Re:Gates already bought 'em last year.
on
Apple Sale Rumors
·
· Score: 1
bankruptcy? You have no idea what you are talking about! Apple still had over a Billion dollars of completely liquid assets (cash), without debt, at their worst point. Microsoft bought 150 million dollars worth of non-voting Apple stock, all in all that was chump. That 150 mil was part of a larger settlement (I think it was in the order of 600 million) that Microsoft HAD to pay Apple for stealing the Quicktime code. Apple would still be alive for years to come loosing money every quarter if they wanted to. They were never really in trouble, just in the case of public preception.
3. Are we spoofing the results? Or is it a case of the *nix platforms just better at the task than expected?
It is obvious that some people's results are spoofed
90) zenosin 437 426 115 hr 01 min 03.0 sec 0 hr 16 min 12.0 sec
considering A) the client is not multithreaded and B)I read one team page who was touting their fastest machine, an Alpha 21264 running at 600MHz, running Linux would finish a block in 4 hours. This is a case of bad spoofing, good spoofing would simply cache the results and resubmit so that the CPU time would be less obviously wrong.
It is simple to say where the spoofed results are coming from, so the guy pointed it out. I use many of the different clients(including a couple of linux clients), and I would have to say that I am certaintly not offended, but I do find the spoofing, cracking and especially whining most offensive!
Very well. I must hurry back to my comic book store, where I dispense the insults rather than absorb them.
No, he has a lot of stock, and a salary from Pixar, he makes no money from Apple. Also since he is worth billions, I am sure he has some funds in sound investments that should pay him millions a year
All the GPL require is an allegation of infringement to make the code undistibutable. By requiring Apple to loose the case is puting them at a very high liability, and prevents settlements.
It not legal to use infringing code
on
OSI APSL Response
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't really mater what the license says if the code is found to be infringing it is then illegal to use, because you are breaking the patent.
Thank you Bruce, Thank you OSI, Thank you Apple!!!
on
OSI APSL Response
·
· Score: 1
Bruce wanted clarification, and OSI gave it to them. It would be nice to see if Apple can officially clarify these points in version 1.1 of the APSL, something I think they planned on releasing.
Just because Apple stopped spending money on MKLinux doesn't mean that they took it away, they just stopped developing it. Nothing requires them, nor should there be an expectation that they continue, WE can support it if we want to. If you aren't personally working on MKLinux then you have no right to say that anyone at Apple should work on it. If you are personally working on it, I think you are on pretty thin ice whining about Apple removing support.
I agree that Affected Code needs a definition however the context that it is used in (talking about work arounds), I take it to actually mean Lines of Code, but I certaintly want a better definition than the one I infer
if you continue to use GPL'd code that infringes on a patent, you are still not using the code legally, although I would like the code to stick around for patents to expire, just not in use, that actually sounds somewhat dangerous, one of those things where we have #ifdef BREAK_UNISYS_PATENT /* do some shit fast*/ #else /*slow work around*/ #endif
Bruce can you annotate the OSD for the violations
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
I have read the OSD several times, and it is unclear to me exactly what clauses in the OSD Apple violates with the Termination Clause (I am assuming that the Terminating Apple Clause will be corrected). Having read your open letter it seems you want clarification of Affected Source, how does that make the termination clause fit better with the OSD?
Again the GPL has a clause (7) which prevents distribution in case of infringement, and a clause requiring you to post all changes, or whatever else the author wants you to do.
Apple will allow you to redistribute the code, all you want, for whatever reason you want. Bruce NEVER said that contacting Apple made the code not freely redistibutional, he wanted clarification of what to do if Apple were gone, so that the License is not meaningless at that time. On the termination clause he wanted Affected Source to be defined, and that to mean Lines of Code.
Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple
This says that if Apple changes the license, you can choose to honor the old version of the license. You obviously didn't read it that carefully.
Ahhh no they can't. All the code that has been published under the current APSL is forever protected by the APSL. Apple owns the copywrite, but they can NEVER Take the code back
there seems to be a lot of ignorance here about what power Apple has. It would be great if the entire APSL was annotated by someone with legal experience.
Clause 7 of the GPL states that a claim of infringement could take away your right to distribution. All Microsoft needs to do is file a claim against some part of the Linux code base, and blamo, Linux CAN NOT be distributed until the claim is settled. That hasn't happened, if Microsoft hasn't done it why would anyone else.
Actually I asked a very simple question. What part of the Open Source Definition did Apple violate? However all anhone can give me is 2.2, and 9.1(a) of the APSL, last time I checked the APSL was not the Open Source Definition.
Nobody has read the Open Source Definition, yet they seem to be experts at what it says. I have read Both OSD, and the DFSG, and found NOTHING in Apple's License that conflicts with anything in either Guideline.
Have poised the question nearly 10 times with the same obviously wrong answer "2.2, 9.1", I got frustrated.
Obviously you are a moron and your opinion means nothing as you are unable to comprehend a simple question
Again people have pointed out section of the APSL, I want sections of the Open Source Definition. NOBODY can give what clause of the Open Source Definition Apple has broken.
actually you could sell a clone of MacOSX, just take darwin, and give it a MacOSXish UI. That is legal in the license. They are protecting themselves from someone putting gif encoding into the Darwin source and thus a lawsuit from UniSys, Or them inadvertantly releasing code with Patented portions.
But you seem to be an expert about what it says They can only terminate the license of Affected infringeable code. Anything that the community adds is protected by the APSL UNLESS it is infringeable, and a suit is filed. If they change the APSL any code published or written under a former varient of the APSL is at YOUR choice protected by either version of the APSL.
We note that much of the material that Apple has just released under the APSL originated at The University of California, Berkeley and at Carnegie-Mellon University. That work was sponsored by the U.S. Government, paid for with our taxes, and was already available as Free Software under the BSD license and other well-accepted Open Source licenses. Many of these files do not significantly differ from the pre-Apple versions except that they bear the addition of a new copyright and license. Other files are entirely authored by Apple or bear significant modifications that should indeed be considered Apple's property. Where Apple has not significantly modified individual files from their pre-Apple versions, their original licenses should be preserved without the addition of the APSL. We could distribute the source of said files without the APSL by simply replacing the unaltered (BSD, Mach group) files with the ones not downloaded from Apple. There is no reason for them, Apple, to remove the license from these files as we are free to ourselves. It is just a matter of OUR as opposed to Apples time to do the work.
Darwin is about as usefull as MS opening the source to Windows 3.0 this is so wrong! It is like more MS opening all the source of NT except explorer.exe and backoffice they day they first released it.
Slashdot Mirror
bankruptcy? You have no idea what you are talking about! Apple still had over a Billion dollars of completely liquid assets (cash), without debt, at their worst point. Microsoft bought 150 million dollars worth of non-voting Apple stock, all in all that was chump. That 150 mil was part of a larger settlement (I think it was in the order of 600 million) that Microsoft HAD to pay Apple for stealing the Quicktime code. Apple would still be alive for years to come loosing money every quarter if they wanted to. They were never really in trouble, just in the case of public preception.
It is obvious that some people's results are spoofed
90) zenosin 437 426 115 hr 01 min 03.0 sec 0 hr 16 min 12.0 sec
considering A) the client is not multithreaded and B)I read one team page who was touting their fastest machine, an Alpha 21264 running at 600MHz, running Linux would finish a block in 4 hours. This is a case of bad spoofing, good spoofing would simply cache the results and resubmit so that the CPU time would be less obviously wrong.
It is simple to say where the spoofed results are coming from, so the guy pointed it out. I use many of the different clients(including a couple of linux clients), and I would have to say that I am certaintly not offended, but I do find the spoofing, cracking and especially whining most offensive!
Very well. I must hurry back to my comic book store, where I dispense the insults rather than absorb them.
Man that article paints a pretty dim picture of the whiny Seti@Home client user.
No, he has a lot of stock, and a salary from Pixar, he makes no money from Apple. Also since he is worth billions, I am sure he has some funds in sound investments that should pay him millions a year
All the GPL require is an allegation of infringement to make the code undistibutable. By requiring Apple to loose the case is puting them at a very high liability, and prevents settlements.
It doesn't really mater what the license says if the code is found to be infringing it is then illegal to use, because you are breaking the patent.
Bruce wanted clarification, and OSI gave it to them. It would be nice to see if Apple can officially clarify these points in version 1.1 of the APSL, something I think they planned on releasing.
Just because Apple stopped spending money on MKLinux doesn't mean that they took it away, they just stopped developing it. Nothing requires them, nor should there be an expectation that they continue, WE can support it if we want to. If you aren't personally working on MKLinux then you have no right to say that anyone at Apple should work on it. If you are personally working on it, I think you are on pretty thin ice whining about Apple removing support.
I agree that Affected Code needs a definition however the context that it is used in (talking about work arounds), I take it to actually mean Lines of Code, but I certaintly want a better definition than the one I infer
/* do some shit fast*/
/*slow work around*/
if you continue to use GPL'd code that infringes on a patent, you are still not using the code legally, although I would like the code to stick around for patents to expire, just not in use, that actually sounds somewhat dangerous, one of those things where we have
#ifdef BREAK_UNISYS_PATENT
#else
#endif
I have read the OSD several times, and it is unclear to me exactly what clauses in the OSD Apple violates with the Termination Clause (I am assuming that the Terminating Apple Clause will be corrected). Having read your open letter it seems you want clarification of Affected Source, how does that make the termination clause fit better with the OSD?
Again the GPL has a clause (7) which prevents distribution in case of infringement, and a clause requiring you to post all changes, or whatever else the author wants you to do.
Apple will allow you to redistribute the code, all you want, for whatever reason you want. Bruce NEVER said that contacting Apple made the code not freely redistibutional, he wanted clarification of what to do if Apple were gone, so that the License is not meaningless at that time. On the termination clause he wanted Affected Source to be defined, and that to mean Lines of Code.
Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple
This says that if Apple changes the license, you can choose to honor the old version of the license. You obviously didn't read it that carefully.
Ahhh no they can't. All the code that has been published under the current APSL is forever protected by the APSL. Apple owns the copywrite, but they can NEVER Take the code back
there seems to be a lot of ignorance here about what power Apple has. It would be great if the entire APSL was annotated by someone with legal experience.
Clause 7 of the GPL states that a claim of infringement could take away your right to distribution. All Microsoft needs to do is file a claim against some part of the Linux code base, and blamo, Linux CAN NOT be distributed until the claim is settled. That hasn't happened, if Microsoft hasn't done it why would anyone else.
Actually I asked a very simple question. What part of the Open Source Definition did Apple violate? However all anhone can give me is 2.2, and 9.1(a) of the APSL, last time I checked the APSL was not the Open Source Definition.
Nobody has read the Open Source Definition, yet they seem to be experts at what it says. I have read Both OSD, and the DFSG, and found NOTHING in Apple's License that conflicts with anything in either Guideline.
Have poised the question nearly 10 times with the same obviously wrong answer "2.2, 9.1", I got frustrated.
How does it violate that, and how does the GPL by clause 7.0 not violate that.
Obviously you are a moron and your opinion means nothing as you are unable to comprehend a simple question
Again people have pointed out section of the APSL, I want sections of the Open Source Definition. NOBODY can give what clause of the Open Source Definition Apple has broken.
didn't think so. What portion of the Open Source Definition does Apple break?
Violation of what part of the Open Source Definition? READ MY FUCKING QUESTION
actually you could sell a clone of MacOSX, just take darwin, and give it a MacOSXish UI. That is legal in the license. They are protecting themselves from someone putting gif encoding into the Darwin source and thus a lawsuit from UniSys, Or them inadvertantly releasing code with Patented portions.
But you seem to be an expert about what it says
They can only terminate the license of Affected infringeable code. Anything that the community adds is protected by the APSL UNLESS it is infringeable, and a suit is filed.
If they change the APSL any code published or written under a former varient of the APSL is at YOUR choice protected by either version of the APSL.
We note that much of the material that Apple has just released under the APSL originated at The University of California, Berkeley and at Carnegie-Mellon University. That work was sponsored by the U.S. Government, paid for with our taxes, and was already available as Free Software under the BSD license and other well-accepted Open Source licenses. Many of these files do not significantly differ from the pre-Apple versions except that they bear the addition of a new copyright and license. Other files are entirely authored by Apple or bear significant modifications that should indeed be considered Apple's property. Where Apple has not significantly modified individual files from their pre-Apple versions, their original licenses should be preserved without the addition of the APSL. We could distribute the source of said files without the APSL by simply replacing the unaltered (BSD, Mach group) files with the ones not downloaded from Apple. There is no reason for them, Apple, to remove the license from these files as we are free to ourselves. It is just a matter of OUR as opposed to Apples time to do the work.
Darwin is about as usefull as MS opening the source to Windows 3.0
this is so wrong! It is like more MS opening all the source of NT except explorer.exe and backoffice they day they first released it.
No it doesn't say what portions of the Definitions it breaks. Have you read the definitions of Open Source?
you did not answer the question that I posed, in fact no one has. What portions of the Open Source Definition has Apple broken?