Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.
Do they have any of that?
Seriously they are even more proprietary and evil than Microsoft (and cost more and have an even worse UI and better customer lock-in), and they have evil bad-quality expensive proprietary hardware too (on top of the software) which is actually worse.
Ye, shareware a.k.a. crippleware, charityware, &c. Who would want to use that?
Its not freeware (by which I assume you mean FRS or freely-redistributable software), its free software (freely copiable, modifiable and redistributable with the source code).
Aside: Funny the way even Microsoft-worshipping sysadmins (I'm not saying that's you and I'm not using "worshipping" lightly) often use GNU/Linux to get MSW installed.
This sort of shit is I yearn for the day when everything I need and do on Windows can be seamlessly handled by some other OS.
What do you need MSW for? I'm sure people can suggest alternatives.
There's some truth in that one too. Although I think you'll find "then they claim they were with you all along" nearly always happens wrt to fights for freedom (e.g.: liberation movements, free software movement) whereas "then they try to buy you" is often futile/impossible. Or were you joking?
Good point. I thought that after I posted. Probably 1.0.1 will be built from aviary (but there is very little info out there on 1.0.1). Although, in the future, there will not be a seperate aviary branch--it was just 1.0--which is IMO good.
Anyone else pine for the good old m/b days?...LOL.
It was faster/less bloated than 1.0 in the early days though. Recent nightlies seem to be going the other way though (i.e.: getting fast/unbloated again).
BTW the bug only occured sometimes if your machine was fast and it was rendering/. too quickly--you could try reloading--it was a genuine bug as it occured intermittently, but the awful slashcode HTML doesn't help (esp. their use of evil many-nested tables for layout--see the funny and informative Why tables for layout is stupid).
Sage cannot reload my RSS feeds
Sage? (BTW, how can you imply that MSIE is better than Firefox in this regard when MSIE doesn't even support RSS feeds.)
I guess I'd somehow like Firefox to "emulate" MSIE when it comes to viewing some "incompatible" sites
It already does to some extent. It is called quirks mode. It uses that mode to render/. as/. is not standard-compliant. Go to page info on the page context menu to see which mode it is using for the page--quirks mode will kick in if a page isn't standards-compliant.
No. You don't understand. They originally put ActiveX (and other syware/malware) in MS Windows so they could spy on you and crack into your machine.
They've realised that other crackers (not employed by MS) were using it too much, so they are now making it so only they can take over your machine with ActiveX. Makes perfect sense to me.
They still have no say. They may be able to use technical means to try and stop you, but they cannot argue that you cannot use the product (however you like) after they have sold it to you.
use the official bittorrent (or another P2P system)
download it from another FTP or WWW site (or from within a LAN)
download a different build (optimised, more free, different options, added features, &c)
get it with their OS distro (or through their distro's installation FTP/rsync/WWW/jigdo site)
order the CD
have a copy on a software compilation CD (e.g.: from the front of a magazine)
The you have to consider, that most people download it to try it. Some might actually decide they prefer their current WWW browser (especially if they don't use IE) and stop using it.
Basically these statistics, if anything, only give an indication of trends (i.e.: acceleration/deceleration) in use as opposed to the actual number of users.
As I said, I believe (from how I have interpreted copyright law) that whether your clean room libraries actually create a functioning piece of software without you having to use a different version of your program for the cleanroom and original libraries would have a bearing here.
Look at this from a whole different perspective. I am an evil proprietary software developer working for Satan, Inc. Satan want to improve GPLed software by including value-added freedom-subtracted go-faster stripes, and do not want any software they produce to be free.
Being a clever Satanic minion, I decide I have worked out a way of doing this. I remove the bit of the GPLed software that we want to make better. I then replace it with a trivial uncopyrightable link to a library which includes the go-faster-stripes routine.
Being an even cleverer satanic minion, I do this the other way round by making my version of the GPLed program into a library used by my program contaning the go-faster-stripes routine....
I'm really tired, but you get the idea. Now do you see why I can create a derivate work by dynamic linking, and why my intent here matters?
I'm a but tired and going to bed now. I'll take a stab at this though.
This is basically just making it technically less obvious what you are doing. Your intent is the same--that's what matters. (The same is true with your "but my diffs to Webster's could apply to lots of books" argument.)
I admit that in most cases of dynamic linking you are not producing a derivative work. In fact I think you cannot produce a derivative work of a GNU-GPLed library by accident; you actually have to be going out of your way to get around the terms of the GNU GPL in order for this dynamic linking problem to occur.
Nonetheless your statement that dynamic linking can never create a derivative work would seem to be wrong using the normal defintion of derivative work. AFAIK, however, there has never been a court case in any jurisdiction that has involved dynamic linking and derivate works. So, its just your opinion against mine (and the FSF's).
The user is irrelevant. The point is whether, when you created the libraries, you had to rely on the libraries. Could you have ever created the work without those particular libraries? Even if you didn't compile the two together (outside of your own head), you are still violating the copyright on the libraries--you cannot get out if it.
I never said "all". Sometimes works that are linked are derived; sometimes they aren't. I'm trying to explain to you which is which, but you clearly aren't taking any notice. Basically, to overly simplify this, if it is a seperate program it is not derived from it. If it is effectively one work, it is.
If I take linux away from 'Linux for dummies' it becomes useless it cannot be used independently.
Firstly, it can be used independently (in that I can read it and learn about Linux even if I don't ever have access to Linux). Secondly, and most imprtantly, I assume--I've never read it (but it is not software so can't really be Linux-based)--it is in no way derived from Linux itself so it doesn't matter whever it can be used independently or not.
So where does it end? (at the dynamic linking level?)
You use common sense to work out whether it is a seperate work or not. It is usually obvious. Failing that, you can take it to court and the judge will use his judgement and similar case law to decide.
What is a 'standard' interface?
The sort of interface that one could actually use to connect your program to another program or library that isn't based on the library in question. Or to put it another way, the sort of interface that one would actually write up as an actual technical standard (as opposed to just being a pointless interface the purpose of which is to attempt to get round copyright law when you are modifiying someone else's work as opposed to making a work of your own).
I can write my own version of the libraries with the same interfaces, how is this different?
That is exactly what I mean by a standard interface. If you could conceivably write your own version of the libraries (without copying from the libraries you currently use) which would work with the interface in the program, your program is not derived from the libraries wrt to copyright law assuming your program only links to (and does not directly include part(s) of) the libraries.
I personally can use any programme you give me 'without' the dynamic libraries being present, just because it's technically difficult for you to use it independently doesn't make it a fact.
Well, can you use it? It's not about whether its "technically" possible, it is about whether their is any point in your work (whether it is actually a work of literature in the law) without the libraries being attached to it.
you have failed to define a 'derived' work in a way that says I cannot dynamically link a commercial product against GPL. you have wishfully thought.
That's because you can link a commercial product against the GPL because the GPL is a commercial license (it even goes as far stops others from stopping others from making money from selling your work or derviatives of it). When the GNU GPL was written one of RMS's promary concerns was making sure it was commercially-viable and that ensured that everyone was allowed to make a profit from the software.
The FSF is very fluffy, because you cannot define a derived work in that way, it's impossible.
What is "that way"? No one has tried linking to the FSF's libraries in a way they don't like in a proprietary product after being warned by them. So, I'm guessing no one is willing to argue with them. I don't understand which bit you are saying is fluffy: clearly the law doesn't specify what is a derivative work so one has to at some point emply common sense (but this is true of everything in life and I think that most people would agree on what counts given a particular case).
Don't ask me to interpret the FSF's FAQ (although most of it made sense to me) as I cannot mind read. If you reall
AFAICC, in that particular case, your program could only form a derivative work of the libraries if someone could not create another version of the libraries which your program would be able to work with without copying code from the orignial libraries. A bit long winded but I think that gets to the crux of it.
The point is that that depends on whether you actually are using dynamic linking in such a way that it is like diffing (which is were the problem occurs).
Slashdot Mirror
FTR, Wales isn't a country either. It's a nation.
FTR, that wouldn't be equivalent at all because Toronto is in America (as is the US). It would be more like someone saying the US was is in Toronto.
What are free of charge? You still aren't making coherent sentences.
Seriously they are even more proprietary and evil than Microsoft (and cost more and have an even worse UI and better customer lock-in), and they have evil bad-quality expensive proprietary hardware too (on top of the software) which is actually worse.
They're also a really good ISP and not any more expensive than other UK ISPs.
Its not freeware (by which I assume you mean FRS or freely-redistributable software), its free software (freely copiable, modifiable and redistributable with the source code).
Remind me again why /. is so full of dumbasses.
What's free beer got to do inwith anything? All the occurences of "free" in the story were meant in the origal sense (free speech).
Aside: Funny the way even Microsoft-worshipping sysadmins (I'm not saying that's you and I'm not using "worshipping" lightly) often use GNU/Linux to get MSW installed.
What do you need MSW for? I'm sure people can suggest alternatives.There's some truth in that one too. Although I think you'll find "then they claim they were with you all along" nearly always happens wrt to fights for freedom (e.g.: liberation movements, free software movement) whereas "then they try to buy you" is often futile/impossible. Or were you joking?
Good point. I thought that after I posted. Probably 1.0.1 will be built from aviary (but there is very little info out there on 1.0.1). Although, in the future, there will not be a seperate aviary branch--it was just 1.0--which is IMO good.
My corollary to that is "then they claim they were with you all along" (which goes before "then you win").
Anyone else pine for the good old m/b days?...LOL.
It was faster/less bloated than 1.0 in the early days though. Recent nightlies seem to be going the other way though (i.e.: getting fast/unbloated again).
This was fixed in Gecko in May 2004 on the trunk which is used by the latest stable version of Mozilla Suite (but not on the aviary branch).
To fix it in Firefox:
get a recent nightly build--I find them just as stable
get the new minor stable version (1.0.1) which is coming out this month
just install the Slashfix extension.
BTW the bug only occured sometimes if your machine was fast and it was rendering /. too quickly--you could try reloading--it was a genuine bug as it occured intermittently, but the awful slashcode HTML doesn't help (esp. their use of evil many-nested tables for layout--see the funny and informative Why tables for layout is stupid).
Sage? (BTW, how can you imply that MSIE is better than Firefox in this regard when MSIE doesn't even support RSS feeds.)
It already does to some extent. It is called quirks mode. It uses that mode to render
There's always tech evangelism (or filing a tech-evang Bugzilla bug)
So can Firefox. To do it on the fly in Firefox, use the User Agent Switcher.
Its not like you can run multiple copies of Firefox simulaneously from the same OS login ATM anyway.
And for the record, MS don't offer any support (even if you pay more) for MSOffice on MSW (let alone WINE on CrossoverOffice).
They've realised that other crackers (not employed by MS) were using it too much, so they are now making it so only they can take over your machine with ActiveX. Makes perfect sense to me.
BTW, I'm being totally serious.
In fact the theme in MSW XP is really annoying--especially as it slows down your machine and sometimes doesn't work at all à la WindowBlinds.
They still have no say. They may be able to use technical means to try and stop you, but they cannot argue that you cannot use the product (however you like) after they have sold it to you.
The you have to consider, that most people download it to try it. Some might actually decide they prefer their current WWW browser (especially if they don't use IE) and stop using it.
Basically these statistics, if anything, only give an indication of trends (i.e.: acceleration/deceleration) in use as opposed to the actual number of users.
As I said, I believe (from how I have interpreted copyright law) that whether your clean room libraries actually create a functioning piece of software without you having to use a different version of your program for the cleanroom and original libraries would have a bearing here.
Look at this from a whole different perspective. I am an evil proprietary software developer working for Satan, Inc. Satan want to improve GPLed software by including value-added freedom-subtracted go-faster stripes, and do not want any software they produce to be free.
Being a clever Satanic minion, I decide I have worked out a way of doing this. I remove the bit of the GPLed software that we want to make better. I then replace it with a trivial uncopyrightable link to a library which includes the go-faster-stripes routine.
Being an even cleverer satanic minion, I do this the other way round by making my version of the GPLed program into a library used by my program contaning the go-faster-stripes routine....
I'm really tired, but you get the idea. Now do you see why I can create a derivate work by dynamic linking, and why my intent here matters?
This is basically just making it technically less obvious what you are doing. Your intent is the same--that's what matters. (The same is true with your "but my diffs to Webster's could apply to lots of books" argument.)
I admit that in most cases of dynamic linking you are not producing a derivative work. In fact I think you cannot produce a derivative work of a GNU-GPLed library by accident; you actually have to be going out of your way to get around the terms of the GNU GPL in order for this dynamic linking problem to occur.
Nonetheless your statement that dynamic linking can never create a derivative work would seem to be wrong using the normal defintion of derivative work. AFAIK, however, there has never been a court case in any jurisdiction that has involved dynamic linking and derivate works. So, its just your opinion against mine (and the FSF's).
The user is irrelevant. The point is whether, when you created the libraries, you had to rely on the libraries. Could you have ever created the work without those particular libraries? Even if you didn't compile the two together (outside of your own head), you are still violating the copyright on the libraries--you cannot get out if it.
I never said "all". Sometimes works that are linked are derived; sometimes they aren't. I'm trying to explain to you which is which, but you clearly aren't taking any notice. Basically, to overly simplify this, if it is a seperate program it is not derived from it. If it is effectively one work, it is.
Firstly, it can be used independently (in that I can read it and learn about Linux even if I don't ever have access to Linux). Secondly, and most imprtantly, I assume--I've never read it (but it is not software so can't really be Linux-based)--it is in no way derived from Linux itself so it doesn't matter whever it can be used independently or not.
You use common sense to work out whether it is a seperate work or not. It is usually obvious. Failing that, you can take it to court and the judge will use his judgement and similar case law to decide.
The sort of interface that one could actually use to connect your program to another program or library that isn't based on the library in question. Or to put it another way, the sort of interface that one would actually write up as an actual technical standard (as opposed to just being a pointless interface the purpose of which is to attempt to get round copyright law when you are modifiying someone else's work as opposed to making a work of your own).
That is exactly what I mean by a standard interface. If you could conceivably write your own version of the libraries (without copying from the libraries you currently use) which would work with the interface in the program, your program is not derived from the libraries wrt to copyright law assuming your program only links to (and does not directly include part(s) of) the libraries.
Well, can you use it? It's not about whether its "technically" possible, it is about whether their is any point in your work (whether it is actually a work of literature in the law) without the libraries being attached to it.
That's because you can link a commercial product against the GPL because the GPL is a commercial license (it even goes as far stops others from stopping others from making money from selling your work or derviatives of it). When the GNU GPL was written one of RMS's promary concerns was making sure it was commercially-viable and that ensured that everyone was allowed to make a profit from the software.
What is "that way"? No one has tried linking to the FSF's libraries in a way they don't like in a proprietary product after being warned by them. So, I'm guessing no one is willing to argue with them. I don't understand which bit you are saying is fluffy: clearly the law doesn't specify what is a derivative work so one has to at some point emply common sense (but this is true of everything in life and I think that most people would agree on what counts given a particular case).
Don't ask me to interpret the FSF's FAQ (although most of it made sense to me) as I cannot mind read. If you reall
AFAICC, in that particular case, your program could only form a derivative work of the libraries if someone could not create another version of the libraries which your program would be able to work with without copying code from the orignial libraries. A bit long winded but I think that gets to the crux of it.