My wife walked in just as I was posting my reply. She said what are you doing? I said someone else's homework, I read her what you said. She said and I quote "Loser, go back to windows." She is completely non technical.
Why can't people in the FOSS movement just get along? They like to bash Microsoft and talk about how it is attacking other developers/companies/3rd party groups, but FOSS can't even get along within its own movement. At least Microsoft doesn't attack itself.
Creating a new device using WinCE or Linux. Advantage Linux
I've been to all the MS "Training" Tech seminars on WINCE and Mobile.NET. I've asked alot of questions. I usually bring a stack of questions with me because MS trots out "experts" at these things. I have only once received an answer to what I saw as a common question. I've seen countless Demos. I even tried it on two different devices. At first it all looks great but I quickly ran into problems that only peeking at the source can root out, which in many cases is not allowed.
Under Linux I get all the source I need (and then some) to understand the problem. I can turn to the community for help. And by community I usually mean the author of the code I'm having trouble with. I can reuse a ton of code. Hell, sometimes I only have to write a surprisingly small amount of code to accomplish what I need.
The hardest part I've found in developing Embedded Linux Applications/Devices is getting the boss to open the code (Not always necessary but I insist on it every chance I get).
Yeah VS integration is nice, but then I have to use Visual Studio, not something I like to be forced into. I have no problem using a variety of different tools and toolkits to get the job done on Linux.
I am quite fond of QT, and nothing beats the customization of the kernel. I can test on the desktop, cross compile and test on the device.
I've done Brew and a few of the others, I have no real interest in Cell Phone development though, so I can give no real opinion on how they stack up against the penguin.
I remember the old version Gingerbread man, which I found difficult to remember. This on somehow gets you used to each function repeatedly so by the time you are done you got a good chunk of it memorized. Before I was finished I had created several Models of rather good quality, if I do say so myself, just by branching off on my own at different points in the tut.
Complete list of ne Goggle Sponsored Docs http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/BSoD
I remember the good ol' days when copying of DVDs and CDs was just farhfegnugen in Germany. Now it's verboten? Next thing you know it will be gesundheit!
Yes, and it's making me all verklemmt. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Should I call you a Krunkenvagon?
Re:Grammar alert!
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
OffTopic, HE's Offtopic, I'm OffTopic, This whole thread's offtopic.
I'm outraged at this moderation, It is most definately Funny. Laughed my ass off.
Oh and offtopic.
Re:"unfinished/unplayable" ... so then ...
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: 1
So after reading all the reviews on the internet and in print saying this exact same thing---weeks ago, mind you---with the myriad of evidence to back it up, you still decided it was worth playing and reviewing here?
Looking Glass Studios made a fantastic game with Thief. If Thievery works well under Wine, I'm definitely interested.
So far, only issue we had was 1024x768 did not run right on the kubuntu box with a brand new install of wine, she was too impatient to play for me to fix it.
Windows and Linux playing together. May I just say, OpenGL I love ya.
The primary objective of this feasibility demonstration is to show that relatively simple, easily-deployable subsurface habitats are constructible in caves, lavatubes, and other subsurface voids. Further, we intend to demonstrate that they are suitable to sustain small animals, plants, and ultimately humans in an otherwise hostile environment.
What restriction is present in the MS-PL that encumbers "usage under any circumstances"?
How about this one.
If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
I'm no patent attorney, but does this mean, what it looks like it means, even I'm just using it?
Just feels icky, ok, I said it, are you happy. Wouldn't take much to make it non icky.
So? It's just part of the title. If I were to come out with a license called the "Free Sex with Natalie Portman License",
Well the spec says, ahem:
>Choose a unique title for your license, different from any known titles of licenses. In particular, make it different from any of the existing approved licenses (by name or category). Hint: doing a Google search for "Your License Title" (including the quotes) is useful.
Thank you OSI. that was ahem, useful.
On to your point though.
If I called my license "The OSI is a Bunch of Big Fat Idiots License", I'd expect them to go over the terms with a fine toothed comb to see where I was trying to trick them, but if the concensus was the the license met the spec, I'd expect them to approve it no matter what it was called.
I don't think you have any reason to expect any such thing. And neither should a room full of lawyers at Microsoft.
Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below.
TOBBFIL, I gotta admit it rolls of the tongue though.
Amazing how you make my point for me.
What you raise appears to be a subtle philosophical point with no obvious consequences.
The starting point is different. The GPL adds to the rights that you have under copyright law. It is purely permission to do things that you otherwise could not legally do. A EULA starts with the assumption that copyright holders should be able to control the use of the software.
Thanks, I thought I was gonna have to type it.
But that difference doesn't appear to affect the operation of the licenses in this case.
What?
Crispy, I use a lot of software for unintended purposes. I however distribute under the terms of the licenses. The difference between the two is astronomical, not subtle, or philisophical.
but there is no way to predict now if there are likely to be differences or what they would be.
What?
Ok, you can read them both and apply as many test cases as you can think of. Thats the one way I do it. One way is more than no way, yes?
My complaint with Microsoft's license is that if I were to contribute code to a project licensed under the MS-PL and someone were to file suit against me for patent infringement, I'd have no contributory protection from any other patents that actual patent holders had licensed by way of their contribution to the project
Interesting point. I think they have come along way. Perhaps they would be amenable to you suggestion?
How does the MS-PL restrict usage any more than the GPL?
MS-PL clearly states if you do not accept the license you cannot USE the software.
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
The GPL says You may USE the software under any circumstances, if you use the software the author is not liable for damages, loss of data etc.. If you DISTRIBUTE/CONVEY the software then you are bound by the conditions of the license.
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force
...
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
...
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).
That is a ridiculous claim. Liability would be subject to license terms. Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.
The free to use clause is there to protect you from the author saying you were using his software illegally. It was distributed to you under the terms of the license. You cannot say it wasn't just because you disagree with the license. Under those terms there is no Liability. See post above.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura
Maybe not as helpful, but it cracked me up.
Just because you can't does not mean Linux can't.
VideoConference http://ekiga.org/
Edit Video http://www.kdenlive.org/
Make mp3s: Insert CD copy mp3 folder with kde.org or Create new with http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
play video games with http://www.winehq.org/ or http://www.transgaming.com/ or god forbid you play open source games designed for linux. Too many to list see here http://icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php for a start.
make a slideshow, Ever use http://picasa.google.com/linux/ or KDE creates them on the fly from directory of pictures. Not to mention openoffice Impress http://www.openoffice.org/product/impress.html
How about a couple of kernel devs drop off and help Linux go the last mile.
How about you let the kernel devs do what they do best, and acquaint yourself with a little thing I like to call Google http://www.google.com/webhp.
Obviously not a Vista User.
Creating a new device using WinCE or Linux. Advantage Linux
I've been to all the MS "Training" Tech seminars on WINCE and Mobile .NET. I've asked alot of questions. I usually bring a stack of questions with me because MS trots out "experts" at these things. I have only once received an answer to what I saw as a common question. I've seen countless Demos. I even tried it on two different devices. At first it all looks great but I quickly ran into problems that only peeking at the source can root out, which in many cases is not allowed.
Under Linux I get all the source I need (and then some) to understand the problem. I can turn to the community for help. And by community I usually mean the author of the code I'm having trouble with. I can reuse a ton of code. Hell, sometimes I only have to write a surprisingly small amount of code to accomplish what I need.
The hardest part I've found in developing Embedded Linux Applications/Devices is getting the boss to open the code (Not always necessary but I insist on it every chance I get).
Yeah VS integration is nice, but then I have to use Visual Studio, not something I like to be forced into. I have no problem using a variety of different tools and toolkits to get the job done on Linux.
I am quite fond of QT, and nothing beats the customization of the kernel. I can test on the desktop, cross compile and test on the device.
I've done Brew and a few of the others, I have no real interest in Cell Phone development though, so I can give no real opinion on how they stack up against the penguin.
Thank You Google, from the Blender Summer of Documentation. (BSoD, Awesome Name)
Introduction to Character Animation
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/BSoD/Introduction_to_Character_Animation
I remember the old version Gingerbread man, which I found difficult to remember. This on somehow gets you used to each function repeatedly so by the time you are done you got a good chunk of it memorized. Before I was finished I had created several Models of rather good quality, if I do say so myself, just by branching off on my own at different points in the tut. Complete list of ne Goggle Sponsored Docs
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/BSoD
A Media Blackout.
Great new pet name for genitalia.
1.Dave
List of PS3 purchasers who took them back:
1.Dave
Yes, and it's making me all verklemmt. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Should I call you a Krunkenvagon?
I'm outraged at this moderation, It is most definately Funny. Laughed my ass off.
Oh and offtopic.
He had, literally, no choice.
Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner.
*i
(_)
I mean everybody knows thats what a bomb looks like.
So far, only issue we had was 1024x768 did not run right on the kubuntu box with a brand new install of wine, she was too impatient to play for me to fix it.
Windows and Linux playing together. May I just say, OpenGL I love ya.
Project Objectives:
The primary objective of this feasibility demonstration is to show that relatively simple, easily-deployable subsurface habitats are constructible in caves, lavatubes, and other subsurface voids. Further, we intend to demonstrate that they are suitable to sustain small animals, plants, and ultimately humans in an otherwise hostile environment.
How about this one.
If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
I'm no patent attorney, but does this mean, what it looks like it means, even I'm just using it?
Just feels icky, ok, I said it, are you happy. Wouldn't take much to make it non icky.
Well the spec says, ahem: >Choose a unique title for your license, different from any known titles of licenses. In particular, make it different from any of the existing approved licenses (by name or category). Hint: doing a Google search for "Your License Title" (including the quotes) is useful.
Thank you OSI. that was ahem, useful.
On to your point though.
If I called my license "The OSI is a Bunch of Big Fat Idiots License", I'd expect them to go over the terms with a fine toothed comb to see where I was trying to trick them, but if the concensus was the the license met the spec, I'd expect them to approve it no matter what it was called.
I don't think you have any reason to expect any such thing. And neither should a room full of lawyers at Microsoft. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below.
TOBBFIL, I gotta admit it rolls of the tongue though.
The starting point is different. The GPL adds to the rights that you have under copyright law. It is purely permission to do things that you otherwise could not legally do. A EULA starts with the assumption that copyright holders should be able to control the use of the software.
Thanks, I thought I was gonna have to type it.
But that difference doesn't appear to affect the operation of the licenses in this case.
What?
Crispy, I use a lot of software for unintended purposes. I however distribute under the terms of the licenses. The difference between the two is astronomical, not subtle, or philisophical.
but there is no way to predict now if there are likely to be differences or what they would be.
What?
Ok, you can read them both and apply as many test cases as you can think of. Thats the one way I do it. One way is more than no way, yes?
My complaint with Microsoft's license is that if I were to contribute code to a project licensed under the MS-PL and someone were to file suit against me for patent infringement, I'd have no contributory protection from any other patents that actual patent holders had licensed by way of their contribution to the project Interesting point. I think they have come along way. Perhaps they would be amenable to you suggestion?
Pay attention please. End User License Agreement MS is a EULA period. It covers usage how you use it.
GPL is a License. General Public License It covers copyright licensing. Copyright is for distribution, you know, like copy...rights.
The distinction is purposeful. I'm not drawing it, they are. It says so as the first sentence of the MS-PL, you think its unimportant?
GPL gives you Guaranteed Access to the source code.
As well as Use of the software under any circumstances, without being bound by the license.
Both of these are not in the MS-PL
MS-PL clearly states if you do not accept the license you cannot USE the software.
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
The GPL says You may USE the software under any circumstances, if you use the software the author is not liable for damages, loss of data etc.. If you DISTRIBUTE/CONVEY the software then you are bound by the conditions of the license.
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
15. Disclaimer of Warranty. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 16. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16. If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
That is a ridiculous claim. Liability would be subject to license terms. Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.
The free to use clause is there to protect you from the author saying you were using his software illegally. It was distributed to you under the terms of the license. You cannot say it wasn't just because you disagree with the license. Under those terms there is no Liability. See post above.
As you pointed out only as it relates to liability. Not relating to permission to USE.