First of all, I sincerely hope/. isn't becoming a forum for siding with certain political ideologies. I'm perfectly happy reading about something like this every so often, but it seems pretty obvious that/. has been generating some pro-democrat propaganda lately. When it comes to politics, only democrats have been mentioned so far.
Secondly, I want to know why?! It's pretty interesting to note that Gore was basically saying that he *agrees* with Microsoft (whether that's because they're going to pay him or what) and his daughter worked for their subsidiary and that he just wrote an article for them!
So why the sudden hypocracy of the/. article posters? (Or is it just one guy who keeps posting things about this particular candidate?)
Shouldn't the article mention the oddness of this? Questioning whether Slate's going to pay Gore, questioning why Gore decided to use Slate to announce his opinions (odd? I think so.), questioning whether Gore is bowing to MS because his daughter once worked there, questioning why Gore left obviously open an escape path so that he can come out and say later that MS is great and therefore the DOJ should stop trying to "hurt" the industry, questioning why Gore even mentioned that the government should keep their fingers out of this one (while at the same time saying that monopolies are wrong and then again saying that he isn't saying MS is one, which obviously means that he's setting it up so that he can say they aren't, but not until he gets a feel of how strong public opinion is in one direction or the other.), and even questioning why Gore said the Whitehouse was going to get involved in the final stages of the trial (punishment), how he could justify that, and why it should, and obviously if it is going to get involved that then that must mean they don't agree with the DOJ? All of these questions are good ones, but they take Gore's action in a negative light and so the person(s) submitting these things about Gore's visit have avoided them strangely.
Others have had talks with MS too and they didn't follow up on that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but it seems as if the poster is trying to convince us (if you've been reading the previous article including this one) that Gore is on our side (or rather, not against us) when in actuality he's rooting for MS while *trying* to seem neutral... strange this would be on/. since I was pretty sure that there is a bit of anti-MS sentiment here... and therefore trying to cover up for Gore is like trying to cover up for MS.)
IMHO/. should be politically indifferent, because everyone who reads/. surely has differences of opinions when it comes to politics. Perhaps this sort of thing shouldn't have even been reported on if the author couldn't have looked at both the positive and the negative aspects.
I don't mind if the submitter was a democrat, as long as he keeps himself aware of groupthink and it's side effects.
I've looked over the code with my legal eye and see a few imperfections. It seems like AOL is trying very hard to understand, and in my opinion they're doing very well. I congratulate them on this license, yet I think by version 1.2 they could fix a few of the obvious problems very easily.
My disection follows:
AOL is using the Mozilla license with some amendments following, having never read the Mozilla license before I did notice some problems with it itself. I knew the MPL wasn't completely perfect, but it is a very well written license that closely follows what I consider a good open source/free software license standard.
Enough with the psychobabble, and onto the legalbabble.
Everything looked okay until I arrived at Section 2.2 Contributer Grant. Section 2.2.a gives the contributer exactly the same rights the "Initial Developer" (in this case, AOL) has. However, Section 2.2.c denies these rights and makes both Section 2.2.a and 2.2.b invalid if the contributer does not use the "Covered Code" (all code including original code and modified code) commercially. It is quite obvious that hobby programmers will be screwed legally, having inherited absolutely no rights whatsoever in the agreeing to this license. This also means a hobbyist developer isn't allowed to modify or redistribute the code.
Section 3.1 denies the contributer the right to sub-license the code. (Does this mean AOL isn't allowed to make amendments? No. Section 6.3 claims you can create your own license using the MPL but you must show significant differences and use a name not related to Mozilla or Netscape in any way. Would having left sections 6.1 - 6.3 unmodified be deemed inproper modification? These sections contain sentances stating the license is controlled by Netscape/Mozilla and related to them, otherwise they are important parts of the license and should stay the way they are.)
The rest of the MPL seemed ok, now onto AOL's amendments:
Amendment IV basically says AOL has the right to add proprietary code to the AOL/MPL'ed code.
Amendment V is intentionally omitted?!?!?!?
Exhibit A which is an external part of the license implies that the provisions of the AOL/MPL license can be swapped with the provisions of the GPL license... Anyone confused yet?;-)
I have found that my system, which has 128mb of ram, uses very little swap. 64mb should be fine, I currently have a 128mb swap. ("Very little" is 15% maximum)
Sincerely, Nelson Rush
Logo versus mascot, same difference?
on
KDE Gets a Mascot
·
· Score: 1
Many people have argued that the mascot image should be simple. Others have responded that a mascot and a logo are completely different things.
While it seems that they are using two images, the gears and the dragon, they are actually integrating the mascot with the logo creating a new logo. What this means is that the mascot will become a part of the logo.
I agree that the images are far too busy and the different angles/lighting/movements/etc are going to be far too confusing. Even though I think a dragon would make a cool mascot for anything, why it was chosen for KDE throws me off. One could also argue that a penguin doesn't make much sense either.
Another thing that bothered me about this mascot is that even though he's friendly and nicely rendered, he isn't looking at me! Has anyone but me felt uneasy that the dragon is looking at something we can't see?
Also, the fourth image bothers me because of the wonderful lens flare. That's the problem with rendering logos, things tend to get a bit complex and even annoying or confusing to the eye.
I think KDE is fine without a mascot, the gears I can dig. He is cute though, isn't he?;)
The AT&T Source Code Agreement is incompatible with all other free software licenses. Section 1.3 claims third party (ie. GNU Public License) licenses are not allowed. Section 1.5 unduly requires the licensee to visit AT&T's website. Section 2.14 which is the required notice to be posted with the derived product claims that the software is considered proprietary to AT&T. Section 4.1 contradicts itself by saying that distribution of the derived product may not be charged for and then says it may be charged for. Section 4.2 requires a written agreement. Section 4.3 makes a lot of uncomfortable demands and repeats past articles. Section 4.4 demands display of the proprietary notice. Section 4.5 is silly. Section 5.1 forces the licensee to give AT&T an irrevocable license of ultimate freedom which is completely contradictory to what AT&T is providing the licensee. Section 7.2 is a termination clause that causes the license's life span to become unpredictable and therefore unsatisfactory. Section 2.3 of Appendix A restates that the software covered by the license is proprietary to AT&T. Section 7.3 of the agreement and 6.1 of Appendix A of the agreement define unneccessary and unfair restrictions upon the licensee in regards to patents held by AT&T or it's affiliates relating to the product under the license. The right to file a complaint or lawsuit over a legitimate claim should not be removed from anyone, even the licensee of the product, for any reason. Section 6.2 of Appendix A again restates the termination clause.
Sorry, nice try.
Sincerely, Nelson Rush
P.S. Make Section 5.1 the whole license and switch "AT&T" with "YOU". That's what I'd call a truly open source/free software license.
Slashdot Mirror
You should talk with the man who came up with the GPL, and should know the most about it.
Richard M. Stallman
You can find information on how to contact him at: http://www.gnu.org/
First of all, I sincerely hope /. isn't becoming a forum for siding with certain political ideologies. I'm perfectly happy reading about something like this every so often, but it seems pretty obvious that /. has been generating some pro-democrat propaganda lately. When it comes to politics, only democrats have been mentioned so far.
/. article posters? (Or is it just one guy who keeps posting things about this particular candidate?)
/. since I was pretty sure that there is a bit of anti-MS sentiment here... and therefore trying to cover up for Gore is like trying to cover up for MS.)
/. should be politically indifferent, because everyone who reads /. surely has differences of opinions when it comes to politics.
Secondly, I want to know why?! It's pretty interesting to note that Gore was basically saying that he *agrees* with Microsoft (whether that's because they're going to pay him or what) and his daughter worked for their subsidiary and that he just wrote an article for them!
So why the sudden hypocracy of the
Shouldn't the article mention the oddness of this? Questioning whether Slate's going to pay Gore, questioning why Gore decided to use Slate to announce his opinions (odd? I think so.), questioning whether Gore is bowing to MS because his daughter once worked there, questioning why Gore left obviously open an escape path so that he can come out and say later that MS is great and therefore the DOJ should stop trying to "hurt" the industry, questioning why Gore even mentioned that the government should keep their fingers out of this one (while at the same time saying that monopolies are wrong and then again saying that he isn't saying MS is one, which obviously means that he's setting it up so that he can say they aren't, but not until he gets a feel of how strong public opinion is in one direction or the other.), and even questioning why Gore said the Whitehouse was going to get involved in the final stages of the trial (punishment), how he could justify that, and why it should, and obviously if it is going to get involved that then that must mean they don't agree with the DOJ? All of these questions are good ones, but they take Gore's action in a negative light and so the person(s) submitting these things about Gore's visit have avoided them strangely.
Others have had talks with MS too and they didn't follow up on that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but it seems as if the poster is trying to convince us (if you've been reading the previous article including this one) that Gore is on our side (or rather, not against us) when in actuality he's rooting for MS while *trying* to seem neutral... strange this would be on
IMHO
Perhaps this sort of thing shouldn't have even been reported on if the author couldn't have looked at both the positive and the negative aspects.
I don't mind if the submitter was a democrat, as long as he keeps himself aware of groupthink and it's side effects.
Those are my thoughts.
Yeah!!! I love this game!!!
;-)
And if they release the source, I'd swear I've died and gone to heaven.
Imagine being able to tweak the code to that monster... Wow.
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush
I've looked over the code with my legal eye and see a few imperfections. It seems like AOL is trying very hard to understand, and in my opinion they're doing very well. I congratulate them on this license, yet I think by version 1.2 they could fix a few of the obvious problems very easily.
;-)
My disection follows:
AOL is using the Mozilla license with some amendments following, having never read the Mozilla license before I did notice some problems with it itself. I knew the MPL wasn't completely perfect, but it is a very well written license that closely follows what I consider a good open source/free software license standard.
Enough with the psychobabble, and onto the legalbabble.
Everything looked okay until I arrived at Section 2.2 Contributer Grant. Section 2.2.a gives the contributer exactly the same rights the "Initial Developer" (in this case, AOL) has. However, Section 2.2.c denies these rights and makes both Section 2.2.a and 2.2.b invalid if the contributer does not use the "Covered Code" (all code including original code and modified code) commercially. It is quite obvious that hobby programmers will be screwed legally, having inherited absolutely no rights whatsoever in the agreeing to this license. This also means a hobbyist developer isn't allowed to modify or redistribute the code.
Section 3.1 denies the contributer the right to sub-license the code. (Does this mean AOL isn't allowed to make amendments? No. Section 6.3 claims you can create your own license using the MPL but you must show significant differences and use a name not related to Mozilla or Netscape in any way. Would having left sections 6.1 - 6.3 unmodified be deemed inproper modification? These sections contain sentances stating the license is controlled by Netscape/Mozilla and related to them, otherwise they are important parts of the license and should stay the way they are.)
The rest of the MPL seemed ok, now onto AOL's amendments:
Amendment IV basically says AOL has the right to add proprietary code to the AOL/MPL'ed code.
Amendment V is intentionally omitted?!?!?!?
Exhibit A which is an external part of the license implies that the provisions of the AOL/MPL license can be swapped with the provisions of the GPL license... Anyone confused yet?
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush
I have found that my system, which has 128mb of ram, uses very little swap. 64mb should be fine, I currently have a 128mb swap. ("Very little" is 15% maximum)
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush
Many people have argued that the mascot image should be simple. Others have responded that a mascot and a logo are completely different things.
;)
While it seems that they are using two images, the gears and the dragon, they are actually integrating the mascot with the logo creating a new logo. What this means is that the mascot will become a part of the logo.
I agree that the images are far too busy and the different angles/lighting/movements/etc are going to be far too confusing. Even though I think a dragon would make a cool mascot for anything, why it was chosen for KDE throws me off. One could also argue that a penguin doesn't make much sense either.
Another thing that bothered me about this mascot is that even though he's friendly and nicely rendered, he isn't looking at me! Has anyone but me felt uneasy that the dragon is looking at something we can't see?
Also, the fourth image bothers me because of the wonderful lens flare. That's the problem with rendering logos, things tend to get a bit complex and even annoying or confusing to the eye.
I think KDE is fine without a mascot, the gears I can dig. He is cute though, isn't he?
P.S. dragon2.jpg is my fav
I felt I should share this.
-------------------------------------------
The AT&T Source Code Agreement is incompatible with all other free software licenses. Section 1.3 claims third party (ie. GNU Public License) licenses are not allowed. Section 1.5 unduly requires the licensee to visit AT&T's website. Section 2.14 which is the required notice to be posted with the derived product claims that the software is considered proprietary to AT&T. Section 4.1 contradicts itself by saying that distribution of the derived product may not be charged for and then says it may be charged for. Section 4.2 requires a written agreement. Section 4.3 makes a lot of uncomfortable demands and repeats past articles. Section 4.4 demands display of the proprietary notice. Section 4.5 is silly. Section 5.1 forces the licensee to give AT&T an irrevocable license of ultimate freedom which is completely contradictory to what AT&T is providing the licensee. Section 7.2 is a termination clause that causes the license's life span to become unpredictable and therefore unsatisfactory. Section 2.3 of Appendix A restates that the software covered by the license is proprietary to AT&T. Section 7.3 of the agreement and 6.1 of Appendix A of the agreement define unneccessary and unfair restrictions upon the licensee in regards to patents held by AT&T or it's affiliates relating to the product under the license. The right to file a complaint or lawsuit over a legitimate claim should not be removed from anyone, even the licensee of the product, for any reason. Section 6.2 of Appendix A again restates the termination clause.
Sorry, nice try.
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush
P.S. Make Section 5.1 the whole license and switch "AT&T" with "YOU". That's what I'd call a truly open source/free software license.
-------------------------------------------