hmm, a high end? The SGI port doesn't work well, and guess what, SGI gave it to the community in '96, and almost nothing has happened.
Really, any high end chip is supported, because well, its powerful enough to get attention. That doesn't mean the port is good, though, or even functional. There are many times where you need to try both NetBSD and Linux on a platform in order to determine who you want to go with, because both vary.
Oh yeah, and I'd just love to have NASA sending all of that up there. That's like asking why don't we send all of our nuclear waste to the Sun? Well... if it explodes in the atmosphere, I'd stay indoors for quite a long time.. maybe until I had a grandchild and wanted to go out.. my last day.
Well, OpenBSD spun off of NetBSD. FreeBSD and NetBSD came roughly at the same time after 386BSD lost support (the maintainer didn't want to be what Linus now is).
The ability to spin off is nice, though usually is only done or comercial products that add features (the point of BSD is to support the entire community), or if some nitch is unfilled. I can't imagine a reason a new spinoff is required. The spin off, incase someone tries claiming this, isn't doable on Linux because its only kernel and would be to hard to spin off. Or, you could say every Linux distribution is a spin off, though they merely add functionality to make an OS.
arg.. failed connecting, went back to add PS. (because without that, it really sounds to negative. Its merely meant to be a strong argument). I guess moderators are to gone picking at other posts to zero this one...
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) why I like the BSD community better. You've said the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' company as an evil, one that must at all cost be destroyed. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the sale of Windws 98 or more recently when touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to hunt / write articles, discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. The GNU-sprouting community is not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough..
PS. Just so I don't sound like a total lune, a zealot, or bent on insulting people, I only brought my argument up because Linux, to many, is the open-source movement. Thus, either we must educate the masses, or at times pretend they are equivelent. As Linux is the leader in Open Source, I am basing my argument that while fundalmentally (when not open source is not equivelent to Linux) it is about better programs, this is untrue when one considers the two equal.
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) is why I like the BSD community better. You've said once that the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' companies as evil, ones that must be destroyed at all cost. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the initial sale of Windws 98 or more recently during touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to try to hunt down / write articles or supply material for educating users/companies of the benefits of their OS. They also sometimes discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. Another quicky, just to show there are many, is that BSDs add support for emulating platforms so a user can use the best product (ie, FreeBSD tells companies to relase products on Linux for financial reasons, and then either emulate or port to FreeBSD). The GNU-sprouting community is, IMHO, not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough, but I'm slowly learning.
Everyone knows Pentium.. why else did we get Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III? Marketting. Celeron and Xeon went over badly, and AMD's Athlon.. who knows. Another Pentium would have been pitiful, but...
I remember when I first heard of Merced, back when Intel was hinting at the MMX instructions on the P5 cpu (Intel was extremely skimish on details for any projects, and I had no idea what the new instructions (then unnamed) were for). They had also mentioned a new chip code named Mercury.. that's all Intel would release (and this was a news section for users, but especially press I gather). Merced is.. well.. known. Far more than the K7 was, and at least Athlon sounds a bit interesting.
Renaiming Merced, one that I'm sure most people will dislike, just costed Intel a lot of $$$.
From Katz to Freebsd.. I can't imagine this is a good thing.
I personally like the FreeBSD install far better than any Linux installer, except RedHat (v5.05 was the last I tried) had one extremely similar and pleasent. FreeBSD's is extremely old (as installers go), its not redone for every release, its meant to do what it does. The new Linux installers try to have the user input 2 things, which partition they want to use, and what their username / password is. I remember people complaining that Windows took power away because later and later releases asked fewer questions, why the double standard?
FreeBSD's installer is quick (like a linux distribution where you sit playing tetris for an hour shows a quick install!), gives you all the options you need before / after to setup the machine properly, and it makes sense. Its not flashy, but I'm no GUI fanatic.
Your problem was hardware support - Windows has more than Linux, Linux has more than FreeBSD, FreeBSD (for x86) has more than other BSDs. Its a bit tougher for BSDs port drivers from Linux than it is for Linux to port drivers from BSD, and the number of people doing the grit work is significantly less. Linux is getting better due to popularity / corperate help.. I hope BSDs improve off Linux support too.
BTW, installs are the easy part.. its using the OS that every newbie truly stumbles at. I wish there were more "How to use Unix" (or Linux) than "How to install 'x' Linux" or "Linux quick reference" (list of commands). I'm still struggling from this, and find myself still mostly in Windows, no matter how determined I am when picking up a BSD / Linux cd. Katz is right, its not a 3-4 week process...
Though no one will read this, as the stories dead....
I just was informed that now NIF will be held back until 2004, for basic operation. Actually, its even worse. Since the funds were raided, they don't have the capital to get there, and these silly guys bs'ed enough that there over a year behind.
The reason is because of the managers again. Most recently, with the loss of the director of laser science for LLNL/DOE (explained after), others began looking into ways they could divert funds, etc without further resistence. With the Nova laser being removed, Allied Signal was informed they would not be paid anymore, and 50 employees were forced (by contract) out of their jobs and escourted out by guards. NIF desperately needs skilled staff.
(The director was removed as an anonomous informant noticed he had not recieved his PhD. This was not illegal, and many scientists are hired while working on them. Instead, at such a high position a PhD was required, and it was one of the many clerical mistakes on LLNL's part)
Replyng to a first poster always kills your karma, but...
Nuclear power is safe. While these incidents happen, I'm not going to say "how safe is your car?" because that's not what I mean. If you researched, or ever talked to nuclear scientists (this is how I know), there are many designs that are entirely safe. The water method is, as I've been told, a horrible but popular method. Its cheap and efficent, just not safe. There are reactor types that can never reach a point causing such damage as we've seen, here and elsewhere. Nuclear power is not the cleanest, but if scientists rather then polititions run the show, it can be low radiation.
Secondly, this is a fission reactor. Fission means lower efficency, lower energy, higher levels (not in ammount, but in radiation levels) of waste. Fusion is quite different. Of course, fusion reactors ar not here, at the moment. I've seen graphs from LLNL which predicted the first in 2010, but their project, NIF, was supposed to be done and operational in 2001. I'm told this is likely in 2003 or later. Blame managers and fake scientists, along with accountants who shifted NIF funds, and polititions who gave jobs to companies that could never handle them.
What is NIF? National Ignition Facility, a project that will be the first fusion laser. Other lasers, like LLNL's Nova laser (which was copied by other contries - Japan, England, France, etc - France even using LLNL's colors), could reach fusion. NIF is far better, though the quality of the laser has degraded due to those damn business/IT-style scientist guys. NIF will be fully safe, and I've talked to a few working on just that, to ensure employees are not harmed.
So before you spit out all the bs the media talks about, remember the media also calls crackers hackers, the media helped make a polition's campaign dead by saying niggardly, etc. The media is full of.. Read some physics, talk to some scientists, ponder a few questions. Did you know, for one, there have been nuclear bombs made for contstruction? These leave no radiation - it dicipates in 48hours! Guess what, this isn't fiction, it just isn't doable because of the fear and misunderstandings of the public.
And guess what, Japan screwed up. Not because of technical merits (they have an 'ok' program, but like the rest of the world, they mostly leech off of the US), but because politions got in the way, etc. Don't attack the technology or the scientist, tell your politions to stop screwing tht 14 year old girl and do something to earn his pay.
For games, even then no. Sure, I agree the CPU makes a big performance change. I never said I/O was what was needed, I just said you try to fix what bottlenecks you have.
Here's the deal with gamers. First, the CPU used to get a major hit because the graphics cards offloaded the work to them. Now the cards take more for their part, freeing the cpu, and making things faster. The CPU also tries to fix some of these things with SIMD instructions. Unfortunately, x86's architecture makes SIMD instructions less powerful, and they don't do to much. AltiVec is SIMD, and it should be amazing.
Another lag was the system bus, as it got clogged with to much data and slowed things down. We went to 100mhz, and on socket-7, there was a huge boost. The cpu was fed quicker, cache made a big performance gain again, and so on. Now we have a 200mhz bus, and rising, plus a 100 / 133 mhz ram bus, so we can forget about this lag. The CPU shouldn't be starving.
But sure, the cpu has work to do. It wasn't the only lag, though. And as I said, 50mhz is ~ 5% of a performance gain. Maybe that's not exactly true, as it will change with clock speeds where 50 means nothing. If you look at the benchmarks for the Athlon and P3, its currently accurate. Maybe we get 20-30 % gain with the CPU, which is nice. If the CPU isn't starved, but can't handle the data quick enough, this is very useful. But is the CPU overburndened? I don't believe so, and do you really get a 20-30 % performance gain? I doubt it.
If the CPU starved, then upping its speed shouldn't help. It would crunch a bit faster, but nothing to outstanding. The celeron chips seemingly defy this, as they have small caches that run at clock speed. They also have a slower system bus (66mhz), so the cache is always filled. Increasing the cache's input means they get to work on more data - thus they were starved and you merely feed them quicker. A celeron at the same speed of a Pentium IIx can be equal in gaming, if we neglect SIMDs. I'd reckon if you o/c a cpu with backside cache, like P-II/III or a K7, it wouldn't make as great a gain, just like increasing the system bus for a slot was less useful then a socketted system.
In anycase, I merely just wanted to try to get people to remember you upgrade to kill bottlenecks, not so you can spend money uselessly and for a week have a bigger ego. The $350 could be better spend elsewhere for most potential buyers, and you never know if your next system will work wih there case. To top it off, Quake3 for Linux should have SMP capabilities, so I'd much rather spend my money on a second CPU then on a small little case with a refrigurator in it, if others games do the same.
Again.. the point is, you attack bottlenecks for your needs. I don't see this as a good stratigy because it might not be transferable to a new system. But like I said, for me my problem was IO/clogged bus (P5-200), and I solved it. Not everyone who whoo'd and lusted after the cooler were Quake kiddies...
For most people, this is worthless. For those running Alphas, your running them for the CPU (generally). For an x86 chip, most tasks where you'd care about a lot more CPU is for servers or high-end workstations, where the software is why you have the machine.
So, you want more performance for your x86? For what? Upgrading the other components will free the CPU. If you go scsi, and even cheap, low end scsi drives, your CPU gets a boost (UDMA has reduced it, but it still is noticable). SCSI you can carry over to your next upgrade. CPU being eaten by graphics? Hate to tell you, but why spend a few hundred on a cooling unit (where 50mhz on x86 ~ 5% performance gain), instead of a new graphics card?
You can lust after it... but its a waste of money for most people. Now if it kept the system cool too, that would make it a bit more desirable. I can't tell you how painful trying to fix heat problems (from SCSI mostly) can be.. but then again, buying smartly kept my system humming along at acceptable speeds. (and designing your own home-brewed $60 system cooler is fun!)
I wasn't sure whether to reply, or not... Considering that so many people see Corel in the fault, I feel I need to fight for Corel, as I see them in the right. You do have valid points, but I also disagree on some of your ideas.
We kept a really bad precedent from happening.... We could not allow the precedent that just a little violation was OK, for a little while. I don't believe the argument that there would have been no violation, either. The way I read the beta agreement, the GPL, and the definition of distributuion, there would have been a violation.
As you can tell, I read the license differently. I agree, any company that makes a violaion, big or small, should not be let go. If I believed Corel did violate the GPL, I'd be calling for a calm warning, and Corel to immediately aplogize. But the fact is, you shouldn't attempt to set a precedent, even if its better for the long run, by using an innocent company as the criminal.
How I read the license, Corel said "Product" with a capital 'P' to refer to the entire distribution. The product in question, as I hypothesized in earlier posts and that you confirmed, contains propitary and open source code. Corel also said that the beta tester would have to comply with Corel's and other licenses that were in the "Product." That almost explains it all.
It is illegal to distribute propitary, single-license code and binary. Thus, distributing the beta would be software piracy, as you could distribute Word Perfect Suite and break the same laws. Therefor, Corel did have it in their rights to say the user could not distribute their beta. I refer you to section 12 in the Corel license on this point.
What else did Corel restrict? They restricted what users could say, only when Corel informed them it was on the hush-hush. They signed an NDA, its in there rights, and Corel said most things were allowed to be publicized. This is fine, and never was questioned.
They also restricted using the "Product" after 45 days. That's perfectly legal, its like their code was shareware.
I am also very little concerned about scaring business away from Linux at this point. Business is all over us. Corel claims to be the world's second largest company in its market, just behind Microsoft. They can smell money as well as the next business.
Oh, I'm not too. Even if we make an enemy, we have to many friends for it to matter. But, I don't like it when we try to make an enemy for no reason. Attacking and accusing Corel of something, which I personally believe they never did, is just sickening. Its doing it for the rush, the fun of it. Its not justice, as much as people would like to claim it is, its childish. Yes, Corel is an ally due to money, but so many of our allies are in it for the same reason. That's no excuse either for linux users to attack and attempt to degrade Corel's public opinoin.
What I am concerned with is that the individuals who built all of this software will be overwhelmed by the giant corporations. I did my best to keep that from happening and to keep everybody, including the corporation, happy about the resolution we came to.
And if Corel really did, or had, broken the GPL I'd be extremely greatful. I am greatful because you did it believing Corel was at fault, though we disagree on that matter. I think most usuers are afraid of trading the individual programmers for large companies, not ony for the ideals involved but because we know what each is doing it for. I'm afraid it could be inevitable, but with enough effort and concern, maybe we'll get lucky.
Yes, I think a valuable goal was achieved.
I'm glad you feel your effort went to some good. Since we cannot turn back time, and I'm sure slashdot maintainers and readers could not be convinced that they should apologize, I really hope a valuable goal was achieved. Even if it hurt Corel, or just degraded my opinion of the Linux/GPL community, if something good comes out of this I'll be content.
If everyone had rolled over and let Corel 'get away with it,' that wouldn't have been any better. I think Slashdot misinformed its readers and did a disservice to the community, but if the community had not reacted as they had (and had not agreed with me that Corel was not breaking the GPL), then that would have been, quite frankly, horrible.
In anycase, I'd just like to sum up that I don't think Corel was wrong. I also disagree that the "argument that there would have been no violation" is untrue, because there would have been no violation as they never violated the GPL.
My understanding was different, and while I still view it as correct, I'm happy to have heard yours. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and to help solve this matter.
... now this is sad. Patton was one of my favorite movies, I don't know how many times I saw it. Well, I'd always thought Patten was the best US WWII general.. but still. Dr. Stranglove was good too, and I can't imagine anyone else pulling of that part as well.
We achieved the goal, they understand now, they conceded.
I'm sorry Bruce, and I know out of everyone your in deepper then anyone else who posted, but what goal did "we" achieve? Corel never, ever, ever did anything wrong in there license. Reading the license and understanding that "Product" meant a combination of Corel code, open source code, and perhaps other's closed code makes this obvious. Corel was always in there right. They already had done the right thing.
So please... I don't want to sound disrespectful or to negative, but how did "we" do anything good? All I see is that "we" bashed, flamed, and degraded Corel's reputation in the Open Source world, merely because, as a whole, "we" did not read there license and did not understand what it meant. "We" made assumptions off what we didn't understand, and since the popular idea is that any company used to closed source automaticly despises open source, "we" decided that Corel was attacking and undermining the community. "We" did the wrong thing, "we" screwed up, "we" are the ones who should apologize.
Personally, I think that Slashdot should apologize for posting an article where they made assumptions. Slashdot is the portal for a huge number of open source users, and by being a substantial news source owned by Andover, they should post corrections and apologies. Freedom of speech and freedom of press go so far, but Slashdot crossed the boundries, and "we" tried to hurt a company who was trying to improve the technology and accelerate the cause (while making enough money to survive).
So Mr. Perens, what went before that is not irrelevant. Maybe other people don't understand this, or maybe I'm flat out wrong, but the entire incident was wrong to begin with. Those who lost respect for Corel, those who made comments against Corel, and especially those who misinterprited and publicized this should reflect and try to stop this from happening again.
And if Corel begins doing this and does get away with it, your exactly right. Others will pick it up, create forks as each group hides their version and then pops it out, etc. Different features, different bugs, etc. That, if it ever happened, would show where Open Source can go wrong, and give a good reason for propitary work.
But, this is almost the same as propitary work to begin with, and is only using Open Source as an excuse for market ability. A market ploy without any substance, as the OSS would not be updated by others and the benefits would be lost. This requires a lot of dominos and some real power players backing it up, which I doubt would happen.
Like you said, that's what to worry about. That's the only part of the GPL they've broken, but people seemed to ignore it entirely. Corel should not be shunned and persicuted for what it hasn't done, but queried, made aware, and know they would cause contempt if they do what they are doing. The code doesn't have to be on a public site and Corel doesn't have to help the programmer or organization maintaining the origional code, but they have to always make it available when asked for. This is what there failing to do and this is what Slashdot, zealots, and everyone else should be concerned and upset about.
Unfortunately, they've already gotten Bruce Perens to talk to Corel on the crimes they didn't commit, and ignore the ones they did...
They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
Maybe if you thought about it, I wasn't bitching at Corel, I am actually on their side. If the reason is twisted logic, then I'd like someone to untwist it. In general, I was posting because Slashdot posters were saying Corel hurt the community and should be shunned, or Corel did an evil, horrible act out of neglect. Or Corel just screwed up because they're run by human beings. In essance, my point is, Corel did nothing wrong, Corel is still a friend so please don't push them away.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
Now that was twisting my words. I never said a mixture can never be distributed, I said that suppose there is closed source, propitary code, then distributing it without concent is illegal. If the distribution creator includes propitary programs which are licensed for one user, and that user copies the distribution for friends, who install those propitary programs, then that's illegal. RedHat used to have MetroX included with their distribution (the box package), and it was in that fashon. As we don't know what Corel has done, this is a definate possibility. They could have included the entire Wordperfect Suite, while they only give the word processor out for free. That's software pirating. The companies can distribute there product, they can also remove the single user / restrictive licensed programs from it and make it freely downloadable, but they can always distribute it.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post, or are just rambling, because you imply I say things I never did. The GPL applies to source code, its derivatives, and the binaries that are created.
As I said, the reason Corel is in the right is because the entire distribution likely does not only include OSS, and thus the GPL only applies to the parts of the distribution that are GPL'ed. This is not the entire distribution, which is *why* Corel can tell users that they cannot distribute copies free or at a price of their product. They say the same thing with Corel Wordperfect Suite, Corel Draw, etc. The difference is that the distribution does contain the GPL and other OSS licenses that requires them to make those parts freely available, by whatever reasonable way they see fit. My point was, if you called them and asked for it, they had to say no or they violated the GPL. In the ZdNet article, they said.. later. That means if you called and wanted it now, the answer would be no.
So.. do you actually understand this logic? They origionally did nothing wrong. Read both the GPL and Corel's license, and remember the product is not just GPL'ed programs, it could be many things, especially propitary single-user programs. They gave their testers the right to use those progams for 45 days, just like your allowed to use a shareware program for a time limit.
People were on there back, and I believe they never seemed to realize this, just assumed that others had investaged and that Corel was at fault. Slashdot and beta-users assumed things, took them as fact, and then accused Corel in a manner that would hurt the public's opinion of them. That's defamation of charactor, which may or may not be illegal to do to a company. Free speech does not cover everything, and Corel is complying because if they did not, it would be to fight the very users who they want to sell to. Fighting your entire, portential, userbase is illogical.
So, here's my point. Only when the spokesperson refused to give the modified GPL code out to the public did they do anything in violation of the GPL. Please read the GPL, it never says distribution or the user/organization must start once they begin releasing the code. They do not have to pay for the means of giving users the code, which is why putting the beta, stripped of anything that would hinder its free distribution, on an FTP. They still must provide it when wanted. That's one of the points of the GPL, it locks the code to make it publicly owned and controlled.
I posted a message before on how Corel hasn't violated the GPL, which I'll just link here. The thing is, only when the spokesperson said "we will make all of out modified GPL, etc. code available when we begin our distribution later this year."
Now, its illegal, if that's a definate fact. To re-iterate, before they violated only if you assumed that the "Product" was entirely open source, not containing any closes source code. I assume it has a mixture, and thus they "Product" cannot be redistributed, etc. The Open Source part can. Thus, it never violated the GPL, as you have the right to call them and ask for copies of any modified GPL code.
However, saying they have modified code under the GPL and wont release it till xx date, that's illegal. So, now you can flame Corel, or whatever, but whether you were for or against them before, just remember (if I am correct) they only violated it after they denied releasing the modified code. No one asked them, but they answered it for you.
What's your definition of, "lots"? GPL code is not a huge amount. It exists, but why would they not include bash, gcc, etc? Its good code, but not the majority. RMS wanted GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU&Linux) because Linux distributions were almost entirely made out of GNU code. The OS, not the distribution. The basic OS has GNU libraries, shells, etc. Linux does not function without GNU's contributions, or no one has tried as of yet.
BSDs have there own shells from when the BSD developers (was it Kirk or Bill? I forget who made the request and last distribution) released an entirely free varient of BSD. BSD does not rely on GNU code, and BSDs include GNU code because it is good code! For the entire OS, or entire distribution, the GPL does not make the majority, it makes the minority.
Personally, the only violation would be not distribting the source code. In that faq, it says they will suply the source code with the product. The GPL says they must supply it, one way or another. They don't have to have it on an FTP.
One can merely email them and say, I want the source code to your beta! If they so 'NO!' then that is a violation. If they say, sure, but we will charge you for the cost of sending a cd specially made for you. That's fine, the GPL says that's ok, as long as its to cover costs. Actually, I believe RMS tries to charge as much as possible if you get the code from them, directly (offline).. something about old tapes. Its on GNU's site somewhere..
The point is, I don't see any violation by Corel unless they refuse to release the source that was gobbled up by the GPL.
12. Intellectual Property Rights All right title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Product shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to User, except for the limitted right to use and test the Product as expressly provided in this Agreement.
{bold done by me}
So, Corel says that the user cannot break the licenses in the distribution, Corel's, GNU's, and others. Wow, I'm so shocked! That does not violate the GPL.
They also say elsewhere that he user cannot disclose confidential information. That's fine, Corel can say 'this part is confidential.' That's in their right.
Corel says they must destroy the copy. That's ok. Corel is the one who must distribcute the code, not the user. As their copy contains Corel non-GPL'ed code, they can say that. Corel must provide the source code on any Open Source software, which would be a seperate cd or however they choose.
Finally, Corel says the user cannot distribute the CD. The above makes this obviouse why, it contains Corel code. Again, the user is not the one bound by the GPL to send out source code, Corel and others are. I can't demand - "You run RedHat! Go find and give me all the free source code!" Thus, this is legal. It would be illegal for the user to distribute Corel's Linux, as it contain's Corel's code. Without that code (I assume some is GPL'ed and some is not), it would be fine.
Actually, Corel never denied distribution of the free code, just not the distribution. The free code makes up some of the distribution, but not all of it.
Does anyone else see this as a mistake by Slashdot readers? How many posters read the license? Even the sections pointed out by Mr. Taco , are not illegal. I believe I've proven why. If not, ask me to clearify some more. I think this is just as dumb as when a a senator (?) was running for office and said niggardly (sp?), and had to drop out because to few people looked up the word and considered it a slander even after they knew what it really meant.
Come on people, this is not a violation. Your just making Corel look evil, and thus hurting a good company, hurting an ally, and may even make people afraid of you. Maybe that's where BSD really does have a plus, companies don't have to be scared of their users.
(I only realized this when a Linux guy stated this, "Post Slamming the GPL." Didn't see these posts in the mess I read.. but I'm sure he posted that for a good reason.)
Well, I don't hold a degree by any means, actually I'm on my first year towards CS and CPE (Computer Engineering) degrees. But, there might be something I can offer to ponder...
In my Intro to Profession class (just a class that informs people of the areas out there, work, etc), the last lecturer who came in had a lot of experience under his belt. The one thing I that caught my attention was this:
In 5 years, 50% of what we teach you will be irrelevent. If we knew this 50%, we'd skip it, but we don't. Instead we try to prepare you and make sure you know how to work in teams, where you can't check the other guys work (as they're in a new filed) and to learn how to learn. Of course, we also break your back teaching you that 110% out there.
I don't know if this is relevent or not, but it was a lecture to many engineers in various fields (This is the engineering campus, main). So, going for something higher up probably wont disappear as rapidly, PE covers various areas, and since your learning new material, that can help later to learn when what you know gets outdated...
One other point, though not relevent but good to take note, is the team idea. When do you call yourself a comuter engineer? How about when you can single handedly create a palm pilot. Well, you need to know design and ergonomics, marketting, economy, electrical engineering, computer engineering, etc. So if you know how to work in a team where you have to trust everyone to pull their weight because you can't check them, is vital.
I agree with other people that GNU should also look at BSD contributers (as their code has always complied with the definition and philosophy outlined). However, I personally don't know how much someoe like Jordon K. Hubbard contributed, except I know he's done a huge amount of work.
The only BSD person I can know who has done a huge amount of work (that I can point a finger at) is Theo de Raadt, the founder of OpenBSD, a main financial contributer, and major coder. OpenBSD is widely considered the most secure operating system both Linux and other BSDs have incorperated their code. That's the point of free software, to share and improve the community.
In any case, someone who knows more please reply and list whose done a lot of work (and how) in BSD. GNU shouldn't neglect BSD because of a conflicting licsense, or that Linux is in the media blitz right now.
hmm.. Sounds like its X's fault to me. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a problem in Linux too. Send this to freebsd-questions (@freebsd.org) and I'm sure you'll have over well handful of people trying to help. Just remember to put as much info as you know
Slashdot Mirror
hmm, a high end? The SGI port doesn't work well, and guess what, SGI gave it to the community in '96, and almost nothing has happened.
Really, any high end chip is supported, because well, its powerful enough to get attention. That doesn't mean the port is good, though, or even functional. There are many times where you need to try both NetBSD and Linux on a platform in order to determine who you want to go with, because both vary.
Oh yeah, and I'd just love to have NASA sending all of that up there. That's like asking why don't we send all of our nuclear waste to the Sun? Well... if it explodes in the atmosphere, I'd stay indoors for quite a long time.. maybe until I had a grandchild and wanted to go out.. my last day.
Well, OpenBSD spun off of NetBSD. FreeBSD and NetBSD came roughly at the same time after 386BSD lost support (the maintainer didn't want to be what Linus now is).
The ability to spin off is nice, though usually is only done or comercial products that add features (the point of BSD is to support the entire community), or if some nitch is unfilled. I can't imagine a reason a new spinoff is required. The spin off, incase someone tries claiming this, isn't doable on Linux because its only kernel and would be to hard to spin off. Or, you could say every Linux distribution is a spin off, though they merely add functionality to make an OS.
arg.. failed connecting, went back to add PS. (because without that, it really sounds to negative. Its merely meant to be a strong argument). I guess moderators are to gone picking at other posts to zero this one...
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) why I like the BSD community better. You've said the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' company as an evil, one that must at all cost be destroyed. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the sale of Windws 98 or more recently when touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to hunt / write articles, discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. The GNU-sprouting community is not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough..
PS. Just so I don't sound like a total lune, a zealot, or bent on insulting people, I only brought my argument up because Linux, to many, is the open-source movement. Thus, either we must educate the masses, or at times pretend they are equivelent. As Linux is the leader in Open Source, I am basing my argument that while fundalmentally (when not open source is not equivelent to Linux) it is about better programs, this is untrue when one considers the two equal.
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) is why I like the BSD community better. You've said once that the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' companies as evil, ones that must be destroyed at all cost. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the initial sale of Windws 98 or more recently during touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to try to hunt down / write articles or supply material for educating users/companies of the benefits of their OS. They also sometimes discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. Another quicky, just to show there are many, is that BSDs add support for emulating platforms so a user can use the best product (ie, FreeBSD tells companies to relase products on Linux for financial reasons, and then either emulate or port to FreeBSD). The GNU-sprouting community is, IMHO, not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough, but I'm slowly learning.
Everyone knows Pentium.. why else did we get Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III? Marketting. Celeron and Xeon went over badly, and AMD's Athlon.. who knows. Another Pentium would have been pitiful, but...
I remember when I first heard of Merced, back when Intel was hinting at the MMX instructions on the P5 cpu (Intel was extremely skimish on details for any projects, and I had no idea what the new instructions (then unnamed) were for). They had also mentioned a new chip code named Mercury.. that's all Intel would release (and this was a news section for users, but especially press I gather). Merced is.. well.. known. Far more than the K7 was, and at least Athlon sounds a bit interesting.
Renaiming Merced, one that I'm sure most people will dislike, just costed Intel a lot of $$$.
From Katz to Freebsd.. I can't imagine this is a good thing.
I personally like the FreeBSD install far better than any Linux installer, except RedHat (v5.05 was the last I tried) had one extremely similar and pleasent. FreeBSD's is extremely old (as installers go), its not redone for every release, its meant to do what it does. The new Linux installers try to have the user input 2 things, which partition they want to use, and what their username / password is. I remember people complaining that Windows took power away because later and later releases asked fewer questions, why the double standard?
FreeBSD's installer is quick (like a linux distribution where you sit playing tetris for an hour shows a quick install!), gives you all the options you need before / after to setup the machine properly, and it makes sense. Its not flashy, but I'm no GUI fanatic.
Your problem was hardware support - Windows has more than Linux, Linux has more than FreeBSD, FreeBSD (for x86) has more than other BSDs. Its a bit tougher for BSDs port drivers from Linux than it is for Linux to port drivers from BSD, and the number of people doing the grit work is significantly less. Linux is getting better due to popularity / corperate help.. I hope BSDs improve off Linux support too.
BTW, installs are the easy part.. its using the OS that every newbie truly stumbles at. I wish there were more "How to use Unix" (or Linux) than "How to install 'x' Linux" or "Linux quick reference" (list of commands). I'm still struggling from this, and find myself still mostly in Windows, no matter how determined I am when picking up a BSD / Linux cd. Katz is right, its not a 3-4 week process...
Though no one will read this, as the stories dead....
/DOE (explained after), others began looking into ways they could divert funds, etc without further resistence. With the Nova laser being removed, Allied Signal was informed they would not be paid anymore, and 50 employees were forced (by contract) out of their jobs and escourted out by guards. NIF desperately needs skilled staff.
I just was informed that now NIF will be held back until 2004, for basic operation. Actually, its even worse. Since the funds were raided, they don't have the capital to get there, and these silly guys bs'ed enough that there over a year behind.
The reason is because of the managers again. Most recently, with the loss of the director of laser science for LLNL
(The director was removed as an anonomous informant noticed he had not recieved his PhD. This was not illegal, and many scientists are hired while working on them. Instead, at such a high position a PhD was required, and it was one of the many clerical mistakes on LLNL's part)
Replyng to a first poster always kills your karma, but...
Nuclear power is safe. While these incidents happen, I'm not going to say "how safe is your car?" because that's not what I mean. If you researched, or ever talked to nuclear scientists (this is how I know), there are many designs that are entirely safe. The water method is, as I've been told, a horrible but popular method. Its cheap and efficent, just not safe. There are reactor types that can never reach a point causing such damage as we've seen, here and elsewhere. Nuclear power is not the cleanest, but if scientists rather then polititions run the show, it can be low radiation.
Secondly, this is a fission reactor. Fission means lower efficency, lower energy, higher levels (not in ammount, but in radiation levels) of waste. Fusion is quite different. Of course, fusion reactors ar not here, at the moment. I've seen graphs from LLNL which predicted the first in 2010, but their project, NIF, was supposed to be done and operational in 2001. I'm told this is likely in 2003 or later. Blame managers and fake scientists, along with accountants who shifted NIF funds, and polititions who gave jobs to companies that could never handle them.
What is NIF? National Ignition Facility, a project that will be the first fusion laser. Other lasers, like LLNL's Nova laser (which was copied by other contries - Japan, England, France, etc - France even using LLNL's colors), could reach fusion. NIF is far better, though the quality of the laser has degraded due to those damn business/IT-style scientist guys. NIF will be fully safe, and I've talked to a few working on just that, to ensure employees are not harmed.
So before you spit out all the bs the media talks about, remember the media also calls crackers hackers, the media helped make a polition's campaign dead by saying niggardly, etc. The media is full of.. Read some physics, talk to some scientists, ponder a few questions. Did you know, for one, there have been nuclear bombs made for contstruction? These leave no radiation - it dicipates in 48hours! Guess what, this isn't fiction, it just isn't doable because of the fear and misunderstandings of the public.
And guess what, Japan screwed up. Not because of technical merits (they have an 'ok' program, but like the rest of the world, they mostly leech off of the US), but because politions got in the way, etc. Don't attack the technology or the scientist, tell your politions to stop screwing tht 14 year old girl and do something to earn his pay.
For games, even then no. Sure, I agree the CPU makes a big performance change. I never said I/O was what was needed, I just said you try to fix what bottlenecks you have.
Here's the deal with gamers. First, the CPU used to get a major hit because the graphics cards offloaded the work to them. Now the cards take more for their part, freeing the cpu, and making things faster. The CPU also tries to fix some of these things with SIMD instructions. Unfortunately, x86's architecture makes SIMD instructions less powerful, and they don't do to much. AltiVec is SIMD, and it should be amazing.
Another lag was the system bus, as it got clogged with to much data and slowed things down. We went to 100mhz, and on socket-7, there was a huge boost. The cpu was fed quicker, cache made a big performance gain again, and so on. Now we have a 200mhz bus, and rising, plus a 100 / 133 mhz ram bus, so we can forget about this lag. The CPU shouldn't be starving.
But sure, the cpu has work to do. It wasn't the only lag, though. And as I said, 50mhz is ~ 5% of a performance gain. Maybe that's not exactly true, as it will change with clock speeds where 50 means nothing. If you look at the benchmarks for the Athlon and P3, its currently accurate. Maybe we get 20-30 % gain with the CPU, which is nice. If the CPU isn't starved, but can't handle the data quick enough, this is very useful. But is the CPU overburndened? I don't believe so, and do you really get a 20-30 % performance gain? I doubt it.
If the CPU starved, then upping its speed shouldn't help. It would crunch a bit faster, but nothing to outstanding. The celeron chips seemingly defy this, as they have small caches that run at clock speed. They also have a slower system bus (66mhz), so the cache is always filled. Increasing the cache's input means they get to work on more data - thus they were starved and you merely feed them quicker. A celeron at the same speed of a Pentium IIx can be equal in gaming, if we neglect SIMDs. I'd reckon if you o/c a cpu with backside cache, like P-II/III or a K7, it wouldn't make as great a gain, just like increasing the system bus for a slot was less useful then a socketted system.
In anycase, I merely just wanted to try to get people to remember you upgrade to kill bottlenecks, not so you can spend money uselessly and for a week have a bigger ego. The $350 could be better spend elsewhere for most potential buyers, and you never know if your next system will work wih there case. To top it off, Quake3 for Linux should have SMP capabilities, so I'd much rather spend my money on a second CPU then on a small little case with a refrigurator in it, if others games do the same.
Again.. the point is, you attack bottlenecks for your needs. I don't see this as a good stratigy because it might not be transferable to a new system. But like I said, for me my problem was IO/clogged bus (P5-200), and I solved it. Not everyone who whoo'd and lusted after the cooler were Quake kiddies...
For most people, this is worthless. For those running Alphas, your running them for the CPU (generally). For an x86 chip, most tasks where you'd care about a lot more CPU is for servers or high-end workstations, where the software is why you have the machine.
So, you want more performance for your x86? For what? Upgrading the other components will free the CPU. If you go scsi, and even cheap, low end
scsi drives, your CPU gets a boost (UDMA has reduced it, but it still is noticable). SCSI you can carry over to your next upgrade. CPU being eaten by graphics? Hate to tell you, but why spend a few hundred on a cooling unit (where 50mhz on x86 ~ 5% performance gain), instead of a new graphics card?
You can lust after it... but its a waste of money for most people. Now if it kept the system cool too, that would make it a bit more desirable. I can't tell you how painful trying to fix heat problems (from SCSI mostly) can be.. but then again, buying smartly kept my system humming along at acceptable speeds. (and designing your own home-brewed $60 system cooler is fun!)
I wasn't sure whether to reply, or not... Considering that so many people see Corel in the fault, I feel I need to fight for Corel, as I see them in the right. You do have valid points, but I also disagree on some of your ideas.
We kept a really bad precedent from happening.... We could not allow the precedent that just a little violation was OK, for a little while. I don't believe the argument that there would have been no violation, either. The way I read the beta agreement, the GPL, and the definition of distributuion, there would have been a violation.
As you can tell, I read the license differently. I agree, any company that makes a violaion, big or small, should not be let go. If I believed Corel did violate the GPL, I'd be calling for a calm warning, and Corel to immediately aplogize. But the fact is, you shouldn't attempt to set a precedent, even if its better for the long run, by using an innocent company as the criminal.
How I read the license, Corel said "Product" with a capital 'P' to refer to the entire distribution. The product in question, as I hypothesized in earlier posts and that you confirmed, contains propitary and open source code. Corel also said that the beta tester would have to comply with Corel's and other licenses that were in the "Product." That almost explains it all.
It is illegal to distribute propitary, single-license code and binary. Thus, distributing the beta would be software piracy, as you could distribute Word Perfect Suite and break the same laws. Therefor, Corel did have it in their rights to say the user could not distribute their beta. I refer you to section 12 in the Corel license on this point.
What else did Corel restrict? They restricted what users could say, only when Corel informed them it was on the hush-hush. They signed an NDA, its in there rights, and Corel said most things were allowed to be publicized. This is fine, and never was questioned.
They also restricted using the "Product" after 45 days. That's perfectly legal, its like their code was shareware.
I am also very little concerned about scaring business away from Linux at this point. Business is all over us. Corel claims to be the world's second largest company in its market, just behind Microsoft. They can smell money as well as the next business.
Oh, I'm not too. Even if we make an enemy, we have to many friends for it to matter. But, I don't like it when we try to make an enemy for no reason. Attacking and accusing Corel of something, which I personally believe they never did, is just sickening. Its doing it for the rush, the fun of it. Its not justice, as much as people would like to claim it is, its childish. Yes, Corel is an ally due to money, but so many of our allies are in it for the same reason. That's no excuse either for linux users to attack and attempt to degrade Corel's public opinoin.
What I am concerned with is that the individuals who built all of this software will be overwhelmed by the giant corporations. I did my best to keep that from happening and to keep everybody, including the corporation, happy about the resolution we came to.
And if Corel really did, or had, broken the GPL I'd be extremely greatful. I am greatful because you did it believing Corel was at fault, though we disagree on that matter. I think most usuers are afraid of trading the individual programmers for large companies, not ony for the ideals involved but because we know what each is doing it for. I'm afraid it could be inevitable, but with enough effort and concern, maybe we'll get lucky.
Yes, I think a valuable goal was achieved.
I'm glad you feel your effort went to some good. Since we cannot turn back time, and I'm sure slashdot maintainers and readers could not be convinced that they should apologize, I really hope a valuable goal was achieved. Even if it hurt Corel, or just degraded my opinion of the Linux/GPL community, if something good comes out of this I'll be content.
If everyone had rolled over and let Corel 'get away with it,' that wouldn't have been any better. I think Slashdot misinformed its readers and did a disservice to the community, but if the community had not reacted as they had (and had not agreed with me that Corel was not breaking the GPL), then that would have been, quite frankly, horrible.
In anycase, I'd just like to sum up that I don't think Corel was wrong. I also disagree that the "argument that there would have been no violation" is untrue, because there would have been no violation as they never violated the GPL.
My understanding was different, and while I still view it as correct, I'm happy to have heard yours. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and to help solve this matter.
CNN reports:
Veteran actor George C. Scott died of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, the Ventura County Coroner's office said Thursday.
The rest was just a rehash of the Associated Press article... I'm damn sad to see him go.
... now this is sad. Patton was one of my favorite movies, I don't know how many times I saw it. Well, I'd always thought Patten was the best US WWII general.. but still. Dr. Stranglove was good too, and I can't imagine anyone else pulling of that part as well.
This is quite depressing...
We achieved the goal, they understand now, they conceded.
I'm sorry Bruce, and I know out of everyone your in deepper then anyone else who posted, but what goal did "we" achieve? Corel never, ever, ever did anything wrong in there license. Reading the license and understanding that "Product" meant a combination of Corel code, open source code, and perhaps other's closed code makes this obvious. Corel was always in there right. They already had done the right thing.
So please... I don't want to sound disrespectful or to negative, but how did "we" do anything good? All I see is that "we" bashed, flamed, and degraded Corel's reputation in the Open Source world, merely because, as a whole, "we" did not read there license and did not understand what it meant. "We" made assumptions off what we didn't understand, and since the popular idea is that any company used to closed source automaticly despises open source, "we" decided that Corel was attacking and undermining the community. "We" did the wrong thing, "we" screwed up, "we" are the ones who should apologize.
Personally, I think that Slashdot should apologize for posting an article where they made assumptions. Slashdot is the portal for a huge number of open source users, and by being a substantial news source owned by Andover, they should post corrections and apologies. Freedom of speech and freedom of press go so far, but Slashdot crossed the boundries, and "we" tried to hurt a company who was trying to improve the technology and accelerate the cause (while making enough money to survive).
So Mr. Perens, what went before that is not irrelevant. Maybe other people don't understand this, or maybe I'm flat out wrong, but the entire incident was wrong to begin with. Those who lost respect for Corel, those who made comments against Corel, and especially those who misinterprited and publicized this should reflect and try to stop this from happening again.
Thanks.
And if Corel begins doing this and does get away with it, your exactly right. Others will pick it up, create forks as each group hides their version and then pops it out, etc. Different features, different bugs, etc. That, if it ever happened, would show where Open Source can go wrong, and give a good reason for propitary work.
But, this is almost the same as propitary work to begin with, and is only using Open Source as an excuse for market ability. A market ploy without any substance, as the OSS would not be updated by others and the benefits would be lost. This requires a lot of dominos and some real power players backing it up, which I doubt would happen.
Like you said, that's what to worry about. That's the only part of the GPL they've broken, but people seemed to ignore it entirely. Corel should not be shunned and persicuted for what it hasn't done, but queried, made aware, and know they would cause contempt if they do what they are doing. The code doesn't have to be on a public site and Corel doesn't have to help the programmer or organization maintaining the origional code, but they have to always make it available when asked for. This is what there failing to do and this is what Slashdot, zealots, and everyone else should be concerned and upset about.
Unfortunately, they've already gotten Bruce Perens to talk to Corel on the crimes they didn't commit, and ignore the ones they did...
They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
Maybe if you thought about it, I wasn't bitching at Corel, I am actually on their side. If the reason is twisted logic, then I'd like someone to untwist it. In general, I was posting because Slashdot posters were saying Corel hurt the community and should be shunned, or Corel did an evil, horrible act out of neglect. Or Corel just screwed up because they're run by human beings. In essance, my point is, Corel did nothing wrong, Corel is still a friend so please don't push them away.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
Now that was twisting my words. I never said a mixture can never be distributed, I said that suppose there is closed source, propitary code, then distributing it without concent is illegal. If the distribution creator includes propitary programs which are licensed for one user, and that user copies the distribution for friends, who install those propitary programs, then that's illegal. RedHat used to have MetroX included with their distribution (the box package), and it was in that fashon. As we don't know what Corel has done, this is a definate possibility. They could have included the entire Wordperfect Suite, while they only give the word processor out for free. That's software pirating. The companies can distribute there product, they can also remove the single user / restrictive licensed programs from it and make it freely downloadable, but they can always distribute it.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post, or are just rambling, because you imply I say things I never did. The GPL applies to source code, its derivatives, and the binaries that are created.
As I said, the reason Corel is in the right is because the entire distribution likely does not only include OSS, and thus the GPL only applies to the parts of the distribution that are GPL'ed. This is not the entire distribution, which is *why* Corel can tell users that they cannot distribute copies free or at a price of their product. They say the same thing with Corel Wordperfect Suite, Corel Draw, etc. The difference is that the distribution does contain the GPL and other OSS licenses that requires them to make those parts freely available, by whatever reasonable way they see fit. My point was, if you called them and asked for it, they had to say no or they violated the GPL. In the ZdNet article, they said.. later. That means if you called and wanted it now, the answer would be no.
So.. do you actually understand this logic? They origionally did nothing wrong. Read both the GPL and Corel's license, and remember the product is not just GPL'ed programs, it could be many things, especially propitary single-user programs. They gave their testers the right to use those progams for 45 days, just like your allowed to use a shareware program for a time limit.
People were on there back, and I believe they never seemed to realize this, just assumed that others had investaged and that Corel was at fault. Slashdot and beta-users assumed things, took them as fact, and then accused Corel in a manner that would hurt the public's opinion of them. That's defamation of charactor, which may or may not be illegal to do to a company. Free speech does not cover everything, and Corel is complying because if they did not, it would be to fight the very users who they want to sell to. Fighting your entire, portential, userbase is illogical.
So, here's my point. Only when the spokesperson refused to give the modified GPL code out to the public did they do anything in violation of the GPL. Please read the GPL, it never says distribution or the user/organization must start once they begin releasing the code. They do not have to pay for the means of giving users the code, which is why putting the beta, stripped of anything that would hinder its free distribution, on an FTP. They still must provide it when wanted. That's one of the points of the GPL, it locks the code to make it publicly owned and controlled.
Now, its illegal, if that's a definate fact. To re-iterate, before they violated only if you assumed that the "Product" was entirely open source, not containing any closes source code. I assume it has a mixture, and thus they "Product" cannot be redistributed, etc. The Open Source part can. Thus, it never violated the GPL, as you have the right to call them and ask for copies of any modified GPL code.
However, saying they have modified code under the GPL and wont release it till xx date, that's illegal. So, now you can flame Corel, or whatever, but whether you were for or against them before, just remember (if I am correct) they only violated it after they denied releasing the modified code. No one asked them, but they answered it for you.
all the BSD's contain lots of GPL'ed software.
What's your definition of, "lots"? GPL code is not a huge amount. It exists, but why would they not include bash, gcc, etc? Its good code, but not the majority. RMS wanted GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU&Linux) because Linux distributions were almost entirely made out of GNU code. The OS, not the distribution. The basic OS has GNU libraries, shells, etc. Linux does not function without GNU's contributions, or no one has tried as of yet.
BSDs have there own shells from when the BSD developers (was it Kirk or Bill? I forget who made the request and last distribution) released an entirely free varient of BSD. BSD does not rely on GNU code, and BSDs include GNU code because it is good code! For the entire OS, or entire distribution, the GPL does not make the majority, it makes the minority.
Personally, the only violation would be not distribting the source code. In that faq, it says they will suply the source code with the product. The GPL says they must supply it, one way or another. They don't have to have it on an FTP.
One can merely email them and say, I want the source code to your beta! If they so 'NO!' then that is a violation. If they say, sure, but we will charge you for the cost of sending a cd specially made for you. That's fine, the GPL says that's ok, as long as its to cover costs. Actually, I believe RMS tries to charge as much as possible if you get the code from them, directly (offline).. something about old tapes. Its on GNU's site somewhere..
The point is, I don't see any violation by Corel unless they refuse to release the source that was gobbled up by the GPL.
12. Intellectual Property Rights
All right title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Product shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to User, except for the limitted right to use and test the Product as expressly provided in this Agreement.
{bold done by me}
So, Corel says that the user cannot break the licenses in the distribution, Corel's, GNU's, and others. Wow, I'm so shocked! That does not violate the GPL.
They also say elsewhere that he user cannot disclose confidential information. That's fine, Corel can say 'this part is confidential.' That's in their right.
Corel says they must destroy the copy. That's ok. Corel is the one who must distribcute the code, not the user. As their copy contains Corel non-GPL'ed code, they can say that. Corel must provide the source code on any Open Source software, which would be a seperate cd or however they choose.
Finally, Corel says the user cannot distribute the CD. The above makes this obviouse why, it contains Corel code. Again, the user is not the one bound by the GPL to send out source code, Corel and others are. I can't demand - "You run RedHat! Go find and give me all the free source code!" Thus, this is legal. It would be illegal for the user to distribute Corel's Linux, as it contain's Corel's code. Without that code (I assume some is GPL'ed and some is not), it would be fine.
Actually, Corel never denied distribution of the free code, just not the distribution. The free code makes up some of the distribution, but not all of it.
Does anyone else see this as a mistake by Slashdot readers? How many posters read the license? Even the sections pointed out by Mr. Taco , are not illegal. I believe I've proven why. If not, ask me to clearify some more. I think this is just as dumb as when a a senator (?) was running for office and said niggardly (sp?), and had to drop out because to few people looked up the word and considered it a slander even after they knew what it really meant.
Come on people, this is not a violation. Your just making Corel look evil, and thus hurting a good company, hurting an ally, and may even make people afraid of you. Maybe that's where BSD really does have a plus, companies don't have to be scared of their users.
(I only realized this when a Linux guy stated this, "Post Slamming the GPL." Didn't see these posts in the mess I read.. but I'm sure he posted that for a good reason.)
Well, I don't hold a degree by any means, actually I'm on my first year towards CS and CPE (Computer Engineering) degrees. But, there might be something I can offer to ponder...
In my Intro to Profession class (just a class that informs people of the areas out there, work, etc), the last lecturer who came in had a lot of experience under his belt. The one thing I that caught my attention was this:
In 5 years, 50% of what we teach you will be irrelevent. If we knew this 50%, we'd skip it, but we don't. Instead we try to prepare you and make sure you know how to work in teams, where you can't check the other guys work (as they're in a new filed) and to learn how to learn. Of course, we also break your back teaching you that 110% out there.
I don't know if this is relevent or not, but it was a lecture to many engineers in various fields (This is the engineering campus, main). So, going for something higher up probably wont disappear as rapidly, PE covers various areas, and since your learning new material, that can help later to learn when what you know gets outdated...
One other point, though not relevent but good to take note, is the team idea. When do you call yourself a comuter engineer? How about when you can single handedly create a palm pilot. Well, you need to know design and ergonomics, marketting, economy, electrical engineering, computer engineering, etc. So if you know how to work in a team where you have to trust everyone to pull their weight because you can't check them, is vital.
I agree with other people that GNU should also look at BSD contributers (as their code has always complied with the definition and philosophy outlined). However, I personally don't know how much someoe like Jordon K. Hubbard contributed, except I know he's done a huge amount of work.
The only BSD person I can know who has done a huge amount of work (that I can point a finger at) is Theo de Raadt, the founder of OpenBSD, a main financial contributer, and major coder. OpenBSD is widely considered the most secure operating system both Linux and other BSDs have incorperated their code. That's the point of free software, to share and improve the community.
In any case, someone who knows more please reply and list whose done a lot of work (and how) in BSD. GNU shouldn't neglect BSD because of a conflicting licsense, or that Linux is in the media blitz right now.
hmm.. Sounds like its X's fault to me. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a problem in Linux too. Send this to freebsd-questions (@freebsd.org) and I'm sure you'll have over well handful of people trying to help. Just remember to put as much info as you know
heh, ok, good point. BUT, the top is Unix Hater's handbook. That's got to tell you something!