If your proprietary code contains GPL'ed code, and you distribute your proprietary app, then you are "only" in a license violation. You have two choices: 1. GPL your entire codebase. 2. Remove the GPL'ed code.
Mind you, this is a choice! Your codebase *will not* become GPL'ed "automatically" or "by definition"!
However, if you don't distribute your app, then there's no problem.
"If, for example, the base code was GPL, then your code may already be GPL by definition..."
Will people stop ths FUD already? If your code contains GPL'ed code then your entire codebase is not automatically GPL'ed!!! This "GPL is viral"-FUD must die.
But the GNOME HIG is not just a "UI guideline", it's a complete book about designing good user interfaces. It's a must-read for every GUI developer; yes, that includes KDE developers! Even if you don't follow the GNOME UI guidelines, you should still read the GNOME HIG because it can teach you a thing or two about designing good and usable user interfaces in general.
"but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Redhat starts to get into antitrust problems."
I would. The difference is that: 1. MS distributes it's own products with Windows. If they distributed Netscape then it wouldn't be antitrust. 2. RedHat is not a monopoly and therebefore cannot get into antitrust problems.
If you're a monopoly then you have less freedom. That is the law.
"But what kind of freedom is that when you effectively cannot use the code freely or even be sure that the license you yourself chose is valid anymore?"
I call it inherited freedom: all derived works "inherits" the same freedom. You cannot stop people from enjoying the same freedom of the work your work is based on.
"You don't like our license? Well, too bad. See/touch/smell GPLd code and your code is going to be GPLd as well!"
Nope. If you include GPL'ed code in your non-GPL(-compatible) software, intentionally, then: 1. You deserved to be sued for violating copyright. 2. Your code does not automatically become GPL'ed! You are just in a license violation. Either GPL your code, or remove the GPL'ed code from your codebase!
You anti-GPL zealots are acting all mighty as if you're right and everybody else is wrong. You aren't. Answer this question: Why should developers who chose to release their code under the GPL, give away all their code for your own selfish purposes? Brag all you want about "true freedom" or whatever, but the fact is that I and many other people aren't going to help you if you keep acting selfish ("gimme your code! I won't release improvements! ME ME ME!").
Then DON'T USE GPL'ED CODE! In your case, the GPL is no different than any commercial license. You can't use code from closed source software *at all*!
If you don't like the license, then write your own code! Why should developers who GPL'ed their software give away all your code for your own selfish reasons?
Dead. A big part of the system is based on POSIX. The GUI has a lot in common with Windows and MacOS X (window-based, UI controls like buttons and menus).
> The thing is, *nix is always playing catchup > with everyone else
And MacOS X's underlying system is based on Unix but you don't hear anybody complaining that OS X is playing catchup with Unix.
> because it's too busy copying > Windows to bother to be innovative, original, or > just plain clean.
The way of progress is to build on what as already been learned. Why throw proven methods away and build everything from scratch? Only for the sake of being "original"? Innovation can be build on top of existing things too.
No OS is truly original. You may find a few original things but none of them are truly original. You're acting as if being original and innovative is a good thing or the ultimate goal or something. It isn't. If it is, Windows wouldn't be the #1 desktop OS.
> There are (or were) several major OSes that didn't > copy from each other...
Can you name a few? MacOS? Nope, copied from Xenix. Windows? Nope, copied from BeOS. MacOS X? Nope, it's OS 9 + various ideas from BeOS/Windows/OtherEnvironments/Hollywood computer GUIs + new artwork + Unix. Windows XP? Nope, it's Windows 2000 + ideas from MacOS X/KDE/GNOME/Unix.
Xenix? Too old to remember. But that was like the first graphical interface or something, so of course it's original.
> why can't *nix do the same?
Because it's proven? Because it works? Because the direction of progress is to build on what has already been learned?
So tell me, how do you minimize and maximize with ONE keyboard command?
> "And I'm not talking about the extra 'windows keys' on the keyboard. Any program that follows the win32 usability guidelines can be completely controlled without ever touching the mouse."
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 100% keyboard control using only ONE keyboard command. I don't see that feature in Windows.
This system totally fscks users with asymetric lines, like cable to ADSL. Most people I know only have 16 kb/sec of upload. And if they upload at their max upload rate then their download drops to 512 BYTES/sec or something.
What, is EvilWM not original enough for something? 1-pixel window borders, no icons, keyboard navigation for all features, I haven't seen that in any other graphical windowing system.
Wait, but there has to be a reason why most people don't use EvilWM hasn't it?
Repeat after me: Original is not always Usable. Original is not always Good.
That only makes it a chair for you. You still can't say that the whole product or every copy of it is a chair. If road A has a speed limit of 30 mph, and a lot of people drive 60 mph on that road, then it doesn't automatically mean that that road has turned into a 60 mph road. The government says it's a 30 mph road, therebefore it is a 30 mph road, regardless of how many people think otherwise.
Re:Maybe I'm a little slow...
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
You can use it as an end user but that still doesn't mean that Mozilla automatically becomes an end user product!
No. Mozilla is not an end user product. Distributions can distribute it and let the end user use it, but Mozilla is offically not an end user product! The authors decide what it is, not the users. The authors say it isn't an end user product, so it isn't, regardless of whether end users really use it. If I wrote a book about science fiction and love and I say it's a science fiction story, then it IS a science fiction story, not matter how many readers may think it's a love story. The author decides what their product is!
Safari is no threat to IE until a significant percentage of users switch to the Mac.
Sorry but raw speed is only attractive to geeks like you. Average users could care less. That's also one of the reasons why most people use IE and not Opera.
why o why are closed sourcecompanies obsessed with features ? why cant you fkin fix bugs instead of the current obsession with adding more and more features that add more bugs making it even more unstable, is it boredom or pride ?
do yourselves a favour and make the original application perfect ie: bug free , before adding more features/bloat?
MS word gets more and more features every release, and most users don't even use a lot of those features. photoshop gets more and more features every release, while most non-professionals and home users don't even need everything photoshop can do.
*sigh*
Now back to reality. Why do you blame OSS? Closed source is no different. If anything, it's *closed source products* that add more and more features without looking back. Compare the latest version of Opera with Opera 3. On the other hand, compare GNOME 2 with GNOME 1: they actually cleaned up the GUI and *removed* a lot of config options and replaced them with sane defaults and autodetection, sped up Nautilus many times, and fixed numberous of bugs.
As for your Mozilla comment: Mozilla is meant to turn out this way. The Mozilla browser suite as we know it is just a "technical demo": it was never meant to be the final product. Mozilla was destined to split off in seperate products that use the same browser engine.
Do home users and non-professionals really need everything Maya can do? Or everything Photoshop can do? Why should they spent $400+ on Photoshop or Maya when they can do what they need for $0?
You mean GNOME has failed for you. It did not fail for me.
There's no point in beating the dead horse. If you don't like it then go use something else instead of modding it down as a universal failure even though it's only your opinion.
Anyway, taste differs. I recommended a Windows user to try out Linux by downloading Knoppix (+KDE 3.1) and then he came back with "OMG how the hell can you like Linux?", while other Windows users got hooked on KDE. Yet other people absolutely can't stand KDE and want GNOME instead.
But I find it rediculous that somebody who claims that KDE is 100% better than GNOME gets modded up as "insightful". I guess nobody reads the moderator guidelines and just moderate because they agree.
Except you're forgetting something: GNOME != Linux. Sun or IBM or RedHat or whatever can make contracts with companies for setting up thousands of GNOME workstations on whatever Unix (which has already happened).
And you claim directly contradict the people who claim that Linux must be more easier and simpler to succeed on the desktop. Geez, make up your mind already!
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to say this in my last post.
If your proprietary code contains GPL'ed code, and you distribute your proprietary app, then you are "only" in a license violation. You have two choices:
1. GPL your entire codebase.
2. Remove the GPL'ed code.
Mind you, this is a choice! Your codebase *will not* become GPL'ed "automatically" or "by definition"!
However, if you don't distribute your app, then there's no problem.
"If, for example, the base code was GPL, then your code may already be GPL by definition..."
Will people stop ths FUD already?
If your code contains GPL'ed code then your entire codebase is not automatically GPL'ed!!!
This "GPL is viral"-FUD must die.
But the GNOME HIG is not just a "UI guideline", it's a complete book about designing good user interfaces. It's a must-read for every GUI developer; yes, that includes KDE developers! Even if you don't follow the GNOME UI guidelines, you should still read the GNOME HIG because it can teach you a thing or two about designing good and usable user interfaces in general.
"but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Redhat starts to get into antitrust problems."
I would.
The difference is that:
1. MS distributes it's own products with Windows. If they distributed Netscape then it wouldn't be antitrust.
2. RedHat is not a monopoly and therebefore cannot get into antitrust problems.
If you're a monopoly then you have less freedom. That is the law.
"Of course, this will be modded down."
Doesn't the fact that your post is modded as +5 Insightful (as expected; search for previous posts like yours) defeat your point?
"But what kind of freedom is that when you effectively cannot use the code freely or even be sure that the license you yourself chose is valid anymore?"
I call it inherited freedom: all derived works "inherits" the same freedom. You cannot stop people from enjoying the same freedom of the work your work is based on.
"You don't like our license? Well, too bad. See/touch/smell GPLd code and your code is going to be GPLd as well!"
Nope. If you include GPL'ed code in your non-GPL(-compatible) software, intentionally, then:
1. You deserved to be sued for violating copyright.
2. Your code does not automatically become GPL'ed! You are just in a license violation. Either GPL your code, or remove the GPL'ed code from your codebase!
You anti-GPL zealots are acting all mighty as if you're right and everybody else is wrong. You aren't. Answer this question: Why should developers who chose to release their code under the GPL, give away all their code for your own selfish purposes?
Brag all you want about "true freedom" or whatever, but the fact is that I and many other people aren't going to help you if you keep acting selfish ("gimme your code! I won't release improvements! ME ME ME!").
Then DON'T USE GPL'ED CODE!
In your case, the GPL is no different than any commercial license. You can't use code from closed source software *at all*!
If you don't like the license, then write your own code! Why should developers who GPL'ed their software give away all your code for your own selfish reasons?
> OS/2
Dead.
> and BeOS.
Dead. A big part of the system is based on POSIX. The GUI has a lot in common with Windows and MacOS X (window-based, UI controls like buttons and menus).
> The thing is, *nix is always playing catchup
> with everyone else
And MacOS X's underlying system is based on Unix but you don't hear anybody complaining that OS X is playing catchup with Unix.
> because it's too busy copying
> Windows to bother to be innovative, original, or
> just plain clean.
The way of progress is to build on what as already been learned. Why throw proven methods away and build everything from scratch? Only for the sake of being "original"? Innovation can be build on top of existing things too.
No OS is truly original. You may find a few original things but none of them are truly original.
You're acting as if being original and innovative is a good thing or the ultimate goal or something. It isn't. If it is, Windows wouldn't be the #1 desktop OS.
Which was my point since the beginning:
Original is not always Usable
Original is not always Good
> There are (or were) several major OSes that didn't
> copy from each other...
Can you name a few?
MacOS? Nope, copied from Xenix.
Windows? Nope, copied from BeOS.
MacOS X? Nope, it's OS 9 + various ideas from BeOS/Windows/OtherEnvironments/Hollywood computer GUIs + new artwork + Unix.
Windows XP? Nope, it's Windows 2000 + ideas from MacOS X/KDE/GNOME/Unix.
Xenix? Too old to remember. But that was like the first graphical interface or something, so of course it's original.
> why can't *nix do the same?
Because it's proven? Because it works? Because the direction of progress is to build on what has already been learned?
> "Windows?"
So tell me, how do you minimize and maximize with ONE keyboard command?
> "And I'm not talking about the extra 'windows keys' on the keyboard. Any program that follows the win32 usability guidelines can be completely controlled without ever touching the mouse."
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 100% keyboard control using only ONE keyboard command. I don't see that feature in Windows.
This system totally fscks users with asymetric lines, like cable to ADSL. Most people I know only have 16 kb/sec of upload. And if they upload at their max upload rate then their download drops to 512 BYTES/sec or something.
What, is EvilWM not original enough for something?
1-pixel window borders, no icons, keyboard navigation for all features, I haven't seen that in any other graphical windowing system.
Wait, but there has to be a reason why most people don't use EvilWM hasn't it?
Repeat after me:
Original is not always Usable.
Original is not always Good.
That only makes it a chair for you. You still can't say that the whole product or every copy of it is a chair.
If road A has a speed limit of 30 mph, and a lot of people drive 60 mph on that road, then it doesn't automatically mean that that road has turned into a 60 mph road. The government says it's a 30 mph road, therebefore it is a 30 mph road, regardless of how many people think otherwise.
You can use it as an end user but that still doesn't mean that Mozilla automatically becomes an end user product!
No. Mozilla is not an end user product. Distributions can distribute it and let the end user use it, but Mozilla is offically not an end user product!
The authors decide what it is, not the users. The authors say it isn't an end user product, so it isn't, regardless of whether end users really use it.
If I wrote a book about science fiction and love and I say it's a science fiction story, then it IS a science fiction story, not matter how many readers may think it's a love story. The author decides what their product is!
Safari is no threat to IE until a significant percentage of users switch to the Mac.
Sorry but raw speed is only attractive to geeks like you. Average users could care less. That's also one of the reasons why most people use IE and not Opera.
why o why are closed sourcecompanies obsessed with features ? why cant you fkin fix bugs instead of the current obsession with adding more and more features that add more bugs making it even more unstable, is it boredom or pride ?
do yourselves a favour and make the original application perfect ie: bug free , before adding more features/bloat?
MS word gets more and more features every release, and most users don't even use a lot of those features. photoshop gets more and more features every release, while most non-professionals and home users don't even need everything photoshop can do.
*sigh*
Now back to reality. Why do you blame OSS? Closed source is no different. If anything, it's *closed source products* that add more and more features without looking back. Compare the latest version of Opera with Opera 3. On the other hand, compare GNOME 2 with GNOME 1: they actually cleaned up the GUI and *removed* a lot of config options and replaced them with sane defaults and autodetection, sped up Nautilus many times, and fixed numberous of bugs.
As for your Mozilla comment: Mozilla is meant to turn out this way. The Mozilla browser suite as we know it is just a "technical demo": it was never meant to be the final product. Mozilla was destined to split off in seperate products that use the same browser engine.
Do home users and non-professionals really need everything Maya can do? Or everything Photoshop can do? Why should they spent $400+ on Photoshop or Maya when they can do what they need for $0?
"is misleading"
Hello? This is Slashdot!
You're wrong. I just tried to use QT Designer 3.1 to open a .glade file and nothing happened.
"Then, Gnome has failed."
You mean GNOME has failed for you. It did not fail for me.
There's no point in beating the dead horse. If you don't like it then go use something else instead of modding it down as a universal failure even though it's only your opinion.
"Redhat was hardly forced by Gnome to do anything. I suspect you are confusing them with Ximian."
Even Ximian doesn't force anything. Ximian's contributions get included because other people like their code.
> Speaking as an average user
Average users don't read Slashdot.
Anyway, taste differs. I recommended a Windows user to try out Linux by downloading Knoppix (+KDE 3.1) and then he came back with "OMG how the hell can you like Linux?", while other Windows users got hooked on KDE. Yet other people absolutely can't stand KDE and want GNOME instead.
But I find it rediculous that somebody who claims that KDE is 100% better than GNOME gets modded up as "insightful". I guess nobody reads the moderator guidelines and just moderate because they agree.
Except you're forgetting something: GNOME != Linux.
Sun or IBM or RedHat or whatever can make contracts with companies for setting up thousands of GNOME workstations on whatever Unix (which has already happened).
And you claim directly contradict the people who claim that Linux must be more easier and simpler to succeed on the desktop. Geez, make up your mind already!