MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has been removed.
Standard Disclaimer:
Use only at your own risk! There may be errors and inaccuracies that could be damaging to your system or your eye. Proceed with caution, and although this is highly unlikely, we don't take any responsibility for that!
The MPlayer developers don't appear to be telling people they can't distribute MPlayer in binary form, they used to due to license issues, but not now.
And according to the MPlayer developers, they are no longer using any code that isn't distributable under the GPL.
Does anyone have a clue as to what the fuck is actually going on? What am I missing here?
The company I work for started up(on the www) in 1995, and we've always had dynamic content. Somewhere, static content linked to that dynamic content, so I think that would qualify. Too bad we don't have an archive of our website from back then; although we do have plenty of printouts and screen captures that probably show this old stuff...
Simply unbelievable what the patent office lets through these days...
Actually, your choice there is not to buy the software. That's one little detail that people like yourself forget when they decry the evils of closed source.
What the fuck are you talking about? Of course you have that choice! WTF?
With OSS, the equivalent choice is to not include that software in your own, but you can still use it, study it, look at it, etc. OSS software gives you equal + more choices than proprietary software -- integrating the software into your own according to OSS licensing terms/using it/integrating it and not distributing it(in which case you are not bound by any terms) OR getting a non-OSS/proprietary license from the authors of the software for you to use in your own proprietary product(if the authors are willing), whereas with proprietary software you cannot use it under any conditions without consent of the authors.
The extreme (let's screw ourselves because the tool/os/app we need is not 100% certifiably open source free-as-in-whatever) is problematic at best and stupid at worst.
I read about this a week or two ago on LWN and newsforge. Why the hell wasn't this on/. then? This is important stuff!
As far as I can tell, our government(to all you other Americans) is favoring proprietary software vendors(ie. Microsoft) over OSS/free vendors, including RedHat, IBM, HP, etc. OSS has become integral to a number of U.S. based companies, BIG companies like IBM and HP. OSS/free software is also used internally at companies like WalMart, Burlington Coat Factory, and our oh-so-fucking-precious movie studios.
What incentive does our government have to favor certain U.S. based companies over others? You have one guess...
3) Free software is NOT always the best option. Especially for large businesses which are concerned about the potential license taint and support issues. I love Free Software, but it's not always the right fit.
"potential license taint"? What are you talking about? There is no potential license taint with free software. It is distributed under certain terms, if you want to incorporate the software in your own, then you have to either accept those terms or license a proprietary version of said software, if possible. With proprietary software, the only option you have is the latter.
Stop spreading this bullshit FUD about license tainting; it's absolutely ridiculous.
You say you love free software, if so, then please understand what you are saying about it.
Sure, and then when I miss my wife's call that she is going into labor, I will beat you till you need to visit the hospital too.
Look, I *hate* it when cell phones go off in theatres, just as much, actually probably more, as anyone. But that's the same problem as people talking in theatres, some assholes are just plain rude.
The way to handle it is not to block the use of technology, just deal with the offenders appropriately. In a theatre, you stand up and say, "hey asshole, turn that damn thing off", and you will be rewarded by the other patrons with a round of applause. Yes, I do this, other people do this, and yes, it works. It's just the same as when someone is talking to another person in the theatre and bothering everyone. They're simply rude people, the technology is not to blame.
Carrying around a cell jammer is just as arrogant and self-centered as the assholes who talk on cells in theatres.
I was by no means saying that there should only be one open source browser, or that Apple should have used mozilla, or anything of the like. I entirely agree with you, and it would appear the Mozilla developers do as well. I haven't had a chance to try Safari yet, as I don't own a Mac, but I can't wait to give it a whirl.
Really, I was honestly wondering what the poster of the parent to my post thought was wrong with Chimera.
Damn, I've gotta say, it sure is a good time to be a non-MS operating system user. Whatever else is still lacking(on OS X, I can't think of anything), we've got the web browser covered.;-)
If people really read the article, and then read the original comments, they'd see that the moz developers weren't "hurt" by Apple's decision. Quite the contrary. They're happy to see another standards compliant browser.
This is really, really interesting to see this though. 2 years ago some people were getting worried that alternative OS users would be unable to browse the web by this time, but today we've got 2 OS standards compliant rendering that beat the pants off IE in speed, correctness, and to top it off, cost.
And despite the technical problems with Mozilla, people are still able to crank out excellent, lean, fast browsers such as Chimera and Phoenix, and other applications for embedded devices, etc.
Mozilla has become a platform, and KHTML has become the lean, fast rendering engine Mozilla was originally going to be.
What don't you like about Chimera? It's small(10MB last time I downloaded it), fast(mozilla rendering is slightly faster than IE, the "industry standard"), it's extremely pretty(perfectly integrated into OS X, including using Aqua widgets in web pages, OS X style sidebard, etc), standards compliant(moz is definately the most standards compliant browser out there today), stable(now. safari is still beta quality).
So what happens when that Snickers wrapper gets blown out your car window by accident. Right now, a cop isn't going to give you trouble over such a thing because he'd have to see you to fine you, and he's not likely to fine you over a simple mistake.
Besides, I think candy wrappers are the least of the problems the enviornment has. First I think we should find ways to reduce toxic waste dumping, etc.
Hey, I think you're really on to something. They explicitly gave everyone the right to use all the Linux code under the GPL when they themselves distributed it.
Legally, they may be able to revoke it, at least partially. That may depend on how the GPL holds up in court.
OTOH, if they were able to revoke it, I'm sure IBM and RH would have a good case against them for a lawsuit. Afterall, if the GPL is thrown out in favor of a big corp.(likely, given our courts' history), I don't see why it also wouldn't be equally likely for it to be upheld for a big corp., such as RH or IBM.
It hardly matters. If SCO tries to extort money from people using Linux, the SCO will lose it's run to distribute Linux in any form whatsoever. The GPL forbids distributing anything under the GPL license that is patented and the patent isn't freely usable.
If SCO tries anything, Torvalds, Stallman, et al will have cause to sue SCO and force them to drop their patent claims.
Still, SCO could stop distributing Linux, and demand others do so as well... There's nothing the GPL can do about that. This would simply force another vendor to buy their patent, such as RH or IBM, etc.
OTOH, these claims are still completely unsubstantiated.
This type of crap is just another reason software patents should be not allowed... Ridiculous.
You sir, are entirely correct. The situations simply are not comparable, not in the least. It's quite pathetic to pretend they are as well.
And I am saying this as someone who has spent a great deal of money fighting these things, and who believes the future of the American economy depends on fighting these things.
But comparing the U.S. to totalitarian regimes is absolutely ridiculous.
The U.S. has no such thing to gain. It's a possibility, but is by no means a sure thing. The U.S. will help the Iraqi people setup a new government, not by forcing a government on them, but by keeping U.S. military in the country to prevent a violent coup by Islamic militants and other such extremists.
U.S. oil companies will get to drill only if the new government lets them, which would probably be decided years after the new government is established.
Furthermore, the U.S. DOESN'T NEED Iraqi oil, and it is fucking ridiculous to make these stupid claims like you have made. The U.S. gets less than half as much oil from the Middle East as any European country. I could make the claim that EU politicians that are against war in Iraq are against it because they get cheap oil from Iraq with the food for oil program, much moreso than the U.S. does. Perhaps they are affraid of that going away!
The U.S. has very little to gain from war with Iraq, except the extermination of a dictator who tried to assasinate a former U.S. president.
Do I support war with Iraq? You bet! Why? To give the people of Iraq freedom! No other reason is there that I care about.
I've seen this too, but I think I know why they feel that way. Being on/., they are probably pretty computer saavy, possibly system administrators and programmers. But they only know windows, and they are scared of emerging technology. *nix is completely alien to them, and for many a command line probably is too.
It's quite sad that people would react this way, instead of just deciding the learn something new so they are prepared if they ever need to use it... But, there you go, people are like that.
I think it's the same for software companies who respond to requests for Linux ports with vitriol, instead of just saying, "not at this time". They have no *nix experience, and hence are scared of Linux taking hold in the industry.
Well, that was a good reason to "screw the Xbox", but I've got another, even more important reason.
No, not "because it's Microsoft". I may be a Linux zealot, but I'm not insane.
No, the reason I will not buy an Xbox is because I refuse to help MS demo/test it's goddam drm systems. The Xbox is a PC with DRM builtin, that only runs MS signed software. Palladium will be essentially the same thing. THIS is was MS wants to turn PCs into.
If you don't want to help them do that, don't buy an Xbox.
"True, the BSD code is much older--a dozen years older--but it wasn't free until Linux had been in development for about a year. That gave Linux a head start, which captured most of the Internet's untapped enthusiasm for a personal UNIX."
From http://www.nb.net/~lbudney/linux/bsd.html
With regards to GNU/HURD... I dunno, maybe, it's impossible to say.
Larry Wall - This guy is great. He created Perl, a fun, interesting language with great obfuscation potential! - disclaimer: I earn a living writing Perl;-)
John Carmack - Doom, Quake, Q3A engine, etc. Plus he works on rockets! John Carmack has done a lot to promote the state of computing today. Just look at how people benchmark PCs, "I got 1.5 trillion fps in Q3A dude!"
Linus Torvalds - He gave us the last piece to a free *nix. Who knows what would have happened to the GNU project without him.
Richard Stallman - He started the GNU project. He also should probably be awarded a medal for the most misunderstood person in the industry. There is an equal amount of FUD directed at him as there is directed at GNU/Linux from Microsoft.
Steve Wozniak - Come on, you can't forget this guy!
Steve Jobs - Now here is someone who has had an interesting career. He's also the guy who started the push to make software "pretty". Just look at OS X.
Nothing. My problem is when somebody says that OS X depends on Linux or GNU software. That isn't remotely true.
I never said in depended on Linux, just GNU/free software tools, and in it's current for it indeed does. You stupidly make the point that if it wasn't for the free software that Apple is using, they could develop/use something else. Duh! But they DIDN'T! But sure, I see/saw your point, as stupid as it was, but then you went on to make ridiculous disparaging remarks towards GNU/Linux developers.
Heh. That's right. They were written by the FreeBSD developers. Not the "GNU/Linux community," whatever the heck that means.
There you go again with the starwmen! That is totally orthogonal to my point. GCC was developed by/for the GNU project, which was what I was talking about.
Apple's relationship to the "GNU/Linux community" is a competitive one, not a cooperative one.
Another ridiculous statement by a ridiculous person. Sure, they are definately in competition, but they are ALSO cooperating with the free software community, and doing so very openly. You obviously haven't looked at the correspondence between Apple developers and free software developers, you just blather on in your total ignorance.
Oh, and by the way, how's that anger management course working out for you? Doesn't seem to be helping much, from what I can see.
Go fuck yourself. At least I don't have to hold un-fucking-believable contradictions as truth to be content with the platform I use. You, OTOH, can't even admit that the platform that you use has benefitted a lot from the free software community you so despise.
Please don't bother replying, I'm not going to argue with you while you continue to beat ridiculous strawmen.
You complete ass! Apple is using stuff developed by the GNU/Linux community, and you come back saying THAT! You arrogant, pompous ass!
WTF is your problem with recognizing that GNU/Linux has made software that has benefitted Apple?
And with regards to GCC, sure, Apple may have developed the Objective C parts of the compiler, but unix tools(everything on OSX that isn't part of the GUI) aren't written in Objective C.
Simply un-fucking-believable...
The fact is, Apple chose to use tools developed by the GNU/Linux community, because they were they best tools to suit what they needed. Props to Apple, they make great stuff, I like them, and I'm glad they have been willing to work with other people, contributing code, etc. You, OTOH, are a complete ass.
Why not plug your books in your sig? Or indirectly, you could just link to this/. review. Lots of people do it, and I haven't noticed anyone who minds. FYI, I just purchased your book, thanks to this glowing/. review.
And while I'm typing at you, I'm really glad that you're donating money to the EFF. There are just too many people who simply don't put their money where their mouths are.
Microsoft has a long history of treating their business partners like shit, helping them to collapse and reaping the benefits. I see people criticizing Microsoft for that, which is a valid complaint. Treating business partners in such a manner is NOT standard business practice, but it's standard practice for Microsoft.
What gets me is that persons like yourself come to their defense so quickly. The same/.ers who complain about Microsoft also complain about Linux companies when they do equally "bad" things.
And furthermore, WTF are you talking about "innocent until proven guilty"? THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN GUILTY, IN COURT, MORE THAN ONCE!
Sweet leaping Jesus, do you just ignore those facts so you can paint people who dislike Microsoft with a very broad brush?
Well, I was talking about my home network if that makes sense. From your comments I could hardly have elucidated that you were somehow talking about your *work*.
Then why the fuck did you use the example of 4(!) win2k machines? I apologize for assuming you had less experience with win* then you actually do.
OMFG M$ suxxor ROLOFL linux adn BsD is teh bomb!!11!"
Ok... Please stop putting line noise in my mouth, thanks.
That's why you're such an expert in Windows 2000 and why your servers (?) and workstations just wouldn't damn work.
I *never* said that. Our workstations work fine. *ALL* I said was that we have had *some* serious problems with win2k. And furthermore, I said the last time we had a serious problem was over a year ago. And you take this to mean our "workstations just wouldn't damn work"...
Our servers, and a couple workstations, run Linux and BSD, which we have never had any serious problems with. And no, we have never had any serious filesystem corruption with either Linux or BSD.
We are not falling all over ourselves trying to make our network work as you seem to think. It works fine, even the win2k machines. A couple win2k machines have had serious enough problems to require reinstalling windows, nothing catostrophic, just annoying.
Ooooohhhh, 4 whole machines, that's like, enough win2k experience to call yourself... well, not much.
I help manage a hell of a lot more machines than that, buddy, and in my experience, which is in no way conslusive but is a damn sight more than yours, it's got some serious problems.
Last time we had to reinstall win2k on a machine was over a year ago. I wish I could remember the details of what went wrong with it. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with very extensive filesystem corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has been removed.
Standard Disclaimer:
Use only at your own risk! There may be errors and inaccuracies that could be damaging to your system or your eye. Proceed with caution, and although this is highly unlikely, we don't take any responsibility for that!
The MPlayer developers don't appear to be telling people they can't distribute MPlayer in binary form, they used to due to license issues, but not now.
And according to the MPlayer developers, they are no longer using any code that isn't distributable under the GPL.
Does anyone have a clue as to what the fuck is actually going on? What am I missing here?
Simply unbelievable what the patent office lets through these days...
What the fuck are you talking about? Of course you have that choice! WTF?
With OSS, the equivalent choice is to not include that software in your own, but you can still use it, study it, look at it, etc. OSS software gives you equal + more choices than proprietary software -- integrating the software into your own according to OSS licensing terms/using it/integrating it and not distributing it(in which case you are not bound by any terms) OR getting a non-OSS/proprietary license from the authors of the software for you to use in your own proprietary product(if the authors are willing), whereas with proprietary software you cannot use it under any conditions without consent of the authors.
The extreme (let's screw ourselves because the tool/os/app we need is not 100% certifiably open source free-as-in-whatever) is problematic at best and stupid at worst.
Where the hell did I ever say that?
Get a fuckin` clue...
As far as I can tell, our government(to all you other Americans) is favoring proprietary software vendors(ie. Microsoft) over OSS/free vendors, including RedHat, IBM, HP, etc. OSS has become integral to a number of U.S. based companies, BIG companies like IBM and HP. OSS/free software is also used internally at companies like WalMart, Burlington Coat Factory, and our oh-so-fucking-precious movie studios.
What incentive does our government have to favor certain U.S. based companies over others? You have one guess...
"potential license taint"? What are you talking about? There is no potential license taint with free software. It is distributed under certain terms, if you want to incorporate the software in your own, then you have to either accept those terms or license a proprietary version of said software, if possible. With proprietary software, the only option you have is the latter.
Stop spreading this bullshit FUD about license tainting; it's absolutely ridiculous.
You say you love free software, if so, then please understand what you are saying about it.
Look, I *hate* it when cell phones go off in theatres, just as much, actually probably more, as anyone. But that's the same problem as people talking in theatres, some assholes are just plain rude.
The way to handle it is not to block the use of technology, just deal with the offenders appropriately. In a theatre, you stand up and say, "hey asshole, turn that damn thing off", and you will be rewarded by the other patrons with a round of applause. Yes, I do this, other people do this, and yes, it works. It's just the same as when someone is talking to another person in the theatre and bothering everyone. They're simply rude people, the technology is not to blame.
Carrying around a cell jammer is just as arrogant and self-centered as the assholes who talk on cells in theatres.
Really, I was honestly wondering what the poster of the parent to my post thought was wrong with Chimera.
Damn, I've gotta say, it sure is a good time to be a non-MS operating system user. Whatever else is still lacking(on OS X, I can't think of anything), we've got the web browser covered. ;-)
This is really, really interesting to see this though. 2 years ago some people were getting worried that alternative OS users would be unable to browse the web by this time, but today we've got 2 OS standards compliant rendering that beat the pants off IE in speed, correctness, and to top it off, cost.
And despite the technical problems with Mozilla, people are still able to crank out excellent, lean, fast browsers such as Chimera and Phoenix, and other applications for embedded devices, etc.
Mozilla has become a platform, and KHTML has become the lean, fast rendering engine Mozilla was originally going to be.
Cheers
What could possibly be wrong with Chimera?
Besides, I think candy wrappers are the least of the problems the enviornment has. First I think we should find ways to reduce toxic waste dumping, etc.
Legally, they may be able to revoke it, at least partially. That may depend on how the GPL holds up in court.
OTOH, if they were able to revoke it, I'm sure IBM and RH would have a good case against them for a lawsuit. Afterall, if the GPL is thrown out in favor of a big corp.(likely, given our courts' history), I don't see why it also wouldn't be equally likely for it to be upheld for a big corp., such as RH or IBM.
If SCO tries anything, Torvalds, Stallman, et al will have cause to sue SCO and force them to drop their patent claims.
Still, SCO could stop distributing Linux, and demand others do so as well... There's nothing the GPL can do about that. This would simply force another vendor to buy their patent, such as RH or IBM, etc.
OTOH, these claims are still completely unsubstantiated.
This type of crap is just another reason software patents should be not allowed... Ridiculous.
And I am saying this as someone who has spent a great deal of money fighting these things, and who believes the future of the American economy depends on fighting these things.
But comparing the U.S. to totalitarian regimes is absolutely ridiculous.
U.S. oil companies will get to drill only if the new government lets them, which would probably be decided years after the new government is established.
Furthermore, the U.S. DOESN'T NEED Iraqi oil, and it is fucking ridiculous to make these stupid claims like you have made. The U.S. gets less than half as much oil from the Middle East as any European country. I could make the claim that EU politicians that are against war in Iraq are against it because they get cheap oil from Iraq with the food for oil program, much moreso than the U.S. does. Perhaps they are affraid of that going away!
The U.S. has very little to gain from war with Iraq, except the extermination of a dictator who tried to assasinate a former U.S. president.
Do I support war with Iraq? You bet! Why? To give the people of Iraq freedom! No other reason is there that I care about.
It's quite sad that people would react this way, instead of just deciding the learn something new so they are prepared if they ever need to use it... But, there you go, people are like that.
I think it's the same for software companies who respond to requests for Linux ports with vitriol, instead of just saying, "not at this time". They have no *nix experience, and hence are scared of Linux taking hold in the industry.
Anyway, that's what I think.
No, not "because it's Microsoft". I may be a Linux zealot, but I'm not insane.
No, the reason I will not buy an Xbox is because I refuse to help MS demo/test it's goddam drm systems. The Xbox is a PC with DRM builtin, that only runs MS signed software. Palladium will be essentially the same thing. THIS is was MS wants to turn PCs into.
If you don't want to help them do that, don't buy an Xbox.
From http://www.nb.net/~lbudney/linux/bsd.html
With regards to GNU/HURD... I dunno, maybe, it's impossible to say.
John Carmack - Doom, Quake, Q3A engine, etc. Plus he works on rockets! John Carmack has done a lot to promote the state of computing today. Just look at how people benchmark PCs, "I got 1.5 trillion fps in Q3A dude!"
Linus Torvalds - He gave us the last piece to a free *nix. Who knows what would have happened to the GNU project without him.
Richard Stallman - He started the GNU project. He also should probably be awarded a medal for the most misunderstood person in the industry. There is an equal amount of FUD directed at him as there is directed at GNU/Linux from Microsoft.
Steve Wozniak - Come on, you can't forget this guy!
Steve Jobs - Now here is someone who has had an interesting career. He's also the guy who started the push to make software "pretty". Just look at OS X.
There's plenty of others.
I never said in depended on Linux, just GNU/free software tools, and in it's current for it indeed does. You stupidly make the point that if it wasn't for the free software that Apple is using, they could develop/use something else. Duh! But they DIDN'T! But sure, I see/saw your point, as stupid as it was, but then you went on to make ridiculous disparaging remarks towards GNU/Linux developers.
Heh. That's right. They were written by the FreeBSD developers. Not the "GNU/Linux community," whatever the heck that means.
There you go again with the starwmen! That is totally orthogonal to my point. GCC was developed by/for the GNU project, which was what I was talking about.
Apple's relationship to the "GNU/Linux community" is a competitive one, not a cooperative one.
Another ridiculous statement by a ridiculous person. Sure, they are definately in competition, but they are ALSO cooperating with the free software community, and doing so very openly. You obviously haven't looked at the correspondence between Apple developers and free software developers, you just blather on in your total ignorance.
Oh, and by the way, how's that anger management course working out for you? Doesn't seem to be helping much, from what I can see.
Go fuck yourself. At least I don't have to hold un-fucking-believable contradictions as truth to be content with the platform I use. You, OTOH, can't even admit that the platform that you use has benefitted a lot from the free software community you so despise.
Please don't bother replying, I'm not going to argue with you while you continue to beat ridiculous strawmen.
WTF is your problem with recognizing that GNU/Linux has made software that has benefitted Apple?
And with regards to GCC, sure, Apple may have developed the Objective C parts of the compiler, but unix tools(everything on OSX that isn't part of the GUI) aren't written in Objective C.
Simply un-fucking-believable...
The fact is, Apple chose to use tools developed by the GNU/Linux community, because they were they best tools to suit what they needed. Props to Apple, they make great stuff, I like them, and I'm glad they have been willing to work with other people, contributing code, etc. You, OTOH, are a complete ass.
And while I'm typing at you, I'm really glad that you're donating money to the EFF. There are just too many people who simply don't put their money where their mouths are.
Cheers
What gets me is that persons like yourself come to their defense so quickly. The same /.ers who complain about Microsoft also complain about Linux companies when they do equally "bad" things.
And furthermore, WTF are you talking about "innocent until proven guilty"? THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN GUILTY, IN COURT, MORE THAN ONCE!
Sweet leaping Jesus, do you just ignore those facts so you can paint people who dislike Microsoft with a very broad brush?
Then why the fuck did you use the example of 4(!) win2k machines? I apologize for assuming you had less experience with win* then you actually do.
OMFG M$ suxxor ROLOFL linux adn BsD is teh bomb!!11!"
Ok... Please stop putting line noise in my mouth, thanks.
That's why you're such an expert in Windows 2000 and why your servers (?) and workstations just wouldn't damn work.
I *never* said that. Our workstations work fine. *ALL* I said was that we have had *some* serious problems with win2k. And furthermore, I said the last time we had a serious problem was over a year ago. And you take this to mean our "workstations just wouldn't damn work"...
Our servers, and a couple workstations, run Linux and BSD, which we have never had any serious problems with. And no, we have never had any serious filesystem corruption with either Linux or BSD.
We are not falling all over ourselves trying to make our network work as you seem to think. It works fine, even the win2k machines. A couple win2k machines have had serious enough problems to require reinstalling windows, nothing catostrophic, just annoying.
I help manage a hell of a lot more machines than that, buddy, and in my experience, which is in no way conslusive but is a damn sight more than yours, it's got some serious problems.
Last time we had to reinstall win2k on a machine was over a year ago. I wish I could remember the details of what went wrong with it. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with very extensive filesystem corruption.