I agree. I don't want GNOME or KDE installed on my machine. This is my choice. Don't flame me, but I am beginning to see Motif and GTK (standalone) as the lightweight alternatives.
If I page cannot be viewed with lynx, it cannot be worth browsing.
I personally use w3m-ssl on my FreeBSD box for any text testing.
Unlike the release of the JFS from IBM, this can be incorporated along with the *BSD's. A BSD license would have been better, but at least I will be able to see it on FreeBSD.
Close, but not quite: They want to keep some sort of non-proprietary control over the code. IOW, they want everyone to have equal control over the code.
It was there under the MPL. I asked this in a response above: why not just put it all under the GPL? Both licenses are equivalent. Are they not?
Really, now; license advocacy works better when you don't twist peoples' words to mean other things.
Look in the mirror first.
Instead, they want the code and any improvements open to anyone who wants them, instead of possibly having some great improvements locked up in a binary one entity has control over.
License advocacy through FUD. Only the improvements by said entity would not be found in source. The original is just fine.
To get back on topic: Why did they not just place it under the GPL if both licenses serve the same purpose? Redundant licenses?
Because they want the rights back for any changes to the codebase. With copyleft licenses such as MPL and GPL, mozilla.org gets rights to use the changes, which could remain a company's "precious trade secret" under non-copyleft licensing.
IOW, they want to keep some sort of proprietary control over the code?
1.5) Why are you doing this?
The staff at mozilla.org is chartered with stewardship of the mozilla codebase. To that end, mozilla source must be brought to as large an audience of developers as possible; mozilla.org seeks to eliminate as many obstacles for contribution and reuse of the code as possible.
If they want everyone to be able to reuse the code, why don't they just BSD the whole thing? This would allow "as large an audience of developers as possible" to contribute to the code.
Ignoring the prevention of proprietary use of code (I am not trying to bring flames down on me), the two-clause BSD license would not have had these problems.
I personally would prefer a second test from a different outfit before accepting the numbers. I understand your misgivings; I also have them. These "independent" studies are at least more independent than the original poster thought. He was implying that Great Bridge had done the testing.
I have a few problems with gnome libraries in general and as a standard:
1) It is LGPL'd. I dislike the GPL and LGPL licenses. I understand other people like them. To each their own. I do recall that Stallman has stated that the 2-clause BSD and MIT licenses were good when it came to standards.
2) If I do not use them, why should I be dependent on them. My window manager should not be dependent on them. I would not mind if the window manager took advantage of the Gnome libraries if they were there. That would be fine with me.
3) Different distributions are behind different standards. VA Linux, for example, is basically paying the way for Enlightenment, but I am not sure. Some distribution is probably more behind KDE than Gnome.
Will this make applications dependent on Gnome? Maybe not now, but it could happen in the future. Since I don't care for Gnome, I certainly hope not. I am quite satisfied with running Enlightenment by itself. I am sure there are users of FVWM2, FVWM95, WindowMaker, etc. who feel the same way.
Thanks a bunch for the information. I have no intention of selling it.
As for the e-mail on mailing lists, I have been active in a few FreeBSD and Linux mailing lists as well as IP Filter's list since I got the domain three years ago.
And now I shall go off and read about zero.com. It is nice to know about precedents in a person's favor.:)
It certainly looks like that. I have a domain name as well: "lastname".org. I don't serve much off the web server, but I use the domain for e-mail quite a bit. Some of these rulings I have read ruled against people since they were not using the domain according to the definition of HTTP service. All other services do not appear to count. These people making the decisions are obviously ignorant of how the Internet (Global Information Infrastructure) can run. Sigh!
The free software community has a lot of competition, holy wars, and other such nonsense. The best example, I think, to apply to this would be KDE and Gnome.
You must be a youngster. I guess you have never heard about the "love" Emacs users and vi users have shared for many years. The KDE vs. Gnome argument pales in comparison.
P.S. The truth is that Emacs users just envy us vi users.:)
Some places will have several (10-30) CD's to listen to, but they are picked out by the company. Previously, I could pick out any CD to listen to before I purchased it. I have also heard that many years ago (days of vinyl) that this was common practice.
I think Borders.com used to (still does?) play 30-second clips. At least it is better than nothing.
I was very upset when BlockBuster Music in Indianapolis (and most probably elsewhere) stopped their practice of playing any CD a customer wanted to hear. It allowed me to pick the CD's that I wanted and not for just one hit single of an entire album. I also could test out unknown artists.
I did buy some CD's from being able to hear it first.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I don't want GNOME or KDE installed on my machine. This is my choice. Don't flame me, but I am beginning to see Motif and GTK (standalone) as the lightweight alternatives.
If I page cannot be viewed with lynx, it cannot be worth browsing.
I personally use w3m-ssl on my FreeBSD box for any text testing.
PGP is not open source.
It might not fit the bill according to the Open Source web site, but the source is (was) available for all to read.
Time to go back to Usenet. I am thinking about it as well.
Exhausted workers make more mistakes. I have seen that even in my code.
Unlike the release of the JFS from IBM, this can be incorporated along with the *BSD's. A BSD license would have been better, but at least I will be able to see it on FreeBSD.
Close, but not quite: They want to keep some sort of non-proprietary control over the code. IOW, they want everyone to have equal control over the code.
It was there under the MPL. I asked this in a response above: why not just put it all under the GPL? Both licenses are equivalent. Are they not?
Really, now; license advocacy works better when you don't twist peoples' words to mean other things.
Look in the mirror first.
Instead, they want the code and any improvements open to anyone who wants them, instead of possibly having some great improvements locked up in a binary one entity has control over.
License advocacy through FUD. Only the improvements by said entity would not be found in source. The original is just fine.
To get back on topic: Why did they not just place it under the GPL if both licenses serve the same purpose? Redundant licenses?
Because they want the rights back for any changes to the codebase. With copyleft licenses such as MPL and GPL, mozilla.org gets rights to use the changes, which could remain a company's "precious trade secret" under non-copyleft licensing.
IOW, they want to keep some sort of proprietary control over the code?
1.5) Why are you doing this?
The staff at mozilla.org is chartered with stewardship of the mozilla codebase. To that end, mozilla source must be brought to as large an audience of developers as possible; mozilla.org seeks to eliminate as many obstacles for contribution and reuse of the code as possible.
If they want everyone to be able to reuse the code, why don't they just BSD the whole thing? This would allow "as large an audience of developers as possible" to contribute to the code.
Ignoring the prevention of proprietary use of code (I am not trying to bring flames down on me), the two-clause BSD license would not have had these problems.
Oops. I missed that. :)
Interestingly, he does not compare against PostgreSQL v7.0. :)
I could only find this mention about some preparation for FreeBSD: Usenet post. I did not search for OpenBSD or NetBSD.
P.S. Has anyone else had trouble with Deja's power search? It won't recognize group searching, and it refuses to sort by date.
I personally would prefer a second test from a different outfit before accepting the numbers. I understand your misgivings; I also have them. These "independent" studies are at least more independent than the original poster thought. He was implying that Great Bridge had done the testing.
Great Bridge did not do the testing, therefore, they can be considered independent.
I have a few problems with gnome libraries in general and as a standard:
1) It is LGPL'd. I dislike the GPL and LGPL licenses. I understand other people like them. To each their own. I do recall that Stallman has stated that the 2-clause BSD and MIT licenses were good when it came to standards.
2) If I do not use them, why should I be dependent on them. My window manager should not be dependent on them. I would not mind if the window manager took advantage of the Gnome libraries if they were there. That would be fine with me.
3) Different distributions are behind different standards. VA Linux, for example, is basically paying the way for Enlightenment, but I am not sure. Some distribution is probably more behind KDE than Gnome.
Will this make applications dependent on Gnome? Maybe not now, but it could happen in the future. Since I don't care for Gnome, I certainly hope not. I am quite satisfied with running Enlightenment by itself. I am sure there are users of FVWM2, FVWM95, WindowMaker, etc. who feel the same way.
I just went to zero.com's site, and I noticed that it is up for sale. I hope this does not hurt the precedent.
Thanks a bunch for the information. I have no intention of selling it.
:)
As for the e-mail on mailing lists, I have been active in a few FreeBSD and Linux mailing lists as well as IP Filter's list since I got the domain three years ago.
And now I shall go off and read about zero.com. It is nice to know about precedents in a person's favor.
It certainly looks like that. I have a domain name as well: "lastname".org. I don't serve much off the web server, but I use the domain for e-mail quite a bit. Some of these rulings I have read ruled against people since they were not using the domain according to the definition of HTTP service. All other services do not appear to count. These people making the decisions are obviously ignorant of how the Internet (Global Information Infrastructure) can run. Sigh!
The free software community has a lot of competition, holy wars, and other such nonsense. The best example, I think, to apply to this would be KDE and Gnome.
:)
You must be a youngster. I guess you have never heard about the "love" Emacs users and vi users have shared for many years. The KDE vs. Gnome argument pales in comparison.
P.S. The truth is that Emacs users just envy us vi users.
A better comparison is farther down: Top Vulnerable Packages 2000 Packages. It at least compares just one distribution of Linux against NT.
Which functions were these?
Some places will have several (10-30) CD's to listen to, but they are picked out by the company. Previously, I could pick out any CD to listen to before I purchased it. I have also heard that many years ago (days of vinyl) that this was common practice.
I think Borders.com used to (still does?) play 30-second clips. At least it is better than nothing.
I was very upset when BlockBuster Music in Indianapolis (and most probably elsewhere) stopped their practice of playing any CD a customer wanted to hear. It allowed me to pick the CD's that I wanted and not for just one hit single of an entire album. I also could test out unknown artists.
I did buy some CD's from being able to hear it first.