Fusebox and Rails are both web frameworks, but they are philosophically different. Fusebox doesn't even necessarily use MVC. The closest thing to Ruby on Rails in the CF world is ColdFusion on Wheels.
All the licences have an MPL-ish patent clause whereby patent litigation terminates both the patent grant and the copyright grant. Consequently none of them are compatible with GPL v2.
A showstopper (#i55330#) has come up, and as a result there will be a third Release Candidate. So estimated time of arrival has gone from 13 October to the 20th.
Although only recently open-sourced, Django has powered real-world sites for several years now. So whilst the project will borrow ideas from other frameworks where it makes sense, it's more of a case of parallel evolution than trying to ape Rails.
I can't think of any other reason why the Apache people would be organizing this, though it surprises me they're going for J2SE and not J2EE compatability.
But they are. J2EE is a superset of J2SE, and by adding Apache Geronimo you'd get the complete stack. Admittedly Geronimo is aiming for J2EE 1.4 rather than J2EE 5.0 at the moment, but J2EE 5.0 doesn't really exist yet.;o)
Apache License 2.0 is free enough for Red Hat, and also free enough for the FSF and most Debian folk too. The license was under development for years -- why didn't OpenBSD voice their opinion on the relevant Apache mailing list whilst it was still in beta?
GIFs aren't lossless, they're limited to 8-bit indexed colour.
GIFs are lossless. The 8-bit colour restriction is an issue, but it can be used to store and retrieve an 8-bit colour image without losing any detail.
The LZW patent expired in the US on 20 June 2003, but Unisys still assert that it exists in other countries (the UK, Canada, France, Italy, Germany and Japan).
On the other hand, if open source/free software Product A is incorporated into closed source/proprietary Product B, Product A doesn't magically cease to exist. If Product A deals with an open protocol or format, such as TCP/IP or Ogg Vorbis, it is beneficial to all parties when Product B retains a level of compatibility with Product A rather than adopting a proprietary format.
I think "do we want XML" vs. "do we want a series of header fields" is asking the wrong question. It's the schema that's wrapped up in the XML or fields that's important.
XML is great for expressing tree-like data structures, where as the "field-name: field-body" approach is probably better for expressing linear data. If you look at a schema it is usually obvious if XML is being used just for the sake of it, and parsing SPF as it stands is trivial.
Companies with an "embrace, extend and extinguish" mentality towards standards can leverage XML by using it without any formal machine-processable schema (DTD, XSD or RNG), whilst all the while insisting it is "standard" because it uses XML. Look no further than WordML for an example of Microsoft doing this.
If he finds his patented work incorporated into the original project without his consent and sues over it, that person suddenly loses the patent license to the original work. It's like putting 2 trains aimed at each other on the same track, except that one of them (the patent holders) is made out of paper.
In the above example he should be sueing for copyright infringement, not patent infringement. As a result, the patent clause doesn't take effect.
... FSF
continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL
and GPL would be of enormous benefit to the community of free software
developers, allowing merger of valuable code bases currently
separated by license incompatibilities. FSF is pleased to note the
convergence implied by the ASL 2.0 draft. FSF will make efforts, in
the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the
process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache
Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem...
And what would RMS say? If you're willing to compromise for what you want at the price of freedom, well you've already lost.:^) Ah, the luxury of being a man of principle.
Just to point out, the new XFree86 licence is not "non-free". The issue is that in the eyes of many (including, almost certainly, the FSF) it is not compatible with the GPL.
I find Stephen Evans' "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" story rather unfortunate. He accuses the Linux community over the recent 'MyDoom' virus but seems to ignore several pertinent points.
The malicious virus in question doesn't merely launch a denial of service attack on www.sco.com, it turns infected Windows machines into email relays to distribute spam. Just as it uses social engineering techniques to trick people into infecting their machines, it uses the attack on www.sco.com to distract us from MyDoom's real purpose -- which has got nothing to do with the SCO/IBM lawsuit.
Linux users dislike spam just as much as users of Microsoft Windows or other computer operating systems. Indeed, parts of the open source community have been very successful at defeating spammers; without open source tools like SpamAssassin (used by many Internet Service Providers) far more spam would be reaching our inboxes. I'm sure the spammers are delighted with the bad press Stephen Evans is giving the open source movement.
The author of MyDoom clearly knows more about the internals of Microsoft Windows than most open source programmers, who are far more interested in the internals of open source software.
Finally, I note the BBC are big users of Linux and open source -- indeed, at the time of writing your news.bbc.co.uk site is running Linux on the open source Apache web server. Perhaps Stephen Evans will be accussing the BBC's webmasters of being involved next?;o)
See this table for information on which browsers do or do not support the "application/xhtml+xml" media type. The only present browser that is a cause of problems with it is Internet Explorer.
Interesting; china.linuxone.net has a LinuxOne-modifed Apache install message similiar to the one found on RedHat. The HTTP headers, however (see here or here) report RH, presumably because LinuxOne forgot to change them...;o)
With the split from Walnut Creek, what does the future hold for the Slackware Linux Project? In the past 12 months, companies like Red Hat and Caldera have really pushed their distributions. Will Slackware be promoted more in future? (I would hate to see it sidelined.) What can I do as an individual to advocate Slack?
Also, whilst I applaud Slackware's adherance to Linux (and BSD) standards, how much of an interest do you take in the actual creation of these standards?
The villain when it comes to corrupting WEB standards is Netscape, not Microsoft. I have heard that the version of Konquerer that will ship with KDE 2.0 is very standards-compliant as well. Mozilla is doing a great job of implementing HTML 4.0 and XML, and its layout engine is fantastic, but don't slam MS without knowing the facts!
I believe the actual reason that Konquerer is so standards-compliant is because it's based on Gecko (i.e. Mozilla). As far as MS goes, they may be better than Netscape 4.X but AFAIK they still don't have 100% support for DOM1, CSS1, etc. I think they've got a certain amount of catch-up to do with their Tasman engine. Where's IE6 got to?:o)
Slashdot Mirror
Er, GPLv2 does address patent rights. It's just that GPLv3 overhauls how they're handled.
Fusebox and Rails are both web frameworks, but they are philosophically different. Fusebox doesn't even necessarily use MVC. The closest thing to Ruby on Rails in the CF world is ColdFusion on Wheels.
All the licences have an MPL-ish patent clause whereby patent litigation terminates both the patent grant and the copyright grant. Consequently none of them are compatible with GPL v2.
A showstopper (#i55330#) has come up, and as a result there will be a third Release Candidate. So estimated time of arrival has gone from 13 October to the 20th.
Although only recently open-sourced, Django has powered real-world sites for several years now. So whilst the project will borrow ideas from other frameworks where it makes sense, it's more of a case of parallel evolution than trying to ape Rails.
OpenOffice.org 2.0 Release Candidate 1 should be out within the next 48 hours.
I can't think of any other reason why the Apache people would be organizing this, though it surprises me they're going for J2SE and not J2EE compatability.
But they are. J2EE is a superset of J2SE, and by adding Apache Geronimo you'd get the complete stack. Admittedly Geronimo is aiming for J2EE 1.4 rather than J2EE 5.0 at the moment, but J2EE 5.0 doesn't really exist yet. ;o)
Hopefully this will provide some added incentive for browser makers to support DOM Level 3 Load and Save...
Apache License 2.0 is free enough for Red Hat, and also free enough for the FSF and most Debian folk too. The license was under development for years -- why didn't OpenBSD voice their opinion on the relevant Apache mailing list whilst it was still in beta?
SpamAssassin 3.0 already has support for SPF Classic, and there's no reason to think the ASF's rejection of Sender ID will change this.
GIFs aren't lossless, they're limited to 8-bit indexed colour.
GIFs are lossless. The 8-bit colour restriction is an issue, but it can be used to store and retrieve an 8-bit colour image without losing any detail.
The LZW patent expired in the US on 20 June 2003, but Unisys still assert that it exists in other countries (the UK, Canada, France, Italy, Germany and Japan).
On the other hand, if open source/free software Product A is incorporated into closed source/proprietary Product B, Product A doesn't magically cease to exist. If Product A deals with an open protocol or format, such as TCP/IP or Ogg Vorbis, it is beneficial to all parties when Product B retains a level of compatibility with Product A rather than adopting a proprietary format.
I think "do we want XML" vs. "do we want a series of header fields" is asking the wrong question. It's the schema that's wrapped up in the XML or fields that's important.
XML is great for expressing tree-like data structures, where as the "field-name: field-body" approach is probably better for expressing linear data. If you look at a schema it is usually obvious if XML is being used just for the sake of it, and parsing SPF as it stands is trivial.
Companies with an "embrace, extend and extinguish" mentality towards standards can leverage XML by using it without any formal machine-processable schema (DTD, XSD or RNG), whilst all the while insisting it is "standard" because it uses XML. Look no further than WordML for an example of Microsoft doing this.
In the above example he should be sueing for copyright infringement, not patent infringement. As a result, the patent clause doesn't take effect.
So there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
Just to point out, the new XFree86 licence is not "non-free". The issue is that in the eyes of many (including, almost certainly, the FSF) it is not compatible with the GPL.
I wrote to them as follows:
;o)
"""
I find Stephen Evans' "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" story rather unfortunate. He accuses the Linux community over the recent 'MyDoom' virus but seems to ignore several pertinent points.
The malicious virus in question doesn't merely launch a denial of service attack on www.sco.com, it turns infected Windows machines into email relays to distribute spam. Just as it uses social engineering techniques to trick people into infecting their machines, it uses the attack on www.sco.com to distract us from MyDoom's real purpose -- which has got nothing to do with the SCO/IBM lawsuit.
Linux users dislike spam just as much as users of Microsoft Windows or other computer operating systems. Indeed, parts of the open source community have been very successful at defeating spammers; without open source tools like SpamAssassin (used by many Internet Service Providers) far more spam would be reaching our inboxes. I'm sure the spammers are delighted with the bad press Stephen Evans is giving the open source movement.
The author of MyDoom clearly knows more about the internals of Microsoft Windows than most open source programmers, who are far more interested in the internals of open source software.
Finally, I note the BBC are big users of Linux and open source -- indeed, at the time of writing your news.bbc.co.uk site is running Linux on the open source Apache web server. Perhaps Stephen Evans will be accussing the BBC's webmasters of being involved next?
"""
See this table for information on which browsers do or do not support the "application/xhtml+xml" media type. The only present browser that is a cause of problems with it is Internet Explorer.
Interesting; china.linuxone.net has a LinuxOne-modifed Apache install message similiar to the one found on RedHat. The HTTP headers, however (see here or here) report RH, presumably because LinuxOne forgot to change them... ;o)
Hi Patrick,
With the split from Walnut Creek, what does the future hold for the Slackware Linux Project? In the past 12 months, companies like Red Hat and Caldera have really pushed their distributions. Will Slackware be promoted more in future? (I would hate to see it sidelined.) What can I do as an individual to advocate Slack?
Also, whilst I applaud Slackware's adherance to Linux (and BSD) standards, how much of an interest do you take in the actual creation of these standards?
Thanks,
Dave H.
The villain when it comes to corrupting WEB standards is Netscape, not Microsoft. I have heard that the version of Konquerer that will ship with KDE 2.0 is very standards-compliant as well. Mozilla is doing a great job of implementing HTML 4.0 and XML, and its layout engine is fantastic, but don't slam MS without knowing the facts!
I believe the actual reason that Konquerer is so standards-compliant is because it's based on Gecko (i.e. Mozilla). As far as MS goes, they may be better than Netscape 4.X but AFAIK they still don't have 100% support for DOM1, CSS1, etc. I think they've got a certain amount of catch-up to do with their Tasman engine. Where's IE6 got to? :o)
Dave