Are you actually disagreeing with Tim Berners-Lee, or are you saying that he doesn't really mean it when he explains what the WWW is?
I'm saying it's almost universally accepted that 'World Wide Web' means HTTP+HTML. As for the opinions of Mr Berners-Lee, his original proposal describes the WWW as hypertext based. I would not imagine that he considers email to be part of the Web.
For starters, I'm in the UK, not the USA. Now, our petrol prices are artificially high, i.e. it's mostly tax. Therefore we all use public transport </scarcasm>
I use public transport because I don't have a car. The nearest bus stop is 10 minutes walk away. Buses are every 15 minutes, if you're lucky and it costs a pound to get anywhere. And no, I don't live in the middle of nowhere. Double the frequency and denstiy of bus routes, while halving fares, and then we're getting somewhere.
Of course, if, as you say, the oil companies are employing underhanded tactics against public transport, well, you need a government who'll tell the oil companies to go to hell (har-de-har).
IMO, fuel prices affect the economy of vehicles far more than their use.
ps. What measure were you using to put a dollar value on 'destruction of natural resources'?
The cause of traffic is the fact that gasoline is too cheap in the USA.
I'd like to be the first to say "What a load of bollocks". If you bump the price of petrol, drivers will grumble but pay for it anyway. What's needed is cheap, convenient and reliable public transport. The carrot works better than the stick.
No, it's a binary distro. What the bloody hell's got you thinking otherwise? Yes, it comes in gzipped tar archives. You could put your porn collection in a gzipped tar archive - that wouldn't make it "source porn", would it? Yes, it comes with source code. That's a legal requirement of the GPL, last time i checked. Fact is, it comes with precompiled ELF binaries. Thus, it's a binary distro.
Missing from the list are the things we know that aren't so.
Not so. Consider the statement 'All odd numbers are prime'. 9 is odd and not prime, therefore the statement is untrue. 'Some odd numbers are not prime' is the same statement, which falls into the 'things we know we know' category.
My personal opinion (and I'm betting I get modded down for expressing it) is that anyone using the GPL for libraries should have his/her head examined. Technically, I can't write a BSD-licensed piece of code and use a GPLed library. That's a bad thing(TM).
I agree totally. GNU say that licensing glibc under the LGPL was a tactical move, but I say that it was the ethically right thing to do as well.
Besides, how hard would it be to make the mouse go to the "Confirm" button auto-magically by default?
I have used such tools. They are f**king annoying.
That would draw the user's eyes to it...
No, that would draw the user's mouse cursor to it. Cursor follows eyes, not the other way round. When your cursor jumps around, you'll lose it and have to move the mouse in order to find it again.
Another advantage is if you decide to use the keyboard - enter does the trick, and tab goes to the cancel, as opposed to having to shift-tab to go backwards to cancel. It's a terrible, indefensible, setup.
Remember that escape will also choose the cancel button. Also remember that on anything more than a simple yes/no message box, the focus won't be on the OK/Confirm/whatever button anyway.
That struck me as well (no pun intended), but I wonder how fast it was going after it had been through the roof+ceiling. The question is, did the meteorite bouce off the sofa or the floor (destroying the sofa on the way through).
As any keen Beano reader knows, it is of course possible to survive a meteor strike with no more ill effects than having yourself reduced to 6" in height, but with a 4' tall lump on your head. Oh, and all meteorites bear the notice 'If lost, kindly return to the Milky Way'.
What did GNU do but create a functional equivalent of Unix, piece by piece, until they had an almost complete replacement. What are Wine & ReactOS doing today? The same thing, but with Windows. This is, of course, not limited to OSS projects - Microsoft are an obvious example of a company who did not hestiate to take from others and 'relicense'. Not exactly a shining example of morality, I know, but instead illustrates the point that morality means rather little in the corporate world, as does the law if you've got enough money behind you.
Yes, it would be hypocritical to complain if someone merely cloned Linux, but consider, who would complain? Remeber, the 'GPL people' are not all of one mind. RMS is an idealist, he, clearly, would like nothing better than to see all software licensed under the GPL, hence the GPL's so-called viral nature. He, not unlike the large companies, would like to see everyone playing by his rules. But they are a very different set of rules. Linus has a more pragmatic view, he allows non-GPL'd drivers to be used with the kernel; something RMS would doubtless resist tooth & nail if someone tried to do the same for the HURD. Linus uses proprietary version management software, which RMS would never do while Free alternatives existed. GNU/Linux is a marriage of convenience, each is dead without the other. RMS would much rather the HURD was usable today, Linus wants whatever works.
The GPL means different things to different people, to the idealist it's a way to ensure the freedom of software, to the pragmatist it's a way to get something back for what (s)he has put in. BSD licensing ensures neither of these. Fair enough, if you write something then license it however you want.
FWIW, I don't think that Linus, RMS or any other 'GPL people' feel that Linus would have been justified in voilating the copyright of others, which is what Brown seems to be saying here. Even if he's not saying it explicitly, he's making some very strong implictions of foul play.
Now to Ken Brown. Why do you suppose he's apparently pushing the BSD license? Well, I'm afraid that I'm going along with the mob here and labelling this as a paid hatchet job. The GPL is a threat to MS, unlike BSD which can be leveraged in commercial applications, as MS may well have done in their TCP stack and Apple have done more recently with OS X (although, it must be said, more openly). The reason I would tend to discount Brown's opinion is his deliberate ignorance of the facts of the case, combined with his tendancy to lower himself to name-calling. Coming hot on the heels of SCO, we're just fed up to the back teeth of endless FUD. And if you think that Brown has the best interests of the BSD community in mind, think again.
I don't feel that a BSD-loving Mac user is really too much further from this issue than a Linux-loving PC user.
Then again, it's an interesting thought exercise - if I grabbed the latest copy of Linux (the kernel, the true "Linux"), and rewrote it in my own words, so to speak.. then posted that derived version as truly free (e.g. BSD licensed), who amongst the GPL and Linux crowd wouldn't scream blue murder?
If you wre to write a brand new kernel (using Linux for nothing more than inspiration) then you are of course free to use whatever licensing terms you want. If you copy code from Linux and change the license then there may well be strenuous objections. That's just obvious.
Exactly how does this relate to the accusations made by Ken Brown?
Um, how is GPL "more free" than LGPL, it imposes additional restrictions. Granted, RMS would probably rather see everything under the GPL just so that no proprietry code could ever be distributed, but that doesn't make the LGPL any less free.
Also, didn't notice a GPL Windows version of QT (cygwin doesn't count)...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying it's almost universally accepted that 'World Wide Web' means HTTP+HTML. As for the opinions of Mr Berners-Lee, his original proposal describes the WWW as hypertext based. I would not imagine that he considers email to be part of the Web.
So, Sendmail is a Web server? Hosts whose names start with www can reasonably be expected to speak NNTP?
Pillock. Given that he's NFSing music around his home network, I'd say every single one of your conditions could quite easily be satisfied.
Re-read this sentence:
Now tell me that it wasn't obviously a joke.
I believe you can. You just can't call the resulting license 'GPL', mainly because it isn't...
For starters, I'm in the UK, not the USA. Now, our petrol prices are artificially high, i.e. it's mostly tax. Therefore we all use public transport </scarcasm>
I use public transport because I don't have a car. The nearest bus stop is 10 minutes walk away. Buses are every 15 minutes, if you're lucky and it costs a pound to get anywhere. And no, I don't live in the middle of nowhere. Double the frequency and denstiy of bus routes, while halving fares, and then we're getting somewhere.
Of course, if, as you say, the oil companies are employing underhanded tactics against public transport, well, you need a government who'll tell the oil companies to go to hell (har-de-har).
IMO, fuel prices affect the economy of vehicles far more than their use.
ps. What measure were you using to put a dollar value on 'destruction of natural resources'?
I'm trying to figure out whether the GP meant 'offensive' when he said 'not funny' or if he just meant 'not funny'.
<grammer nazi>There's no apostrophe in 'suburbans'</grammer nazi>
I'd like to be the first to say "What a load of bollocks". If you bump the price of petrol, drivers will grumble but pay for it anyway. What's needed is cheap, convenient and reliable public transport. The carrot works better than the stick.
No, it's a binary distro. What the bloody hell's got you thinking otherwise? Yes, it comes in gzipped tar archives. You could put your porn collection in a gzipped tar archive - that wouldn't make it "source porn", would it? Yes, it comes with source code. That's a legal requirement of the GPL, last time i checked. Fact is, it comes with precompiled ELF binaries. Thus, it's a binary distro.
Er, Slackware.
Interestingly enough, even your own Wikipedia link indicates that the definition of tautology is not what you seem to think it is.
Not so. Consider the statement 'All odd numbers are prime'. 9 is odd and not prime, therefore the statement is untrue. 'Some odd numbers are not prime' is the same statement, which falls into the 'things we know we know' category.
I agree totally. GNU say that licensing glibc under the LGPL was a tactical move, but I say that it was the ethically right thing to do as well.
IIRC, the license of the free version of f-prot does not allow you to 'protect networks'. Therefore, I suggest ClamAV.
Let's be fair - it was in a boxing ring, of Q's creation (unless my memory deceives me).
Check this out: Virtual PC does not allow virtual licenses.
I have used such tools. They are f**king annoying.
No, that would draw the user's mouse cursor to it. Cursor follows eyes, not the other way round. When your cursor jumps around, you'll lose it and have to move the mouse in order to find it again.
Remember that escape will also choose the cancel button. Also remember that on anything more than a simple yes/no message box, the focus won't be on the OK/Confirm/whatever button anyway.
That has surely got to be a prime candidate for the useless use of cat award. Good advice otherwise...
2.7? What 2.7?
Try "It became 2.6 and will be supplanted by 2.7"
I think you've missed the point of DRM
That struck me as well (no pun intended), but I wonder how fast it was going after it had been through the roof+ceiling. The question is, did the meteorite bouce off the sofa or the floor (destroying the sofa on the way through).
As any keen Beano reader knows, it is of course possible to survive a meteor strike with no more ill effects than having yourself reduced to 6" in height, but with a 4' tall lump on your head. Oh, and all meteorites bear the notice 'If lost, kindly return to the Milky Way'.
What did GNU do but create a functional equivalent of Unix, piece by piece, until they had an almost complete replacement. What are Wine & ReactOS doing today? The same thing, but with Windows. This is, of course, not limited to OSS projects - Microsoft are an obvious example of a company who did not hestiate to take from others and 'relicense'. Not exactly a shining example of morality, I know, but instead illustrates the point that morality means rather little in the corporate world, as does the law if you've got enough money behind you.
Yes, it would be hypocritical to complain if someone merely cloned Linux, but consider, who would complain? Remeber, the 'GPL people' are not all of one mind. RMS is an idealist, he, clearly, would like nothing better than to see all software licensed under the GPL, hence the GPL's so-called viral nature. He, not unlike the large companies, would like to see everyone playing by his rules. But they are a very different set of rules. Linus has a more pragmatic view, he allows non-GPL'd drivers to be used with the kernel; something RMS would doubtless resist tooth & nail if someone tried to do the same for the HURD. Linus uses proprietary version management software, which RMS would never do while Free alternatives existed. GNU/Linux is a marriage of convenience, each is dead without the other. RMS would much rather the HURD was usable today, Linus wants whatever works.
The GPL means different things to different people, to the idealist it's a way to ensure the freedom of software, to the pragmatist it's a way to get something back for what (s)he has put in. BSD licensing ensures neither of these. Fair enough, if you write something then license it however you want.
FWIW, I don't think that Linus, RMS or any other 'GPL people' feel that Linus would have been justified in voilating the copyright of others, which is what Brown seems to be saying here. Even if he's not saying it explicitly, he's making some very strong implictions of foul play.
Now to Ken Brown. Why do you suppose he's apparently pushing the BSD license? Well, I'm afraid that I'm going along with the mob here and labelling this as a paid hatchet job. The GPL is a threat to MS, unlike BSD which can be leveraged in commercial applications, as MS may well have done in their TCP stack and Apple have done more recently with OS X (although, it must be said, more openly). The reason I would tend to discount Brown's opinion is his deliberate ignorance of the facts of the case, combined with his tendancy to lower himself to name-calling. Coming hot on the heels of SCO, we're just fed up to the back teeth of endless FUD. And if you think that Brown has the best interests of the BSD community in mind, think again.
I don't feel that a BSD-loving Mac user is really too much further from this issue than a Linux-loving PC user.
Oh well, end of ramble I guess.
No, it should be .uk. Looks like ISO ballsed this one up.
If you wre to write a brand new kernel (using Linux for nothing more than inspiration) then you are of course free to use whatever licensing terms you want. If you copy code from Linux and change the license then there may well be strenuous objections. That's just obvious.
Exactly how does this relate to the accusations made by Ken Brown?
Um, how is GPL "more free" than LGPL, it imposes additional restrictions. Granted, RMS would probably rather see everything under the GPL just so that no proprietry code could ever be distributed, but that doesn't make the LGPL any less free.
Also, didn't notice a GPL Windows version of QT (cygwin doesn't count)...