With the exception of Bionic, which is smaller and weaker than glibc. Android's compatibility with standard GNU-based Linux platforms is extremely weak.
On your x86 Windows system, the default setting is Unsigned — you can run anything you like. With Windows RT, the default, hard-coded setting is Microsoft (8); i.e. only apps signed by Microsoft, or parts of Windows itself, can be executed.
They can set this selectively per environment as well. Microsoft sets it to "Unsigned" for the desktop but to "Microsoft" for "formerly-Metro" applications.
And at the very least, with the games on your system you can always crack them. This is an advantage over streamed games like onlive/gaikai and consoles.
Given that the client was packaged rapidly for other Linux distributions, I don't think they have that problem. I suspect, rather, that non-Ubuntu installs fall into the "Other" category (a full 0.71%.)
So what are you suggesting, that people who do care should just shut up? That minorities should just shut the fuck up and go away, and stop being inconvenient?
And no amount of abusing people and effectively telling them to "shut up" will make you or the GP right. You're basically being an abusive extension of the carriers and handset vendors.
Tizen has nothing in common with Maemo or MeeGo. Its Samsung's internal Linux platform, LiMo, and some things from Intel and a lot hidden behind closed doors.
I think that 1% is defined separately for each area. E.g. in game development business, 1% is the game developers themselves + people around them (publishers, etc). All the above hardly number a thousand for any specific game, whereas the games are usually sold in at least hundreds of thousands (and this is considered failure nowadays), often millions of copies.
So that 1% is pretty much "out of thin air."
In FOSS world, 10% are probably the people who ever committed any single change to the project's repository and 1% are the project's real authors. E.g. I heard that gimp was being developed by de facto 5 people as their commits consitute 90% of changes, the rest of committers only commited once.
Not an issue. Linux has thousands of contributors, but a handful of developers have their hands in much of the kernel.
Let's assume that gimp is being used by millions of people worldwide (I think it's a reasonable number). For me, if its 5 authors were millionaires it would be fair - that's actually the value they bring to all those millions of people (don't think that anyone would say that gimp is not worth at least a dollar). However, this does not happen in FOSS world, there's no mechanisms in place to allow this (donations are hardly a substitute).
Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Not everyone measures satisfaction by the money they have. And so long as the guys working on it are being paid to do so (or even if they are not) and they are happy to work on it, more power to them.
As for Linux kernel, I think that IBM, Google, Red Hat etc are de facto ripping all those kernel author's asses by not paying them much while selling Linux-based products and services for big money.
Well, that's business. It's also the nature of any FOSS project, and a problem less with the license and FOSS and more the corporations in question.
For Marxists
Now why'd ya have to bring up the commies?
I think that we should respect the rules for property ownership (doesn't matter whether it's material or intellectual)
Even when, in both copyright and patents, the laws are horribly broken, kept broken, and made worse by corporate lobbying?
it goes without saying that they don't get royalties. They did receive one-time bonus though, I don't know how big or small it was.
Then they have been compensated, Anything after that is simply wielding it as a club, to be sure.
If you cannot prevent redistribution of your program with zero price that means that you aren't selling the software.
Possibly. If I sell a program + source under the GPL to someone who isn't technically adept, I've still complied. Of course, if it's widely distributed, then perhaps my earning potential is more in my skills rather than per-copy license fees.
You may sell subscriptions to your server where you run some essential part of the software that you don't redistribute
Which is what led to the Affero GPL. But that's just being a dick and you might as well not use the GPL.
you may sell consulting services on how to use your software better, support, advertisements etc - but still, you aren't selling the software itself.
The whole dynamic has changed. Instead of seeing this as a flaw, see it as a shift in the market. Proprietary software developers, of course, oppose this.
That means that your programming time and expertise aren't getting rewarded, the monetary feedback is indirect.
You aren't thinking.
You told yourself that FOSS developers need to leave software development business and earn income somewhere else.
No, I didn't. You did. What I said was that FOSS developers don't sell individual licenses but bank on their experience and skills in software development, and not on income from per-unit sales. Again, you aren't thinking (and I'm beginning to think you aren't reading either.)
1. FOSS not rewarding "creative 1%" proportionally.
But who are the creative 1%? are they not the people who created the FOSS in the first place? How are they not being rewarded?
I think #1 is self-evident, as there are few GPL software authors (be them individuals or corporations) who accrued significant wealth by selling their GPL'd software.
What is "significant wealth?" What about having a good job that pays decent wages and benefits, making money not off licensing the software but making the software fill a role, capitalizing on one's expertise? There are a great many who work on the Linux kernel doing this, among other FOSS projects.
2. Whether patent authors should be rewarded at all.
Be specific. The authors of a patent may not be the people who hold the rights to the patent. And they deserve to be compensated, but the bar for patents needs to be way higher. And I don't believe software should be patentable material.
Regarding #2: as I said in other posts, I cannot generalize here. I know personally two people who applied and were granted a patent, both work in rather successful, but not omni-potent companies (gamedev industry).
Rest assured they do not own those patents. Their employers do.
The things patented were indeed non-obvious
Subjective, sadly.
I think they do deserve reward for making their work public.
And chances are their employer gave them a small bonus. What their employer does with the patent will say more about the company than the patent, though.
There are also obvious patent trolls, who patent bullshit and then sue
Or are sold patents from other companies and sue. Like Apple selling patents to a patent troll shell firm. Or IV and their legion of shell companies.
we may try to fight those separately without abandoning the whole concept at all.
I was under impression that it tried not to imply "free as in beer" and clearly separate the concept. Probably was wrong on that account.
It dismisses the notion that you can't sell GPL'd software, but does not go into detail as to how. That's not its scope.
that is essentially to say that there's no value in producing the software.
No. There's value in producing it. My time and expertise are worth a pretty penny.
not everyone is able to program, and from those who can, not everyone has enough discipline to produce an usable result
I don't follow. The ability of people to program has no connection to any per-copy licensing schemes.
That is to say that FOSS developers should abandon the software development industry and thus cease to be FOSS developers
Empty pablum. You too suggest that FOSS developers are hobbyist, part-time developers who are incapable of delivering a good product. A slur and a lie if there ever was one.
you can sell your copies of the program, but cannot prevent anyone from re-selling them at lower price.
Capitalism at its finest, right? The cost of the product itself drops to zero and vendors have to compete on other things.
Essentially, it's never "free as in speech", it's always "free as free beer";/
It is always "free as in speech." That just happens to bring the "free as in beer" part along with it. This is why many FOSS developers find other ways to earn an income, many of whom are quite successful.
Not at all. It ensures the software stays free and not leashed to the creator. What happens if they sell the patent to a company with a vested interest in killing the software?
it basically equates free as in free speech with free as in free beer.
No, it doesn't. It establishes the GPL for what it is: a way to keep users of FOSS independent of 3rd party entities should they choose to be.
Isn't it contradictory with the intent of GPL to allow you to sell copies of your program?
No, you still can. You can't yank people's chains by attacking people downstream over it. It's pretty obviously not Free Software if everyone who gets it has to come back to you for a patent license.
I'm not anti-FOSS, although I like BSD more than GPL.
You sound anti-FOSS.
What's wrong in selling a GPL'd program? That way you can pay for per-unit costs.
But what if you don't sell it? What about people who download the sources from you and then redistribute it?
Looks fair and GPL-compliant to me.
It's not. It's a GPL violation.
Calling people "leeches" is not a good way to negotiate.
So patent trolls who sue to extract licensing fees aren't leeches? How do they contribute to the industry in any way? Well, you might think they contribute by keeping the market clear of competitors and startups, particularly if you're a company like Microsoft or Apple.
calling people names for the very desire of getting reward for their work is plain wrong.
Ah, so lawyers representing a shell company are doing such valuable work. Or do you suggest that by eliminating software patents that developers would suddenly find themselves unable to be paid for their work?
This entire thread is filled with poor, dishonest arguments, attacks on FOSS, and pro-software-patent drivel.
FOSS should somehow recognize the observed inequality and should find a way to proportionally reward the 1% of creators.
What, by acquiescing to the demands of patent holders (who aren't necessarily the people who created them)? Your argument makes no sense, unfortunately.
Apparently Slashdot started to be visited by people who live off of creating software, i.e. professional software developers.
Being a "professional software developer" does not require unwavering support for software patents. I do find it amusing that the whole "free software developers are amateur, unprofessional developers" lie is leaking into Slashdot.
When I think from my professional point of view, they are a mixed bag: sometimes we have to give up certain tech to avoid unnecessary payments, sometimes we license, sometimes we benefit from what few patents we have...
Except none of this applies to software patents, which are demonstrably used exclusively as weaponry against other companies and by patent trolls.
I wouldn't call patents unreasonable.
I'd call software patents unreasonable. Particularly seeing as how software is covered by copyright and how much patents are abused.
The GPL does not impose restrictions on redistribution. You are, by default, not allowed to redistribute. You can copy all you want, personally. The GPL grants you permission to redistribute it so long as you comply with the terms.
Slashdot Mirror
With the exception of Bionic, which is smaller and weaker than glibc. Android's compatibility with standard GNU-based Linux platforms is extremely weak.
They can set this selectively per environment as well. Microsoft sets it to "Unsigned" for the desktop but to "Microsoft" for "formerly-Metro" applications.
Only if you're an Apple worshiper. The rest of the world is interested in what others will be producing.
And at the very least, with the games on your system you can always crack them. This is an advantage over streamed games like onlive/gaikai and consoles.
Given that the client was packaged rapidly for other Linux distributions, I don't think they have that problem. I suspect, rather, that non-Ubuntu installs fall into the "Other" category (a full 0.71%.)
You are a goddamn kung-fu master at stating the obvious. Now try and come up with a point.
Do you normally go around and shout down those who disagree with the majority?
You mean "hypocritical." "Hippocratic" refers more to the "Hippocratic oath" that doctors take.
So what are you suggesting, that people who do care should just shut up? That minorities should just shut the fuck up and go away, and stop being inconvenient?
And no amount of abusing people and effectively telling them to "shut up" will make you or the GP right. You're basically being an abusive extension of the carriers and handset vendors.
Tizen has nothing in common with Maemo or MeeGo. Its Samsung's internal Linux platform, LiMo, and some things from Intel and a lot hidden behind closed doors.
So that 1% is pretty much "out of thin air."
Not an issue. Linux has thousands of contributors, but a handful of developers have their hands in much of the kernel.
Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Not everyone measures satisfaction by the money they have. And so long as the guys working on it are being paid to do so (or even if they are not) and they are happy to work on it, more power to them.
Well, that's business. It's also the nature of any FOSS project, and a problem less with the license and FOSS and more the corporations in question.
Now why'd ya have to bring up the commies?
Even when, in both copyright and patents, the laws are horribly broken, kept broken, and made worse by corporate lobbying?
Then they have been compensated, Anything after that is simply wielding it as a club, to be sure.
Possibly. If I sell a program + source under the GPL to someone who isn't technically adept, I've still complied. Of course, if it's widely distributed, then perhaps my earning potential is more in my skills rather than per-copy license fees.
Which is what led to the Affero GPL. But that's just being a dick and you might as well not use the GPL.
The whole dynamic has changed. Instead of seeing this as a flaw, see it as a shift in the market. Proprietary software developers, of course, oppose this.
You aren't thinking.
No, I didn't. You did. What I said was that FOSS developers don't sell individual licenses but bank on their experience and skills in software development, and not on income from per-unit sales. Again, you aren't thinking (and I'm beginning to think you aren't reading either.)
But who are the creative 1%? are they not the people who created the FOSS in the first place? How are they not being rewarded?
What is "significant wealth?" What about having a good job that pays decent wages and benefits, making money not off licensing the software but making the software fill a role, capitalizing on one's expertise? There are a great many who work on the Linux kernel doing this, among other FOSS projects.
Be specific. The authors of a patent may not be the people who hold the rights to the patent. And they deserve to be compensated, but the bar for patents needs to be way higher. And I don't believe software should be patentable material.
Rest assured they do not own those patents. Their employers do.
Subjective, sadly.
And chances are their employer gave them a small bonus. What their employer does with the patent will say more about the company than the patent, though.
Or are sold patents from other companies and sue. Like Apple selling patents to a patent troll shell firm. Or IV and their legion of shell companies.
I don't readily see how.
It dismisses the notion that you can't sell GPL'd software, but does not go into detail as to how. That's not its scope.
No. There's value in producing it. My time and expertise are worth a pretty penny.
I don't follow. The ability of people to program has no connection to any per-copy licensing schemes.
Empty pablum. You too suggest that FOSS developers are hobbyist, part-time developers who are incapable of delivering a good product. A slur and a lie if there ever was one.
Please, Qt Quick is just one way of creating a UI. You might have a point if they'd eliminated everything else that existed previously.
No it isn't. The GPL is entirely consistent.
Capitalism at its finest, right? The cost of the product itself drops to zero and vendors have to compete on other things.
It is always "free as in speech." That just happens to bring the "free as in beer" part along with it. This is why many FOSS developers find other ways to earn an income, many of whom are quite successful.
Zealotry? I'm opinionated, not a zealot.
I attack their arguments, then point out they're a tool.
By which you mean, "stop disagreeing with the pro-software-patent postings," right?
Not at all. It ensures the software stays free and not leashed to the creator. What happens if they sell the patent to a company with a vested interest in killing the software?
No, it doesn't. It establishes the GPL for what it is: a way to keep users of FOSS independent of 3rd party entities should they choose to be.
No, you still can. You can't yank people's chains by attacking people downstream over it. It's pretty obviously not Free Software if everyone who gets it has to come back to you for a patent license.
You sound anti-FOSS.
But what if you don't sell it? What about people who download the sources from you and then redistribute it?
It's not. It's a GPL violation.
So patent trolls who sue to extract licensing fees aren't leeches? How do they contribute to the industry in any way? Well, you might think they contribute by keeping the market clear of competitors and startups, particularly if you're a company like Microsoft or Apple.
Ah, so lawyers representing a shell company are doing such valuable work. Or do you suggest that by eliminating software patents that developers would suddenly find themselves unable to be paid for their work?
This entire thread is filled with poor, dishonest arguments, attacks on FOSS, and pro-software-patent drivel.
Correct.
The FSF thought of this abuse and made sure that doing so would be a violation of the GPL. You can't redistribute in that situation.
Arguments from ignorance are so wonderful.
What, by acquiescing to the demands of patent holders (who aren't necessarily the people who created them)? Your argument makes no sense, unfortunately.
Being a "professional software developer" does not require unwavering support for software patents. I do find it amusing that the whole "free software developers are amateur, unprofessional developers" lie is leaking into Slashdot.
Except none of this applies to software patents, which are demonstrably used exclusively as weaponry against other companies and by patent trolls.
I'd call software patents unreasonable. Particularly seeing as how software is covered by copyright and how much patents are abused.
The GPL does not impose restrictions on redistribution. You are, by default, not allowed to redistribute. You can copy all you want, personally. The GPL grants you permission to redistribute it so long as you comply with the terms.
Your distaste for the GPL is arbitrary.
Let me guess, you're a proprietary software developer that copies liberally from BSD projects.