There have been cases where GPL code has crept into company projects that were not meant to go open source. This of course creates a licensing nightmare, because the GPL demands that the project be GPL as well.
If GNU is about freedom, then why not the freedom to not use the term GNU/Linux?
I've always seen RMS as being hypocritical on freedom, because he has a very "You MUST do as I say" way about him, and I just can't equate that with freedom.
but see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. Here RMS (I assume this was written by RMS) argues against the "obnoxious" BSD advertising clause. Yet RMS seems to want an exclusive, GNU-only advertising clause in the Linux name
I don't think we should use the term "proprietary software" anymore-- proprietary has become a negative word. We should call it "differently licensed".;^)
How much money does Apple make off its Operating System divsion. I'd be mighty surprised if they made a profit on upgrades that is significant in comparison to profits on hardware sales
Ok, so if your scenario was to play out (MacOS gets ported to Intel.) First of all, I suspect that many Mac heads (who love MacOS, but aren't necessarily married to Apple) would buy PC hardware since it's cheaper, and run MacOS on that. Apple loses right there. I certainly don't see such a move resulting in more hardware sales for Apple.
Second, if MacOS is GPL'd then why would someone wanting to run MacOS have to buy it from Apple? In the same way you can buy Red Hat Linux from CheapBytes for $1.95 or something, I'm sure the same would happen to MacOS as well. Apple loses there too.
The GNU people unfortunatly don't look at things this way. Most of them can't seem to understand why the GPL can't be used for everything.
The whole Troll Tech/QT thing taught me how unreasonable they could be. Troll was semi-open source. These people treated it as though it came from Bill Gates himself.
So Troll went back and came up with a new license that RMS himself said was acceptable. And I STILL see many of these people complain about how awful the Troll's QPL is. Troll tried to do the right thing, and for that they get so much hate thrown there way it's unbelievable.
I think it will be very difficult to get a license without the termination clause past company lawyers.
I can't blame them for having it. It's very specific as to what can cause Apple to terminate there are three conditions. 1) User fails to comply (reasonable) 2 & 3) User engages in patent or copyright infringement, and Apple cannot secure the necessary rights. (If Apple has liability, then this is necessary)
The license doesn't say that Apple can revoke the license at any time for any reason.
I suspect that the GPL could be struck down in court because it doesn't offer a reasonable way out, but I'm not a lawyer.
>2. Controls what gets airtime (ever notice how >they all pretty much sound the same?)
Well they arm twist the program directors, (You've got to add this song every other program director in the country has added it but you..)
Anyway what I really hate is the "top 40" format, they have a playlist of about 10 songs which they play over and over. If I have to listen to it at length I go insane.
In my experience, trying to find the songs you want usually brings you to sites that have your songs in a list of MP3s that they will send you via email if you request.
I tried MP3 for the first time the other day, and spent about two hours searching for a couple of specific songs. www.mp3.com didn't have them. Other high profile sites didn't either. Altavista turned up some references to them, but I never found them.
I think that's alot of the problem, since so many people have health coverage, and they are covered anytime they cut their finger or something, it has effectivly done away with effective price controls in the Health Care industry. --Big insurers don't fret over costs as much as the average consumer. As a result, costs sky-rocketted.
Instead of trying to fix THAT problem, we seem to think we can fix it by putting layer upon layer of bueracracy and regulation instead.
The ethics committee found some ridiculous little ethical violation, using a consultant for something, (not illegal, just unethical under House rules) The press made him out to be this really awful guy, and he was fined over $100,000 for this. He resigned when the pressure to do so got intense
Clinton, on the other hand committed perjury (A felony) the press kept repeating "He just had sex". He didn't have the decency to resign, and got off scott free.
I've been hearing these fantastic hemp claims for years. (Summary: Hemp the wonder crop! You can eat it/wear it/makes good wallpaper/1 hemp twig can produce 6 reams of paper/stronger than steel yet softer than velvet, but it's NOT marajuana, you can't smoke it!)
What I want to know, if hemp is so great, than why is it not used? Why is it only the non-mainstream hemp people know about this?
Don't give me the marajuana angle. There is worse legal stuff. E.G. "White Out", sniffing the stuff can kill you, but kids do it anyway for a high.
Who pays 15%? Not me, I live in the US. 15% may be the Federal rate, but then there is also State income taxes, local income taxes, FICA (Social Security), and Medicare on top of that.
About 27% of my check is eaten by taxes, this doesn't account for the hidden taxes that my employer pays on my behalf that I don't see.
Then there are the non-income taxes. Real Estate taxes (currently 2.5% of my income) Most states have sales taxes 4-8% of what you buy. Gas tax, cigarette tax, booze tax, tax on gambling winnings, tax on capital gains, taxes on employee bonuses (They took nearly 50%!), estate taxes (can't even escape by death), hotel taxes, duties. Occupational Privilige tax (In PA, I kid you not!) Auto Excise Tax (Here In MA). School taxes
And when they are done taxing you, they hit you with fees... Auto registration, Driver's license, tolls roads, Water, sewer etc.
In short, I can't imagine that the US is any tax bargain.
I just love this talk about philosophical "contracts".
So you're saying, that Jews who where living in Germany during the Nazi era had to accept the Holocaust because they entered into a contract with the Nazi government by living there at the time?
Also, it isn't like he has any choice, sure he can leave the US, but he will be taxed no matter where he goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me summarize the article:
Virtually all of the arguments against Linux have recently been refuted (no support, no apps, etc).
The only thing that can kill Linux is things like FUD, peoples unwillingness to adapt to a new platform etc.
Of course the article had many more words, but that's the gist of it.
There have been cases where GPL code has crept into company projects that were not meant to go open source. This of course creates a licensing nightmare, because the GPL demands that the project be GPL as well.
I have seen a few other QT programs:
Linux-explorer, Xgmod, and even a Qtscape (based on the Netscape source)
What sacrifices has he made exactly?
Just curious.
If GNU is about freedom, then why not the freedom to not use the term GNU/Linux?
I've always seen RMS as being hypocritical on freedom, because he has a very "You MUST do as I say" way about him, and I just can't equate that with freedom.
He wasn't asking, he was DEMANDING! Big difference.
Just because RMS explains it doesn't mean that you have to agree with him.
I remember a compiler named LCC that ran on Linux, I don't know what the status of that is, however.
To really yank RMS's chain, the name of the new BSD-based Linux should be named GNU-free/Linux!
(Ok, I'm not THAT evil)
but see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. Here RMS (I assume this was written by RMS) argues against the "obnoxious" BSD advertising clause. Yet RMS seems to want an exclusive, GNU-only advertising clause in the Linux name
I don't think we should use the term "proprietary software" anymore-- proprietary has become a negative word. We should call it "differently licensed". ;^)
If he's going to stand there and tell everybody questioner that uses the term "LINUX" that they MUST say "GNU/Linux", then yes he is immature.
As much as he speaks about freedom, it seems that he is only for the freedoms that he agrees with.
I will continue to excercise my freedom and call it just "Linux"
divsion. I'd be mighty surprised if they made a profit on upgrades that is significant in comparison to profits
on hardware sales
Ok, so if your scenario was to play out (MacOS gets ported to Intel.) First of all, I suspect that many Mac heads (who love MacOS, but aren't necessarily married to Apple) would buy PC hardware since it's cheaper, and run MacOS on that. Apple loses right there. I certainly don't see such a move resulting in more hardware sales for Apple.
Second, if MacOS is GPL'd then why would someone wanting to run MacOS have to buy it from Apple? In the same way you can buy Red Hat Linux from CheapBytes for $1.95 or something, I'm sure the same would happen to MacOS as well. Apple loses there too.
The GNU people unfortunatly don't look at things this way. Most of them can't seem to understand why the GPL can't be used for everything.
The whole Troll Tech/QT thing taught me how unreasonable they could be. Troll was semi-open source. These people treated it as though it came from Bill Gates himself.
So Troll went back and came up with a new license that RMS himself said was acceptable. And I STILL see many of these people complain about how awful the Troll's QPL is. Troll tried to do the right thing, and for that they get so much hate thrown there way it's unbelievable.
Now apparently it's Apples turn.
Apparently Apple has signedup 16,000 developers, so you are not alone in your community. ;^)
I think it will be very difficult to get a license without the termination clause past company lawyers.
I can't blame them for having it. It's very specific as to what can cause Apple to terminate there are three conditions. 1) User fails to comply (reasonable) 2 & 3) User engages in patent or copyright infringement, and Apple cannot secure the necessary rights. (If Apple has liability, then this is necessary)
The license doesn't say that Apple can revoke the license at any time for any reason.
I suspect that the GPL could be struck down in court because it doesn't offer a reasonable way out, but I'm not a lawyer.
>2. Controls what gets airtime (ever notice how >they all pretty much sound the same?)
Well they arm twist the program directors, (You've got to add this song every other program director in the country has added it but you..)
Anyway what I really hate is the "top 40" format, they have a playlist of about 10 songs which they play over and over. If I have to listen to it at length I go insane.
My understanding is that it's cheaper to (mass) produce CDs than it is to produce cassettes.
I think CD media costs pennies a piece in bulk (This is real CD media, not CD-R)
CD prices are kept artificially higher because of the better sound quality of CD over tape.
In my experience, trying to find the songs you want usually brings you to sites that have your songs in a list of MP3s that they will send you via email if you request.
I tried MP3 for the first time the other day, and spent about two hours searching for a couple of specific songs. www.mp3.com didn't have them. Other high profile sites didn't either. Altavista turned up some references to them, but I never found them.
I think that's alot of the problem, since so many people have health coverage, and they are covered anytime they cut their finger or something, it has effectivly done away with effective price controls in the Health Care industry. --Big insurers don't fret over costs as much as the average consumer. As a result, costs sky-rocketted.
Instead of trying to fix THAT problem, we seem to think we can fix it by putting layer upon layer of bueracracy and regulation instead.
...Until the Republicans forced him out after the disappointing '98 results.
Now he's not running for anything that I'm aware of
Contrast him to Clinton
The ethics committee found some ridiculous little ethical violation, using a consultant for something, (not illegal, just unethical under House rules) The press made him out to be this really awful guy, and he was fined over $100,000 for this. He resigned when the pressure to do so got intense
Clinton, on the other hand committed perjury (A felony) the press kept repeating "He just had sex". He didn't have the decency to resign, and got off scott free.
I've been hearing these fantastic hemp claims for years. (Summary: Hemp the wonder crop! You can eat it/wear it/makes good wallpaper/1 hemp twig can produce 6 reams of paper/stronger than steel yet softer than velvet, but it's NOT marajuana, you can't smoke it!)
What I want to know, if hemp is so great, than why is it not used? Why is it only the non-mainstream hemp people know about this?
Don't give me the marajuana angle. There is worse legal stuff. E.G. "White Out", sniffing the stuff can kill you, but kids do it anyway for a high.
Who pays 15%? Not me, I live in the US.
15% may be the Federal rate, but then there is also State income taxes, local income taxes, FICA (Social Security), and Medicare on top of that.
About 27% of my check is eaten by taxes, this doesn't account for the hidden taxes that my employer pays on my behalf that I don't see.
Then there are the non-income taxes.
Real Estate taxes (currently 2.5% of my income)
Most states have sales taxes 4-8% of what you buy.
Gas tax, cigarette tax, booze tax, tax on gambling winnings, tax on capital gains, taxes on employee bonuses (They took nearly 50%!), estate taxes (can't even escape by death), hotel taxes, duties.
Occupational Privilige tax (In PA, I kid you not!) Auto Excise Tax (Here In MA). School taxes
And when they are done taxing you, they hit you with fees... Auto registration, Driver's license, tolls roads, Water, sewer etc.
In short, I can't imagine that the US is any tax bargain.
I just love this talk about philosophical "contracts".
So you're saying, that Jews who where living in Germany during the Nazi era had to accept the Holocaust because they entered into a contract with the Nazi government by living there at the time?
Also, it isn't like he has any choice, sure he can leave the US, but he will be taxed no matter where he goes.
Libertarian and Conservative Republicans have this as a goal, but not necessarily the whole GOP