The big question for me is: Who are the reputable Handful?
I would consider the developer/company who/which developed the code to be most likely reputable or at least interested in fixing it. I would also notify CERT. Some examples:
1) I would notify Alan Cox if there was a network hole in Linux. 2) I would notify Darren Reed if there was a hole in IP Filter.
For both, I would also let CERT know about the bug I found and that I had already informed the authors.
Finally, for the BSD folks (not all of them, but a vocal minority) who complain that Linux can freely take from BSD but that BSD can't put GPL'ed code in its kernel: that's the way you wanted it, right? The whole idea of the BSD license is to *permit* other people to use your code with basically no strings attached. Why is it suddenly so bad when Linux plays by those rules, but when Apple does the same thing, it's perfectly fine? If you really want to ensure that everyone using your code plays by the same rules you do, then use the GPL or the like!
A few reasons:
1) In relation to Open Source, you will notice that BSD can share with GPL, but GPL cannot share with BSD. This is at the same time GPL advocates are advocating how free their code is. If they are ALWAYS talking about sharing, why can't I use the code in my BSD project(s) which is open-source.
2) The GPL is seen as a license with an agenda. The NSI agreement also appears to have an agenda. Many people distrust NSI due to this.
3) Closed-source projects rarely (if ever?) take code they acquired from an open-source project and distribute it under another open-source license. It is somewhat a slap in the face.
4) Most GPL advocates are stronger believers in copyright laws than BSD advocates even though RMS started the copyleft license to counter copyright.
I think you shall start seeing more licenses like OpenSSL. It is BSD-like, but states that is must be distributed under its license if distributed as open-source.
I really can't grok it. Does source have to accompany an executable? Does StarOffice have to be distributed under both licenses? It appears as if a lawyer with too much time on his hands wrote it. Why can't they make law easy to understand?!?!?!?
I can easily see them doing it for reasons of favorable publicity.
This will not help them very much. Who does this really impress? I can see it bringing smiles to fans of the GPL--there ought to be a club. I doubt stockholders will be impressed: SUNW is now down 1 3/4 as I write this. No. I cannot confirm if it is related to this news. Will this really help Sun? Another question: did Sun need help?
And what if a parent wants a child to be able to play the video games? The parent has to show up in person and sit around waiting while the kid plays. This clearly penalizes resonsible parents at the expense of those who want the government to do their job for them.
Have the parents sign a waiver to allow the kids to play those games--I don't know if Indy's law allows this. Otherwise, those kids will just have to do without. My parents signed the waiver allowing me the priviledge (not a right) to rent soft-R movies from the local rental store when I was 16.
And this law gives them more power to do just that. Monitoring what a child watches on television is much easier than following them around from arcade to arcade. My parents allowed me to rent soft-R movies when I was 16 from the local video store by signing a waiver. This gave my parents the control over the matter as apposed to the child (me).
And so the "moral majority" decided that in the best interests of the children, they should shield them from all the nasty things like.. the real world.
No. If you disagree with it, take your children to play those games. This isn't about the "moral majority"; this is giving parents who cannot spend all day with their children supervising them the ability the guide them how they see fit.
Are you arguing that everything should be open to children and that parents have to around them all the time? Many parents are unable to be with their children a good percentage of the time. It is called work. When we farmed, it was possible. Unfortunately, those days are past.
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games.
Nope. They are giving parents the ability to make the decision. When I was younger (16), my parents signed a waiver at the local rental store, so I may rent non-porn, rated-R movies. I saw nothing wrong with that method of control.
cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
When I was 6, I knew that it was fake. Very little realism was involved in it. The point was slap-stick. Nowadays, with Unreal Tournament, you can pop someone's head off in great detail.
Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home.
But seriously, this is just another attempt to avoid having to actually talk to your kids about something other than their day at school.
You are wrong there. This will give parents the discretion for whether their children play those games or not. Hopefully, it will force parents to also explain to their children why they are not allowed to go.
Also realize that any improvements made by Joe hAx0R is a derivitative work and therefore encompassed under the Sun copyright,...
I do not believe it works that way. Only the source that Sun writes can Sun use in any closed-source product. Joe's source has to distributed under the GPL unless Joe specifically allows Sun to use his source in the closed-souce product.
With a BSD-style license, though, some of those people could turn around and make a closed source derivative that would compete with Sun's variant, which is presumably what they want to stop.
And the GPL version will not compete with Sun's variant? With that reasoning, Sun will lose either way.
I have been impressed with Sony. They tend to do something like sony.com/Movie/Title. I can't remember the exact URL, but you get the general idea. The benefit for doing it this way would be that it also promotes the company that published the film. I am surprised they don't all do it.
BSDi recently purchased FreeBSD's distributor and will be merging the codebases.
I don't believe they are merging the two codebases into one. If I remember correctly, they were going to merge some pieces and bring other pieces into FreeBSD but not all at once.
The best news to come so far of this is that FreeBSD will finally have a native Java2 development kit.
I was very happy about this when the news came out. Any ideas on when?
The problem is that the QPL is not compatible with the GPL.
I have to bring up a minor point: it is the GPL which is incompatible with the QPL in this case. I use Enlightenment, so I really have no concerns over KDE or GNOME.
... one is trying guarantee the right to deny source code.
That is little harsh. They prefer source code. Just look at the ports collection. Even if a binary exists, the source is used by default to build a program onto a *BSD box. From what I have seen they believe in showing others the benefits of using and developing open source through example as opposed to using legal means (Objective C). Would you prefer a church letting you decide if you want their religion by their example, or would you prefer it to be "given" to you through legislation?
The hypocrisy is that the BSD advocates don't mind one bit if you borrow their code and put it into a commercial product, but they get all upset when you put the same code into a GPLed product. Both uses are equally legal, and if your primary goal is sharing source code the GPLed version is infinitely more acceptable.
I think they are upset about the hypocrisy I mentioned. Look a dead horse! I will beat it.:)
In other words if you were hypocritical about sharing your software you would want to make sure that it was all BSD licensed. If you were convinced that sharing source was the answer then the GPL is just as good (if not better).
If I am truly sharing, I will not be picking favorites. That is why you might see authors of various BSD-licensed project complaining about the one-way borrowing of competitors using GPL licenses, but you still see them share with everyone. They are only complaining because the GPL advocates proclaim their belief concerning sharing of code so loudly, yet they are only sharing with other GPL developers. It would be like, "No new taxes, as long as you are a Democrat." (Thought I was going to say Republican, eh?:))
I suppose that if you don't like it you can always use PostgreSQL. I do.
As do I.
P.S. For a lot of stuff I wrote above, I realize I am not making exact comparisons, but you should be able to get the point I am trying to make.
The fact of the matter is that anyone can "borrow" GPLed code, they just have to release the source code when they are done. This isn't hypocrisy. It's what the FSF stands for.
I believe it is hypocrisy when they object to others "borrowing" their code under a different license while doing the same to BSD code. For example, have you ever heard a priest that has been caught doing something against his religion say "well, the woman was willing."
GPL supporters do not want their code taken under a different license. They are proclaiming it quite loudly. Even after all these words, I have read many messages on this board debating on how to take the code from an existing BSD-licensed project. Proclaim something and do something opposed to that. It definitely sounds like hypocisy to me.
PostgreSQL is under a BSD style license. This means that the MySQL folks can borrow as much PostgreSQL code as they please. On the other hand the PostgreSQL folk can't borrow MySQL code and combine it with their BSD licensed code without release their entire project under the GPL! Since they are unlikely to want to do this, the MySQL will remain off limits to them. This could give the MySQL folks a distinct advantage in the upcoming horserace. Being able to borrow BSD code certainly never hurt Linux.
Let me get this right. On one hand, the GPL prevents other groups (proprietary and non-GPL open source) from using their code. On the other hand, they like to "borrow" from other groups.
My belief is that the GPL should not allow code from other camps into a GPL'd project. Otherwise, I see people (using the GPL) "borrowing" from other camps while chastizing others for "borrowing" their own as hypocracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The big question for me is: Who are the reputable Handful?
I would consider the developer/company who/which developed the code to be most likely reputable or at least interested in fixing it. I would also notify CERT. Some examples:
1) I would notify Alan Cox if there was a network hole in Linux.
2) I would notify Darren Reed if there was a hole in IP Filter.
For both, I would also let CERT know about the bug I found and that I had already informed the authors.
You can also disable a service in NT.
Finally, for the BSD folks (not all of them, but a vocal minority) who complain that Linux can freely take from BSD but that BSD can't put GPL'ed code in its kernel: that's the way you wanted it, right? The whole idea of the BSD license is to *permit* other people to use your code with basically no strings attached. Why is it suddenly so bad when Linux plays by those rules, but when Apple does the same thing, it's perfectly fine? If you really want to ensure that everyone using your code plays by the same rules you do, then use the GPL or the like!
A few reasons:
1) In relation to Open Source, you will notice that BSD can share with GPL, but GPL cannot share with BSD. This is at the same time GPL advocates are advocating how free their code is. If they are ALWAYS talking about sharing, why can't I use the code in my BSD project(s) which is open-source.
2) The GPL is seen as a license with an agenda. The NSI agreement also appears to have an agenda. Many people distrust NSI due to this.
3) Closed-source projects rarely (if ever?) take code they acquired from an open-source project and distribute it under another open-source license. It is somewhat a slap in the face.
4) Most GPL advocates are stronger believers in copyright laws than BSD advocates even though RMS started the copyleft license to counter copyright.
I think you shall start seeing more licenses like OpenSSL. It is BSD-like, but states that is must be distributed under its license if distributed as open-source.
Oops! Where is your public domain now?
Still there right where he/she left it.
Here is SISSL.
I really can't grok it. Does source have to accompany an executable? Does StarOffice have to be distributed under both licenses? It appears as if a lawyer with too much time on his hands wrote it. Why can't they make law easy to understand?!?!?!?
You must mean tomorrow. They release on July 20th.
I can easily see them doing it for reasons of favorable publicity.
This will not help them very much. Who does this really impress? I can see it bringing smiles to fans of the GPL--there ought to be a club. I doubt stockholders will be impressed: SUNW is now down 1 3/4 as I write this. No. I cannot confirm if it is related to this news. Will this really help Sun? Another question: did Sun need help?
And what if a parent wants a child to be able to play the video games? The parent has to show up in person and sit around waiting while the kid plays. This clearly penalizes resonsible parents at the expense of those who want the government to do their job for them.
Have the parents sign a waiver to allow the kids to play those games--I don't know if Indy's law allows this. Otherwise, those kids will just have to do without. My parents signed the waiver allowing me the priviledge (not a right) to rent soft-R movies from the local rental store when I was 16.
Parents should be parenting, not censoring.
And this law gives them more power to do just that. Monitoring what a child watches on television is much easier than following them around from arcade to arcade. My parents allowed me to rent soft-R movies when I was 16 from the local video store by signing a waiver. This gave my parents the control over the matter as apposed to the child (me).
And so the "moral majority" decided that in the best interests of the children, they should shield them from all the nasty things like.. the real world.
No. If you disagree with it, take your children to play those games. This isn't about the "moral majority"; this is giving parents who cannot spend all day with their children supervising them the ability the guide them how they see fit.
Are you arguing that everything should be open to children and that parents have to around them all the time? Many parents are unable to be with their children a good percentage of the time. It is called work. When we farmed, it was possible. Unfortunately, those days are past.
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games.
Nope. They are giving parents the ability to make the decision. When I was younger (16), my parents signed a waiver at the local rental store, so I may rent non-porn, rated-R movies. I saw nothing wrong with that method of control.
cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
When I was 6, I knew that it was fake. Very little realism was involved in it. The point was slap-stick. Nowadays, with Unreal Tournament, you can pop someone's head off in great detail.
Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home.
But seriously, this is just another attempt to avoid having to actually talk to your kids about something other than their day at school.
You are wrong there. This will give parents the discretion for whether their children play those games or not. Hopefully, it will force parents to also explain to their children why they are not allowed to go.
Also realize that any improvements made by Joe hAx0R is a derivitative work and therefore encompassed under the Sun copyright, ...
I do not believe it works that way. Only the source that Sun writes can Sun use in any closed-source product. Joe's source has to distributed under the GPL unless Joe specifically allows Sun to use his source in the closed-souce product.
With a BSD-style license, though, some of those people could turn around and make a closed source derivative that would compete with Sun's variant, which is presumably what they want to stop.
And the GPL version will not compete with Sun's variant? With that reasoning, Sun will lose either way.
I have been impressed with Sony. They tend to do something like sony.com/Movie/Title. I can't remember the exact URL, but you get the general idea. The benefit for doing it this way would be that it also promotes the company that published the film. I am surprised they don't all do it.
You mean like .oss?
The corpses of abandonned BSD projects is like the Night of the Living Dead.
What abandoned BSD projects?
BSDi recently purchased FreeBSD's distributor and will be merging the codebases.
I don't believe they are merging the two codebases into one. If I remember correctly, they were going to merge some pieces and bring other pieces into FreeBSD but not all at once.
The best news to come so far of this is that FreeBSD will finally have a native Java2 development kit.
I was very happy about this when the news came out. Any ideas on when?
The problem is that the QPL is not compatible with the GPL.
I have to bring up a minor point: it is the GPL which is incompatible with the QPL in this case. I use Enlightenment, so I really have no concerns over KDE or GNOME.
Don't you hate forgetting to log in to SlashDot? :) I am posting this, so I can better track the above message.
... one is trying guarantee the right to deny source code.
:)
:))
That is little harsh. They prefer source code. Just look at the ports collection. Even if a binary exists, the source is used by default to build a program onto a *BSD box. From what I have seen they believe in showing others the benefits of using and developing open source through example as opposed to using legal means (Objective C). Would you prefer a church letting you decide if you want their religion by their example, or would you prefer it to be "given" to you through legislation?
The hypocrisy is that the BSD advocates don't mind one bit if you borrow their code and put it into a commercial product, but they get all upset when you put the same code into a GPLed product. Both uses are equally legal, and if your primary goal is sharing source code the GPLed version is infinitely more acceptable.
I think they are upset about the hypocrisy I mentioned. Look a dead horse! I will beat it.
In other words if you were hypocritical about sharing your software you would want to make sure that it was all BSD licensed. If you were convinced that sharing source was the answer then the GPL is just as good (if not better).
If I am truly sharing, I will not be picking favorites. That is why you might see authors of various BSD-licensed project complaining about the one-way borrowing of competitors using GPL licenses, but you still see them share with everyone. They are only complaining because the GPL advocates proclaim their belief concerning sharing of code so loudly, yet they are only sharing with other GPL developers. It would be like, "No new taxes, as long as you are a Democrat." (Thought I was going to say Republican, eh?
I suppose that if you don't like it you can always use PostgreSQL. I do.
As do I.
P.S. For a lot of stuff I wrote above, I realize I am not making exact comparisons, but you should be able to get the point I am trying to make.
The fact of the matter is that anyone can "borrow" GPLed code, they just have to release the source code when they are done. This isn't hypocrisy. It's what the FSF stands for.
I believe it is hypocrisy when they object to others "borrowing" their code under a different license while doing the same to BSD code. For example, have you ever heard a priest that has been caught doing something against his religion say "well, the woman was willing."
GPL supporters do not want their code taken under a different license. They are proclaiming it quite loudly. Even after all these words, I have read many messages on this board debating on how to take the code from an existing BSD-licensed project. Proclaim something and do something opposed to that. It definitely sounds like hypocisy to me.
PostgreSQL is under a BSD style license. This means that the MySQL folks can borrow as much PostgreSQL code as they please. On the other hand the PostgreSQL folk can't borrow MySQL code and combine it with their BSD licensed code without release their entire project under the GPL! Since they are unlikely to want to do this, the MySQL will remain off limits to them. This could give the MySQL folks a distinct advantage in the upcoming horserace. Being able to borrow BSD code certainly never hurt Linux.
Let me get this right. On one hand, the GPL prevents other groups (proprietary and non-GPL open source) from using their code. On the other hand, they like to "borrow" from other groups.
My belief is that the GPL should not allow code from other camps into a GPL'd project. Otherwise, I see people (using the GPL) "borrowing" from other camps while chastizing others for "borrowing" their own as hypocracy.
hopefully it'll take off about as well as WinCE.
:)
Too popular. I think you mean PC Jr.
Does anyone have more details on this? I didn't see anything apparent on Microsoft's site.