I know it's been a while since I rapped at ya...but...
So I took the plunge and installed RedHat 6.0 from a cheapbytes CD. Everything seems a lot slower now. Whether it is KDE 1.1 or something else, there is a noticeable performance loss.
Even worse, is my c++ compiler is not linking libstdc++ automatically. I'm sure there is an easy solution, but I haven't found it yet (and I did post to redhat.general and c.o.l.m).
The interface is a lot slicker now. I installed it on a newbie's machines and he liked it. There is definately an improvement over fvwm for newbies.
(And for those who care, VigMeUp is back under development...expect a new version RSN...)
I was a little skeptical yesterday when I read about this here. But now, it appears to be true.
It is a shame that mozilla will lose jwz. I wish that he could still help efforts at mozilla.org, however, I doubt he will.
I fear that losing jwz may cause some of the Netscape employees that are working on the mozilla.org project to reassess their goals and maybe either persuade the Netscape branch of AOL to become more innovative.
My only hope is that the community can rally around this event and use it to make a better browser.
I've attached the relevant portion of the LGPL, version 2. This software is currently in violation of the LGPL for a few reasons:
1. I was not made aware of my rights at any time. 2. In conjunction with 1, I was not given a copy of the LGPL at the time of download and it was only through searching through the binary that I saw that this was included LGPL code. 3. I was not made aware that this included LGPL code.
Netshow has no license associated with it that I saw when I downloaded it, however, I've never seen a Microsoft license allow disassembling/decompiling/debugging.
I do believe that someone at the FSF will be hearing about this.
From Section 6 of the Library GPL, version 2 (sorry if it doesn't display right)
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
c) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
d) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
(This was snagged from http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html, sorry if it ran long.)
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's been a while since I rapped at ya...but...
So I took the plunge and installed RedHat 6.0 from a cheapbytes CD. Everything seems a lot slower now. Whether it is KDE 1.1 or something else, there is a noticeable performance loss.
Even worse, is my c++ compiler is not linking libstdc++ automatically. I'm sure there is an easy solution, but I haven't found it yet (and I did post to redhat.general and c.o.l.m).
The interface is a lot slicker now. I installed it on a newbie's machines and he liked it. There is definately an improvement over fvwm for newbies.
(And for those who care, VigMeUp is back under development...expect a new version RSN...)
I was a little skeptical yesterday when I read about this here. But now, it appears to be true.
It is a shame that mozilla will lose jwz. I wish that he could still help efforts at mozilla.org, however, I doubt he will.
I fear that losing jwz may cause some of the Netscape employees that are working on the mozilla.org project to reassess their goals and maybe either persuade the Netscape branch of AOL to become more innovative.
My only hope is that the community can rally around this event and use it to make a better browser.
Who's Linux, and since when did he or she become the head kernel honcho?
:P~~~~~~~~~~
I think that most people should understand the concept of license, don't you think? How about:
"In open-source software, the license on the underlying command codes allow all to see and improve on them."
Sound good?
No copyright? BUZZZ!! Wrong...GPL is a copyright, it just gives you the rights! :)
Ummm...Burlington, NJ? :)
Try http://www.coat.com for all of their locations.
I've attached the relevant portion of the LGPL, version 2. This software is currently in violation of the LGPL for a few reasons:
1. I was not made aware of my rights at any time.
2. In conjunction with 1, I was not given a copy of the LGPL at the time of download and it was only through searching through the binary that I saw that this was included LGPL code.
3. I was not made aware that this included LGPL code.
Netshow has no license associated with it that I saw when I downloaded it, however, I've never seen a Microsoft license allow disassembling/decompiling/debugging.
I do believe that someone at the FSF will be hearing about this.
From Section 6 of the Library GPL, version 2 (sorry if it doesn't display right)
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification
of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do
one of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable
linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code,
so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is
understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the
application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in
Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
c) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the
above specified materials from the same place.
d) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
(This was snagged from http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html, sorry if it ran long.)
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=gender&aid=-1
Sorry to push this in your face, but I'm bitter. We just lost our hoops game to @#$#@ wisconson. I hate red. I really do...