That's about as likely as O.J. Simpson's innocence. Isn't it amazing that every military of every country does this?
Think of Japan. They are capable of innovation (not to be confused with Microsoft's inovation), and it would be more advantageous for them to compete with the US in market, than in military.
The US is powerful, but not that powerful. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I'm not an expert in the field, but isn't MP3 one of those compression algorythms that it file-based, instead of block-based? (ie. The middle of a file refers back to the beginning, etc.)
-------- "I already have all the latest software."
AFAIK, the root DNS servers won't accept recursive queries (aka. www.cs.somewhere.edu, just somewhere.edu) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Except, being considered the authority on technology by many people, Qwest would lose a lot of business if a lot of people like me said their service sucked.
I believe it's called word of mouth. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Our school STILL runs on Novell Networks (and they also seem to have a contract with IBM, as all our new computers are IBMs, along with our crappy internet connectivity software) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Thank you for giving me a reason to boycott your company, and encourage my peers to do the same.
Ffire your tech guys (or whoever responsible), as anyone who requires me to have specific software (or operatiing systems) to access the global, interoperable internet obviously has no competence in providing any internet service whatsoever.
-------- "I already have all the latest software."
(I was being mostly sarcastic, but something seriously needs to be done about these people)
Pretty sad that we now need to say this, unless we want some long yes/no thread arguing whether or not we were serious. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Why the heck do some of you think that everything is entitled to you for free? Jesus christ get out and get a fricking job and quit complaining
Next time you ask for information (eg. software or "what time is it?"), I'll ask you to pay me. If you bitch, I'll tell you to get a job.
Also, as far as I understand it, computer literates are one of the highest-paid of any labour force. A lot of us HAVE jobs. Did you ever think of that? -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I always yell "murder", not "bloody murder", but "murder", and I have written one half (0.5) of one line of Free Software. Does that count?:-) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Despite what some think, the GPL is actually perfectly adequate, and Corel violated it.
First off, to settle the argument about distribution, I'd like to remind people that unless otherwise stated, any words in a license refer to their definitions in the English language. That means bread means bread, and distribution means distribution. Distribution does not mean release, it means distribution.
Second, article 2b states that: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.".
Not "under the terms of a license of your choosing", but "under the terms of this License". It further states: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Hmmm... It seems anything that is distributed as a whole, and depends on GPLled software, is covered by the GPL. That means Corel Linux, because it depends on a lot of GPLled software for it to function as a unit, is also covered, as a whole, under the GPL (although this may not mean you can separately copy WordPerfect to your delight). This causes a major conflict with other licenses; the GPL needs some revision.
Now, I may have pushed it a little too far there, but (although I'm not a lawyer), it seems that almost everything in the distribution is covered by the GPL. (This may not be true, depending on contract/copyright law.)
On to more reasonable claims, the license also states: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
This means that if they make changes to, say, the Debian package manager, they are not allowed to distribute binaries unless they make the source available. (Restriction of binary modifications has already been done with Pine.)
My final point, Corel seems to be forgetting a few major points in the GPL: " 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Again, if you're still thinking about distribution, look in the dictionary. You'll find that there is no distinction between anyforms of distributing. Period.
Also, for those who still don't believe me, the GPL covers copying and modification as well, not just distribution. Surely, Corel has done that. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Not a violation of GPL? by Eric Lee Green on Monday September 20, @01:12PM
Note that collections are copyrightable separately from their components. Thus Compuserve won a lawsuit against somebody who duplicated their software archive, even though Compuserve did not possess the copyright of any program in their archive.
I agree that this is very poor publicity for Corel and that they should fix it. But I don't see that copyrighting the entire collection makes the individual licenses any less valid, you're still free to exchange and trade the GPL'ed components, just not the entire collection.
-E
I would laugh so hard if my karma went up because I copied someone else's post.:-) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
From my experience, Corel is not your typical Microsoft; they are a pretty resonable company.
Let's not forget this is all because some lawyer forgot to add a clause that states that "any non-Corel programs are governed by their respective licenses".
Big whoop-dee-doo! -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I don't use KDE/Gnome: it's too slow (though I do use kdm). When I log into X, I want in now, not in 15 seconds from now. WindowMaker does the job, Gnome/KDE do not. I'll use them when they're not so bloated. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I, like a lot of Slashdot readers, live in Canada, and this issue really bugs me (because things that happen in the US sometimes continue here), but what can I do? I have no U.S. congressman or anything else like that.
Does anyone know of a way that we (the international community) can put pressure on the US to grow up about encryption?
Also, the (U.S.) government is very good at avoiding the issue. They act like nobody is allowed to use strong encryption already, so they'll "compromise". They fact is that U.S. citizens want to export encryption devices, and this bill does absolutely nothing to address that. (You think the international community is going to send their keys to the U.S. government? I think not.) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Before even reading this article, I knew someone would complain "it's not BSD". I was right.
The BSD license is perfect in a world where all software is free software (Open Source?). It essentially puts the software in the public domain, and is full of the spirit of free software. Unfortunately, the real world has companies who would prefer to produce proprietary software, and who would embrace and extend anything they could, and sell it as their own.
The bottom line: While the GPL encourages free software, the BSDL only is free software.
In order for free software to become, and remain, better than its proprietary counterparts, it must remain separated from proprietary software. One of the big advantages of free software is the way it grows so fast, but if closed software houses could periodically dip into free software, they could FUD their way back into the market saying "We're professionals, our software is just as good. Are you sure you want to trust a bunch of socially challenged geeks?". Linux would have been assimilated long ago, had it not been for the GPL.
The BSD people should do one of two things: 1) Accept GPLled software into their distributions 2) Write their own BSDLed drivers.
Please excuse my awful grammar. Could a born-writer please understand what I mean and re-post it in English? Thanx. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Fortunately the rapid improvement in computer speed allows the use of less efficient languages, with the benefit that they are higher-level.
I really get angry when programmers think this way. When I pay money for new hardware, I buy it so I can do things faster, not so programmers I hire (by buying their software) can be lazy and make inefficient programs.
I was playing Starcraft recently, but it started acting up, so I installed the old Warcraft II demo, and did it run fast. It was sooo smooth and elegant. Yet Warcraft and Starcraft are essentially the same game engine, but Starcraft was made with the inefficient Windows API, while Warcraft was written for older DOS machines, and therefore had to be more efficient.
Have you ever noticed that programs that function the same now as they did ten years ago require computers many times faster? Yet the functionality really hasn't changed much, a few extra features, and that's it.
My Amiga runs at 7 MHz, and can often outperform my IBM PC running at 233 MHz at some tasks. Why? Because Amiga programs are efficient. The average executable is about 1/10 to 1/500 the size of its PC counterpart.
People who think like you cost me time and money. If programs were written now as they were written ten years ago, your OS would start in 5 seconds, take up 1 MB, and would have a full-fledged GUI and command-line interface.
C has the portability that assembly lacks, and lacks the inefficiency that higher-level languages have. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
"Operating System" means the kernel and support programs. It doesn't have to have Microsoft-style "Integration" in order to be part of the OS.
Also, integration is not necessarily that bad. Look at the Amiga, or KDE. Microsoft simply doesn't know how to implement it. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Slashdot Mirror
That's about as likely as O.J. Simpson's innocence. Isn't it amazing that every military of every country does this?
Think of Japan. They are capable of innovation (not to be confused with Microsoft's inovation), and it would be more advantageous for them to compete with the US in market, than in military.
The US is powerful, but not that powerful.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Anyone else use dselect/apt that comes with Debian?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I'm not an expert in the field, but isn't MP3 one of those compression algorythms that it file-based, instead of block-based? (ie. The middle of a file refers back to the beginning, etc.)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
AFAIK, the root DNS servers won't accept recursive queries (aka. www.cs.somewhere.edu, just somewhere.edu)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
It's usually well worth it to install bind and set your resolver to 127.0.0.1.
Suddenly, you will have no problems.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
In 1955 you wouldn't have expected your local auto-parts store to carry parts for a Toyota the demand wasn't there!
Yes, but you would be angy if they refused to sell you gasoline or ordinary windshield wipers because you drove in with a Toyota.
Hell, you'd yell discrimination!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Anyone remember the news earlier that said that Microsoft pays people to post trash like that on discussion forums?
I bet the previous coward just got a pile of money for that lame post.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Except, being considered the authority on technology by many people, Qwest would lose a lot of business if a lot of people like me said their service sucked.
I believe it's called word of mouth.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Remember the days??
Our school STILL runs on Novell Networks (and they also seem to have a contract with IBM, as all our new computers are IBMs, along with our crappy internet connectivity software)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Debian GNU/Linux, Netscape 4.61, 54333
Thank you for giving me a reason to boycott your company, and encourage my peers to do the same.
Ffire your tech guys (or whoever responsible), as anyone who requires me to have specific software (or operatiing systems) to access the global, interoperable internet obviously has no competence in providing any internet service whatsoever.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
(I was being mostly sarcastic, but something seriously needs to be done about these people)
Pretty sad that we now need to say this, unless we want some long yes/no thread arguing whether or not we were serious.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Why the heck do some of you think that everything is entitled to you for free? Jesus christ get out and get a fricking job and quit complaining
Next time you ask for information (eg. software or "what time is it?"), I'll ask you to pay me. If you bitch, I'll tell you to get a job.
Also, as far as I understand it, computer literates are one of the highest-paid of any labour force. A lot of us HAVE jobs. Did you ever think of that?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I always yell "murder", not "bloody murder", but "murder", and I have written one half (0.5) of one line of Free Software. Does that count? :-)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Despite what some think, the GPL is actually perfectly adequate, and Corel violated it.
First off, to settle the argument about distribution, I'd like to remind people that unless otherwise stated, any words in a license refer to their definitions in the English language. That means bread means bread, and distribution means distribution. Distribution does not mean release, it means distribution.
Second, article 2b states that:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.".
Not "under the terms of a license of your choosing", but "under the terms of this License". It further states:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Hmmm... It seems anything that is distributed as a whole, and depends on GPLled software, is covered by the GPL. That means Corel Linux, because it depends on a lot of GPLled software for it to function as a unit, is also covered, as a whole, under the GPL (although this may not mean you can separately copy WordPerfect to your delight). This causes a major conflict with other licenses; the GPL needs some revision.
Now, I may have pushed it a little too far there, but (although I'm not a lawyer), it seems that almost everything in the distribution is covered by the GPL. (This may not be true, depending on contract/copyright law.)
On to more reasonable claims, the license also states:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
This means that if they make changes to, say, the Debian package manager, they are not allowed to distribute binaries unless they make the source available. (Restriction of binary modifications has already been done with Pine.)
My final point, Corel seems to be forgetting a few major points in the GPL:
" 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Again, if you're still thinking about distribution, look in the dictionary. You'll find that there is no distinction between anyforms of distributing. Period.
Also, for those who still don't believe me, the GPL covers copying and modification as well, not just distribution. Surely, Corel has done that.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Now THAT should be a 5 (or at least a 4), unlike some of the other posts on the main poge.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Not a violation of GPL?
:-)
by Eric Lee Green on Monday September 20, @01:12PM
Note that collections are copyrightable separately from their components. Thus Compuserve won a lawsuit against somebody who
duplicated their software archive, even though Compuserve did not possess the copyright of any program in their archive.
I agree that this is very poor publicity for Corel and that they should fix it. But I don't see that copyrighting the entire collection makes the individual licenses any less valid, you're still free to exchange and trade the GPL'ed components, just not the entire collection.
-E
I would laugh so hard if my karma went up because I copied someone else's post.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
From my experience, Corel is not your typical Microsoft; they are a pretty resonable company.
Let's not forget this is all because some lawyer forgot to add a clause that states that "any non-Corel programs are governed by their respective licenses".
Big whoop-dee-doo!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I don't use KDE/Gnome: it's too slow (though I do use kdm). When I log into X, I want in now, not in 15 seconds from now. WindowMaker does the job, Gnome/KDE do not. I'll use them when they're not so bloated.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Heh heh.
That's a good one, you forgot to add ", but Win98 beats them all!".
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I, like a lot of Slashdot readers, live in Canada, and this issue really bugs me (because things that happen in the US sometimes continue here), but what can I do? I have no U.S. congressman or anything else like that.
Does anyone know of a way that we (the international community) can put pressure on the US to grow up about encryption?
Also, the (U.S.) government is very good at avoiding the issue. They act like nobody is allowed to use strong encryption already, so they'll "compromise". They fact is that U.S. citizens want to export encryption devices, and this bill does absolutely nothing to address that. (You think the international community is going to send their keys to the U.S. government? I think not.)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
'nuff said
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Before even reading this article, I knew someone would complain "it's not BSD". I was right.
The BSD license is perfect in a world where all software is free software (Open Source?). It essentially puts the software in the public domain, and is full of the spirit of free software. Unfortunately, the real world has companies who would prefer to produce proprietary software, and who would embrace and extend anything they could, and sell it as their own.
The bottom line: While the GPL encourages free software, the BSDL only is free software.
In order for free software to become, and remain, better than its proprietary counterparts, it must remain separated from proprietary software. One of the big advantages of free software is the way it grows so fast, but if closed software houses could periodically dip into free software, they could FUD their way back into the market saying "We're professionals, our software is just as good. Are you sure you want to trust a bunch of socially challenged geeks?". Linux would have been assimilated long ago, had it not been for the GPL.
The BSD people should do one of two things:
1) Accept GPLled software into their distributions
2) Write their own BSDLed drivers.
Please excuse my awful grammar. Could a born-writer please understand what I mean and re-post it in English? Thanx.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
God isn't a person. It's knowledge. And the more we learn, the more god like we become.
Wrong. God is wisdom with knowledge, not just knowledge.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Fortunately the rapid improvement in computer speed allows the use of less efficient languages, with the benefit that they are higher-level.
I really get angry when programmers think this way. When I pay money for new hardware, I buy it so I can do things faster, not so programmers I hire (by buying their software) can be lazy and make inefficient programs.
I was playing Starcraft recently, but it started acting up, so I installed the old Warcraft II demo, and did it run fast. It was sooo smooth and elegant. Yet Warcraft and Starcraft are essentially the same game engine, but Starcraft was made with the inefficient Windows API, while Warcraft was written for older DOS machines, and therefore had to be more efficient.
Have you ever noticed that programs that function the same now as they did ten years ago require computers many times faster? Yet the functionality really hasn't changed much, a few extra features, and that's it.
My Amiga runs at 7 MHz, and can often outperform my IBM PC running at 233 MHz at some tasks. Why? Because Amiga programs are efficient. The average executable is about 1/10 to 1/500 the size of its PC counterpart.
People who think like you cost me time and money. If programs were written now as they were written ten years ago, your OS would start in 5 seconds, take up 1 MB, and would have a full-fledged GUI and command-line interface.
C has the portability that assembly lacks, and lacks the inefficiency that higher-level languages have.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
"Operating System" means the kernel and support programs. It doesn't have to have Microsoft-style "Integration" in order to be part of the OS.
Also, integration is not necessarily that bad. Look at the Amiga, or KDE. Microsoft simply doesn't know how to implement it.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."