.
Unfortunately some morons will probably take me seriously
"Linux Care is different in that it capitalizes on the service portion of things, and have no commodity hardware or GPL handicap."
I don't see in what it is that different from Redhat, after all a distribution is just a service: the install help and the book, all this in a nice package.
So Redhat is a service company like LinuxCare but Redhat has something more: their name.
Linuxcare cannot say they are the expert #1 in any distribution because they don't do any, while Redhat is not only a service company BUT also an expert in a well known distribution.
It's true that anyone can take their distro and make another, like Mandrake, but this isn't a problme, this just further the number of distributions they are expert in (Mandrake being 99% like Redhat like they themself say).
In the end their will be concurrence and the best comanies will stay alive, isn't that what we all want to see???
All these minority groups without counting the minorities inside the white geek dominant group.
I am myself a white geek but don't share the same culture as most white geek here because I have an European culture (and more specifically a French one) and not an American one.
yup, I begin to think that their are as much minorities as their are individuals.
"Has the idea of trying to remove backwards compatability hardware problems and issues. (Crusoe with code morphing, MAJC with Java)."
Nothing prevent Transmeta on providing a Java morphing, thus acting like MAJC, or transforming a bytecode program into a morphed langage (like other compiled programs) thus eliminating the performance drawback of using bytecode.
The bytecode would then be just one more processor/instruction set.
It would be interesting how a Crusoe chip would perform with a Java bytecode instruction set.
Normally it should be morphing it as fast as the x86 instruction set, thus giving the performances of a compiled code for Java applications?
Can someone more knowledgeable than me comment on this???
Or how to shoot your karma to the stars.
There should be more Transmeta announcements
(But thanks from all those that can't see it directly nor hear it
Let's say that what Fare talks about is possible, then I can do exactly the same with proprietary licenses.
Of course I don't have their code but I could buy a version of Windows and redistribute it inside such an organisation with a small entry fee to the organisation.
This would allow me to redistribute proprietary software without paying royalties.
Of course some may say "This won't work because you have the license for x person" but this isn't a problem given that in this interpretation the organisation is a person.
given that there is no way a judge would sustain this view (or maybe an anarchist judge???) I don't think there is such a big problem.
"However I haven't killed my hope that Microsoft can improve. Can anyone truly say they believe that Microsoft has no talented people working for them?"
I hope they will.
If they would make the same kind of philosophy changes IBM went through during the last 10/15 years i think people wouldn't have more problem with MS than they have now with IBM.
but detested computer studies, despite excelling at it.
Despite or because?
I hated some pseudo computer science courses where all were were doing was using computer (yeah, and in mechanic courses do they teach driving?), or at best this was basics of programmation which I already knew.
Luckily I am lazy enough so I took it as an occasion not to have to do anything instead of being bored i was "in the clouds" (I hope this expression works in English