I think most of this might be possible. However, no one can change the license of software that has alread been released. If M$ buys the FSF and releases an evil GPL3, we still get to use everything that is released under GPL2 according to the conditions of the GPL2. It is of course possible to rerelease software using a different license, but that doesn't affect previously released versions.
So, M$ can't prevent us from using our free software, but they might, theoretically be able to "steal" it, ie use it in their own closed software.
Well, the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with the name of the kernel (Linux). Linus created the kernel, so he gets to pick the name. He chose to call it "Linux", and so everybody else (including RMS & the FSF) calls the kernel "Linux". The FSF created an OS completely consisting of free software (some of it is written by them, some of it is written by other people) and they chose to call it "GNU". However since their kernel wasn't finished, some people chose to use Linux (the kernel) together with the rest of GNU.
So you see, the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with Linux being GPL'd. The problem is that people chose to call a GNU OS with Hurd replaced by Linux, "Linux". The same thing would have happened if Linux was licensed differently.
If you don't want people using your code in their proprietary programs use the GPL (or the LGPL). Otherwise, use the X license.
Also, the comparison between the GNU/Linux thing and the BSD advertising clause isn't really fair, since the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with licensing, it's simply a question of what to call a system made of a huge number of components made by different people.
Or is it because Mozilla isn't even beta yet? Also, Mozilla's UI is/will be customizable. So if you don't like the way it looks, change it.
Re:Apt friendly debian packages
on
KDE 1.1.1 is out
·
· Score: 2
As I've understood it, for apt-get to be useful, you have to have the right directory structure and a "Packages" file. For instance, see the Gnome staging area: http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2/
The actual packages are in e.g. dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/ (one directory for each platform etc). In the same directory as the packages there's a gzipped Packages file containing descriptions of the packages. I guess the Debian developer's manuels have more information.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Debian developer, so this is probably not 100% correct.
And please, get rid of those hovering eyebrows. I can't stand them. The body is way too small -- it looks like the neck's connected to the legs. But I do think a dragon is a great idea for a mascot. Now all we needs is a cool name for him (her?).
True, but it's important to remember that the GPL was created to make it possible to share software in this world, with the current copyright laws. In a world with no such thing as IP, the GPL wouldn't be necessary. The problem is of course that in that world it would be possible to distribute binaries and keep the source code secret.
Pirating/bootleging isn't really comparable to using GPL'd code in proprietary software. Pirating is illegal sharing -- it makes some copyrighted work available to people who don't have the copyright owners permission to have access to the work. Refusing to distribute GPL'd code (remember: modifications to GPL'd code are GPL'd too) means not allowing people who have the right to access the code (everyone), to access the code.
This has already been pointed out like a million times, and should be obvious, but stealing means taking something away from someone else. "Pirating"/bootleging isn't stealing -- it's illegal sharing.
But I do agree with you that you shouldn't think that just because something's legal means it's moral. Of course, just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's immoral.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the ability to kill or threaten to kill other people has to do with democracy. IMO the right to live and free speech are the two most fundamental rights of a democracy, and guns can take away both of these.
Your argumentation is totally irrational. You both claim that guns are evil, and that everyone should have the right to carry one. I think we both agree that a society without guns would be the best. Unfortunately, guns exist and there will always be criminals who carry guns. So what do we do? If we allow everyone to get a gun this mean it will be easier for criminals to get guns. So, common people will get guns out of fear for the armed criminals, which means more guns, and more fear. This leads to a very frightening spiral. The alternative is to make guns illegal. Criminals will still have guns, but it will be harder for them to get guns. Common citizens wont be able to defend themselves, so we'll need a well functioning and non-currupt police force to protect us.
I think a society with less guns is a more pleasant one to live in (I now live in Sweden where guns are very uncommon, but I've also lived in the US), and banning guns is the only way to get rid of guns. A society filled with armed citizens fearing each other is not a good foundation for a democracy.
Linus isn't a Swede, he's a Swedish speaking Finn (as many others pointed out before me). Saying that Linus is Swedish is like saying that RMS is English.
It's non DFSG-free and it isn't free software according to the FSF. That means, at least to me, that it isn't free software. Remember, the Open Source Definition is more or less the same as the DFSG, so at least technically, there is no difference between free and open-source software.
It seems as if there are two categories of artist who are interested in experimenting with mp3 etc:
New, unsigned artists who want to spread their music to as many people as possible, as fast and cheap as possible. They hope that this will give them an audience, and maybe a record deal.
Older, experienced artists who already have earned enough money from their music that they can afford to experiment with new technology. They hope that this will give them new listeners, and they probably like being a part of something New and Exiting(TM).
Actually they also released the single "Swindlers Lust" both as "mp4" and (later) as mp3. There were a lot of angry messages (most of them were prolly from/.;) at the "enemy board" when they first released the single as mp4 only, and I think that's the reason why the also released an mp3.
Read the message you replied to one more time. He didn't say there's only one free BSD, he said there's only one FreeBSD(TM) distribution. AFAIK there is only one FreeBSD, even though there were some people talking about making a Debian distribution of (Free?)BSD.
You're probably right, we can't expect that one tool kit/desktop/whatever will "win". However, most new graphical apps seem to use either Qt or GTK. Hopefully, by using themes, customization etc, it will be possible to make GTK and Qt apps to look and feel more or less the same.
Diversity is good, as long as it means that I can make decisions, eg about the look&feel of widgets. It's not good if the developer decides for me and I have to use applications with differently behaving widgets.
But even if copyright laws were removed, wouldn't it still be possible for companies like MS to keep requiring customers to sign license agreements? When you purchess and install a piece of software, you agree to their license, which says (among other things) that you're not allowed to share the software with other people. So, at least when it comes to software, this wouldn't make a difference, would it?
Still, I do agree with the article -- it's time we start thinking about why we have copyright laws and if they should be changed/removed, and in that case, in what way.
Yes, but you shouldn't have any illusions of journalism being objective. News coverage of wars are always biased, especially if you live in one of the countries that are fighting. The information you get from Nato about as objective as Serbian television. For example, Nato denied that a Stealth airplane was shot down as long as they could.
Still, this is nothing new. In order to come closer to the truth you have to gather information from several sources and try to judge which one is closest to the truth. Usually, the mainstream media is pretty close, but not to close, since the truth can be very disturbing and uncomfortable. the quality of alternative media is more varying -- if you're lucky they're telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but they truth, but it might as well be nothing but lies and propaganda.
I must say, although if I hardly agree with anything in this article, at least it's partially well written, and they've got some of their facts straight. At least the part about what Free/Open Source software is. Of course the part about Ralf Nader wasn't very objective, but I guess that's what you get if you try speaking up in the US.
But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OSS rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality products and targeted marketing. In a free market, identifiable manufacturers own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
Hmm, they seem to assume that a free market must involve capitalism and money. In the free software "market" software competes by being useful and good, not through marketing and hype. If a free program isn't good enough people won't use it and since most programmers use the programs they make themselves, bad project will be abandonned and, if there is a demand, they will be replaced (or inproved, if that's possible).
Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows; originally OSS, later versions of Unix were made proprietary by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and other companies.
Okey, maybe a little more research would be needed;)
Anyway it seem as the conclusion is that the Free/Open Source Software community is nothing but a lefty/socialist/commie/anarchist conspiracy against Microsoft/capitalism/big corporations.
Okay. Say I create a QPL'd piece of software, and someone else grabs my code and creates a derived work which also includes a few lines of code from Qt. This would mean Troll Tech would be able to relicense my code. And of course, since Qt is the oldest QPL'd software there is, TT would be able to do the same thing with any QPL'd software.
Not that I think they'd do it, but if what you're saying is true, they could do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. . .maybe when GNUstep starts getting usable?
So, M$ can't prevent us from using our free software, but they might, theoretically be able to "steal" it, ie use it in their own closed software.
You know, the meaning of sentences tend to change when you choose to skip words :)
So you see, the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with Linux being GPL'd. The problem is that people chose to call a GNU OS with Hurd replaced by Linux, "Linux". The same thing would have happened if Linux was licensed differently.
If you don't want people using your code in their proprietary programs use the GPL (or the LGPL). Otherwise, use the X license.
Also, the comparison between the GNU/Linux thing and the BSD advertising clause isn't really fair, since the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with licensing, it's simply a question of what to call a system made of a huge number of components made by different people.
Or is it because Mozilla isn't even beta yet? Also, Mozilla's UI is/will be customizable. So if you don't like the way it looks, change it.
The actual packages are in e.g. dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/ (one directory for each platform etc). In the same directory as the packages there's a gzipped Packages file containing descriptions of the packages. I guess the Debian developer's manuels have more information.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Debian developer, so this is probably not 100% correct.
And please, get rid of those hovering eyebrows. I can't stand them. The body is way too small -- it looks like the neck's connected to the legs. But I do think a dragon is a great idea for a mascot. Now all we needs is a cool name for him (her?).
Pirating/bootleging isn't really comparable to using GPL'd code in proprietary software. Pirating is illegal sharing -- it makes some copyrighted work available to people who don't have the copyright owners permission to have access to the work. Refusing to distribute GPL'd code (remember: modifications to GPL'd code are GPL'd too) means not allowing people who have the right to access the code (everyone), to access the code.
Oh . . . and pirating != stealing.
But I do agree with you that you shouldn't think that just because something's legal means it's moral. Of course, just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's immoral.
Your argumentation is totally irrational. You both claim that guns are evil, and that everyone should have the right to carry one. I think we both agree that a society without guns would be the best. Unfortunately, guns exist and there will always be criminals who carry guns. So what do we do? If we allow everyone to get a gun this mean it will be easier for criminals to get guns. So, common people will get guns out of fear for the armed criminals, which means more guns, and more fear. This leads to a very frightening spiral. The alternative is to make guns illegal. Criminals will still have guns, but it will be harder for them to get guns. Common citizens wont be able to defend themselves, so we'll need a well functioning and non-currupt police force to protect us.
I think a society with less guns is a more pleasant one to live in (I now live in Sweden where guns are very uncommon, but I've also lived in the US), and banning guns is the only way to get rid of guns. A society filled with armed citizens fearing each other is not a good foundation for a democracy.
Linus isn't a Swede, he's a Swedish speaking Finn (as many others pointed out before me). Saying that Linus is Swedish is like saying that RMS is English.
Okay, now all we're waiting for is GNU Emacs and XEmacs to merge ;)
It's non DFSG-free and it isn't free software according to the FSF. That means, at least to me, that it isn't free software. Remember, the Open Source Definition is more or less the same as the DFSG, so at least technically, there is no difference between free and open-source software.
New, unsigned artists who want to spread their music to as many people as possible, as fast and cheap as possible. They hope that this will give them an audience, and maybe a record deal.
Older, experienced artists who already have earned enough money from their music that they can afford to experiment with new technology. They hope that this will give them new listeners, and they probably like being a part of something New and Exiting(TM).
What issue? What article? What context? In what way did Chuck D say Bill Gates is like Michael Jordan?
Bill Gates is like Mahatma Gandhi -- they both have two eyes and two ears.
10USD for an average CD? I must say, that's damn cheap. Here in Sweden we usually have to pay the equivelent of 20USD (or more) for a new CD.
Actually they also released the single "Swindlers Lust" both as "mp4" and (later) as mp3. There were a lot of angry messages (most of them were prolly from /. ;) at the "enemy board" when they first released the single as mp4 only, and I think that's the reason why the also released an mp3.
Read the message you replied to one more time. He didn't say there's only one free BSD, he said there's only one FreeBSD(TM) distribution. AFAIK there is only one FreeBSD, even though there were some people talking about making a Debian distribution of (Free?)BSD.
Diversity is good, as long as it means that I can make decisions, eg about the look&feel of widgets. It's not good if the developer decides for me and I have to use applications with differently behaving widgets.
Still, I do agree with the article -- it's time we start thinking about why we have copyright laws and if they should be changed/removed, and in that case, in what way.
Still, this is nothing new. In order to come closer to the truth you have to gather information from several sources and try to judge which one is closest to the truth. Usually, the mainstream media is pretty close, but not to close, since the truth can be very disturbing and uncomfortable. the quality of alternative media is more varying -- if you're lucky they're telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but they truth, but it might as well be nothing but lies and propaganda.
Yes, very amusing/frightening. These people seem to believe that the non-profit organisations will destroy the families and turn the US into a (OH NO!!) welfare state. Also, don't miss the one-year-old article about "Computer Philantropy", listing how much money the good hearted computer companies have donated to charity.
Anyway it seem as the conclusion is that the Free/Open Source Software community is nothing but a lefty/socialist/commie/anarchist conspiracy against Microsoft/capitalism/big corporations.
Not that I think they'd do it, but if what you're saying is true, they could do it.
Copyright, patents etc.