Your list is hardly a list of LEADERS. A list of oppertunists, yes. Leaders, no.
RMS comes the closest. He stays on target when he talks. Yet, the FSF had their spokesperson whine that *RMS was not invited to the Open Source conference*, yet RMS is the 1st to say "GNU/GPL is not Open Source". (if you are not Open Source, tell everyone that, THEN don:t get invited to an Open Source conference, your message is being heard and understood)
ESR spends his time promoting GNU/Linux, but when asked, he says "BSD deserves more press than it gets". Yet, ESR will not lift a finger to get BSD more press. But, hey, free trips to speak on GNU/Linux, why mess that up with being inclusive rather than exclusive eh?
Bruce Perens has a web page where he talks about how he is all for Open Source. Yet, when you read his works, all he does is talk about the GPL. In fact, he admits that he is "linux advocate". Again, so much for being inclusive.
Miguel de Icaza referes to the GNOME project and the MONO efforts as "Linux software". Yet, the main GNOME web page point out that it is Open Source, and runs on MANY platforms.....the software is not "Linux Software".
OSDN. It is not about Open Source as it is about Linux. Same goes for the Open Source development Lab (Yea, the one funded by Red Hat) Call it the Linux lab or the Lnux development network if you are unwilling to be inclusive.
Tim O`Reilly is a better leader for Open Source than the others. Mr. O`Reilly says Linux when he manes Linux, and when he says Open Source, he includes BSD/Artistic/X licensed software.
Unlike the "other" "leaders" who wrap themselfs up in a cape of "open source leader" because it gives them a soapbox to preach from. Or, puts some money in their pocket.
Bought a copy of SCO 286 Xenix. And a copy of ESIX, and a copy of Unixware. Picked up a cheap olaris development set. $3,500 or so
Bought a copy of 3.1 NT, upgraded to 3.5, then 3.51. Bought a "reseller" only verson of 4.0, "for evaluation purpostes...you an:t use it for day to day use" or some such restriction. $1150 or so.
Got handed a copy of NetBSD and FreeBSD 2.0.5, and have just used the features like FTP install and packages/ports. $0.
DLing a FreeBSD release mens I get it faster than they can ship it to me.
With the ability to DL new releases with FTP, the packages/ports, why would ANYONE bother buying one of the 200~ linux versions? Sticking with FreeBSD made it (SO( easy to kick the Microsoft habit, the SYS V habit and no need to spend $30 for "a better linux".
The anti-DMCA people are unwilling to get arrested in mass, unable to get funds to send people to the hill. About all they have is (some) time and the ability to collect info and sort it.
Play to the strenghts....pages of info with links that can be used in letters to send to he congress-critters. Play to the lazy factors, generate some boilerplate text (in a PDF???) so all they have to do is print the letter, sign it and send it.
Alas, the anti-DMCA people are too lazy to do it, and, well, I don't care enough to do it mmyself. (I've got other issues I'm doing the same kind of thing for.....the DMCA is a fight, but I've cosen others to fight)
I went looking for a collection of 'congresscritters quotes' on the DMCA. Why? As I remember on The Reg, one of the 'big' supporters who spoke on record about how wonderful this protection would be for the digital age, has later said that he's changed his mind.
Such statements of "Whoops" are powerful, yet the anti-DMCAers have not taken the time to collect them:-(
"Yes, definitely! Sign here, give us the money, and off you go!"
That's not an option for most of the smaller companies.:)
And you know how much M$ charges because you have asked? The picing on CE can be VERY good. Microsoft paid AT&T 5 billion (or was it 6??) to use WinCE on a set-top box.
I wish Microsoft would pay me to use thier code, don't you?
Go back and look at the DOS/Windows original suit.
DOS and Windows was going for $10.50, yet list was almost $200.
So, the 'price' of M$ poducts IS variable. Just like Oracle will sell their stuff at 90% off list. (WSJ got the price list faxed almost 2 years ago....remember?)
You have to have watched Apple for a LONG time. If so, the argument can be made that Apple did ship in a restricted way the X86 version of Mac OS X. It takes a bit of a stretch.....
The WWDC statement from the Apple CEO was that the new OS (dubbed Rhapsody) would work on X86 AND PPC hardware. Apple *DID* ship this product to developers, DR2. Mac OS X server DID identify itself as Rahpsody when you did a uname -a.
Steve Jobs pitch for the Mac was it was a closed box. The iMac removed the internal interface slot, thus returning to its closed nature. Apple is tight lipped about its hardware (see Be Inc, NetBSD or any of the Linux PPC companies if you don't believe it), so unless Apple can own the hardware spec from top to bottom, Apple under Jobs doesn't want to deal with it.
In short, X86 based Mac OS X boxes aren't comming soon.
Moving to Apple and working for Steve Jobs, a man who stopped bathing (he was on a fruit diet), dodged child support, liked putting his feet in toilets and flushing (its like a mini whirlpool - 1979 Time interview) and a well documented egotistical bastard, the situation at Wind River must REALLY be bad for FreeBSD getting support from Wind River. Wind River wanted BSD/OS, and got it. Any ties to FreeBSD were 'part of the package'. Wind River seems to have 0 PR flaks working on getting press for FreeBSD. Not that BSDi did better on promoting FreeBSD, but at least BSDi acknolged FreeBSD existed.
The suffering of actual penguins (the trade-show caged bird) and the defacement of public property (IBM) shows the *REAL* problems with 'the linux mascot'.
The best you can troll with is daemon == demon, and claim that AMD shouldn't associate with such. Guess what? x86-64.org used to ONLY mention GNU/Linux and after being reminded that FreeBSD/NetBSD Exists, did they change the focus of the page to be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE.
It is too bad you want to exclusive rather than inclusive.
In the 1980s, there was a network announced with much fanfare called SkyNet. ATandT stopped talking about it after 2 months and renamed the service with a whole lot LESS fanfare.
So the network that was named in the termminator movie has already came and went.
FreeBSD's C2 security certification is horrible also. Even NT can do better than it! For systems that need any level of security FreeBSD is not the answer.
First - NT certification was based on a machine that did NOT have a network card. That was NT 3.51.
Second - To get C2 certfication, someone has to PAY over 20,000 dollars. As you MUST have knowledge of someone how paid, will you share it? Oh wait.... YOU ARE A TROLL who has no facts to backup your claims.
Feel free to post again when you have some facts, k?
When you compare the 6 pages and 29,000+ words of the GPL to the 1/3 page and less than 300 words of BSD, one comes to the understanding that BSD is an easy to understand Open Source license, and the GPL is full of clauses.
Sorry no. Apple and Micro$oft 'settled' the matter as part of the $150 million Microsoft 'invested' in Apple back in 1997.
Odds are this will get 'settled' in a similar way. AT&T will be given a 'special price' on some M$ technology. AT&T got paid $5 bil by M$ for the Windows CE based cable box, so this will happen again.
Not much to see here. Time to move to a safe distance and watch the titans dance.
Somehow I doubt that they're going to have someone from the FSF or representing free software there at all.
Lets see, the argument of Microsoft is "Open Source does not allow for protection of IP" and that is wrong. BSD OSes/licences and others allow *FOR* the protection of IP.
Hopefully at this conference, during the Q and A, someone will stand up and point this out. Point out that Micro$oft's rightful IP \0xBE\0xEF is with the GPL and not Open Source. But the self-love linux press isn't willing to chip away at the edges, point out how Micro$oft is correct about IP and the GPL, then point out how the BSD license, which is Open Source, doesn't ahve the IP-wrecking design.
Your spritiual leader, RMS has said on many occations that the FSF is not Open Source. RMS doesn't WANT to be associated with Open Source. If this is an Open Source conference, and RMS doesn't want to be associated with Open Source, why should he be invited?
Yet, the 'principle' is exactly what the typical GPL proponent talks about.
Call RMS what you might, but he seems consistant on his principle.
And props to Avery, as he's willing to enforce what he believes is right.
It is you who is 'full of crap'
on
XFree 4.1.0 Out
·
· Score: 2
The BSD license Locks up any code so that people can't view it.
Really?
I can look at FreeBSD source code all day long.
Apple computer, under Steve Jobs has allowed the closed NeXT code AND the FreeBSD (Plus open and netbsd) to be viewed.
2 examples disproving your claim.
The GPL ensures that you cannot change the original intent of sharing the code,
Lets see:
In the linux kernel 2.0 series, you can find part of the TCP/IP stack where the BSD copyright was removed and a GPL license was instead put on. The ORIGINAL intent of the BSD code was that the license be preserved, and in this case, the GPL takes that away.
How about the Virgin webplayer? The license that shipped with the box violated the GPL and they would not release the source code.
2 examples of how the GPL does not offer the 'protection' you claim.
If you argue that the BSD license is more free, you are mistaken.
As you seem to be confused, perhaps you can understand this:
Humans are a tool using species.
Software is a tool.
The BSD license puts the rights of the human to use the tool ahead of any rights the tool has. In fact, the rights attached to the tool are associated to having the human who made the tool be remembered.
The GPL license puts the rights of the tool and how it shall be used ahead of the humans desire on how they want to use it.
I have more faith in humanity than you must have.
I perfer the freedom to choose ones path over forced servitude.
A violation is a violation, be it a one woman shop or Microsoft, or someone inbetween.
It has *MORE* to do with the lack of conviction in the GPL most coders have. The like talking about how the GPL 'protects', but are unwilling to invoke that protection.
If they believe in the GPL, they'd assign the code rights to the FSF.
What the GPL DOES do is prevent a closed source company from taking your code, using it for their own purpose, then not allowing YOU to benefit from what they added to your code.
Wrong. A company CAN take the code and do whatever the hell they want to it.
Now, someone has to catch the company with the GPLed code. THEN someone who owns the copyrite on the code has to be willing to bring the issue in front of a judge, and have the judge inforce the contract.
Given how little was done to the Boundless web player (virginconnect's box) when it was in violation, most of the people who write GPL code don't have the guts or balls to do what they have to do to make the GPL work as you have proposed.
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of
professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be
called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
Slashdot Mirror
Your list is hardly a list of LEADERS. A list of oppertunists, yes. Leaders, no.
RMS comes the closest. He stays on target when he talks. Yet, the FSF had their spokesperson whine that *RMS was not invited to the Open Source conference*, yet RMS is the 1st to say "GNU/GPL is not Open Source". (if you are not Open Source, tell everyone that, THEN don:t get invited to an Open Source conference, your message is being heard and understood)
ESR spends his time promoting GNU/Linux, but when asked, he says "BSD deserves more press than it gets". Yet, ESR will not lift a finger to get BSD more press. But, hey, free trips to speak on GNU/Linux, why mess that up with being inclusive rather than exclusive eh?
Bruce Perens has a web page where he talks about how he is all for Open Source. Yet, when you read his works, all he does is talk about the GPL. In fact, he admits that he is "linux advocate". Again, so much for being inclusive.
Miguel de Icaza referes to the GNOME project and the MONO efforts as "Linux software". Yet, the main GNOME web page point out that it is Open Source, and runs on MANY platforms.....the software is not "Linux Software".
OSDN. It is not about Open Source as it is about Linux. Same goes for the Open Source development Lab (Yea, the one funded by Red Hat) Call it the Linux lab or the Lnux development network if you are unwilling to be inclusive.
Tim O`Reilly is a better leader for Open Source than the others. Mr. O`Reilly says Linux when he manes Linux, and when he says Open Source, he includes BSD/Artistic/X licensed software.
Unlike the "other" "leaders" who wrap themselfs up in a cape of "open source leader" because it gives them a soapbox to preach from. Or, puts some money in their pocket.
Bought a copy of SCO 286 Xenix. And a copy of ESIX, and a copy of Unixware. Picked up a cheap olaris development set. $3,500 or so
Bought a copy of 3.1 NT, upgraded to 3.5, then 3.51. Bought a "reseller" only verson of 4.0, "for evaluation purpostes...you an:t use it for day to day use" or some such restriction. $1150 or so.
Got handed a copy of NetBSD and FreeBSD 2.0.5, and have just used the features like FTP install and packages/ports. $0.
DLing a FreeBSD release mens I get it faster than they can ship it to me.
With the ability to DL new releases with FTP, the packages/ports, why would ANYONE bother buying one of the 200~ linux versions? Sticking with FreeBSD made it (SO( easy to kick the Microsoft habit, the SYS V habit and no need to spend $30 for "a better linux".
Yes.... but where is a collecion of these links?
The anti-DMCA people are unwilling to get arrested in mass, unable to get funds to send people to the hill. About all they have is (some) time and the ability to collect info and sort it.
Play to the strenghts....pages of info with links that can be used in letters to send to he congress-critters. Play to the lazy factors, generate some boilerplate text (in a PDF???) so all they have to do is print the letter, sign it and send it.
Alas, the anti-DMCA people are too lazy to do it, and, well, I don't care enough to do it mmyself. (I've got other issues I'm doing the same kind of thing for.....the DMCA is a fight, but I've cosen others to fight)
I went looking for a collection of 'congresscritters quotes' on the DMCA. Why? As I remember on The Reg, one of the 'big' supporters who spoke on record about how wonderful this protection would be for the digital age, has later said that he's changed his mind.
:-(
Such statements of "Whoops" are powerful, yet the anti-DMCAers have not taken the time to collect them
Or, am I not looking in the correct places?
*smile*
Show of hands of thoese who are supprised?
(and, has someone created a web page that is a link to the original $5 bil deal, and the eventual fall-out?)
"Yes, definitely! Sign here, give us the money, and off you go!"
:)
That's not an option for most of the smaller companies.
And you know how much M$ charges because you have asked? The picing on CE can be VERY good. Microsoft paid AT&T 5 billion (or was it 6??) to use WinCE on a set-top box.
I wish Microsoft would pay me to use thier code, don't you?
Go back and look at the DOS/Windows original suit.
DOS and Windows was going for $10.50, yet list was almost $200.
So, the 'price' of M$ poducts IS variable. Just like Oracle will sell their stuff at 90% off list. (WSJ got the price list faxed almost 2 years ago....remember?)
And everyone knows you are full of shit.
www.homepower.org
They point out the energy payback in in under-5 years based on a German study.
Wind power has a under 3 year payback based on the power used to produce it.
Do you have some links to prove your POV, AC?
You have to have watched Apple for a LONG time. If so, the argument can be made that Apple did ship in a restricted way the X86 version of Mac OS X. It takes a bit of a stretch.....
The WWDC statement from the Apple CEO was that the new OS (dubbed Rhapsody) would work on X86 AND PPC hardware. Apple *DID* ship this product to developers, DR2. Mac OS X server DID identify itself as Rahpsody when you did a uname -a.
Steve Jobs pitch for the Mac was it was a closed box. The iMac removed the internal interface slot, thus returning to its closed nature. Apple is tight lipped about its hardware (see Be Inc, NetBSD or any of the Linux PPC companies if you don't believe it), so unless Apple can own the hardware spec from top to bottom, Apple under Jobs doesn't want to deal with it.
In short, X86 based Mac OS X boxes aren't comming soon.
Moving to Apple and working for Steve Jobs, a man who stopped bathing (he was on a fruit diet), dodged child support, liked putting his feet in toilets and flushing (its like a mini whirlpool - 1979 Time interview) and a well documented egotistical bastard, the situation at Wind River must REALLY be bad for FreeBSD getting support from Wind River. Wind River wanted BSD/OS, and got it. Any ties to FreeBSD were 'part of the package'. Wind River seems to have 0 PR flaks working on getting press for FreeBSD. Not that BSDi did better on promoting FreeBSD, but at least BSDi acknolged FreeBSD existed.
The suffering of actual penguins (the trade-show caged bird) and the defacement of public property (IBM) shows the *REAL* problems with 'the linux mascot'.
The best you can troll with is daemon == demon, and claim that AMD shouldn't associate with such. Guess what? x86-64.org used to ONLY mention GNU/Linux and after being reminded that FreeBSD/NetBSD Exists, did they change the focus of the page to be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE.
It is too bad you want to exclusive rather than inclusive.
In the 1980s, there was a network announced with much fanfare called SkyNet. ATandT stopped talking about it after 2 months and renamed the service with a whole lot LESS fanfare.
So the network that was named in the termminator movie has already came and went.
FreeBSD's C2 security certification is horrible also. Even NT can do better than it! For systems that need any level of security FreeBSD is not the answer.
First - NT certification was based on a machine that did NOT have a network card. That was NT 3.51.
Second - To get C2 certfication, someone has to PAY over 20,000 dollars. As you MUST have knowledge of someone how paid, will you share it? Oh wait.... YOU ARE A TROLL who has no facts to backup your claims.
Feel free to post again when you have some facts, k?
It allows for the protection of IP *as long as you agree to allow anybody else to use that IP*
If you use GPL code with your code, you run the risk of your IP expressed as source code will have to be released.
If you use BSD licensed code with your code, you don't run the risk of having your ip expressed as source code released.
Micro$oft is painting Open Source with a GPL brush. And, well, BSD based OSes don't have the GPL desire to tear down the walls of IP.
When you compare the 6 pages and 29,000+ words of the GPL to the 1/3 page and less than 300 words of BSD, one comes to the understanding that BSD is an easy to understand Open Source license, and the GPL is full of clauses.
Sorry no. Apple and Micro$oft 'settled' the matter as part of the $150 million Microsoft 'invested' in Apple back in 1997.
Odds are this will get 'settled' in a similar way. AT&T will be given a 'special price' on some M$ technology. AT&T got paid $5 bil by M$ for the Windows CE based cable box, so this will happen again.
Not much to see here. Time to move to a safe distance and watch the titans dance.
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer available.
Somehow I doubt that they're going to have someone from the FSF or representing free software there at all.
Lets see, the argument of Microsoft is "Open Source does not allow for protection of IP" and that is wrong. BSD OSes/licences and others allow *FOR* the protection of IP.
Hopefully at this conference, during the Q and A, someone will stand up and point this out. Point out that Micro$oft's rightful IP \0xBE\0xEF is with the GPL and not Open Source. But the self-love linux press isn't willing to chip away at the edges, point out how Micro$oft is correct about IP and the GPL, then point out how the BSD license, which is Open Source, doesn't ahve the IP-wrecking design.
Your spritiual leader, RMS has said on many occations that the FSF is not Open Source. RMS doesn't WANT to be associated with Open Source. If this is an Open Source conference, and RMS doesn't want to be associated with Open Source, why should he be invited?
going to be commercial in the near future
Any proof of this?
Ask Joe Barr. He mail him and ask if he sent that.
(who is Joe Barr? A 'leading' Linux advocate. Paid to shill for Linux on the now dead Linux World)
Yeah, I agree with you in principle
Yet, the 'principle' is exactly what the typical GPL proponent talks about.
Call RMS what you might, but he seems consistant on his principle.
And props to Avery, as he's willing to enforce what he believes is right.
The BSD license Locks up any code so that people can't view it.
Really?
I can look at FreeBSD source code all day long.
Apple computer, under Steve Jobs has allowed the closed NeXT code AND the FreeBSD (Plus open and netbsd) to be viewed.
2 examples disproving your claim.
The GPL ensures that you cannot change the original intent of sharing the code,
Lets see:
In the linux kernel 2.0 series, you can find part of the TCP/IP stack where the BSD copyright was removed and a GPL license was instead put on. The ORIGINAL intent of the BSD code was that the license be preserved, and in this case, the GPL takes that away.
How about the Virgin webplayer? The license that shipped with the box violated the GPL and they would not release the source code.
2 examples of how the GPL does not offer the 'protection' you claim.
If you argue that the BSD license is more free, you are mistaken.
As you seem to be confused, perhaps you can understand this:
Humans are a tool using species.
Software is a tool.
The BSD license puts the rights of the human to use the tool ahead of any rights the tool has. In fact, the rights attached to the tool are associated to having the human who made the tool be remembered.
The GPL license puts the rights of the tool and how it shall be used ahead of the humans desire on how they want to use it.
I have more faith in humanity than you must have.
I perfer the freedom to choose ones path over forced servitude.
little was done with the Boundless web player.
A violation is a violation, be it a one woman shop or Microsoft, or someone inbetween.
It has *MORE* to do with the lack of conviction in the GPL most coders have. The like talking about how the GPL 'protects', but are unwilling to invoke that protection.
If they believe in the GPL, they'd assign the code rights to the FSF.
What the GPL DOES do is prevent a closed source company from taking your code, using it for their own purpose, then not allowing YOU to benefit from what they added to your code.
Wrong. A company CAN take the code and do whatever the hell they want to it.
Now, someone has to catch the company with the GPLed code. THEN someone who owns the copyrite on the code has to be willing to bring the issue in front of a judge, and have the judge inforce the contract.
Given how little was done to the Boundless web player (virginconnect's box) when it was in violation, most of the people who write GPL code don't have the guts or balls to do what they have to do to make the GPL work as you have proposed.
Should look like this instead?
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of
professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be
called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
tHANKS,
Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer
From ecompany:
Yes, IBM. Big Blue is on track to refurbish or recycle 500,000 used computers this year, or about 10,000 machines a week.