The newer versions of Samba will be a great way for users of GPLv3 software to interoperate with either other systems running the newer versions of Samba, or with the most recent MS protocols that the Samba team has managed to reverse engineer. Commercial vendors who might want to incorporate the newer version of Samba into their systems will have to comply with the GPLv3 when doing so.
Basically, the price for using GPLv3 Samba is allowing users of your product (that incorporates Samba) the same freedoms you had when choosing to incorporate Samba into it. If you dont want to pay that price, you can of course contact a different software producer that has an application that speaks MS protocols to see what they want to charge to let you copy their source code into your system. I hear there's this company is Redmond, WA, that just loves to share their code with everyone.
It says that the new compressor is good at compressing english text, not necesarrily program code (text or binary).
It also says that distributing a new compressor/decompressor compressed in its own format creates a chicken-and-egg problem if you dont already have the program.
Now, why RAR instead of.tar.gz, I have no answer for, especially for something that is purportedly FOSS.
There is no reason you can't both print out a 'document' for 'archival' (either to paper or to PDF) *and* seperately save it in an editable format for future re-use/modification, in some appropriate format. Also, for anything longer than a simple memo or short letter, consider the information at the link at the bottom of my post.
As far as me dealing with 'Word Docs' - feel free to point me at the RFC (or other 100% public non-NDA documentiation) that details this format to the bit-level, and I'll find someone that either has or can write some software for dealing with them. Absent that, I don't acknowledge its existence. ODF would be an appropriate format for sharing documents with others that you want both to retain the 'appearance' and want them to be able to change, UNLESS you agreed beforehand, with everyone you were going to collaborate with, on some other format. 'Word Docs' should never be posted on websites for public access, or emailed to someone that you aren't collaborating on that document with and have previously agreed with to use that format.
Becuase MS will continue to modify their implementation of their undocumented file sharing protocols, and the old version of Samba will certainly no longer operate with newer version of MS platforms. The newer (GPL3) versions of Samba will get the ongoing updates and changes to continue to interoperate.
I dont use Google becuase it has good Nielsen 'ratings'. In fact I wasnt even aware there was such a thing. I use Google because it works, its simple, and it doesnt shove animated advertisements down my throat.
I'd be more interested in Googles 'rating' of this Neilsen site was than the other way around, if I care about 'ratings' of sites at all.
If you need 'business class' service, you need to call and ask about a T1 (or fractional T3, if you need faster than symmetric 1.5Mbit) line. And you might want to call a local/regional ISP, rather than a telco known for supporting spammers (or any telco, really - find a reputable ISP, and they will arrange the telco/connectivity part of the service). And yes, you will pay business rates for your connection.
AT&T and Verizon are each just different branches of the old telco monopolies. They just bought up different pieces of it, and they are both evil in their own seperate ways.
Mod parent as 'telco shill' who wants everyone to beleive it was the monopoly telco's that paid for the infrastructure, as opposed to their overcharged subscribers and the government. Your grandparents (and their parents) paid for this infrastructure many times over in the form of absurdly expensive telephone bills.
The simple truth is that the in-ground infrastructure is a natural monopoly, and while ideally it should be public property, if a private company continues to own it, then access to it and charges for using it should be heavily regulated, and any entity that wants to use it to provide services should have equal access at fixed rates.
I'd mod you up if I had points. I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but your idea is not new. (Google for 'structural seperation' if you didnt realize it was an existing idea). The state of PA *almost* did it once.
It is however the only real long term solution to the horrific state of telecom competition in the US. As such, it is guaranteed that the well-heeled telco lobbyists will leave as much chance of this happening as MS will of allowing OpenDocument to become the official standard for wordprocessing documents.
The point was, why do you care if its 'open source', since its for use with software that is decidedly as not-open-source as you can get (eg MS Office/Word)?
The only point of saving in any 'word processor' format is for the ability to change. Using one (either proprietary or otherwise) for archival of anything remotely important is just plain dumb. (But obviously, the proprietary one is twice as dumb)
If it 'musnt be changed' then print the damn thing to a PDF. Dials the changability to damn near zero, and the portability almost as high as it can go.
The 'Shinkwrap' EULA's try to take away rights that you already have, without giving you any rights that you didnt already have.
By default, under copyright law, you DO NOT have the right to copy/modify/distribute someone else's code. If the GPL is invalid, or you don't fully accept its terms, then if you copy/modify/distribute code that was licensed to you only under the GPL, then you are violating copyright law. (Which no one on the proprietary side of the camp is going to do anything to weaken)
The only way anyone gets the right to copy/modify/distribute code that was licenses under the GPL is by accepting the terms of the GPL. And from there its simple contract law.
Opening up MS code is not the goal of GPLv3. Preventing code whose authors chose to license it under GPL3 is the goal of GPL3, nothing more. And it will do that.
And saying 'GPL3 doesnt apply to us' is disingenious, becuase it may, or may not. It applies, if they accept some GPL3 code from someone or somewhere, that they dont have any other license to use (incorporate into their own code and/or modify, and distribute - not just 'run it'), then it does in fact apply to their use thereof.
Presumably, MS' lawyers are smart enough to recognize that, but even more so, they are smart enough to use GPL3 for as much FUD as they can, to try and scare people (who dont already understand what the GPL is really abouyt) away from GPL3 (or even 2) software.
I'll raise you a guide on how to free your "peecee" from security vulnerabilities (at last the overwhelming majority of them) by not using any software or platforms produced by Microsoft on it.
would be too obvious and dramatic a demonstration of their illegal monopoly.
Instead, expect them to.. continue to make it harder and harder to migrate away from MS platforms and applications, including fighting standardization on true 'open' data/document formats any way they can (witness the ODF/OOXML debacle).. continue to release false 'get the facts' type campaigns that consist of vast amounts of FUD that is just vague enough to be hard to disprove affirmatively.. continue to browbeat OEM consumer peecee makers into not selling hardware without Windows installed, or at least severely restricting which models might be available with anything else (or with no OS).. continue to 'embrace and extend' anywhere they can, making it _look_ like they are trying to be 'interoperable', while at the same time ensuring that they are not. They dont want to comform to published specs for networking or document storage (wether the specs are published by MS or anyone else), that would make it trivial for anyone to interoperate for free (or at least, without paying MS). They much prefer that drones pay MS for 'interoperability', even if it doesnt work.
Why would a stockbroker want to call a company, wait on hold for an hour, be hung up on, be given a complicated set of instructions that dont solve his problem, when he could either call a local friend or support person who could come over and fix his problem on the spot, or google for a fix that works the first time?
Or better yet, NOT have the problem, becuase someone already had it and fixed it in the updated code he installed?
Inkjet-printed photos are crap compared the the printes produced by dye-sub photo printers. The only advantage the inkjet ones might have is lower cost.
that you don't 'subscribe' for service at the retail store where you would get an iPhone, but instead all you do is buy the hardware itself and then 'subscribe' or 'activate' it, via iTunes, and I've got a few questions.
1. Is the sale of the phone itself completely cash-and-carry? Eg, can you pay cash, not sign anything, and walk out with the device in-hand and no further obligation?
2. Can you use the 802.11 and browsing capability of it *without* signing your life away to AT&T?
3. Would it be possible to run a SIP client on it, which would function like any other SIP phone, using the 802.11 to access the SIP peer?
So how much are you selling your product to *them* for?
How much they sell it to someone else for is irrelevant.
If they buy 20 of it for whatever you agree to sell it to them for, what difference does it make if they sell them to someone else for twice that, half that, or even give them away for free?
You made your money regardless.
If you are letting them make their own copies for nothing, and not specifying how much you want them to pay *you* per copy, well, then you are a fool. Dont agree to a percent of what they decide to sell it for, agree on a specific amount that they pay you.
It just happens to force anyone using code provided under it to be just as permissive as the person who provided them the code under that license.
No one will be forced to use GPL3 for code that they wrote themselves.
No one will be forced to use other people's code that is licensed under GPL3.
What will be prohibited, is taking code that someone else wrote and released to you under GPL3 terms, and distributing it to others under anything other than GPL3.
Some developers will choose to use GPL3, some may continue with GPL2, others will continue to use non-GPL licences. GPL3 forces no one to do anything.
Sure, some proprietary software houses may be unhappy, becuase they will be prohibited from taking GPL3 code and locking it up or enhancing it and including the result in consumer products without sharing with the community. But that is exactly what the people that will have chosen to use GPL3 for their code *WANT*.
The FSF and the GPL arent interested in what people who *dont* use the GPL want.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I'm sure its a restriction on GPL(v3) software that says you cannot distribute the software on hardware that prevents you from running a modified version of that software.
Slashdot Mirror
The newer versions of Samba will be a great way for users of GPLv3 software to interoperate with either other systems running the newer versions of Samba, or with the most recent MS protocols that the Samba team has managed to reverse engineer. Commercial vendors who might want to incorporate the newer version of Samba into their systems will have to comply with the GPLv3 when doing so.
Basically, the price for using GPLv3 Samba is allowing users of your product (that incorporates Samba) the same freedoms you had when choosing to incorporate Samba into it. If you dont want to pay that price, you can of course contact a different software producer that has an application that speaks MS protocols to see what they want to charge to let you copy their source code into your system. I hear there's this company is Redmond, WA, that just loves to share their code with everyone.
If its "Open Source" and "GPL", why is there only a proprietary binary executable and no source code?
The article doesnt mention it being GPL, where did this come from?
It says that the new compressor is good at compressing english text, not necesarrily program code (text or binary).
.tar.gz, I have no answer for, especially for something that is purportedly FOSS.
It also says that distributing a new compressor/decompressor compressed in its own format creates a chicken-and-egg problem if you dont already have the program.
Now, why RAR instead of
There is no reason you can't both print out a 'document' for 'archival' (either to paper or to PDF) *and* seperately save it in an editable format for future re-use/modification, in some appropriate format. Also, for anything longer than a simple memo or short letter, consider the information at the link at the bottom of my post.
As far as me dealing with 'Word Docs' - feel free to point me at the RFC (or other 100% public non-NDA documentiation) that details this format to the bit-level, and I'll find someone that either has or can write some software for dealing with them. Absent that, I don't acknowledge its existence. ODF would be an appropriate format for sharing documents with others that you want both to retain the 'appearance' and want them to be able to change, UNLESS you agreed beforehand, with everyone you were going to collaborate with, on some other format. 'Word Docs' should never be posted on websites for public access, or emailed to someone that you aren't collaborating on that document with and have previously agreed with to use that format.
http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
Becuase MS will continue to modify their implementation of their undocumented file sharing protocols, and the old version of Samba will certainly no longer operate with newer version of MS platforms. The newer (GPL3) versions of Samba will get the ongoing updates and changes to continue to interoperate.
What license text you include with your code when distributing it determines what license you are using, not some checkbox on a code site.
I dont use Google becuase it has good Nielsen 'ratings'. In fact I wasnt even aware there was such a thing. I use Google because it works, its simple, and it doesnt shove animated advertisements down my throat.
I'd be more interested in Googles 'rating' of this Neilsen site was than the other way around, if I care about 'ratings' of sites at all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is 'so what?'
I dont think that by 'get rid of it' they mean 'sell it'. I think they mean make it go obsolete and forgotten.
DSL is a 'consumer' product.
If you need 'business class' service, you need to call and ask about a T1 (or fractional T3, if you need faster than symmetric 1.5Mbit) line. And you might want to call a local/regional ISP, rather than a telco known for supporting spammers (or any telco, really - find a reputable ISP, and they will arrange the telco/connectivity part of the service). And yes, you will pay business rates for your connection.
AT&T and Verizon are each just different branches of the old telco monopolies. They just bought up different pieces of it, and they are both evil in their own seperate ways.
Mod parent as 'telco shill' who wants everyone to beleive it was the monopoly telco's that paid for the infrastructure, as opposed to their overcharged subscribers and the government. Your grandparents (and their parents) paid for this infrastructure many times over in the form of absurdly expensive telephone bills.
The simple truth is that the in-ground infrastructure is a natural monopoly, and while ideally it should be public property, if a private company continues to own it, then access to it and charges for using it should be heavily regulated, and any entity that wants to use it to provide services should have equal access at fixed rates.
I'd mod you up if I had points. I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but your idea is not new. (Google for 'structural seperation' if you didnt realize it was an existing idea). The state of PA *almost* did it once.
It is however the only real long term solution to the horrific state of telecom competition in the US. As such, it is guaranteed that the well-heeled telco lobbyists will leave as much chance of this happening as MS will of allowing OpenDocument to become the official standard for wordprocessing documents.
The point was, why do you care if its 'open source', since its for use with software that is decidedly as not-open-source as you can get (eg MS Office/Word)?
The only point of saving in any 'word processor' format is for the ability to change. Using one (either proprietary or otherwise) for archival of anything remotely important is just plain dumb. (But obviously, the proprietary one is twice as dumb)
If it 'musnt be changed' then print the damn thing to a PDF. Dials the changability to damn near zero, and the portability almost as high as it can go.
The 'Shinkwrap' EULA's try to take away rights that you already have, without giving you any rights that you didnt already have.
By default, under copyright law, you DO NOT have the right to copy/modify/distribute someone else's code. If the GPL is invalid, or you don't fully accept its terms, then if you copy/modify/distribute code that was licensed to you only under the GPL, then you are violating copyright law. (Which no one on the proprietary side of the camp is going to do anything to weaken)
The only way anyone gets the right to copy/modify/distribute code that was licenses under the GPL is by accepting the terms of the GPL. And from there its simple contract law.
Er, forgot to finish my sentence.
.. from being used in proprietary software.
"Preventing code whose authors chose to license it under GPL3"
Or you could just replace "Preventing" with "Protecting".
Opening up MS code is not the goal of GPLv3. Preventing code whose authors chose to license it under GPL3 is the goal of GPL3, nothing more. And it will do that.
And saying 'GPL3 doesnt apply to us' is disingenious, becuase it may, or may not. It applies, if they accept some GPL3 code from someone or somewhere, that they dont have any other license to use (incorporate into their own code and/or modify, and distribute - not just 'run it'), then it does in fact apply to their use thereof.
Presumably, MS' lawyers are smart enough to recognize that, but even more so, they are smart enough to use GPL3 for as much FUD as they can, to try and scare people (who dont already understand what the GPL is really abouyt) away from GPL3 (or even 2) software.
I'll raise you a guide on how to free your "peecee" from security vulnerabilities (at last the overwhelming majority of them) by not using any software or platforms produced by Microsoft on it.
would be too obvious and dramatic a demonstration of their illegal monopoly.
.. continue to make it harder and harder to migrate away from MS platforms and applications, including fighting standardization on true 'open' data/document formats any way they can (witness the ODF/OOXML debacle) .. continue to release false 'get the facts' type campaigns that consist of vast amounts of FUD that is just vague enough to be hard to disprove affirmatively .. continue to browbeat OEM consumer peecee makers into not selling hardware without Windows installed, or at least severely restricting which models might be available with anything else (or with no OS) .. continue to 'embrace and extend' anywhere they can, making it _look_ like they are trying to be 'interoperable', while at the same time ensuring that they are not. They dont want to comform to published specs for networking or document storage (wether the specs are published by MS or anyone else), that would make it trivial for anyone to interoperate for free (or at least, without paying MS). They much prefer that drones pay MS for 'interoperability', even if it doesnt work.
Instead, expect them to
Why would a stockbroker want to call a company, wait on hold for an hour, be hung up on, be given a complicated set of instructions that dont solve his problem, when he could either call a local friend or support person who could come over and fix his problem on the spot, or google for a fix that works the first time?
Or better yet, NOT have the problem, becuase someone already had it and fixed it in the updated code he installed?
Inkjet-printed photos are crap compared the the printes produced by dye-sub photo printers. The only advantage the inkjet ones might have is lower cost.
that you don't 'subscribe' for service at the retail store where you would get an iPhone, but instead all you do is buy the hardware itself and then 'subscribe' or 'activate' it, via iTunes, and I've got a few questions.
1. Is the sale of the phone itself completely cash-and-carry? Eg, can you pay cash, not sign anything, and walk out with the device in-hand and no further obligation?
2. Can you use the 802.11 and browsing capability of it *without* signing your life away to AT&T?
3. Would it be possible to run a SIP client on it, which would function like any other SIP phone, using the 802.11 to access the SIP peer?
So how much are you selling your product to *them* for?
How much they sell it to someone else for is irrelevant.
If they buy 20 of it for whatever you agree to sell it to them for, what difference does it make if they sell them to someone else for twice that, half that, or even give them away for free?
You made your money regardless.
If you are letting them make their own copies for nothing, and not specifying how much you want them to pay *you* per copy, well, then you are a fool. Dont agree to a percent of what they decide to sell it for, agree on a specific amount that they pay you.
It just happens to force anyone using code provided under it to be just as permissive as the person who provided them the code under that license.
No one will be forced to use GPL3 for code that they wrote themselves.
No one will be forced to use other people's code that is licensed under GPL3.
What will be prohibited, is taking code that someone else wrote and released to you under GPL3 terms, and distributing it to others under anything other than GPL3.
Some developers will choose to use GPL3, some may continue with GPL2, others will continue to use non-GPL licences. GPL3 forces no one to do anything.
Sure, some proprietary software houses may be unhappy, becuase they will be prohibited from taking GPL3 code and locking it up or enhancing it and including the result in consumer products without sharing with the community. But that is exactly what the people that will have chosen to use GPL3 for their code *WANT*.
The FSF and the GPL arent interested in what people who *dont* use the GPL want.
Actually, I'm sure its a restriction on GPL(v3) software that says you cannot distribute the software on hardware that prevents you from running a modified version of that software.