"Their new license contains more stuff, and we do not accept MORE STUFF in licenses." - Theo
The basics of the BSD license are pretty much, if you use this, you must include the copyright. That's it. Otherwise it's totally free to use. No 'take-aways'. You might think adding that particular restriction is fair. Others might think other restritions are also fair. If you start adding them all in, your license starts becoming more and more restrictive. The basis of the BSD license is that there are NO restrictions other then the inclusion of the copyright. The software is *totally* free. The OpenBSD folks want to make sure that their OS stays totally free and doesn't get weighed down in 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction' plus 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction' plust 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction', ad infinitum. The copyright notice is it. No more stuff.
For one, they require a lot of direct sunshine. The desert location these will go in is fine, but you won't see too many 4500 acre lots of them sprining up in Merry old England.
Copyright, the base code is out there for everyone, but they have exclusive control over their changes.
Right. They have control over their changes, just as they would if they wrote the software from scratch (which their changes are) but the rest is out there and public. They only have a 'monopoly' over their changes, not the public code. All the public code is still public.
They will probably not tell their customers where to get the base code either.
Part of the BSD license is they must retain copyright notice listing the original BSD authors. They have to publish that. It's a pretty good indicator of where to get the code base...
Microsoft does have monopoly on TCP/IP stacks on Windows.
That's not what I asked. I asked if they had a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks. The answer is NO. No you aren't able to modify MS's software. That has nothing to do with them having a monopoly on all TCP/IP software, or even a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks based on BSD's TCP/IP stack.
If MS added some neat feature to the stack that you like, you can go ahead and code a similar feature to the freely available BSD stack. You are starting with the same raw materials (the publically available BSD stack), and they even gave you the idea to use. They didn't 'steal' the code, or suddenly prevent you from modifying the BSD code yourself.
Certainly if they add on some feature that actually makes the software better, they can claim that theirs is better than the competition. That's how software evolves. Competitive pressure is put on. Do you really want to keep using the same code that was used 20 years ago? Of course not. You keep evolving it. Some company branching off a private copy in no way prevents you from adding on an even better feature yourself. The public BSD code never goes away. If you want to add features to compete with someone, go ahead and add them. They can't stop you.
VMWare simply emulates a PC with totally vanilla hardware. If you can run it in VMWare, the chances are you are going to be able to run it on your hardware if you have vanilla hardware and not exotic or high-end stuff. It is totally different from running it on 'any' PC hardware.
The other thing is, pretty much any PC can run VMWare, which means if you buy a copy of VMWare, you can run MacOS at only a small performance hit.
How do they become a monopoly? Everyone else has a copy of the original BSD code. The only monopoly they have is over their own creative changes. Just as would happen if they wrote closed-source software of their own from scratch in-house.
The Original BSD software is still out there. Did the TCP/IP stack for FreeBSD stop working when Microsoft copied it? Did Microsoft then have a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks? NO! THINK!
The Apache license for 2.x is unfortunately not just a vanillay BSD license. It has some limiting stuff in it which is why OpenBSD is still using the 1.x version of Apache by default. It's got a true free license.
Who said it's only good because it's free? I said they had many reasons for choosing it and didn't need in any way to invoke a massive technical superiority. It was just the right tool for the job at hand. How exactly is that saying it's only good because it's free? Just because someone doesn't praise Linux that doesn't mean they are dissing it. Don't be so defensive.
BTW, I'm an OpenBSD and MacOS user as well as Windows. I'm not a "windows defender".
Most companies have only a handful of servers. That means eating up a little extra RAM to handle the heafty gui. When it's not doing anything, the GUI isn't sucking up CPU. It's just a RAM expense. As I said. For most companies who only run a few servers, that little bit extra doesn't matter a bit. When you are running tens of thousands of servers it's a different matter.
because many people claim Linux is far superior to Windows in terms of basic architecture and technical design
And many of those people would be Linux zealots.
Seriously, there are plenty of reasons for them to use Linux (or a BSD) without invoking massive technical superiority.
1) Google was a startup. They've only gone public and become zillionares recently. Before that they had to run off of venture capital. They knew they would be running (tens of) thousands of servers. One license for an OS isn't much. Three or four (or five) magnitudes of order more is.
2) Even if somehow MS, gives you free copies of windows server, you still are putting an OS with a hefty GUI on servers which are going to sit headless and run database queries all day. Once again, buying the little bit of additional RAM necessary for the GUI overhead is nothing for that server you have in your office at work. Multiply it by tens of thousands... it starts adding up to real money being sucked out of your investment capital for no reason.
3) As they said, they have full access to the source code, and they have enough technical talent in-house that they can really take advantage of tweaking it. Not a lot of companies have those kind of resources in-house. They did and they needed to for the job they were working on.
Basically they chose the right tool for the job. That doesn't make it a better tool than Windows, Solaris, MacOS, or any other OS for other jobs, it doesn't make it technically superior, it just makes it the right tool for the job. Someday some of the zealots out there will grow up and realize that.
I don't want someone in my health insurance program that has a good chance of costing me money.
Which is great until you discover that you yourself have a perviously undiagnosed genetic predisposition to having an early heart attack. The shoe being on the other foot kinda sucks then.
Really, you should be much more upset about folks who deliberately act in self destructive ways (smoking, heavy drinking, etc) being on your insurance rather than folks who by bad luck are born with bad genetics.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc, take your pick. They are all complete systems. They all have well documented man pages for all userland programs included.
About your first point: If you are talking about the DRM stuff, then yes, that's a real problem. However if you own any CD's, DVD's, tapes, books, etc, You can easily resell those for whatever price you want (well, at least what someone else is willing to buy a 'used' copy for). DRM is a real consumer problem though.
As for your other points, agreed, although some independent groups are popping up and helping with that. It's just going to take some work organizing that. Getting publicity, distribution, etc, for your work isn't easy. Expect to pay or do some work for it. That's one of the reasons the Big Media corps take such a big cut. They already did the work to get that organization in place and are set to do the work as part of their cut.
No, but while you are in jail, between lovemaking sessions with your cell mate Snake, please take a course in logic. I think you'll eventually find the mile-wide flaw in your logic.
Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, etc, are types of Collusion, which is an all togeather different matter than charging an extremely high price.
You are perfectly free to charge a trillion dollars for a song if you like. You just can't use collude with other firms to increase the price for all songs sold.
It doesn't matter how much profits they make. They are free to charge as much as they like for their movies/music/software.
You are also free not to buy any of it.
The problems with these types of laws is that you don't always know if what you are downloading off the internet is something that is copyright'd,and not freely re-distributable, vs something that may be copyrighted, but freely destributable (opensource software, promotional free-music, etc). You usually don't really know until you have it downloaded and can run/play it. Even then, you might not know if it's legal or not. ex: Plan 9 from outerspace was a commercial movie, but it's now being freely distributed legally.
I also saw "asian chick". I did read the post. It seemed racist, so I called you on it.
The replies to your flame all have valid points backing my point of view. You should read them if you didn't understand me correctly
Seeing that your post is currently rated at "0 Troll" and my reply is at "5 insightful", I think there are a lot of folks out there who agree with my assesment.
The vast majority of pornography freely available on the 'net has nothing to do with "two people who like each other a lot" doing "natural things". I may be wrong, but to give further examples of unnatural sex acts: drunken college chicks, beastiality, cheating housewives, and sticking it up a girl's ass for bragging rights are most definately not "normal behavior" of two consenting adults.
All of which has nothing to do with race. So why was that included in your description of 'wrong' acts?
Then why bring up their race? It's no more relevant than the bad acting and horrible writing involved in most of those films. He didn't mention that. He listed the races along with a list of the 'bad/wrong' things that occur in the films. It certainly implied that that was part of what was 'wrong' with those sexual acts.
Slashdot Mirror
"Their new license contains more stuff, and we do not accept MORE STUFF in licenses." - Theo
The basics of the BSD license are pretty much, if you use this, you must include the copyright. That's it. Otherwise it's totally free to use. No 'take-aways'. You might think adding that particular restriction is fair. Others might think other restritions are also fair. If you start adding them all in, your license starts becoming more and more restrictive. The basis of the BSD license is that there are NO restrictions other then the inclusion of the copyright. The software is *totally* free. The OpenBSD folks want to make sure that their OS stays totally free and doesn't get weighed down in 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction' plus 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction' plust 'just one more tiny *fair* restriction', ad infinitum. The copyright notice is it. No more stuff.
For one, they require a lot of direct sunshine. The desert location these will go in is fine, but you won't see too many 4500 acre lots of them sprining up in Merry old England.
Right. They have control over their changes, just as they would if they wrote the software from scratch (which their changes are) but the rest is out there and public. They only have a 'monopoly' over their changes, not the public code. All the public code is still public.
They will probably not tell their customers where to get the base code either.
Part of the BSD license is they must retain copyright notice listing the original BSD authors. They have to publish that. It's a pretty good indicator of where to get the code base...
That's not what I asked. I asked if they had a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks. The answer is NO. No you aren't able to modify MS's software. That has nothing to do with them having a monopoly on all TCP/IP software, or even a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks based on BSD's TCP/IP stack.
If MS added some neat feature to the stack that you like, you can go ahead and code a similar feature to the freely available BSD stack. You are starting with the same raw materials (the publically available BSD stack), and they even gave you the idea to use. They didn't 'steal' the code, or suddenly prevent you from modifying the BSD code yourself.
Certainly if they add on some feature that actually makes the software better, they can claim that theirs is better than the competition. That's how software evolves. Competitive pressure is put on. Do you really want to keep using the same code that was used 20 years ago? Of course not. You keep evolving it. Some company branching off a private copy in no way prevents you from adding on an even better feature yourself. The public BSD code never goes away. If you want to add features to compete with someone, go ahead and add them. They can't stop you.
The other thing is, pretty much any PC can run VMWare, which means if you buy a copy of VMWare, you can run MacOS at only a small performance hit.
The Original BSD software is still out there. Did the TCP/IP stack for FreeBSD stop working when Microsoft copied it? Did Microsoft then have a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks? NO! THINK!
The Apache license for 2.x is unfortunately not just a vanillay BSD license. It has some limiting stuff in it which is why OpenBSD is still using the 1.x version of Apache by default. It's got a true free license.
BTW, I'm an OpenBSD and MacOS user as well as Windows. I'm not a "windows defender".
Most companies have only a handful of servers. That means eating up a little extra RAM to handle the heafty gui. When it's not doing anything, the GUI isn't sucking up CPU. It's just a RAM expense. As I said. For most companies who only run a few servers, that little bit extra doesn't matter a bit. When you are running tens of thousands of servers it's a different matter.
And many of those people would be Linux zealots.
Seriously, there are plenty of reasons for them to use Linux (or a BSD) without invoking massive technical superiority.
1) Google was a startup. They've only gone public and become zillionares recently. Before that they had to run off of venture capital. They knew they would be running (tens of) thousands of servers. One license for an OS isn't much. Three or four (or five) magnitudes of order more is.
2) Even if somehow MS, gives you free copies of windows server, you still are putting an OS with a hefty GUI on servers which are going to sit headless and run database queries all day. Once again, buying the little bit of additional RAM necessary for the GUI overhead is nothing for that server you have in your office at work. Multiply it by tens of thousands... it starts adding up to real money being sucked out of your investment capital for no reason.
3) As they said, they have full access to the source code, and they have enough technical talent in-house that they can really take advantage of tweaking it. Not a lot of companies have those kind of resources in-house. They did and they needed to for the job they were working on.
Basically they chose the right tool for the job. That doesn't make it a better tool than Windows, Solaris, MacOS, or any other OS for other jobs, it doesn't make it technically superior, it just makes it the right tool for the job. Someday some of the zealots out there will grow up and realize that.
Which is great until you discover that you yourself have a perviously undiagnosed genetic predisposition to having an early heart attack. The shoe being on the other foot kinda sucks then.
Really, you should be much more upset about folks who deliberately act in self destructive ways (smoking, heavy drinking, etc) being on your insurance rather than folks who by bad luck are born with bad genetics.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc, take your pick. They are all complete systems. They all have well documented man pages for all userland programs included.
They are only Linux friendly. VMWare won't run with FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD as the host system. And only FreeBSD is supported as a guest system.
And some of us don't like Linux at all but like a *BSD or MacOS or Solaris, or...
Besides, 99% of office users use apps like web/Office/email, not Photoshop. So the slightly less accurate colors won't matter a whit to them.
Um, it's less than 1/13th the power by my math...
As for your other points, agreed, although some independent groups are popping up and helping with that. It's just going to take some work organizing that. Getting publicity, distribution, etc, for your work isn't easy. Expect to pay or do some work for it. That's one of the reasons the Big Media corps take such a big cut. They already did the work to get that organization in place and are set to do the work as part of their cut.
No, but while you are in jail, between lovemaking sessions with your cell mate Snake, please take a course in logic. I think you'll eventually find the mile-wide flaw in your logic.
You are perfectly free to charge a trillion dollars for a song if you like. You just can't use collude with other firms to increase the price for all songs sold.
You are also free not to buy any of it.
The problems with these types of laws is that you don't always know if what you are downloading off the internet is something that is copyright'd ,and not freely re-distributable, vs something that may be copyrighted, but freely destributable (opensource software, promotional free-music, etc). You usually don't really know until you have it downloaded and can run/play it. Even then, you might not know if it's legal or not. ex: Plan 9 from outerspace was a commercial movie, but it's now being freely distributed legally.
Yeah, but where else can you buy a hard drive that cures cancer?
That'd be junction points.
I also saw "asian chick". I did read the post. It seemed racist, so I called you on it.
The replies to your flame all have valid points backing my point of view. You should read them if you didn't understand me correctly
Seeing that your post is currently rated at "0 Troll" and my reply is at "5 insightful", I think there are a lot of folks out there who agree with my assesment.
The vast majority of pornography freely available on the 'net has nothing to do with "two people who like each other a lot" doing "natural things". I may be wrong, but to give further examples of unnatural sex acts: drunken college chicks, beastiality, cheating housewives, and sticking it up a girl's ass for bragging rights are most definately not "normal behavior" of two consenting adults.
All of which has nothing to do with race. So why was that included in your description of 'wrong' acts?
Jackass.
Right back at ya bud.
Then why bring up their race? It's no more relevant than the bad acting and horrible writing involved in most of those films. He didn't mention that. He listed the races along with a list of the 'bad/wrong' things that occur in the films. It certainly implied that that was part of what was 'wrong' with those sexual acts.
DOH! Yep. Sorry. My bad. I claim sleep deprivation. ;)