I do believe that RMS has always stated that he felt the LGPL was unnecessary due to the excerpts you provided. It just seems that there was always enough of a doubt that brought the LGPL into being.
But you've convinced me enough to at least look into it some more.
NT was developed initially on the MIPS, as in 1988 the x86 family was woefully underpowered. PPC development didn't start until 1995, and it never finished. NT4 SP3 IIRC was the last PPC release.
I do believe the GPL does not make a distinction between libraries and non-libraries. A work is derivative if you #include <> anything from the GPLed work.
I base this belief on the fact that the LGPL exists, and glibc is licensed under such. I accept the possibility that different opinions exists about this matter. This is just "my belief".
Well, for the majority of us who fall below the 33% tax bracket, at most we could be asked to pony up ~40% of that income to state and federal governments (I have no local municipal taxes so I cannot comment).
No. Solaris is Solaris. The Solaris running on your x86 machine is exactly the same as the Solaris running on your SPARC. Obviously there is some platform-specific code, but it is _not_ a port. They are built from the exact same source tree. </quote>
An FYI. 99% of the developers I have ever worked with consider that a "port".
You're right, it's the somewhat straightforward, yet still vague terms that caught me. How even derivatives of said project become open at the end of two years. I at first took it to mean that separate revisions of a product would be open, hence the "ad infinitum" of my OP.
But otherwise you seem to be correct. Interesting motivator, curious that I was unable to find anyone using said license on the website.
Even if it cost $20billion to make the round trip, if you could indeed power the earth for a year with a shuttle-full of He-3 then I imagine it'd be worth it.
Please understand that in at least ONE of those cases mentioned, that research is,at least partially, being conducted to insure said country doesn't turn into a sea of glass because of someone elses mushroom clouds.
99% of the time, the reason that people don't want to provide documentation for hardware is
A) because it doesn't exist B) because if they release documentation, they might be compelled to support it, and C) because they may not be able to change and evolve the interface if they have to due to unyielding consumer expectation
In that order.
Very rarely is it truly about trade secrets or competitive advantage.
And the general consensus has been that the LGPL fills that requirement. Building Open Source components and reusing them in commercial applications. Many people I talk to seem to think that the design of the LGPL is designed to coopt the commercial software. The same legalese that protects the GPL from commercial software was put into play to protect commercial software from the LGPL. If the LGPL didn't work, would oracle ever release it's products for Linux, since libc is LGPL protected?
Not choosing to use GPLed code is your prerogative, I have no illusions of removing that right from you. The GPL was created to foster a computing environment that it's users control. GPL does not preclude commercialism. Witness RedHat, SuSE and others. Small consolation, I guess.
And who exactly, when they've spent years working on a project on nothing more than blood sweat and tears and not a few Mountain Dews, is going to allow a company to come in, fork their code, write their own extensions, and keep them locked up ad infinitum?
The answer is no one. No one who does open source for fun, for the purity aspect will want to do this (Although I imagine there are a few masochists out there who don't understand dual licensing). Companies who want to do open source will do something like Sun and their CDDL, or won't do OSS at all.
Are you kidding? The article was written by Linux in the first person? What better response to a troll that needs a response? Simply allowing Dvorak to spout his inane tripe isn't good. His FUD and stupidity must be countered.
I've tried SuSE 9.2 on my Dell Latitudes, and it always hangs at PCMCIA detection. I could probably get it to work with ACPI=off, but that seems kinda pointless to me when KNOPPIX 3.7 works out of the box.
Just did this recently using KNOPPIX 3.7 to give my Windows Laptop a new hard drive without having to reinstall about 30 applications. Took an hour to copy a 6.5 GB partition to my server, about 2 hours to change the hard drive (had to go buy some precision screw drivers at Home Depot) and another hour and a half to copy the image to the new disk and use QTparted to resize the NTFS partitions.
All in all, it was a remarkably boring exercise, yet really liberating. The fact that all this stuff comes with KNOPPIX is great. I'd have to buy Ghost, and PartitionMagic to get this to work otherwise.:-/
Yeah.... mmmmm let's not and say we did. With out Luck SCOTUS would think it's a good idea to give voting rights to corporations with more than 100,000 shareholders...:-/
Slashdot Mirror
I do believe that RMS has always stated that he felt the LGPL was unnecessary due to the excerpts you provided. It just seems that there was always enough of a doubt that brought the LGPL into being.
But you've convinced me enough to at least look into it some more.
Regards
Been playing 800MB of wireless musical joy on this phone since Sep 19th, 2004.
Why would I have to unplug USB devices if I want to just disable the software support?
NT was developed initially on the MIPS, as in 1988 the x86 family was woefully underpowered. PPC development didn't start until 1995, and it never finished. NT4 SP3 IIRC was the last PPC release.
The AC missed the sarcasm.... :-/
I do believe the GPL does not make a distinction between libraries and non-libraries. A work is derivative if you #include <> anything from the GPLed work.
I base this belief on the fact that the LGPL exists, and glibc is licensed under such. I accept the possibility that different opinions exists about this matter. This is just "my belief".
Regards.
Well, for the majority of us who fall below the 33% tax bracket, at most we could be asked to pony up ~40% of that income to state and federal governments (I have no local municipal taxes so I cannot comment).
Which would you rather have:
60% of $1,000 or 100% of $0.
Solaris x86 is basically a direct port from sparc
No. Solaris is Solaris. The Solaris running on your x86 machine is exactly the same as the Solaris running on your SPARC. Obviously there is some platform-specific code, but it is _not_ a port. They are built from the exact same source tree.
</quote>
An FYI. 99% of the developers I have ever worked with consider that a "port".
Peace.
You're right, it's the somewhat straightforward, yet still vague terms that caught me. How even derivatives of said project become open at the end of two years. I at first took it to mean that separate revisions of a product would be open, hence the "ad infinitum" of my OP.
But otherwise you seem to be correct. Interesting motivator, curious that I was unable to find anyone using said license on the website.
Even if it cost $20billion to make the round trip, if you could indeed power the earth for a year with a shuttle-full of He-3 then I imagine it'd be worth it.
Please understand that in at least ONE of those cases mentioned, that research is ,at least partially, being conducted to insure said country doesn't turn into a sea of glass because of someone elses mushroom clouds.
Yes you do. You must pay taxes on any earned income, whether the company folded or not.
Lol. You hiring? :-)
99% of the time, the reason that people don't want to provide documentation for hardware is
A) because it doesn't exist
B) because if they release documentation, they might be compelled to support it, and
C) because they may not be able to change and evolve the interface if they have to due to unyielding consumer expectation
In that order.
Very rarely is it truly about trade secrets or competitive advantage.
That's not true at all. There is a distinction between GPL and LGPL. A GPLed library would require GPLing your code. An LGPLed one would not.
Would you be able to wrap an LGPL wrapper around GPLed code and then use your LGPLed wrapper in your commercial software?
And the general consensus has been that the LGPL fills that requirement. Building Open Source components and reusing them in commercial applications. Many people I talk to seem to think that the design of the LGPL is designed to coopt the commercial software. The same legalese that protects the GPL from commercial software was put into play to protect commercial software from the LGPL. If the LGPL didn't work, would oracle ever release it's products for Linux, since libc is LGPL protected?
Not choosing to use GPLed code is your prerogative, I have no illusions of removing that right from you. The GPL was created to foster a computing environment that it's users control. GPL does not preclude commercialism. Witness RedHat, SuSE and others. Small consolation, I guess.
Regards.
And who exactly, when they've spent years working on a project on nothing more than blood sweat and tears and not a few Mountain Dews, is going to allow a company to come in, fork their code, write their own extensions, and keep them locked up ad infinitum?
The answer is no one. No one who does open source for fun, for the purity aspect will want to do this (Although I imagine there are a few masochists out there who don't understand dual licensing). Companies who want to do open source will do something like Sun and their CDDL, or won't do OSS at all.
Are you kidding? The article was written by Linux in the first person? What better response to a troll that needs a response? Simply allowing Dvorak to spout his inane tripe isn't good. His FUD and stupidity must be countered.
A. Linux Kernel writes suprisingly well...
I have to agree. HP's consumer and SOHO printer lines suck. Find some old 4 or 5MP Laser printers.
And those keyboard buttons are probably just a matter of a few xmodmap entries.
VMware - You won't regret it. Best $190 I ever spent on computer software.
I've tried SuSE 9.2 on my Dell Latitudes, and it always hangs at PCMCIA detection. I could probably get it to work with ACPI=off, but that seems kinda pointless to me when KNOPPIX 3.7 works out of the box.
dd if=/dev/hda of=/mnt/samba/remotehost/remoteshare/hda.iso.
:-/
Just did this recently using KNOPPIX 3.7 to give my Windows Laptop a new hard drive without having to reinstall about 30 applications. Took an hour to copy a 6.5 GB partition to my server, about 2 hours to change the hard drive (had to go buy some precision screw drivers at Home Depot) and another hour and a half to copy the image to the new disk and use QTparted to resize the NTFS partitions.
All in all, it was a remarkably boring exercise, yet really liberating. The fact that all this stuff comes with KNOPPIX is great. I'd have to buy Ghost, and PartitionMagic to get this to work otherwise.
Yeah.... mmmmm let's not and say we did. With out Luck SCOTUS would think it's a good idea to give voting rights to corporations with more than 100,000 shareholders... :-/
Spend the $180 for VMware Workstation 4.5. No only can you run Windows, but every version of Windows out there, DOS, etc...