While I think it was a good movie I'd stop short of calling it revolutionary. If anything it was rootsy. As in the unedited Brothers Grimm. The original fairy tales before the disneyfication. Brazil was revolutionary. As was the Clockwork Orange. Even the stylized surrealism of The City of Lost Children. This felt predictable to me as a fairy tale in the traditional sense would.
Agreed. But I think that's fair too and aside from a few items have no problem buying their resealed packages. I know what should be inside them and know I can return it which really beats everything for me. I realize some people don't really like it but I was the same with record (*cough* cd) shops. Forget the packaging, I'm more concerned about being happy with what's inside.:)
I like Fry's. Best return policy ever. Plus I'm cheap enough to read and submit more rebates (at least for personal purchases so the system works for me)...
I'd almost like to give it another shot, but I'm happily running Kubuntu on my laptop and really can't justify pulling a solid system to scratch that itch. To date, personally, Kubuntu and the rest of the Ubuntu family have the most cohesive feel to a Linux based distro I've known. Mandriva's user tools used to shine, but unless they've done something remarkable I just don't see much advantage. And the breakage in the last version (specifically the x86_64) left a very sour taste in my mouth. Maybe on day at work I'll pluck about with a spare server, but if Ubuntu can continue on it's current path I'm probably hooked. It feels like a system.
I didn't. I said dead Iraqi's, not causalities of the American military (destabilizing the region probably didn't help). In fact according to The Lancet in 2006 only 31% of the estimated 601,027 Iraqi deaths were attributed to coalition forces.
I'm just quoting some numbers. I definitely don't blame US soldiers and I don't feel in any way that a US life is any less valuable (which I believe I make clear in the body of my text). The impact is the same on both sides. What I am saying is that the original posters caricaturization of Muslims was a little off balance when you take current events into account. Despite the fact that we've been meddling in their affairs since the oil boom, replacing entire regimes when deemed necessary most Muslims are no more likely to adopt violence then most other people. Most attacks on American soil have been American extremists. So I find it understandable that they might be sensitive if we demonize them. In some instance even persecute them. The Jewish people didn't like it. Neither did the Christians. Why would they?
I did read my history. There was a lot of violence back then. On both sides. The difference is we are still killing them in mass and for profit or politics or religion and we get so worked up when they fight back. It's a shitty situation and if we didn't rely on oil to sustain our economy, one that probably could have been avoided.
You're looking at an estimated minimum 71,277 dead Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, husbands, mothers and children since the start of the war. A war we've worked out was not based on WMD's. In other words a political act of aggression. With real casualties on both sites (estimates for US loses are about 3,742 and those are a lot of grieving parents, siblings, friends, husbands and wives).
Sorry to be replying to my own post. But you know all those terrible beheadings? American deaths are estimated to be about 3,742. Compare that to an estimated 71,277 dead Iraqi's. I'm not even trying to take a political stand here, it just seems those violent Islamics might be a minority. And FTR I'm looking into doing IT work abroad, possibly a hot zone so it's not something I take lightly one way or the other (I'll be trained in small arms and will use it if necessary). Just seems a bit off-kilter to blanket a people as being violent with those numbers.
But I think it has more to do with how incredibly hostile we've been towards them historically (yay! crusades! yay! oil!). Makes it a little touchy I guess (kind of like if we'd spent ages Pope bashing, I imagine the Catholics would feel a little sensitive and we did see the Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson's unwatchable bit of zealotry).
Evil. That would be an interesting turn. It's an ideological difference. But you keep coming back to the making the code unavailable, which if it were true I would think would be quite terrible. In fact totally unreasonable. But the code that is adopted by the GPL programmers is never TAKEN from you. It's the extended, more specifically, the extensions that are out of reach. So you're getting upset about code that didn't exist separate from the GPL. Worse, we're going back and forth after you've already shown you have no problem explicitly being denied access to modifications (as in the business example) solely with the GPL issue. Which is funny because it puts things into a kind of cockeyed perspective where it's okay for everyone to do this, so long as they do it nice and quietly where you can't see it. To me there is a very big different between losing something (which is what would happen if the GPL was truly viral) and not benefiting. When Microsoft uses (as I'm sure they have) BSD code this is the BSD at work. The benefit of truly free. You'll never see that code again, aside from the code they began with, but it's true freedom. When someone working from the GPL camp the exact same thing happens, but you can see the code. In fact, at some point you end up working on a project where the GPL wouldn't be a problem (say something in-house) then you can even take the changes and use them yourself. That's the only difference. So does this really come down to a case of hear no evil? It seems a shame that we'd fight over something like that.
But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. The GPL isn't a nice license. It's an open license. People seem to get that mixed up. We say the code can be open. We also say that the code must REMAIN open. We watch for violations and we enforce this license. So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code. We aren't saying: hey, I've done this work and you can extend it and use it however you'd like. We are saying we've got this code and we want it to remain open. If you use the code great, but if you take it and benefit from it we expect you to give something (code) back.
And I don't see the point of bringing Richard Stallman into this. There are many people involved in that particular area of open source. Some are aggressively anti-commercial (Richard) and some are not (Linus) and lots in between.
But if you feel so strongly entitled to be somehow compensated for the wonderful work you do (and the BSD community does wonderful work) then maybe the BSD license isn't the right choice. Because the forking via the GPL system is adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the BSD license. Ironically, maybe we appreciate your licenses freedoms a little more sometimes.
Anyway, you willfully give the code away. You seem pretty happy with the system. The GPL camp forcefully opens the code they create. Very different, but we've worked together for years. It's just our license is restrictive and maybe all the beards and the liberal rhetoric throws people off. The only way this can be seen as hypocritical is if you don't really understand the point of the GPL. Both licenses have always been quite clear about their goals.
And your last line makes it clear you still aren't understanding. Maybe not even really interested in understanding (I won't blame you, it's political and polarizing). No GPL developer has ever taken BSD code and made it unavailable. It simply can not be done. The changes however can be made unavailable. The BSD license allows for this. The GPL does not. So it's not only our right to pursue GPL violations, it's our responsibility. That's the very core of the ethos behind the GPL. As BSD's is...freedom.
Right. So you're saying basically exactly what I just said. Anonymously. Good job. Anyway, viral is pretty inaccurate. Very FUD'y. Viral implies that the code is somehow infected. But it's not actually that way at all. The code is exactly as it always was. What happens is there becomes a copy and that copy, which has been modified, is now licensed as if it was an independent work.
You see? You're code was never infected. It's right where you left it. Exactly as it was to start. The new fork continues under a new set of terms. You can use it (as often happens) or you can ignore it. But if you want to stipulate what happens to your code downstream you are probably using the worst possible license for it. In fact I'd suggest that you really don't believe in the terms of the BSD license at all. Which is too bad, I think it's a pretty good idea. But I favor this other.
They invest 100's of thousands of dollars. They control the radio and put the music into circulation. A small core of entertainment magazine pick it up and they can more-or-less run the campaign from top to bottom. More importantly after having done their research and worked out their business model they know where to invest that money and they see a return.
But internet radio completely skews that model. Artists get exposure. Free radio makes it impossible to seriously influence who gets played. What artists are becoming popular. It's uncontrollable. Unless you put money back into it. Then things can be bought and sold again. The fringe dies off. The market becomes manageable.
How is this different from a commercial company who takes GPL code, makes a commercial product with it, and then charges you a million dollars and requires you to sign an NDA for the privilege of getting the code? See, you can get the code! See, they are giving back! It just isn't in a way that suits *you*, isn't it? And if this happened, Stallman would cry bloody murder. And don't bring up that the above scenario violates the GPL; yes, it does, but that's not the point. The point here is political, not a legal one, and is simply that the GPL camp can't say that closing up the code is immoral without applying that label to themselves for that very action.
See, the commercial comparison doesn't work here at all. One license was create to specifically block this, the other to specifically allow for it. Anyone is free to use and modify GPL code but the moment they wrap the code into a project and begin to redistribute it they are bound by the terms of the license to provide the modified code. The BSD has no such provision, has no interest in having any such provision.
So while some people seem to see this GPL work as somehow morally wrong it's exactly because of the terms of the BSD license that it's not only possible, it's encouraged.
I think the real hypocrisies come in with the finger pointing. On either side. Just a few days ago we had an excellent example of one camp (GPL) misunderstanding the terms of the license of the second (BSD). It was interesting and it had be quite a long time since I'd reviewed the license myself. But in this instance it seems that there's some confusion on the BSD side about the intent of the GPL license. There is no hypocrisy in extending software under and open license and then licensing your modified fork with a less permissive license. And I think that's where BSD people get hung up. We say free, but we mean free in a very different way. Maybe forcibly free, while your license is permissively free (aside from the copyright clause). So naturally if you take something from the GPL camp and either make it unavailable or on the contrary overly available (as in BSD free) you are violating (taking rights away) the terms of the GPL license.
And to top everything off at the end of the day this whole fight was about nothing. No BSD code was lost. Never. You're license is permissive and good and does exactly what it was intended to. The the extended code didn't exist, it wasn't the work of the BSD people. It was based on it, but the code that it was based on is still there. Still BSD. So getting upset because something wasn't given back (although I'd argue that it clearly was, but I believe in the terms of the GPL) seems very contradictory to your own license. You're own beliefs (assuming you chose the license because you cared). While with the GPL things work just the opposite. It *is* a protectionist license. The terms are very clear that our goal is to create open software and if necessary use force (law) to maintain it's openness. I think it's a revolutionary idea and it still causes so much confusion.
With BSD there's give and take. Or just take. Or just give. Very liberal. With GPL there is give.
Would kind of kill the point. This is *at worse* a forking issue. One codebase is BSD. Will always be. Can always be. The other is licensed in a way requiring it be open. You now (regardless of what happens) have two code bases. If you don't like the terms of the extended GPL'd code (which is fine not to) you ignore it. Continue work. Hell, at least you can see what they've done. If the code were to be wrapped into a Redmond product you'd get less. This is a silly dispute. Viral implies that it takes over. Infects the host. But that's pretty misleading. Essentially it divides the code. Leaving one perfectly intact, as you wanted it. Altering the other and applying a new license. We should really find a better way to describe the process, I can viral as salacious and very useful for FUD. But it's perfectly inaccurate. Nothing's lost and if you reject it nothings gained. What's so complicated about that.
You can see the changes? Because I could very well take the same code and wrap it into a proprietary package. Maybe make a fortune as I extend the code. But as we all know that's the beauty of the BSD type license: freedom. So the GPL coders take the same code, extend it to suit their needs and offer it to everyone. Only under a license they believe in. And you feel slighted.
How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project? The only difference here is that the BSD camp seems to see GPL'd modification as some kind of bait-and-hook. But the GPL camp is giving back. Their just not doing it in a way that suits *you*. Ironically it would be much less an issue if they simple took the code and where never seen or heard from again. Instead they share the changes, all be it these changes are under the terms of a different license. You still gain in a socialistic sense. You gain in the insight into how or what changes they've made. And if you aren't strung to one particular license (which we are, on both sides often) then you simply get the benefit of the new code.
And lets not pretend for a second that the ports collection doesn't exist. We both benefit from our relationship. So who benefits from this silly contention?
You don't understand them. The abundance of music available on the internet and the growing social and commercial awareness of this is actually hurting the big players in the market. For years now they've managed to maintain a monopoly on what you listen to. From the payola scandals to the market consolidation, to the ever present billboard and it's impact on radio scheduling.
They've had a nice clean business model that's worked for them for some time. They invests thousands and thousands of dollars promoting a small number of billboard approved artists. Promoting them then reaping the profits.
As the market pool increases the value of their product decreases. It's competition, something they haven't really had to deal with in a long time. I listen to a wide variety of music I make purchases from retailers and labels from all over the world. In this scenario the only people who win are the artists (ew?) and the small dispersed labels. The markets moves too organically to control. I realize a lot of people don't spend nearly as much time digging up music but what used to be considered indie is swiftly moving into the mainstream. The recent sales slumps and the admittance that quality might be an issue is only relevant because right now they are having a very hard time telling you, the consumer, what quality is. You're discovering artists accidentally, via friends and god forbid, if you do listen to internet radio theirs a world of music that the RIAA doesn't even see. Couldn't possibly.
So their's no free money. I mean it's going somewhere but without the fine grained control they've had it's not going exactly where they'd like it to. And this trend will only continue.
Their not stupid, their confused. Their circling the wagons.
And, FTR, it's still us who gives them their power. We can get angry but until we actually choose to do something about it we've got about as much right to complain as someone who doesn't vote. So keep tuning in. Let them clamp down. I hope eventually they bite off more then they can chew. Their an impediment to innovation.
You're not passing the DHCP requests from the LAN. CentOS is your WAN side DHCP *client* and likely is providing your LAN side DHCP service (what the Vista boxes are talking to). Totally different scenario.
This is nothing new. Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose. Forking happens all the time, usually around licensing or management issues. So aside from the little dust storm we've seen recently regarding the wifi driver and the copyright clause I don't see how this is news.
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened. Kind of making this a none story.
That's exactly how I feel. This "deal" might not end up being much but marketing and aggressive negotiation tactics. But if it's not I will gladly pirate the shows. Right now I prefer paying, it's convenient and mostly fairly priced (in the newish/emerging technology sense of the word fair). I pay $2 for a short program that I can download immediately without the delays or the failed trackers or any of the other messy stuff.
It pisses me of that corporations either make unavailable (and shitty little flash players don't count), unreasonably restrictive or unfairly priced media then turn around and complain because the market is doing exactly what you would predict it to do.
So fuck it. It's not like my Ubuntu laptop or Windows XP desktop don't have working copies of Tor installed. And those 'you wouldn't steal' commercials are practically begging for me to do it anyway. Insult your consumer with a brain-damaged idiotic commercial. That's golden. What with the lobbying and copyright extension WHO really is stealing? We just all seem to be using different means.
I read the article before seeing it here. Nokia says they were displaying there touch screen technology. The fact they chose a hardware platform that looked...familiar is simply been reason for a few chuckles. So it's an OS thing more then a hardware thing. They probably could have done it with a less obvious knock-off, but I'm sure they needed something fast with the right screen size to display the feature.
I guess I'm wrong about the copyright notice. It seems a little counter intuitive and with th dual licensing issue thrown in I'm fairly lost.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So the BSD is mostly permissive but contains restriction with what could be considered a viral copyright notice?
Slashdot Mirror
While I think it was a good movie I'd stop short of calling it revolutionary. If anything it was rootsy. As in the unedited Brothers Grimm. The original fairy tales before the disneyfication. Brazil was revolutionary. As was the Clockwork Orange. Even the stylized surrealism of The City of Lost Children. This felt predictable to me as a fairy tale in the traditional sense would.
Agreed. But I think that's fair too and aside from a few items have no problem buying their resealed packages. I know what should be inside them and know I can return it which really beats everything for me. I realize some people don't really like it but I was the same with record (*cough* cd) shops. Forget the packaging, I'm more concerned about being happy with what's inside. :)
With deep pockets and business plans.
I like Fry's. Best return policy ever. Plus I'm cheap enough to read and submit more rebates (at least for personal purchases so the system works for me)...
:)
Carry on.
I'd almost like to give it another shot, but I'm happily running Kubuntu on my laptop and really can't justify pulling a solid system to scratch that itch. To date, personally, Kubuntu and the rest of the Ubuntu family have the most cohesive feel to a Linux based distro I've known. Mandriva's user tools used to shine, but unless they've done something remarkable I just don't see much advantage. And the breakage in the last version (specifically the x86_64) left a very sour taste in my mouth. Maybe on day at work I'll pluck about with a spare server, but if Ubuntu can continue on it's current path I'm probably hooked. It feels like a system.
I didn't. I said dead Iraqi's, not causalities of the American military (destabilizing the region probably didn't help). In fact according to The Lancet in 2006 only 31% of the estimated 601,027 Iraqi deaths were attributed to coalition forces.
You've certainly shown me. But this isn't a war of religion. It's contemporary imperialism. We use religion to keep the facade up. Fear to justify it.
I'm just quoting some numbers. I definitely don't blame US soldiers and I don't feel in any way that a US life is any less valuable (which I believe I make clear in the body of my text). The impact is the same on both sides. What I am saying is that the original posters caricaturization of Muslims was a little off balance when you take current events into account. Despite the fact that we've been meddling in their affairs since the oil boom, replacing entire regimes when deemed necessary most Muslims are no more likely to adopt violence then most other people. Most attacks on American soil have been American extremists. So I find it understandable that they might be sensitive if we demonize them. In some instance even persecute them. The Jewish people didn't like it. Neither did the Christians. Why would they?
I did read my history. There was a lot of violence back then. On both sides. The difference is we are still killing them in mass and for profit or politics or religion and we get so worked up when they fight back. It's a shitty situation and if we didn't rely on oil to sustain our economy, one that probably could have been avoided.
You're looking at an estimated minimum 71,277 dead Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, husbands, mothers and children since the start of the war. A war we've worked out was not based on WMD's. In other words a political act of aggression. With real casualties on both sites (estimates for US loses are about 3,742 and those are a lot of grieving parents, siblings, friends, husbands and wives).
Sorry to be replying to my own post. But you know all those terrible beheadings? American deaths are estimated to be about 3,742. Compare that to an estimated 71,277 dead Iraqi's. I'm not even trying to take a political stand here, it just seems those violent Islamics might be a minority. And FTR I'm looking into doing IT work abroad, possibly a hot zone so it's not something I take lightly one way or the other (I'll be trained in small arms and will use it if necessary). Just seems a bit off-kilter to blanket a people as being violent with those numbers.
But I think it has more to do with how incredibly hostile we've been towards them historically (yay! crusades! yay! oil!). Makes it a little touchy I guess (kind of like if we'd spent ages Pope bashing, I imagine the Catholics would feel a little sensitive and we did see the Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson's unwatchable bit of zealotry).
Just my opinion though. Carry on.
Evil. That would be an interesting turn. It's an ideological difference. But you keep coming back to the making the code unavailable, which if it were true I would think would be quite terrible. In fact totally unreasonable. But the code that is adopted by the GPL programmers is never TAKEN from you. It's the extended, more specifically, the extensions that are out of reach. So you're getting upset about code that didn't exist separate from the GPL. Worse, we're going back and forth after you've already shown you have no problem explicitly being denied access to modifications (as in the business example) solely with the GPL issue. Which is funny because it puts things into a kind of cockeyed perspective where it's okay for everyone to do this, so long as they do it nice and quietly where you can't see it. To me there is a very big different between losing something (which is what would happen if the GPL was truly viral) and not benefiting. When Microsoft uses (as I'm sure they have) BSD code this is the BSD at work. The benefit of truly free. You'll never see that code again, aside from the code they began with, but it's true freedom. When someone working from the GPL camp the exact same thing happens, but you can see the code. In fact, at some point you end up working on a project where the GPL wouldn't be a problem (say something in-house) then you can even take the changes and use them yourself. That's the only difference. So does this really come down to a case of hear no evil? It seems a shame that we'd fight over something like that.
But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. The GPL isn't a nice license. It's an open license. People seem to get that mixed up. We say the code can be open. We also say that the code must REMAIN open. We watch for violations and we enforce this license. So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code. We aren't saying: hey, I've done this work and you can extend it and use it however you'd like. We are saying we've got this code and we want it to remain open. If you use the code great, but if you take it and benefit from it we expect you to give something (code) back.
...freedom.
And I don't see the point of bringing Richard Stallman into this. There are many people involved in that particular area of open source. Some are aggressively anti-commercial (Richard) and some are not (Linus) and lots in between.
But if you feel so strongly entitled to be somehow compensated for the wonderful work you do (and the BSD community does wonderful work) then maybe the BSD license isn't the right choice. Because the forking via the GPL system is adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the BSD license. Ironically, maybe we appreciate your licenses freedoms a little more sometimes.
Anyway, you willfully give the code away. You seem pretty happy with the system. The GPL camp forcefully opens the code they create. Very different, but we've worked together for years. It's just our license is restrictive and maybe all the beards and the liberal rhetoric throws people off. The only way this can be seen as hypocritical is if you don't really understand the point of the GPL. Both licenses have always been quite clear about their goals.
And your last line makes it clear you still aren't understanding. Maybe not even really interested in understanding (I won't blame you, it's political and polarizing). No GPL developer has ever taken BSD code and made it unavailable. It simply can not be done. The changes however can be made unavailable. The BSD license allows for this. The GPL does not. So it's not only our right to pursue GPL violations, it's our responsibility. That's the very core of the ethos behind the GPL. As BSD's is
Right. So you're saying basically exactly what I just said. Anonymously. Good job. Anyway, viral is pretty inaccurate. Very FUD'y. Viral implies that the code is somehow infected. But it's not actually that way at all. The code is exactly as it always was. What happens is there becomes a copy and that copy, which has been modified, is now licensed as if it was an independent work.
You see? You're code was never infected. It's right where you left it. Exactly as it was to start. The new fork continues under a new set of terms. You can use it (as often happens) or you can ignore it. But if you want to stipulate what happens to your code downstream you are probably using the worst possible license for it. In fact I'd suggest that you really don't believe in the terms of the BSD license at all. Which is too bad, I think it's a pretty good idea. But I favor this other.
They invest 100's of thousands of dollars. They control the radio and put the music into circulation. A small core of entertainment magazine pick it up and they can more-or-less run the campaign from top to bottom. More importantly after having done their research and worked out their business model they know where to invest that money and they see a return.
But internet radio completely skews that model. Artists get exposure. Free radio makes it impossible to seriously influence who gets played. What artists are becoming popular. It's uncontrollable. Unless you put money back into it. Then things can be bought and sold again. The fringe dies off. The market becomes manageable.
So while some people seem to see this GPL work as somehow morally wrong it's exactly because of the terms of the BSD license that it's not only possible, it's encouraged.
I think the real hypocrisies come in with the finger pointing. On either side. Just a few days ago we had an excellent example of one camp (GPL) misunderstanding the terms of the license of the second (BSD). It was interesting and it had be quite a long time since I'd reviewed the license myself. But in this instance it seems that there's some confusion on the BSD side about the intent of the GPL license. There is no hypocrisy in extending software under and open license and then licensing your modified fork with a less permissive license. And I think that's where BSD people get hung up. We say free, but we mean free in a very different way. Maybe forcibly free, while your license is permissively free (aside from the copyright clause). So naturally if you take something from the GPL camp and either make it unavailable or on the contrary overly available (as in BSD free) you are violating (taking rights away) the terms of the GPL license.
And to top everything off at the end of the day this whole fight was about nothing. No BSD code was lost. Never. You're license is permissive and good and does exactly what it was intended to. The the extended code didn't exist, it wasn't the work of the BSD people. It was based on it, but the code that it was based on is still there. Still BSD. So getting upset because something wasn't given back (although I'd argue that it clearly was, but I believe in the terms of the GPL) seems very contradictory to your own license. You're own beliefs (assuming you chose the license because you cared). While with the GPL things work just the opposite. It *is* a protectionist license. The terms are very clear that our goal is to create open software and if necessary use force (law) to maintain it's openness. I think it's a revolutionary idea and it still causes so much confusion.
With BSD there's give and take. Or just take. Or just give. Very liberal. With GPL there is give.
Would kind of kill the point. This is *at worse* a forking issue. One codebase is BSD. Will always be. Can always be. The other is licensed in a way requiring it be open. You now (regardless of what happens) have two code bases. If you don't like the terms of the extended GPL'd code (which is fine not to) you ignore it. Continue work. Hell, at least you can see what they've done. If the code were to be wrapped into a Redmond product you'd get less. This is a silly dispute. Viral implies that it takes over. Infects the host. But that's pretty misleading. Essentially it divides the code. Leaving one perfectly intact, as you wanted it. Altering the other and applying a new license. We should really find a better way to describe the process, I can viral as salacious and very useful for FUD. But it's perfectly inaccurate. Nothing's lost and if you reject it nothings gained. What's so complicated about that.
You can see the changes? Because I could very well take the same code and wrap it into a proprietary package. Maybe make a fortune as I extend the code. But as we all know that's the beauty of the BSD type license: freedom. So the GPL coders take the same code, extend it to suit their needs and offer it to everyone. Only under a license they believe in. And you feel slighted.
How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project? The only difference here is that the BSD camp seems to see GPL'd modification as some kind of bait-and-hook. But the GPL camp is giving back. Their just not doing it in a way that suits *you*. Ironically it would be much less an issue if they simple took the code and where never seen or heard from again. Instead they share the changes, all be it these changes are under the terms of a different license. You still gain in a socialistic sense. You gain in the insight into how or what changes they've made. And if you aren't strung to one particular license (which we are, on both sides often) then you simply get the benefit of the new code.
And lets not pretend for a second that the ports collection doesn't exist. We both benefit from our relationship. So who benefits from this silly contention?
You don't understand them. The abundance of music available on the internet and the growing social and commercial awareness of this is actually hurting the big players in the market. For years now they've managed to maintain a monopoly on what you listen to. From the payola scandals to the market consolidation, to the ever present billboard and it's impact on radio scheduling.
They've had a nice clean business model that's worked for them for some time. They invests thousands and thousands of dollars promoting a small number of billboard approved artists. Promoting them then reaping the profits.
As the market pool increases the value of their product decreases. It's competition, something they haven't really had to deal with in a long time. I listen to a wide variety of music I make purchases from retailers and labels from all over the world. In this scenario the only people who win are the artists (ew?) and the small dispersed labels. The markets moves too organically to control. I realize a lot of people don't spend nearly as much time digging up music but what used to be considered indie is swiftly moving into the mainstream. The recent sales slumps and the admittance that quality might be an issue is only relevant because right now they are having a very hard time telling you, the consumer, what quality is. You're discovering artists accidentally, via friends and god forbid, if you do listen to internet radio theirs a world of music that the RIAA doesn't even see. Couldn't possibly.
So their's no free money. I mean it's going somewhere but without the fine grained control they've had it's not going exactly where they'd like it to. And this trend will only continue.
Their not stupid, their confused. Their circling the wagons.
And, FTR, it's still us who gives them their power. We can get angry but until we actually choose to do something about it we've got about as much right to complain as someone who doesn't vote. So keep tuning in. Let them clamp down. I hope eventually they bite off more then they can chew. Their an impediment to innovation.
You're not passing the DHCP requests from the LAN. CentOS is your WAN side DHCP *client* and likely is providing your LAN side DHCP service (what the Vista boxes are talking to). Totally different scenario.
This is nothing new. Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose. Forking happens all the time, usually around licensing or management issues. So aside from the little dust storm we've seen recently regarding the wifi driver and the copyright clause I don't see how this is news.
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened. Kind of making this a none story.
That's exactly how I feel. This "deal" might not end up being much but marketing and aggressive negotiation tactics. But if it's not I will gladly pirate the shows. Right now I prefer paying, it's convenient and mostly fairly priced (in the newish/emerging technology sense of the word fair). I pay $2 for a short program that I can download immediately without the delays or the failed trackers or any of the other messy stuff.
It pisses me of that corporations either make unavailable (and shitty little flash players don't count), unreasonably restrictive or unfairly priced media then turn around and complain because the market is doing exactly what you would predict it to do.
So fuck it. It's not like my Ubuntu laptop or Windows XP desktop don't have working copies of Tor installed. And those 'you wouldn't steal' commercials are practically begging for me to do it anyway. Insult your consumer with a brain-damaged idiotic commercial. That's golden. What with the lobbying and copyright extension WHO really is stealing? We just all seem to be using different means.
I read the article before seeing it here. Nokia says they were displaying there touch screen technology. The fact they chose a hardware platform that looked...familiar is simply been reason for a few chuckles. So it's an OS thing more then a hardware thing. They probably could have done it with a less obvious knock-off, but I'm sure they needed something fast with the right screen size to display the feature.
I guess I'm wrong about the copyright notice. It seems a little counter intuitive and with th dual licensing issue thrown in I'm fairly lost.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So the BSD is mostly permissive but contains restriction with what could be considered a viral copyright notice?