From the FSF, "The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"
IANAL and I'm not really motivated to research more seriously. It seems like GPL v3 currently brings the two back into compliance.
FYI, from further looking into this, it seems Ubuntu only includes an older version of Apache that was licensed under the Apache v1 license, not the latest versions as Apache v2, is not compatible with GPL v2 (although it is with GPL v1, and v3 so far). As for ideological differences, the incompatibility is that contributors to Apache or LaunchD need to disclose and license (in some way) any patents that cover material they contribute. I'm not sure that is a ideological reason to avoid these projects for the Ubuntu team or anyone else in favor of free software.
You do realize that the first copyright (queen anne) had nothing to do with commerce?
Umm, copyright, under other names, long predates the Statute of Anne, which actually replaces a stationers' legal monopoly on printing of books. The statute to which you refer certainly had a lot to do with commercial interests.
The most common and fundamental disagreement I hear with regard to intellectual property ethics is a disagreement about why people have intellectual property rights and to what degree they should have them. Most educated individuals understand in abstract terms that intellectual property rights are artificial rights, granted in an effort to engineer a greater common good by restricting the rights of "consumers" for the profit of "creators." A fair number, however, do nto yet grasp this concept and most do not really understand how it applies in the real world.
I'd use books as an example. Bring in a really new book and a really old book. Ask the class if it is ethical for them to make copies of each for various purposes and why. By using a very old book (the bible, shakespeare, or the like) you can demonstrate the harm to society of restricting free access to copying works. By showing a new book you can demonstrate the value to society for legally restricting access to a work for a short time in order to motivate progress.
Then ask the class to create the ideal copyright system that maximizes the benefit to society while minimizing the harm to society. You can do this same exercise with patents, trade secrets, or trademarks too, but copyright is one of the easiest to understand. Aspects of copyright law discuss, how long the monopoly should last, what conditions should invalidate it, what exceptions should be made (fair use, noncommercial?), opt-in verus opt-out, and if reference copies should be kept.
If you want a good and interesting anecdote, look to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" which was a box office flop and would never have reached the public or had the copyright not expired and PBS subsequently aired it. It illustrates well the concept that works are often not recognized as valuable to society by copyright holders or the general public until long after they are initially offered to the people.
I hope you can take some ideas from what I've written here. Good luck.
From replies to my comment and some quick looking around, it seems the Apache v1 license is compatible with GPL v1, v2, and v3. Apache v2 license is compatible with GPL v1 and v3, but not v2. Since Apple's site is down, I don't know which version of the Apache license LaunchD is licensed under, but apparently Ubuntu relies upon GPL v2 and does not include the current releases of Apache (under the Apache v2 license) as a result.
Re:Upstart faster how?...
on
Ubuntu 6.10 is Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The older v1.3.x version of Apache is under a different license.
Interesting. From a two minute quick look through Google, it seems the Apache license v2 is compatible with versions 1 and 3 of the GPL license, but not version 2, which is what Ubuntu relies upon. Apparently the specific issue is patent protection. The Apache requires that submarine patents be revealed and licensed for included code, while GPL v2 does not.
You're completely missing the fact that this means that SP3 will come out a year after Vista ships.
Umm, this entire line of discussion presupposes that SP3 will be delayed for an unreasonable amount of time, or that it will never be released (making Vista, Linux, and other candidates more attractive). Are you sure you're responding to the right post?
That's true, but only to a certain extent. Will the training/problems that arise...
That is a different question entirely. The parent post did not claim that a lack of SP3 would mean everyone will switch to Linux. He said it would provide additional motivation for people (all or some?) to switch. It does provide motivation, although how much and what effect that will have in any given enterprise is still a matter of debate.
So if the FSF marks the Apache license as incompatible, does that mean Ubuntu does not include Apache, because it sure seems to be there in my install?
Re:Upstart faster how?...
on
Ubuntu 6.10 is Out
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This wiki should answer that question for you.
I don't get it. That says it was rejected because of licensing issues. LaunchD is licensed under the Apache license. Does Ubuntu not include Apache which is presumably under the same license?
Yes, I'm sure Joe Sixpack is going to switch to Apple/Linux because SP3 for XP wasn't released...
Unlikely, but the previous poster did not mention who he thought might be motivated. Johnny Systems Engineer might be more motivated to migrate his enterprise to Linux if SP3 is never released and he must choose between upgrading all machines and replacing many of them outright, or finally funding that Linux migration the junior sysadmin has been trying to sell him on.
...and the way you take said rejection; you'd think they hit on your sister and insulted your mother. Lighten up dude.
I don't mind a discussion about the size of digital elf pectorals. It is inane, but mildly amusing. Still, I can get the same discussion on Digg or somewhere else. The quality of the comments is not related to the audience base of Slashdot. It is hard, however, to find a forum where one can have a real, informed discussion about emerging security mechanisms, just now preparing to enter the mainstream. I can discuss them with five guys on a BSD forum, who are very knowledgeable, but in order to get some more varied information a wider discussion is in order.
I don't care if the editors post my story. I just want them to post the info from someone so that I can actually ask a few real questions and get some feedback. It has been three days now since this info was released and still nothing has made it on any forums or major news sites. I resubmitted the info as another story with more quotes and more of my own opinions and it has been pending for a while now.
The only reason I interjected it here was because someone else brought up the subject of whether the WoW blurb was really news and I thought it was a funny demonstration of what is and is not accepted as "news for nerds." Given the fact that it was for several hours the only +5 modded post here, I suspect I'm not the only one who thought so.
Unfortunately many more people find this minor tidbit of information more interesting and relevant than a tedious discussion about program controls for a minor platform./i>
Yeah. Those people are called "nerds." Oh well. I'm sure I can half-heartedly pay attention to a horribly misinformed discussion about these features in ten years, when Micrososft gets around to copying them.
Heh, the last thing I expected was someone to dig up a person who models tentacled things. Very cool. You've raised my expectations for the Slashdot crowd.
Hmmm, "Lovecraft" a new MMORPG where you build a custom avatar (male, female, andro, or herma), dress it from our selection of fashionable apparel, and then have to build up your sexual prowess and skill by boinking everyone else and NPCs. I see a new market. Now if we can just keep it from being populated with Cthulu fans I can make a mint.
Don't the cellphone companies already have convenient ways for people to send video voicemails to each other? Not that their systems would do everything this new company is doing, but it would be a good way to judge demand... which apparently isn't very high.
As near as I can tell, this offering does not replicate the functionality of the cell phone companies, but relies upon it. It looks like you use your service to send a short video to this company and they post it to a Website for you and let you manage who can access that site. Only people who make an account can view the videos, so it will never go anywhere.
Because it is so much more "news for nerds" than the info Apple posted about adding application signing, mandatory access controls, resolution independence, OpenGL 2.1, and automatic threading to use multiple cores for single threaded OpenGL applications in Leopard, that I submitted and had rejected yesterday.
Oh, I get that (I think). What I mean is why should the RIAA allow Walmart to use this broken DRM purchased from the same third party as is selling Sandisk the tools to break it?
They key to understanding the answer to this is another question, "why does the RIAA want the tracks encumbered with DRM in the first place?' The answer, to make moving them to new formats and new devices inconvenient and to provide a way digitally stored music can eventually break. All of this is simply to motivate more sales, so they can resell the same music multiple times. The RIAA's nightmare is all of everyone's music lasting forever and being inherited by their children without them being paid again.
I agree that it's excellent graphic design, but UI design generally relates to the function of the UI rather than its appearance.
These two are more intertwined than you seem to think. For example, contrast and visibility of items is a very integral part of UI design. So if you're likely ot be viewing full varied color images/video and pages that are black text on white (simulating paper) and pages that are light grey/color on black (minimum eyestrain terminals and the like) what color is the ideal? Obviously grey is the only color that maintains the best contrast with all of these situations. Is a single color of grey, or slight variations better? With a single color it could happen to match up exactly with major elements of the contents of a window. With slight variations it is highly unlikely something would happen to match a pattern exactly. So a medium grey frame with slight variation to it is pretty ideal from a user interface perspective. I don't agree with all of Apple's UI design decisions, but as someone with a more than passing knowledge in the field, I'm always bemused when people rail against this one.
A good UI is one where I can figure out what I need to do quickly and one that doesn't get in my way when I already know how to use it; it's difficult to have both in practice, so you generally have a compromise between the two.
These are two aspects of usability, generally the former is called "learnability."
I mean, shit, this is the ancient choice between freedom or security.
Except that is a false dichotomy. Reducing freedom does not lead to more security. Let me point out how in this instance. Fast forward a few years and only MS can insert kernel modules without an exploit. Does this mean malware writers can't insert malware into the kernel or have to work harder to do so? Probably not, since they usually use exploits to get code running in the kernel in the first place and MS hasn't shown any way this will change that. So we'll still have malware running in the kernel. Will antivirus detect it? No. Why not? Well right now some worms specifically are designed to hide from some of the common detection tools, but it is really hard because their are so many of them. If only MS is allowed to run in the kernel, then only MS will need to be targeted by the malware to hide from.
It is basically the same monoculture problem Windows battles today. If there is only one defense, it is easy to defeat. If their are a large variety of defenses and you don't know which you will be up against, you might beat some, but not all. With multiple defense solutions, each vendor has direct financial motivation to improve their product. With only one solution there is no competition. Users will pay for it wen they buy Windows, so why bother making it any better than a token gesture?
Personally, I prefer the company writing my anti-virus solution to have a direct, financial interest in it being successful. I want to know that the engineers and managers at that company realize if it doesn't work, they'll be looking for a new job soon and their stock options will be worth jack shit. I basically want the benefits normally brought by capitalism, when competition is not bypassed using illegal, monopolistic tactics.
It's obviously best to simply give up and leave, rather than actually stand up and do something about changing your country.
It is what the US was founded upon, people leaving their own countries to go somewhere better where they could practice their insane religion, or simply get away from the oppressive governments.
Slashdot Mirror
From the FSF, "The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"
IANAL and I'm not really motivated to research more seriously. It seems like GPL v3 currently brings the two back into compliance.
FYI, from further looking into this, it seems Ubuntu only includes an older version of Apache that was licensed under the Apache v1 license, not the latest versions as Apache v2, is not compatible with GPL v2 (although it is with GPL v1, and v3 so far). As for ideological differences, the incompatibility is that contributors to Apache or LaunchD need to disclose and license (in some way) any patents that cover material they contribute. I'm not sure that is a ideological reason to avoid these projects for the Ubuntu team or anyone else in favor of free software.
You do realize that the first copyright (queen anne) had nothing to do with commerce?
Umm, copyright, under other names, long predates the Statute of Anne, which actually replaces a stationers' legal monopoly on printing of books. The statute to which you refer certainly had a lot to do with commercial interests.
The most common and fundamental disagreement I hear with regard to intellectual property ethics is a disagreement about why people have intellectual property rights and to what degree they should have them. Most educated individuals understand in abstract terms that intellectual property rights are artificial rights, granted in an effort to engineer a greater common good by restricting the rights of "consumers" for the profit of "creators." A fair number, however, do nto yet grasp this concept and most do not really understand how it applies in the real world.
I'd use books as an example. Bring in a really new book and a really old book. Ask the class if it is ethical for them to make copies of each for various purposes and why. By using a very old book (the bible, shakespeare, or the like) you can demonstrate the harm to society of restricting free access to copying works. By showing a new book you can demonstrate the value to society for legally restricting access to a work for a short time in order to motivate progress.
Then ask the class to create the ideal copyright system that maximizes the benefit to society while minimizing the harm to society. You can do this same exercise with patents, trade secrets, or trademarks too, but copyright is one of the easiest to understand. Aspects of copyright law discuss, how long the monopoly should last, what conditions should invalidate it, what exceptions should be made (fair use, noncommercial?), opt-in verus opt-out, and if reference copies should be kept.
If you want a good and interesting anecdote, look to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" which was a box office flop and would never have reached the public or had the copyright not expired and PBS subsequently aired it. It illustrates well the concept that works are often not recognized as valuable to society by copyright holders or the general public until long after they are initially offered to the people.
I hope you can take some ideas from what I've written here. Good luck.
From replies to my comment and some quick looking around, it seems the Apache v1 license is compatible with GPL v1, v2, and v3. Apache v2 license is compatible with GPL v1 and v3, but not v2. Since Apple's site is down, I don't know which version of the Apache license LaunchD is licensed under, but apparently Ubuntu relies upon GPL v2 and does not include the current releases of Apache (under the Apache v2 license) as a result.
The older v1.3.x version of Apache is under a different license.
Interesting. From a two minute quick look through Google, it seems the Apache license v2 is compatible with versions 1 and 3 of the GPL license, but not version 2, which is what Ubuntu relies upon. Apparently the specific issue is patent protection. The Apache requires that submarine patents be revealed and licensed for included code, while GPL v2 does not.
You're completely missing the fact that this means that SP3 will come out a year after Vista ships.
Umm, this entire line of discussion presupposes that SP3 will be delayed for an unreasonable amount of time, or that it will never be released (making Vista, Linux, and other candidates more attractive). Are you sure you're responding to the right post?
Entirely offtopic, but how does a Julius Caesar reference fit here?
"Et tu," translates to, "and you?" Caesar was questioning Brutus asking if he had betrayed him as well as the others.
That's true, but only to a certain extent. Will the training/problems that arise...
That is a different question entirely. The parent post did not claim that a lack of SP3 would mean everyone will switch to Linux. He said it would provide additional motivation for people (all or some?) to switch. It does provide motivation, although how much and what effect that will have in any given enterprise is still a matter of debate.
So if the FSF marks the Apache license as incompatible, does that mean Ubuntu does not include Apache, because it sure seems to be there in my install?
This wiki should answer that question for you.
I don't get it. That says it was rejected because of licensing issues. LaunchD is licensed under the Apache license. Does Ubuntu not include Apache which is presumably under the same license?
Yes, I'm sure Joe Sixpack is going to switch to Apple/Linux because SP3 for XP wasn't released...
Unlikely, but the previous poster did not mention who he thought might be motivated. Johnny Systems Engineer might be more motivated to migrate his enterprise to Linux if SP3 is never released and he must choose between upgrading all machines and replacing many of them outright, or finally funding that Linux migration the junior sysadmin has been trying to sell him on.
Bitter much?
Read this comment I made in reply to the previous post that said the same basic thing as yours.
I don't mind a discussion about the size of digital elf pectorals. It is inane, but mildly amusing. Still, I can get the same discussion on Digg or somewhere else. The quality of the comments is not related to the audience base of Slashdot. It is hard, however, to find a forum where one can have a real, informed discussion about emerging security mechanisms, just now preparing to enter the mainstream. I can discuss them with five guys on a BSD forum, who are very knowledgeable, but in order to get some more varied information a wider discussion is in order.
I don't care if the editors post my story. I just want them to post the info from someone so that I can actually ask a few real questions and get some feedback. It has been three days now since this info was released and still nothing has made it on any forums or major news sites. I resubmitted the info as another story with more quotes and more of my own opinions and it has been pending for a while now.
The only reason I interjected it here was because someone else brought up the subject of whether the WoW blurb was really news and I thought it was a funny demonstration of what is and is not accepted as "news for nerds." Given the fact that it was for several hours the only +5 modded post here, I suspect I'm not the only one who thought so.
Unfortunately many more people find this minor tidbit of information more interesting and relevant than a tedious discussion about program controls for a minor platform. /i>
Yeah. Those people are called "nerds." Oh well. I'm sure I can half-heartedly pay attention to a horribly misinformed discussion about these features in ten years, when Micrososft gets around to copying them.
Heh, the last thing I expected was someone to dig up a person who models tentacled things. Very cool. You've raised my expectations for the Slashdot crowd.
How about making it a Cthulhu game where you have sex with people and... stuff. Should be pleasantly terrifying and disturbing.
Do you know anyone who can make good 3D models with lots of writhing tentacles? Hmm, I don't either. :)
Make love, not Warcraft! :P
Hmmm, "Lovecraft" a new MMORPG where you build a custom avatar (male, female, andro, or herma), dress it from our selection of fashionable apparel, and then have to build up your sexual prowess and skill by boinking everyone else and NPCs. I see a new market. Now if we can just keep it from being populated with Cthulu fans I can make a mint.
Don't the cellphone companies already have convenient ways for people to send video voicemails to each other? Not that their systems would do everything this new company is doing, but it would be a good way to judge demand... which apparently isn't very high.
As near as I can tell, this offering does not replicate the functionality of the cell phone companies, but relies upon it. It looks like you use your service to send a short video to this company and they post it to a Website for you and let you manage who can access that site. Only people who make an account can view the videos, so it will never go anywhere.
Why is this news?
Because it is so much more "news for nerds" than the info Apple posted about adding application signing, mandatory access controls, resolution independence, OpenGL 2.1, and automatic threading to use multiple cores for single threaded OpenGL applications in Leopard, that I submitted and had rejected yesterday.
Oh, I get that (I think). What I mean is why should the RIAA allow Walmart to use this broken DRM purchased from the same third party as is selling Sandisk the tools to break it?
They key to understanding the answer to this is another question, "why does the RIAA want the tracks encumbered with DRM in the first place?' The answer, to make moving them to new formats and new devices inconvenient and to provide a way digitally stored music can eventually break. All of this is simply to motivate more sales, so they can resell the same music multiple times. The RIAA's nightmare is all of everyone's music lasting forever and being inherited by their children without them being paid again.
What about the /. admins who can read our highly sensitive comments?
Comments? I'm not even sure they read the article summaries.
I agree that it's excellent graphic design, but UI design generally relates to the function of the UI rather than its appearance.
These two are more intertwined than you seem to think. For example, contrast and visibility of items is a very integral part of UI design. So if you're likely ot be viewing full varied color images/video and pages that are black text on white (simulating paper) and pages that are light grey/color on black (minimum eyestrain terminals and the like) what color is the ideal? Obviously grey is the only color that maintains the best contrast with all of these situations. Is a single color of grey, or slight variations better? With a single color it could happen to match up exactly with major elements of the contents of a window. With slight variations it is highly unlikely something would happen to match a pattern exactly. So a medium grey frame with slight variation to it is pretty ideal from a user interface perspective. I don't agree with all of Apple's UI design decisions, but as someone with a more than passing knowledge in the field, I'm always bemused when people rail against this one.
A good UI is one where I can figure out what I need to do quickly and one that doesn't get in my way when I already know how to use it; it's difficult to have both in practice, so you generally have a compromise between the two.
These are two aspects of usability, generally the former is called "learnability."
I mean, shit, this is the ancient choice between freedom or security.
Except that is a false dichotomy. Reducing freedom does not lead to more security. Let me point out how in this instance. Fast forward a few years and only MS can insert kernel modules without an exploit. Does this mean malware writers can't insert malware into the kernel or have to work harder to do so? Probably not, since they usually use exploits to get code running in the kernel in the first place and MS hasn't shown any way this will change that. So we'll still have malware running in the kernel. Will antivirus detect it? No. Why not? Well right now some worms specifically are designed to hide from some of the common detection tools, but it is really hard because their are so many of them. If only MS is allowed to run in the kernel, then only MS will need to be targeted by the malware to hide from.
It is basically the same monoculture problem Windows battles today. If there is only one defense, it is easy to defeat. If their are a large variety of defenses and you don't know which you will be up against, you might beat some, but not all. With multiple defense solutions, each vendor has direct financial motivation to improve their product. With only one solution there is no competition. Users will pay for it wen they buy Windows, so why bother making it any better than a token gesture?
Personally, I prefer the company writing my anti-virus solution to have a direct, financial interest in it being successful. I want to know that the engineers and managers at that company realize if it doesn't work, they'll be looking for a new job soon and their stock options will be worth jack shit. I basically want the benefits normally brought by capitalism, when competition is not bypassed using illegal, monopolistic tactics.
It's obviously best to simply give up and leave, rather than actually stand up and do something about changing your country.
It is what the US was founded upon, people leaving their own countries to go somewhere better where they could practice their insane religion, or simply get away from the oppressive governments.