it's pretty hippocritical for somebody to fork your code, and then scream at you when you re-incorporate his changes
True.
afterall, he started his project by stealing 100% of your code
False. There is no "stealing" involved (even assuming one can "steal" code in the first place), as the code was licensed under the GPL, it was freely given.
The simple nature of GPL'ed work is that *THIS IS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN*.
Once you get a fork, the two projects will continue to evolve separately, but as they are attempting to solve the same problem, will probably end up merging again.
If the split happened because of differing views on the way to solve a problem, then it may take awhile, because they'll have to wait for one way or the other to prove that it's superior - at which point features from the other version will be gradually merged into the other, and the inferior design will be abandoned.
If the split happened because of personal issues, then it will happen sooner rather than later, because there are fewer technical issues - all you're waiting for is for everyone to cool off and start focusing their energies on the project. If it's because of one person, that person will eventually get overruled, and either learn to live with it, or quit - if it's a single developer, his/her code will be absorbed into the other fork.
The bottom line is that there is no moral/ethical issue here, this is a normal part of two healthy GPL'ed projects.
Today, we have two languages (XHTML and CSS) instead of one (HTML), and while it certainly does a lot to improve interoperability and platform independence, it is two languages to learn, not one.
Wrong. As others have pointed out, they are *not* two languages, but two parts to the same language.
Doing this is taking more and more effort.
Again, wrong - (X)HTML and CSS make designing web pages *easier*, not harder, because it allows you to separate presentation from content. If you believe that CSS is harder to use than <FONT> tags, then you're using it wrong.
Once you know how it works, learning (X)HTML/CSS is *much* easier than using HTML 3.x - because it's *SO* much cleaner. You use the HTML to tell the browser the context of the content, and you use CSS to tell the browser how to render that context. For example, <p> </p> tells it that it's a paragraph. You then use CSS to tell the browser what the font for all your paragrahs should be. The important thing to note is that you only have to do this *ONCE*, instead of once for each change you want to make.
It's only more complicated if you're still trying to use it like old HTML.
"New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
Honestly, I don't think it matters how hard SCO get's pushed - if IBM doesn't wanna, then it ain't gonna happen... and IBM knows they're gonna win.
I just picture it as Peewee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson - near the end of the 12th round, Tyson is untouched, and Peewee is a bleeding smudge on the canvas as his manager thinks "Hmm, maybe we should ask Tyson if he wants to call it a draw."
What's the guarantee that the EULA you read online is the EULA that's presented by the software?
What happens if it's revised between the time they print the software, and the time you take it home? What happens then?
Or what about something nefarious? For example: suppose a MITM attack causes every request you make to (for example) MS's EULA site to return an text that states "you must use the software in accordance with copyright law", but then you go to install it, and the EULA includes all of MS's usual onerous terms. Will the store *still* be required to give you your money back?
Or (even better) what if the forged EULA says "instead of installing it, you may make copies of this software and sell it for $20" - what happens when you get busted for commercial copyright infringement because you decided to sell it instead of install it?
Now, I'm not even that devious, but it seems to me a requirement like this could be used to cause a *LOT* of trouble.
Glibc since libc6 is forward and backward compatable.
The functions may be compatable, but it's common for binaries compiled for newer versions to reject older versions.
You would have to reboot the machines in single-user mode and, using all those shiny static binaries in/sbin, you'd simply recover the correct Glibc.
While this is historically the purpose of/sbin, there is *no* Linux distribution I'm aware of that does this. The "s" in/sbin now apparently stands for "super-user", not "static".
If you accidentally install a version of glibc that's too old for your binaries, your system will refuse to boot; and even if you've got a static shell compiled, you won't be able to do anything.
The correct way to do it would be to boot the system with a rescue/live CD and then reinstall the glibc.
If there is no EULA then you have no right to the work at all in the first place..
What does this mean? If there is no EULA, I have every right to use the product within the bounds of copyright law - including installing and using it.
the EULA gives you those rights
Show me where any EULA gives *anyone* any rights they don't already have under copyright law.
Remember all the arguments about how if the GPL is invalid then SCO has no right at all to any GLPd software
Please explain how this is relevant to the topic at hand - the GPL is a distribution license, not a "use" license. If SCO rejects the GPL, they have every right to *USE* GPL'ed software, they just have no right to distribute it (unless they get alternate permission from the authors.)
human males have no "biological responsibilities" after sex. There is no biological need, and in all likelyhood no biological desire. From a survivablity stand point, it makes much more sense for a man to have as many mates as posible, and let nature and the woman sort out which ones survive.
I strongly disagree with this. What you describe is *ONE* reproductive strategy for a male to be "successful", but it is by no means the only one.
Just as compelling is the *need* to protect his offspring. If a male moves on to another mate, he has no way to protect his offspring from other males or predators. It makes *much* more sense for a male to have only a few partners, and have them stick around so that he can protect them, rather than having as many partners as possible.
I say that love is an illusion. A pleasant one that's fun to indulge in, but a poor one to base a stable society on. In any case it's a social construct.
This is pure and utter bullshit. Love is real - scientific fact. It's the result of a chemical change in the brain, and it exists to (again) further procreation by creating a desire to protect those who are biologically important to us (children, sexual partners) and to protect us (love for your family will incline you to stay near them, and there is strength in numbers.)
Saying that love doesn't exist is like saying emotoin doesn't exist. Just because you've been hurt by someone doesn't mean that you can will it away. In the end, all you're doing is lying to yourself.
The Alien series is an experiment of telling a series of stories, while changing the genre each time.
Alien was a horror/suspense movie. Aliens was a pure action flick Alien3 was a drama Alien Resurrection was a comedy.
The only problem was with the fourth one - they hired the right guy to write it (Joss Whedon), but forgot to tell the idiot director that it was *NOT* supposed to be a b-movie. (Or maybe the did tell him, and he didn't understand them - English isn't his first language.)
Of course, if this theory holds, Alien 5 will either be a romance, or a musical (or possible both.)
Slashdot Mirror
I was certain that Gretchen Kraus was going to show up as the Borg Queen.
:o)
Nah.. it would have been funnier for her to show up on DS9 as a changeling - to provide Odo a good nemesis.
it's pretty hippocritical for somebody to fork your code, and then scream at you when you re-incorporate his changes
True.
afterall, he started his project by stealing 100% of your code
False. There is no "stealing" involved (even assuming one can "steal" code in the first place), as the code was licensed under the GPL, it was freely given.
The thing is that this is all irrelevant.
The simple nature of GPL'ed work is that *THIS IS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN*.
Once you get a fork, the two projects will continue to evolve separately, but as they are attempting to solve the same problem, will probably end up merging again.
If the split happened because of differing views on the way to solve a problem, then it may take awhile, because they'll have to wait for one way or the other to prove that it's superior - at which point features from the other version will be gradually merged into the other, and the inferior design will be abandoned.
If the split happened because of personal issues, then it will happen sooner rather than later, because there are fewer technical issues - all you're waiting for is for everyone to cool off and start focusing their energies on the project. If it's because of one person, that person will eventually get overruled, and either learn to live with it, or quit - if it's a single developer, his/her code will be absorbed into the other fork.
The bottom line is that there is no moral/ethical issue here, this is a normal part of two healthy GPL'ed projects.
Today, we have two languages (XHTML and CSS) instead of one (HTML), and while it certainly does a lot to improve interoperability and platform independence, it is two languages to learn, not one.
Wrong. As others have pointed out, they are *not* two languages, but two parts to the same language.
Doing this is taking more and more effort.
Again, wrong - (X)HTML and CSS make designing web pages *easier*, not harder, because it allows you to separate presentation from content. If you believe that CSS is harder to use than <FONT> tags, then you're using it wrong.
Once you know how it works, learning (X)HTML/CSS is *much* easier than using HTML 3.x - because it's *SO* much cleaner. You use the HTML to tell the browser the context of the content, and you use CSS to tell the browser how to render that context. For example, <p> </p> tells it that it's a paragraph. You then use CSS to tell the browser what the font for all your paragrahs should be. The important thing to note is that you only have to do this *ONCE*, instead of once for each change you want to make.
It's only more complicated if you're still trying to use it like old HTML.
Check out the Didiot's comments:
"New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
Honestly, I don't think it matters how hard SCO get's pushed - if IBM doesn't wanna, then it ain't gonna happen... and IBM knows they're gonna win.
I just picture it as Peewee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson - near the end of the 12th round, Tyson is untouched, and Peewee is a bleeding smudge on the canvas as his manager thinks "Hmm, maybe we should ask Tyson if he wants to call it a draw."
... Colonel Mustard, in the boardroom, with a letter opener.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
This was thought of years ago, only without the "newton week" crap.
Maybe he's just lucky enough to escape watching Terminator 3?
What's the guarantee that the EULA you read online is the EULA that's presented by the software?
What happens if it's revised between the time they print the software, and the time you take it home? What happens then?
Or what about something nefarious? For example: suppose a MITM attack causes every request you make to (for example) MS's EULA site to return an text that states "you must use the software in accordance with copyright law", but then you go to install it, and the EULA includes all of MS's usual onerous terms. Will the store *still* be required to give you your money back?
Or (even better) what if the forged EULA says "instead of installing it, you may make copies of this software and sell it for $20" - what happens when you get busted for commercial copyright infringement because you decided to sell it instead of install it?
Now, I'm not even that devious, but it seems to me a requirement like this could be used to cause a *LOT* of trouble.
No, that means his father was rich.
Yes, and rich people *never* give any money to their children - that's why there are so many millionaire children working at McDonalds.
Maybe Bill Gates should have stayed in school and got a degree. He could have been rich, I tell you!
You do realize that Bill was rich before he founded Microsoft, right? His father is a millionaire.
It was lightweight, fast, easy, and came with tab completion!
It was also *HORRID* to use when attempting to navigate to frequently-used folders.
Which made it almost unusable.
Information about that can be found here.
In short: yes, they redistribute the money.
None of that CD-R levy money makes it through the bureaucracy to the artists/label.
Wrong.
It's nothing but a tax grab
Except that it's a levy, not a tax, (which doesn't go to the government.)
I'm hoping that This guy enters - his work just screams "professionalism".
Glibc since libc6 is forward and backward compatable.
/sbin, you'd simply recover the correct Glibc.
/sbin, there is *no* Linux distribution I'm aware of that does this. The "s" in /sbin now apparently stands for "super-user", not "static".
The functions may be compatable, but it's common for binaries compiled for newer versions to reject older versions.
You would have to reboot the machines in single-user mode and, using all those shiny static binaries in
While this is historically the purpose of
If you accidentally install a version of glibc that's too old for your binaries, your system will refuse to boot; and even if you've got a static shell compiled, you won't be able to do anything.
The correct way to do it would be to boot the system with a rescue/live CD and then reinstall the glibc.
That should be a bridge in *London* :o)
my number is higher and I'm married
Mine's lower, and I'm married, too.
To a non-geekess, no less.
I don't know why it didn't become a fairly standard accessory.
Because it would cost money.
Seriously though, I wonder if this guy also bitches about the fact that his car stops when he runs out of gas.
If there is no EULA then you have no right to the work at all in the first place..
What does this mean? If there is no EULA, I have every right to use the product within the bounds of copyright law - including installing and using it.
the EULA gives you those rights
Show me where any EULA gives *anyone* any rights they don't already have under copyright law.
Remember all the arguments about how if the GPL is invalid then SCO has no right at all to any GLPd software
Please explain how this is relevant to the topic at hand - the GPL is a distribution license, not a "use" license. If SCO rejects the GPL, they have every right to *USE* GPL'ed software, they just have no right to distribute it (unless they get alternate permission from the authors.)
human males have no "biological responsibilities" after sex. There is no biological need, and in all likelyhood no biological desire. From a survivablity stand point, it makes much more sense for a man to have as many mates as posible, and let nature and the woman sort out which ones survive.
I strongly disagree with this. What you describe is *ONE* reproductive strategy for a male to be "successful", but it is by no means the only one.
Just as compelling is the *need* to protect his offspring. If a male moves on to another mate, he has no way to protect his offspring from other males or predators. It makes *much* more sense for a male to have only a few partners, and have them stick around so that he can protect them, rather than having as many partners as possible.
I say that love is an illusion. A pleasant one that's fun to indulge in, but a poor one to base a stable society on. In any case it's a social construct.
This is pure and utter bullshit. Love is real - scientific fact. It's the result of a chemical change in the brain, and it exists to (again) further procreation by creating a desire to protect those who are biologically important to us (children, sexual partners) and to protect us (love for your family will incline you to stay near them, and there is strength in numbers.)
Saying that love doesn't exist is like saying emotoin doesn't exist. Just because you've been hurt by someone doesn't mean that you can will it away. In the end, all you're doing is lying to yourself.
The Alien series is an experiment of telling a series of stories, while changing the genre each time.
Alien was a horror/suspense movie.
Aliens was a pure action flick
Alien3 was a drama
Alien Resurrection was a comedy.
The only problem was with the fourth one - they hired the right guy to write it (Joss Whedon), but forgot to tell the idiot director that it was *NOT* supposed to be a b-movie. (Or maybe the did tell him, and he didn't understand them - English isn't his first language.)
Of course, if this theory holds, Alien 5 will either be a romance, or a musical (or possible both.)
The lowest bidder is normally the clean cut guy trying to break into the business
:o)
No pun intended, right?
sinkholes that open up under minivans with children inside
:o)
How exactly does one engineer a sinkhole that knows whether or not there are children inside a minivan?
Ye gads - intelligent sinkholes!
Cue the "new sinkhole overlords" jokes.