Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't distributing the source for whatever GPL'd software you were using or modifying, while NOT distributing source for hardware drivers that are programs you are running on top of that system, be perfectly legal anyway?
If you are using non-GPL kernel and drivers and GPL-ed software on top of it you're fine (*BSD etc). If you are using Linux kernel you should take care to do not link your kernel drivers against GPLed code, then you're fine too. Or at least those drivers should be linked with LGPLed code.
The fact that I distribute my code under the GPL does not prevent me from distributing it under some other License. I retain Ownership of my code, and I can permit its use under whatever terms I like. I could sell Microsoft or Linksys or whoever a seperate license to code that I also released via GPL.
I think GPL does not allow relicensing code under any other non-compatible license. So even if you allow other parties to redistribute your code with any other license, they should comply with GPL anyway. If you put your code under GPL it means you given up on it, you still have you name on it, but you do not have any more rights then anybody else.
I've never heard RMS say that software should cost nothing.
He constantly argues the complete opposite, that the GPL has nothing to do with cost, and the FSF selling the deluxe GNU collection for several thousand bucks seems to be proof.
It also includes printed material and t-shirts. Anyway I'm not sure if anybody's buying it.
Problem with GNU software is unlimited distribution. If one could buy it, one could sell it or just allow anybody to download it. It's the reason Red Hat abandoning their Red Hat Linux - it's just unprofitable.
Yes, but if you can't access the config file over the network, you can't edit the text-based config file either, so it's a moot point.
Config file is local, it's the log file on the network. And config program would whine about nonaccessible log file.
Oh, and if you're too lazy to code up a quick config editor even if it's in TCL or some other similar language, then I'm not sure I really want to use the rest of your code. Mainly because your attention to detail across the project as a whole would appear to be lacking.
So you do not use sendmail, BIND, dhcp, samba, apache, NIS, kerberos, ipsec, ipfilter etc? You Windows user then?;) And you ideal is regedit? Stop - regedit does not allow to check anything you putting in there;)
The problem with 'quick' config editor - it usually do not do anything usefull. It's not a 'quick' if you have to check spelling, dependencies, path validity, permissions etc. Maybe this thing shoul look into logs to suggest improvements..
My preference is self-configuring software, if it's possible. I hate to click on knobs to do self-evident things. And if something broken I have to fix it fast.
Perhaps we have different focus - I work with server software and it often should work in minimal environment. Consider firewall software. Folks who write it don't do GUI (usually). But there is fwbuilder (fwbuilder.org) which fullfill the need in GUI configurator for beginners or lazy. I'm fine with text firewall configs, I might fire up fwbuilder as well. And I like firewall developers to focus on firewall features - not to spend time on GUI.
Plain readable text files don't validate parameters or combinations of parameters for you.
What the problem? Binary config files don't validate parameters either.
That's part of the problem; they're just text. Put a GUI around it, and all of a sudden you can prevent users from saying that - say - they want to log all output to a file, but they specify a file which is invalid.
Why a GUI? why not CLI, for example?
With a GUI in there, you can tell the user that they've made a mistake while they're editing that file.
That's kind of nice - then your configuration program would rival your real program in complexity. At the same time it's trivial to allow your program to log error messages in case of non-recognisable parameters or
missing files/wrong paths. And sometimes your configuration program can't work properly - for example - it's downtime and files on network are nonaccessible and your config program do not allow you to enter them..
Not to mention, in space, why would you want your missiles to arc? The shortest distance between to points is a STRAIGHT LINE.
Right. But if your launch pods not in a straight line to target then missiles have to turn to target when in flight. Anyway they have to adjust their aim to moving targets.
1. Why did you link to the Lexington? The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) would have been a better choice. She's the largest ship on the waters, bar none. The Lexington was about 800 and some change feet. The Enterprise is 1,100+ feet! That's quite a difference!
Currently the biggest ship is Jahre Viking. It is 1504 feet long. Well it's just a tanker, not a warship...
Well, Linux is an UNIX like OS, and BSD already lost the ability of calling itself UNIX a while back.
About BSD - it's not exactly so. Considering UNIX is a trademark it is matter of money to get certification from Open Group for particular BSD version.
My friend, silence is the future of computing. I really hate, I mean I - HATE - those god awful gianormous skyscraper towers that blast out 90dB of concentration breaking whirring and grinding sounds. Not to mention the heat and wasted space. Who needs 8 PCI slots, 12 drive bays, and a 600W power supply?! That's legacy garbage from the;lt%90's man.
Do not confuse issues. Silence and space are perpendicular. Or may be not. It's much easier to silence tower than those tiny boxes. If you have powerfull processor you should have choice in cooling arrangements and in case of tiny box you do not have one.
You sound like one of those "old timers" that likes inefficient crap just because that's all you know.
Standard warranty on any Tivo/DirecTivo is 90 DAYS.
It is not true. After 90 days they replace failed parts for free but charge for a labor. It is called limited warranty and still it is a warranty. I think it's one-year warranty.
8. Urge Free Software and Open Source developers to drop support for SCO Unixware across all softwares being developed. GNU Software (GCC, Emacs, libraries, autotools, base utils), Samba, Apache, OpenSSL, OpenOffice, XFree86, Gnome, KDE, etc.
That's wrong - if people started to work with free or open software on Unixware - it's easy to them to migrate to some other OS using same software.
Also dropping support means punishing innocent users, not SCO.
And everything has it's source - dropped support easily could be returned back.
To say that those ideas would have never happened without the existence of copyrights or patents ("why would I ever create anything of value?") seems very shortsited to me.
The problem is artist or inventor would be compensated for their effort only occasionally. Consider artist or writer on salary. A lot of things
would never happen just because those guys would struggle for a living.
Consider Soviet Union and other socialist countries. People there had some bright inventions and created some nice artwork. But I think they had it ten times less than in countries where artists and inventors are compensated well.
- If I write a complete Linux kernel module from absolute scratch, then it's clearly derived. I wrote it from nothing and wrote it specifically for Linux. So the GPL applies.
No - GPL is about copying and modifying code (and distribution). If you wrote module from scratch - all the code is yours and you are free to put it under any license you want. Well, especially if you do not use even Linux's header files;).
In GPL word "derived" applies only to copied or modified program. You can't say it derived just because you intended to use it with Linux kernel first.
Slashdot Mirror
It would cost them more than 600x$699 ...
Hold your breath. Looks like severe case of lack of attention.
Parent post says Windows programs have suck sucky UI most of the time.
Not Windows GUI and not all the time.
If you are using non-GPL kernel and drivers and GPL-ed software on top of it you're fine (*BSD etc). If you are using Linux kernel you should take care to do not link your kernel drivers against GPLed code, then you're fine too. Or at least those drivers should be linked with LGPLed code.
Only use - yes. Redistribution changes allows use of changes by author.
I think GPL does not allow relicensing code under any other non-compatible license. So even if you allow other parties to redistribute your code with any other license, they should comply with GPL anyway. If you put your code under GPL it means you given up on it, you still have you name on it, but you do not have any more rights then anybody else.
He constantly argues the complete opposite, that the GPL has nothing to do with cost, and the FSF selling the deluxe GNU collection for several thousand bucks seems to be proof. It also includes printed material and t-shirts. Anyway I'm not sure if anybody's buying it.
Problem with GNU software is unlimited distribution. If one could buy it, one could sell it or just allow anybody to download it. It's the reason Red Hat abandoning their Red Hat Linux - it's just unprofitable.
Did you mean linking?
Config file is local, it's the log file on the network. And config program would whine about nonaccessible log file.
Oh, and if you're too lazy to code up a quick config editor even if it's in TCL or some other similar language, then I'm not sure I really want to use the rest of your code. Mainly because your attention to detail across the project as a whole would appear to be lacking.
So you do not use sendmail, BIND, dhcp, samba, apache, NIS, kerberos, ipsec, ipfilter etc? You Windows user then? ;) And you ideal is regedit? Stop - regedit does not allow to check anything you putting in there ;)
The problem with 'quick' config editor - it usually do not do anything usefull. It's not a 'quick' if you have to check spelling, dependencies, path validity, permissions etc. Maybe this thing shoul look into logs to suggest improvements..
My preference is self-configuring software, if it's possible. I hate to click on knobs to do self-evident things. And if something broken I have to fix it fast.
Perhaps we have different focus - I work with server software and it often should work in minimal environment. Consider firewall software. Folks who write it don't do GUI (usually). But there is fwbuilder (fwbuilder.org) which fullfill the need in GUI configurator for beginners or lazy. I'm fine with text firewall configs, I might fire up fwbuilder as well. And I like firewall developers to focus on firewall features - not to spend time on GUI.
O, common - it's like kindergarten - "If I share my doughnut with you would you share your candies with me?"
there is an effort to port msdos FS code from Darwin to FreeBSD.
What the problem? Binary config files don't validate parameters either.
That's part of the problem; they're just text. Put a GUI around it, and all of a sudden you can prevent users from saying that - say - they want to log all output to a file, but they specify a file which is invalid.
Why a GUI? why not CLI, for example?
With a GUI in there, you can tell the user that they've made a mistake while they're editing that file.
That's kind of nice - then your configuration program would rival your real program in complexity. At the same time it's trivial to allow your program to log error messages in case of non-recognisable parameters or missing files/wrong paths. And sometimes your configuration program can't work properly - for example - it's downtime and files on network are nonaccessible and your config program do not allow you to enter them..
I don't think coder could be l33t. Isn't l33t word belongs to wannabe hackers or plain gamers?
Right. But if your launch pods not in a straight line to target then missiles have to turn to target when in flight. Anyway they have to adjust their aim to moving targets.
Currently the biggest ship is Jahre Viking. It is 1504 feet long. Well it's just a tanker, not a warship...
Yes. And especially meaningless because it was cylon's doing. Baby would have died anyway and I just dont see robots enjoing anything..
It is better than Linux in many areas and worse in some other..
Saying 'sucky' means you are do not know what you talking about.
About BSD - it's not exactly so. Considering UNIX is a trademark it is matter of money to get certification from Open Group for particular BSD version.
Do not confuse issues. Silence and space are perpendicular. Or may be not. It's much easier to silence tower than those tiny boxes. If you have powerfull processor you should have choice in cooling arrangements and in case of tiny box you do not have one.
You sound like one of those "old timers" that likes inefficient crap just because that's all you know.
This is unfair and non-mature.
It is not true. After 90 days they replace failed parts for free but charge for a labor. It is called limited warranty and still it is a warranty. I think it's one-year warranty.
One more thing -
usually PC is a way too far from TV. You need dedicated PC for it or very long cables to connect it...
Do you mind to put a component list with prices?
That's wrong - if people started to work with free or open software on Unixware - it's easy to them to migrate to some other OS using same software.
Also dropping support means punishing innocent users, not SCO.
And everything has it's source - dropped support easily could be returned back.
The problem is artist or inventor would be compensated for their effort only occasionally. Consider artist or writer on salary. A lot of things would never happen just because those guys would struggle for a living.
Consider Soviet Union and other socialist countries. People there had some bright inventions and created some nice artwork. But I think they had it ten times less than in countries where artists and inventors are compensated well.
No - GPL is about copying and modifying code (and distribution). If you wrote module from scratch - all the code is yours and you are free to put it under any license you want. Well, especially if you do not use even Linux's header files ;).
In GPL word "derived" applies only to copied or modified program. You can't say it derived just because you intended to use it with Linux kernel first.
here is a bit more: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001604.html