Gotta love how MS is the only one to reuse defunct names like this...
Notice how Indigo is put between "'s. Indigo may be trademarked by Microsoft which may be the reason why only they use it. Perhaps the trademark was even bought from SGI. Or, it may be just a name which'll be changed.
Also, remember Indigo is simply a color similar to purple. I remember owning a Indigo2 which was purple. My lovely and stable purple puppy:-)
There's some DE for *NIX/Windows with its own widget set using. It was called Athene, Athena(e) or something like that. Anyway, it included a few different DE's such as one which resembled AmigaOS 3.x and also which resembles, or which will resemble (!) "Microsoft's Indigo".
Had the Linux kernel been licensed as the FSF recommended, Version 2.0 of the GPL OR any later version would have applied, forever. So if RMS or the FSF ran amok with version 3.0, everyone could have kept happilly applying Version 2.0 forever.
If the FSF released version 3.0 the following could happen when the Linux kernel had the 'or later' clause: Someone contributes code and insists its being GPL version 3 or later. Hence all the other code at a whole (as binary) is also distributed under either GPL version 2 and 3 and/or later or GPL version 3 and/or later and the changes of GPLv3 apply to the Linux kernel images! The reasoning that that doesn't matter, because GPL version 3 is a Good Thing and a 'good, positive change' is simply fallacious reasoning; its a very personal view on the matter. Which is precisely why Torvalds wants GPLv2-only: he's content with the way the GPLv2 works and he wants to keep it that way. That may be conservative however comes more near the philosophy of TAZ.
Now, however, if conditions change and version 2.0 becomes untenable because of legal changes (e.g. the emergence of software patents, changes in copyright law, what have you) or technical changes (e.g. the web and changes in how programs dynamically link to libraries), then the Linux kernel folks have a real problem on their hand. They'll have to track down EVERY SINGLE contributer to the kernel and get their permission to upgrade to version 3.0 (or whatever), or rip any questionable code out and rewrite it.
True. Its a double-edged sword though and you evade the other edge thoroughly in your post which irritates me and reminds me of the word 'zealot'.
Anyone taking bets on whether SCO (a contributer to the kernel under the terms of the GPL license version 2.0) will give permission to upgrade to a newer license? Because as things stand right now, either they'll have to, or every line of code their employees contributed will have to be removed and rewritten before any such change can occur. Multiply that difficulty a thousandfold, and you have an idea of the licensing nightmare that could be facing the Linux kernel if the developers ever find themselves in a position of needing to upgrade the license.
Suddenly you don't trust the masses anymore. First you want to give everyone a certain set of freedoms which you define as 'free software' or 'open source' (although with restrictions to make sure the freedoms remain) and now you don't want to give the developers who programmed the software the freedom to define those rules forever. Instead you want to give that power to a single authority! Wasn't that the thing you hated to much? Wasn't it proprietary, dictatorship, centralized power?
Due to whatever reasons (RMS forgets to take his medicines, the FSF is infiltrated, Moglen and RMS die, etc) the following can legally happen. It can even happen as we speak but we assume these are Good People with only Positive Intensions. * GNU is relicensed under another license (whatever the FSF wishes). Remember the FSF is the same organisation which requests you to give them full control (copyright assignment) over the software you wish to write or wrote for GNU (even though GNU is still not ready yet). * GPL is updated with whatever changes which may be more free or less free. They may be justified or not (== personal belief). You name patents as example well what if i'm a GPL contributor who contributed work under GPLv2 or later and i like software patents? * And more...
You know what the problem with people like you is? Its the misplaced belief that the FSF is an inherently Good Thing which cannot do Evil plus not including the other side of the story. In my book however, giving the FSF not too much power is a Good Thing because distributing power more evenly beyond software licensing is a Good Thing. Even more with people who have a strict ideological and political agenda such as RMS. As for RMS: I don't trust autists other than myself!
(For the record, the above is to add weight. Its not my opinion. I have no definite opinion on this matter.)
Its been in the air for quite a while and one of the possibilities is (in laymen's term) some 'anti-patent clause' similar as copyrighted copyleft-work (the 'flipover' aspect). You've seen the other possibilities in the eWeek / Moglen article.
One interesting thing to note is that he requests feedback. The FSF wants your feedback! Actually, i think they also want open debates / discussion.
One way for feedback is the Software Freedom Law Center recently launched. On board are e.g. Moglen (FSF) and Lessig (OSI), among others, and they provide free (beer) license defense, litigation support for FOSS licenses. I think they'll also appreciate your feedback.
Quote:
Licensing
The SFLC is directly involved in its clients' FOSS license development efforts, including development of the GNU General Public License v3 by the Free Software Foundation, and offers licensing assistance, particularly license development and implementation consulting, to FOSS developers other than its clients. The SFLC is also available to provide community-wide license review and compatibility analysis, for the purpose of identifying and addressing the causes of unnecessary FOSS license proliferation.
PJ of Groklaw also writes:
Did you note the Center will be working on the next version of the GPL, for starters? So, what do you think? Is this not a grand idea? Here is the press release: [...]
Feedback, especially when constructive, is important! Even if you dislike politics, visions, law/licensing this is still very important to the GPL, the FSF and the FOSS community and their developers, contributors and last but not least users!
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation.
(IANAL)
In short, developers license mostly under 'GPL version 2 or later'. Afaict, only a _minor_ number of developers license under 'GPL version 2', without the 'or later clause' with the most notable exception being the Linux kernel.
So, this means that the bold part is true: the FSF may chose to change the GPL, call it GPL version X (where X is a distinguishable number) and anyone may chose to use that version instead of the version specified precisely because of the 'or later' part.
Wether that change is desired or not is a different case alltogether. Perhaps it indeed creates a BSD-like license? Or a too non-free one? And, is this fear justified or not? Is it likely the FSF will do this? Now, that is a personal belief, an opinion.
No matter what, the legal possibility is there though and you may just as well chose 'GPL version 2' while also managing who contributes what and trying to do a manual update after a new update. This may be what will happen with the Linux kernel given Torvalds licensed it under GPL version 2 only.
One more thing (i'm still not a lawyer): imagine GPLv3 has a patent clause. Now, a license only needs 1 line licensed under GPLv3 to be affected by that clause. Ofcourse, one may simply replace that line. So in order to get effective, a wide adoption of GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later licensed code may be necessary so people will be forced to be ruled under the GPLv3 changes (the patent clause, in this example).
Could people continue using the existing version, if it actually fits the bill better than the newer, possibly incompatible version?
(IANAL, just an interested geek.)
Depends on how the developers licensed their work. Most GPLed software is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later' which means that you may chose between GPLv2 or a later version.
The Linux kernel is an exception. Linux Torvalds licensed it only under GPLv2 and he removed the 'or later' part. So the Linux kernel won't be (automagically) GPLv3, as intended by Torvalds. From my understanding he doesn't trust Stallman / FSF on this one. If the Linux people want GPLv3 then they'll have to do major efforts contacting all these people who contributed to the kernel, i suppose (you also stated this but it only applies on the GPLv2-only software which is a minority!).
To sum it up: almost all GPLed software will be compatible with GPLv3 and users may use the GPLv3 license instead. Also, developers may chose to license their newer code under 'GPLv2 or later' 'GPLv3 or later' or 'GPLv3 or earlier' or even 'GPLv3-only'.
Freedom and government are mutually exclusive since the government uses laws to tell the individual what they may not do. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'free country'. The only element which makes it regarded as 'free' from the point of view of the people who have democratic power over that country is wether they're satisfied with the set of rules (the law) which is provided hence as a result also being satisfied over the remaining 'freedom'. Now, I'm Dutch, and i would probably not happy with the set of rules provided in the USA.
And guess what? I don't have that democratic power over the USA. Hence, if the USA has laws over *me* which force *me* to do things which have little to nothing to do with the USA (like here in this topic we discuss) its easily regarded as opression (remember that PATRIOT doesn't follow the classic "innocent until proven"). Unfortunately, some Americans somehow don't understand that viewpoint...
Re:books beat electronic documents?
on
Firefox In Print
·
· Score: 1
Some people actually *like* to read a book on hard paper, at a place where they can't read an 'e-book' or pdf and where they don't have to look to a screen. One which is available even if the computer, internet connection or browser (*grin*) is off or doesn't work.
I realize this is Slashdot but please, no Quicktime! If you aim for non-Windows users you aim NOT only for Apple users. That includes not only for Linux/x86 either.
An interesting compare between the quality of current codecs is available here: http://www.doom9.org/codecs-104-1.htm
While XViD doesn't work well for streaming on-demand,that doesn't appear to be what you want. You could combine the movies with a Torrent and add a notice that you prefer people to use that instead. By doing so whereas also providing a HTTP link you still allow people from e.g. AOL or Universities or Broken Firewalls to access the data.
OGG Theora ain't tested over there, but OGG Theora is based on VP3 and can be used for streaming on-demand content. Its completely open source, not patent encumbered (XViD is) and its API is now stable.
# QuickTime.MOV (MooV actually): Apple stuff. Officially supported on Macs and Windows, but still proprietary - you're not being nice to OSS users. # RealMedia.RM: proprietary (see QuickTime)
Not similar.
Quicktime only runs on Windows/x86 and MacOSX/ppc.
Real runs on Linux/x86 and old version even exist for Linux/alpha, IRIX, BeOS -- among others. Although not the newest RealVideo 4 codec which only exists for Linux/x86, Windows/x86, and MacOSX/ppc.
Real is more friendly to Linux in this regard. Futhermore, everything of their player is open source, except their proprietary codecs. Apple's Quicktime is as proprietary as you can get...
First of all, Linux != Linux/x86 Second, there's more non-Apple and non-Microsoft than Linux. Third, CrossOver Office is not free as in beer nor as in speech whereas the Quicktime player for OSX and Windows doesn't cost a dime. Fourth, its quite laggy... its a dirty hack. Not one to recommend people to use because 'it works'. no, rather one to recommend because 'there's simply no other viable solution and you're dependant on the people who chose for Quicktime instead of something else'.
If its non-on demand thats easy. If its on demand then its slightly not so friendly for the user because its not click and play. In such situation, something like PeerCast might be a solution.
I read a benchmark between all popular video codecs a while ago (~ decembre) on doom9.org and the author of that believed one of the reasons XViD is popular is precisely because its so easy to produce one in Windows. However its patent encumbered (MPEG4); we'll need the same for Vorbis and Theora:-)
Right, it ain't anything new. I remember Netscape and MSIE for Windows from my ISP's CD having their logo in it and automatically having their homepage as my startpage. I remember Netscape 4 on my SGI having the SGI logo instead of the Netscape one. And thats just a few examples. There are many more!
Wow, despite writing a long self-righteous post attacking the Linux and Groklaw communities, you still failed to address the central fact that is this release of patents only covers Sun CDDL software while the IBM release covers ALL open source software. In case you missed it, not all open source software is "Linux", a hell of a lot of it is Apache, JBOSS, MySQL, etc.
For one, i only 'attacked' the Groklaw community who are nothing less than a bunch of IBM zealots nowadays.
Second, i mentioned the fact IBM's release covers 'all OSI-compatible licenses'. I even noticed it as important. However, thats not where the compare ends by any means.
If I had to choose the better "gift" between 1600 patents that I cannot use or 500 patents that I can use. I would choose the 500 patents.
Have you discussed the patents with your lawyer? Do you know the patents are valid? Do you know wether there's prior art? Are the patents tested in court? What do the patents cover? Will you please publish your findings?
AC obviously has the credibility to know the answers of the above questions to the 2100+ patents in question...
Like Microsoft, Sun has a brilliant marketing department that knows exactly how to make a splash without backing it up with substance.
IBM, as charity, does't have a marketing dept. *rolleyes*.
And all the pro-anything-by-Sun whining in the world on your part won't change it.
Learn to read. I never said Sun's contribution was worth more than IBM's. I challenge the unquestioned believe that IBM's contribution is worth more than Sun's without looking into both contributions.
What a bunch of typical Groklawish paranoia. Although i admit IBM's patent contribution is significantly different (for all OSI-compatible licenses) from Sun's patent contribution which only counts for the CDDL license there are a few elements also waiting to be notified: * Sun is significantly smaller than IBM and also owns significantly less patents than IBM; * Sun released 1600 patents; IBM 500 patents; * It leaves research necessary for wether ** Any -if any, which- of Sun's or IBM's patents are actually valid (precedents? lawyers who looked into it?). ** Which patents matter more. A patent is only a patent when regarded as a number. Patents differ; their importance differ as well.
Hence i find 'IBM made a better gift' a bit of a close call because of vague elements which are unclear, or elements which are compared which aren't easily comparable. The only element i agree with is that 'any OSI-compatible' license is better than 'CDDL-only'.
I have another conspiracy. It says: "The Linux community can't stand competition from another community; e.g. the OpenSolaris community." That together with old arguments between Sun and the FOSS community are the reasons for all these flames and paranoia, methinks.
However what i see Sun seems to be doing here is building an open source community which is not exactly compatible with the GPL at _its_core_ (CDDL). Remember, there's actually only 1 open source community; you're either an open source developer, or you're not. Depending on e.g. libraries, but not on e.g. kernel: GPL applications can run fine on OpenSolaris; CDDL applications can run fine on Linux.
Helix is open source. IIRC even OSI-compliant license. About the only thing they didn't open source is RealVideo and RealAudio codecs. That is to say, any version of these. Sure, and those server-related applications. But who cares given we have GStreamer already:-)
I really like open source software and free beer but i don't really care on this one and i feel i have to explain why. RealVideo and RealAudio used to be popular for streaming on-demand content over the Internet but its passed by WMV/WMA popularity these days -- since a few years or so. Sure, Apple might be strong on audio as well, but not very on Quicktime. Remember Apple fans: At least RealPlayer with RealAudio and RealVideo codecs runs native on Linux and older versions (up to version 3 of video codecs; not sure on audio versions) on various UNIX / Unix-like systems (BeOS, IRIX, etcetera. IIRC even QNX). Compare this to the platforms Quicktime runs on or the Quicktime video-related libraries work on. Not on Linux. At least, not native. At least RealPlayer was ported to various platforms! I see no kudos for that from the Slashdot crowd.
Now, since Real's market share is marginalized even though they ported their client to a lot of platforms, their codecs aren't of high quality either. Compared to e.g. XViD, VP6, Nero RealVideo (version 4) does a lousy job as seen in a Doom9.org review. If you're developer, hack on Theora (not patent-encumbered), XViD (patent-encumbered) or another codec instead. There's quite a number of 'em out there, open source, some of good quality already.
RealVideo and RealAudio's days are numbered and if not (e.g. Real develops them futher and manages to market it succesfully) then they'll at least get ported to platforms with a market share of 0.05%;-)
IIRC major distributions, including SUSE and Red Hat, announced they'll be including RealPlayer as standard media player (or Helix? either of these. I can't find the announcement right now). Which is sad for GStreamer, VLC, Xine, MPlayer and all the other players.
I'm sorry, but there's something to "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
(Yes i know that wasn't precisely your point, but some others agree with you on this.)
Ok, then don't start about IBM supporting the OSS community and please also actively bring up this very point when someone discusses how 'Good' or 'Bad' IBM is these days. No, the Slashdot crowd doesn't appear to do that. IBM and Apple are Good. Not that i personally see IBM as either 'Good' or 'Bad' (or Apple, FWIW), but i agree they've become more 'nice' than in the 80s or at least appear so. I have the same opinion about Real, nearing to a point of forgiving them.
Apple doesn't want me to view Quicktime movies on the Internet. They don't care for that feature. At least Real cares for me, they want me to be able to play RealVideo on the Internet. (Yes i am aware of WINE and CrossOver. Now go away.)
Also, Real's RealPlayer for Linux is very clean (no marketing crap and difunctional settings or otherwise crashy elements) compared to old versions (7/8/9) which are still there for BeOS, IRIX, Linux, et al, including any Windows version i'm aware of. Excluding the open source Helix version IIRC. That one is also clean IIRC.
Result due to this: Lowers Apple's karma; Raises Real's karma. Simple. Only FOSS advocates don't like the fact RealVideo and RealAudio are proprietary; I just want to view some online on-demand content though. Unfortunately, these days, people switched to WMV here. Don't get me started on Microsoft's karma w/that one. *Sob*.
FYI: $ sudo echo "hello" >test Password: $ ls -l test -rw-r--r-- 1 user group 6 Jan 25 00:24 test..and its not owned by root. Tried it wish Tcsh and Bash. IIRC 'su' has the same problem (or 'behaviour'?).
The protocol is already being analyzed and various details are already reverse engineered. If this information is known then a programmer can easily add functionality to Azureus (which is more or less similar to eXeem already, but uses Java hence is actually cross-platform). Only drawback is that it'll take a little while and your favorite client might not have it first. I'd say: no worries on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice how Indigo is put between "'s. Indigo may be trademarked by Microsoft which may be the reason why only they use it. Perhaps the trademark was even bought from SGI. Or, it may be just a name which'll be changed.
Also, remember Indigo is simply a color similar to purple. I remember owning a Indigo2 which was purple. My lovely and stable purple puppy
There's some DE for *NIX/Windows with its own widget set using. It was called Athene, Athena(e) or something like that. Anyway, it included a few different DE's such as one which resembled AmigaOS 3.x and also which resembles, or which will resemble (!) "Microsoft's Indigo".
If the FSF released version 3.0 the following could happen when the Linux kernel had the 'or later' clause: Someone contributes code and insists its being GPL version 3 or later. Hence all the other code at a whole (as binary) is also distributed under either GPL version 2 and 3 and/or later or GPL version 3 and/or later and the changes of GPLv3 apply to the Linux kernel images! The reasoning that that doesn't matter, because GPL version 3 is a Good Thing and a 'good, positive change' is simply fallacious reasoning; its a very personal view on the matter. Which is precisely why Torvalds wants GPLv2-only: he's content with the way the GPLv2 works and he wants to keep it that way. That may be conservative however comes more near the philosophy of TAZ.
True. Its a double-edged sword though and you evade the other edge thoroughly in your post which irritates me and reminds me of the word 'zealot'.
Suddenly you don't trust the masses anymore. First you want to give everyone a certain set of freedoms which you define as 'free software' or 'open source' (although with restrictions to make sure the freedoms remain) and now you don't want to give the developers who programmed the software the freedom to define those rules forever. Instead you want to give that power to a single authority! Wasn't that the thing you hated to much? Wasn't it proprietary, dictatorship, centralized power?
Due to whatever reasons (RMS forgets to take his medicines, the FSF is infiltrated, Moglen and RMS die, etc) the following can legally happen. It can even happen as we speak but we assume these are Good People with only Positive Intensions.
* GNU is relicensed under another license (whatever the FSF wishes). Remember the FSF is the same organisation which requests you to give them full control (copyright assignment) over the software you wish to write or wrote for GNU (even though GNU is still not ready yet).
* GPL is updated with whatever changes which may be more free or less free. They may be justified or not (== personal belief). You name patents as example well what if i'm a GPL contributor who contributed work under GPLv2 or later and i like software patents?
* And more...
You know what the problem with people like you is? Its the misplaced belief that the FSF is an inherently Good Thing which cannot do Evil plus not including the other side of the story. In my book however, giving the FSF not too much power is a Good Thing because distributing power more evenly beyond software licensing is a Good Thing. Even more with people who have a strict ideological and political agenda such as RMS. As for RMS: I don't trust autists other than myself!
(For the record, the above is to add weight. Its not my opinion. I have no definite opinion on this matter.)
One interesting thing to note is that he requests feedback. The FSF wants your feedback! Actually, i think they also want open debates / discussion.
One way for feedback is the Software Freedom Law Center recently launched. On board are e.g. Moglen (FSF) and Lessig (OSI), among others, and they provide free (beer) license defense, litigation support for FOSS licenses. I think they'll also appreciate your feedback.
Quote:
PJ of Groklaw also writes:
Feedback, especially when constructive, is important! Even if you dislike politics, visions, law/licensing this is still very important to the GPL, the FSF and the FOSS community and their developers, contributors and last but not least users!
In short, developers license mostly under 'GPL version 2 or later'. Afaict, only a _minor_ number of developers license under 'GPL version 2', without the 'or later clause' with the most notable exception being the Linux kernel.
So, this means that the bold part is true: the FSF may chose to change the GPL, call it GPL version X (where X is a distinguishable number) and anyone may chose to use that version instead of the version specified precisely because of the 'or later' part.
Wether that change is desired or not is a different case alltogether. Perhaps it indeed creates a BSD-like license? Or a too non-free one? And, is this fear justified or not? Is it likely the FSF will do this? Now, that is a personal belief, an opinion.
No matter what, the legal possibility is there though and you may just as well chose 'GPL version 2' while also managing who contributes what and trying to do a manual update after a new update. This may be what will happen with the Linux kernel given Torvalds licensed it under GPL version 2 only.
One more thing (i'm still not a lawyer): imagine GPLv3 has a patent clause. Now, a license only needs 1 line licensed under GPLv3 to be affected by that clause. Ofcourse, one may simply replace that line. So in order to get effective, a wide adoption of GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later licensed code may be necessary so people will be forced to be ruled under the GPLv3 changes (the patent clause, in this example).
(IANAL, just an interested geek.)
Depends on how the developers licensed their work. Most GPLed software is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later' which means that you may chose between GPLv2 or a later version.
The Linux kernel is an exception. Linux Torvalds licensed it only under GPLv2 and he removed the 'or later' part. So the Linux kernel won't be (automagically) GPLv3, as intended by Torvalds. From my understanding he doesn't trust Stallman / FSF on this one. If the Linux people want GPLv3 then they'll have to do major efforts contacting all these people who contributed to the kernel, i suppose (you also stated this but it only applies on the GPLv2-only software which is a minority!).
To sum it up: almost all GPLed software will be compatible with GPLv3 and users may use the GPLv3 license instead. Also, developers may chose to license their newer code under 'GPLv2 or later' 'GPLv3 or later' or 'GPLv3 or earlier' or even 'GPLv3-only'.
Freedom and government are mutually exclusive since the government uses laws to tell the individual what they may not do. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'free country'. The only element which makes it regarded as 'free' from the point of view of the people who have democratic power over that country is wether they're satisfied with the set of rules (the law) which is provided hence as a result also being satisfied over the remaining 'freedom'. Now, I'm Dutch, and i would probably not happy with the set of rules provided in the USA.
And guess what? I don't have that democratic power over the USA. Hence, if the USA has laws over *me* which force *me* to do things which have little to nothing to do with the USA (like here in this topic we discuss) its easily regarded as opression (remember that PATRIOT doesn't follow the classic "innocent until proven"). Unfortunately, some Americans somehow don't understand that viewpoint...
Thank you, very `informative'.
Now go back to Groklaw.
Some people actually *like* to read a book on hard paper, at a place where they can't read an 'e-book' or pdf and where they don't have to look to a screen. One which is available even if the computer, internet connection or browser (*grin*) is off or doesn't work.
Oh, now i understand why the NSA put a backdoor in Windows NT. Not sure how that influences their 'track record'..
I realize this is Slashdot but please, no Quicktime! If you aim for non-Windows users you aim NOT only for Apple users. That includes not only for Linux/x86 either.
An interesting compare between the quality of current codecs is available here: http://www.doom9.org/codecs-104-1.htm
While XViD doesn't work well for streaming on-demand,that doesn't appear to be what you want. You could combine the movies with a Torrent and add a notice that you prefer people to use that instead. By doing so whereas also providing a HTTP link you still allow people from e.g. AOL or Universities or Broken Firewalls to access the data.
OGG Theora ain't tested over there, but OGG Theora is based on VP3 and can be used for streaming on-demand content. Its completely open source, not patent encumbered (XViD is) and its API is now stable.
# QuickTime .MOV (MooV actually): Apple stuff. Officially supported on Macs and Windows, but still proprietary - you're not being nice to OSS users. .RM: proprietary (see QuickTime)
# RealMedia
Not similar.
Quicktime only runs on Windows/x86 and MacOSX/ppc.
Real runs on Linux/x86 and old version even exist for Linux/alpha, IRIX, BeOS -- among others. Although not the newest RealVideo 4 codec which only exists for Linux/x86, Windows/x86, and MacOSX/ppc.
Real is more friendly to Linux in this regard. Futhermore, everything of their player is open source, except their proprietary codecs. Apple's Quicktime is as proprietary as you can get...
First of all, Linux != Linux/x86
Second, there's more non-Apple and non-Microsoft than Linux.
Third, CrossOver Office is not free as in beer nor as in speech whereas the Quicktime player for OSX and Windows doesn't cost a dime.
Fourth, its quite laggy... its a dirty hack. Not one to recommend people to use because 'it works'. no, rather one to recommend because 'there's simply no other viable solution and you're dependant on the people who chose for Quicktime instead of something else'.
If its non-on demand thats easy. If its on demand then its slightly not so friendly for the user because its not click and play. In such situation, something like PeerCast might be a solution.
I read a benchmark between all popular video codecs a while ago (~ decembre) on doom9.org and the author of that believed one of the reasons XViD is popular is precisely because its so easy to produce one in Windows. However its patent encumbered (MPEG4); we'll need the same for Vorbis and Theora :-)
Right, it ain't anything new. I remember Netscape and MSIE for Windows from my ISP's CD having their logo in it and automatically having their homepage as my startpage. I remember Netscape 4 on my SGI having the SGI logo instead of the Netscape one. And thats just a few examples. There are many more!
For one, i only 'attacked' the Groklaw community who are nothing less than a bunch of IBM zealots nowadays.
Second, i mentioned the fact IBM's release covers 'all OSI-compatible licenses'. I even noticed it as important. However, thats not where the compare ends by any means.
Have you discussed the patents with your lawyer? Do you know the patents are valid? Do you know wether there's prior art? Are the patents tested in court? What do the patents cover? Will you please publish your findings?
AC obviously has the credibility to know the answers of the above questions to the 2100+ patents in question...
IBM, as charity, does't have a marketing dept. *rolleyes*.
Learn to read. I never said Sun's contribution was worth more than IBM's. I challenge the unquestioned believe that IBM's contribution is worth more than Sun's without looking into both contributions.
What a bunch of typical Groklawish paranoia. Although i admit IBM's patent contribution is significantly different (for all OSI-compatible licenses) from Sun's patent contribution which only counts for the CDDL license there are a few elements also waiting to be notified:
* Sun is significantly smaller than IBM and also owns significantly less patents than IBM;
* Sun released 1600 patents; IBM 500 patents;
* It leaves research necessary for wether
** Any -if any, which- of Sun's or IBM's patents are actually valid (precedents? lawyers who looked into it?).
** Which patents matter more. A patent is only a patent when regarded as a number. Patents differ; their importance differ as well.
Hence i find 'IBM made a better gift' a bit of a close call because of vague elements which are unclear, or elements which are compared which aren't easily comparable. The only element i agree with is that 'any OSI-compatible' license is better than 'CDDL-only'.
I have another conspiracy. It says: "The Linux community can't stand competition from another community; e.g. the OpenSolaris community." That together with old arguments between Sun and the FOSS community are the reasons for all these flames and paranoia, methinks.
However what i see Sun seems to be doing here is building an open source community which is not exactly compatible with the GPL at _its_core_ (CDDL). Remember, there's actually only 1 open source community; you're either an open source developer, or you're not. Depending on e.g. libraries, but not on e.g. kernel: GPL applications can run fine on OpenSolaris; CDDL applications can run fine on Linux.
Helix is open source. IIRC even OSI-compliant license. About the only thing they didn't open source is RealVideo and RealAudio codecs. That is to say, any version of these. Sure, and those server-related applications. But who cares given we have GStreamer already :-)
;-)
I really like open source software and free beer but i don't really care on this one and i feel i have to explain why. RealVideo and RealAudio used to be popular for streaming on-demand content over the Internet but its passed by WMV/WMA popularity these days -- since a few years or so. Sure, Apple might be strong on audio as well, but not very on Quicktime. Remember Apple fans: At least RealPlayer with RealAudio and RealVideo codecs runs native on Linux and older versions (up to version 3 of video codecs; not sure on audio versions) on various UNIX / Unix-like systems (BeOS, IRIX, etcetera. IIRC even QNX). Compare this to the platforms Quicktime runs on or the Quicktime video-related libraries work on. Not on Linux. At least, not native. At least RealPlayer was ported to various platforms! I see no kudos for that from the Slashdot crowd.
Now, since Real's market share is marginalized even though they ported their client to a lot of platforms, their codecs aren't of high quality either. Compared to e.g. XViD, VP6, Nero RealVideo (version 4) does a lousy job as seen in a Doom9.org review. If you're developer, hack on Theora (not patent-encumbered), XViD (patent-encumbered) or another codec instead. There's quite a number of 'em out there, open source, some of good quality already.
RealVideo and RealAudio's days are numbered and if not (e.g. Real develops them futher and manages to market it succesfully) then they'll at least get ported to platforms with a market share of 0.05%
IIRC major distributions, including SUSE and Red Hat, announced they'll be including RealPlayer as standard media player (or Helix? either of these. I can't find the announcement right now). Which is sad for GStreamer, VLC, Xine, MPlayer and all the other players.
I'm sorry, but there's something to "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
(Yes i know that wasn't precisely your point, but some others agree with you on this.)
Ok, then don't start about IBM supporting the OSS community and please also actively bring up this very point when someone discusses how 'Good' or 'Bad' IBM is these days. No, the Slashdot crowd doesn't appear to do that. IBM and Apple are Good. Not that i personally see IBM as either 'Good' or 'Bad' (or Apple, FWIW), but i agree they've become more 'nice' than in the 80s or at least appear so. I have the same opinion about Real, nearing to a point of forgiving them.
After all, they're competing with apple.
Apple doesn't want me to view Quicktime movies on the Internet. They don't care for that feature. At least Real cares for me, they want me to be able to play RealVideo on the Internet. (Yes i am aware of WINE and CrossOver. Now go away.)
Also, Real's RealPlayer for Linux is very clean (no marketing crap and difunctional settings or otherwise crashy elements) compared to old versions (7/8/9) which are still there for BeOS, IRIX, Linux, et al, including any Windows version i'm aware of. Excluding the open source Helix version IIRC. That one is also clean IIRC.
Result due to this: Lowers Apple's karma; Raises Real's karma. Simple. Only FOSS advocates don't like the fact RealVideo and RealAudio are proprietary; I just want to view some online on-demand content though. Unfortunately, these days, people switched to WMV here. Don't get me started on Microsoft's karma w/that one. *Sob*.
PS: I'm just a Linux user...
You've never executed that command.
..and its not owned by root. Tried it wish Tcsh and Bash. IIRC 'su' has the same problem (or 'behaviour'?).
FYI:
$ sudo echo "hello" >test
Password:
$ ls -l test
-rw-r--r-- 1 user group 6 Jan 25 00:24 test
The protocol is already being analyzed and various details are already reverse engineered. If this information is known then a programmer can easily add functionality to Azureus (which is more or less similar to eXeem already, but uses Java hence is actually cross-platform). Only drawback is that it'll take a little while and your favorite client might not have it first. I'd say: no worries on this one.