I doubt that the community would follow you if you tried to fork QT. Might get lonely. I don't think there is a problem with modifying the GPLed QT to suit your tastes, though. I mean if you want a non-standard QT library on your system...
If you want your changes to show up in the real QT, you probably have to give the code to Trolltech, who might or might no accept it. If they do accept it, wouldn't it show up in the GPLed QT? Or are you saying you want to extend the GPLed QT in ways that wouldn't show up in the commercially licensed QT? Why? Seems like that breaks the model...
The melting of the polar icecaps is doing wonders for canadian trade routes, too. To say nothing of petroleum reserves that are opening up, "up there".
I don't see how the fact that Be programmers have day jobs means "BeOS loyalists just keeps shrinking." I'm not saying the community is increasing or decreasing, just that your linking two things that aren't realated by causality.
Well I don't see the problem. Either you "Contribute to the continued development of the product by purchasing commercial licenses from Trolltech", or you "Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your application under an Open Source license (e.g. the GPL)." What is the problem? That you don't want to contribute your code to the GPL, but you want to use a GPLed codebase? Isn't that akin to stealing? So you don't want to use the GPL? Then pay for the commercial license. Sounds like you want it both ways, to me. Ok, how about this? You get the Free version and play with it. Any work you do would be GPLed if you distribute it, and isn't available for use later with the commercial license, but you can testdrive it. If you like it, then pony up the cost of the commercial license, and don't use the test programs you wrote. No big deal.
SG-1, SG-Atlantis, the new BSG, and most especially Firefly, have redefined the Sci-Fi channel in my eyes. They are moving from a company that broadcasts a few gems and a lot of crap, to fostering some of the best news series available today.
The most comprehensive climate model to date of the continental United States predicts more extreme temperatures throughout the country and more extreme precipitation along the Gulf Coast, in the Pacific Northwest and east of the Mississippi.
In my Business, Government, & Society class we covered this, and it appears you can patent anything living "up to but not including live birth human beings". Which means that knocking her up currently can't be a problem...well with violating patents.
Just had to click the link, since it comes up again and again. Seems the developer is modded at (Score:4, Insightful), whereas "He-Who-Blathers-Inanely-On-And-On-Out-His-Ass-On- T opics-About-Which-He-Knows-Nothing" is (Score:1). Perhaps, just perhaps, it would appear to at least some, that the developer, while frustrated, was insightful to label blather as blather?
The GPL has no problem with a GPLed module and a GPL-compatible module being combined to form a single program. So there is no GPL based exclusion to suggest that "inclusion of Reiserfs code in the kernel would require it to be under the GPL license instead." Do please correct me if I'm wrong.
"you have to be able to gpl it before you can incorporate it into a system that is already GPLed hopefully you have heard of the viralant nature of the GPL"
We classify a license according to certain key questions:
* Whether it qualifies as a free software license.
* Whether it is a copyleft license.
* Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)
* Whether it causes any particular practical problems.
IANAL, but when I asked I was told that "Clean room design is useful as a defense against infringement because it relies on independent invention." However, one could independently reinvent a copyrighted method. Using a clean room design is a defense, but isn't an "ultimate defense", as truth is for allegations of slander. Likewise, just being aware of a method doesn't mean you can't code around it.
In contrast, the Unix approach generally has been to favor process creation and context switching at the cost of some efficiency for long-running processes, to favor multiprocessor memory management at the cost of increased hardware complexity, and to favor process or thread-level independence at the cost of making interprocess communication more difficult.
Same database version running the same version of our code, runs at LEAST
25% faster on Linux (RedHat Advanced Server 2.1) than Windows (XP). I don't
think I'm allowed to give any numbers for 10g yet, but let's just say it's a
whole lot faster than 9iR2 running the same code. 10g + Lniux = blazing speed
(sorry for the marketing blurb, but our development team still can't get over
how much faster it is).
Well, been a couple years since I took Operating Systems, but I thought a microkernel was "a system kernel that runs itself in protected memory space, and all drivers and processes in a seperate memory space allowing for (theoretically) better stability." Monolithic kernels are faster, but less robust. You are saying that, "Drivers are loaded from it and run in the same context for performance reasons", but that in all other ways it would be a microkernel. Thus, it is perhaps almost a microkernel. It isn't a bad kernel.:-) There is no reason to exagerate.
I have a right to distribute, yes. But I can not transfer the right to use the software. That is a difference between copyright (which is all about distribution) and patents (which includes distribution and use.) So if I accept the free license, I can develop, and I can distribute, and I can do this for my lifetime. You, however, need to also recieve the right to use the software. If I develop software and give it to Fred, say, today...no problem. The license is still available, gratis, and Fred gets to use it forever, too. But next year MS pulls their offer. I distribute to Frank. Frank never recieved a license when they were available. Therefor, Frank can not legally use the software that I legally developed, and can legally distriubte. Not that I'm saying that MS would do this, but they could. It is the exactly this uncertainty which is associated with their patent that devalues their offer.
Yes, the license I recieve is perpetual. But then if MS stops offering this license, then while I still have it, no one else *new* can obtain it. Thus, the small set of people who have a license can use the software, but no one else can.
My God sir, but you are an anal GUI-nazi, related undoubtly to the grammer nazis who used to frequent here! The interface is clean and clear and self-explanatory. It is a breath of fresh air.
You don't make since when you seemingly agree that the win32 port isn't the Linux program, then go on to suggest (tongue in cheek?) that the beta-ness of the windows port implies that the program isn't ready on Linux. That is like saying that a Phd who has a single semester of a foreign language is "another person not ready to speak in public in their mother tongue". Or maybe I've been trolled.
I think that the point is supposed to be that the "backend technical details" which are necessary with Sharepoint (which requires you to be an asp.net programmer) aren't necessary with X-Forms creation built into the Office suite. The idea is that it gives everyone and their kid sister the ability to build XForms with a simple drag and drop interface.
Open Office supports XForms. Not just in a, well if you have an XForms document that you handcrafted especially and spent many many hours on trying to get the damned constraints all working against the complex model scenario type of thing. Oh, no! Open Office lets you design XForms with a handy-dandy toolbar based drag and drop editor, let's you set up multiple models through simple to use dialog boxes, lets you set up XPath constraints with a try it and see type of editor, and even better, let's you add these things directly into a standard Open Office text document - or let's you export it to XHTML. Nice live XForms content, completely XForms 1.0 compatible.
Outlining that works. Save to PDF. The ability to hand a CD to a friend who needs an office application. LaTeX. The ability to tell the BSA to go to hell when they knock open your door at 4AM. Not having to deal with "You can run this program 50 times until you prove you aren't a thief" popups. Being able to wipe the hard disk and reinstall without being told "you can run this program 50 times until you prove you aren't a thief", again. Being able to add hard drives and RAM and upgrade to your hearts content and never hearing, "This is not the computer I was installed in, you are a thief". The ability to install the software on my other machine without worrying that wiping the first doesn't quite cover the license to install on one machine only.
"Somehow, I'm not concerned with the theoretical possibility that MS is just going to suddenly blanket revoke the licenses..."
Why aren't you concerned that the right isn't transferable? The only possible profit to added that in is that it does allow MS the ability to do what you "somehow" aren't "concerned with". So what you are saying is that you "somehow" trust Microsoft not to use their rights to their advantage? What do you base this trust on?
But you can not transfer the perpetual royalty free rights you were granted. So what happens if MS stops giving it away next year? Would I have to prove that I made use of their offer while it existed?
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that the community would follow you if you tried to fork QT. Might get lonely. I don't think there is a problem with modifying the GPLed QT to suit your tastes, though. I mean if you want a non-standard QT library on your system...
If you want your changes to show up in the real QT, you probably have to give the code to Trolltech, who might or might no accept it. If they do accept it, wouldn't it show up in the GPLed QT? Or are you saying you want to extend the GPLed QT in ways that wouldn't show up in the commercially licensed QT? Why? Seems like that breaks the model...
The melting of the polar icecaps is doing wonders for canadian trade routes, too. To say nothing of petroleum reserves that are opening up, "up there".
I don't see how the fact that Be programmers have day jobs means "BeOS loyalists just keeps shrinking." I'm not saying the community is increasing or decreasing, just that your linking two things that aren't realated by causality.
How about Linux/Java vs Linux/QT for embedded apps?
Well I don't see the problem. Either you "Contribute to the continued development of the product by purchasing commercial licenses from Trolltech", or you "Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your application under an Open Source license (e.g. the GPL)." What is the problem? That you don't want to contribute your code to the GPL, but you want to use a GPLed codebase? Isn't that akin to stealing? So you don't want to use the GPL? Then pay for the commercial license. Sounds like you want it both ways, to me. Ok, how about this? You get the Free version and play with it. Any work you do would be GPLed if you distribute it, and isn't available for use later with the commercial license, but you can testdrive it. If you like it, then pony up the cost of the commercial license, and don't use the test programs you wrote. No big deal.
SG-1, SG-Atlantis, the new BSG, and most especially Firefly, have redefined the Sci-Fi channel in my eyes. They are moving from a company that broadcasts a few gems and a lot of crap, to fostering some of the best news series available today.
In my Business, Government, & Society class we covered this, and it appears you can patent anything living "up to but not including live birth human beings". Which means that knocking her up currently can't be a problem...well with violating patents.
Bah ha! If you walk around our labs, we use Sun machines as desks!
"Perhaps we should censor classic paintings depicting naked breasts"
You are aware of Ashcroft hiding the spirit of justice?
Just had to click the link, since it comes up again and again. Seems the developer is modded at (Score:4, Insightful), whereas "He-Who-Blathers-Inanely-On-And-On-Out-His-Ass-On- T opics-About-Which-He-Knows-Nothing" is (Score:1). Perhaps, just perhaps, it would appear to at least some, that the developer, while frustrated, was insightful to label blather as blather?
The GPL has no problem with a GPLed module and a GPL-compatible module being combined to form a single program. So there is no GPL based exclusion to suggest that "inclusion of Reiserfs code in the kernel would require it to be under the GPL license instead." Do please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, not true. You can combine GPLed code with code that has a GPL compatible license. That which was BSDed is still BSDed, and that which is GPLed is still GPLed.
IANAL, but when I asked I was told that "Clean room design is useful as a defense against infringement because it relies on independent invention." However, one could independently reinvent a copyrighted method. Using a clean room design is a defense, but isn't an "ultimate defense", as truth is for allegations of slander. Likewise, just being aware of a method doesn't mean you can't code around it.
Well, been a couple years since I took Operating Systems, but I thought a microkernel was "a system kernel that runs itself in protected memory space, and all drivers and processes in a seperate memory space allowing for (theoretically) better stability." Monolithic kernels are faster, but less robust. You are saying that, "Drivers are loaded from it and run in the same context for performance reasons", but that in all other ways it would be a microkernel. Thus, it is perhaps almost a microkernel. It isn't a bad kernel. :-) There is no reason to exagerate.
I have a right to distribute, yes. But I can not transfer the right to use the software. That is a difference between copyright (which is all about distribution) and patents (which includes distribution and use.) So if I accept the free license, I can develop, and I can distribute, and I can do this for my lifetime. You, however, need to also recieve the right to use the software. If I develop software and give it to Fred, say, today...no problem. The license is still available, gratis, and Fred gets to use it forever, too. But next year MS pulls their offer. I distribute to Frank. Frank never recieved a license when they were available. Therefor, Frank can not legally use the software that I legally developed, and can legally distriubte. Not that I'm saying that MS would do this, but they could. It is the exactly this uncertainty which is associated with their patent that devalues their offer.
Yes, the license I recieve is perpetual. But then if MS stops offering this license, then while I still have it, no one else *new* can obtain it. Thus, the small set of people who have a license can use the software, but no one else can.
My God sir, but you are an anal GUI-nazi, related undoubtly to the grammer nazis who used to frequent here! The interface is clean and clear and self-explanatory. It is a breath of fresh air.
You don't make since when you seemingly agree that the win32 port isn't the Linux program, then go on to suggest (tongue in cheek?) that the beta-ness of the windows port implies that the program isn't ready on Linux. That is like saying that a Phd who has a single semester of a foreign language is "another person not ready to speak in public in their mother tongue". Or maybe I've been trolled.
Outlining that works. Save to PDF. The ability to hand a CD to a friend who needs an office application. LaTeX. The ability to tell the BSA to go to hell when they knock open your door at 4AM. Not having to deal with "You can run this program 50 times until you prove you aren't a thief" popups. Being able to wipe the hard disk and reinstall without being told "you can run this program 50 times until you prove you aren't a thief", again. Being able to add hard drives and RAM and upgrade to your hearts content and never hearing, "This is not the computer I was installed in, you are a thief". The ability to install the software on my other machine without worrying that wiping the first doesn't quite cover the license to install on one machine only.
"Somehow, I'm not concerned with the theoretical possibility that MS is just going to suddenly blanket revoke the licenses..."
Why aren't you concerned that the right isn't transferable? The only possible profit to added that in is that it does allow MS the ability to do what you "somehow" aren't "concerned with". So what you are saying is that you "somehow" trust Microsoft not to use their rights to their advantage? What do you base this trust on?
But you can not transfer the perpetual royalty free rights you were granted. So what happens if MS stops giving it away next year? Would I have to prove that I made use of their offer while it existed?
Patents never require you to sign an agreement. They are in place by being granted.