that legislation, *any* legislation, is more like writing patches than rewriting laws, and, subsequently, trying to understand a piece of software by reading a patch is a very silly idea.
What would be useful, is to see the patched law, and read it in proper context.
Except an average end user doesn't *care* about an API, they will use a phone through the front end, they will never even think about writing an app for their phone; it's *developers* that seek APIs, that prefer and desire open source systems.
You are using the word "open" to describe a system that has a freely-accessible API. This does not mean that the system is an "open" device. Making this comparison is like saying Windows is "open" because you can write open-source applications for it.
What sort of whacked-out idea of "open" do you have?
I don't have the source code to PalmOS, to WinMo, to Symbian, to the Blackberry OS, hell, even Android has closed-source components.
I don't know anything about the hardware internals, so they're not open hardware either.
What sort of crack are you smoking, and where can I get some?
The fact that the method calls there are that long is due to the methods that library/class is exposing, and is not an inherent quality to the language itself.
If so, perhaps he should try to start the dialogue with something other than "Hey dude, you stole our stuff". Just sayin'.
Well, I'm not a legal expert regarding the dual licensed works, but not all the files were dual licensed, and Jiri had replaced BSD-only-licensed files with the GPL. That is a violation of the license terms.
I or anyone else who uses the BSD license for their work would probably not mind if someone took their source and did not contribute back changes (really! or they wouldn't use the license).
Perhaps what Theo wants is a greater dialogue and sharing between the OSS communities, but the GPL is incompatible with the BSD license, so something would need to be done about licensing and sharing code, as I mentioned earlier, if that were to go ahead.
Hey, I could be misunderstanding things too, I'm just trying to interpret things as well.
I don't think the BSD camp is interested in enforcing code sharing, my interpretation of things is that the BSD camp would like some contributions back on an ethical basis.
I don't know how that's going to be achieved, whether some Linux people dual-license or whatever, or release some things as BSD targeted for the BSD people to use.
/* diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c index c345da8..067c837 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c @@ -1,9 +1,7 @@ /* * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter <reyk@vantronix.net> * - * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any - * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above - * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. + * This file is released under GPLv2 */
If he does not have Reyk Floeter's permission to relicense that code, then that is a license violation. Then again, I don't see any permission info in the patch or notice anywhere saying that he has permission to relicense Reyk's code.
No, you need to include the permission notice too on BSD licensed source as well as the copyright. Those have been uniformly stripped out of BSD-only licensed code, which violates the license.
There's still a problem as not all the files are dual licensed (eg drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c). They can't strip the entire license text from those files which are licensed BSD only and relicense as GPL.
I don't know how difficult it would be to dynamically (or otherwise) translate Mach-O binaries to ELF. The two systems are using different kernels and different kernel architectures, so even at that most basic level, this would be a problem.
The kernel in OS X and OPENSTEP and NeXTSTEP is Mach, but it's not performing like a microkernel like it may be in Hurd.
That isn't to say that OS X and OS/NS are fundamentally different -- they're not.
Yes, it has no restrictions, but keep in mind that public domain means that you revoke any claims to copyright that you may automatically have on your work. You can, of course, assert copyright but let others do whatever they want to it (no restrictions like PD, but you still have copyright).
You're forgetting a few things. Mac OS X was derived from OPENSTEP, and OPENSTEP's underlying display technology is Display PostScript (DPS), not X. As a design decision, throwing away an already mature technology for something completely different and then rewriting a whole heap of libraries to support it is much more work rather than using PDF, an already PostScript based technology, wouldn't be very intelligent.
You may be right regarding Apple's altruism, but there's more to the picture regarding X than you're really revealing.
It inst the smae, but tehre was a sudty dnoe whree msot pleope can raed a snetnace if the frsit and lsat lttres are in the smae palce whit the ltertes mxied up.
Yes, it is a bit of hyperbole, but Cell still looks impressive. It would be very interesting to see some sort of benchmark or comparison with Cell and Intel processors somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you've regularly seen him in line like every other schlub and ex-founder of Apple...
that legislation, *any* legislation, is more like writing patches than rewriting laws, and, subsequently, trying to understand a piece of software by reading a patch is a very silly idea. What would be useful, is to see the patched law, and read it in proper context.
Me too!
Except an average end user doesn't *care* about an API, they will use a phone through the front end, they will never even think about writing an app for their phone; it's *developers* that seek APIs, that prefer and desire open source systems.
You are using the word "open" to describe a system that has a freely-accessible API. This does not mean that the system is an "open" device. Making this comparison is like saying Windows is "open" because you can write open-source applications for it.
What sort of whacked-out idea of "open" do you have? I don't have the source code to PalmOS, to WinMo, to Symbian, to the Blackberry OS, hell, even Android has closed-source components. I don't know anything about the hardware internals, so they're not open hardware either. What sort of crack are you smoking, and where can I get some?
So use dtach.
The fact that the method calls there are that long is due to the methods that library/class is exposing, and is not an inherent quality to the language itself.
If so, perhaps he should try to start the dialogue with something other than "Hey dude, you stole our stuff". Just sayin'. Well, I'm not a legal expert regarding the dual licensed works, but not all the files were dual licensed, and Jiri had replaced BSD-only-licensed files with the GPL. That is a violation of the license terms.
I or anyone else who uses the BSD license for their work would probably not mind if someone took their source and did not contribute back changes (really! or they wouldn't use the license). Perhaps what Theo wants is a greater dialogue and sharing between the OSS communities, but the GPL is incompatible with the BSD license, so something would need to be done about licensing and sharing code, as I mentioned earlier, if that were to go ahead. Hey, I could be misunderstanding things too, I'm just trying to interpret things as well.
I don't think the BSD camp is interested in enforcing code sharing, my interpretation of things is that the BSD camp would like some contributions back on an ethical basis. I don't know how that's going to be achieved, whether some Linux people dual-license or whatever, or release some things as BSD targeted for the BSD people to use.
No, you need to include the permission notice too on BSD licensed source as well as the copyright. Those have been uniformly stripped out of BSD-only licensed code, which violates the license.
There's still a problem as not all the files are dual licensed (eg drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c). They can't strip the entire license text from those files which are licensed BSD only and relicense as GPL.
I don't know how difficult it would be to dynamically (or otherwise) translate Mach-O binaries to ELF. The two systems are using different kernels and different kernel architectures, so even at that most basic level, this would be a problem.
The kernel in OS X and OPENSTEP and NeXTSTEP is Mach, but it's not performing like a microkernel like it may be in Hurd. That isn't to say that OS X and OS/NS are fundamentally different -- they're not.
Mac OS System 8 (IIRC) had tabs too, for spring-loaded folders.
I was just making a joke...
Who needs VNC or networked X any more??
Yes, it has no restrictions, but keep in mind that public domain means that you revoke any claims to copyright that you may automatically have on your work. You can, of course, assert copyright but let others do whatever they want to it (no restrictions like PD, but you still have copyright).
You're forgetting a few things. Mac OS X was derived from OPENSTEP, and OPENSTEP's underlying display technology is Display PostScript (DPS), not X. As a design decision, throwing away an already mature technology for something completely different and then rewriting a whole heap of libraries to support it is much more work rather than using PDF, an already PostScript based technology, wouldn't be very intelligent. You may be right regarding Apple's altruism, but there's more to the picture regarding X than you're really revealing.
It inst the smae, but tehre was a sudty dnoe whree msot pleope can raed a snetnace if the frsit and lsat lttres are in the smae palce whit the ltertes mxied up.
NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP already do use left-sided scrollbars. This was probably a consequence of using DPS for window drawing, but there you have it.
What about the lesbians?
Yes, it is a bit of hyperbole, but Cell still looks impressive. It would be very interesting to see some sort of benchmark or comparison with Cell and Intel processors somehow.