The Lunar Embassy states that their certificate has "novelty value only" and is not to be taken as a legal deed. Lots of people don't read the fine print.
That's an FSF-specific issue. Linus doesn't insist on the same copyright sign-over. That, by the way, effectively locks Linus (and everyone else) into the GPL version 2, which most people believe is a good thing. Now that there are so many contriubtors, it's just not possible to get everyone to agree to change the license. No doubt some of those copyright holders have died, etc.
I think it's a non-issue. Open Source versions of the same facilities are already at least in part there, whatever is missing should be filled in soon enougn.
We had a major fork of the Linux C library, "libc5", vs. GNU LIBC. That fork was resolved once the Linux fork had a chance to mature. Its modifications were incorporated into the main thread.
Folks, we've been here before. The forks converged. There's no reason that future forks of GPL software will not converge.
Forks of GPL software are different from forks of software with other licenses, because their source must always be disclosed, and the source can be incorporated into any of the other forks at any time. Thus, forks will tend to converge as good features from other forks are incorporated into them.
We're also not talking about a "fork" so much as a patch to the main kernel thread. There's little chance that this patch would be allowed to diverge from the main kernel thread, as it's easier for TurboLinux to maintain it as an add-on - otherwise, they have to maintain an entire kernel rather than just a patch.
A lot of the talk about the danger of forking the Linux kernel is FUD or ignorance of the licensing issues.
I can't say anything nice about Jeffery Katzenberg. Not very long after he left Disney where he'd apparently seen early plans for A Bug's Life, he started production on a very similar movie. Now, some people say this was all coincidence, and some say that he did this as a means of threatening Disney and wreaking some sort of revenge on them for not making him president of their company.
Now, from my perspective it looks as if Mr. Katzenberg had more money than anyone would ever need before he'd left Disney. But he's certainly run a vendetta against them since he's left, with zero regard for the little people who get hurt in a clash of titans. Not just the little people working with Disney, but collaborators of SKG who got caught in the cross fire.
There's even been talk about evil characters in Prince of Egypt that were drawn to resemble Disney executives. I can't say if any of this is true, but I hear so much of it and it seems consistent.
I sure don't mind being out of the movie business.
Well, if you made money from it, I could still come after you for a royalty. But yes, you can not use the GPL to force people to free up their code. That's because the "viral" nature of the GPL is a fiction. People who speak of it as some sort of infectious thing don't know how IP laws work.
Put it out there in Open Source and see what happens. Build a trademark-based certification program so that it can remain Open Source and have strong standards at the same time.
I agree with you that Java is fat. I'm not sure the "dumb terminal" is the right approach, though. Modern applications, for example word processors, need to do a lot of computation per event, and that is best done locally. I think Guido's use of Python, rather than Java, as a thin client language was a good approach and it's too bad it got buried in the Java hype. So, perhaps an Open Source lightweight widget kit plus an Open Source language would be better. But I'm not discounting your idea - it sounds like NAPLPS for the 2000s, but maybe the world needs a new NAPLPS.
I'd rather have the Open Source world charting the course of think client development, too. Thanks
If you include someone's GPL code and they don't like it, you either negociate an out-of-court settlement with them or you go to court and the judge decides. In either case, you may get financial damages, you may get some other mitigation such as the other code having the GPL applied to it, you may only get the other party to stop using and distributing your code. Or a combination of those. But none of this is automatic. It takes the negociation of two parties or the intervention of the court.
The odds are that if you admit your mistake, stop distributing, and pay a royalty for what money you've already made during the infringement, you will not lose the rights to your own code or have the GPL applied to it.
Don't worry about draconian terms (forfeit your firstborn child, etc.) because judges won't enforce them.
If you are the copyright holder of the authentication code, and if your code was integrated into this product, not just "bundled", you now have the right to sue the other copyright holder for breach of your license. An outcome of that may be that the other code is GPL-ed, but infection is not automatic.
This is probably moot, as they plan to GPL it anyway.
Not automaticaly. It gives the author of css-auth the right to sue for breach of his license, which can be remedied if the copyright holder of the bundled code applies the GPL to it, or if the copyright holder pays him some money, etc.
Technocrat.net is a Squishdot forum. See squishdot.org for the software. Unlike the Slashdot software, it's Open Source, Nyaah Nyaah:-)
It runs different articles than Slashdot and has a different theme. It looks something like slashdot, but that will change as the squishdot software evolves.
Touch sensors are old tech. It has a high-frequency oscillator connected to the conductive case, and when someone touches the case, their body capacitance changes the frequency of the oscillator. Or you can do it with infra-red. Easy to build. You can even detect when someone's hand is close, not touching. Remember the Therimin? Poor Dr. Therimin got his life ruined by the Soviets, he wanted to make it a respectible musical instrument and they wanted him to work on military technology and essentially kept him under house arrest for decades.
Are you the same person who writes about Real Time operating systems as an AC? Why, oh why, would we need a real-time OS in a palmtop, or a set-top box? Why in any consumer appliance? What little real-time services these devices need, they can get at interrupt level as they do in Linux.
I thought it was a pretty good turn to use a commercial license sold to Microsoft to finance an Open Source product! Sun's policy was unworkable. I also don't think MS is the devil. In this case, Sun was worse.
Sun didn't want anyone to change Java, so that it would be a "write once, run anywhere" language. OK, that's a reasonable goal. But they did that by prohbiting anyone but Sun from making changes in Java. They should have done it by establishing a Java standard, with trademarks attached to it and a certification program, instead of casting the software in concrete and prohibiting any innovation by people outside of Sun. And now, they've lost. Their big expensive lawsuit against Microsoft means nothing, because Microsoft simply bought their Java VM from someone other than Sun.
This appeared today on Technocrat. I hold the copyright of the article, so I can paste it in here.
Transvirtual and the Kaffe Core Team have released Kaffe 1.0.5 (finally!). It's got a new JIT, new processor ports, a clean-room RMI implementation, kernel threads, and much more. For more information see http://www.kaffe.org/
Transvirtual Technologies, Inc. today released Kaffe OpenVM 1.0.5, the only complete Java implementation available with a true Open Source license.
The release heralds a major improvement in the reliability and performance of open source Java implementations. Tests conducted with various Open Source server side Java applications, including the popular Apache/JServ webserver and the Enydra Java/XML Application Server, demonstrate Kaffe out performs its Java Linux rivals by as much as 300%. Kaffe also proves more reliable than other Java implementations which simply hang when running under heavy load.
Transvirtual targets Linux as their primary server-side, desktop and embedded environments. Kaffe, developed using the Open Source model, once again demonstrates how Open Source can offer a better, cheaper, faster and more reliable product than proprietary alternatives.
This new release of Kaffe also offers a number of new features, including:
* Bundling of the KJC Java compiler from Decision Management Systems (http://www.dms.at/kopi) - a complete JDK 1.2 Open Source compiler suite.
* A complete Remote Method Invocation implementation written in collaboration with the GNU Classpath project (http://www.classpath.org).
* Support for the the popular Cobalt Network Web Servers.
* Support for the MIPS and StrongARM processors (Kaffe already supports Pentiums, Sparcs, Alphas and Motorola processors).
For more details on Transvirtual Technologies see their web site.
The fact that the important components (kernel, C library) are GPL-ed means that everybody can copy everybody else's changes. Given this, and given the standardization efforts currently running, I don't think that fragmentation is the bogey man people claim. It's fundamentaly different for GPL software because you can't hold your changes close as with proprietary software.
You're not going to get a court test until you have a certifiable bad-guy. I suggest you not agonize about the lack of bad-guys to date! If we need to test the GPL in court, it will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
The sources have to be distributed or made available when the binaries are distributed , not released. See the GPL for the exact language.
Pardon the garble.
I concur with the rest of your posting.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Someone moderated that down as "Troll"???
Folks, we've been here before. The forks converged. There's no reason that future forks of GPL software will not converge.
Thanks
Bruce
We're also not talking about a "fork" so much as a patch to the main kernel thread. There's little chance that this patch would be allowed to diverge from the main kernel thread, as it's easier for TurboLinux to maintain it as an add-on - otherwise, they have to maintain an entire kernel rather than just a patch.
A lot of the talk about the danger of forking the Linux kernel is FUD or ignorance of the licensing issues.
Thanks
Bruce
Now, from my perspective it looks as if Mr. Katzenberg had more money than anyone would ever need before he'd left Disney. But he's certainly run a vendetta against them since he's left, with zero regard for the little people who get hurt in a clash of titans. Not just the little people working with Disney, but collaborators of SKG who got caught in the cross fire.
There's even been talk about evil characters in Prince of Egypt that were drawn to resemble Disney executives. I can't say if any of this is true, but I hear so much of it and it seems consistent.
I sure don't mind being out of the movie business.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Put it out there in Open Source and see what happens. Build a trademark-based certification program so that it can remain Open Source and have strong standards at the same time.
I agree with you that Java is fat. I'm not sure the "dumb terminal" is the right approach, though. Modern applications, for example word processors, need to do a lot of computation per event, and that is best done locally. I think Guido's use of Python, rather than Java, as a thin client language was a good approach and it's too bad it got buried in the Java hype. So, perhaps an Open Source lightweight widget kit plus an Open Source language would be better. But I'm not discounting your idea - it sounds like NAPLPS for the 2000s, but maybe the world needs a new NAPLPS.
I'd rather have the Open Source world charting the course of think client development, too. Thanks
Bruce
The odds are that if you admit your mistake, stop distributing, and pay a royalty for what money you've already made during the infringement, you will not lose the rights to your own code or have the GPL applied to it.
Don't worry about draconian terms (forfeit your firstborn child, etc.) because judges won't enforce them.
Thanks
Bruce
If you are the copyright holder of the authentication code, and if your code was integrated into this product, not just "bundled", you now have the right to sue the other copyright holder for breach of your license. An outcome of that may be that the other code is GPL-ed, but infection is not automatic.
This is probably moot, as they plan to GPL it anyway.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
It runs different articles than Slashdot and has a different theme. It looks something like slashdot, but that will change as the squishdot software evolves.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
But that's not Open Source, of course.
Sun didn't want anyone to change Java, so that it would be a "write once, run anywhere" language. OK, that's a reasonable goal. But they did that by prohbiting anyone but Sun from making changes in Java. They should have done it by establishing a Java standard, with trademarks attached to it and a certification program, instead of casting the software in concrete and prohibiting any innovation by people outside of Sun. And now, they've lost. Their big expensive lawsuit against Microsoft means nothing, because Microsoft simply bought their Java VM from someone other than Sun.
I don't know. Ask The Hungry Programmers.
Transvirtual and the Kaffe Core Team have released Kaffe 1.0.5 (finally!). It's got a new JIT, new processor ports, a clean-room RMI implementation, kernel threads, and much more. For more information see http://www.kaffe.org/
Transvirtual Technologies, Inc. today released Kaffe OpenVM 1.0.5, the only complete Java implementation available with a true Open Source license.
The release heralds a major improvement in the reliability and performance of open source Java implementations. Tests conducted with various Open Source server side Java applications, including the popular Apache/JServ webserver and the Enydra Java/XML Application Server, demonstrate Kaffe out performs its Java Linux rivals by as much as 300%. Kaffe also proves more reliable than other Java implementations which simply hang when running under heavy load.
Transvirtual targets Linux as their primary server-side, desktop and embedded environments. Kaffe, developed using the Open Source model, once again demonstrates how Open Source can offer a better, cheaper, faster and more reliable product than proprietary alternatives.
This new release of Kaffe also offers a number of new features, including:
* Bundling of the KJC Java compiler from Decision Management Systems (http://www.dms.at/kopi) - a complete JDK 1.2 Open Source compiler suite.
* A complete Remote Method Invocation implementation written in collaboration with the GNU Classpath project (http://www.classpath.org).
* Support for the the popular Cobalt Network Web Servers.
* Support for the MIPS and StrongARM processors (Kaffe already supports Pentiums, Sparcs, Alphas and Motorola processors).
For more details on Transvirtual Technologies see their web site.
For more details on the Kaffe Open Source Project see The Kaffe Project Web Site.
All names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce