The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.
I doubt that any BSD OS will accept these terms. The BSD license is preferred over the GPL for the BSD OS's because the developers want all others to be able to use the code without fear of stepping into some legal mess. Patents will probably be treated the same way. Besides, they may be able to ask IBM (or maybe Intel as it is a reference patent in Victor's patent) if they could use one of their patents. I wonder how many patents IBM already has on real-time OS's.
As interesting as Eclipse/BSD is, it will undoubtedly follow the firey path Inferno OS took. Maybe it will gain miniscule acceptance for very specialized situations, but in general it is doomed to fail from the start.
Eclipse is a research project. I thought Inferno was to be a product. I assume, therefore, that they have different goals: Inferno to make money and Eclipse to test ideas.
IBM shareholders would (rightly) take a dim view of IBM releasing source under a license that allowed IBM competitors to include that code in their own products without granting something in return.
Linux is considered a competitor to AIX. I am sure shareholders are upset already. I really don't see any proprietary competitors taking the code in unless they want IBM's marketers to advertise that fact.
Besides, it isn't freely sharing if you put tall limits on whom may use it.
P.S. When you preview under Extran mode do you see the HTML? It appears broken; I had to use "HTML Formatted" to get it correct.
In this area GPL scores over BSD licensing because companies can release their source code without the fear that a competitor will use it in their propriety closed OS.
In this case, I can't think of any reason why IBM would fear a competitor using their JFS. Who else is going to use it but the free OS's. NT has theirs, SGI has theirs (GPL'd too?), etc. If a competitor used it, I think IBM's marketing would have a field-day bragging about how the other OS had to use their FS. I don't see it happening.
It's unfortunate that some of these corporations are releasing software under the GPL. OS's such as NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are unable to incorporate the software due to the license being more restrictive than their native licenses.
So I guess this means that if FreeBSD, for example, wanted to include AIX's JFS with itself someone would have to create a new fork of the JFS with a BSD license? <-- rhetorical question
Seriously, typing 'make install' to install a software package is simple. I would think developers would enjoy that.
When you do a 'make install' in the directory of the package you wish to install, the system will download the source (if available), compile it, and install it.
Another good reason for FreeBSD is that there is only one version. All the man pages, libraries, and utilities are in the same location no matter what box you are on.
This message is a post from a recent Linux to FreeBSD convert. I had been using Linux from 0.99.14? to 2.2.10. Anyone remember the SLS distribution? They predated Slackware. I even maintained my system all of the way from SLS.
I use primarily FreeBSD (replacing Linux) at home and HP-UX at work. I have no love for Microsoft. Just being in the security industry I like to be realistic about security and not just imagine everything is perfectly secure. This means the kernel and any supporting applications.
Maybe MS will one day learn that rushing themselves into releasing a product might cause problems.
This bug might not be from rushing. Eradicating all software bugs is like eradicating all cockroaches in the world. It just won't happen.
This is 2 bugs that are out before win2k is out.
This could happen with any OS. Linux v2.4 will be out some time before RedHat completes a version of their own. Bugs could be found in the kernel before RedHat ships.
And let's not forget that MS isn't open source so if there are more bugs (garunteed) that someone finds then they're will be more exploits and the only one to rely on for bug patches will be MS themselves.
Who do most people rely on when exploits are found in Linux/FreeBSD/etc.? If they are a developer, they probably turn to the developers who developed it. This is a sore point for Microsoft. If they are just a general user, they might turn to USENET, local geek, or the distributor (RedHat/FreeBSD/Microsoft). My point being is that even though Windows is closed the users will most probably behave the same as if they owned a copy of RedHat Linux. Even if the bug is fixed by someone else besides one of the project developers, people will turn to the distributor.
When I say distributor, I am not talking about Cheap Bytes or CDW. I just can't think up a good word for it.
Interesting how RedHat makes quite a bit of money from GPLled software.
Not too much actually. They did make $16.3 million from sales, but their profit was -$9.17 million. I don't believe this counts their IPO though where the investors made much more than RedHat.
Reread the original poster's comment. He asked that people refrain from comparing freedom with the GPL. He did not state he had a problem with using GPL'd software.
My point is that if he/you knew of the project for days/a week and you waited until four hours before the deadline that it's YOUR fault for procrastinating
I guess you have never had a hard professor in your life. I have many projects that I would start on within a few hours of receiving them and still be cutting it close. I have spent up to 120 hours in one week getting two projects done. Got A's on both.
Some people don't consider 4 minutes before a deadline cutting it too close. What is your point?
My point is that he tried to get his school project in with four hours to spare, therefore, he was not blaming bandwidth hoggers for slowing him down for four minutes but four hours. If he paid several thousand dollars to go to school, he should be not punished by those hogging the bandwidth when they could have spent a few dollars --in comparison--to get a cable modem or xDSL modem.
Actually, a good way to handle Napster would be to put low bandwidth limits on it. People could get their MP3's, but the school projects would come first.
This would allow a larger audience (*BSD) to include the driver with the OS. It is not as if Creative is going to take the driver and make their own version of it.
Waiting until right before the deadline may have cost your your grade.
I would not consider four hours before a deadline to be cutting it too close.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Unless he's going to ProductFOO U., he shouldn't *have* to use ProductFOO.
Actually, he did not mention which university he went to.;)
I understand that life sucks. I have been in the reverse circumstance; I had to use a GNU tool even though a proprietary solution would have been more effective. I didn't HAVE to use it except I wanted to keep my job.:)
In my case, I did not have a physical gun to my head. Are you saying he did? If not, he did not HAVE to.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
He still did not have to take the class.
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
Redhat probably has a requirement that to develop GNOME in their labs that Redhat Linux is used.
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me; I can do it myself. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone can recomend better X11 IMAP client?
Pine works quite well within an xterm. You can even turn on the feature to use the mouse.
I don't know if it would work under emulation or not. As a FreeBSD user, I can say a native version would be preferred.
I wonder how long it would take Real to port their player to BSD if M$ ported their player to BSD first? I bet within a month.
The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.
I doubt that any BSD OS will accept these terms. The BSD license is preferred over the GPL for the BSD OS's because the developers want all others to be able to use the code without fear of stepping into some legal mess. Patents will probably be treated the same way. Besides, they may be able to ask IBM (or maybe Intel as it is a reference patent in Victor's patent) if they could use one of their patents. I wonder how many patents IBM already has on real-time OS's.
As interesting as Eclipse/BSD is, it will undoubtedly follow the firey path Inferno OS took. Maybe it will gain miniscule acceptance for very specialized situations, but in general it is doomed to fail from the start.
Eclipse is a research project. I thought Inferno was to be a product. I assume, therefore, that they have different goals: Inferno to make money and Eclipse to test ideas.
IBM shareholders would (rightly) take a dim view of IBM releasing source under a license that allowed IBM competitors to include that code in their own products without granting something in return.
Linux is considered a competitor to AIX. I am sure shareholders are upset already. I really don't see any proprietary competitors taking the code in unless they want IBM's marketers to advertise that fact.
Besides, it isn't freely sharing if you put tall limits on whom may use it.
P.S. When you preview under Extran mode do you see the HTML? It appears broken; I had to use "HTML Formatted" to get it correct.
In this area GPL scores over BSD licensing because companies can release their source code without the fear that a competitor will use it in their propriety closed OS.
In this case, I can't think of any reason why IBM would fear a competitor using their JFS. Who else is going to use it but the free OS's. NT has theirs, SGI has theirs (GPL'd too?), etc. If a competitor used it, I think IBM's marketing would have a field-day bragging about how the other OS had to use their FS. I don't see it happening.
It's unfortunate that some of these corporations are releasing software under the GPL. OS's such as NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are unable to incorporate the software due to the license being more restrictive than their native licenses.
So I guess this means that if FreeBSD, for example, wanted to include AIX's JFS with itself someone would have to create a new fork of the JFS with a BSD license? <-- rhetorical question
ports has one serious killer flaw: it installs the new package OVER the old package. There is no "make upgrade" in ports.
Agreed. I believe this is being worked on.
why don't individual ports use cvsup to maintain the source tree of the port?
Good point. Personally, I think it might be difficult to implement but would be quite useful.
I am using ipfilter (ipnat & ipf) on FreeBSD. I believe all BSD's have at least the option to use it.
Ports are cool!
Seriously, typing 'make install' to install a software package is simple. I would think developers would enjoy that.
When you do a 'make install' in the directory of the package you wish to install, the system will download the source (if available), compile it, and install it.
Another good reason for FreeBSD is that there is only one version. All the man pages, libraries, and utilities are in the same location no matter what box you are on.
This message is a post from a recent Linux to FreeBSD convert. I had been using Linux from 0.99.14? to 2.2.10. Anyone remember the SLS distribution? They predated Slackware. I even maintained my system all of the way from SLS.
...you Microsoft cheerleaders...
I use primarily FreeBSD (replacing Linux) at home and HP-UX at work. I have no love for Microsoft. Just being in the security industry I like to be realistic about security and not just imagine everything is perfectly secure. This means the kernel and any supporting applications.
Here is a security, kernel bug for Linux: Serious SECURITY hole in 2.2 kernels
I can't wait till the next time Micros~1 has egg on thier face.
Did you see or read any of the case of DOJ vs. Microsoft? Now that was entertainment!
Maybe MS will one day learn that rushing themselves into releasing a product might cause problems.
This bug might not be from rushing. Eradicating all software bugs is like eradicating all cockroaches in the world. It just won't happen.
This is 2 bugs that are out before win2k is out.
This could happen with any OS. Linux v2.4 will be out some time before RedHat completes a version of their own. Bugs could be found in the kernel before RedHat ships.
And let's not forget that MS isn't open source so if there are more bugs (garunteed) that someone finds then they're will be more exploits and the only one to rely on for bug patches will be MS themselves.
Who do most people rely on when exploits are found in Linux/FreeBSD/etc.? If they are a developer, they probably turn to the developers who developed it. This is a sore point for Microsoft. If they are just a general user, they might turn to USENET, local geek, or the distributor (RedHat/FreeBSD/Microsoft). My point being is that even though Windows is closed the users will most probably behave the same as if they owned a copy of RedHat Linux. Even if the bug is fixed by someone else besides one of the project developers, people will turn to the distributor.
When I say distributor, I am not talking about Cheap Bytes or CDW. I just can't think up a good word for it.
That comment was not very nice.
Interesting how RedHat makes quite a bit of money from GPLled software.
Not too much actually. They did make $16.3 million from sales, but their profit was -$9.17 million. I don't believe this counts their IPO though where the investors made much more than RedHat.
Reread the original poster's comment. He asked that people refrain from comparing freedom with the GPL. He did not state he had a problem with using GPL'd software.
Then you will probably enjoy this little quote from the fortunes file as much as me:
Is it warm under that bridge?
No goats here.
Besides my Big Brother Microsoft will be coming along any minute now. He is much fatter than I.
You would pay for the non-GPLed version if you want to do something with it that the GPL does not allow -- i.e. make and release binary only versions.
Or you want to write BSD-licensed software.
My point is that if he/you knew of the project for days/a week and you waited until four hours before the deadline that it's YOUR fault for procrastinating
I guess you have never had a hard professor in your life. I have many projects that I would start on within a few hours of receiving them and still be cutting it close. I have spent up to 120 hours in one week getting two projects done. Got A's on both.
Some people don't consider 4 minutes before a deadline cutting it too close. What is your point?
My point is that he tried to get his school project in with four hours to spare, therefore, he was not blaming bandwidth hoggers for slowing him down for four minutes but four hours. If he paid several thousand dollars to go to school, he should be not punished by those hogging the bandwidth when they could have spent a few dollars --in comparison--to get a cable modem or xDSL modem.
Actually, a good way to handle Napster would be to put low bandwidth limits on it. People could get their MP3's, but the school projects would come first.
I am defining "they" as hardware manufacturers.
This would allow a larger audience (*BSD) to include the driver with the OS. It is not as if Creative is going to take the driver and make their own version of it.
Waiting until right before the deadline may have cost your your grade.
I would not consider four hours before a deadline to be cutting it too close.
Unless he's going to ProductFOO U., he shouldn't *have* to use ProductFOO.
;)
:)
Actually, he did not mention which university he went to.
I understand that life sucks. I have been in the reverse circumstance; I had to use a GNU tool even though a proprietary solution would have been more effective. I didn't HAVE to use it except I wanted to keep my job.
In my case, I did not have a physical gun to my head. Are you saying he did? If not, he did not HAVE to.
He still did not have to take the class.
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
Redhat probably has a requirement that to develop GNOME in their labs that Redhat Linux is used.
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me; I can do it myself. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.