The GPL2 does not say that you can use any later version of the GPL.
The "suggested usage" of the GPL, which is in the appedix after the end of the terms and conditions (and thus not binding on the GPL),is to say that you release the code under GPL2 or later. However that suggested usage is not part of the GPL2 itself and you may choose to use that suggested usage or any other usage.
Anyway, Linux is technically not GPL2, but a GPL2-derived license (See the Note at the top of COPYING). The distinction is that the Linux License makes a clarification that an application program is not a derived work of the OS, but is just normal use of the OS. (RMS would like to muddy the water and claim that all code used with a GPL2 OS should be released under GPL). It also states in the most clear language possible that GPL3 does not apply.
The limitation is not because Linus is some asshole, but a practical realisation that GPL3 cannot be retro-fitted to existing kernel code.
Only the owner of the code is allowed to assign the license and people made submissions to Linux under the GPL2-flavored license. Linus has no authority to release all the Linux code under a new license since he only owns a small percentage of the code. There have been thousands of people submitting to Linus under the GPL2-flavored license and it is impractical, if not impossible, to track those submittors down and secure a GPL3 agreement from them.
Sure, Linux could adopt the SMB strategy of committing to make future release of Linux GPL3 (eg, say Linux 3.0). Then all submissions into that new version would have to be GPL3. Practically though, many of the big players in Linux might prefer GPL2 over GPL3 and that could force a fork.
The OS I talk of is the kernel stuff. The true OS. This can be broken by bad drivers etc. BSODs, obviously, and things like USB driver load failures are examples of the user "seeing" the OS.
All the eye candy that the user sees is not true OS.
You know, those stupid 9-14 year olds jumping up and down on their beds lip syncing to some rap/whatever shit that they call music. Better pull them down too.
If you're doing a soft core then why limit yourself to x86? Just about everybody offers well optimised ARM soft cores - and some are free (ne extra IP costs).
By the way: THere's a hell of a big difference between a VLIW emulator and a soft core.
Parent is correct. The only time a real user should see the OS is when it breaks (which it should not do).
A fully wrapped OS (one you cant even see) is best for most users. This is why Linux has been so effective in the enbedded market. Most people don't even realise they're using Linux when it is deep inside a cell phone etc.
Gas is mainly stored underground in reasonably stable temperatures. A daily measurement should be good enough.
Sure there's a small amount of gas (probably less than half a gallon) above ground in the pump that will warm and cool relatively quickly but since it is only half a gallon who really cares?
Many artists only produce a few great songs, but they need to generate a whole CD full of crap to record an albumn... that nobody wants. This cycle is driven by the labels.
What is much better for the artists is to generate the good songs that they can, on a budget they can afford. This makes it far easier for them to get published and make some money. It reduces the barrier of entry.
If anything a singles-based industry makes it far easier for more artists to participate and make money.
Most people buying albums only really buy it for a few songs, with most of the rest being padding so that "you get your money's worth".
Singles are far better value for money (you buy what you want), but are far harder to handle in physical form. Singles on CD etc are a pain for manufacturers (more lower-value titles == more work for less money), record stores (more stock, lower prices,...) and for the listener (changing CDs after each track).
Singles do, however, make a lot of sense in download form. They're easy to manufacture (http) and use (itunes etc) and you only pay for what you want. The people who lose are the labels and record stores since they find it hard to add value any more.
WHy shouldn't they try to cut expenses?... and why should engineers think they deserve special treatment?
Getting rid of US jobs to cut cost is nothing new. That ipod, phone, whatever is made in China. Those shoes are made in Phillipines. Why the hell should companies keep engineering jobs in US if they can get the job done elsewhere?
The core problem is that the USPTO, and those in a position to fix current brokenness (ie the whole patent machine), have no incentive to fix the system. From their perspective it is perfectly fine as it is.
USPTO has no accountability for the quality of its patents and is a nice little money-spinner for Uncle Sam. Making it semi-easy to get a patent makes more people apply wich generates more money. Make it harder and less people apply.
The patent lawyers love the current system. Lots of people applying for patents. But the $$BIG$$BUCKS$$ flow when there are disputes. Where's the motivation to reduce the number of patents or disputes? Where's the incentive to improve patent quality?
The only way that patent quality will improve is if the USPTO became accountable for the quality of the patents it issues, and pushing that down their throats will be very difficult.
I held on to 2000 for a long time, not seeing any XP advantage. I eventually changed because the corp started rolling out XP specific corporate software, and I needed a laptop upgrade which had XP-only drivers.
In other words, I was pushed. There were no "go-to" features in XP that prompted me to switch.
Same for Vista. What are the compelling "go-to" features for Vista?
The fundamentals of magnetics and gravity are not even yet well understood and definitely have not been understood for hundreds of years. Their behaviour is reasonably well understood, but not the mechanism behind them.
But hey, if you're in a fatasy world that gives you a fake id, participate in acts that would be illegal in many countries then why should anyone get real world pay out for fantasy world IP violations?
About 32 years ago. I was 13 at the time and I "figured out" on paper a magnetic perpetual motion machine using magnetic lag. I could not make it work and figured that there must be some "magnetic drag" in the system.
If someone has been able to really make this work, well I'll be truely amazed.
Such a device does not have to be violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.
A hundred years ago nobody would have considered that you could get energy from mass via E=mc^2 and we'd be awfully arrogant as a species to think we have all of physics figured out.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want a rough time, see how long it takes to rebuild a different OS.
For the really touchy-feely OS out there!
The GPL2 does not say that you can use any later version of the GPL.
The "suggested usage" of the GPL, which is in the appedix after the end of the terms and conditions (and thus not binding on the GPL),is to say that you release the code under GPL2 or later. However that suggested usage is not part of the GPL2 itself and you may choose to use that suggested usage or any other usage.
Anyway, Linux is technically not GPL2, but a GPL2-derived license (See the Note at the top of COPYING). The distinction is that the Linux License makes a clarification that an application program is not a derived work of the OS, but is just normal use of the OS. (RMS would like to muddy the water and claim that all code used with a GPL2 OS should be released under GPL). It also states in the most clear language possible that GPL3 does not apply.
Use some programmability/flash/whatever to keep pinging back to the host.
Only the owner of the code is allowed to assign the license and people made submissions to Linux under the GPL2-flavored license. Linus has no authority to release all the Linux code under a new license since he only owns a small percentage of the code. There have been thousands of people submitting to Linus under the GPL2-flavored license and it is impractical, if not impossible, to track those submittors down and secure a GPL3 agreement from them.
Sure, Linux could adopt the SMB strategy of committing to make future release of Linux GPL3 (eg, say Linux 3.0). Then all submissions into that new version would have to be GPL3. Practically though, many of the big players in Linux might prefer GPL2 over GPL3 and that could force a fork.
Just moved to a free country.
All the eye candy that the user sees is not true OS.
You know, those stupid 9-14 year olds jumping up and down on their beds lip syncing to some rap/whatever shit that they call music. Better pull them down too.
By the way: THere's a hell of a big difference between a VLIW emulator and a soft core.
A fully wrapped OS (one you cant even see) is best for most users. This is why Linux has been so effective in the enbedded market. Most people don't even realise they're using Linux when it is deep inside a cell phone etc.
And no it does not run Linux, even though is has base 8.
And it would sure fuck with the iphone's multi-touch interface.
Sure there's a small amount of gas (probably less than half a gallon) above ground in the pump that will warm and cool relatively quickly but since it is only half a gallon who really cares?
Many artists only produce a few great songs, but they need to generate a whole CD full of crap to record an albumn... that nobody wants. This cycle is driven by the labels.
What is much better for the artists is to generate the good songs that they can, on a budget they can afford. This makes it far easier for them to get published and make some money. It reduces the barrier of entry.
If anything a singles-based industry makes it far easier for more artists to participate and make money.
Singles are far better value for money (you buy what you want), but are far harder to handle in physical form. Singles on CD etc are a pain for manufacturers (more lower-value titles == more work for less money), record stores (more stock, lower prices,...) and for the listener (changing CDs after each track).
Singles do, however, make a lot of sense in download form. They're easy to manufacture (http) and use (itunes etc) and you only pay for what you want. The people who lose are the labels and record stores since they find it hard to add value any more.
Getting rid of US jobs to cut cost is nothing new. That ipod, phone, whatever is made in China. Those shoes are made in Phillipines. Why the hell should companies keep engineering jobs in US if they can get the job done elsewhere?
Give us the tax/law breaks we need or we'll hire less people in Redmond and the state/US will earn less tax.
Having some flexibility just over the fence gives MS a lot of options to get heavy handed.
Hopefully they get so absorbed in rubbing eachother out that the rest of us can just get on with business as usual.
If the carriers see this eating into their revenues they won't support it. Why give something away when you can charge for it?
USPTO has no accountability for the quality of its patents and is a nice little money-spinner for Uncle Sam. Making it semi-easy to get a patent makes more people apply wich generates more money. Make it harder and less people apply.
The patent lawyers love the current system. Lots of people applying for patents. But the $$BIG$$BUCKS$$ flow when there are disputes. Where's the motivation to reduce the number of patents or disputes? Where's the incentive to improve patent quality?
The only way that patent quality will improve is if the USPTO became accountable for the quality of the patents it issues, and pushing that down their throats will be very difficult.
gangbang?
In other words, I was pushed. There were no "go-to" features in XP that prompted me to switch.
Same for Vista. What are the compelling "go-to" features for Vista?
The fundamentals of magnetics and gravity are not even yet well understood and definitely have not been understood for hundreds of years. Their behaviour is reasonably well understood, but not the mechanism behind them.
But hey, if you're in a fatasy world that gives you a fake id, participate in acts that would be illegal in many countries then why should anyone get real world pay out for fantasy world IP violations?
If someone has been able to really make this work, well I'll be truely amazed.
Such a device does not have to be violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.
A hundred years ago nobody would have considered that you could get energy from mass via E=mc^2 and we'd be awfully arrogant as a species to think we have all of physics figured out.