Heh. I should have mentioned my testing was on a 800 Mhz Athlon desktop I use as a spare "server" (wife won't let me put up a rack for real servers yet:(
You should have had this in a prenuptial: "Permission by husband to do anything geeky to it".:)
Does this patch in the FreeBSD nVidia forum fix it for you? It helped me on a 6-STABLE system with the 9631 driver even if the patch said it was for 7-CURRENT and the 9746 driver. I recommend it.
The GPL is the most common choice made and there's a reason for that.
Maybe I misunderstood the history of Macsyma, but it sounds like the GPL would never have helped since the original code was not public in the first place.
I believe all government source should be public domain or MIT-licensed for all to use. No particular party should have control of it within the bounds of the government. If a company wants to commercialize it or others want to GPL it, that is fine. Since everyone from companies to individuals pay taxes for its development, everyone should have full access to develop and use it in any way.
That sounds like a bug in apt or the way the driver is packaged; I am able to update it on FreeBSD.
the laptop won't suspend so i have to boot up everytime i use it.
That sounds like a bug in the nvidia driver.
then there's that annoying logo.
Try either of these (from the FreeBSD documentation): Option "NoLogo" "boolean" Option "LogoPath" "string"
an open source driver would just work!
You must not use very many drivers. I have run into blocking bugs in open and closed source drivers. This does not address which is actually easier for someone to fix.:)
would anybody here buy a cpu if the instuction set was a trade secret.
Many here have bought an nvidia graphics card. I try to avoid closed hardware as much as possible. My motherboard uses a Via chipset as opposed to an nvidia chipset to avoid having to deal with closed hardware. Wireless cards are harder to avoid. Thankfully, OpenBSD is doing its part in that department.
Closed source is one thing that does not bother me too much. No one has to use it if they do not want. Closed hardware does not make sense. How does it make business sense to make it harder for anyone to use with little effort on the part of the company?
The GPL is more restrictive, but only towards developers who wants to restrain their users. It is also more restrictive against developers using other open source licenses even copyleft ones such as the CDDL. This would mean that all non-GPL open source licenses as well as the public domain restrain their users.
Thereby being less restrictive towards users. Based on the above observation (yours and mine) and assuming all licenses (including BSD) are meant to restrain users, I make the following statement: if I use a program licensed under a BSD license, I have the same rights for usage under it as does someone using GPL-licensed software, therefore, this point is incorrect.
If you believe it to still be correct, please show within a BSD license where it restrains users more than the GPL. Better yet, show within the public domain (pd == "") how it designed to restrain users.
Did you want to emphasize "human"? Does federal funding not allow for stem cell research on cells collected from a child's tooth or an umbilical cord? I am curious.
Actually, some time ago WINE was under BSD license, that permitted proprietary modifications. After WINE was forked to WineX, then renamed to Cedega and closed their source, the WINE developers changed the license to GPL so future "freeloaders" are not allowed.
Wrong order. Rewind was split off of WINE after some WINE developers changed the license from the MIT license to the LGPL.
If you politely inform the website operator of a potential security issue, without doing a mess, he will sick the cops after you.
Although I agree with you that informing (without attempting to charge for it) the owner of a potential security issue should be protected from punishment, whistleblowing is about telling someone outside an organization about wrongdoings from within the organization.
That is why I am beginning to think there should exist a cap on the number of existing laws. You want to make a new law? You need to remove one along with the new one. This is especially nice for taxes. I would also start the cap at a number well below the current number (infinity?) of laws.
Also, why can they not consolidate laws? For example, would people want one law against murder that listed all the punishments or would they prefer many laws with one for each type of punishment? Lawyers/politicians seem to prefer a greater number unfortunately. Of course the cap I mentioned would at least force consolidation.
To prevent them from combining non-related laws together, public stonings (non-California style:)) would be required.:)
I will answer with a question: if Nokia had chosen to start from scratch, would the code have been any more free than starting from BSD-licensed code?
My original comment was just correcting his statement that the BSD license contained the restriction or actually caused the restriction. Both are untrue. It may allow the restriction just as it allows GPL restrictions to be placed on it, but it does not contain that restriction within its text.
Yes, but the original license terms are so minimal as to be almost irrelevant. So you can effectively use almost any license. There is BSD code under GPL (yes, the BSD terms still apply, but they would be there under GPL anyway, so it is in effect a straight GPL license), there is bsd code under the windows and OSX licenses, there is doubtless BSD code under many more.
I was just being pedantic.
Entirely true, however, it's still the case that you're restricting some things by putting it under BSD license - as a stupid example, you don't allow others to falsely claim authorship of your program.
I realize that the BSD license does place restrictions on the source. I do not see the authorship claim. Are you speaking about the fact of holding copyright on something or the old BSD license?
How free am I with the copy of bsd ftp included with MS windows? Answer, not many; amongst other things I am not allowed to decompile, disassemble, modify, reverse engineer, or redistribute it, IIRC I can't use it to defame people, etc. I have a lot more restrictions than I would with a GPL program. BSD may have less immediate restrictions but it results in less restrictions in the long run.
In this scenario, the BSD ftp is still available. The Microsoft-tainted version is not. Behold! The power of fork.:)
Utter bollocks. Term 1: "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
Nope. If you distribute the software in binary form with an offer to send the source on request, then you must give the source to anyone who requests it, which is to prevent the following loophole: A sells B a copy of the program in binary form and offers B the source on request, B sells this copy under first sale doctrine to C, who then has a binary copy and no access to source. However, if you sell the program with source (or in source form) your involvement is ended, and you are well within your rights to tell anyone who comes around asking for the source to sod off.
You are correct. I was specifically thinking about the case of distributing the binary without the source. In that case, you would need to provide the source, but you cannot sell the source just the distribution costs (GPL section 3.b.).
But the BSD license says I have to keep the notice saying that all warranties are disclaimed. GPL explicitly states that I can sell warranty protection.
All warranties are disclaimed for those that wrote the original code. Since you can wrap the code with another license, you may use a license that adds warranty protection. The warranty is just not covered by the original and its authors. You will probably not find any BSD-licensed code authors that care if you offer warranty coverage of your own as long as it does try to include them as covering the code.
Just because you have to make the source available to anyone who receives the software and you can't limit their redistribution does not prevent you from selling GPL'd software without the authors consent.
According to the FAQ, I was half wrong. You may sell the binaries, and you may charge for the act of distributing the source to a requester in only to recover the cost of the distribution. You just may not sell the source.
This is the dumbest line of thought that I continually hear. If you're going to, therefore, your argum try and distill your argument to fundamentals, you've got to make sure your argument makes sense in the first place.
Insults do not win an argument. My argument does make sense; you just did not understand it.
Do you think we would be more free if there were no laws? Sure, we would be free to do some things which the law currently prevents us from doing, but do you think you'd have the freedom to walk to the end of the street without getting mugged at knifepoint?
You would be more free. The mugger would also be more free. Fortunately, this comparison does not work here. With the BSD license, the comparison would be if there existed a basket full of an infinite amount of food and someone took some out. Would that hurt the person that owned the basket? Would that hurt the next person to take some food? The answer to both is no.
Erm, the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of being BSD rather than GPL licensed is that you CAN change the license. Go read the BSD license. You're permitted to redistribute the software under pretty much any terms you want.
You are not allowed to change the license. You may add restrictions, such as the GPL, to the code, but the original license stays.
The only way to be truly free is to put it in the public domain.
I think I have read that in the U.S. it is safer to have an AS-IS license (MIT-style) since people will have an easier time suing you if it is public domain.:(
All those are freedoms you have with the GPL.
In this case they are not since the BSD definition of use (almost any development or running the program) is different than the GPL definition (GPL development or running the program).
The only restrictions there are are there to preserve the freedom of others.
A BSD license does this by allowing anyone to do almost anything with the code. You are not bound by more restrictions. Which is freer for you? More restrictions or less restrictions?
False. You have to give the source code to the people you sell the program to, and you have to give them permission to redistribute and modify it. That's all.
This is untrue. You are not allowed to sell GPL'd software unless all authors of the software are in agreement with the action. You may charge for the distribution of the software as long as the fee applies solely to the distribution . This is according to the license. As long as someone receives the software, they may request the source by which you, the author(s), must comply.
And if you're going to be picky, am I free to sell a warrantied version of BSD software? I don't see how I can.
Yes, you may. You may add a warranty to BSD (or GPL?) software as long as it applies to you. You cannot add a warranty on anything that makes others responsible for what you warranty.
You are thinking about a different chip (V chip). The Clipper Chip was a backdoor into communications sponsored by the NSA and at least supported by Gore. I believe there was to be a law that required it for communications. It sure would have made those warrantless wiretaps easier.
I think you are trying to avoid reading the article.
Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program.
Sometimes, Bush is not at fault.
The Clinton administration was a relatively open time in our history compared to any administration before or since. Not perfect, but definitely better than Bush I or II.
Someone does not remember his/her history very well. Bush may have been interested in the Clipper chip, but Clinton was the strongest advocate of it before or since.
Vote like I do: pick people without basing it on their party affiliation.
However, as seen with Wine some projects goes from BSD to LGPL licences to ensure not being ripped of by companies.
I am curious about what companies Wine has stopped. As I see it now, Wine is a one company show when it used to have at least two with TransGaming.
BTW, you can never "rip off" something with a BSD or MIT license. That is just FUD. As long as you follow the terms of a license, how can you "rip" it off?
It is interesting that the development community go Novell to release Xgl even though it was under the MIT license.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I should have mentioned my testing was on a 800 Mhz Athlon desktop I use as a spare "server" (wife won't let me put up a rack for real servers yet :(
:)
You should have had this in a prenuptial: "Permission by husband to do anything geeky to it".
...due to an unfortunate misspelling of "hoosiers" in the budget encyclopedia...
I think you would have found hosers up a little farther north.
My wife has the Dyson DC15. It is called The Ball. I really wanted that model because I first thought it was a sphere. :)
It will probably be gabel. We must not forget the 'g'. I just hope the gabel is not too costly. :)
Does this patch in the FreeBSD nVidia forum fix it for you? It helped me on a 6-STABLE system with the 9631 driver even if the patch said it was for 7-CURRENT and the 9746 driver. I recommend it.
The GPL is the most common choice made and there's a reason for that.
Maybe I misunderstood the history of Macsyma, but it sounds like the GPL would never have helped since the original code was not public in the first place.
I believe all government source should be public domain or MIT-licensed for all to use. No particular party should have control of it within the bounds of the government. If a company wants to commercialize it or others want to GPL it, that is fine. Since everyone from companies to individuals pay taxes for its development, everyone should have full access to develop and use it in any way.
proprietary means don't work properly with linux
:)
It works well for me under FreeBSD and Linux.
my kernel is tainted so apt won't update it.
That sounds like a bug in apt or the way the driver is packaged; I am able to update it on FreeBSD.
the laptop won't suspend so i have to boot up everytime i use it.
That sounds like a bug in the nvidia driver.
then there's that annoying logo.
Try either of these (from the FreeBSD documentation):
Option "NoLogo" "boolean"
Option "LogoPath" "string"
an open source driver would just work!
You must not use very many drivers. I have run into blocking bugs in open and closed source drivers. This does not address which is actually easier for someone to fix.
would anybody here buy a cpu if the instuction set was a trade secret.
Many here have bought an nvidia graphics card. I try to avoid closed hardware as much as possible. My motherboard uses a Via chipset as opposed to an nvidia chipset to avoid having to deal with closed hardware. Wireless cards are harder to avoid. Thankfully, OpenBSD is doing its part in that department.
Closed source is one thing that does not bother me too much. No one has to use it if they do not want. Closed hardware does not make sense. How does it make business sense to make it harder for anyone to use with little effort on the part of the company?
The GPL is more restrictive, but only towards developers who wants to restrain their users.
It is also more restrictive against developers using other open source licenses even copyleft ones such as the CDDL. This would mean that all non-GPL open source licenses as well as the public domain restrain their users.
Thereby being less restrictive towards users.
Based on the above observation (yours and mine) and assuming all licenses (including BSD) are meant to restrain users, I make the following statement: if I use a program licensed under a BSD license, I have the same rights for usage under it as does someone using GPL-licensed software, therefore, this point is incorrect.
If you believe it to still be correct, please show within a BSD license where it restrains users more than the GPL. Better yet, show within the public domain (pd == "") how it designed to restrain users.
Did you want to emphasize "human"? Does federal funding not allow for stem cell research on cells collected from a child's tooth or an umbilical cord? I am curious.
Actually, some time ago WINE was under BSD license, that permitted proprietary modifications. After WINE was forked to WineX, then renamed to Cedega and closed their source, the WINE developers changed the license to GPL so future "freeloaders" are not allowed.
Wrong order. Rewind was split off of WINE after some WINE developers changed the license from the MIT license to the LGPL.
Sits back and waits to modded down by neo-con fanatics.
/me sits back and waits to be modded down by neo-lib fanatics.
You must not realize that most conservatives do not consider Bush to be a conservative.
BTW, does this sound insulting:
I can be elected ($$$) for any amount. :)
Yeah, just like website security.
If you politely inform the website operator of a potential security issue, without doing a mess, he will sick the cops after you.
Although I agree with you that informing (without attempting to charge for it) the owner of a potential security issue should be protected from punishment, whistleblowing is about telling someone outside an organization about wrongdoings from within the organization.
That is why I am beginning to think there should exist a cap on the number of existing laws. You want to make a new law? You need to remove one along with the new one. This is especially nice for taxes. I would also start the cap at a number well below the current number (infinity?) of laws.
:)) would be required. :)
Also, why can they not consolidate laws? For example, would people want one law against murder that listed all the punishments or would they prefer many laws with one for each type of punishment? Lawyers/politicians seem to prefer a greater number unfortunately. Of course the cap I mentioned would at least force consolidation.
To prevent them from combining non-related laws together, public stonings (non-California style
I will answer with a question: if Nokia had chosen to start from scratch, would the code have been any more free than starting from BSD-licensed code?
My original comment was just correcting his statement that the BSD license contained the restriction or actually caused the restriction. Both are untrue. It may allow the restriction just as it allows GPL restrictions to be placed on it, but it does not contain that restriction within its text.
If that were true, everybody could blame the gun or knife for causing them to kill someone.
After all, it's the BSD licence that restricts me from seeing the Nokia OS source code.
No. It is the Nokia license that restricts you. The BSD license does not contain the restriction.
Yes, but the original license terms are so minimal as to be almost irrelevant. So you can effectively use almost any license. There is BSD code under GPL (yes, the BSD terms still apply, but they would be there under GPL anyway, so it is in effect a straight GPL license), there is bsd code under the windows and OSX licenses, there is doubtless BSD code under many more.
:)
I was just being pedantic.
Entirely true, however, it's still the case that you're restricting some things by putting it under BSD license - as a stupid example, you don't allow others to falsely claim authorship of your program.
I realize that the BSD license does place restrictions on the source. I do not see the authorship claim. Are you speaking about the fact of holding copyright on something or the old BSD license?
How free am I with the copy of bsd ftp included with MS windows? Answer, not many; amongst other things I am not allowed to decompile, disassemble, modify, reverse engineer, or redistribute it, IIRC I can't use it to defame people, etc. I have a lot more restrictions than I would with a GPL program. BSD may have less immediate restrictions but it results in less restrictions in the long run.
In this scenario, the BSD ftp is still available. The Microsoft-tainted version is not. Behold! The power of fork.
Utter bollocks. Term 1: "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
Not utter but partial as noted in my correction.
Nope. If you distribute the software in binary form with an offer to send the source on request, then you must give the source to anyone who requests it, which is to prevent the following loophole: A sells B a copy of the program in binary form and offers B the source on request, B sells this copy under first sale doctrine to C, who then has a binary copy and no access to source. However, if you sell the program with source (or in source form) your involvement is ended, and you are well within your rights to tell anyone who comes around asking for the source to sod off.
You are correct. I was specifically thinking about the case of distributing the binary without the source. In that case, you would need to provide the source, but you cannot sell the source just the distribution costs (GPL section 3.b.).
But the BSD license says I have to keep the notice saying that all warranties are disclaimed. GPL explicitly states that I can sell warranty protection.
All warranties are disclaimed for those that wrote the original code. Since you can wrap the code with another license, you may use a license that adds warranty protection. The warranty is just not covered by the original and its authors. You will probably not find any BSD-licensed code authors that care if you offer warranty coverage of your own as long as it does try to include them as covering the code.
Have you read the GPL? If you have, then I submit you don't actually understand the GPL.
I have several times. I usually do not worry about the selling component of it when reading it. I corrected my response a moment ago.
Just because you have to make the source available to anyone who receives the software and you can't limit their redistribution does not prevent you from selling GPL'd software without the authors consent.
According to the FAQ, I was half wrong. You may sell the binaries, and you may charge for the act of distributing the source to a requester in only to recover the cost of the distribution. You just may not sell the source.
This is the dumbest line of thought that I continually hear. If you're going to, therefore, your argum try and distill your argument to fundamentals, you've got to make sure your argument makes sense in the first place.
Insults do not win an argument. My argument does make sense; you just did not understand it.
Do you think we would be more free if there were no laws? Sure, we would be free to do some things which the law currently prevents us from doing, but do you think you'd have the freedom to walk to the end of the street without getting mugged at knifepoint?
You would be more free. The mugger would also be more free. Fortunately, this comparison does not work here. With the BSD license, the comparison would be if there existed a basket full of an infinite amount of food and someone took some out. Would that hurt the person that owned the basket? Would that hurt the next person to take some food? The answer to both is no.
Erm, the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of being BSD rather than GPL licensed is that you CAN change the license. Go read the BSD license. You're permitted to redistribute the software under pretty much any terms you want.
:(
You are not allowed to change the license. You may add restrictions, such as the GPL, to the code, but the original license stays.
The only way to be truly free is to put it in the public domain.
I think I have read that in the U.S. it is safer to have an AS-IS license (MIT-style) since people will have an easier time suing you if it is public domain.
All those are freedoms you have with the GPL.
In this case they are not since the BSD definition of use (almost any development or running the program) is different than the GPL definition (GPL development or running the program).
The only restrictions there are are there to preserve the freedom of others.
A BSD license does this by allowing anyone to do almost anything with the code. You are not bound by more restrictions. Which is freer for you? More restrictions or less restrictions?
False. You have to give the source code to the people you sell the program to, and you have to give them permission to redistribute and modify it. That's all.
This is untrue. You are not allowed to sell GPL'd software unless all authors of the software are in agreement with the action. You may charge for the distribution of the software as long as the fee applies solely to the distribution . This is according to the license. As long as someone receives the software, they may request the source by which you, the author(s), must comply.
And if you're going to be picky, am I free to sell a warrantied version of BSD software? I don't see how I can.
Yes, you may. You may add a warranty to BSD (or GPL?) software as long as it applies to you. You cannot add a warranty on anything that makes others responsible for what you warranty.
You are thinking about a different chip (V chip). The Clipper Chip was a backdoor into communications sponsored by the NSA and at least supported by Gore. I believe there was to be a law that required it for communications. It sure would have made those warrantless wiretaps easier.
I believe both parties have too much power.
Now who's rewriting history.
I think you are trying to avoid reading the article.
Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program.
Sometimes, Bush is not at fault.
The Clinton administration was a relatively open time in our history compared to any administration before or since. Not perfect, but definitely better than Bush I or II.
Someone does not remember his/her history very well. Bush may have been interested in the Clipper chip, but Clinton was the strongest advocate of it before or since.
Vote like I do: pick people without basing it on their party affiliation.
However, as seen with Wine some projects goes from BSD to LGPL licences to ensure not being ripped of by companies.
I am curious about what companies Wine has stopped. As I see it now, Wine is a one company show when it used to have at least two with TransGaming.
BTW, you can never "rip off" something with a BSD or MIT license. That is just FUD. As long as you follow the terms of a license, how can you "rip" it off?
It is interesting that the development community go Novell to release Xgl even though it was under the MIT license.