Nah this is all but Informative, GNU itself only supports software that fits in their strategy...
If you make software under the GPL, do not expect direct help from the FSF, it's first not their obligation to do so, second you will only get disappointed.
They have of course savannah, to help you distribute, but do not expect to become a FSF owned package, these are rahter limited.
No you are bound to the GPL if you CHANGE the software.
Copyright law does not allow you to change properitary things, even for most private use.
HOWEVER the thing is, you are NOT required to give anybody any source, just because you changed your GPL Code. Nor are you required to GPL license any of your software.
The GPL is requried to change the software, however as long you do not redistribute, absolutely no obligations arise for you, but legally you need to accept the GPL for that.
Repeat and write 100 times: The GPL is NOT an EULA!!!!
As End User you are not required to agree with it! (And EULA is the end user license agreement)
Those programms that let you click-wrap through the GPL, like EULA do, show the programmers have not understood that the GPL is not an EULA, that does NOT needed to be agreed, until you want to redistribute or change the software.
Re:on second thought, pass the lead gloves please.
on
United Nuclear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Major Doug Rokke's opinion....
Doug Rokke has a PhD in health physics and was originally trained as a forensic scientist. When the Gulf War started, he was assigned to prepare soldiers to respond to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, and sent to the Gulf. What he experienced has made him a passionate voice for peace, traveling the country to speak out. The following interview was conducted by the director of the Traprock Peace Center, Sunny Miller, supplemented with questions from YES! editors....
If you would read your EULA you signed when installing your windows version, you would have seen that you are not allowed to publish.NET benchmarks without the approval of microsoft!
So now you've challanged the inquisition emperium! You may choose if you want to be drowned or burned...
Data files needed by an lirbrary/application lie in the folder of the lirbrary/application.
Yes you are right the user should not care. On modern system the low end user should not even care too much about a filesystem at all.
However admins and developer have to worry.
We have a logical software structure in mind. And we have a hardware software strucuture on the disk. Now why are both different? Why is the hardware structure not organized as we would draw a list of all installed packages on a paper? We think in packages, in catogories, put we create something different on disk for historical reasons. Things should be simply, and help our human style of thinking...
Yes but also the admins should now where which is. And a root file system should be ablte to nicely spawn over disks.
With SystemV you can't install package XY on another drive (except you put it in/opt and making a symlink but you are violating the systemV structure)
You can hardly have two version of a package installed parallel, you can't simple delete a package without a the workouround of the package manager.
If a package would have it's own dir, all you need to deinstall the package is to delete this dir. Move the package?, just copy the dir. Have another version of the package just have to dirs parallel with other versioning names. etc. etc.
is to distance ourselfs from the system V filesytem, and have each package installed in it's own dir, this would make things so much easier.
And instead of the old PATH environment variable idea, think of something new, how about a central file (with user modifyable sub-files) that contains a list of all binaries to be called by default.
Or about a package tree in the bash memory, that holds the information which binaries are callable... etc.
There are so much ways to get rid of PATH, and with PATH away, nothing speeks anymore against installing every package in it's very own directory, making administration and package management so much easier...
Rightly mentioned. There a lot of open source projects that started off with a wonderful idea but down the line have somhow lost vision and ended up being un-supported anymore. I think this is the place where commercial organizations shine.
Nah for commercial organisations it the very same! There are a lot that have wonderful ideas, but down the line more than 80% of all new companies are in bankruptcy in the first 3 years. (almost 50% even in the first year)
Removing the cobwebs. People almost never remove old stuff. For example: - old projects from sourceforge
So well have you ever tried to delete your abandoned project from sourceforge? If you find out please tell me! I did not manage to, because they won't let you, simple as that. (Mostly because if people want to continue their project closed source, the last open source version stays public, beyond their control!).
Well this is not (social) innovation, like any innovation it is looked at a process and tried to improve it. That a process works is not reason not to improve it.
If all would have lived after your "golden" rule, we would still have manufactures, work with pen&paper only, etc.
pen&paper worked! Nobody needs computer eitherway, they just make anything simpler and process cheaper, getting a better output, but the technics that existed before worked!
Don't know ask microsoft, and their usual anti-gpl anti-linux stuff. Their way they buy up and crush competition. The way they forbid retailers to sell dual-boot computers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats proparly because /. detected you tried to cheat with copy&paste. tss tss
Nah this is all but Informative, GNU itself only supports software that fits in their strategy...
If you make software under the GPL, do not expect direct help from the FSF, it's first not their obligation to do so, second you will only get disappointed.
They have of course savannah, to help you distribute, but do not expect to become a FSF owned package, these are rahter limited.
Nah if only reality would really work that way .... ....not 95%+ of all desktops were windows.
shrinkwrap licenses are NOT valid, simple as that.
Argued on court because often you can't fully read the license before opening...
No you are bound to the GPL if you CHANGE the software.
Copyright law does not allow you to change properitary things, even for most private use.
HOWEVER the thing is, you are NOT required to give anybody any source, just because you changed your GPL Code. Nor are you required to GPL license any of your software.
The GPL is requried to change the software, however as long you do not redistribute, absolutely no obligations arise for you, but legally you need to accept the GPL for that.
Altough to mention most geeks are not very talented in the arts of PASSIVE resistence like your citate from ghandí.
The GPL is NOT viral.
Repeat and write 100 times: The GPL is NOT an EULA!!!!
As End User you are not required to agree with it! (And EULA is the end user license agreement)
Those programms that let you click-wrap through the GPL, like EULA do, show the programmers have not understood that the GPL is not an EULA, that does NOT needed to be agreed, until you want to redistribute or change the software.
Major Doug Rokke's opinion....
Doug Rokke has a PhD in health physics and was originally trained as a forensic scientist. When the Gulf War started, he was assigned to prepare soldiers to respond to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, and sent to the Gulf. What he experienced has made him a passionate voice for peace, traveling the country to speak out. The following interview was conducted by the director of the Traprock Peace Center, Sunny Miller, supplemented with questions from YES! editors....
The War Against Ourselves
If you would read your EULA you signed when installing your windows version, you would have seen that you are not allowed to publish .NET benchmarks without the approval of microsoft!
So now you've challanged the inquisition emperium! You may choose if you want to be drowned or burned...
Just one thing to retort:
Beware and behold: You are responsible for your actions!
In case google gets /.ed here is it's google cache
w ww.google.com/webmasters/3.html+%22I+need+my+site+ information+changed.%22&hl=de&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.at/search?q=cache:qw2H0d95VkEJ:
Since when is content published in the WWW about privacy?
It's just like a government that wants to control which newspapers maybe archivied for history research.
It should look up itself in the proposed package register tree.
(which could be a kernel feature)
The technology would be an improved environment.
Data files needed by an lirbrary/application lie in the folder of the lirbrary/application.
Yes you are right the user should not care. On modern system the low end user should not even care too much about a filesystem at all.
However admins and developer have to worry.
We have a logical software structure in mind. And we have a hardware software strucuture on the disk. Now why are both different? Why is the hardware structure not organized as we would draw a list of all installed packages on a paper? We think in packages, in catogories, put we create something different on disk for historical reasons. Things should be simply, and help our human style of thinking...
the only real problems are library search location and path.
I hoped that I've put up some ideas to think out of the box in my original post.
Everything else is a problem of KDE and GNOME, and only applied to KDE and GNOME packages, the two projects also have a way to think about that.
Again just an example how about a central software register tree instead?
Yes but also the admins should now where which is. And a root file system should be ablte to nicely spawn over disks.
/opt and making a symlink but you are violating the systemV structure)
With SystemV you can't install package XY on another drive (except you put it in
You can hardly have two version of a package installed parallel, you can't simple delete a package without a the workouround of the package manager.
If a package would have it's own dir, all you need to deinstall the package is to delete this dir. Move the package?, just copy the dir. Have another version of the package just have to dirs parallel with other versioning names. etc. etc.
How simple everything could become.....
is to distance ourselfs from the system V filesytem, and have each package installed in it's own dir, this would make things so much easier.
And instead of the old PATH environment variable idea, think of something new, how about a central file (with user modifyable sub-files) that contains a list of all binaries to be called by default.
Or about a package tree in the bash memory, that holds the information which binaries are callable... etc.
There are so much ways to get rid of PATH, and with PATH away, nothing speeks anymore against installing every package in it's very own directory, making administration and package management so much easier...
Will 2.6.0 be totally safe to download and run and install in a production environment
To quantity of such kernerls is equal to the quantity of unsinkable ships.
totally safe does not exist! And who ever sells you such is unserious.
Rightly mentioned. There a lot of open source projects that started off with a wonderful idea but down the line have somhow lost vision and ended up being un-supported anymore. I think this is the place where commercial organizations shine.
Nah for commercial organisations it the very same! There are a lot that have wonderful ideas, but down the line more than 80% of all new companies are in bankruptcy in the first 3 years. (almost 50% even in the first year)
Removing the cobwebs. People almost never remove old stuff. For example: - old projects from sourceforge
So well have you ever tried to delete your abandoned project from sourceforge? If you find out please tell me! I did not manage to, because they won't let you, simple as that. (Mostly because if people want to continue their project closed source, the last open source version stays public, beyond their control!).
Well this is not (social) innovation, like any innovation it is looked at a process and tried to improve it. That a process works is not reason not to improve it.
If all would have lived after your "golden" rule, we would still have manufactures, work with pen&paper only, etc.
pen&paper worked! Nobody needs computer eitherway, they just make anything simpler and process cheaper, getting a better output, but the technics that existed before worked!
so many links are good !
How about exploring mars first before we "destroy" it with our stuff?
Don't know ask microsoft, and their usual anti-gpl anti-linux stuff. Their way they buy up and crush competition. The way they forbid retailers to sell dual-boot computers, etc.