Ideally, browsers should develop to the point where they understand XML as well as HTML and XSL as well as CSS. There has been significant effort to do this in the Mozilla browser, the XML/CSS combo works quite well, and the person developing an XSLT (XSL Transformations) engine for Mozilla is talking about having something useful around May. Similarly, Internet Explorer 5.0 has a base understanding of XML (styled with CSS), and surely plugins for decent XML/XSL encoding for IE are likely to appear soon after Netscape shows that it's a feature people demand.
In the meantime, there are some Java Servlets out there to do the transformation on the server side. The server will grab the XML and XSL file, do transformations, and output HTML (or whatever format) to the client. I haven't played with them enough to recommend one as being particularly better, but there's some handy stuff out there.
First off, it's Unauthorized Copying that may be a scapegoat or a threat. Copy Protection is a proposed solution to the alleged problem. Secondly, unauthorized copying is not a big problem in the US (nor in the EU as far as I know). Yes, it happens, but very little of it eats away into the producer's profits. Often copies are made by friends and distributed for free to people who probably wouldn't have made a purchase anyway. Often people contemplating making a purchase will use an unauthorized copy as a demo, and make the real purchase later. In both cases the producer makes just as much or as little money as they would have anyway.
Where Unauthorized Copying becomes a profit issue is in some of the non-EU European countries, Southeast Asia and China. In these countries there are organized groups of people who make massive amounts of copies for sale. In many areas these people have better distribution chains than the legitimate producers. When you couple it with the fact that they usually have better prices as well, and there is little enforcement of IP law in these countries, the legitimate producers can have trouble selling to these markets.
Even though I see a legitimate threat to the producers posed by such copying, I still consider it a primarily scapegoat issue. Many of the organizations involved (eg. RIAA, SPA, MPA) are trying to strengthen IP law in the US, often to the point where it steamrolls over First Ammendment rights and long standing convention (such as fair use and contract by mutual consent). Here they use unauthorized copying as a scapegoat, and produce bogus figures to try to justify unconcionable actions.
To touch on Copy Protection, it's just a technical solution (as opposed to a legal solution) to impede unauthorized copying. It has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective solution at best. At worst it has actually cut into the producers' sales, for example the video tapes with copy protection that impairs video quality when you're watching the original. Another good example is if the DeCSS lawsuit somehow gets a verdict in the DVD people's favor, it will directly harm DVD sales, since fewer people will have DVD players available to them.
I really enjoyed Childhoods End. It's not the "perfect" novel, but I found it an enjoyable read, and a book that had some interesting points to make. I'd give it an 8/10.
My favorite book by Arthur C. Clarke would have to be a more recent (and fairly unsung) work of his, The Songs of Distant Earth. I strongly recommend it.
You all seem to think that the United States is the only place anyone can get full strenght ecryption.
Of course we don't think that. We do think that there is a lot of software, particularly Free software that is developed and exported from the US, or with the assistance of US citizens, that can benefit from having strong encryption built in, Linux and Mozilla being some of the more obvious examples. The current export regulations don't allow for that, they don't even allow for encryption hooks being put in place so a European or Australian can do a plugin piece of crypto.
According to the article, he's leaving AOL/Netscape. Apparently he found some really attractive job that he's not allowed to talk about right now. He plans to continue working on Mozilla in his spare time, and his new employer is supposedly fine with that.
Actually, they don't. I use RoadRunner (@Home's biggest competitor) and generally see addresses of 24.24.x.x through 24.29.x.x there. RoadRunner certainly wouldn't be giving out @Home's IP addresses.
OK, so the computers are in a public area, and apparently the user can be kicked off for viewing "inappropriate" material...how is that different than using Surfwatch?
Because the current system uses actual community standards, i.e. the Holland Library policy as interpreted by the Librarians or other staff members. It is also flexible enough to allow judgement calls to be made, eg. a high school student might be able to use the machine to access grey area websites for a school project.
SurfWatch claims to offer community standards, yet the list is confidential and done according to SurfWatch standards. Also, most such filters (I don't know if SurfWatch is one of them) filters out sites they find politically objectionable, such as The National Organization of Women. No judgement calls are allowed short of calling in the computer guru to disable to software temporarily.
Lets use the extra time to build an air tight case...
Unfortunately, this also means that the other side gets more time to build their case. Given the performance at the initial hearing, it looks like they need the time more than we do.
I think most big IBM customers don't like doing really rapid changes in systems (eg. dropping SNA and scrambling to get a TCP/IP version of their system in place). I think it would be a good thing for IBM's customers if they would open up SNA, perhaps offer source for an SNA driver for the Linux kernel. That would allow for bridges between SNA and TCP/IP systems, and would give a nice migration path for people who want to move away from SNA in a slow, well planned fashion, as well as better functionality for people who are fine with SNA and want to stay there.
Whether or not this article is true, and whether or not the Chinese Government is going to mandate Linux, the development of a Chinese Linux distribution called Red Flag Linux has been widely reported. The distribuion as described sounds very good and very likely to be in development.
Many of the articles say that development's being done at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and that Compaq's China branch is assisting in development. Maybe one of the more journalistic minded people here might want to contact these organizations for confirmation and information about the distribution?
8. A "half million dollar contract" from a little storefront that wishes it was Walnut Creek. The announcement of which is almost certainly a violation of the SEC-imposed quiet period.
Hey, if they are in violation of the quiet period, maybe we can get the SEC and/or NASDAQ to punish them. Maybe stop the IPO or at least take their ticker symbol away.
The original poster was complaining about AGP support because he wanted to use his Webcam. Digital cameras give simple 2D images, since when does this require kernel-level GART support?
As far as I can tell, AGP support has been in the kernel (as part of the PCI driver) since at least version 2.0.34, dated 1998-07-04. So it's been in there for at least a year and a half. Whatever problems you're having with your webcam, it should have nothing to do with "missing" AGP support.
Agreed. I've been almost exclusively a RedHat user since they came out with 4.2, I really like their distributions, but their initscripts are poorly designed, inflexible, and hard to maintain. I haven't seen how Debian does it, but I can easily imagine someone doing much better on this regard.
Does anyone think *any* government could really get away with this?
The Japanese, possibly. Think about it, they have terrible traffic problems, a history of strong government regulation on domestic products & imports, and far less of the "right to drive" mentality that Americans and (to a lesser extent) Europeans have.
Legally, this place needs to change it's domain to slashdot.com -- there's money going into Rob & Jeff's pockets, guaranteed.
Legally, there's no difference between.com,.org and.net domains. A nonprofit organization can have a.com domain just as lawfully as a company can have an.org domain.
The difference is a matter of convention, not law. It's reasonable for slashdot to not follow convention because: * People are used to the current DNS name * There is no pressing reason to switch * The slashdot.com domain is owned by someone else (A Chris Richardson, in California).
Harlan has some very good mice. Check out their ICR mice, they're comfortable, soft on the hands, and very affordable. They even have bulk rate discounts.
There's a very good World-Wide countdown clock at Time and Date (they also have a non-java version). The year 2000 starts in the Christmas Islands less than seven hours from the time of this posting.
And the REST of the OpenSource OS market doesn't matter?
Yes BSD matters, but this isn't a spontaneous grassroots Free Software effort. The petition is being done by Libranet, a commercial Linux distributor. Why should a company selling Linux go out of their way to publicise BSD? Are they also obligated to publicise HURD, FreeDOS, V2OS, Darwin and any of the other excellent Free OS's out there? Get real.
On the flip side, the petition is asking for specifications. Having specs available helps all Free OS's, even though they don't explicitly mention any other than Linux in the request.
Ah, but how much would it have cost if they'd done it right to begin with? I don't have any documentation to link to but I read that it may have cost more to be "Y2K" compliant right away then to leave it to be fixed later.
That would be an interesting study, if not down fully already. What was the savings for leaving a problem to be fixed later?
Certainly being Y2K Compliant in the 50's and 60's, and perhaps even in the early 70's would have been very expensive, to the point where some projects would have just become unfeasible. However, there was no excuse for anything to not be Y2K compliant once IC's became widely used for processors and memory. Anything designed since that point, unless it was specifically supporting a legacy system, should have been written with Y2K in mind.
THE COOoRTS OoF EPPEELS FREED IN CESE EGEINST "MOoSIC PIRETE" 1999-12-27 19:39
JÖNKÖPING Shooeeng zee vey tu pureted mooseec oon zee Internet is nut a creeme-a. It furst hes tu be-a shoon thet zee mooseec hes beee poobleeshed oon zee Internet veethuoot permeessiun. Bork bork bork!
Thees joodgment is dune-a by Göta hufrätt (cuoort ooff eppeels), vheech oon Mundey freed a 17-yeer oold thet hed beee cherged veet illegel deestribooshun ooff mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.
Zee reesun thet zee 17-yeer oold buy frum Felköpeeng, Svedee, hed leenks tu pureted mooseec oon hees humepege-a ves thet he-a vunted tu impress hees freeends. Um gesh dee bork, bork! It ves impurtunt tu heem tu get es muny feesiturs es pusseeble-a. Sumetheeng he-a deed vell, in joost a foo munths teeme-a seferel thuoosund peuple-a feesited zee humepege-a.
-Ve-a thuooght zee cuoort ooff eppeels vuoold cunfeect zee yuoot, seeed a deeseppuinted Lers Goosteffssun, preseedent ooff zee recurd indoostry federeshun IFPI, vhu theenks ebuoot eppeeleeng egeeen tu zee Svedeesh Soopreme-a Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur.
VITHOOoT PERMISSION
- Ve-a leern ifee frum sentences leeke-a thees thet gues egeeenst us. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Next teeme-a ve-a veell ooff cuoorse-a shoo thet zee persun poobleeshing zee mooseec oon zee Internet deed su veethuoot permeessiun, und zeen zee purete-a veell be-a cunfeected et leest fur cullebureshun, seys Lers Goosteffssun. Bork bork bork!
IFPI, zee Interneshunel Federeshun ooff zee Phunugrepheec Indoostry, is fucoosed oon inffurceeng zee reeghts thet zee cupyreeght lev geefes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zee oorguneeseshun represents mure-a thun 50 recurd cumpuneees thet tugezeer hes mure-a thun 95 percent ooff zee Svedeesh mooseec merket. Um de hur de hur de hur. In leter yeers, mure-a und mure-a pureted mooseec in su celled MP3-feeles hes beee deestribooted ilectruneecelly oon zee net. Um de hur de hur de hur.
- I theenk zee Internet in teeme-a veell becume-a a soopereeur techneecel eeed tu deestriboote-a guud mooseec legelly. Bork bork bork! Boot it tekes a foo yeers beffure-a joosteece-a cetches up tu technulugy. Bork bork bork!
SENTENCED TO PRISON
Lers Goosteffssun seys tu TT thet it dooreeng zee lest foo munths seferel joodgments hefe-a beee pessed, but in Ioorupe-a und zee USA, vhere-a peuple-a hefe-a beee sentenced tu preesun fur deestribooting mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.
In zee cese-a et hund zee feesiturs oon zee humepege-a gut a pueenter tu deefffferent veb seetes vhere-a zee suoond feeles vere-a stured. Bork bork bork! Zee mooseec feeles nefer pessed thruoogh zee 17-yeer oold's cumpooter boot ves sent durectly tu zee feesitur's cumpooter. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Thoos he-a deed nut poobleesh zee mooseec in zee sense-a thet is meunt in zee Cupyreeght lev, seys zee Cuoort ooff eppeels. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Oon zee oozeer hund, seys zee cuoort, zee 17-yeer oold cuoold be-a furced tu pey demeges tu zee mooseec reeght oovners. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
- Ve-a dun't hefe-a uny pluns oon eskeeng fur demeges. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Ve-a ere-a nut effter thees buy es a persun, boot zee phenumenun es sooch, seys Lers Goosteffssun frum IFPI.
So, I have a question; why has no one released a "mainstream" GPL'ed BSD? Is it just because everybody inclined to do so is working on Linux instead?
Two reasons, first, until very very recently, the BSD license was not compatible with the GPL. The advertising clause of the BSD license prevented such a thing from happening. Secondly, some of the people most loyal to the BSD way of doing things have very anti-GPL feelings. Typically, such people are more concerned with their code being widely used (in Free or non-Free systems) than encouraging Free software, and the GPL gets in the way of that.
We probably will see a GPLed BSD at some point, but there's no pressing need I see for someone to jump on the opportunity. The flaming that such a project would likely receive makes it even less worth it. In general, a developer picks a license because it matches how they want the software to be used; changing the license, even while legal, would be bad form without a very good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, browsers should develop to the point where they understand XML as well as HTML and XSL as well as CSS. There has been significant effort to do this in the Mozilla browser, the XML/CSS combo works quite well, and the person developing an XSLT (XSL Transformations) engine for Mozilla is talking about having something useful around May. Similarly, Internet Explorer 5.0 has a base understanding of XML (styled with CSS), and surely plugins for decent XML/XSL encoding for IE are likely to appear soon after Netscape shows that it's a feature people demand.
In the meantime, there are some Java Servlets out there to do the transformation on the server side. The server will grab the XML and XSL file, do transformations, and output HTML (or whatever format) to the client. I haven't played with them enough to recommend one as being particularly better, but there's some handy stuff out there.
----
First off, it's Unauthorized Copying that may be a scapegoat or a threat. Copy Protection is a proposed solution to the alleged problem. Secondly, unauthorized copying is not a big problem in the US (nor in the EU as far as I know). Yes, it happens, but very little of it eats away into the producer's profits. Often copies are made by friends and distributed for free to people who probably wouldn't have made a purchase anyway. Often people contemplating making a purchase will use an unauthorized copy as a demo, and make the real purchase later. In both cases the producer makes just as much or as little money as they would have anyway.
Where Unauthorized Copying becomes a profit issue is in some of the non-EU European countries, Southeast Asia and China. In these countries there are organized groups of people who make massive amounts of copies for sale. In many areas these people have better distribution chains than the legitimate producers. When you couple it with the fact that they usually have better prices as well, and there is little enforcement of IP law in these countries, the legitimate producers can have trouble selling to these markets.
Even though I see a legitimate threat to the producers posed by such copying, I still consider it a primarily scapegoat issue. Many of the organizations involved (eg. RIAA, SPA, MPA) are trying to strengthen IP law in the US, often to the point where it steamrolls over First Ammendment rights and long standing convention (such as fair use and contract by mutual consent). Here they use unauthorized copying as a scapegoat, and produce bogus figures to try to justify unconcionable actions.
To touch on Copy Protection, it's just a technical solution (as opposed to a legal solution) to impede unauthorized copying. It has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective solution at best. At worst it has actually cut into the producers' sales, for example the video tapes with copy protection that impairs video quality when you're watching the original. Another good example is if the DeCSS lawsuit somehow gets a verdict in the DVD people's favor, it will directly harm DVD sales, since fewer people will have DVD players available to them.
----
I really enjoyed Childhoods End . It's not the "perfect" novel, but I found it an enjoyable read, and a book that had some interesting points to make. I'd give it an 8/10.
My favorite book by Arthur C. Clarke would have to be a more recent (and fairly unsung) work of his, The Songs of Distant Earth . I strongly recommend it.
----
1DeepThought wrote:
You all seem to think that the United States is the only place anyone can get full strenght ecryption.
Of course we don't think that. We do think that there is a lot of software, particularly Free software that is developed and exported from the US, or with the assistance of US citizens, that can benefit from having strong encryption built in, Linux and Mozilla being some of the more obvious examples. The current export regulations don't allow for that, they don't even allow for encryption hooks being put in place so a European or Australian can do a plugin piece of crypto.
----
According to the article, he's leaving AOL/Netscape. Apparently he found some really attractive job that he's not allowed to talk about right now. He plans to continue working on Mozilla in his spare time, and his new employer is supposedly fine with that.
----
El Volio says:
Actually, @Home owns the *entire* 24 network.
Actually, they don't. I use RoadRunner (@Home's biggest competitor) and generally see addresses of 24.24.x.x through 24.29.x.x there. RoadRunner certainly wouldn't be giving out @Home's IP addresses.
----
Quikah asks:
OK, so the computers are in a public area, and apparently the user can be kicked off for viewing
"inappropriate" material...how is that different than using Surfwatch?
Because the current system uses actual community standards, i.e. the Holland Library policy as interpreted by the Librarians or other staff members. It is also flexible enough to allow judgement calls to be made, eg. a high school student might be able to use the machine to access grey area websites for a school project.
SurfWatch claims to offer community standards, yet the list is confidential and done according to SurfWatch standards. Also, most such filters (I don't know if SurfWatch is one of them) filters out sites they find politically objectionable, such as The National Organization of Women. No judgement calls are allowed short of calling in the computer guru to disable to software temporarily.
----
senrik wrote:
Lets use the extra time to build an air tight case...
Unfortunately, this also means that the other side gets more time to build their case. Given the performance at the initial hearing, it looks like they need the time more than we do.
----
I think most big IBM customers don't like doing really rapid changes in systems (eg. dropping SNA and scrambling to get a TCP/IP version of their system in place). I think it would be a good thing for IBM's customers if they would open up SNA, perhaps offer source for an SNA driver for the Linux kernel. That would allow for bridges between SNA and TCP/IP systems, and would give a nice migration path for people who want to move away from SNA in a slow, well planned fashion, as well as better functionality for people who are fine with SNA and want to stay there.
----
Whether or not this article is true, and whether or not the Chinese Government is going to mandate Linux, the development of a Chinese Linux distribution called Red Flag Linux has been widely reported. The distribuion as described sounds very good and very likely to be in development.
Many of the articles say that development's being done at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and that Compaq's China branch is assisting in development. Maybe one of the more journalistic minded people here might want to contact these organizations for confirmation and information about the distribution?
----
Chas wrote:
8. A "half million dollar contract" from a little storefront that wishes it was Walnut Creek. The announcement of which is almost certainly a violation of the SEC-imposed quiet period.
Hey, if they are in violation of the quiet period, maybe we can get the SEC and/or NASDAQ to punish them. Maybe stop the IPO or at least take their ticker symbol away.
----
The original poster was complaining about AGP support because he wanted to use his Webcam. Digital cameras give simple 2D images, since when does this require kernel-level GART support?
----
As far as I can tell, AGP support has been in the kernel (as part of the PCI driver) since at least version 2.0.34, dated 1998-07-04. So it's been in there for at least a year and a half. Whatever problems you're having with your webcam, it should have nothing to do with "missing" AGP support.
----
Agreed. I've been almost exclusively a RedHat user since they came out with 4.2, I really like their distributions, but their initscripts are poorly designed, inflexible, and hard to maintain. I haven't seen how Debian does it, but I can easily imagine someone doing much better on this regard.
----
Roblimo asks:
Does anyone think *any* government could really get away with this?
The Japanese, possibly. Think about it, they have terrible traffic problems, a history of strong government regulation on domestic products & imports, and far less of the "right to drive" mentality that Americans and (to a lesser extent) Europeans have.
----
jeremy f wrote:
.com, .org and .net domains. A nonprofit organization can have a .com domain just as lawfully as a company can have an .org domain.
Legally, this place needs to change it's domain to slashdot.com -- there's money going into Rob & Jeff's pockets, guaranteed.
Legally, there's no difference between
The difference is a matter of convention, not law. It's reasonable for slashdot to not follow convention because:
* People are used to the current DNS name
* There is no pressing reason to switch
* The slashdot.com domain is owned by someone else (A Chris Richardson, in California).
----
Harlan has some very good mice. Check out their ICR mice, they're comfortable, soft on the hands, and very affordable. They even have bulk rate discounts.
----
A millennium that doesn't 'N'?
----
There's a very good World-Wide countdown clock at Time and Date (they also have a non-java version). The year 2000 starts in the Christmas Islands less than seven hours from the time of this posting.
:-)
For those who are sticklers for detail, they also have a countdown to the new millenium
----
mr writes:
And the REST of the OpenSource OS market doesn't matter?
Yes BSD matters, but this isn't a spontaneous grassroots Free Software effort. The petition is being done by Libranet, a commercial Linux distributor. Why should a company selling Linux go out of their way to publicise BSD? Are they also obligated to publicise HURD, FreeDOS, V2OS, Darwin and any of the other excellent Free OS's out there? Get real.
On the flip side, the petition is asking for specifications. Having specs available helps all Free OS's, even though they don't explicitly mention any other than Linux in the request.
----
bmetzler wrote:
Ah, but how much would it have cost if they'd done it right to begin with? I don't have any documentation to link to but I read that it may have cost more to be "Y2K" compliant right away then to leave it to be fixed later.
That would be an interesting study, if not down fully already. What was the savings for leaving a problem to be fixed later?
Certainly being Y2K Compliant in the 50's and 60's, and perhaps even in the early 70's would have been very expensive, to the point where some projects would have just become unfeasible. However, there was no excuse for anything to not be Y2K compliant once IC's became widely used for processors and memory. Anything designed since that point, unless it was specifically supporting a legacy system, should have been written with Y2K in mind.
----
THE COOoRTS OoF EPPEELS FREED IN CESE EGEINST "MOoSIC PIRETE" 1999-12-27 19:39
JÖNKÖPING
Shooeeng zee vey tu pureted mooseec oon zee Internet is nut a creeme-a. It furst hes tu be-a shoon thet zee mooseec hes beee poobleeshed oon zee Internet veethuoot permeessiun. Bork bork bork!
Thees joodgment is dune-a by Göta hufrätt (cuoort ooff eppeels), vheech oon Mundey freed a 17-yeer oold thet hed beee cherged veet illegel deestribooshun ooff mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.
Zee reesun thet zee 17-yeer oold buy frum Felköpeeng, Svedee, hed leenks tu pureted mooseec oon hees humepege-a ves thet he-a vunted tu impress hees freeends. Um gesh dee bork, bork! It ves impurtunt tu heem tu get es muny feesiturs es pusseeble-a. Sumetheeng he-a deed vell, in joost a foo munths teeme-a seferel thuoosund peuple-a feesited zee humepege-a.
-Ve-a thuooght zee cuoort ooff eppeels vuoold cunfeect zee yuoot, seeed a deeseppuinted Lers Goosteffssun, preseedent ooff zee recurd indoostry federeshun IFPI, vhu theenks ebuoot eppeeleeng egeeen tu zee Svedeesh Soopreme-a Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur.
VITHOOoT PERMISSION
- Ve-a leern ifee frum sentences leeke-a thees thet gues egeeenst us. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Next teeme-a ve-a veell ooff cuoorse-a shoo thet zee persun poobleeshing zee mooseec oon zee Internet deed su veethuoot permeessiun, und zeen zee purete-a veell be-a cunfeected et leest fur cullebureshun, seys Lers Goosteffssun. Bork bork bork!
IFPI, zee Interneshunel Federeshun ooff zee Phunugrepheec Indoostry, is fucoosed oon inffurceeng zee reeghts thet zee cupyreeght lev geefes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zee oorguneeseshun represents mure-a thun 50 recurd cumpuneees thet tugezeer hes mure-a thun 95 percent ooff zee Svedeesh mooseec merket. Um de hur de hur de hur. In leter yeers, mure-a und mure-a pureted mooseec in su celled MP3-feeles hes beee deestribooted ilectruneecelly oon zee net. Um de hur de hur de hur.
- I theenk zee Internet in teeme-a veell becume-a a soopereeur techneecel eeed tu deestriboote-a guud mooseec legelly. Bork bork bork! Boot it tekes a foo yeers beffure-a joosteece-a cetches up tu technulugy. Bork bork bork!
SENTENCED TO PRISON
Lers Goosteffssun seys tu TT thet it dooreeng zee lest foo munths seferel joodgments hefe-a beee pessed, but in Ioorupe-a und zee USA, vhere-a peuple-a hefe-a beee sentenced tu preesun fur deestribooting mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.
In zee cese-a et hund zee feesiturs oon zee humepege-a gut a pueenter tu deefffferent veb seetes vhere-a zee suoond feeles vere-a stured. Bork bork bork! Zee mooseec feeles nefer pessed thruoogh zee 17-yeer oold's cumpooter boot ves sent durectly tu zee feesitur's cumpooter. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Thoos he-a deed nut poobleesh zee mooseec in zee sense-a thet is meunt in zee Cupyreeght lev, seys zee Cuoort ooff eppeels. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Oon zee oozeer hund, seys zee cuoort, zee 17-yeer oold cuoold be-a furced tu pey demeges tu zee mooseec reeght oovners. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
- Ve-a dun't hefe-a uny pluns oon eskeeng fur demeges. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Ve-a ere-a nut effter thees buy es a persun, boot zee phenumenun es sooch, seys Lers Goosteffssun frum IFPI.
----
In Quake, yes. In a game designed with proper distrust of the client, the server shouldn't send any info that couldn't otherwise be seen.
----
Bruce Perens wrote:
:-)
I reject the notion that View Source in a web browser is Open anything.
Well, on most systems it's an open window
----
Syberghost asks:
So, I have a question; why has no one released a "mainstream" GPL'ed BSD? Is it just because everybody inclined to do so is working on Linux instead?
Two reasons, first, until very very recently, the BSD license was not compatible with the GPL. The advertising clause of the BSD license prevented such a thing from happening. Secondly, some of the people most loyal to the BSD way of doing things have very anti-GPL feelings. Typically, such people are more concerned with their code being widely used (in Free or non-Free systems) than encouraging Free software, and the GPL gets in the way of that.
We probably will see a GPLed BSD at some point, but there's no pressing need I see for someone to jump on the opportunity. The flaming that such a project would likely receive makes it even less worth it. In general, a developer picks a license because it matches how they want the software to be used; changing the license, even while legal, would be bad form without a very good reason.
----