This kind of distinction should be hashed out in court.
As a Free Beer Software developer, the last thing I want is to go to court. I don't have the money for it. In the meantime I'm avoiding GPL libraries, not because I agree with the FSF's interpretation of derivation, but merely because they're bigger and have more lawyers than me.
Arguing dynamic linking is retarded if JIT compiling becomes the new whiz-bang thing.
Funny that you should bring that up. There have been people that argued that the GPL v3 should cover instances of runtime linkage. I hope it doesn't make it in.
In the late 80's/early 90's, not only was SCO your best bet, it was your ONLY bet for x86 platform. Linux and the free BSDs were barely out of the starting gate in the early 90's.
The term "derived work" is pretty well defined both by legislation and case law.
Except in the case of software. Please point me to any legislation or case law that affirms the FSF's belief that dynamic linkage constitutes derivation.
The reason the GPL hasn't made it to court is simply because people don't want to get sued by the FSF. No one seeks to antagonize the licensor into initiating legal action.
The GPL hasn't seen the inside of a courtroom simply because it's easier to avoid the GPL than to hire a laywer.
and then can you explain how the library author could get away with that and not be violating the GPL himself?
Easy. The LGPL is implicitly convertable to the GPL. It's right there in the license. While the specific scenario I described is somewhat rare, it is a valid concern. For example, since the GNU readline library is under the GPL, any LGPL library that uses it will fall under the provisions of the GPL.
This is one reason why there's so much FUD about the Qt library. Since it is under the GPL/QPL (or just GPL on the Mac), and the KDE libraries are under the LGPL, the common belief is that you cannot write proprietary applications for KDE (or free-but-not-GPL application on Mac/KDE).
Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.
Well, yes and no. It all depends on how you define "derivative work." This isn't explicitly defined for software in copyright law, so how the FSF defines may be different from how you define it, but neither of you would necessarily be incorrect.
Here's one example: GPL libraries. You write some non-GPL code, and then dynamically link it to a LGPL library. But unbeknownst to you, that LGPL library itself links to a GPL library (which silently relicenses the first library under the GPL). According to the FSF, you have created a derivative work of a second library, and must release it under the terms of the GPL.
It is this sort of thing that companies are worryied about. They know all too well that you can't cut and paste GPLd code into your own. They're not that stupid. But if they haven't spent the time to examine the licensing of each and every library and system call, then they'll be wise to be extra cautious.
As for me, screw them. The licensors that is. I'll do a cursory check of the licensing, but if anyone attempts to screw me over by wrapping GPL code in a LGPL interface, I'll hunt them down and force them listen to RMS sing the Free Software Song until their brains leak out their ears.
Perhaps it made sense at one time for KDE to try to replicate every Microsoft desktop software. But now it's time for them to adjust their goals.
You're assuming that KOffice is part of the KDE project. It is not. It is a separate project. As such, it's not much different from Gnome Office, AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.
in The Two Towers (the movie), Eowyn struck me as such a sighing wench that I was dreading what was going to happen to her later on
Ditto in the book. Reread it if you don't believe me. She spends the few words devoted to her serving mead and noticing Aragorn. She doesn't show any personality at all until RotK.
Even if there was time in the movie to show it, it wouldn't work. It's an overly extended climax, a mini-movie tacked on at the end.
Imagine at the end of RotJ, after the destruction of the death star, but before the Ewok dance number, we are subjected to twenty minutes of Luke returning to Tatooine and discovering a sith jedi is still loose and making things miserable for Mos Eisley. It might make a good sequel, but it doesn't belong in the movie.
But PJ did put in a return to the Shire, Sam getting married, and the Grey Havens. So it does have closure.
However it took like 20 minutes for me to fall in love with the scroll wheel/middle button.
It took me a whole week before I got rid of mine. During that entire week I was very uncomfortable with it, but I figured I would adjust to it. I never did.
I don't prefer olwm because it's minimalistic. It's because CDE is just plain nasty. It's a desktop designed by a committee. Eeeew!
My preference is KDE, followed by GNOME, WindowMaker and then Openwindows. If I can't have a real desktop, then give me something very basic and minimal that still allows me to easily configure the environment. For a stock Solaris install, this is of course Openwindows.
XFCE might be a huge improvement over CDE, but it looks so damned much like CDE that I won't bother with it.
p.s. Windowmaker+GNUstep might be good choice for a Solaris desktop, but I haven't tried it.
Though really, what's wrong with clicking the scroll wheel to middle click?
Because it's not a button. I work in a UNIX environment 98% of the time, and I actually use the middle button more often than the right button.
Would you accept a mouse that didn't have a right button but a scrollwheel instead? You can still click on it, so what's the problem? My guess is that you wouldn't like it though.
I'm using the original Trackman Marble 3-button. It's awesome.
What's wrong with a scroll wheel? Several things. First, most scroll mice aren't wide enough for three fingers to rest naturally. A two button scroll mouse that isn't any wider than a two button non-scroll mouse is too narrow.
Second, given a wider two button mouse that I can comfortable rest my middle finger on, I need a scrollwheel that is stiff enough that I'm not scrolling accidentally all the time.
Third, a scrollwheel isn't a button, even though it can act like one. It doesn't feel like a button. What if instead of two buttons and a scrollwheel, there were only one button and a scrollwheel? Click on the scroll wheel for the RMB. Do you think people would be happy with that? Of course not!
Fourth, and most important, why shouldn't I have a real middle button? Since 98% of my computing is done in a UNIX environment, that middle button gets used a lot. More often than the right button in fact.
A scrollwheel is convenient. I won't deny that. But why must it be on the mouse. Think about it. You don't position anything when you're using a scrollwheel. And you don't need any fine control over it. A scrollwheel on the middle-bottom of the keyboard would be much more convenient. Or keep it on the mouse but put it on the left side by the thumb.
When I think of realistic support options, the last thing I think of is a phone. I want someone on site fixing the problem. While 90% of the problems can be solved over the phone, that remaining 10% are the ones that make the price worth it.
Unless Microsoft (or any other company) was involved with everything from front to back, they're not going to have the information needed to properly support me over the phone. Someone on site can save hours of my time since I don't have to recite to them every possible nuance of my infrastructure.
Example: Darl: Our webserver is down Support: Reboot into single user Darl: Nothing happens, I've got a blank screen Support: Do you get any beeps when it boots? Darl: No. Support: Can you ssh to it? Darl: No. Support: Can you access the serial console? Darl: No.
Hours later, the support guy realizes that Blake tripped over and pulled out the plug. If he had been there on site, he could have quietly plugged it back in, charged them $699, and pretended to be a hero.
Sure, onsite support is going to cost a lot more than phone support, but I'm still going to have to have *someone* on site. Sometimes it might be cheaper to upgrade my support than to hire a full time admin. With Windows I have a lot of options for onsite support, but it's not going to be from Microsoft.
Well yes it is. But is it on the installation CDs? That's the real question, because if I wanted to download something, I could just as well get KDE for Solaris here...
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of distinction should be hashed out in court.
As a Free Beer Software developer, the last thing I want is to go to court. I don't have the money for it. In the meantime I'm avoiding GPL libraries, not because I agree with the FSF's interpretation of derivation, but merely because they're bigger and have more lawyers than me.
Arguing dynamic linking is retarded if JIT compiling becomes the new whiz-bang thing.
Funny that you should bring that up. There have been people that argued that the GPL v3 should cover instances of runtime linkage. I hope it doesn't make it in.
In the late 80's/early 90's, not only was SCO your best bet, it was your ONLY bet for x86 platform. Linux and the free BSDs were barely out of the starting gate in the early 90's.
The term "derived work" is pretty well defined both by legislation and case law.
Except in the case of software. Please point me to any legislation or case law that affirms the FSF's belief that dynamic linkage constitutes derivation.
The reason the GPL hasn't made it to court is simply because people don't want to get sued by the FSF. No one seeks to antagonize the licensor into initiating legal action.
The GPL hasn't seen the inside of a courtroom simply because it's easier to avoid the GPL than to hire a laywer.
and then can you explain how the library author could get away with that and not be violating the GPL himself?
Easy. The LGPL is implicitly convertable to the GPL. It's right there in the license. While the specific scenario I described is somewhat rare, it is a valid concern. For example, since the GNU readline library is under the GPL, any LGPL library that uses it will fall under the provisions of the GPL.
This is one reason why there's so much FUD about the Qt library. Since it is under the GPL/QPL (or just GPL on the Mac), and the KDE libraries are under the LGPL, the common belief is that you cannot write proprietary applications for KDE (or free-but-not-GPL application on Mac/KDE).
Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.
Well, yes and no. It all depends on how you define "derivative work." This isn't explicitly defined for software in copyright law, so how the FSF defines may be different from how you define it, but neither of you would necessarily be incorrect.
Here's one example: GPL libraries. You write some non-GPL code, and then dynamically link it to a LGPL library. But unbeknownst to you, that LGPL library itself links to a GPL library (which silently relicenses the first library under the GPL). According to the FSF, you have created a derivative work of a second library, and must release it under the terms of the GPL.
It is this sort of thing that companies are worryied about. They know all too well that you can't cut and paste GPLd code into your own. They're not that stupid. But if they haven't spent the time to examine the licensing of each and every library and system call, then they'll be wise to be extra cautious.
As for me, screw them. The licensors that is. I'll do a cursory check of the licensing, but if anyone attempts to screw me over by wrapping GPL code in a LGPL interface, I'll hunt them down and force them listen to RMS sing the Free Software Song until their brains leak out their ears.
Of course it's more than a casual connection. Ditto for Gnumeric being a part of Gnome.
But KOffice has a different release schedule and is treated as a distinct project. From the end-users' perspective, it's just another KDE application.
Perhaps it made sense at one time for KDE to try to replicate every Microsoft desktop software. But now it's time for them to adjust their goals.
You're assuming that KOffice is part of the KDE project. It is not. It is a separate project. As such, it's not much different from Gnome Office, AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.
Then I'm glad Jackson didn't film the Scouring, because that was definitely not what Tolkien wrote.
There were some pictures of toy action figures with Sam and Frodo wearing orc armor. So maybe...
Beregond was the human kid
Sigh. Bergil was the kid, Beregond was his father. Get your facts straight before you start nitpicking...
the now-notorious "thirteen endings" featuring tons of Unexplained Stuff
:-)
And people were bitching about the lack of the "Scouring"
in The Two Towers (the movie), Eowyn struck me as such a sighing wench that I was dreading what was going to happen to her later on
Ditto in the book. Reread it if you don't believe me. She spends the few words devoted to her serving mead and noticing Aragorn. She doesn't show any personality at all until RotK.
The scenes in Galadriel's mirror were NOT reflective of the Scouring of the Shire. It showed orcs, Sam in chains, and everything aflame.
This was a scene that shows what would have happened *IF* Frodo failed on his quest.
Even if there was time in the movie to show it, it wouldn't work. It's an overly extended climax, a mini-movie tacked on at the end.
Imagine at the end of RotJ, after the destruction of the death star, but before the Ewok dance number, we are subjected to twenty minutes of Luke returning to Tatooine and discovering a sith jedi is still loose and making things miserable for Mos Eisley. It might make a good sequel, but it doesn't belong in the movie.
But PJ did put in a return to the Shire, Sam getting married, and the Grey Havens. So it does have closure.
However it took like 20 minutes for me to fall in love with the scroll wheel/middle button.
It took me a whole week before I got rid of mine. During that entire week I was very uncomfortable with it, but I figured I would adjust to it. I never did.
I don't prefer olwm because it's minimalistic. It's because CDE is just plain nasty. It's a desktop designed by a committee. Eeeew!
My preference is KDE, followed by GNOME, WindowMaker and then Openwindows. If I can't have a real desktop, then give me something very basic and minimal that still allows me to easily configure the environment. For a stock Solaris install, this is of course Openwindows.
XFCE might be a huge improvement over CDE, but it looks so damned much like CDE that I won't bother with it.
p.s. Windowmaker+GNUstep might be good choice for a Solaris desktop, but I haven't tried it.
PS - what's with this 3rd person shit?
We are very glad that the first person plural was not used upon us.
Though really, what's wrong with clicking the scroll wheel to middle click?
Because it's not a button. I work in a UNIX environment 98% of the time, and I actually use the middle button more often than the right button.
Would you accept a mouse that didn't have a right button but a scrollwheel instead? You can still click on it, so what's the problem? My guess is that you wouldn't like it though.
I'm using the original Trackman Marble 3-button. It's awesome.
What's wrong with a scroll wheel? Several things. First, most scroll mice aren't wide enough for three fingers to rest naturally. A two button scroll mouse that isn't any wider than a two button non-scroll mouse is too narrow.
Second, given a wider two button mouse that I can comfortable rest my middle finger on, I need a scrollwheel that is stiff enough that I'm not scrolling accidentally all the time.
Third, a scrollwheel isn't a button, even though it can act like one. It doesn't feel like a button. What if instead of two buttons and a scrollwheel, there were only one button and a scrollwheel? Click on the scroll wheel for the RMB. Do you think people would be happy with that? Of course not!
Fourth, and most important, why shouldn't I have a real middle button? Since 98% of my computing is done in a UNIX environment, that middle button gets used a lot. More often than the right button in fact.
A scrollwheel is convenient. I won't deny that. But why must it be on the mouse. Think about it. You don't position anything when you're using a scrollwheel. And you don't need any fine control over it. A scrollwheel on the middle-bottom of the keyboard would be much more convenient. Or keep it on the mouse but put it on the left side by the thumb.
...the chimp on the phone...
When I think of realistic support options, the last thing I think of is a phone. I want someone on site fixing the problem. While 90% of the problems can be solved over the phone, that remaining 10% are the ones that make the price worth it.
Unless Microsoft (or any other company) was involved with everything from front to back, they're not going to have the information needed to properly support me over the phone. Someone on site can save hours of my time since I don't have to recite to them every possible nuance of my infrastructure.
Example:
Darl: Our webserver is down
Support: Reboot into single user
Darl: Nothing happens, I've got a blank screen
Support: Do you get any beeps when it boots?
Darl: No.
Support: Can you ssh to it?
Darl: No.
Support: Can you access the serial console?
Darl: No.
Hours later, the support guy realizes that Blake tripped over and pulled out the plug. If he had been there on site, he could have quietly plugged it back in, charged them $699, and pretended to be a hero.
Sure, onsite support is going to cost a lot more than phone support, but I'm still going to have to have *someone* on site. Sometimes it might be cheaper to upgrade my support than to hire a full time admin. With Windows I have a lot of options for onsite support, but it's not going to be from Microsoft.
Well yes it is. But is it on the installation CDs? That's the real question, because if I wanted to download something, I could just as well get KDE for Solaris here...
9 pk gs_download.html
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/s
GNOME is available with Solaris 9 out of the box
Anything is better than CDE. I use Openwindows on Solaris, despite the warnings that I should use CDE instead.
But I think you're wrong about GNOME. Last time I did a S9 install it wasn't there. What CD is it on?
Why not do SUNBSD while you're at it?
They already did. But Sun decided for some reason that they wanted to be SysV.
We need the brimstone to get rid of that pervasive herring odor :-)