Everyone who has bought a recent copy of Caldera Linux should be glad that SCO has so "generously" licensed the kernel code to you under the GPL, and should kindly make the kernel sources widely available (as is permitted by the license terms under which SCO/Caldera knowingly distributed them).
Then, in the worst-case scenario, we will all have access to a reasonably recent kernel that has been released under the GNU GPL by the good folks at SCO.:-)
Now, when was the last time you tested those init scripts?:)
Init scripts? You heathen!!
Rebooting is a special occasion, signalling the coming of the harvest season, or the installation of a new kernel. Accordingly, the High Priest shall bring the system up by hand, typing in the ancient incantations from the sacred scrolls.
Init scripts are for the weak of faith. Let ye not be tempted by the daemons of rc-dot-d!
GCC was a bad example but if you get by with just libc youre much better than I.
I also enjoy many fine LGPL and BSD libraries. Libraries I write end up under one of those two licenses (BSD if it's something trivial; LGPL if it's not). I personally think that GPL for libraries is a bad idea in the long run (fewer people learning the library means fewer people can contribute to it, etc.). Application, or "end-user" software, however, I have no problem with placing under the GPL.
Out of curiosity where did you get anything from number 2 out of that post ?
It's in response to the "forced GPL" comment you made.
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library
If your linked to GPL code your code is GPL, or you have to take out the GPL code. Thats forced GPL and theres no way around it. Remember this the next time you use GCC.
I'll bite.
1. GCC and GNU libc have a special license exception that allows for linking to the libc without having to GPL/LGPL the linked code. Perhaps reading the license is a good idea for you, too.
2. If placing your own code under the GPL is too high a price for you, then you can use your own resources to purchase or develop your own code. The GPL is not a free lunch; it's a quid pro quo. Nothing gives you the right to demand that I code for you for free, although I might do that on my own, if you agree to give back your code in exchange.
SVG with encoded/embedded PNG data may offer similar capabilities in a standards-compliant form, though I doubt there are any programs currently available that take advantage of this.
Ah well. Hopefully vector graphics will finally catch on before we're all squinting at microscopic icons on a 32,000x18,000 LCD display...
An Anonymous Coward cravenly scrawled: "The GPL license is just as much garbage as EULA anyway, so I don't see the problem..."
Au contraire, my cowardly friend. The GPL grants rights that you normally do not have, like the right to make copies, distribute, and modify.
Nothing requires you to accept the GPL (the GPL even explicitly says so). However, if you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then there is nothing that grants you any right to redistribute/modify. Absent the rights the GPL gives you, you're just the posessor of a piece of non-redistributable source code. If you do persist in redistributing versions without adhering to the GPL, then it's simply copyright infringement, something the law is very capable of handling (perhaps a little too capable, these days).
An EULA, in contrast, purports to unilaterally take away your fair use rights. The GPL takes away no right you wouldn't have in its absence, and it gives you the option of accepting its terms, in exchange for the right to redistribute and/or modify the software.
The only right the GPL grants you if you do not accept its terms is the right to run it on your own computer, without distributing it elsewhere.
But of course, if you had actually read the damn thing, you'd know that.
When SCO, nee Caldera, shipped a linux distribution with this advanced alien unix technology in it, they granted all of us a license to use it, via the GPL.
I think what the parent poster meant was that, if SCO later claims that it did not release its distribution under the GPL, then they have pirated the source code, as nothing but their acceptance of the GNU GPL allows them to redistribute and/or modify the software.
So they can't try that tactic without exposing themselves to enormous liability (set! I-am-not-a-lawyer #t), which could manifest itself as a good old-fashioned class-action suit on behalf of the developers of the GPL software in question.
Now (rampant non-lawyer speculation here), what would really be interesting if it could be proven that SCO did this at the behest of its parent corporation(s). Opening the world's biggest can of worms. (And exposing to liability certain parent companies that actually have money...)
So, SCO probably can't successfully claim they didn't release their software under the GPL.
With that in mind, it's simply in IBM's best interest to swat down SCO in court, to dispel the FUD, rather than buying them out and letting doubts linger.
Curiously enough, Macromedia seems to use it [PNG] as the default vector image format for Fireworks (perhaps even Freehand and Flash), which could make it big fast if they pushed it.
PNG is a raster image format, not vector.
You might be thinking of SVG (scalable vector graphics), which is essentially an XML format for describing vector graphics (note that IIRC the SVG format requires support for PNG and JPEG images, to include said images in an SVG file). None of this, however, makes PNG a vector graphics format by any stretch of the imagination.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
In the specific scenarios covered by this story, Microsoft isn't dumping the price below the competition. It is merely lowering the price to the same level as the competition, which makes sense.
Hmm.. compete with Linux on the basis of... price?
Pretty soon, I'm sure we'll see Linux offered for free, too, in a retaliatory move certain to enrage Redmond.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why Google didn't come up first when you searched for "search engine" is that you weren't specific enough.
On the grounds that the mule is a clone, I demand they nickname it Duncan Idaho Gem!
I tried making a joke about this in the open music license article yesterday, but moderators took it seriously. THIS IS A SARCASTIC JOKE.
That's the spirit:
If they can't appreciate subtlety, bash 'em on the heads with it!
Au contraire.
:-)
Everyone who has bought a recent copy of Caldera Linux should be glad that SCO has so "generously" licensed the kernel code to you under the GPL, and should kindly make the kernel sources widely available (as is permitted by the license terms under which SCO/Caldera knowingly distributed them).
Then, in the worst-case scenario, we will all have access to a reasonably recent kernel that has been released under the GNU GPL by the good folks at SCO.
let's go buy some code from Microsoft, and slip a windows disc in the binder before they hand it to us. THEN IT'LL BE OURS!
You're the guy who's been going through our garbage again, aren't you?
I think any claim that an attempted trespass qualifies as a "communication" should be treated with severe skepticism, at best.
My Windows XP box, which is my fileserver, has been up for 5 months so far.
:-)
My OS X box, which I use for web browsing and word processing, crashes about once every three days.
Now, I certainly have some bones to pick with Microsoft, but Apple is no better.
My friend has brown hair. He also won the state lottery.
Clearly, brown-haired people are more likely to win the lottery. I suggest buying some hair dye today!
Reboot? What reboot?
:)
Now, when was the last time you tested those init scripts?
Init scripts? You heathen!!
Rebooting is a special occasion, signalling the coming of the harvest season, or the installation of a new kernel. Accordingly, the High Priest shall bring the system up by hand, typing in the ancient incantations from the sacred scrolls.
Init scripts are for the weak of faith. Let ye not be tempted by the daemons of rc-dot-d!
My nominee for best site design is Slashdot, but then again I'm completely colorblind... ;-)
SCO has quite literally bet the farm on this one.
:-o
SCO has a farm?
GCC was a bad example but if you get by with just libc youre much better than I.
I also enjoy many fine LGPL and BSD libraries. Libraries I write end up under one of those two licenses (BSD if it's something trivial; LGPL if it's not). I personally think that GPL for libraries is a bad idea in the long run (fewer people learning the library means fewer people can contribute to it, etc.). Application, or "end-user" software, however, I have no problem with placing under the GPL.
Out of curiosity where did you get anything from number 2 out of that post ?
It's in response to the "forced GPL" comment you made.
Read the license.
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library
If your linked to GPL code your code is GPL, or you have to take out the GPL code. Thats forced GPL and theres no way around it. Remember this the next time you use GCC.
I'll bite.
1. GCC and GNU libc have a special license exception that allows for linking to the libc without having to GPL/LGPL the linked code. Perhaps reading the license is a good idea for you, too.
2. If placing your own code under the GPL is too high a price for you, then you can use your own resources to purchase or develop your own code. The GPL is not a free lunch; it's a quid pro quo. Nothing gives you the right to demand that I code for you for free, although I might do that on my own, if you agree to give back your code in exchange.
Ahhh... that's the first sound explanation I've heard for that decision.
All this time I had simply assumed it was done for some obscure technical and/or corporate-politics-related reason.
Yeah. PDF rendering engine is nice. Though I don't know why they didn't just stick with the original NeXT PostScript engine.
Interesting.
SVG with encoded/embedded PNG data may offer similar capabilities in a standards-compliant form, though I doubt there are any programs currently available that take advantage of this.
Ah well. Hopefully vector graphics will finally catch on before we're all squinting at microscopic icons on a 32,000x18,000 LCD display...
An Anonymous Coward cravenly scrawled:
"The GPL license is just as much garbage as EULA anyway, so I don't see the problem..."
Au contraire, my cowardly friend. The GPL grants rights that you normally do not have, like the right to make copies, distribute, and modify.
Nothing requires you to accept the GPL (the GPL even explicitly says so). However, if you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then there is nothing that grants you any right to redistribute/modify. Absent the rights the GPL gives you, you're just the posessor of a piece of non-redistributable source code. If you do persist in redistributing versions without adhering to the GPL, then it's simply copyright infringement, something the law is very capable of handling (perhaps a little too capable, these days).
An EULA, in contrast, purports to unilaterally take away your fair use rights. The GPL takes away no right you wouldn't have in its absence, and it gives you the option of accepting its terms, in exchange for the right to redistribute and/or modify the software.
The only right the GPL grants you if you do not accept its terms is the right to run it on your own computer, without distributing it elsewhere.
But of course, if you had actually read the damn thing, you'd know that.
For your edification, little Coward, RTFAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Whoa. That is kinda spooky. Could the program be hiding some file-specific metadata elsewhere?
:)
(And for curiousity's sake, open a "normal" png file and see what happens...
Heh. It's like a profane version of the "Dining Philosophers" problem. :D
When SCO, nee Caldera, shipped a linux distribution with this advanced alien unix technology in it, they granted all of us a license to use it, via the GPL.
;)
I think what the parent poster meant was that, if SCO later claims that it did not release its distribution under the GPL, then they have pirated the source code, as nothing but their acceptance of the GNU GPL allows them to redistribute and/or modify the software.
So they can't try that tactic without exposing themselves to enormous liability (set! I-am-not-a-lawyer #t) , which could manifest itself as a good old-fashioned class-action suit on behalf of the developers of the GPL software in question.
Now (rampant non-lawyer speculation here), what would really be interesting if it could be proven that SCO did this at the behest of its parent corporation(s). Opening the world's biggest can of worms. (And exposing to liability certain parent companies that actually have money...)
So, SCO probably can't successfully claim they didn't release their software under the GPL.
With that in mind, it's simply in IBM's best interest to swat down SCO in court, to dispel the FUD, rather than buying them out and letting doubts linger.
SCO is dead. Long live SCO.
Curiously enough, Macromedia seems to use it [PNG] as the default vector image format for Fireworks (perhaps even Freehand and Flash), which could make it big fast if they pushed it.
PNG is a raster image format, not vector.
You might be thinking of SVG (scalable vector graphics), which is essentially an XML format for describing vector graphics (note that IIRC the SVG format requires support for PNG and JPEG images, to include said images in an SVG file). None of this, however, makes PNG a vector graphics format by any stretch of the imagination.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
What ever happened to the good old days of insurance fraud, embezzlement, and plain old theft?
:-)
I believe those were patented as "business methods", and licensed at a prohibitive rate.
In the specific scenarios covered by this story, Microsoft isn't dumping the price below the competition. It is merely lowering the price to the same level as the competition, which makes sense.
;-)
Hmm.. compete with Linux on the basis of... price?
Pretty soon, I'm sure we'll see Linux offered for free, too, in a retaliatory move certain to enrage Redmond.
I don't care for the idea of a batbelt for a separate phone, portable game machine, PDA, camera, etc.
If I may ask, where do you keep your grappling hook, Batarang, Bat-phone, Bat-pager, Bat-fire-extinguisher, Bat-bat, and Bat-kitchen-sink?
Is that an invitation for everyone on Slashdot to simultaneously test that hypothesis? ;-)
Maybe the disgruntled civil servants can challenge the Klingon interpreter to ritual hand-to-hand combat... :-)