>which mean you will be able to continue your groundless accusations.
So you are saying there was no BSD code in the libc that required the UofC notice?
I provided the link with the information, and your answer is 'it is a lie' and 'burden of proof'. Either the code does not contain BSD licensed code with a clause 3 'advertising clause' or it does. And either the clause was met or it was not.
If "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." was not being displayed, it was in violation.
(from a legally defensable POV, the UofC lost its rights along time ago to clause 3. Microsoft not following clase 3 and then UofC not suing is an example. If you don;t enforce your rights, you loose them.)
I'm not the one requestiong the reperation for the past sin of the FSF/RMS, I'm just pointing out the post about the sin that occured.
Now, if you have some proof that the original poster is incorrect, then by all means post it. In fact, I look forward to your 'proof' that the request for an apology from "pseudonym" for violation of clause #3 is incorrect.
Until such time you can provide proof there were no clause 3 violations, I'll go by the statement and CONTIUNE to point out how the positioning of RMS as some kind of moral absolutist WRT software licensing is hyprocritcal.
If anyone has trouble with the truth, it is the GPL-is-morally-correct crowd when they can't follow others license restrictions.
And that was the person whem I quoted POV....he wanted to see the 'advertising' clause inforced. It didn't print the message:-(
Under the 4 point BSD licence version, to use the code you have to have the copywrite notice. In the quoted/. post, the complaint is there was no display of "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." as per the license requirements.
Microsoft was in violation of this clause also...but by the argument you are offering up, if M$ does it, its OK for others to do the same?
Richard talks about licensing, yet he is willing to take from others, and not honor the licensing desires of others.
If you are going to take the moral high ground and play the purist, then you had better be sure you are on the pure, high ground. A violation is a violation, and the GCC did violate another's licence.
When will the FSF apologise?
by Pseudonym on Wednesday September 06, @01:11AM EDT (#100)
(User #62607 Info)
I have a copy of the source of glibc-2.0.105 sitting on my hard drive. In inet/rexec.c (amongst other files) what do I see but a file under the BSD licence including the advertising clause. Clearly I have no rights to this code since it cannot be distributed under the GPL.
Thankfully, in 2.1, the advertising clause has been removed. But nonetheless, I expect a full apology from the FSF for breaking the terms of the original BSD licence and forgiveness from the Regents of the University of California so that I can be assured that I may use glibc2 without let or hinderance.
A well conditioned human can pedal at about 45 watts for 2-3 hours, 30 for a long time, and 60 for 30 minute bursts.
So, the human powered option is out for many applications.
The fibers *MAY* have applications in solar systems. What kills the cells is heat buildup more than anything else, and the concentrator *MIGHT* not allow infra-red to pass, but allow the other parts of the bandwidth to pass.
A company called (methinks) marathon solor used to have a light conentration system for its cells to boost output. Such a method is economical *IF* the cells are expensive and the fiber is cheap. (oh, and they are now bankrupt)
Given that you can now buy solar cells as shingles to go on your roof, I have to question if the economics are right to use fiber concentration on silicon cells.
Home power is a nice place for figuring out how to get off the grid, and this gent thinks the future for cheap solar is heliostats. Combine a heliostat with a helium-as-working-fluid sterling cycle prime mover, and you may just have a winner!
Re:Actually, I think it's Canadian...
on
The Rise Of QNX
·
· Score: 2
3COM as a company had nothing to do with QNX development.
The original name of QNX was QUNIX, but some large telephony corp asked them to change the name to prevent confusion.
QNX started in 1981, 3COM in 1984. And, as pointed out, QNX is a canadian concern.
The author has a history of being wrong.
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
If you bother to find on his mackido site the RISC vs CISC debate, you'll see him refer to the pentium as a CISC.
Go read that and spot the errors. He admitted in an e-mail that, yes the Pentium isn't a CISC machine as he was stating, but also refused to go change his text. (heaven forbid reality destroy his article)
He's got a history of being nuts. And, if you look back in the/. archives Lo and behold,/. already discussed the merits of David's BS.
>Farm plants can't replace petroleum for fuel, despite your second link
Yes, plants can. But as you ALSO point out, the consumtion demands exceed production capability.
Rather than blame too much demand (be it from resource hogs, or too many people) lets blame the lack of resources.
Re:heh. Silly rabbit, don't you know HURD is for..
on
HURD For 'Big Iron'?
·
· Score: 1
>Get real. IBM (nor anybody else for that matter) would really be stuipid enough to release the kind of things that they have so far under a BSD-style licence
Ms/Mr Lee,
You seem to lack knowledge of IBM and the IBM product line. IBM already USES FreeBSD in the whislejet line.
Intel uses BSD as the base of the network-file-server line of product.
Apple uses BSD as the core of Mac OS X.
If the big iron is unhappy with the direction of GNU/Linux, they could:
1) Pick a whole new OS
2) Take their own version of Linux in their own direction. (Just like the other 150+ distros already do)
3) use an existing OS. BSD or HURD or something else.
4) Just keep using GNU/Linux.
5) Keep using the OS they have had on the machines in the past.
6) do nothing.
BSD is just ONE choice. Seems you have a problem with the whole concept of a choice of BSD.
>Glass and Microsoft could rip them off to their heart's content.
'ripping off'? What is stopping Micro$oft from hiring 2-5 people to document the code they want to copy. Then, taking this document and writing the new code, based on the document? Or, they hire an 'outside firm' to 're-write' the code. The outside firm takes the GPL code, reformats it and changes the look of the code and says 'there...re-write done'?
The 1st method is legal, and the 2nd is 'legal', so long as no one knows how the code was 'borrowed' (if RMS/FSF can't prove the code is GPL, they can't obtain an award. And how ARE you going to prove it or prove that M$ had knowledge the code was in violation)
Steve Jobs said in a visit to Motorola
"It will be great in two years when we arn't using your chips."
After this statement is when Motorola publicly started calling the PPC line 'embedded'
How often in YOUR relationships can you walk up to your relationship partners and tell them 'to hell with you, I'll be leaving in 2 years.' and NOT expect said partner to keep giving a damn about you.
Apple then made the problem WORSE by pubically calling altivec 'the future' and spent hours about how wonderful altivec is. Apple will have a hard time leaving AltiVec with all the statements about how wonderful altivec is.
Jobs ego put Apple in the place Apple is. Motorola only reacted to the actions Jobs took. It is not like Motorola NEEDS Apple, and took actions to protect Motorola's investment.
Jobs wants to be the 'saviour' of Apple, fine. Then Jobs must also take the mantle of the person who helps kill Apple also. Amazing how the history of Jobs repeats.
In short:Chemists have known for decades how to alter the hydrocarbon chains in petroleum through processes known as cracking and reforming. Shortened hydrocarbon chains are used as solvent bases for paints and chemicals. Longer chains - as many as 200 hydrocarbons - are known as plastics. But these products also can be made from plants.
What is more responsible, from an enviromental POV? A process where you take a slice of copper, remove what you do not want with chemicals and use other chemicals to clean it, and have a product of metal, glass fibers, and epoxies, or a product based on a plastic that is broken down over time with common soil bacteria?
The push is on in the EU to make electronics re-cycable by forcing the manufactors to take back their items and re-use/re-cycle them.
Plant based plastics just might allow a 'compostable VCR', instead of the 'throwaway VCR'.
They may not be able to deliver, and many businesses HAVE failed due to a inability to deliver what they promise. Failure also comes from a lack of capitolization, and a lack of talent.
This Cisco press release points out how Cisco has $260 million dollars worth of faith in them.
The Cogent founder has had 4 'successful' startups, (4 for 4, and success means they were bought by someone else), they have a group of digex staffers, have hired away Bell Labs employees (upper level lab rats) to research the preformance of the fiber eq, etc.
(All of this is findable in public records...so no NDA's were harmed in the making of this post)
Failure won't be because of lack of capitolization or a lack of talent. They may not be able to deliver 100 M to your doorstep. This *lack* of ability to deliver on a promise may not kill them either. Look at the promise that is Microsoft software, and the inability of M$ to deliver...it hasn't killed M$.
Odds are, they will suffer the fate of nap.net. Built out a network, were bought out, and there they are....the network growth is stalled. They buy bigger pipes, but no longer have the growth rate they used to have.
Errr, software projects DO get done, be they open or closed.
Would anyone care to argue that Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is NOT a done project?
How about FreeBSD 2.2.8?
Redhat 6.1?
All of these projects are done. Some of the code and the ideas have moved onto the newest version, and is now shipping in the forms of Windows 2000/WinME, FreeBSD 4.1.1, and RedHat 7.0
Projects are DONE when the functionality wanted is achieved, or the people doing the project stop on the project. It may not be done correctly at that time, or work as one might want, but that is a different can of cockroaches.
Yes. They *DO* a good job. And for this post a good job will be defined as PORTABLE source code. (as opposed to UI design)
The KDE port has no patches to change the code to run on BSD.
GNOME, on the other hand has many patches to make the code work. Changes that would not be needed if they wrote portable code. An example: BSD needs to patch where the shutdown command is because the GNOME authors can't be bothered to write portable code.
To be fair, the GNOME code has improved, but old-school pride of writting portable code has went out the window in this new 'GNU/Linux only' world.
(Come to think of it, writing portable code isn't done in the Microsoft Windows world either)
>My impression was Compaq was giving lip service to Linux support.
Well they are!
BSD is the real future....
http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/os/#bsd
If you are interested in Open Source, you'll want to try FreeBSD, an advanced Unix operating system based on code developed at the University of California at Berkley and made available as a Berkley Software Distribution. FreeBSD runs on many different platforms, and is powerful enough to drive some of the most popular sites on the Internet, like Yahoo! We have Test Drives of it running on AlphaServer
DS10-L's Look for Test Drives of other BSD variants in the future! Sign up for an account and take FreeBSD for a spin
The reality is the expected boost from NT isn't there for the Alpha. So *ANY* OS they can get running and supported, they will. If they can give away a box or 2 and have people write code for no money out of Compaq's pocket.....its a great deal for Compaq.
There is VERY little of this in the 'revenue driven' model of Linux. And the companies have no *REASON* to encourage compatibility.
Compatibility means customers can freely move from one platform to another. It is in the interest of the Linux Distro companies to create reasons not to move to another vendor. One way is incompatiblity.
Slashdot Mirror
>some FSF Advertisement
What is considered an 'ad'?
Is a web page an ad? How about GPL zelots posting on a public forum?
Given clause 3 has never been testes to see if it exceeded what is allowed by law, you may be correct that it is un-enforceable.
>which mean you will be able to continue your groundless accusations.
So you are saying there was no BSD code in the libc that required the UofC notice?
I provided the link with the information, and your answer is 'it is a lie' and 'burden of proof'. Either the code does not contain BSD licensed code with a clause 3 'advertising clause' or it does. And either the clause was met or it was not.
>The advertisement provision states that the line must display when the program executes
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Nothing about execution that I see.
Said original poster may have asked for M$ to apologize...
It doesn't change how FSF is willing to violate a licnece if it suits them.
>truth no longer matters
If "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." was not being displayed, it was in violation.
(from a legally defensable POV, the UofC lost its rights along time ago to clause 3. Microsoft not following clase 3 and then UofC not suing is an example. If you don;t enforce your rights, you loose them.)
I'm not the one requestiong the reperation for the past sin of the FSF/RMS, I'm just pointing out the post about the sin that occured.
Now, if you have some proof that the original poster is incorrect, then by all means post it. In fact, I look forward to your 'proof' that the request for an apology from "pseudonym" for violation of clause #3 is incorrect.
Until such time you can provide proof there were no clause 3 violations, I'll go by the statement and CONTIUNE to point out how the positioning of RMS as some kind of moral absolutist WRT software licensing is hyprocritcal.
If anyone has trouble with the truth, it is the GPL-is-morally-correct crowd when they can't follow others license restrictions.
And that was the person whem I quoted POV....he wanted to see the 'advertising' clause inforced. It didn't print the message :-(
/. post, the complaint is there was no display of "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." as per the license requirements.
Under the 4 point BSD licence version, to use the code you have to have the copywrite notice. In the quoted
Microsoft was in violation of this clause also...but by the argument you are offering up, if M$ does it, its OK for others to do the same?
Richard talks about licensing, yet he is willing to take from others, and not honor the licensing desires of others.
/. article.
If you are going to take the moral high ground and play the purist, then you had better be sure you are on the pure, high ground. A violation is a violation, and the GCC did violate another's licence.
The source page for this clipped
When will the FSF apologise?
by Pseudonym on Wednesday September 06, @01:11AM EDT (#100)
(User #62607 Info)
I have a copy of the source of glibc-2.0.105 sitting on my hard drive. In inet/rexec.c (amongst other files) what do I see but a file under the BSD licence including the advertising clause. Clearly I have no rights to this code since it cannot be distributed under the GPL.
Thankfully, in 2.1, the advertising clause has been removed. But nonetheless, I expect a full apology from the FSF for breaking the terms of the original BSD licence and forgiveness from the Regents of the University of California so that I can be assured that I may use glibc2 without let or hinderance.
I await my apology.
NT 4.0 server
ftp over the ftp.exe program to your unix box
then strings | grep -i copy
FTP.EXE is an example of Microsoft programs using BSD licensed code.
If BSD licensed code is forbidden in your company, so is Microsoft.
And, it should be pointed out that the complaint (according to the ad) is that with Open Source you don't have a single point of contact.
With a purchase of a BSDi (telenet) server, FreeBSD and a 24X7 support contract you have something Microsoft can't offer.
A vendor that makes the hardware AND software all in one. All your services from a single source.
(To the best of my knowledge, Apple doesn't offer 24X7 OS support.)
No where in the ad does it say Linux. The ad talks about Open Source.
>therwise all-closed-source company (yes, official company policy, set by the legal department not IT, forbade the use of GPL'd software.)
So?
Load up BSD then the NEXT time you run into such a road-block.
If they don't like BSD licensed code, point to the BSD copywrites in Windows and ask when they will get rid of that.
Stop thinking the Open Soruce OS world is all Linux.
A well conditioned human can pedal at about 45 watts for 2-3 hours, 30 for a long time, and 60 for 30 minute bursts.
So, the human powered option is out for many applications.
The fibers *MAY* have applications in solar systems. What kills the cells is heat buildup more than anything else, and the concentrator *MIGHT* not allow infra-red to pass, but allow the other parts of the bandwidth to pass.
A company called (methinks) marathon solor used to have a light conentration system for its cells to boost output. Such a method is economical *IF* the cells are expensive and the fiber is cheap. (oh, and they are now bankrupt)
Given that you can now buy solar cells as shingles to go on your roof, I have to question if the economics are right to use fiber concentration on silicon cells.
Home power is a nice place for figuring out how to get off the grid, and this gent thinks the future for cheap solar is heliostats. Combine a heliostat with a helium-as-working-fluid sterling cycle prime mover, and you may just have a winner!
3COM as a company had nothing to do with QNX development.
The original name of QNX was QUNIX, but some large telephony corp asked them to change the name to prevent confusion.
QNX started in 1981, 3COM in 1984. And, as pointed out, QNX is a canadian concern.
If you bother to find on his mackido site the RISC vs CISC debate, you'll see him refer to the pentium as a CISC.
/. archives Lo and behold, /. already discussed the merits of David's BS.
Go read that and spot the errors. He admitted in an e-mail that, yes the Pentium isn't a CISC machine as he was stating, but also refused to go change his text. (heaven forbid reality destroy his article)
He's got a history of being nuts. And, if you look back in the
Reaction to David's post
In short, nothing to see here, move along.
>Farm plants can't replace petroleum for fuel, despite your second link
Yes, plants can. But as you ALSO point out, the consumtion demands exceed production capability.
Rather than blame too much demand (be it from resource hogs, or too many people) lets blame the lack of resources.
>Get real. IBM (nor anybody else for that matter) would really be stuipid enough to release the kind of things that they have so far under a BSD-style licence
Ms/Mr Lee,
You seem to lack knowledge of IBM and the IBM product line. IBM already USES FreeBSD in the whislejet line.
Intel uses BSD as the base of the network-file-server line of product.
Apple uses BSD as the core of Mac OS X.
If the big iron is unhappy with the direction of GNU/Linux, they could:
1) Pick a whole new OS
2) Take their own version of Linux in their own direction. (Just like the other 150+ distros already do)
3) use an existing OS. BSD or HURD or something else.
4) Just keep using GNU/Linux.
5) Keep using the OS they have had on the machines in the past.
6) do nothing.
BSD is just ONE choice. Seems you have a problem with the whole concept of a choice of BSD.
>Glass and Microsoft could rip them off to their heart's content.
'ripping off'? What is stopping Micro$oft from hiring 2-5 people to document the code they want to copy. Then, taking this document and writing the new code, based on the document? Or, they hire an 'outside firm' to 're-write' the code. The outside firm takes the GPL code, reformats it and changes the look of the code and says 'there...re-write done'?
The 1st method is legal, and the 2nd is 'legal', so long as no one knows how the code was 'borrowed' (if RMS/FSF can't prove the code is GPL, they can't obtain an award. And how ARE you going to prove it or prove that M$ had knowledge the code was in violation)
According to Robert Morgan who runs Apple Recon
Steve Jobs said in a visit to Motorola
"It will be great in two years when we arn't using your chips."
After this statement is when Motorola publicly started calling the PPC line 'embedded'
How often in YOUR relationships can you walk up to your relationship partners and tell them 'to hell with you, I'll be leaving in 2 years.' and NOT expect said partner to keep giving a damn about you.
Apple then made the problem WORSE by pubically calling altivec 'the future' and spent hours about how wonderful altivec is. Apple will have a hard time leaving AltiVec with all the statements about how wonderful altivec is.
Jobs ego put Apple in the place Apple is. Motorola only reacted to the actions Jobs took. It is not like Motorola NEEDS Apple, and took actions to protect Motorola's investment.
Jobs wants to be the 'saviour' of Apple, fine. Then Jobs must also take the mantle of the person who helps kill Apple also. Amazing how the history of Jobs repeats.
There is already a see-through iResistor.
It is called an air gap.
And who says Plastics has to be based on petro?
Plants as plastic producer
Plants projected as fuel replacement
In short:Chemists have known for decades how to alter the hydrocarbon chains in petroleum through processes known as cracking and reforming. Shortened hydrocarbon chains are used as solvent bases for paints and chemicals. Longer chains - as many as 200 hydrocarbons - are known as plastics. But these products also can be made from plants.
What is more responsible, from an enviromental POV? A process where you take a slice of copper, remove what you do not want with chemicals and use other chemicals to clean it, and have a product of metal, glass fibers, and epoxies, or a product based on a plastic that is broken down over time with common soil bacteria?
The push is on in the EU to make electronics re-cycable by forcing the manufactors to take back their items and re-use/re-cycle them.
Plant based plastics just might allow a 'compostable VCR', instead of the 'throwaway VCR'.
They may not be able to deliver, and many businesses HAVE failed due to a inability to deliver what they promise. Failure also comes from a lack of capitolization, and a lack of talent.
This Cisco press release points out how Cisco has $260 million dollars worth of faith in them.
The Cogent founder has had 4 'successful' startups, (4 for 4, and success means they were bought by someone else), they have a group of digex staffers, have hired away Bell Labs employees (upper level lab rats) to research the preformance of the fiber eq, etc.
(All of this is findable in public records...so no NDA's were harmed in the making of this post)
Failure won't be because of lack of capitolization or a lack of talent. They may not be able to deliver 100 M to your doorstep. This *lack* of ability to deliver on a promise may not kill them either. Look at the promise that is Microsoft software, and the inability of M$ to deliver...it hasn't killed M$.
Odds are, they will suffer the fate of nap.net. Built out a network, were bought out, and there they are....the network growth is stalled. They buy bigger pipes, but no longer have the growth rate they used to have.
Errr, software projects DO get done, be they open or closed.
Would anyone care to argue that Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is NOT a done project?
How about FreeBSD 2.2.8?
Redhat 6.1?
All of these projects are done. Some of the code and the ideas have moved onto the newest version, and is now shipping in the forms of Windows 2000/WinME, FreeBSD 4.1.1, and RedHat 7.0
Projects are DONE when the functionality wanted is achieved, or the people doing the project stop on the project. It may not be done correctly at that time, or work as one might want, but that is a different can of cockroaches.
>What would happen if (very big IF) MS actually start producing Linux software
That would indicate that they have bought into the hype about linux .
If Microsoft was embracing GNU/Linux and Open Source, *THAT* would be news.
As it is, the 'Linux community' isn't about open source, it is about 'beating Microsoft'.
>the good job...
Yes. They *DO* a good job. And for this post a good job will be defined as PORTABLE source code. (as opposed to UI design)
The KDE port has no patches to change the code to run on BSD.
GNOME, on the other hand has many patches to make the code work. Changes that would not be needed if they wrote portable code. An example: BSD needs to patch where the shutdown command is because the GNOME authors can't be bothered to write portable code.
To be fair, the GNOME code has improved, but old-school pride of writting portable code has went out the window in this new 'GNU/Linux only' world.
(Come to think of it, writing portable code isn't done in the Microsoft Windows world either)
>My impression was Compaq was giving lip service to Linux support.
Well they are!
BSD is the real future....
http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/os/#bsd
If you are interested in Open Source, you'll want to try FreeBSD, an advanced Unix operating system based on code developed at the University of California at Berkley and made available as a Berkley Software Distribution. FreeBSD runs on many different platforms, and is powerful enough to drive some of the most popular sites on the Internet, like Yahoo! We have Test Drives of it running on AlphaServer
DS10-L's Look for Test Drives of other BSD variants in the future! Sign up for an account and take FreeBSD for a spin
The reality is the expected boost from NT isn't there for the Alpha. So *ANY* OS they can get running and supported, they will. If they can give away a box or 2 and have people write code for no money out of Compaq's pocket.....its a great deal for Compaq.
>I am just waiting for some highway authority to say: "Hey! Your customers drove on our roads to get to your mall! You owe us a percentage of sales!"
All ready exists.
Fuel Tax
Toll roads
>breaking the compatibility.
Compatibility?
har,har,har.
There is VERY little of this in the 'revenue driven' model of Linux. And the companies have no *REASON* to encourage compatibility.
Compatibility means customers can freely move from one platform to another. It is in the interest of the Linux Distro companies to create reasons not to move to another vendor. One way is incompatiblity.