Just because Debian does that doesn't mean that it's taken for granted that i386==x86==intel. Not by a long shot. In my experience x86 usually refers to the platform and 386 usually refers to the specific generation (just take a look at all the 386, 486, 586, and 686 rpm builds out there).
Even better than that: Darren explicitly stated in his original license that any distributions of any modified code had to credit him. Therefore, he was obviously expecting, and allowing, individuals to modify and distribute his code.
Don't go blaming UT for your configuration issues. It runs great on my Celeron 700, 196 Megs RAM, GeForce2 GTS (and Radeon), in 32 bit color with the S3TC textures installed. In fact, it runs considerably better under Linux than it does under Windows due to the great work that Daniel Vogel put into the OpenGL renderer.
If modification wasn't OK with Darren, why specifically state:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
If he never intended modification to be OK then there's no need for the disclaimer since removal of the disclaimer would qualify as modification.
He granted them the right to "redistribution and use" of the binaries and source. If he's now claiming that "use" of the source code doesn't include improving and modifying it, what's to keep him from claiming that "use" of the binary doesn't include filtering packets with it?
So how are we supposed to know what redistribution and use does include? Based on what you've said, using it for ipfiltering could be illegal as well since he doesn't specifically state that's what it can be used for, now does he?
"The version of IPFilter in
OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. "
Which, according to the license before it was clarified (read changed) was an acceptable practice. There's nothing in the original license about modifying it without Reed's permission. If he didn't want people modifying the source and distributing the code, he should have said so originally. Instead, the license reads:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
Gimme a break. Does the GPL limit software distribution? If yes, then according to the definition provided in the first post I responded to in this thread, software licensed under the GPL is non-free. Deal with it.
I'm not trying to make any great revelation about free software and open source software. I'm just pointing out that the GPL does, in fact, limit software distribution. As such, according to the definiation provided, software licensed under the GPL is non-free.
Even though you can buy DVD's you are restricted to using it to how we say you can... Even though you have Open Motif, you are restricted to using it to how we say you can.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't accept the idea that there is such a thing as "software piracy" you are a moron.
Dinivin
Just because Debian does that doesn't mean that it's taken for granted that i386==x86==intel. Not by a long shot. In my experience x86 usually refers to the platform and 386 usually refers to the specific generation (just take a look at all the 386, 486, 586, and 686 rpm builds out there).
Dinivin
can you also market a new soft drink and call it Coca-Colax?
If you start it before Coca-Cola trademarked it's name, why not?
A new Web site called Slash-dots?
Again, if you start it before Slashdot got its trademark (does it even have one?), I don't see why not.
Dinivin
Skuto was talking about OpenSSH, not pf. Notice how he was repsonding to a specific setence talking about OpenSSH?
Dinivin
Even better than that: Darren explicitly stated in his original license that any distributions of any modified code had to credit him. Therefore, he was obviously expecting, and allowing, individuals to modify and distribute his code.
Dinivin
Don't go blaming UT for your configuration issues. It runs great on my Celeron 700, 196 Megs RAM, GeForce2 GTS (and Radeon), in 32 bit color with the S3TC textures installed. In fact, it runs considerably better under Linux than it does under Windows due to the great work that Daniel Vogel put into the OpenGL renderer.
Dinivin
Very well then... I guess my lack of experience in all things Monty Python has rendered my sense of humor crippled.
Dinivin
That seems more appropriate in this case (unless, of course, you can prove that all French people believe the judge was right).
Dinivin
He never stated it was open source
0 007/110/1.html
Bullshit.
http://msgs.SecurePoint.com/cgi-bin/get/ipfilter-
Dinivin
http://dri.sourceforge.net
Dinivin
It's been playing great on my Radeon for a couple months now...
Dinivin
If modification wasn't OK with Darren, why specifically state:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
If he never intended modification to be OK then there's no need for the disclaimer since removal of the disclaimer would qualify as modification.
Dinivin
He granted them the right to "redistribution and use" of the binaries and source. If he's now claiming that "use" of the source code doesn't include improving and modifying it, what's to keep him from claiming that "use" of the binary doesn't include filtering packets with it?
Dinivin
So how are we supposed to know what redistribution and use does include? Based on what you've said, using it for ipfiltering could be illegal as well since he doesn't specifically state that's what it can be used for, now does he?
Dinivin
"The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. "
Which, according to the license before it was clarified (read changed) was an acceptable practice. There's nothing in the original license about modifying it without Reed's permission. If he didn't want people modifying the source and distributing the code, he should have said so originally. Instead, the license reads:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
Dinivin
Like it or not, there's a price for using any license...
Dinivin
Considering that JRR Tolkein couldn't write to save his life, I'm quite looking forward to a screen adapatation.
Dinivin
Being a gay male, I'll take Liv Tyler as well, thank you.
Dinivin
Next time, I promise.
Dinivin
I try to remind myself that Peter Jackson is the loser than brought us the Frighteners.
And he's also the genious (and I don't use that word lightly) that brought us Heavenly Creatures.
Dinivin
Have I said anything to the contrary of what you just posted? Didn't think so...
Dinivin
There was an article today on Slashdot about the FAQ :-)
1 0&mode=nested
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/24/02562
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html
Dinivin
Gimme a break. Does the GPL limit software distribution? If yes, then according to the definition provided in the first post I responded to in this thread, software licensed under the GPL is non-free. Deal with it.
Dinivin
I'm not trying to make any great revelation about free software and open source software. I'm just pointing out that the GPL does, in fact, limit software distribution. As such, according to the definiation provided, software licensed under the GPL is non-free.
Dinivin
Even though you can buy DVD's you are restricted to using it to how we say you can... Even though you have Open Motif, you are restricted to using it to how we say you can.
Dinivin