It's not 'irrational hatred of Microsoft', it is concern that, in the future, Microsoft will use these patentes to control email on the net.
Through the use of this patent, Microsoft is now exerting control over Internet email. If Microsoft wasn't granted this patent in the first place, spam would have started grinding to a halt by now.
GTK and Qt render almost everything on the client side, then push the resulting bitmaps to the server. They also do the same things to render text. Athena, on the other hand, tells the X server what to render, so the rendering is done on the server side, and huge bitmaps aren't being tossed around every time you click a button.
Are you expected to be able to generate a byte-for-byte exact duplicate of the distributed binary directly from the distributed source, without any changes or additional files?
No, I'm suggesting the opposite (I though I typed an extra paragraph in my last comment, but I guess not). The GPL has no requirement that exact, byte-for-byte duplicates of the binaries be able to be made from the source code. Rather, it states that the source code "corresponding" to the binaries must be distributed (or made available) under the the terms of the GPL. Source code that clearly was not used to generate the executables (for example, if the executables have extra features that the source code does not describe, as is in this case) is clearly not "corresponding" source code.
Well, I don't consider the makefiles and build scripts to be part of the source code.
The GPL defines "source code" as follows:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
The written offer (real or implied to exist by the GPL) was not given to everyone, it was given specifically to the recipient of the original code or binary.
The recipient can do what they want with that written offer, including transfer it to a third party. At the time of transfer, the offer is then valid for that party as well.
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, and your explanation of the problems with interpreting it the way I did are reasonable. I retract my point.
However, your sig ("A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.") seems to be incorrect:
gando:~# telnet localhost 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1). Escape character is '^]'. 220 gando.dlitz.net ESMTP ^] telnet> quit Connection closed. gando:~# iptables -I INPUT 1 -d 127.0.0.1 -p tcp --dport 25 -j REJECT gando:~# telnet localhost 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused gando:~#
However, I agree with its spirit. Firewalls are broken and incomplete 'solutions' to the security problems in poorly-designed and poorly-implemented software. Firewalls are the root of major brokenness in the internet, and will hopefully become obsolete in the near future.
B) If its shareware and linking only to LGPL libs, it is NOT in violation.
Almost. However, in that case, the unlinked object files must also be distributed. Section of the LGPL (version 2.1) states (with emphasis added):
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work
during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one
of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood
that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give the same user the materials specified in
Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of
performing this distribution.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
specified materials from the same place.
e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception,
the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot
use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
distribute.
It's more than that, if they distributed binaries linked against GPL'd programs, or statically linked against LGPL'd programs, (as is apparently the case), then the corresponding source code must be distributed under the GPL or LGPL, respectively.
LordNimon, you should not make comments about what is relevant to the terms of the GPL unless you have read the GPL (which, it appears, you haven't).
From section 3 of the GPL (with emphasis added):
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.)
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.)
Are you sure that wasn't a virus or something? Self-modifying code usually doesn't involve writing to the DLLs, and I can't imagine why anyone (even a Microsoft employee) would do something like that.
Are you sure? I haven't looked at the NVidia drivers lately, but a year ago (when everybody else had already switched to DRI), NVidia's drivers had not, and there didn't seem to be any plans to port them to DRI.
Publishing specifications is far more useful than publishing drivers. Unless, of course, you don't care to see any improvement in open-source technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the comment itself wasn't a troll, the moderator reading the comment saw "Troll" and exclaimed "Hey, that's me!", and selected it.
Oh boy! We have the opportunity to use one of four different pain-in-the-ass programming languages!
What a waste of time.
Yes, and the other reason is that patents are allowed to cover abstract ideas (i.e. software) in the first place.
Through the use of this patent, Microsoft is now exerting control over Internet email. If Microsoft wasn't granted this patent in the first place, spam would have started grinding to a halt by now.
Um, nevermind my heresay. See X Window System Network Performance, by Keith Packard and Jim Gettys.
GTK and Qt render almost everything on the client side, then push the resulting bitmaps to the server. They also do the same things to render text. Athena, on the other hand, tells the X server what to render, so the rendering is done on the server side, and huge bitmaps aren't being tossed around every time you click a button.
No, I'm suggesting the opposite (I though I typed an extra paragraph in my last comment, but I guess not). The GPL has no requirement that exact, byte-for-byte duplicates of the binaries be able to be made from the source code. Rather, it states that the source code "corresponding" to the binaries must be distributed (or made available) under the the terms of the GPL. Source code that clearly was not used to generate the executables (for example, if the executables have extra features that the source code does not describe, as is in this case) is clearly not "corresponding" source code.
Well, I don't consider the makefiles and build scripts to be part of the source code.
The GPL defines "source code" as follows:
The recipient can do what they want with that written offer, including transfer it to a third party. At the time of transfer, the offer is then valid for that party as well.
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, and your explanation of the problems with interpreting it the way I did are reasonable. I retract my point.
However, your sig ("A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.") seems to be incorrect:
However, I agree with its spirit. Firewalls are broken and incomplete 'solutions' to the security problems in poorly-designed and poorly-implemented software. Firewalls are the root of major brokenness in the internet, and will hopefully become obsolete in the near future.
... but it seems that it also the OpenSSL licence
Almost. However, in that case, the unlinked object files must also be distributed. Section of the LGPL (version 2.1) states (with emphasis added):
It's more than that, if they distributed binaries linked against GPL'd programs, or statically linked against LGPL'd programs, (as is apparently the case), then the corresponding source code must be distributed under the GPL or LGPL, respectively.
From section 3 of the GPL (with emphasis added):
Maybe IE won't support it until 2012, but hopefully IE will be irrelevent to web developers by 2007.
This is the web. Nobody expects you to click every link.
Microsoft's marketing department comes crawling back to reality shortly before release.
Note that if you actually do that, you'll be violating "intellectual property law" [sic].
Are you sure that wasn't a virus or something? Self-modifying code usually doesn't involve writing to the DLLs, and I can't imagine why anyone (even a Microsoft employee) would do something like that.
... than "Koogle" ;-)
X11 (the protocol) is perfectly fine. XFree86 (the implementation), on the other hand, is a legacy piece of crap.
Are you sure? I haven't looked at the NVidia drivers lately, but a year ago (when everybody else had already switched to DRI), NVidia's drivers had not, and there didn't seem to be any plans to port them to DRI.
... but Netcraft confirms it: Linux is dying. ;-)
Except, of course, if you're a programmer.
Publishing specifications is far more useful than publishing drivers. Unless, of course, you don't care to see any improvement in open-source technology.
I thought copyright gave a monopoly on copying and distribution (i.e. the combination of both)