difference being one of them they need to give away their application with, the other they don't ( KDELibs' biggest fault is that it's GPL. That's why RealPlayer for example uses GTK+ )
The only true "right" you have is that which you can acquire by force or persuasion. The rights you have under the constitution ought properly to be called "privileges", in as far as the government as the largest wielder of the means to do violence is the only entity that can have any real rights per se. To ease it's own management of the population it grants you certain privileges such that you don't have a revolution to overthrow it ( and in a large, well-armed, organized group the revolutionaries become their own form of competing rights-haver, but at that point the difference between them and the established government is minimal ). Although, in a world such that the monopoly of violence the government has is so great that it could annihilate the entire planet thousands of times over, the threat of this scenario is minimal.
Before taking this as an argument/against/ government, understand that the government's monopoly of violence prevents the anarchy and gives a nonviolent means of appeal when one citizen's pursuit of goals collides with another's. Minus government you'd just shoot your neighbour and build your back deck as far in to his lawn as you please.
That's exactly the point... If hardware makers want tto be used by more than just the flavour of the week, they ought to release drivers under a license that everyone can use, rather than just a single kernel
"(Most open-source OS users run Linux, so no problem there.) "
Most computer users use Windows, so why bother supporting Linux at all?
Fact of the matter is that by GPLing it you're still putting in in the GPL walled garden, which doesn't help anyone other than GPL users. BSD, Solaris, etc are all left out in the cold, meanwhile Linux yanks plenty of code from BSD
Yes. Fellow by the name of Masayuki Murayama was writing NIC drivers for Solaris using the Linux drivers as reference. He received legal threats as a result claiming he was infringing on the GPL.
So, what's the use in them being open-source if the only people that can look at it are people who write code for Linux ( the only major GPL kernel out there )
Hopefully under the BSD or artistic licenses... Locking a driver in to the GPL ecosystem is just as bad as locking it in to the closed source ecosystem
Actually Microsoft typically buys technology rather than makes it. And you making money off windows doesn't mean that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, it just means that you found a market for your services.
Without Microsoft, some other comer would have come along ( probably Apple or Amiga ) and the world of tech would probably remain more or less unchanged ( since the innovation comes from Universities, all of whom typically ran some UNIX variant or another )
McNealy, jackass that he may be, made some comment in a speech a while back about technology moving in a pendulum fashion.
computing machinery goes back and forth between local access ( abandoned pdp-11 in your local lab, PC, etc ) and the network is the computer ( university's central VAX with a bunch of terminals, google apps, etc )
What's that then? Investing in companies that pollute the drinking water, and then using the proceeds to pay to clean up the polluted drinking water that they helped create?
A BSD exception to the GPL would look something like "must share under the GPL, unless the recipient project is licensed under: CDDL, BSD, APL, MPL, MIT,... " meaning the whole project would have to be under that license, and only the BSD bits could be integrated in to closed source stuff ( the GPL drivers, whatever would have to be omitted from the closed integration )
you put it under the BSD license to increase adoption, like TCP.
Or you release the specs with code that people can't just do what they want with, and then the only people that use it are you, and the people that pay you for your reference implementation, like NFS ( which is just terrible on linux, doesn't exist on windows, and only really works on the commercial UNIXes that paid Sun for their code )
Sometimes it increases adoption (Linux kernel), sometimes it doesn't."
Actually I'd argue that Linuxes adoption is despite the GPL, not because of it. Linux was at the right place ( free, on commodity hardware ) at the right time ( BSD being sued by AT&T , commercial UNIX licensing fees skyrocketting to a ridiculous level ) and that's it.
The issue isn't closed source apps taking GPL code, there's a real problem with open-source projects that can't take GPL code ( openbsd, opensolaris, etc )
I would personally probably donate to the most relevant project, which since DesktopBSD is more or less a FreeBSD distro, and since KDE gets help from SuSE/Novell, the KUbuntu people, etc. it would end up being FreeBSD
Slashdot Mirror
Cthulubuntu , linux for planet eating beings
"there are companies who want to hire somebody to clean up their web page structure"
That's the most interesting spelling of "make as many internal links as possible" I've seen.
ALL SEO are scum, no matter what they call themselves.
Right, which is why it's declining in popularity
Really advantageous to be GPL... keeps the non-religious out
you can buy non-GPL licenses for /Qt/. not KDELibs.
difference being one of them they need to give away their application with, the other they don't ( KDELibs' biggest fault is that it's GPL. That's why RealPlayer for example uses GTK+ )
to free the desktop, you need to free the hardware too, so unless you're typing on a Sun T1000, you're already using plenty of closed code
A Sun Enterprise x4500 running ZFS on Solaris ?
I cast magic missile...
"Rights" properly understood, are granted.
/against/ government, understand that the government's monopoly of violence prevents the anarchy and gives a nonviolent means of appeal when one citizen's pursuit of goals collides with another's. Minus government you'd just shoot your neighbour and build your back deck as far in to his lawn as you please.
The only true "right" you have is that which you can acquire by force or persuasion. The rights you have under the constitution ought properly to be called "privileges", in as far as the government as the largest wielder of the means to do violence is the only entity that can have any real rights per se. To ease it's own management of the population it grants you certain privileges such that you don't have a revolution to overthrow it ( and in a large, well-armed, organized group the revolutionaries become their own form of competing rights-haver, but at that point the difference between them and the established government is minimal ). Although, in a world such that the monopoly of violence the government has is so great that it could annihilate the entire planet thousands of times over, the threat of this scenario is minimal.
Before taking this as an argument
That's exactly the point... If hardware makers want tto be used by more than just the flavour of the week, they ought to release drivers under a license that everyone can use, rather than just a single kernel
"(Most open-source OS users run Linux, so no problem there.) "
Most computer users use Windows, so why bother supporting Linux at all?
Fact of the matter is that by GPLing it you're still putting in in the GPL walled garden, which doesn't help anyone other than GPL users. BSD, Solaris, etc are all left out in the cold, meanwhile Linux yanks plenty of code from BSD
Yes. Fellow by the name of Masayuki Murayama was writing NIC drivers for Solaris using the Linux drivers as reference. He received legal threats as a result claiming he was infringing on the GPL.
So, what's the use in them being open-source if the only people that can look at it are people who write code for Linux ( the only major GPL kernel out there )
Plenty of the Linux kernel is lifted from BSD so yes, you can add BSD code to GPL, the converse is not true
dual license is fine too, but adding a driver that only works in Linux by virtue of legalities is just as bad as keeping it closed source
Hopefully under the BSD or artistic licenses... Locking a driver in to the GPL ecosystem is just as bad as locking it in to the closed source ecosystem
Actually Microsoft typically buys technology rather than makes it. And you making money off windows doesn't mean that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, it just means that you found a market for your services.
Without Microsoft, some other comer would have come along ( probably Apple or Amiga ) and the world of tech would probably remain more or less unchanged ( since the innovation comes from Universities, all of whom typically ran some UNIX variant or another )
McNealy, jackass that he may be, made some comment in a speech a while back about technology moving in a pendulum fashion.
computing machinery goes back and forth between local access ( abandoned pdp-11 in your local lab, PC, etc ) and the network is the computer ( university's central VAX with a bunch of terminals, google apps, etc )
"And, just to clarify, i wont be leasing my processing power thank you very much."
You won't? You mean you run a local copy of the entire internet? Wow, impressive.
What's that then? Investing in companies that pollute the drinking water, and then using the proceeds to pay to clean up the polluted drinking water that they helped create?
FUD. Pure FUD.
... " meaning the whole project would have to be under that license, and only the BSD bits could be integrated in to closed source stuff ( the GPL drivers, whatever would have to be omitted from the closed integration )
A BSD exception to the GPL would look something like "must share under the GPL, unless the recipient project is licensed under: CDDL, BSD, APL, MPL, MIT,
Exactly, the license pissing and moaning between projects sucks, it'd be nice if every license offered exceptions for other OSI licenses
you put it under the BSD license to increase adoption, like TCP.
Or you release the specs with code that people can't just do what they want with, and then the only people that use it are you, and the people that pay you for your reference implementation, like NFS ( which is just terrible on linux, doesn't exist on windows, and only really works on the commercial UNIXes that paid Sun for their code )
Sometimes it increases adoption (Linux kernel), sometimes it doesn't." Actually I'd argue that Linuxes adoption is despite the GPL, not because of it. Linux was at the right place ( free, on commodity hardware ) at the right time ( BSD being sued by AT&T , commercial UNIX licensing fees skyrocketting to a ridiculous level ) and that's it.
The issue isn't closed source apps taking GPL code, there's a real problem with open-source projects that can't take GPL code ( openbsd, opensolaris, etc )
I would personally probably donate to the most relevant project, which since DesktopBSD is more or less a FreeBSD distro, and since KDE gets help from SuSE/Novell, the KUbuntu people, etc. it would end up being FreeBSD