distcc is developed on GNU/Linux, but has been reported to work on other systems including FreeBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, Cygwin and BSD/OS. distcc is not supported on any SCO operating system.
How many times has IBM filed a Patent lawsuit against someone? I know they returned fire with SCO about Patents, but how many times have they instigated the Lawsuit?
For some dumbass reason, Keyboard manufactures followed the same flaw in MS Natural Keyboard as the WAY to make keyboards.
They didn't study typing, they had an engineer design it that used the 2 finger method, then sold it. NOBODY makes an affordable splitkey keyboard anymore that doesn't follow the MS Natural Keyboard flaw. It is annoying.
I like the Keyboard and Touchpad solutions. MicroInnovations makes one for about $60, with the 6 key in the wrong place. That is what I have been stuck with.
Lite-ON Keyboards made Model SK-6000, that was correct. I bought one 3 years ago for $25 with a touchpad, but they cancelled the line. After 2 years, it finally stopped functioning.
Basically, the track that SCO are going down for the GPL is that, in a nutshell:
As the Copyright owner, you cannot tell others how they can use your software. This is the premise behind the GPL. It uses Copyright to limit what others can do with the software.
If they (SCO or other company) use GPL'd software in their product, then the GPL covers that software as well, or they remove the GPL code. Simple, plain.
If by some stretch of the imagination, they win this case, think of what it means.
ANY SOFTWARE that tries to limit what you can do with the software after purchase has an open license. You can put Windows OS on ANY computer you want. Any license on software that tries to limit your usage of said software becomes null and void.
This whole case is mired in BS. SCO business model reminds me of the.COM era. How did that end again? (Luckily this is only one dumbass company this time.)
Full GPL cannot be Static or Dynamically linked without making your code GPL as well.
But, if you use the interfaces to the code, then you are fine.
Let's say you use a socket to a GPL'd system. You would be able to distribute that with your closed source app and not have to GPL your stuff.
Another example would be, if you use the Command Line Interface to run a GPL program within your program. Your code could still be any license you want because you are still using the GPL code properly.
If you statically or Dynamically link to GPL code, then your code needs to be GPL as well.
Of course, if the code in question is Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL), then you can Static or Dynamically link to the code without fear of retribution.
As far as credit, a README or something in your distribution, or mention in a help file would be enough to credit for the GPL code used.
It has always been, well post DMCA anyway, illegal to read Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Word Perfect, etc. that have been Password protected. This is exactly the same thing, they are just protecting it a different way.
My point is that people will not stand for it.
With Word, the occassional file that doesn't work is ok, but if ALL files from a version of word can't be read it is something else entirely. I am talking about being read by another version of Word.
Most companies in today's economy can't go out and purchase 100 copies at $300+ because of DRM capabilities. Most companies don't care.
I know a company that still runs Win95 and Office97 on all 100+ computers. They won't be upgrading.
If Microsoft doesn't make it easy to turn that feature off in MS Office 2003, people will either stick with what they have, download an alternate (Word Perfect, OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, AbiWord, gnumeric, etc.), or cause Microsoft some major pains to fix it.
To those people that can't send a valid file to others, it is a bug.
Now, alot of people will just live with it, if they don't send to others. They won't know the difference.
I use OOo all the time to work with people that are stuck on MS Word. They never know the difference, unless they ask how I wrote the document on my Linux box.
I have specifically NOT worked on Password protected Word or Word Perfect documents because of the DMCA. It is too iffy.
You may or may not wind up in jail. Mabye today, mabye tomorrow, mabye not. It all depends on how much a competitor you end up becoming.
Look at what happened to Dimitry (sp?). He wrote a software used to circumvent Adobe PDF encryption. It wasn't that it WAS used to unencrypt copy protected docs, he was held because it COULD.
OpenOffice.org is not necassarily SOLD for a profit on the site, but anybody COULD sell it if they desire. If something like this was added under the Not For Profit clause of the DMCA, then you would NEVER be able to make money off of OpenOffice.org.
No, it does not. You take it back. You don't have a copy of the book because you checked it out at the library.
I believe that authors and publishers tried to make it unlawful when the first couple libraries started up, but it didn't go very far.
The same works with Radio. You listen to the music, but you don't HAVE a copy to listen anytime. It is at the descretion of the Radio Station.
Swapping of Music IS unlawful. As a matter of fact, the RIAA along with EVERY other musician in the industry is required by law to do everything they can to stop the copying. If they don't at least try, then they lose their copyright.
I might be off base here, but copyright law requires a person to defend their copyright or lose it. If you let millions of people copy your stuff with your knowledge, you are in affect saying that everybody can copy your stuff period.
We had the same thing happen to us.
One of our mirrors recieved a nasty gram about the OpenOffice file that was on their system.
A little bit of digging found that their script was assuming ANYTHING with OFFICE in the name was a pirate copy of MS Office.
It was rather entertaining.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the comment on discCC:
distcc is developed on GNU/Linux, but has been reported to work on other systems including FreeBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, Cygwin and BSD/OS. distcc is not supported on any SCO operating system.
How many times has IBM filed a Patent lawsuit against someone? I know they returned fire with SCO about Patents, but how many times have they instigated the Lawsuit?
YES YES YES YES YES YES
For some dumbass reason, Keyboard manufactures followed the same flaw in MS Natural Keyboard as the WAY to make keyboards.
They didn't study typing, they had an engineer design it that used the 2 finger method, then sold it. NOBODY makes an affordable splitkey keyboard anymore that doesn't follow the MS Natural Keyboard flaw. It is annoying.
I like the Keyboard and Touchpad solutions. MicroInnovations makes one for about $60, with the 6 key in the wrong place. That is what I have been stuck with.
Lite-ON Keyboards made Model SK-6000, that was correct. I bought one 3 years ago for $25 with a touchpad, but they cancelled the line. After 2 years, it finally stopped functioning.
I must be missing something. I just brought up the page in both Firebird and IE 6.0. I didn't see anything different in the rendering.
RFID tags don't use batteries. They are powered by the Reader while they are being read.
The idea is that someone could look at what you have purchased just by "Reading" you.
He moved it to a Church Parking Lot. Traffic actually has a seperate entrance and exit.
It took him 2 weeks to set everything up.
> [*] A gentle reminder: it's "spam" not "SPAM" . I don't know why people keep thinking it's an acryonym.
;-)
SPAM is an acronym:
Soliciations Posing As Mail
I understand. I put a limited GNU interpretation in for brevity.
My point is that GPL is a license contract that uses and extends Copyright, as are EULA's used by other software.
The limits imposed on GPL'd software by the license, are far more open than the draconian EULA's by most Proprietary software companies.
This would be interesting.
.COM era. How did that end again? (Luckily this is only one dumbass company this time.)
Basically, the track that SCO are going down for the GPL is that, in a nutshell:
As the Copyright owner, you cannot tell others how they can use your software. This is the premise behind the GPL. It uses Copyright to limit what others can do with the software.
If they (SCO or other company) use GPL'd software in their product, then the GPL covers that software as well, or they remove the GPL code. Simple, plain.
If by some stretch of the imagination, they win this case, think of what it means.
ANY SOFTWARE that tries to limit what you can do with the software after purchase has an open license. You can put Windows OS on ANY computer you want. Any license on software that tries to limit your usage of said software becomes null and void.
This whole case is mired in BS. SCO business model reminds me of the
They are not running Linux. They are using a cache server from Akami. They are the ones running linux not Microsoft.
The are still running Windows and IIS in the background. Notice the IIS for Webserver, they have not ported IIS to linux.
You can read about it in historical news on Netcraft.
Have fun...
Full GPL cannot be Static or Dynamically linked without making your code GPL as well.
But, if you use the interfaces to the code, then you are fine.
Let's say you use a socket to a GPL'd system. You would be able to distribute that with your closed source app and not have to GPL your stuff.
Another example would be, if you use the Command Line Interface to run a GPL program within your program. Your code could still be any license you want because you are still using the GPL code properly.
If you statically or Dynamically link to GPL code, then your code needs to be GPL as well.
Of course, if the code in question is Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL), then you can Static or Dynamically link to the code without fear of retribution.
As far as credit, a README or something in your distribution, or mention in a help file would be enough to credit for the GPL code used.
Have fun, all.
DMCA is a tangle. Officers of the court decide what they think the law states.
It is all in the eye of the beholder:
Buisness Week And: Sklyarov
Also, what I was talking about is that you can write a file with OOo, and open it with Word.
If Microsoft breaks backward compatibility with ALL version of Word, they are going to have major pains with returns.
It has always been, well post DMCA anyway, illegal to read Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Word Perfect, etc. that have been Password protected. This is exactly the same thing, they are just protecting it a different way.
My point is that people will not stand for it.
With Word, the occassional file that doesn't work is ok, but if ALL files from a version of word can't be read it is something else entirely. I am talking about being read by another version of Word.
Most companies in today's economy can't go out and purchase 100 copies at $300+ because of DRM capabilities. Most companies don't care.
I know a company that still runs Win95 and Office97 on all 100+ computers. They won't be upgrading.
If Microsoft doesn't make it easy to turn that feature off in MS Office 2003, people will either stick with what they have, download an alternate (Word Perfect, OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, AbiWord, gnumeric, etc.), or cause Microsoft some major pains to fix it.
To those people that can't send a valid file to others, it is a bug.
Now, alot of people will just live with it, if they don't send to others. They won't know the difference.
That is where OpenOffice.org comes in.
I use OOo all the time to work with people that are stuck on MS Word. They never know the difference, unless they ask how I wrote the document on my Linux box.
I have specifically NOT worked on Password protected Word or Word Perfect documents because of the DMCA. It is too iffy.
You may or may not wind up in jail. Mabye today, mabye tomorrow, mabye not. It all depends on how much a competitor you end up becoming.
Look at what happened to Dimitry (sp?). He wrote a software used to circumvent Adobe PDF encryption. It wasn't that it WAS used to unencrypt copy protected docs, he was held because it COULD.
OpenOffice.org is not necassarily SOLD for a profit on the site, but anybody COULD sell it if they desire. If something like this was added under the Not For Profit clause of the DMCA, then you would NEVER be able to make money off of OpenOffice.org.
No, it does not. You take it back. You don't have a copy of the book because you checked it out at the library.
I believe that authors and publishers tried to make it unlawful when the first couple libraries started up, but it didn't go very far.
The same works with Radio. You listen to the music, but you don't HAVE a copy to listen anytime. It is at the descretion of the Radio Station.
Swapping of Music IS unlawful. As a matter of fact, the RIAA along with EVERY other musician in the industry is required by law to do everything they can to stop the copying. If they don't at least try, then they lose their copyright.
I might be off base here, but copyright law requires a person to defend their copyright or lose it. If you let millions of people copy your stuff with your knowledge, you are in affect saying that everybody can copy your stuff period.
We had the same thing happen to us. One of our mirrors recieved a nasty gram about the OpenOffice file that was on their system. A little bit of digging found that their script was assuming ANYTHING with OFFICE in the name was a pirate copy of MS Office. It was rather entertaining.