Yes, section 0 of the GPL does say that. However, history has shown that that FSF has different definitions of copying, distribution and modification than I do. For example, they consider linking to be derivation, and thus a form of modification, even though nothing is being modified. Loading a plugin is a form of linking. The FSF places the threshold of derivation at the process level. A plugin runs in the same process space as the browser. Exceptions are made for the OS and OS components, but none are made for anything else the software runs on top of.
The very use of the GPL tells me that the plugin was meant for GPL browswers only. Otherwise the LGPL would have been used. So why wasn't it?
It's a plugin and used the GPL license. This means anything it plugs into has to be GPL as well. Why wasn't the LGPL used instead? The GPL is good for standalone applications, like a flash player, but is less than ideal for a reusable component like a library or plugin. Depending on one's interpretation of the GPL, you might not be able to use this plugin alongside a non-GPL plugin.
I hope CRT goes the way of a dodo bird for good environmental reasons, not because I don't use it but because there are viable alternatives.
There are no viable alternatives for speciality applications. NOTICE I said "specialty" and not "average consumer". Do I need to repeat myself again?
As for good environmental reasons, why not just turn off your computer? I save more turning my computer off when I'm not using it than all the LCDs in the world running 24/7. It drives me nuts when the religio-enviro-wackos at work give me three different recycling bins for my freaking cubicle, but then never turn their workstations off at night or over the weekend.
My company builds medical ultrasound platforms. We have the best quality ultrasound platforms on the market, and for this reason are preferred by medical researchers. Until now we've been using 14 and 15 inch CRTs.
Anyway, our competitors (except for the bottom end market) have moved to LCDs. So our CEO said we have to have an LCD as well. So we've been spending the last six months getting an LCD up and running on a system. This may seem like a long time, but remember that this isn't a PC and Fry's isn't our supplier. Anyway, we made a new video display board, ultra quality scaling filters, hardware evaluation, long term purchasing agreements, custom bezels, LCD firmware, etc, etc.
Unfortunately we had to make some tradeoffs, because an LCD does NOT have the same image quality as a CRT, no matter what the yahoos here at Slashdot say. You just don't have the temporal response, contrast resolution and ghosting needed for rapidly moving high contrast grayscale images. We're aren't using a cheapass consumer grade LCD bought at a Memorial Day Weekend sale, we're using a very high end LCD from a top manufacturer. But it's still not the same as a CRT.
Are you even reading this thread? A LCD might not make sense for Ma and Pa Kettle, but for some *specialty* applications, CRT is still the way to go. I'm sick of you people wanting to get rid of any technology you don't personally use. Sheesh.
Yes, to all 10 freewares or sharewares there was about 1 public domain software worth it.
Go peruse Freshmeat and Sourceforge sometime. I think you will find a similar ratio of junk to usefulness.
Just googled it. Compiles a small subset of C.
It only compiled a small subset of C because it was meant for 8 bit computers. Try fitting GCC into an 8 bit computer. Heck, try fitting the source to GCC on a 1980 floppy or cassette. At the time, the small and tiny C compilers were your only real alternative to BASIC on hobbyist computer.
Communism: The community helping the community, for the sake of the community. Capitalism: The perpetual search for the cheapest solution.
Both definitions are wrong.
Communism is not about sharing, it's about being forced to share at gunpoint. Even the strictest ideological copyleft license isn't communist, because the collaboration remains voluntary. Capitalism isn't about the cheapest solution, it's about leveraging property ownership (capital) to aid production. The essence of Open Source is that it's not private capital (the millwheel), but more like a public commons (the river).
not after living in conservative Texas where you can always expect a smile, greeting, and a handshake from anybody regardless of religion, politics, or any of that other worthless crap.
There's something about conservative rural America that is much more tolerant than liberal urban America. As a Libertarian, I've found that rural conservatives are much more likely to take the time to try to understand me, then the liberal urbanites will. To date I hever *never* received any hostility from a ruralite with regards to my Libertarian views. The same cannot be said of urbanites.
Of course it doesn't help that we are being conditioned to see the world as red and blue. That if you are not with me you are the enemy and we share NO common ground. Our system of government only works well if both sides can work together.
I live in the San Fransisco Bay area, which is predominantly "blue". Actually that's putting it mildly. It's actually bright neon daygo blue. There is no common ground here. I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut in public. So I do a lot of listening instead.
One of the memes I've been hearing since just before the election, and the reason I posted here, is that "democracy is bad." Why is it bad? Because it put Bush in power. How can people who are predominantly members of the party named "democrat" hold democracy in disdain? How can a group that routinely champions diverse viewpoints so thoroughly dispise viewpoints different from their own?
Frankly, they sound like spoiled children. They lost a turn at play, so now they whine about taking their ball home so no one else can play. If Bush truly is the ultimate evil like they portray him, you would think they would try to learn from their mistakes so they could win the next election. But no! They would rather whine about how the majority are so stupid they won't vote how they're told to vote.
Oh how I miss the days of my youth in rural America when Democrats and Republicans could not only be civil to each other, they could actually be friends.
p.s. Before you get the wrong opinion of me, let me assure you that I am NOT a Republican. I'm pointing out a flaw on the Democrat side not to start an argument, but so that it can be FIXED.
Let me see if I got this straight. You think that democracy is helped when there are fewer candidates, and freedom of speech when there are fewer microphones?
I hate to break the news to Mr. Drepper, but Linux is a "minority" operating system! It's not mainstream. This isn't a troll, it's the truth.
If the goal is to replace one monopoly with another, then he would be correct. But that's not the goal folks! The phrase "word domination" is joke, and you're too stupid to get it! One of the chief attributes of Free and Open Source software is choice. But Mr. Drepper doesn't want choice. Democracy is nothing without a choice of candidates. Freedom of religion is nothing without a choice of belief. What good is freedom of speech when there's only one microphone?
I'm a longtime user and advocate of FreeBSD, and his article suggests to me that Linux cannot compete anymore with other Open Source operating systems. Is that really what he thinks? Wouldn't you Linux advocates rather Linux stand on its own merit?
What is it with Redhat that it ends up with all these arrogant people? I haven't used Redhat in six years, and with the way things are going, it will be at least six years before I even consider trying it again.
Democracy lets majority take advantage of the minority.
That is true. But the alternative is worse: letting the strong take advantage of the weak. It is a fact of life that the only right is that that comes from might. The stronger get to rule. Throughout history we have been ruled by the strong minority. Now we're ruled by the majority. It's not perfect, but until we get past the concept of "rule" itself, it's the best we can hope for.
Your views may not be represented by the majority, but what the hell makes you think they would be represented by an autarch?
One wierd thing about the last election is that now it's suddenly fashionable to doubt democracy. Eighteenth century elitist views that the common people can't possible govern themselves have been resurrected. I've got just two words for you naysayers:
Bugger Off!
The purpose of democracy is not to be infallible, omniscient or omnipotent. No one ever envisioned that it would usher in a utopia or paradise or terrestrial heaven. But what it was meant to do it does very well. Democracy has given humans the greatest amount of self-rule and self-determination ever in history.
Those of you who want to take away democracy just because your candidate lost an election can kiss my hairy ass!
You really are caught up in the Lucas reality distortion field, aren't you?
1) EVERY movie, novel or story has a backstory. We STILL don't know who built R2D2. We STILL don't know who Anakin's grandfather was. If Lucas came back and did Episodes -3, -2 and -1, and then claimed he always had their exact story lines in his head ever since EIV, whould you believe him? Hah!
2) Of course Darth Vader escapes at the end, that leaves room for a sequel! Duh! But it in no way implies that the *prequels* were predetermined.
3) And the biggest flaw in everyone's "Lucas had it all written down exactly on a matchbox thirty years ago" is this: Why the fsck didn't me make Episode 1 the first episode filmed? Why the heck start in the middle? That would be like MJS starting his five year B5 arc in the middle of Z'Ha'Dum. Yeah right.
Lucas really did have the basic outline for the story we see in Episodes I-VI created before the original Star Wars film.
Did he really have C3PO and R2D2 in E1 to E3 and still have Obi Wan not recognize them in E4? Did he really have Jar Jar and the Gungans? Did Chewbacca really know Yoda personally? Did Anakin really kill all the younglings? Was Jango Fett always the template for the clones? How come E1, E2 and E3 directly conflict with early to middle era Lucas approved Star Wars novels?
Methinks he had, at most, a rough one-pager for a complete story arc, just so he knew where the characters were coming from.
p.s. Reading that first script from your link, it's so far removed from the Star Wars that was filmed (bureaucrats instead of droids? Luke a general? huh?), that any argument that he had a comprehensive storyline at that time for all six (nine) episodes that were filmed is completely ludicrous.
You have to think of Episodes I - VI as as a single movie, and due to the way Lucas made the movies, you walked into the middle of "the film".
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's utter crap. It's Lucas Revisionism at its worst. The original Star Wars was a stand alone movie. Period. It didn't even have the "Episode IV" subtitle in the original theatrical release. The plot wasn't one sixth of a story, but a near-direct reuse of the plot from "The Hidden Fortress".
Lucas may have orginally envisioned a series of movies, but he most certainly did not have a complete plot in mind for all six episodes.
McVoy has it correct... but only in this weird mixed economy that software currently operates in. This is because the market has to deal with both the natural low-scarcity of information and the artificial high-scarcity of proprietary software.
The increased profits of proprietary software are diverting resources away from open source. Innovators are more likely to work for a proprietary company that will pay them good wages, then to innovate as an unpaid hobby on weekends. Heck, by the time the weekend rolls around, the innovator probably wants to do something other than program!
This isn't solely the fault of copyright, as you can certainly have proprietary software in a society without copyright (though it's certainly much harder). A lot of the blame has to be laid at the feet of patents (what other than software can you copyright, patent AND trade secret?), and a lot has to be blamed on the courts letting click-thru, shrink-wrap and other bogosities stand as valid models of contractual consent.
It's not a "head down keep going" approach, it's a "everyone take charge of their own life" approach. Yes, people are going to make mistakes and stumble, but the operating philosophy should be that most people can take care of themselves quite well.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus many pendantic [sic] people like to call it "GNU/Linux".
Not "pedantic", rather, "obsessed ideologues". I might take their arguments more seriously if they didn't keep changing the name we're supposed use.
http://www.usermode.org/docs/gnulinux.html
Yes, section 0 of the GPL does say that. However, history has shown that that FSF has different definitions of copying, distribution and modification than I do. For example, they consider linking to be derivation, and thus a form of modification, even though nothing is being modified. Loading a plugin is a form of linking. The FSF places the threshold of derivation at the process level. A plugin runs in the same process space as the browser. Exceptions are made for the OS and OS components, but none are made for anything else the software runs on top of.
The very use of the GPL tells me that the plugin was meant for GPL browswers only. Otherwise the LGPL would have been used. So why wasn't it?
It's a plugin and used the GPL license. This means anything it plugs into has to be GPL as well. Why wasn't the LGPL used instead? The GPL is good for standalone applications, like a flash player, but is less than ideal for a reusable component like a library or plugin. Depending on one's interpretation of the GPL, you might not be able to use this plugin alongside a non-GPL plugin.
I hope CRT goes the way of a dodo bird for good environmental reasons, not because I don't use it but because there are viable alternatives.
There are no viable alternatives for speciality applications. NOTICE I said "specialty" and not "average consumer". Do I need to repeat myself again?
As for good environmental reasons, why not just turn off your computer? I save more turning my computer off when I'm not using it than all the LCDs in the world running 24/7. It drives me nuts when the religio-enviro-wackos at work give me three different recycling bins for my freaking cubicle, but then never turn their workstations off at night or over the weekend.
My company builds medical ultrasound platforms. We have the best quality ultrasound platforms on the market, and for this reason are preferred by medical researchers. Until now we've been using 14 and 15 inch CRTs.
Anyway, our competitors (except for the bottom end market) have moved to LCDs. So our CEO said we have to have an LCD as well. So we've been spending the last six months getting an LCD up and running on a system. This may seem like a long time, but remember that this isn't a PC and Fry's isn't our supplier. Anyway, we made a new video display board, ultra quality scaling filters, hardware evaluation, long term purchasing agreements, custom bezels, LCD firmware, etc, etc.
Unfortunately we had to make some tradeoffs, because an LCD does NOT have the same image quality as a CRT, no matter what the yahoos here at Slashdot say. You just don't have the temporal response, contrast resolution and ghosting needed for rapidly moving high contrast grayscale images. We're aren't using a cheapass consumer grade LCD bought at a Memorial Day Weekend sale, we're using a very high end LCD from a top manufacturer. But it's still not the same as a CRT.
Are you even reading this thread? A LCD might not make sense for Ma and Pa Kettle, but for some *specialty* applications, CRT is still the way to go. I'm sick of you people wanting to get rid of any technology you don't personally use. Sheesh.
So what? The mafia tells me my monthly payment to them is insurance and not extortion. But I don't believe them either.
Yes, to all 10 freewares or sharewares there was about 1 public domain software worth it.
Go peruse Freshmeat and Sourceforge sometime. I think you will find a similar ratio of junk to usefulness.
Just googled it. Compiles a small subset of C.
It only compiled a small subset of C because it was meant for 8 bit computers. Try fitting GCC into an 8 bit computer. Heck, try fitting the source to GCC on a 1980 floppy or cassette. At the time, the small and tiny C compilers were your only real alternative to BASIC on hobbyist computer.
Communism: The community helping the community, for the sake of the community. Capitalism: The perpetual search for the cheapest solution.
Both definitions are wrong.
Communism is not about sharing, it's about being forced to share at gunpoint. Even the strictest ideological copyleft license isn't communist, because the collaboration remains voluntary. Capitalism isn't about the cheapest solution, it's about leveraging property ownership (capital) to aid production. The essence of Open Source is that it's not private capital (the millwheel), but more like a public commons (the river).
Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements.
I claim prior art! I've been doing this when awarding RPG experience points to players since 1980!
not after living in conservative Texas where you can always expect a smile, greeting, and a handshake from anybody regardless of religion, politics, or any of that other worthless crap.
There's something about conservative rural America that is much more tolerant than liberal urban America. As a Libertarian, I've found that rural conservatives are much more likely to take the time to try to understand me, then the liberal urbanites will. To date I hever *never* received any hostility from a ruralite with regards to my Libertarian views. The same cannot be said of urbanites.
Socrates is only *one* of the philosophers that Western thought is based on. Thank goodness.
Of course it doesn't help that we are being conditioned to see the world as red and blue. That if you are not with me you are the enemy and we share NO common ground. Our system of government only works well if both sides can work together.
I live in the San Fransisco Bay area, which is predominantly "blue". Actually that's putting it mildly. It's actually bright neon daygo blue. There is no common ground here. I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut in public. So I do a lot of listening instead.
One of the memes I've been hearing since just before the election, and the reason I posted here, is that "democracy is bad." Why is it bad? Because it put Bush in power. How can people who are predominantly members of the party named "democrat" hold democracy in disdain? How can a group that routinely champions diverse viewpoints so thoroughly dispise viewpoints different from their own?
Frankly, they sound like spoiled children. They lost a turn at play, so now they whine about taking their ball home so no one else can play. If Bush truly is the ultimate evil like they portray him, you would think they would try to learn from their mistakes so they could win the next election. But no! They would rather whine about how the majority are so stupid they won't vote how they're told to vote.
Oh how I miss the days of my youth in rural America when Democrats and Republicans could not only be civil to each other, they could actually be friends.
p.s. Before you get the wrong opinion of me, let me assure you that I am NOT a Republican. I'm pointing out a flaw on the Democrat side not to start an argument, but so that it can be FIXED.
Let me see if I got this straight. You think that democracy is helped when there are fewer candidates, and freedom of speech when there are fewer microphones?
Qt's licensing is unfortunate. I don't understand they don't just make it GPL on all platforms.
The very strong rumour is that Qt 4.0 will be GPL for Windows.
I hate to break the news to Mr. Drepper, but Linux is a "minority" operating system! It's not mainstream. This isn't a troll, it's the truth.
If the goal is to replace one monopoly with another, then he would be correct. But that's not the goal folks! The phrase "word domination" is joke, and you're too stupid to get it! One of the chief attributes of Free and Open Source software is choice. But Mr. Drepper doesn't want choice. Democracy is nothing without a choice of candidates. Freedom of religion is nothing without a choice of belief. What good is freedom of speech when there's only one microphone?
I'm a longtime user and advocate of FreeBSD, and his article suggests to me that Linux cannot compete anymore with other Open Source operating systems. Is that really what he thinks? Wouldn't you Linux advocates rather Linux stand on its own merit?
What is it with Redhat that it ends up with all these arrogant people? I haven't used Redhat in six years, and with the way things are going, it will be at least six years before I even consider trying it again.
Democracy lets majority take advantage of the minority.
That is true. But the alternative is worse: letting the strong take advantage of the weak. It is a fact of life that the only right is that that comes from might. The stronger get to rule. Throughout history we have been ruled by the strong minority. Now we're ruled by the majority. It's not perfect, but until we get past the concept of "rule" itself, it's the best we can hope for.
Your views may not be represented by the majority, but what the hell makes you think they would be represented by an autarch?
One wierd thing about the last election is that now it's suddenly fashionable to doubt democracy. Eighteenth century elitist views that the common people can't possible govern themselves have been resurrected. I've got just two words for you naysayers:
Bugger Off!
The purpose of democracy is not to be infallible, omniscient or omnipotent. No one ever envisioned that it would usher in a utopia or paradise or terrestrial heaven. But what it was meant to do it does very well. Democracy has given humans the greatest amount of self-rule and self-determination ever in history.
Those of you who want to take away democracy just because your candidate lost an election can kiss my hairy ass!
You really are caught up in the Lucas reality distortion field, aren't you?
1) EVERY movie, novel or story has a backstory. We STILL don't know who built R2D2. We STILL don't know who Anakin's grandfather was. If Lucas came back and did Episodes -3, -2 and -1, and then claimed he always had their exact story lines in his head ever since EIV, whould you believe him? Hah!
2) Of course Darth Vader escapes at the end, that leaves room for a sequel! Duh! But it in no way implies that the *prequels* were predetermined.
3) And the biggest flaw in everyone's "Lucas had it all written down exactly on a matchbox thirty years ago" is this: Why the fsck didn't me make Episode 1 the first episode filmed? Why the heck start in the middle? That would be like MJS starting his five year B5 arc in the middle of Z'Ha'Dum. Yeah right.
Lucas really did have the basic outline for the story we see in Episodes I-VI created before the original Star Wars film.
Did he really have C3PO and R2D2 in E1 to E3 and still have Obi Wan not recognize them in E4? Did he really have Jar Jar and the Gungans? Did Chewbacca really know Yoda personally? Did Anakin really kill all the younglings? Was Jango Fett always the template for the clones? How come E1, E2 and E3 directly conflict with early to middle era Lucas approved Star Wars novels?
Methinks he had, at most, a rough one-pager for a complete story arc, just so he knew where the characters were coming from.
p.s. Reading that first script from your link, it's so far removed from the Star Wars that was filmed (bureaucrats instead of droids? Luke a general? huh?), that any argument that he had a comprehensive storyline at that time for all six (nine) episodes that were filmed is completely ludicrous.
The drivein in American Graffiti was Merle's Drivein, located in Visalia. It's still in business, but more than 90 miles away from Modesto.
You have to think of Episodes I - VI as as a single movie, and due to the way Lucas made the movies, you walked into the middle of "the film".
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's utter crap. It's Lucas Revisionism at its worst. The original Star Wars was a stand alone movie. Period. It didn't even have the "Episode IV" subtitle in the original theatrical release. The plot wasn't one sixth of a story, but a near-direct reuse of the plot from "The Hidden Fortress".
Lucas may have orginally envisioned a series of movies, but he most certainly did not have a complete plot in mind for all six episodes.
Don't even need to do that. Just use an X newer than XFree86-3.3.6. Sheesh. If you're not using a "dumbed down" distro, then try this:
Xorg -configure
McVoy has it correct... but only in this weird mixed economy that software currently operates in. This is because the market has to deal with both the natural low-scarcity of information and the artificial high-scarcity of proprietary software.
The increased profits of proprietary software are diverting resources away from open source. Innovators are more likely to work for a proprietary company that will pay them good wages, then to innovate as an unpaid hobby on weekends. Heck, by the time the weekend rolls around, the innovator probably wants to do something other than program!
This isn't solely the fault of copyright, as you can certainly have proprietary software in a society without copyright (though it's certainly much harder). A lot of the blame has to be laid at the feet of patents (what other than software can you copyright, patent AND trade secret?), and a lot has to be blamed on the courts letting click-thru, shrink-wrap and other bogosities stand as valid models of contractual consent.
It's not a "head down keep going" approach, it's a "everyone take charge of their own life" approach. Yes, people are going to make mistakes and stumble, but the operating philosophy should be that most people can take care of themselves quite well.