GPL software is protected and can't be modified then sold for money without offering it for free (or for a small price to cover media costs) and must be shipped with source. I think.
Sorta, but not really. I could paraphrase it here, but I think quoting the actual text is more effective:
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.)
I recommend you read the entire text of the GNU GPL. Unlike some EULAs, it's actually quite clear and readable.
Someone please explain to me how having hundreds of patents on ridiculously simple things like these is benefiting consumers? That is the point of the patent system, isn't it?
Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.
The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).
The nifty thing about this is that Mono has the potential to be bigger and better than the.NET Framework, and we don't actually *need*.NET to make good use of Mono.
The way I see it, Mono could end up gaining more market share than Microsoft's implementation, and as long as we don't tie ourselves to the Windows-specific APIs, there's not a whole lot Microsoft could do about it!
Actually, I can think of one (very, very, very dumb) reason why they might need their IP's: some coder put code in a product that makes the product work differently under their IP address range. Then they lost the source code and only have binaries left, which must keep working.
They presumably took that into account in their cost-benefit analysis when the decision was made. Now they want others to pay for their corner-cutting?
in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public.
Sigh. No it doesn't. It requires that source code for the binaries be distributed with the binaries. There's no obligation to release anything to the general public.
With what? I've been having problems getting IPSEC to work on Linux (mainly problems with Path MTU discovery... it doesn't seem to do any PMTU at all.)
The RD bit *is* a mistake in the design of the DNS protocol. There's no reason why an authoritative name server and a recursive resolver need to run on the same (address, port) pair. That BIND does this is not an excuse.
The use of the RD bit is nothing more than a hack to work around the problem of having NS records pointing at recursive resolvers. Even then, a recursive resolver cannot rely on the use of the RD bit to break recursion loops: if it did, then a remote DoS attack would be extremely trivial.
That makes the RD bit a useless piece of frippery.
(Sorry if my explanation is a bit short. I'm a little without-sleep at the moment.)
how the fuck can you say djbdns is easier than bind?
Because I've used both, and after about a week of using djbdns, I found it to be easier to use. (Prior to that, I cringed at the thought of using tinydns-data's configuration format, but it's actually pretty easy once you get familiar with it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorta, but not really. I could paraphrase it here, but I think quoting the actual text is more effective:
I recommend you read the entire text of the GNU GPL. Unlike some EULAs, it's actually quite clear and readable.
It is if you use the same password on multiple machines, like a lot of people do.
Not that there aren't other ways of getting your password if you do that...
Why would the public create a system which allows "inventors" to infringe upon the public's freedom without receiving some sort of benefit in return?
Do some research, please.
Of course, if copyrights were shorter, we wouldn't need to worry about this crap.
Wait, doesn't that mean localcar?
Someone please explain to me how having hundreds of patents on ridiculously simple things like these is benefiting consumers? That is the point of the patent system, isn't it?
Don't waste my time.
i.e. not open source.
The problem is not only with bad patents: software patents last for 20 years -- the same length of time that drug patents last for.
"SPAM" is a brand name. The word you're looking for is "spam".
The nifty thing about this is that Mono has the potential to be bigger and better than the .NET Framework, and we don't actually *need* .NET to make good use of Mono.
The way I see it, Mono could end up gaining more market share than Microsoft's implementation, and as long as we don't tie ourselves to the Windows-specific APIs, there's not a whole lot Microsoft could do about it!
I can shake a stick at a lot of templates.
They presumably took that into account in their cost-benefit analysis when the decision was made. Now they want others to pay for their corner-cutting?
djbdns lets you set specific transition times for domain names down to the second, and it will adjust the TTLs accordingly.
Yeah, I know. I suppose I was oversimplifying it a bit. I'm glad you RTFGPL, though. :-)
Sigh. No it doesn't. It requires that source code for the binaries be distributed with the binaries. There's no obligation to release anything to the general public.
I thought it was "Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!"
With what? I've been having problems getting IPSEC to work on Linux (mainly problems with Path MTU discovery... it doesn't seem to do any PMTU at all.)
A good example would be Magnatune.
The use of the RD bit is nothing more than a hack to work around the problem of having NS records pointing at recursive resolvers. Even then, a recursive resolver cannot rely on the use of the RD bit to break recursion loops: if it did, then a remote DoS attack would be extremely trivial.
That makes the RD bit a useless piece of frippery.
(Sorry if my explanation is a bit short. I'm a little without-sleep at the moment.)
In any case, if you don't like how djbdns behaves by default, you can always go to http://tinydns.org/ and see what's available.
My brother managed to routinely finish the race in less than a minute. It's crazy!
Isn't that how it's always been?
Because I've used both, and after about a week of using djbdns, I found it to be easier to use. (Prior to that, I cringed at the thought of using tinydns-data's configuration format, but it's actually pretty easy once you get familiar with it.)
"OpenOffice.org" is the name of the office suite. www.openoffice.org is the name of the website.