What would happen is that every single program will print on startup "Portions of this are based on work by the XFree86 Consortium" or something like that.
Except that the new XFree86 license has NO clause requiring this. I suggest you re-read the license.
Re:It's time for a redesign, anyway.
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe a simpler and GPLed implementation is in order.
Simpler. That means none of the complex stuff that confuses newbies. If you need TV-out, screw you. If you need printing, screw you. If you need that third mouse wheel, screw you. Truetype only, so go away you smelly unwashed Type1 font user!
GPLed implementation. If you think the current license controversy is worrisome, wait until you get X libraries under the GPL! NOTHING can be an X application unless it's under the GPL, because the GPL is not compatible with anything but itself. That means no Blackbox (and most of its derivatives). No KWin or Kicker for KDE. Nothing that's under the Artistic, BSD, MIT, MPL, etc. licenses will be allowed. If you can't understand why this is a problem, stop drinking the FSF Kool-Aid and wake up!
I've only recently been forced to use this kind of software, but I've found KDE's new Kontact to be very good. Of course, I don't publish my appointments and other personal information on the web, but you can do it if you want to.
It doesn't do everything Outlook does, but since Outlook sucks like a Hoover, this might actually be a Good Thing(tm).
Given that Microsoft is making exorbitant profits off of its software, I'm just wondering whether you're going to apply the same invectives against every other software manufacturer? Did you lambaste IBM in the 90's for selling OS/2 at a higher price than Microsoft sold exorbitantly priced Windows? Are you currently lambasting Opera for selling a web browser for $40 when everyone else, including the monopolist, is giving their away for free?
Like the labor theory of value, this is another economic myth that just isn't true. A unbalanced level of trade may indicate a problem, but the symptom is not the problem.
A though experiment illustrates this. Take the case of a single pair of shoes worth 50 dollars. If the shoes are exported, the nation loses one pair of shoes, but gains 50 dollars. If it imports the shoes, it gains one pair of shoes, but loses 50 dollars. Whether a nation imports or exports shoes depends on how much it values a pair of shoes over 50 dollars.
Currencies are goods as well, but they are goods all too often ignored by the politicians and media. They are a particularly useful good, in that they are the best good suited for buying foreign goods. If the US (as an example) imports more than it exports, then the other nations are going to have a surplus of US dollars usable only in the US (or the currency markets). Currency fluctuations lead to this kind of imbalance. If you see a trade imbalance, take a look around and you'll probably also see a recent fluctuation in currency values.
There are other causes to a trade imbalance symptom, however. The point is, the trade balance in an of itself is not a problem. At most it's a symptom of another problem.
Usability. Linux simply isn't that user friendly for the common office drone.
While that may be true in the general case, that is NOT the primary problem in the specific case of Munich.
Do you really think Munich has been using Windows XP for the last couple of decades? Of course not! Before that they used WinNT, Win9x, Win3.1 and DOS. The current SuSE is MORE usable than than these. Their primary problem is lack of familiarity on both the client and server side.
How to set up NFS when all you have are SMB/Samba drones. How to set up the mail servers when all you have are Exchange drones. Or finding someone to rewrite several dozen Visual Basic scripts.
p.s. And the problems aren't that great. Remember, you're hearing about this through the Ballmer filter. It's to his interest to blow stuff up out of proportion. I suspect that this transition is no more painful than a similar transition from Win2k to WinXP would have been.
"Hey, don't just put some guys name on the article blurb and expect us to know who he is! Please explain why I should care what this Richard M. Stallman fellow has to say."
Unless it breaks, it can't tip over. It's like hanging a yoyo from your finger. There's no way the string is going to tip over onto your hand.
I'm not the least bit concerned about the carbon nanotubules. I'm still trying to figure out how their going to ATTACH the damn thing. All buildings are essentially resting upon the Earth. This thing can't rest, it needs to be attached. For a cable this long, a "stupid hurricane" could set up a vibration is going to build to the point where the whole thing starts "walking" across Columbia.
Unobtainium; A general term for any material that is, for all practical purposes, impossible to obtain!
And once it's obtainable, it will retain the name "unobtanium", because administratium will continue to be a necessary component of any NASA project. If you aren't aware, administratium is the only element whose atomic weight increases after fission.
You cannot control what cannot be owned. In fact, "control" is the very hallmark of ownership. Who has the right to control a piece of public domain software? No one, because no one owns it.
Let me give you a concrete example. "Othello" by William Shakespeare. This is in the public domain, and has been for centuries. No one owns Othello. No one controls Othello. You could certainly, if you wish, issue your own version of Othello starring Darl McBride out for a pound of flesh, but it would not *BE* Othello anymore. No matter how much you bastardized your version, the original would still be there untouched and uncontrolled. You have no ability to tell me how I may or may not perform my own producction of Othello.
They don't want PD software, now or ever.
Tough titties. Eventually their copyright will run out. Currently that's slightly less than a century. Too long in my opinion, but definitely not infinite. Thus, baring the reanimation and subsequent reelection of Sonny Bono, GNU GCC 3.3.3 will be in the public domain. And if RMS is still around there won't be anything he can do about it. The future GNU GCC 9.34.2 won't be in the public domain, but version 3.3.3 will be.
I say ditto. This is nothing more than a dirigible with wings. A glider-blimp. It has advantages over a glider in that obtaining altitude is cheap, and it has advantages over a blimp in that you can get significant speed and control. But "fuelless"? Hah!
They specifically don't want software to be owned. Software that is not owned is in the public domain. Therefore they desire software to be in the public domain. Maybe not in the present, but eventually.
Not because they said so, but because you performed an act of assent by clicking on the button. Now while I personally don't believe that contract formation should be based on anything less formal than a handshake (as clicking a button is), the courts have ruled otherwise. Legally, you have agreed to the EULA and demonstrated your acceptance by that mouse click.
You indicate acceptance of the GPL by taking advantage of the rights it gives you that you would not otherwise have.
Precisely! McBride's biweekly screeds criticizing the GPL simply don't enter into the legal picture. His distribution of GPL software does. In other words, you can't terminate his GPL rights just because he bitches about it.
Moglen makes a very lucid explanation of why the apparently-more-free BSD license is less valuable to people who believe in freedom.
But he's still wearing the FSF blinders that don't permit him to see the truth. The ultimate goal of the FSF is to eliminate copyright on software. They seek a world in which all software is public domain software. Yet the only way to get from the GPL to public domain, is to traverse through the land occupied by the BSD and MIT licenses.
In other words, they want a world that is 100% free, call 95% free licenses "weak", and encourage the use of 90% free licenses instead.
So assuming that those people have any integrity, what you're saying they were doing was picking the new term "open source" to clarify that it did mean "free as in that ranting guy from MIT"?
They picked the term "open source" for two reasons. First, it was a slightly more accurate term, at least in English. Second, and more importantly, the FSF had politicized the word "free" too much. "Free Software" comes with ideological baggage. Even today you "membership" in the Free Software Movement depends on your acceptance of a particular political ideology. With "Open Source", you don't have to join any political party, be a part of any movement, or have a "cause."
The "Free" in "Free Software" originally meant "free from legal encumberances, and in the past it was quite common to see the term "unencumbered software" in reference to this class of software, especially for non-copyleft software. But the FSF took a generalized term like "free software", and by capitalizing it, made it a political movement. Businesses which would otherwise be entirely in favor of unencumbered software find having to join an activist cause too large of a pill to swallow.
And the fact that US consumers are not protected this way is quite frightening.
Actually, the US does protect the consumers in remarkably similar ways. Not identical, mind you, but very similar. The US Commercial Code operates under common law, so it doesn't follow the standard US legislative system where laws are for sale.
One example. Despite any contracts to the contrary, a consumer can return any good within three days if it was sold in the consumer's home. This prevents pushy door-to-door salesmen from intimidating customers caught off their guard. This goes beyong door-to-door salesmen, however, and applies to such stuff as an automobile dealership trying to be nice by running the final paperwork over to your house for you to sign, even if you've agreed to all terms at the dealership.
A different term was sought because the FSF was using the word "free" completely outside of the dictionary definition. It only meant was the FSF said it meant. So when a commercial entity heard the term "Free Software", they didn't know whether it referred to "free beer", "free of restrictions and uncumberances", or "free as in that ranting guy from MIT."
Actually, I greatly suspect that you are NOT a lawyer. Because your mini-analysis is quite incorrect. Your interpretation of the GPL is as erroneous as SCO's interpretation of the US Constitution.
Disagreeing with the GPL does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Calling it unconstitutional does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Being an asshole with the name "McBride" does not terminate your rights to distribute the GPL. The word "accept" in clause 4 has specific legal meaning. You "accept" the Microsoft EULA by clicking on a widget with a mouse cursor. Even if you shouted at the top of your lungs "I DISAGREE" while clicking that button, you have legally accepted that license. Shouting "under duress" might be a different matter, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Darl McBride has legally accepted the licenses for several GPL softwares by distributing those softwares. There is not need for him to sign any documents. There is no need for him to utter the words "I agree". There is no need for him to publically confess his sins before the public. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE LICENSE. And he is in full compliance (as near as I can tell) with it.
His later statements proclaiming his dislike for the GPL are irrelevant. Even claiming it to be invalid is irrelevant.
Fyodor is pulling a publicity stunt. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And if SCO desired, they could rightfully sue him for breach of contract.
I didn't have any problems with 5.0 or 5.1, but 5.2 gives me the occasional kernel panic. Something I have never seen in my life on any OS until the last few months. Like you I'm building 5.2.1 right now, hoping that this will solve the problem.
I'll have to disagree with a lot of these replies. Too many are saying "go into MIS, or IT, or program management, etc." This is the wrong tack. I'm sick and tired of managers who couldn't code a DOS batch file telling me how to write software. Or specifying.NET for hard realtime embedded systems on the basis of some advertisement they saw in PeeCeeWeek. It's just silly.
How can you possibly make a business decision to go with Java versus Python versus Ruby, if can't code in any of them? How can you create meaninful UML diagrams if you have no clue as to what they represent? And how the hell can you make any high level architectural decisions if you are clueless about the low level stuff works?
It's like your grade school teacher told you years ago: you're going to be using arithmetic and algebra the rest of your life, so you had better learn them. The same holds true for programming in any field related to computers. One example. The user interface design guys do a lot of analysis. They get in megatons of user data, and need to process it to get meaningful stuff out. So they write quick and dirty Visual Basic programs to do it. It's hardly the pinnacle of programming, but it beats going to the software department and begging for charity work when resources are tight.
I have a joint degree in CompSci and Philosophy, care to tell me what my niche is?
Big Cluestick(tm) coming up, so please don't duck...
Your "niche" is getting an education! This is much more valuable than a mere trade. (but having that dual degree, I'm sure you already knew that).
I myself majored in literature, and only minored in computer science. But I'm now a Software Engineer with little worry of being outsourced. I would recommend a major in any of the liberal arts for anyone considering a career in software.
Slashdot Mirror
What would happen is that every single program will print on startup "Portions of this are based on work by the XFree86 Consortium" or something like that.
Except that the new XFree86 license has NO clause requiring this. I suggest you re-read the license.
Maybe a simpler and GPLed implementation is in order.
Simpler. That means none of the complex stuff that confuses newbies. If you need TV-out, screw you. If you need printing, screw you. If you need that third mouse wheel, screw you. Truetype only, so go away you smelly unwashed Type1 font user!
GPLed implementation. If you think the current license controversy is worrisome, wait until you get X libraries under the GPL! NOTHING can be an X application unless it's under the GPL, because the GPL is not compatible with anything but itself. That means no Blackbox (and most of its derivatives). No KWin or Kicker for KDE. Nothing that's under the Artistic, BSD, MIT, MPL, etc. licenses will be allowed. If you can't understand why this is a problem, stop drinking the FSF Kool-Aid and wake up!
Yes, and the problem isn't the imbalance of trade, but the borrowing...
I've only recently been forced to use this kind of software, but I've found KDE's new Kontact to be very good. Of course, I don't publish my appointments and other personal information on the web, but you can do it if you want to.
It doesn't do everything Outlook does, but since Outlook sucks like a Hoover, this might actually be a Good Thing(tm).
Don't know about PDA support though.
Given that Microsoft is making exorbitant profits off of its software, I'm just wondering whether you're going to apply the same invectives against every other software manufacturer? Did you lambaste IBM in the 90's for selling OS/2 at a higher price than Microsoft sold exorbitantly priced Windows? Are you currently lambasting Opera for selling a web browser for $40 when everyone else, including the monopolist, is giving their away for free?
Like the labor theory of value, this is another economic myth that just isn't true. A unbalanced level of trade may indicate a problem, but the symptom is not the problem.
A though experiment illustrates this. Take the case of a single pair of shoes worth 50 dollars. If the shoes are exported, the nation loses one pair of shoes, but gains 50 dollars. If it imports the shoes, it gains one pair of shoes, but loses 50 dollars. Whether a nation imports or exports shoes depends on how much it values a pair of shoes over 50 dollars.
Currencies are goods as well, but they are goods all too often ignored by the politicians and media. They are a particularly useful good, in that they are the best good suited for buying foreign goods. If the US (as an example) imports more than it exports, then the other nations are going to have a surplus of US dollars usable only in the US (or the currency markets). Currency fluctuations lead to this kind of imbalance. If you see a trade imbalance, take a look around and you'll probably also see a recent fluctuation in currency values.
There are other causes to a trade imbalance symptom, however. The point is, the trade balance in an of itself is not a problem. At most it's a symptom of another problem.
Usability. Linux simply isn't that user friendly for the common office drone.
While that may be true in the general case, that is NOT the primary problem in the specific case of Munich.
Do you really think Munich has been using Windows XP for the last couple of decades? Of course not! Before that they used WinNT, Win9x, Win3.1 and DOS. The current SuSE is MORE usable than than these. Their primary problem is lack of familiarity on both the client and server side.
How to set up NFS when all you have are SMB/Samba drones. How to set up the mail servers when all you have are Exchange drones. Or finding someone to rewrite several dozen Visual Basic scripts.
p.s. And the problems aren't that great. Remember, you're hearing about this through the Ballmer filter. It's to his interest to blow stuff up out of proportion. I suspect that this transition is no more painful than a similar transition from Win2k to WinXP would have been.
"Hey, don't just put some guys name on the article blurb and expect us to know who he is! Please explain why I should care what this Richard M. Stallman fellow has to say."
Unless it breaks, it can't tip over. It's like hanging a yoyo from your finger. There's no way the string is going to tip over onto your hand.
I'm not the least bit concerned about the carbon nanotubules. I'm still trying to figure out how their going to ATTACH the damn thing. All buildings are essentially resting upon the Earth. This thing can't rest, it needs to be attached. For a cable this long, a "stupid hurricane" could set up a vibration is going to build to the point where the whole thing starts "walking" across Columbia.
Unobtainium; A general term for any material that is, for all practical purposes, impossible to obtain!
And once it's obtainable, it will retain the name "unobtanium", because administratium will continue to be a necessary component of any NASA project. If you aren't aware, administratium is the only element whose atomic weight increases after fission.
Public domain software can be controlled...
You cannot control what cannot be owned. In fact, "control" is the very hallmark of ownership. Who has the right to control a piece of public domain software? No one, because no one owns it.
Let me give you a concrete example. "Othello" by William Shakespeare. This is in the public domain, and has been for centuries. No one owns Othello. No one controls Othello. You could certainly, if you wish, issue your own version of Othello starring Darl McBride out for a pound of flesh, but it would not *BE* Othello anymore. No matter how much you bastardized your version, the original would still be there untouched and uncontrolled. You have no ability to tell me how I may or may not perform my own producction of Othello.
They don't want PD software, now or ever.
Tough titties. Eventually their copyright will run out. Currently that's slightly less than a century. Too long in my opinion, but definitely not infinite. Thus, baring the reanimation and subsequent reelection of Sonny Bono, GNU GCC 3.3.3 will be in the public domain. And if RMS is still around there won't be anything he can do about it. The future GNU GCC 9.34.2 won't be in the public domain, but version 3.3.3 will be.
I say "scam".
I say ditto. This is nothing more than a dirigible with wings. A glider-blimp. It has advantages over a glider in that obtaining altitude is cheap, and it has advantages over a blimp in that you can get significant speed and control. But "fuelless"? Hah!
Submarines need fuel, and so do "supermarines".
They specifically don't want software to be owned. Software that is not owned is in the public domain. Therefore they desire software to be in the public domain. Maybe not in the present, but eventually.
...they'd have to affirm the GPL!
They've already done that by distributing GPL software! They're bitching about the GPL is completely irrelevant, which is my entire point.
Really? Just because Microsoft said so?
Not because they said so, but because you performed an act of assent by clicking on the button. Now while I personally don't believe that contract formation should be based on anything less formal than a handshake (as clicking a button is), the courts have ruled otherwise. Legally, you have agreed to the EULA and demonstrated your acceptance by that mouse click.
You indicate acceptance of the GPL by taking advantage of the rights it gives you that you would not otherwise have.
Precisely! McBride's biweekly screeds criticizing the GPL simply don't enter into the legal picture. His distribution of GPL software does. In other words, you can't terminate his GPL rights just because he bitches about it.
Moglen makes a very lucid explanation of why the apparently-more-free BSD license is less valuable to people who believe in freedom.
But he's still wearing the FSF blinders that don't permit him to see the truth. The ultimate goal of the FSF is to eliminate copyright on software. They seek a world in which all software is public domain software. Yet the only way to get from the GPL to public domain, is to traverse through the land occupied by the BSD and MIT licenses.
In other words, they want a world that is 100% free, call 95% free licenses "weak", and encourage the use of 90% free licenses instead.
So assuming that those people have any integrity, what you're saying they were doing was picking the new term "open source" to clarify that it did mean "free as in that ranting guy from MIT"?
They picked the term "open source" for two reasons. First, it was a slightly more accurate term, at least in English. Second, and more importantly, the FSF had politicized the word "free" too much. "Free Software" comes with ideological baggage. Even today you "membership" in the Free Software Movement depends on your acceptance of a particular political ideology. With "Open Source", you don't have to join any political party, be a part of any movement, or have a "cause."
The "Free" in "Free Software" originally meant "free from legal encumberances, and in the past it was quite common to see the term "unencumbered software" in reference to this class of software, especially for non-copyleft software. But the FSF took a generalized term like "free software", and by capitalizing it, made it a political movement. Businesses which would otherwise be entirely in favor of unencumbered software find having to join an activist cause too large of a pill to swallow.
And the fact that US consumers are not protected this way is quite frightening.
Actually, the US does protect the consumers in remarkably similar ways. Not identical, mind you, but very similar. The US Commercial Code operates under common law, so it doesn't follow the standard US legislative system where laws are for sale.
One example. Despite any contracts to the contrary, a consumer can return any good within three days if it was sold in the consumer's home. This prevents pushy door-to-door salesmen from intimidating customers caught off their guard. This goes beyong door-to-door salesmen, however, and applies to such stuff as an automobile dealership trying to be nice by running the final paperwork over to your house for you to sign, even if you've agreed to all terms at the dealership.
A different term was sought because the FSF was using the word "free" completely outside of the dictionary definition. It only meant was the FSF said it meant. So when a commercial entity heard the term "Free Software", they didn't know whether it referred to "free beer", "free of restrictions and uncumberances", or "free as in that ranting guy from MIT."
Thank you Mr. Lawyer!
Actually, I greatly suspect that you are NOT a lawyer. Because your mini-analysis is quite incorrect. Your interpretation of the GPL is as erroneous as SCO's interpretation of the US Constitution.
Disagreeing with the GPL does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Calling it unconstitutional does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Being an asshole with the name "McBride" does not terminate your rights to distribute the GPL. The word "accept" in clause 4 has specific legal meaning. You "accept" the Microsoft EULA by clicking on a widget with a mouse cursor. Even if you shouted at the top of your lungs "I DISAGREE" while clicking that button, you have legally accepted that license. Shouting "under duress" might be a different matter, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Darl McBride has legally accepted the licenses for several GPL softwares by distributing those softwares. There is not need for him to sign any documents. There is no need for him to utter the words "I agree". There is no need for him to publically confess his sins before the public. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE LICENSE. And he is in full compliance (as near as I can tell) with it.
His later statements proclaiming his dislike for the GPL are irrelevant. Even claiming it to be invalid is irrelevant.
Fyodor is pulling a publicity stunt. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And if SCO desired, they could rightfully sue him for breach of contract.
It's not "Free Linux", it's "GNU/Linux". We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is GNU.
I didn't have any problems with 5.0 or 5.1, but 5.2 gives me the occasional kernel panic. Something I have never seen in my life on any OS until the last few months. Like you I'm building 5.2.1 right now, hoping that this will solve the problem.
I'll have to disagree with a lot of these replies. Too many are saying "go into MIS, or IT, or program management, etc." This is the wrong tack. I'm sick and tired of managers who couldn't code a DOS batch file telling me how to write software. Or specifying .NET for hard realtime embedded systems on the basis of some advertisement they saw in PeeCeeWeek. It's just silly.
How can you possibly make a business decision to go with Java versus Python versus Ruby, if can't code in any of them? How can you create meaninful UML diagrams if you have no clue as to what they represent? And how the hell can you make any high level architectural decisions if you are clueless about the low level stuff works?
It's like your grade school teacher told you years ago: you're going to be using arithmetic and algebra the rest of your life, so you had better learn them. The same holds true for programming in any field related to computers. One example. The user interface design guys do a lot of analysis. They get in megatons of user data, and need to process it to get meaningful stuff out. So they write quick and dirty Visual Basic programs to do it. It's hardly the pinnacle of programming, but it beats going to the software department and begging for charity work when resources are tight.
I have a joint degree in CompSci and Philosophy, care to tell me what my niche is?
Big Cluestick(tm) coming up, so please don't duck...
Your "niche" is getting an education! This is much more valuable than a mere trade. (but having that dual degree, I'm sure you already knew that).
I myself majored in literature, and only minored in computer science. But I'm now a Software Engineer with little worry of being outsourced. I would recommend a major in any of the liberal arts for anyone considering a career in software.
Computer Science != Computer Programming
And likewise, Mathematics != Arithmetic. But you had damn well be able to do arithmetic before you can do any meaningful mathematics.