... Transgaming has already given so much back to the Wine project it is not even funny (including the fact that Transgaming is now looking to sponsor some portions of Wine progress)...
If it were me, I would feel this license-change request to be an unwarranted smack in the face. I give you something and then you turn around and accuse me of stealing. That is not very nice.
You make a statement, but give absolutely no evidence why this be "indeed very bad." FreeBSD and the X Window system are thriving, from what I can see, and haven't been hampered/killed by their "commercial-exploitation friendly" licenses.
Don't forget Apache with modssl.
I think LGPL for Wine is great, and will bode well for it's continued growth in functionality and popularity.
I don't think it will help at all. It is already open source. Even if they change it to LGPL, how will this force companies to open their code up. They will just provide closed-source DLL's.
Oh yeah, $80 a month should definitely entitle you to 1/4th of a T1 constant speed at less than 1/10th of the price.
This is only because the telcos advertise T1's as premium service. They want to keep businesses on the expensive service. If too many businesses found out they could get fractional-T1 at much cheaper prices, they would lose the huge profits they can get from them. The cost in the T1 tends to be the service offered from the telco.
Some stuff to read:
1) Link 2) DSL FAQ Read the section on T1 especially the last two sentences.
> > Extra performance/stability: yes (SMP is lacking)/yes
> SMP is not lacking, at least for x86.
He was asking about extra performance of FreeBSD over Linux. I wanted him to know that SMP is not quite up to par. As he did not mention SMP, I believe he will see very nice performance. I just didn't want others to assume SMP was stellar. When 5.0 comes out, I will have to consider getting me an SMP box.
> > I believe LILO can handle FreeBSD.
> yes, and FreeBSD's loader can handle linux partitions.
Well, he did ask if LILO worked with FreeBSD. Personally, I use FreeBSD's loader.
Can I run all apps/libs (or equivalents of the same quality) I use regularly now on FreeBSD? That would be KDE2.2, XMMS, OpenGL on GeForce2, MSN client, \LaTeX{}, Java1.2 a.o. Would It really bring me some extra performance/stability?
KDE2.2: yes
XMMS: yes
OpenGL: yes
GeForce2: yes, but not hardware accelerated. Fortunately, it is being worked on: http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/news.html
MSN client: ?, there are Jabber clients for instant messenging with MSN.
LaTeX: yes
Java: in a few days. It is standard with FreeBSD (they paid the licenses fees). It is v1.3.
Extra performance/stability: yes (SMP is lacking)/yes
I believe FreeBSD does not do logical partitions--features sneak past me all the time.:) Read this section in the handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/install-steps.html
Basically, what most OS's refer to as a partition is a BSD slice. A BSD partition is just a sub-slice.
Here is a clip of it:
Each partition-that-contains-a-filesystem is stored in what FreeBSD calls a slice. Slice is FreeBSD's term for what were earlier called partitions, and again, this is because of FreeBSD's Unix background. Slices are numbered, starting at 1, through to 4.
Slice numbers follow the device name, prefixed with an s, starting at 1. So ``da0s1'' is the first slice on the first SCSI drive. There can only be four physical slices on a disk, but you can have logical slices inside physical slices of the appropriate type. These extended slices are numbered starting at 5, so ``ad0s5'' is the first extended slice on a disk. These devices are used by file systems that expect to occupy a slice.
According to JKH, there is no definate plan for the integration, so it may never happen.
Actually, it might. From the JKH interview:
[23:39] I think the NetBSD startup stuff, for example, is pretty cool
[23:39] we're just trying to find enough bodies to finish that
[23:39] (the merge)
My preference is that all API's, interfaces, etc. should be under a BSD style (i.e., non-restrictive) license.
For libraries I prefer LGPL.
How are these different assuming both refer to code?
But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.
I do agree it's a restriction on freedom.. one which I happen to like. But the BSD licence is more "free". Choose your licence according to your own taste. Each has its own pros and cons.
Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.
If you said the beer was free for everyone, you could not complain, especially if you had an unlimited amount of beer.
Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party."
Remember: they never claimed to be free. I never stated they were either. I am talking about what GNU licenses are supposed to represent.
The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright.
Or they just want the code they write to be theirs. They may not care about the rest of the code.
Spoken like a true free-marketroid.
Huh? Is this supposed to be an insult?
Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.
I have no problems about the rules. I just don't like the idea of claiming something is free when not everyone can use it as they see fit.
Recall the barcode reader that was given away for free (last year?). They said it was free, but they objected to its use outside of their restrictions. In my opinion, it was not truly free.
If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do.
Ask yourself these quesitons:
1) Is my goal to make money off of this software?
If yes, then why GPL it in the first place?
If no, then why complain about others doing just that?
2) Is my goal to make a standard with my software?
If yes, then why limit the usage base of the code?
If no, then any open-source license will do.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it.
Personally, I don't like "open" licenses which have such strict stipulations. It is similar to having an open bar with a sign saying "No Irish allowed." If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".
I use an nVidia card and that is one reason why I don't use FreeBSD. There is some sort of "initiative" going on, but since I do a lot of desktop work under Linux despite what people say about it not being ready for the desktop, I need it *now*.
It depends on what you need it for. 2D works wonderful for FreeBSD on nVidia cards. 3D is so-so w/o the kernel module.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that BSD doesn't yet support USB keyboards without compiling a custom kernel.
As evilviper pointed out, OpenBSD has it. FreeBSD has it compiled in by default. From the GENERIC (default) kernel:
device uhci # UHCI PCI->USB interface
device ohci # OHCI PCI->USB interface
device usb # USB Bus (required)
device ugen # Generic
device uhid # "Human Interface Devices"
device ukbd # Keyboard
device ulpt # Printer
device umass # Disks/Mass storage - Requires scbus and da
device ums # Mouse
device uscanner # Scanners
device urio # Diamond Rio MP3 Player
# USB Ethernet, requires mii
device aue # ADMtek USB ethernet
device cue # CATC USB ethernet
device kue # Kawasaki LSI USB ethernet
As you can see, a lot of USB devices are compiled in by default. Maybe someone can correct me, but I believe BSD's had USB support before Linux. Was it NetBSD that had it first?
Personally, I use FreeBSD for both servers and desktops. The only problem I have is with 3D games which are too slow. I plan on getting an ATI Radeon 8500DV All-in-Wonder card whenever the support for it in XFree86 comes out. I think it is in CVS already, but I just prefer a released version.
I think BSD is wonderful, but the hardware support in Linux is far superior, and in my case a requirement.
It depends on the hardware you want to use. Usually, BSD has more and/or newer network hardware support than Linux. The only reason Linux has better support than any BSD when it comes to nVidia cards is that it is a closed-source driver. Someone will have to re-engineer it before XFree86's nVidia driver can compete with it.
That is why my next card is going to be an ATI card. ATI gives the specs to XFree86, so all OS's will have the ability to use it to its fullest.
Other than an unsupported 3D card (2D works great) and Flash capabilities in Mozilla, there is nothing else Linux can provide me with that I do not already have. This comment is not an attack on Linux--some people can get very defensive--but just how I feel.
I got the impression you were accusing President Bush of corruption (probably about Enron) out of spite: it's as plain as the smirk on Dubya's face. It just sounded like an opposing political party.
Personally, I am fed up with people attacking other people instead of trying to work things out.
As for political parties, I think they should be banned. I bet I sell my bridge before they do that.;)
They don't want to use it. Not everyone considers the GNU licenses the next best thing since sliced bread.
Oh, right... Because they want to make it closed, sell it back to me with a restrictive EULA and then sue me under the DMCA for breaking the copy protection they put on it because I wanted to get at what was originaly public-funded research.
If you disallow them from doing this, it will not be considered public code since not everyone will be able to develop with it the way they like. If you are going to put restrictions, like the GPL has, on the code, universities will be able to argue that they can place the code under any type and/or number of restrictions of their choosing.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. If companies want to use the results of publicly funded research, they can do it in ways that don't take rights away from everyone else.
They are not taking any rights away from anyone by using BSD-licensed code. If you think otherwise, you need to re-read the license.
Well, the argument is that there is a problem where public-funded code is taken proprietary and used in a way that doesn't benefit the people who foot the bill.
Companies are also footing the bill along with the general public.
Perhaps what's needed is a dual licence. Code is released under the GPL and BSD licenses, and you end up with one branch that is guaranteed free forever (the GPL'ed branch) and another branch that can be intermixed with proprietary code.
A two-clause BSD license would accomplish this. If you wish to absorb it into a GPL project or branch, you can do this without a problem.
I like what I saw recently on "Justice League". An advanced civilization has gotten rid of the lawyer problem. The solution: the losing lawyer(s) faced the same penalty as the loser. It would certainly cut down on the abundance of hungry lawyers.:)
a) There's quite a large difference between watching my arcade so your kids don't break my machines, and watching your kids so they don't break your rules.
It is a small amount of effort. They have to check them out anyway.
b) If you don't feel that your kids can make the kind of decisions they need to make, why are they in my arcade without you? Parents cetainly are fallible. It's not my job to go around cleaning up after thier mistakes, however.
At 10 years of age, many children are still learning to make those decisions, but they should not be unsupervised anyway. Even at 14, they are still learning much from their parents. At 14, however, is around the time of rebellion for teenagers. I certainly expect one or more of my children to go against my wishes from time to time. A parent can only do so much. I have no children, but I try my best to understand what will happen when I do have children.
If someone wants to allow their children to play violent games, I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow a signed permit from the parents to accomplish this. My mother did that for my brother and I at our local video store when I was 15 or 16. She allowed for us to rent 'R' movies unless they were sexual in nature. No hard-R movies were allowed. She filled out a piece of paper at the store. Whenever my brother and I wanted to rent something, they would just verify it with that piece of paper.
I just wonder why can't people help others by looking after others' children? It is quite natural. It is called community. People like to talk about "community spirit" until it inconviences them (even a little).
Slashdot Mirror
... Transgaming has already given so much back to the Wine project it is not even funny (including the fact that Transgaming is now looking to sponsor some portions of Wine progress) ...
If it were me, I would feel this license-change request to be an unwarranted smack in the face. I give you something and then you turn around and accuse me of stealing. That is not very nice.
Huh? I run Wine on FreeBSD quite well. Did you mean something else?
You make a statement, but give absolutely no evidence why this be "indeed very bad." FreeBSD and the X Window system are thriving, from what I can see, and haven't been hampered/killed by their "commercial-exploitation friendly" licenses.
Don't forget Apache with modssl.
I think LGPL for Wine is great, and will bode well for it's continued growth in functionality and popularity.
I don't think it will help at all. It is already open source. Even if they change it to LGPL, how will this force companies to open their code up. They will just provide closed-source DLL's.
I'm not trying to be a troll, here, but I honestly don't understand how people think the GPL is so free.
Or why people think that having a copy of code and closing it kills the open source version. Usually, closed source copies become niche products.
For example, there is a closed-source SSL version of Apache. I bet most people use modssl.
Oh yeah, $80 a month should definitely entitle you to 1/4th of a T1 constant speed at less than 1/10th of the price.
This is only because the telcos advertise T1's as premium service. They want to keep businesses on the expensive service. If too many businesses found out they could get fractional-T1 at much cheaper prices, they would lose the huge profits they can get from them. The cost in the T1 tends to be the service offered from the telco.
Some stuff to read:
1) Link
2) DSL FAQ Read the section on T1 especially the last two sentences.
I have heard that #FreeBSD is not the place to ask about installing FreeBSD. The best place would be #FreeBSDHelp. They tend to be more helpful. :)
> > Extra performance/stability: yes (SMP is lacking)/yes
> SMP is not lacking, at least for x86.
He was asking about extra performance of FreeBSD over Linux. I wanted him to know that SMP is not quite up to par. As he did not mention SMP, I believe he will see very nice performance. I just didn't want others to assume SMP was stellar. When 5.0 comes out, I will have to consider getting me an SMP box.
> > I believe LILO can handle FreeBSD.
> yes, and FreeBSD's loader can handle linux partitions.
Well, he did ask if LILO worked with FreeBSD. Personally, I use FreeBSD's loader.
nVidia support is being worked on: http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/news.html
Can I run all apps/libs (or equivalents of the same quality) I use regularly now on FreeBSD? That would be KDE2.2, XMMS, OpenGL on GeForce2, MSN client, \LaTeX{}, Java1.2 a.o. Would It really bring me some extra performance/stability?
KDE2.2: yes
XMMS: yes
OpenGL: yes
GeForce2: yes, but not hardware accelerated. Fortunately, it is being worked on: http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/news.html
MSN client: ?, there are Jabber clients for instant messenging with MSN.
LaTeX: yes
Java: in a few days. It is standard with FreeBSD (they paid the licenses fees). It is v1.3.
Extra performance/stability: yes (SMP is lacking)/yes
I believe LILO can handle FreeBSD.
Basically, what most OS's refer to as a partition is a BSD slice. A BSD partition is just a sub-slice.
Here is a clip of it:
You misunderstood. I was asking the difference between the API's and libraries. If both are in code, what would be the difference?
According to JKH, there is no definate plan for the integration, so it may never happen.
Actually, it might. From the JKH interview:
[23:39] I think the NetBSD startup stuff, for example, is pretty cool
[23:39] we're just trying to find enough bodies to finish that
[23:39] (the merge)
My preference is that all API's, interfaces, etc. should be under a BSD style (i.e., non-restrictive) license.
For libraries I prefer LGPL.
How are these different assuming both refer to code?
But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.
I can agree with this.
I do agree it's a restriction on freedom.. one which I happen to like. But the BSD licence is more "free". Choose your licence according to your own taste. Each has its own pros and cons.
I can agree with this.
Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.
If you said the beer was free for everyone, you could not complain, especially if you had an unlimited amount of beer.
Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party."
Remember: they never claimed to be free. I never stated they were either. I am talking about what GNU licenses are supposed to represent.
The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright.
Or they just want the code they write to be theirs. They may not care about the rest of the code.
Spoken like a true free-marketroid.
Huh? Is this supposed to be an insult?
Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.
I have no problems about the rules. I just don't like the idea of claiming something is free when not everyone can use it as they see fit.
Recall the barcode reader that was given away for free (last year?). They said it was free, but they objected to its use outside of their restrictions. In my opinion, it was not truly free.
If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do.
Ask yourself these quesitons:
1) Is my goal to make money off of this software?
If yes, then why GPL it in the first place?
If no, then why complain about others doing just that?
2) Is my goal to make a standard with my software?
If yes, then why limit the usage base of the code?
If no, then any open-source license will do.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it.
Personally, I don't like "open" licenses which have such strict stipulations. It is similar to having an open bar with a sign saying "No Irish allowed." If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".
It depends on what you need it for. 2D works wonderful for FreeBSD on nVidia cards. 3D is so-so w/o the kernel module.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that BSD doesn't yet support USB keyboards without compiling a custom kernel.
As evilviper pointed out, OpenBSD has it. FreeBSD has it compiled in by default. From the GENERIC (default) kernel:
As you can see, a lot of USB devices are compiled in by default. Maybe someone can correct me, but I believe BSD's had USB support before Linux. Was it NetBSD that had it first?
Personally, I use FreeBSD for both servers and desktops. The only problem I have is with 3D games which are too slow. I plan on getting an ATI Radeon 8500DV All-in-Wonder card whenever the support for it in XFree86 comes out. I think it is in CVS already, but I just prefer a released version.
I think BSD is wonderful, but the hardware support in Linux is far superior, and in my case a requirement.
It depends on the hardware you want to use. Usually, BSD has more and/or newer network hardware support than Linux. The only reason Linux has better support than any BSD when it comes to nVidia cards is that it is a closed-source driver. Someone will have to re-engineer it before XFree86's nVidia driver can compete with it.
That is why my next card is going to be an ATI card. ATI gives the specs to XFree86, so all OS's will have the ability to use it to its fullest.
Other than an unsupported 3D card (2D works great) and Flash capabilities in Mozilla, there is nothing else Linux can provide me with that I do not already have. This comment is not an attack on Linux--some people can get very defensive--but just how I feel.
I know BSD can run many Linux binaries, but what about kernel modules?
At least for nVidia, it is being worked on: FreeBSD NVIDIA Driver Initiative
I got the impression you were accusing President Bush of corruption (probably about Enron) out of spite: it's as plain as the smirk on Dubya's face. It just sounded like an opposing political party.
;)
Personally, I am fed up with people attacking other people instead of trying to work things out.
As for political parties, I think they should be banned. I bet I sell my bridge before they do that.
And companies can't use GPL'd code because... ?
They don't want to use it. Not everyone considers the GNU licenses the next best thing since sliced bread.
Oh, right... Because they want to make it closed, sell it back to me with a restrictive EULA and then sue me under the DMCA for breaking the copy protection they put on it because I wanted to get at what was originaly public-funded research.
If you disallow them from doing this, it will not be considered public code since not everyone will be able to develop with it the way they like. If you are going to put restrictions, like the GPL has, on the code, universities will be able to argue that they can place the code under any type and/or number of restrictions of their choosing.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. If companies want to use the results of publicly funded research, they can do it in ways that don't take rights away from everyone else.
They are not taking any rights away from anyone by using BSD-licensed code. If you think otherwise, you need to re-read the license.
It's the kind of bullshit that could only come from corrupt corporations lobbying a corrupt government - it's as plain as the smirk on Dubya's face.
I am speaking as an independent.
Oh, yes. The Democrats are immune to corruption. Only Republicans have that fault.
BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Reasonable price. Interested?
Well, the argument is that there is a problem where public-funded code is taken proprietary and used in a way that doesn't benefit the people who foot the bill.
Companies are also footing the bill along with the general public.
Perhaps what's needed is a dual licence. Code is released under the GPL and BSD licenses, and you end up with one branch that is guaranteed free forever (the GPL'ed branch) and another branch that can be intermixed with proprietary code.
A two-clause BSD license would accomplish this. If you wish to absorb it into a GPL project or branch, you can do this without a problem.
I like what I saw recently on "Justice League". An advanced civilization has gotten rid of the lawyer problem. The solution: the losing lawyer(s) faced the same penalty as the loser. It would certainly cut down on the abundance of hungry lawyers. :)
a) There's quite a large difference between watching my arcade so your kids don't break my machines, and watching your kids so they don't break your rules.
It is a small amount of effort. They have to check them out anyway.
b) If you don't feel that your kids can make the kind of decisions they need to make, why are they in my arcade without you? Parents cetainly are fallible. It's not my job to go around cleaning up after thier mistakes, however.
At 10 years of age, many children are still learning to make those decisions, but they should not be unsupervised anyway. Even at 14, they are still learning much from their parents. At 14, however, is around the time of rebellion for teenagers. I certainly expect one or more of my children to go against my wishes from time to time. A parent can only do so much. I have no children, but I try my best to understand what will happen when I do have children.
If someone wants to allow their children to play violent games, I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow a signed permit from the parents to accomplish this. My mother did that for my brother and I at our local video store when I was 15 or 16. She allowed for us to rent 'R' movies unless they were sexual in nature. No hard-R movies were allowed. She filled out a piece of paper at the store. Whenever my brother and I wanted to rent something, they would just verify it with that piece of paper.
I just wonder why can't people help others by looking after others' children? It is quite natural. It is called community. People like to talk about "community spirit" until it inconviences them (even a little).