This is not accurate. Runnning Debian/PPC with kernel 2.4.13-ben0 on my G4 Powerbook, the sbp2 driver is able to identify the iPod as a Firewire disk. Make sure you've got the CONFIG_MAC_PARTITION kenel option enabled -- the iPod uses the MacOS partitioning scheme.
While it was really nice of Netscape to release the source of Navigator, I really don't know why they expected thousands of hackers to start working for them for free.
If they had released software that actually compiled, they might have more to show for it. Many of the improvements people wanted to add required significant restructuring of the code base. How could they expect people to contribute freely when the results wouldn't even be usable?
I saw the source release as a publicity-seeking and cost-cutting move on the part of Netscape.
Since I remember times on the Net before Netscape, I blame them for everything: non-standard browsers, an over-abundance of low-quality porn, ignorant and ill-mannered newbies. The commercialization of the internet was the worst thing to happen to it.
If you look back to why RMS developed the GPL, you'll find that he was not so much concerned with free code becoming proprietary, but in ensuring that the users of software are free to modify and distribute it. The GPL does not ensure that any and all derivative works will be distributed for free, but that they will be free to distribute.
RMS isn't (or wasn't) worried about whether Microsoft steals/borrows/appropriates code, he was worried about the fact that someone, somewhere, wouldn't have access to the source of the software that they payed for, and wouldn't be allowed to share that software with others.
The point being that BSD code is open to someone, somewhere, making it proprietary and selling it under a more restrictive license to someone who needs the latest feature. Now that person is enslaved by the new license. If you're concerned about the freedom of others, you use the GPL.
Re:Can't incorporate code into another product?
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
As I understand it, they could incoroporate your code into their software and sell it, but would only have to release the modified source to people that they distributed it to. There's no requirement to give the software away for free or post the source publicly, just to distribute the source with the binary.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not accurate. Runnning Debian/PPC with kernel 2.4.13-ben0 on my G4 Powerbook, the sbp2 driver is able to identify the iPod as a Firewire disk. Make sure you've got the CONFIG_MAC_PARTITION kenel option enabled -- the iPod uses the MacOS partitioning scheme.
/dev/scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0: [mac] p1 p2 p3
See iPod on Linux or ipodhacks.com
ieee1394: NodeMgr: hotplug policy returned 0xfffffffe
ieee1394: Device added: node 0:1023, GUID 0000000002002f0d
ieee1394: sbp2: Driver forced to serialize I/O (serialize_io = 1)
ieee1394: sbp2: Node 0:1023: Max speed [S400] - Max payload [0x09/2048]
scsi1 : IEEE-1394 SBP-2 protocol driver
Vendor: Model: Rev:
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03
Attached scsi disk sda at scsi1, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
SCSI device sda: 9780750 512-byte hdwr sectors (5008 MB)
My sources say no.
I believe that Open Firmware is based on Forth, not Pascal.
Could someone explain how this new system differs
from the existing IEEE 1275 Open Firmware standard?
Will it work on non-Intel architectures?
> The best thing for Sun/AOL/Netscape
> to do is throw more in-house developers at it.
Bzzt. Throw "Mythical Man Month" in your nearest web search engine.
While it was really nice of Netscape to release the source of Navigator, I really don't know why they expected thousands of hackers to start working for them for free.
If they had released software that actually compiled, they might have more to show for it. Many of the improvements people wanted to add required significant restructuring of the code base. How could they expect people to contribute freely when the results wouldn't even be usable?
I saw the source release as a publicity-seeking and cost-cutting move on the part of Netscape.
Since I remember times on the Net before Netscape, I blame them for everything: non-standard browsers, an over-abundance of low-quality porn, ignorant and ill-mannered newbies. The commercialization of the internet was the worst thing to happen to it.
If you look back to why RMS developed the GPL, you'll find that he was not so much concerned with free code becoming proprietary, but in ensuring that the users of software are free to modify and distribute it. The GPL does not ensure that any and all derivative works will be distributed for free, but that they will be free to distribute.
RMS isn't (or wasn't) worried about whether Microsoft steals/borrows/appropriates code, he was worried about the fact that someone, somewhere, wouldn't have access to the source of the software that they payed for, and wouldn't be allowed to share that software with others.
The point being that BSD code is open to someone, somewhere, making it proprietary and selling it under a more restrictive license to someone who needs the latest feature. Now that person is enslaved by the new license. If you're concerned about the freedom of others, you use the GPL.
As I understand it, they could incoroporate your code into their software and sell it, but would only have to release the modified source to people that they distributed it to. There's no requirement to give the software away for free or post the source publicly, just to distribute the source with the binary.