Because its been done in FreeBSD. Using the Matrox capture card. One that went out of production back in 1999 and cost $600 Using the kernel code from 1995 by Jim Lowe and Mark Tinguely. And once using a $49 card that the interlace is busted (the odd line is in the even slot, and the even is odd), as a time-lapse security camera system. (it just goes with 1/2 a page.) Given the one system is now 5 years old, and was last rebooted 500 days ago (a server move), FreeBSD is a known, working solution.
At 2 TV stations. Every minute it does a rbg24 and pipes the ppm through ImageMagick.
To add the date gfont.
Like gfont -r 640x45 "`date '+Time:%l:%M:%S%p Date:%m-%d-%Y'`"
Take that result and do the append via ImageMagick.
Make them animated gifs or a.avi for that time-lapse movie effect.
A keyboard USB chip is the input from the security sensors, and USB switches which camera is the live feed into the capture card. (Ya have to shield it because USB and 900 mhz phones don't play nice) As a benefit, the security testing is simple keystroke simulations.:-)
Bruce Perens, the man who got his nose all bent outta shape over Corel's violation had the reaction of "so what". But given the strong tie of Bruce to the embedded linux end of things....the only defender of the GPL is RMS. Everyone else is looking out for thier pocketbook.
Do you REALLY believe the GPL offers 'protection'?
If so, the virgin webplayer had linux on a DOC (disk on Chip). Yet, no source was ever made aviable. In fact, the license shipped with the box forbid reverse engineering.
Can you explain the virgin GPL issue, if your belifs are correct?
Newton E-mates had such added. Given they draw 57mA at 7 volts when active (no ethernet or backlighting), you can power them with the windup section from a freeplay radio. link
If CMU has decided to dump the 'non-commercial' tag from all their code that's great. Then the code is more useable with other projects.
It doesn't change the fact that the project works to keep NATs in service, and such a position is going to have a hard time getting IETF approval. And without the blessing of the IETF, the project won't be anything more than an acedemic excersise.
funny, when I worked there my lab released a big chunk of code under a BSD license, and the Cyrus IMAP server and Cyrus SASL library both appear to be released under a BSD license.
"Premission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its documentation is hereby granted for non-comerical purposes" That is hardly a BSD-style license.
Such a (speculated) license on the AVES code means that for it to get approved as an IEFT standard, someone would have to come up with a more 'commercial friendly' version. A less restrictive license would remove one objection to the project at an IETF level.
Without IETF's blessing, it isn't going to be an internet standard, and will be in interesting research project like SKIP.
I would suggest that you give this project time to develop And as I stated, it has 2 strikes against it, as far as the IETF process is concerned. The project may get completed, and it may work. But for it to become part of an approved standard, getting past the NAT resistance will be a hard sell. But perhaps all you want is the project to be like the SKIP vpn code.
NATs violate the concept of direct connections to the internet that a large part of the IETF want to see. (Strike 1)
Where is the source code? What is the license terms? (given CMU's lack of willingness to use BSD style license....Strike 2)
Two strikes as to why the IETF would look at this and click their tounges. If they are uynwilling to submit this to the IETF and go through the process, this is nothing more than an acedemic excersize, and can be safly ignored.
And I have given examples that support the claim the "GNU license" (GPL) is NOT well understood.
Given you have determined that you can not provide a useable counter-argument, you now choose to state that you did not make such a statement?
You also make a claim:
The LCC "license" is not a license at all. Yet you also claim I'm not a lawyer, and probably without any legal meaning at all Is there anything you are sure of, other than you are not a lawyer and that you have no skill in passing legal judgement, YET insist some software license is a fucked up pile of crap.?
The GPL can be understood by anyone who is willing to invest a small amount of time in understanding it. You claim to understand it, and you are clearly of below average intelligence.
Miss, I have made no such claim to understand the GPL.
My claims are:
1) the GPL is a long, wordy document
2) It is harder to read than other licences, and I used a common tool to show that.
3) If the document was easy to understand (your claim) than why did Corel Corp fail TWICE to comply, why did Virgin ship a non-conforming implementation, etc.
To quote you:
I can't imagine a company like Corel would be unable to find a IP Lawyer who would explain the license to them for a few thousand dollars
Thank you for making my case. The GPL is complex enough to baffle IP lawyers Corel uses. And Corel is a company that makes its money off of IP in software. Corel understands the importance of IP. Yet, Corel failed twice to understand and comply with the GPL. And Bruce Perens explained it to Corel after the 1st violation. Are you next going to claim that Bruce is incapable of explaining the GPL? If HP (HP now pays for Bruce's time) violates the GPL, that argument would hold water.
BTW, are you attemting to present an argument to refute that the purpose of the GPL is to destroy IP? Because that is what you quoted of my text.
but I'm a long time PalmOS fan. Now if only they'd GPL their OS... *hope*
Parts of the Palm OS is *NOT* thiers to "GPL".
In fact you can go look at the source for 90% or so of the code.
Other than the blind zealtory that is the GPL, what benefit would Palm get by using the GPL as opposed to what they have done?
Oh and Hermos, if you can't get Linux to work, have you thought of using NetBSD on the iPaq? Oh, wait....Open Source only matters if it is Linux. (and if its GNU/Linux, then it is Free Software)
Re:Pro GPL people with mod points are delusional.
on
xMach GPL Free
·
· Score: 1
I agree that the actual text of the GPL is somewhat complex, but the gist of the GPL can be summarized quite succinctly:
Then why not dump the 24K plus words for your 37 words?
The original comment was "well understood Gnu license". The 7 page document, the trail of license violations show that the Gnu License is NOT well understood.
If the document was well understood, companies who WANT to protect their IP would not touch GPLed code and instead use other code. Apple did this and selected FreeBSD. (+ Net and openBSD although Apple only notes FreeBSD) Given issues with Corel and others, the GPL is *NOT* 'well understood'.
Re:Pro GPL people with mod points are delusional.
on
xMach GPL Free
·
· Score: 3
Ok, facts (per Micorsoft word) that the GPL is *NOT* easy to understand, compared to other options.
The GPL with preamble/postable/all the babble
Counts:
7 pages
words 2946
characters 14538
paragraphs 171
sentences 93
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.5
Words per sentence 31.7
characters per word 4.8
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 11.6
The 4.4BSD-Lite with clause #3 removed.
Counts:
1 page
words 254
characters 1422
paragraphs 26
sentences 6
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.2
Words per sentence 42.3
characters per word 5.2
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 10.7
And the simplest license:
"I hereby place this software in the public domain" (given how Berkely didn't go after Microsoft and others for the use of BSD code in an improper way, or how no one has sued over GPL violations, it might as well be public domain)
Counts:
1 page
words 9
characters 42
paragraphs 1
sentences 1
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 1
Words per sentence 9
characters per word 4.6
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 8.5
The GPL is more complex compared to the BSD license. And, it is that complexity that causes issues for Corel and others.
Readability formulas
After Word completes a grammar check, readability statistics are displayed, including the following readability formula:
Bormuth Grade Level
This index determines a readability grade level based on characters per word and words per sentences.
Oh and once again, the/. moderation system mods up pro-GPL comments and mods down anything critical of the GPL.
The only thing is, I'm sad there so down on the GPL
Who says they are DOWN on the GPL? Does the new licence *STOP* this code from being used in some GPL project?
Perhaps the idea of wide code useage is more important than a false feeling of 'protection'. If someone who is bigger wants something, and are prone to taking what they want, they will do that.
And the GPL isn't going to stop them. It hasn't stopped anyone yet, has it?
Pro GPL people are delusional.
on
xMach GPL Free
·
· Score: 2
well understood Gnu license
If the GPL is so well understood, then why did Corel have 2 brushes with GPL violations? How about the Virgin Webplayer? Or AMD's latest hammer emulator?
But for adjenda, they don't have the profits from another line of EQ to prop up the other line so they can survive long enough to come out with a working version.
And, if this curses all future Linux handheld efforts, there is NetBSD and Wind River backed FreeBSD as options for Open Source based PDA's. Or, if you can live with access to 90% of the source code of a Palm PDA, they have source you can look at.
(The other choice is a Windows for Pen platform, complete with just plain wrong code examples;-)
Does the shareholders lawsuit just filed going to distract your firm from maintaining the 75+% mindshare with linux developers? It seems for web servers, RedHat is a favorite, and by a wide margin.
Given the nature of the embedded side of your business, does Wind River's announced purchase of BSD code going to cause your firm to work harder, or just give up on the embedded side? Wind River didn't have a compelling price point per unit that can match the Open Source/Free Software models. And, well, no BSD or Linux vendors can pay 1 billion and get BSD/gnu-linux embedded in a set-top box.
It would be rather stupid of Wind River to kill off their only credible chance to play in the new market of $0.00 per unit for an embedded system that PicoBSD/FreeBSD (net and openBSD) and embedded linux represents.
Wind River can still make money by adding value, and selling their development tools. They will just have to abandon the idea of getting $1.98 per unit sold. The only question is: Can Wind River let go of their per unit license for their code?
Even though PicoBSD is a stripped FreeBSD....and "freeBSD will continue as before", PicoBSD is most like the space WindRiver is normally associated with.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been one reason my employer keeps arguing against linux fileservers,
:-)
Except that:
1) it is FreeBSD. (Now you may have said "Open Source OS" and it was heard as "linux" by others
2) it is in CURRENT.
Somedays CURRENT works, other days not. Using current on a business critical system is life on the edge. More power to you if you live there.
Because its been done in FreeBSD. Using the Matrox capture card. One that went out of production back in 1999 and cost $600 Using the kernel code from 1995 by Jim Lowe and Mark Tinguely. And once using a $49 card that the interlace is busted (the odd line is in the even slot, and the even is odd), as a time-lapse security camera system. (it just goes with 1/2 a page.) Given the one system is now 5 years old, and was last rebooted 500 days ago (a server move), FreeBSD is a known, working solution.
.avi for that time-lapse movie effect.
:-)
At 2 TV stations. Every minute it does a rbg24 and pipes the ppm through ImageMagick.
To add the date gfont.
Like gfont -r 640x45 "`date '+Time:%l:%M:%S%p Date:%m-%d-%Y'`"
Take that result and do the append via ImageMagick.
Make them animated gifs or a
A keyboard USB chip is the input from the security sensors, and USB switches which camera is the live feed into the capture card. (Ya have to shield it because USB and 900 mhz phones don't play nice) As a benefit, the security testing is simple keystroke simulations.
Here is someone who spent some time on the issue.
link
Bruce Perens, the man who got his nose all bent outta shape over Corel's violation had the reaction of "so what". But given the strong tie of Bruce to the embedded linux end of things....the only defender of the GPL is RMS. Everyone else is looking out for thier pocketbook.
Do you REALLY believe the GPL offers 'protection'?
If so, the virgin webplayer had linux on a DOC (disk on Chip). Yet, no source was ever made aviable. In fact, the license shipped with the box forbid reverse engineering.
Can you explain the virgin GPL issue, if your belifs are correct?
A clockwork PDA was already done.
Newton E-mates had such added. Given they draw 57mA at 7 volts when active (no ethernet or backlighting), you can power them with the windup section from a freeplay radio. link
Glad you C.
If CMU has decided to dump the 'non-commercial' tag from all their code that's great. Then the code is more useable with other projects.
It doesn't change the fact that the project works to keep NATs in service, and such a position is going to have a hard time getting IETF approval. And without the blessing of the IETF, the project won't be anything more than an acedemic excersise.
Cyrus-imapd-1.6.22.
his kind of automatic "Give me the source, give me the BSD style license" makes me sick.
Then you'd hate the IETF. They like reference code that is un-encumbered. Public domain, BSD style licences help get IETF blessing.
And, this 'solution' doesn't seem to consider the habits of the IETF.
funny, when I worked there my lab released a big chunk of code under a BSD license, and the Cyrus IMAP server and Cyrus SASL library both appear to be released under a BSD license.
"Premission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its documentation is hereby granted for non-comerical purposes" That is hardly a BSD-style license.
Such a (speculated) license on the AVES code means that for it to get approved as an IEFT standard, someone would have to come up with a more 'commercial friendly' version. A less restrictive license would remove one objection to the project at an IETF level.
Without IETF's blessing, it isn't going to be an internet standard, and will be in interesting research project like SKIP.
I would suggest that you give this project time to develop
And as I stated, it has 2 strikes against it, as far as the IETF process is concerned. The project may get completed, and it may work. But for it to become part of an approved standard, getting past the NAT resistance will be a hard sell. But perhaps all you want is the project to be like the SKIP vpn code.
The sub-notebook market (libertio/original Sony picturebook)
As a PDA, it is following in the Newton's path.
Where is this in the IETF standards process?
NATs violate the concept of direct connections to the internet that a large part of the IETF want to see. (Strike 1)
Where is the source code? What is the license terms? (given CMU's lack of willingness to use BSD style license....Strike 2)
Two strikes as to why the IETF would look at this and click their tounges. If they are uynwilling to submit this to the IETF and go through the process, this is nothing more than an acedemic excersize, and can be safly ignored.
Miss,
Here is your ORIGINAL statement:
well understood Gnu license
And I have given examples that support the claim the "GNU license" (GPL) is NOT well understood.
Given you have determined that you can not provide a useable counter-argument, you now choose to state that you did not make such a statement?
You also make a claim:
The LCC "license" is not a license at all. Yet you also claim I'm not a lawyer, and probably without any legal meaning at all Is there anything you are sure of, other than you are not a lawyer and that you have no skill in passing legal judgement, YET insist some software license is a fucked up pile of crap.?
The GPL can be understood by anyone who is willing to invest a small amount of time in understanding it. You claim to understand it, and you are clearly of below average intelligence.
Miss, I have made no such claim to understand the GPL.
My claims are:
1) the GPL is a long, wordy document
2) It is harder to read than other licences, and I used a common tool to show that.
3) If the document was easy to understand (your claim) than why did Corel Corp fail TWICE to comply, why did Virgin ship a non-conforming implementation, etc.
To quote you:
I can't imagine a company like Corel would be unable to find a IP Lawyer who would explain the license to them for a few thousand dollars
Thank you for making my case. The GPL is complex enough to baffle IP lawyers Corel uses. And Corel is a company that makes its money off of IP in software. Corel understands the importance of IP. Yet, Corel failed twice to understand and comply with the GPL. And Bruce Perens explained it to Corel after the 1st violation. Are you next going to claim that Bruce is incapable of explaining the GPL? If HP (HP now pays for Bruce's time) violates the GPL, that argument would hold water.
BTW, are you attemting to present an argument to refute that the purpose of the GPL is to destroy IP? Because that is what you quoted of my text.
but I'm a long time PalmOS fan. Now if only they'd GPL their OS... *hope*
Parts of the Palm OS is *NOT* thiers to "GPL".
In fact you can go look at the source for 90% or so of the code.
Other than the blind zealtory that is the GPL, what benefit would Palm get by using the GPL as opposed to what they have done?
Oh and Hermos, if you can't get Linux to work, have you thought of using NetBSD on the iPaq? Oh, wait....Open Source only matters if it is Linux. (and if its GNU/Linux, then it is Free Software)
I agree that the actual text of the GPL is somewhat complex, but the gist of the GPL can be summarized quite succinctly:
Then why not dump the 24K plus words for your 37 words?
The original comment was "well understood Gnu license". The 7 page document, the trail of license violations show that the Gnu License is NOT well understood.
If the document was well understood, companies who WANT to protect their IP would not touch GPLed code and instead use other code. Apple did this and selected FreeBSD. (+ Net and openBSD although Apple only notes FreeBSD) Given issues with Corel and others, the GPL is *NOT* 'well understood'.
Ok, facts (per Micorsoft word) that the GPL is *NOT* easy to understand, compared to other options.
/. moderation system mods up pro-GPL comments and mods down anything critical of the GPL.
The GPL with preamble/postable/all the babble
Counts:
7 pages
words 2946
characters 14538
paragraphs 171
sentences 93
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.5
Words per sentence 31.7
characters per word 4.8
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 11.6
The 4.4BSD-Lite with clause #3 removed.
Counts:
1 page
words 254
characters 1422
paragraphs 26
sentences 6
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.2
Words per sentence 42.3
characters per word 5.2
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 10.7
And the simplest license:
"I hereby place this software in the public domain" (given how Berkely didn't go after Microsoft and others for the use of BSD code in an improper way, or how no one has sued over GPL violations, it might as well be public domain)
Counts:
1 page
words 9
characters 42
paragraphs 1
sentences 1
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 1
Words per sentence 9
characters per word 4.6
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 8.5
The GPL is more complex compared to the BSD license. And, it is that complexity that causes issues for Corel and others.
Readability formulas
After Word completes a grammar check, readability statistics are displayed, including the following readability formula:
Bormuth Grade Level
This index determines a readability grade level based on characters per word and words per sentences.
Oh and once again, the
The only thing is, I'm sad there so down on the GPL
Who says they are DOWN on the GPL? Does the new licence *STOP* this code from being used in some GPL project?
Perhaps the idea of wide code useage is more important than a false feeling of 'protection'. If someone who is bigger wants something, and are prone to taking what they want, they will do that.
And the GPL isn't going to stop them. It hasn't stopped anyone yet, has it?
well understood Gnu license
If the GPL is so well understood, then why did Corel have 2 brushes with GPL violations? How about the Virgin Webplayer? Or AMD's latest hammer emulator?
Newton. Newton 1.0 all over again.
;-)
But for adjenda, they don't have the profits from another line of EQ to prop up the other line so they can survive long enough to come out with a working version.
And, if this curses all future Linux handheld efforts, there is NetBSD and Wind River backed FreeBSD as options for Open Source based PDA's. Or, if you can live with access to 90% of the source code of a Palm PDA, they have source you can look at.
(The other choice is a Windows for Pen platform, complete with just plain wrong code examples
Err SWBell merged with Ameriblech.
Does the shareholders lawsuit just filed going to distract your firm from maintaining the 75+% mindshare with linux developers? It seems for web servers, RedHat is a favorite, and by a wide margin.
Given the nature of the embedded side of your business, does Wind River's announced purchase of BSD code going to cause your firm to work harder, or just give up on the embedded side? Wind River didn't have a compelling price point per unit that can match the Open Source/Free Software models. And, well, no BSD or Linux vendors can pay 1 billion and get BSD/gnu-linux embedded in a set-top box.
As opposed to the present value of VA linux or RedHat vs their past value?
How about the cancelled IPO's of Turbo/SuSE/Linuxcare?
Looks like it is hard to find a way to make money when your primary product is given away free.
Not to mention that making money in pure software isn't easy....unless you are microsoft.
I hope not.
It would be rather stupid of Wind River to kill off their only credible chance to play in the new market of $0.00 per unit for an embedded system that PicoBSD/FreeBSD (net and openBSD) and embedded linux represents.
Wind River can still make money by adding value, and selling their development tools. They will just have to abandon the idea of getting $1.98 per unit sold. The only question is: Can Wind River let go of their per unit license for their code?
What if they maim it and leave its disfigured body on the floor, next to pSOS and ISI?
Even though PicoBSD is a stripped FreeBSD....and "freeBSD will continue as before", PicoBSD is most like the space WindRiver is normally associated with.
Will they kill Pico?