You paid $99.95 for Win 95 at CompUSA and did not send in the warranty card, to register the software. By not sending in the card, you did not 'offically license' the OS, and therefore office was not leally run on your box.
If the GPL is "so simple", why is it 6 pages long, Corel had 'violated' it 2 times, AOL 'violated' it, and the Virgin webplayer 'violated' it?
If you want the simplist license, that is "this software is in the public domain".
Then next simplist is the 2 clause FreeBSD license.
Re:Copyright holder question
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Either way, it is eaiser to ask BEFORE bug patches get submitted that one should asign the patch rights back over to the project.
And if someone doesn't like that, they can always go fork themselves a new code fork.
Re:Copyright holder question
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Depends on HOW you accepted the bug fixes.
If you ask that all bug fixes have the rights signed over to you/the company you create to hold the software copyright, then you/your firm hold the rights to re-license later.
Otherwise, you have to track down EACH bug-submitter, and ask for permission. If you don't, you might get a 'violate the GPL' post here on/. Or, perhaps an actual, real live lawsuit, is one of the submitters has the balls to do that.
Banter about Apple deleted Notice how the complaints about Apple are based on failed promises. Look at Microsoft's history....if Microsoft was not raising the expectiations beyond what they do deliver, the level of hatred woudn't be there.
With Open Source, you have no promise of much of anything. You have HOPES based on past results. Because of the promise/deliver, the ability to move the code to a non-dead platform (newton) or fix the buffer that causes the program to choke when you get larger data amounts.
I think if you write GNUstep code you have to GPL your code.
Where you an Apple ][ developer? How about a school district that bought more Apple's after the marketing slogan "Apple ][ Forever" was created?
No matter if it is old news, Apple *DID* yank the chain of a number of developers *AND* customers. And they havn't been back, and won't be back.
Just like the OpenDOC developers or Newton Developers won't be back.
Developer Landscape:
USe Microsoft, get abused via buggy code/discontinued code, have 90+% marketshare. If they like your idea, they eat you.
Use Apple, get abused via buggy code/discontinued code, have sub 5% marketshare.
Use OpenSource, if your frameworke is broken, fix it, if it isn't supported, you can do that too. Have an unknown marketshare.
As a developer of software, the reward for picking Apple is small marketshare and a history of abuse.
Apple/// developers and customers were told the platform had a 5 year future. Killed in 2.5 years.
How about.....
Apple ][ Forever (yea, right)
OpenDOC
Newton
After a while, you run out of people to upset. Given the way Apple has treated Newton devbelopers, OpenDOC developers, the Apple ][ group, why would you think for your sub 5% market share that Apple would treat you any better?
Today's Apple developer has an out, something they never had before. Darwin and GNUStep. So if Apple slaps the developers about, they can bail to a larger market of Unix running GNUStep.
1) The PPC isn't 'lost' to BSD. To call it lost, makes it a win, lose game, rather than a win-win. Too bad vast, vocal parts of the Linux world sees things as a win-lose game.
In the 'not helping linux on PPC' department:
1) LinuxPPC Co-founder resigns./. story 2) Some feel the PPC version of the kernel isn't merged with the std X86 centric kernel./. story 3) back in Aug 1999 a story was floated 'will PPC become the leading linux platform/. story As we know, that didn't happen. And, the more time that passes, the more likely its not gonna happen.
Linux will be an option for PPC based machines, just like BSD and AIX is.
Just like GNU/Linux doesn't rule the X86 world, its not going to rule the PPC world.
Yes, you are correct, it would be nice to see UNIX apps as opposed to "linux" or "AIX" or "BSD" applications.
The X86 market tried to get together X86Open. After a bit, allmost everyone in the group has a "Linux Emulation/Compatibility" layer. So, Linux-ELF was declared a "standard", and the group all went home, claiming victory.
Given the lack of progress of LSB, the lack of progress of the great UNIX unification, and the desire of frims to carve out thier own hunk o money, asking for UNIX programs will always be an uphill battle.
Yes, well heaven forbid that we be INCLUSIVE...its better to be a linux-only-zealot and if they ain't running some version of the Linux kernel, it is garbage.
Embracing Solaris/BSD/the Linux layer on Windows would give a 100% effective coverage.
I think that Eric S. Reynolds does a very good job at promoting open source
(Errr, Eric S Raymond perhaps???)
No he does not.
Like the OSDN (Open Source Developers Network), the Open Source Research Labs (RedHat's think-tank), ESR pubically supports Linux. If the support was for Open Source, there would be mention of BSD. Instead, the word Linux is used rather than the words "Open Source OS".
ESR did say at The Bazzar "BSD should get more press than it does", so he knows the difference. Rather than run the risk of not getting the attention from the pro-linux crowd, he doesn't rock the boat with an Open Source OS message, just a Linux message.
Poor Richard Stallman, he actually was responsible for the whole thing 1) RMS has chosen his lower-income-life-than-he-could-make-if-he-sold-ou t.
2) RMS would be the 1st to point out that he is into Free Software (the RMS way, as opposed to the Bruce Perens version.) and wants no connection to the bigger set of Open Source.
RMS may be "a hippy", "wrong", or "creator of the vial GPL that keeps programmers out of work", but at least RMS has the courage of his convictions.
Why bother.....The OEMs and only the biggest companies (Ford, Boeing) are what BillCo listen to.
They know the smaller shops pirate the code, so they are not paying customers.
If you pay for licenses, for all but a few of "us" it is not "our" money, it is the companies money. Let the bosses know there may be a budget increase in the next years. The company you work for will just have to figure out some other way to pay the bill. Suggest a cut in executive pay.
Better to watch your own world, put in BSD-GNU/Linux where it can fit, and move out the M$ Licenses where you can. That is the best way to watch out for the interests of your firm bottom line. Writting a letter to M$ won't get your firm squat.
It states that Apple supports the UNIX group, and says NOTHING about Mac OS X being 'branded UNIX'.
Apple has had a couple of different unix versions. There was a 68000 based version of A/UX of which I remember little. Then there was the re-labeled AIX version of A/UX that ran on the Apple server line.
Hopefully, the Open Source movement won't stoop to such levels.
Too late.
You have Joe Barr creating press that makes it look like Linus said 'FreeBSD is the work of a small group of programmers'. Linus said no such thing.
Richard Stallman calling himself 'chief architect of GNU/Linux' (letter to The Reg)
A sig here on/. that claims Linus called BSD developers 'childish whiners' (never seen the actual source of it)
Some clown who posts for 2 years 'bsd is dying'
GNU/linux vs calling it Linux
Comments about TdR (OpenBSD fame) by others
And on and on and on.
To date there have been no known suicides or murders over open source...but give it the same number of years as science has been around, and there will be a body count.
Alas, I do not look forward to the new daemonnews, for that means another month has started, and my tasks that are undone by the end of the month have grown!
And such does not happen if you are using a BSD based vacation program and you have it configured properly.
-r interval Set the reply interval to interval days. The default is one week. An interval of ``0'' or ``infinite'' (actually, any non-numeric character) will never send more than one reply.
You have to go thru a
-i Initialize the vacation database files. It should be used before you modify your.forward file.
Slashdot Mirror
personally, I saw the possibility of this:
You paid $99.95 for Win 95 at CompUSA and did not send in the warranty card, to register the software. By not sending in the card, you did not 'offically license' the OS, and therefore office was not leally run on your box.
Guess what?
:-)
An early Office 95 license said something to the effect "This can only be used on officially licenced Windows OSes"
I have to find that, so I can post it
If the GPL is "so simple", why is it 6 pages long, Corel had 'violated' it 2 times, AOL 'violated' it, and the Virgin webplayer 'violated' it?
If you want the simplist license, that is "this software is in the public domain".
Then next simplist is the 2 clause FreeBSD license.
Either way, it is eaiser to ask BEFORE bug patches get submitted that one should asign the patch rights back over to the project.
And if someone doesn't like that, they can always go fork themselves a new code fork.
Depends on HOW you accepted the bug fixes.
/. Or, perhaps an actual, real live lawsuit, is one of the submitters has the balls to do that.
If you ask that all bug fixes have the rights signed over to you/the company you create to hold the software copyright, then you/your firm hold the rights to re-license later.
Otherwise, you have to track down EACH bug-submitter, and ask for permission. If you don't, you might get a 'violate the GPL' post here on
Ya, thats why its +60% of the air we breath is Nitrogen.
Banter about Apple deleted
Notice how the complaints about Apple are based on failed promises. Look at Microsoft's history....if Microsoft was not raising the expectiations beyond what they do deliver, the level of hatred woudn't be there.
With Open Source, you have no promise of much of anything. You have HOPES based on past results. Because of the promise/deliver, the ability to move the code to a non-dead platform (newton) or fix the buffer that causes the program to choke when you get larger data amounts.
I think if you write GNUstep code you have to GPL your code.
GNUStep is LGPLed the last time I checked.
It recognizes my handwritting (when the Newton
couldn't get a single letter right),
Newton OS 1.X or 2.X?
2.0 worked, the others didn't.
As Palm uses the ARMed Dragonball, and is able to better leverage the Apple Newton engineers who work for the firm, you might get a reason to upgrade.
I did not contact BSD folks...Mea culpa.
Is this a change in your POV Bruce? If technocrat still existed, I'd point out how you said "It is not the job of Linux Advocates to promote BSD".
Hardly Mea Culpa. More like "keeping with your GNU/Linux promotion".
Where you an Apple ][ developer? How about a school district that bought more Apple's after the marketing slogan "Apple ][ Forever" was created?
No matter if it is old news, Apple *DID* yank the chain of a number of developers *AND* customers. And they havn't been back, and won't be back.
Just like the OpenDOC developers or Newton Developers won't be back.
Developer Landscape:
USe Microsoft, get abused via buggy code/discontinued code, have 90+% marketshare. If they like your idea, they eat you.
Use Apple, get abused via buggy code/discontinued code, have sub 5% marketshare.
Use OpenSource, if your frameworke is broken, fix it, if it isn't supported, you can do that too. Have an unknown marketshare.
As a developer of software, the reward for picking Apple is small marketshare and a history of abuse.
Think game developers have it bad?
/// developers and customers were told the platform had a 5 year future. Killed in 2.5 years.
Apple
How about.....
Apple ][ Forever (yea, right)
OpenDOC
Newton
After a while, you run out of people to upset. Given the way Apple has treated Newton devbelopers, OpenDOC developers, the Apple ][ group, why would you think for your sub 5% market share that Apple would treat you any better?
Today's Apple developer has an out, something they never had before. Darwin and GNUStep. So if Apple slaps the developers about, they can bail to a larger market of Unix running GNUStep.
If only RWatson would port jailng to Linux,
Nothing stopping you from porting it.
But if jail is so important to you, why not run FreeBSD to get that functionality?
1) The PPC isn't 'lost' to BSD. To call it lost, makes it a win, lose game, rather than a win-win. Too bad vast, vocal parts of the Linux world sees things as a win-lose game.
/. story
/. story
/. story As we know, that didn't happen. And, the more time that passes, the more likely its not gonna happen.
In the 'not helping linux on PPC' department:
1) LinuxPPC Co-founder resigns.
2) Some feel the PPC version of the kernel isn't merged with the std X86 centric kernel.
3) back in Aug 1999 a story was floated 'will PPC become the leading linux platform
Linux will be an option for PPC based machines, just like BSD and AIX is.
Just like GNU/Linux doesn't rule the X86 world, its not going to rule the PPC world.
Yes, you are correct, it would be nice to see UNIX apps as opposed to "linux" or "AIX" or "BSD" applications.
The X86 market tried to get together X86Open. After a bit, allmost everyone in the group has a "Linux Emulation/Compatibility" layer. So, Linux-ELF was declared a "standard", and the group all went home, claiming victory.
Given the lack of progress of LSB, the lack of progress of the great UNIX unification, and the desire of frims to carve out thier own hunk o money, asking for UNIX programs will always be an uphill battle.
Yes, well heaven forbid that we be INCLUSIVE...its better to be a linux-only-zealot and if they ain't running some version of the Linux kernel, it is garbage.
Embracing Solaris/BSD/the Linux layer on Windows would give a 100% effective coverage.
But, the LSB crowd doesn't see things that way.
I think that Eric S. Reynolds does a very good job at promoting open source
u t.
(Errr, Eric S Raymond perhaps???)
No he does not.
Like the OSDN (Open Source Developers Network), the Open Source Research Labs (RedHat's think-tank), ESR pubically supports Linux. If the support was for Open Source, there would be mention of BSD. Instead, the word Linux is used rather than the words "Open Source OS".
ESR did say at The Bazzar "BSD should get more press than it does", so he knows the difference. Rather than run the risk of not getting the attention from the pro-linux crowd, he doesn't rock the boat with an Open Source OS message, just a Linux message.
Poor Richard Stallman, he actually was responsible for the whole thing
1) RMS has chosen his lower-income-life-than-he-could-make-if-he-sold-o
2) RMS would be the 1st to point out that he is into Free Software (the RMS way, as opposed to the Bruce Perens version.) and wants no connection to the bigger set of Open Source.
RMS may be "a hippy", "wrong", or "creator of the vial GPL that keeps programmers out of work", but at least RMS has the courage of his convictions.
Why bother.....The OEMs and only the biggest companies (Ford, Boeing) are what BillCo listen to.
They know the smaller shops pirate the code, so they are not paying customers.
If you pay for licenses, for all but a few of "us" it is not "our" money, it is the companies money. Let the bosses know there may be a budget increase in the next years. The company you work for will just have to figure out some other way to pay the bill. Suggest a cut in executive pay.
Better to watch your own world, put in BSD-GNU/Linux where it can fit, and move out the M$ Licenses where you can. That is the best way to watch out for the interests of your firm bottom line. Writting a letter to M$ won't get your firm squat.
It states that Apple supports the UNIX group, and says NOTHING about Mac OS X being 'branded UNIX'.
Apple has had a couple of different unix versions. There was a 68000 based version of A/UX of which I remember little. Then there was the re-labeled AIX version of A/UX that ran on the Apple server line.
t was a april fools joke sent to linux-kernel
Nod, that is why I've never seen the actual post somewhere else.
Thanks for the info
Hopefully, the Open Source movement won't stoop to such levels.
/. that claims Linus called BSD developers 'childish whiners' (never seen the actual source of it)
Too late.
You have Joe Barr creating press that makes it look like Linus said 'FreeBSD is the work of a small group of programmers'. Linus said no such thing.
Richard Stallman calling himself 'chief architect of GNU/Linux' (letter to The Reg)
A sig here on
Some clown who posts for 2 years 'bsd is dying'
GNU/linux vs calling it Linux
Comments about TdR (OpenBSD fame) by others
And on and on and on.
To date there have been no known suicides or murders over open source...but give it the same number of years as science has been around, and there will be a body count.
Mindcraft did an industry standard benchmark.
And, there was much whining and knashing of teeth over their results.
Still no comment?
Alas, I do not look forward to the new daemonnews, for that means another month has started, and my tasks that are undone by the end of the month have grown!
Curse you dependable Deamons!
And such does not happen if you are using a BSD based vacation program and you have it configured properly.
.forward file.
-r interval Set the reply interval to interval days. The default is one week. An interval of ``0'' or ``infinite'' (actually, any non-numeric character) will never send more than one reply.
You have to go thru a
-i Initialize the vacation database files. It should be used before you modify your
In the case of the Matrox Meteor, Phillips had a 'last call' on the chip, and is why it stopped being made.
With our current hardware, linux *could* run on all the machines
If its an X86 machine with mainstream hardware, yes it should.