ohh, yeah, mabye, I should have added this link too (read the first two points, and rather focus on the second point...)
"The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too. "
ssooo, wwhat? A GPL-compatible license, is compatible with the GPL, if it permits the GPL to come out as the favored license over the two?
More over, I'm really not starting to see what's this fuss about Xfree v1.1 license not beeing compatible with the GPL... as all Xfree stipulates in 3/4'ths of their conditions is that you "give credit where credit is due" and "ask for writen authorization for using *this --> 'The XFree86 Project, Inc' <-- name in 'advertisement' xor 'promotion of sale(s)'". It doesn't in any other way, stipulate any other conditions YOU have to abide by.
And I really can't see how it can't/couldn't be 100% compatible with the GPL (in full sense, that the GPL would coume out as the favoured license, and xfree's license more of a sub-license *of somesort, one has to abide by in addition to the GPL*)
as RML, pointed out before me in this post, it doesn't seem to be that the xfree license is GPL-incompatible, but rather the GPL is xfree-incompatible.
as, xfree don't care a dime, if you link to their libs, on the otherhand GPL is more restrictive... *and I quote*... "more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem"
(also read the follow-up to 'stwrtpj', by RML)
"Oh yes it does, read this. If you link to a GPL library, your program must be GPL."
> (1) Including the new text in every place it "should" go is a lot of work, for so late in the release cycle;
> (2) the new XFree86 licence is likely not GPL-compatible, which causes huge problems for all distributors, not just Mandrake.
These claims sound really weak, from my POV. I don't know about you (all), if you've ever read the new XFree86 Project License v1.1 or not, but it's really really lesser restrictive then the GPL ever will be.
a.I) It's consists of 4, no more no less, conditions one has to follow. 3/4 th's of them are all about "give credit, where credit is due"...
a.II) YOU aren't not restricted that you have to distribut the source alonside your binary release, all you have to do is POINT out you're using something that is someone elses work, and POINT out who that is by insert their disclamimer in the documentation xor (and/or) other materials provided with the distribution; And also put a notice in the same place as "other copyright, license and disclaimer information".
*yes, that's verry hard to do, mmm, </sarcasm>*, it's no more hassle that puting a 'copyright' disclaimer on something, "You put in in one place, and it's valid for the whole thing", you don't have to include it on overy *freaking page*, one place, is enough;
But, my suspicios is (from the second part of the first claim), that they have allready send the 'STUFF' to print, or something else (like they are "lazy as french are rumored to be"-distro) if they think it's such a hassle to add one or two lines of text in two place (1st: doc or other 'materials', and 2nd: add it to the same place of 'copyright, license and disclaimer information').
/* +plus, this condition, should appeal _very_ much to corporate users, like GFX card/chip makers, they can build inhouse drivers, incorporate their (or licensed) 'trade secretes', without having to disclose them; just as they supported the Win32/Apple Mac Os platfrom, can they now embrace *nix platform,
Stop b*tching, will ye', and look at the big picture! Let 'them' learn the benefits of OSS on/in their own tempo - don't be/do a 'Bushie' and corner them, and say "either you are with us, or against us" </jissis>... ever thought, your way ( I say 'your' as I'm not an endores of it) of pushing them, to disclose sources, is the cause of why we haven't seen them embrace Linux/OpenSource with unwillingness?....*/
b.I) so, 4th conditions, is it really that of a 'biggy', to write them a formal letter for approval? to use their name in 'advertising' or 'to promote the sale' of their distro?... if it is, maybe, they should refer to XFree86 in other words; I recall plenty of cases where I didn't get why a companey refered to sometihng so obfuscated than the thing really was. But then some day it hit me, that they musn't hade the permision to refer to 'that thing' by it's real known name.
Yes, I can see/agree it could be a 'hassle', but, not a 'biggy' that couldn't be resolved before their development branch reaches release stage.
c.I) "is likely not GPL-compatible".... so what you are saying, that the whole 'distribution' has to follow the GPL license, for a piece of software to get into the distro?.... I think I just scared away some corporate user, by asking that question out loud.
*Come on* Let's get real, WE can have a distribution that has components under different licenses, *not a biggy*, you the 'distro maker' licenses your stuff under your license, and the software you incorporated from other sources licences their stuff how they seem fit. Look at an average, Apple Mac OS/Win32 desktop, it's mixed with a bunch of different licences, that the end-user has agreed to abide by.
From my POV, it wouldn't be 'new users who switched' that would find these 'licence' stuff difficult to abide by, but more the PURE OSS minded folks, who've been around th
actually you don't need to checksum a file transfered thru bittorrent (it does it by itself, if a pice is missing, it'll *bork* some 'one pice faild to dl correctly... redownloding...' [anyway, somehing like that..])
.. on the other hand, if we don't trust you, we should check the file you put up on the torrent corresponds to the 'real thing';)
since 10:13 GMT, when I was announce I've been 'parting'/* and thank you very much, allready managed to get it home before the 'hords of slashdot' invaded the server(s) */
just, common sense, the harder the main site gets slashdoted the slower it takes for the mirroring to take place (sure, they'll mirror from the mirrors to other mirrors...but the faster users slashdot mirrors too that are up-to-date, the longer the whole proccess of updating every mirror takes...)
>It seems that there are people who are just desperate and want a story posted ASAP.
nothing wrong with that, but, if you try to be a 'fresh-news-asap' outlet, atleat take some reponsibilty on your sholder, and don't cripple the 'source'.
eg., do a 'mirror backup' prior to the post, offer Bittorroent links to large files (such as these)... and take other helpful measures aswell.
and no, I don't think such measure are unrealistic, heck, it might even give a good name to 'slashdot', both 'source' and 'readers' would get what they want; 'source' doesn't get crippled, 'readers' get the news instead of a "ERROR 404....(and such)"....
And the rest of you, use these mirros:
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
*idiot's linking directly to the root source, moorons* and larger shame on CmdrTaco for not haveing common sense to check the mirrors aren't up to date yet... see?
so be kind, and delay it from the 'hords of slashdot'... atleast for a few hours...
*eth1394 (depends on ieee1394 - and both are in the latest kernels - I know it's in the 2.4.20+ for a fact *use it myself..not eth1394, but ieee1394...*)
but Read this site carefully, check your kernel,
download a patch & patch it if necessary... the 'usual common sense'-principle...
so grab a supported/the patched kernel...,and don't don't forget to configure & compile it with these options:
'OHCI-1394 support'
'Ethernet over 1394
'Raw IEEE1394 I/O support' ...ps, and maybe while you're at it, add 'SBP-2 support (Harddisks etc.)' too...
(btw, in 2.4.20+ - you'll need to enable "Code maturity level options --> [*] Prompt for development and/or incomplete code/drivers" , or else you won't see the "IEEE 1394 (FireWire) support (EXPERIMENTAL)" all this is under..)
if you compiled 'all of these things' as 'Modules', don't forget to load up these modules(and try to do them in that order....):
ieee1394
raw1394
ohci1394
eth1394
elsewise, load only those that are modules.... - and if you compiled all of them into your kernel, just skip all of the above...
!PS - on some hardware it's also required that you first unload 'ohci1394' before you remove your the Firewire Controller (ONLY for PCMCIA users...)
!PS - if you are a really 'unfamiliar with loading & unloading drivers' & 'don't know how to automate these things'.... don't bother, stick with your windows/OS X box... }:-)
* and you might also want to check these out:
DVTS - for some furthur info if you don't manage on your own ( they are implementing a "..DV streams from IEEE1394 over IP.", sorta related, I guess)
FIREHOSE - "FIREHOSE gives you a basic data transfer over multiple network devices supporting TCP/IP layers. Stripe multiple 100Mbit, Gigabit, 10 Gigabit, or firewire to give one humungous pipe for firehosing your gigabytes and gigabytes of data." (I guess, also related...)
There is a hungarain, I think, at least I know it is/was popular there, car called the "Trabant' (it's spelled something lke that..)
not that' a car of 'worst case/design' I've ever ridden in.
... But I have to admit, I kinda fell for it since, just becase it's so crapy, sounds so *freaki'nly* loud, don't know what 'catalyst' means, what's suspention? a 40 year old rusty springy? *naah* if it has suspensions, it's 'the luxory' model;-)... etc - basically, it's the right car for teaching engineer 'how not to build a car'.... but I like/love it:)
/* can't wait till I can buy one, and start having some fun driving around it that crap heap =) - that's assuming, I'll ever bother getting a drivers license... */
When I ment 'contribute to', I refered to the 'Think Thank'-group.
...if someone wants to use what 'the think thank' groups came/come up with, fine. may it be whom ever...
..think, 'linux-like OSS development'... now 'linux' doesn't bark up 'Unixes source tree, wanting to merge with', now does it? no, it's free from whow ever to use & contribute to.....plenty of developing countries who don't have much funding for 'space initiative', that could be possible adoptors & developers.
I think, space should be a common comodity, available, to everyone, not just a few selected on this planet...
yes it would be distracting, and I didn't mean 'feed them the bare info/source' *no*
more, a independent 'group of ppl', assimilate suggestions from 'who ever', and bring only forth the 'cream pudding' of the whole.
and I don't know, how pass familiar you are with OSS development, eg 'linux', but nothing from 'joe shome' would get strait into the kernel, without a bunch of peer-review, from lots of thrusted people close to linus & himself.
Kinda the same 'developing model', but the topic at hand would be a kernel, but 'Space Initiative....'
>>Contrary to popular belief here, Linux and Open Source isn't the solution to everything.
>>Having a Linux on-board would not have meant fewer bugs.
actually, in the long term, OpenNess , will prevail over 'Things-locked-Down' - an answer can be found in how the french-d00d-from-The-Matrix (Merv - wasn't it?) put it ; "it's Causality - Cause & Reaction",
<Insert of 'explenation I haven't time to explain/write down as it would take pages to do a complete accounting of...thus time-not-available...'>
but, as times would progresses, the effort of keep-a-thing-locked-down, would slowly increase.
Now, if it would have been 'Open' - there wouldn't be a/the need to keep-the-thing-locked-down in the first place, wouldn't it?! - thus Zero amount of effort/force
/* anyway, almost Zero, there will allways be some effort/force of keeping things at move;-) (but _anything_, ever, even at kelvin Zero and beyond, moves.... question is just the amount....).
But this is equal to both, thus one can eliminate it from ones thinking.... */
>>/. needs to get over this "Linux/Open Source solves everything" mentality.
Why? Does it somehow hurt you or somebody, that someone tries to show people a liberty/freedom-full reality?
/* sure, I'd have to agree on that going about it in a propagand-istic way is as wrong as the 'other side' does,
but last time I checked, no one forces/forced you/anyone to read it/this - and if that was/is the case, you
have my humble apologies */
ps. I don't want to be cocky - I'm just tring to explain that OpenNess really has strong merits...
--- linux-user/debian/cli&kde/projects/slicker/dev/dan alien/speech/slashdot/user/545655/post/#8086219 2004-01-26 08:54:20.4959938583 +0100
+++ linux-user/debian/cli&kde/projects/slicker/dev/dan alien/speech/slashdot/user/545655/post/#8086219 2004-01-26 08:54:20.4959938583 +0100
@@ -4,2 +6,2 @@
I kinda was wondering, if there couldn't be a 'OpenSource Space Initiative'
--Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmoshpre gives us
--is so 'sugar coated' that after a while it starts to taste awefull in our mounths. And on
++Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmosphere gives us
++is so 'sugar coated' that after awhile it starts to taste awful in our mouths. And on
top of things, they only share 'limited info', keeping all the good stuff inside own
closed doors (even if NASA says they are forth comming, there is much much we never
will see...).
I kinda was wondering, if there couldn't be a 'OpenSource Space Initiative'
Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmoshpre gives us
is so 'sugar coated' that after a while it starts to taste awefull in our mounths. And on
top of things, they only share 'limited info', keeping all the good stuff inside own
closed doors (even if NASA says they are forth comming, there is much much we never
will see...).
And no, I don't mean, build things, more a 'Think Tank' group, who tries to focus on
solving troubles/things, elaborating on ideas, finding solutions... etc; and at the end of they
day, everything is Open to everyone, to comment on & contribute.
*I know, I would like to contribute, if I where able to*... anyone, else?
btw, I like this excerpt, about the 'Spirit' lander:
>Encouraging developments continued for Opportunity's twin, Spirit, too. Engineers have determined that Spirit's flash memory
>hardware is functional,strengthening a theory that Spirit's main problem is in software that controls file management of the memory.
>"I think we've got a patient that's well on the way to recovery," said Mars Exploration Rover Project Manager Pete Theisinger at NASA's
>Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
...don't they kinda wished that they ran linux on it?
and if it where buggy, they'd at least have a patch within a couple of hours;-)
Slashdot Mirror
need I say more? ...
"The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too. "
ssooo, wwhat? A GPL-compatible license, is compatible with the GPL, if it permits the GPL to come out as the favored license over the two?
More over, I'm really not starting to see what's this fuss about Xfree v1.1 license not beeing compatible with the GPL ... as all Xfree stipulates in 3/4'ths of their conditions is that you "give credit where credit is due" and "ask for writen authorization for using *this --> 'The XFree86 Project, Inc' <-- name in 'advertisement' xor 'promotion of sale(s)'". It doesn't in any other way, stipulate any other conditions YOU have to abide by.
And I really can't see how it can't/couldn't be 100% compatible with the GPL (in full sense, that the GPL would coume out as the favoured license, and xfree's license more of a sub-license *of somesort, one has to abide by in addition to the GPL*)
as RML, pointed out before me in this post, it doesn't seem to be that the xfree license is GPL-incompatible, but rather the GPL is xfree-incompatible.
as, xfree don't care a dime, if you link to their libs, on the otherhand GPL is more restrictive... *and I quote*... "more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem"
(also read the follow-up to 'stwrtpj', by RML) "Oh yes it does, read this. If you link to a GPL library, your program must be GPL."
> (2) the new XFree86 licence is likely not GPL-compatible, which causes huge problems for all distributors, not just Mandrake.
These claims sound really weak, from my POV. I don't know about you (all), if you've ever read the new XFree86 Project License v1.1 or not, but it's really really lesser restrictive then the GPL ever will be.
*yes, that's verry hard to do, mmm, </sarcasm>*, it's no more hassle that puting a 'copyright' disclaimer on something, "You put in in one place, and it's valid for the whole thing", you don't have to include it on overy *freaking page*, one place, is enough;
But, my suspicios is (from the second part of the first claim), that they have allready send the 'STUFF' to print, or something else (like they are "lazy as french are rumored to be"-distro) if they think it's such a hassle to add one or two lines of text in two place (1st: doc or other 'materials', and 2nd: add it to the same place of 'copyright, license and disclaimer information').
Stop b*tching, will ye', and look at the big picture! Let 'them' learn the benefits of OSS on/in their own tempo - don't be/do a 'Bushie' and corner them, and say "either you are with us, or against us" </jissis> ... ever thought, your way ( I say 'your' as I'm not an endores of it) of pushing them, to disclose sources, is the cause of why we haven't seen them embrace Linux/OpenSource with unwillingness?....*/
Yes, I can see/agree it could be a 'hassle', but, not a 'biggy' that couldn't be resolved before their development branch reaches release stage.
*Come on* Let's get real, WE can have a distribution that has components under different licenses, *not a biggy*, you the 'distro maker' licenses your stuff under your license, and the software you incorporated from other sources licences their stuff how they seem fit. Look at an average, Apple Mac OS/Win32 desktop, it's mixed with a bunch of different licences, that the end-user has agreed to abide by.
From my POV, it wouldn't be 'new users who switched' that would find these 'licence' stuff difficult to abide by, but more the PURE OSS minded folks, who've been around th
and I repeat, google for: define: gopher
just, common sense, the harder the main site gets slashdoted the slower it takes for the mirroring to take place (sure, they'll mirror from the mirrors to other mirrors...but the faster users slashdot mirrors too that are up-to-date, the longer the whole proccess of updating every mirror takes...)
nothing wrong with that, but, if you try to be a 'fresh-news-asap' outlet, atleat take some reponsibilty on your sholder, and don't cripple the 'source'.
eg., do a 'mirror backup' prior to the post, offer Bittorroent links to large files (such as these)... and take other helpful measures aswell.
and no, I don't think such measure are unrealistic, heck, it might even give a good name to 'slashdot', both 'source' and 'readers' would get what they want; 'source' doesn't get crippled, 'readers' get the news instead of a "ERROR 404 ....(and such)"....
ftp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/ftp.k
ftp://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/kde/stable/3.2/src
They are at least up and fast...
so be kind, and delay it from the 'hords of slashdot' ... atleast for a few hours...
like slashdot isn't all US-only....
kinda makes you wonder how they'll try to implement this with success.
PS - I DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE *old news.. for $sme*
I *literally* heared of this via the 'Go Digiatal' stream.
*eth1394 (depends on ieee1394 - and both are in the latest kernels - I know it's in the 2.4.20+ for a fact *use it myself..not eth1394, but ieee1394...*)
- but Read this site carefully, check your kernel,
- download a patch & patch it if necessary... the 'usual common sense'-principle...
- 'OHCI-1394 support'
...ps, and maybe while you're at it, add 'SBP-2 support (Harddisks etc.)' too ...
- ieee1394
* and you might also want to check these out:so grab a supported/the patched kernel...,and don't don't forget to configure & compile it with these options:
'Ethernet over 1394
'Raw IEEE1394 I/O support'
(btw, in 2.4.20+ - you'll need to enable "Code maturity level options --> [*] Prompt for development and/or incomplete code/drivers" , or else you won't see the "IEEE 1394 (FireWire) support (EXPERIMENTAL)" all this is under..)
if you compiled 'all of these things' as 'Modules', don't forget to load up these modules(and try to do them in that order....):
raw1394
ohci1394
eth1394
elsewise, load only those that are modules .... - and if you compiled all of them into your kernel, just skip all of the above...
!PS - on some hardware it's also required that you first unload 'ohci1394' before you remove your the Firewire Controller (ONLY for PCMCIA users ...)
!PS - if you are a really 'unfamiliar with loading & unloading drivers' & 'don't know how to automate these things'.... don't bother, stick with your windows/OS X box... }:-)
joe, shmoe - from the middle of nowhere
where is it, where is the code, joe!? - for this 'apt-get-expose' or 'apt-get-osx' or the hyped up 'win-apt-get'..
Stop beeing a SCO, and tell us, be precise - mkay
I've just seen this on Groklaw.
Kinda makes you wonder what 'dark force' is actually behind all of this.
not that' a car of 'worst case/design' I've ever ridden in.
When I ment 'contribute to', I refered to the 'Think Thank'-group.
I think, space should be a common comodity, available, to everyone, not just a few selected on this planet...
's/would/wouldn't/'
more, a independent 'group of ppl', assimilate suggestions from 'who ever', and bring only forth the 'cream pudding' of the whole.
and I don't know, how pass familiar you are with OSS development, eg 'linux', but nothing from 'joe shome' would get strait into the kernel, without a bunch of peer-review, from lots of thrusted people close to linus & himself.
Kinda the same 'developing model', but the topic at hand would be a kernel, but 'Space Initiative....'
>>Having a Linux on-board would not have meant fewer bugs.
actually, in the long term, OpenNess , will prevail over 'Things-locked-Down' - an answer can be found in how the french-d00d-from-The-Matrix (Merv - wasn't it?) put it ; "it's Causality - Cause & Reaction",
<Insert of 'explenation I haven't time to explain/write down as it would take pages to do a complete accounting of...thus time-not-available...'>
but, as times would progresses, the effort of keep-a-thing-locked-down, would slowly increase.
Now, if it would have been 'Open' - there wouldn't be a/the need to keep-the-thing-locked-down in the first place, wouldn't it?! - thus Zero amount of effort/force
>>/. needs to get over this "Linux/Open Source solves everything" mentality.
Why? Does it somehow hurt you or somebody, that someone tries to show people a liberty/freedom-full reality?
ps. I don't want to be cocky - I'm just tring to explain that OpenNess really has strong merits...
I wasn't refering to the 'data the missions produce' /* for what it's worth, I trust them enough to belive their conclusions */
I was aiming more at actually helping at designing some parts of the mission, by giving my opinion with a solution to something in need of solving...
A pair of fresh eye's, wouldn't hurt, would it?
+++ linux-user/debian/cli&kde/projects/slicker/dev/da
@@ -4,2 +6,2 @@
I kinda was wondering, if there couldn't be a 'OpenSource Space Initiative'
--Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmoshpre gives us
--is so 'sugar coated' that after a while it starts to taste awefull in our mounths. And on
++Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmosphere gives us
++is so 'sugar coated' that after awhile it starts to taste awful in our mouths. And on
top of things, they only share 'limited info', keeping all the good stuff inside own
closed doors (even if NASA says they are forth comming, there is much much we never
will see...).
Let's face it, most of the info that anyone who tries to leave this atmoshpre gives us
is so 'sugar coated' that after a while it starts to taste awefull in our mounths. And on
top of things, they only share 'limited info', keeping all the good stuff inside own
closed doors (even if NASA says they are forth comming, there is much much we never
will see...).
And no, I don't mean, build things, more a 'Think Tank' group, who tries to focus on
solving troubles/things, elaborating on ideas, finding solutions... etc; and at the end of they
day, everything is Open to everyone, to comment on & contribute.
*I know, I would like to contribute, if I where able to*... anyone, else?
ps. if yes, you know where you can find me ;-)
btw, I like this excerpt, about the 'Spirit' lander:
>Encouraging developments continued for Opportunity's twin, Spirit, too. Engineers have determined that Spirit's flash memory
>hardware is functional,strengthening a theory that Spirit's main problem is in software that controls file management of the memory.
>"I think we've got a patient that's well on the way to recovery," said Mars Exploration Rover Project Manager Pete Theisinger at NASA's
>Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
and if it where buggy, they'd at least have a patch within a couple of hours