Lol, yeah, I could have done a better job on that one. I thought to myself it sounded stupid after it was first accepted and posted. Should pay more attention next time.
Microsoft right now is really pushing their integrated web technologies (Search, messenger, passport, etc).
Don't worry, both them and Google will move to squash this bill if it affects their bottom line. Google may not be an incredibly powerful corporation, but Microsoft sure as hell is.
See, MS aren't always the bad guys:-P
And, as a Canadian, I'm disgusted with my current government. At the rate it's going, if you sneeze in the direction of copyrighted material you'll be a defendant in a lawsuit.
As a student, this really pisses me off to say the least, I'll be writing my MP about this.
Do most Hauppage cards support HDTV? I just bought one not long ago, and I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon (altho this is a long time off).
This pisses me off, I don't want to replace all of my TV's. I'm willing to bet Sony et al are pushing this for precisely that reason.
And Joe-Sixpack who buys his computer because he hears about all the great potential porn he can download from his buddies at work really cares about any of those things?
Like the other poster said, nobody said that the computer was better than the PS3.
They normally do. Intel did a lot of work helping to port GCC to the Itanium family of processors, just like IBM helped port GCC to the s/390 platform (actually, if I'm not mistaken, IBM did most of the work for this port, like Intel did with the Itanium). Like you said, it is in their best interests to do this. But of course, Intel wants to keep GCC just a tad bit behind ICC so for those people that need to squeeze that last little bit of performance out of their code will pony up the license fees.
(Also, if I'm not mistaken, AMD helped Red Hat et al port GCC to x86_64)
On Intel processors yes, but not on AMD's. Which is obvious, since Intel makes the compiler and the chips. Just like IBM's compiler for the power arch. is faster than GCC.
One of the things they mentioned was support for MMX. AMD's chips support this, like Intel's, yet ICC would not compile in support for MMX on AMD's chips, therefore creating an artifical handicap for AMD's chips.
Most proprietary apps compiled on Linux use GCC from what I've seen. Things like Java, Real Player, Adobe Reader (??) all use GCC. The only thing on Linux that I can think of that is compiled using ICC is MySQL's commercial version, and even then, as far as I know, you can choose between a GCC and an ICC version.
And I'm sure the programmers doing the open source programming that think it is art really don't give two shits what you think so it really doesn't matter anyways.
Sure there are successes like Mozilla Firefox, Apache, KDE, Gnome, the Linux kernel, etc., but for every success there are hundreds of completely useless failures out there.
You mean sort of like commercial software companies *cough* Corel *cough* SCO Group *cough* Netscape *cough*? Or all types of companies for that matter? Or do you live in some kind of fantasy dream world where rivers flow chocolate, children run around and play in meadows instead of doing drugs, all businesses flourish, and it is only Open Source projects that suffer from this?
Yes, their recent 46% increase in revenue sure leads me to believe you. Or the other major increases in revenue before that.
Or the fact that they increased subsciptions by 400% right after CentOS became well known also leads me to believe you.
Yep, you're definately right. All Fortune 1000 companies download unsupported software off of the internet to power their $5 million mainframes or their 32 way servers.
In-fact, Sun saw Red Hat going bankrupt and loved the idea so much that this is the exact reason they have open sourced Solaris, they aspire to go Bankrupt too!!! Of course it had nothing to do with Red Hat rapidly increasing its market share while cutting heavily into Sun's, since, according to you, Red Hat is losing market share and going bankrupt./sarcasm
Ummm, I have plenty of 8 GB files on my ext3 volume that work fine (mainly large video files, etc). Do you really think Red Hat would be pushing ext3 for Enterprise use if this was the case, when they could just as easily push XFS, which is available under the GPL??? Doesn't make a lot of sense. I suggest you check again.
Ah, like that wonderful TCP protocol they stole from Microsoft? Or all of the protocols the internet runs on, most of which were implemented in BSD first?
Sun is NOT dropping their Linux support. They are dropping support for their Java Desktop System. When Linux accounts for a large number of their server shipments, I doubt the shareholders would like them dropping support for it. I read somewhere that they ship more Linux servers than they do Solaris servers.
The FSF (the people who wrote the GPL) don't agree with you on that matter.
How do you think Google gets away with modifying their software and deploying it on servers world-wide?
Some quotes from www.gnu.org from the GPL FAQ
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
Note : Notice the use of the word facilities, not facility.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that version?
If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until his release before doing so.
If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to trust the FSF and the hundreds of other people who say what I say, as opposed to the handful who disagree, none of which have anything to do with the FSF
Neither license places restrictions on the use of the software. For me, a non-developer, I see no difference between the two licenses.
Since neither license is different to an end-user, explain how the BSD license is better for the consumer?
I see it as the other way around. FreeBSD could make their OS proprietary if they wanted, Debian cannot. With GPL'd software, I'm always guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades.
You cannot dual-license someone else's code. Only the copyright holder can do that. Why do you think MySQL, Trolltech and Sun require copyright assignment? If I forked OpenOffice.org today and added a new component, Sun could NOT put that code in the proprietary StarOffice.
The GPL doesn't kick in till u distribute the software. Ford could take the Linux kernel, hire some developers, make their own os called fordix that is based on linux, use it only in their company, and you would have absolutely NO rights to the code. You would not even be allowed to see it.
Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? What do you think?"
Translated to Slashdotian:
FLAME WAR!!! EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!!!
God forbid if this gets posted to OSNews.
IBM didn't choose to limit their 9th counterclaim as you say, SCO took the counterclaim out of context.
When the lawsuit first started, SCO attempted to terminate IBM's Unix license which allowed IBM to distribute AIX. Novell stepped in and gave IBM the go-ahead to continue to distribute AIX, which they were specifically allowed to do, regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights, by the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation (not the same as The SCO Group, 2 different companies in-case someone here doesn't know that).
After SCO completed attempting to terminate the license, IBM continued to distribute AIX. SCO ammended their complaint to add a claim for copyright infringement because IBM was distributing AIX without a license (or so they claimed). They then notified IBM customers that they could be liable for using AIX.
IBM then filed a counter-suit against SCO (their 9th claim) that IBM wasn't infringing SCO's alledged copyrights by continuing to distribute AIX.
SCO, when trying to ammed this complaint now, argued that it should be allowed to because IBM's counter-claim dealt with whether IBM ever had a license to use Unix SVR4 code on the Power Arch. in AIX.
This WAS NOT IBM's intention when filing the counter-claim. They were merely trying to prove that SCO hadn't legally terminated their AIX license, not that they had a right to Unix SVR4 code. SCO purposefully took this out of context to try to slide their new amended complaint through.
So, in-fact, IBM's request to limit its 9th counterclaim wasn't actually changing the claim, but to just clarify its scope and to show that SCO was taking it out of context.
And this is why the judge ordered that the counter-claim had to be viewed in the context of when it was filed, not the circumstances now. It makes sense, cause the court can't really force IBM to prosecute a claim they never intended to file
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, yeah, I could have done a better job on that one. I thought to myself it sounded stupid after it was first accepted and posted. Should pay more attention next time.
Microsoft right now is really pushing their integrated web technologies (Search, messenger, passport, etc).
:-P
Don't worry, both them and Google will move to squash this bill if it affects their bottom line. Google may not be an incredibly powerful corporation, but Microsoft sure as hell is.
See, MS aren't always the bad guys
And, as a Canadian, I'm disgusted with my current government. At the rate it's going, if you sneeze in the direction of copyrighted material you'll be a defendant in a lawsuit.
As a student, this really pisses me off to say the least, I'll be writing my MP about this.
Do most Hauppage cards support HDTV? I just bought one not long ago, and I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon (altho this is a long time off). This pisses me off, I don't want to replace all of my TV's. I'm willing to bet Sony et al are pushing this for precisely that reason.
When I sold printers that was our big selling point for HP Printers.
The thing I liked about HP Inkjets was that the Printheads didn't die in them, since they weren't part of the printer....so much for that :(
And Joe-Sixpack who buys his computer because he hears about all the great potential porn he can download from his buddies at work really cares about any of those things?
Like the other poster said, nobody said that the computer was better than the PS3.
They normally do. Intel did a lot of work helping to port GCC to the Itanium family of processors, just like IBM helped port GCC to the s/390 platform (actually, if I'm not mistaken, IBM did most of the work for this port, like Intel did with the Itanium). Like you said, it is in their best interests to do this. But of course, Intel wants to keep GCC just a tad bit behind ICC so for those people that need to squeeze that last little bit of performance out of their code will pony up the license fees.
(Also, if I'm not mistaken, AMD helped Red Hat et al port GCC to x86_64)
On Intel processors yes, but not on AMD's. Which is obvious, since Intel makes the compiler and the chips. Just like IBM's compiler for the power arch. is faster than GCC.
One of the things they mentioned was support for MMX. AMD's chips support this, like Intel's, yet ICC would not compile in support for MMX on AMD's chips, therefore creating an artifical handicap for AMD's chips.
Most proprietary apps compiled on Linux use GCC from what I've seen. Things like Java, Real Player, Adobe Reader (??) all use GCC. The only thing on Linux that I can think of that is compiled using ICC is MySQL's commercial version, and even then, as far as I know, you can choose between a GCC and an ICC version.
No, not dead. I don't see them having the 90% marketshare they had 10 years ago anytime soon.
There are plenty of other software companies that have gone under though.
*whoosh*
(the sound of his point flying directly over your head)
And I'm sure the programmers doing the open source programming that think it is art really don't give two shits what you think so it really doesn't matter anyways.
Sure there are successes like Mozilla Firefox, Apache, KDE, Gnome, the Linux kernel, etc., but for every success there are hundreds of completely useless failures out there.
You mean sort of like commercial software companies *cough* Corel *cough* SCO Group *cough* Netscape *cough*? Or all types of companies for that matter? Or do you live in some kind of fantasy dream world where rivers flow chocolate, children run around and play in meadows instead of doing drugs, all businesses flourish, and it is only Open Source projects that suffer from this?
Yes, their recent 46% increase in revenue sure leads me to believe you. Or the other major increases in revenue before that.
/sarcasm
Or the fact that they increased subsciptions by 400% right after CentOS became well known also leads me to believe you.
Yep, you're definately right. All Fortune 1000 companies download unsupported software off of the internet to power their $5 million mainframes or their 32 way servers.
In-fact, Sun saw Red Hat going bankrupt and loved the idea so much that this is the exact reason they have open sourced Solaris, they aspire to go Bankrupt too!!! Of course it had nothing to do with Red Hat rapidly increasing its market share while cutting heavily into Sun's, since, according to you, Red Hat is losing market share and going bankrupt.
Ummm, I have plenty of 8 GB files on my ext3 volume that work fine (mainly large video files, etc). Do you really think Red Hat would be pushing ext3 for Enterprise use if this was the case, when they could just as easily push XFS, which is available under the GPL??? Doesn't make a lot of sense. I suggest you check again.
Ah, like that wonderful TCP protocol they stole from Microsoft? Or all of the protocols the internet runs on, most of which were implemented in BSD first?
Sun is NOT dropping their Linux support. They are dropping support for their Java Desktop System. When Linux accounts for a large number of their server shipments, I doubt the shareholders would like them dropping support for it. I read somewhere that they ship more Linux servers than they do Solaris servers.
Note : Desktop != Server
The FSF (the people who wrote the GPL) don't agree with you on that matter.
How do you think Google gets away with modifying their software and deploying it on servers world-wide?
Some quotes from www.gnu.org from the GPL FAQ
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
Note : Notice the use of the word facilities, not facility.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that version?
If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until his release before doing so.
If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to trust the FSF and the hundreds of other people who say what I say, as opposed to the handful who disagree, none of which have anything to do with the FSF
I don't follow.
Neither license places restrictions on the use of the software. For me, a non-developer, I see no difference between the two licenses.
Since neither license is different to an end-user, explain how the BSD license is better for the consumer?
I see it as the other way around. FreeBSD could make their OS proprietary if they wanted, Debian cannot. With GPL'd software, I'm always guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades.
Why not have a comment where someone says vi is the best, and then calls emacs a POS.
:-P
I give this comment and the article -5 flamebait
Absolutely NOT true!
You cannot dual-license someone else's code. Only the copyright holder can do that. Why do you think MySQL, Trolltech and Sun require copyright assignment? If I forked OpenOffice.org today and added a new component, Sun could NOT put that code in the proprietary StarOffice.
The GPL doesn't kick in till u distribute the software. Ford could take the Linux kernel, hire some developers, make their own os called fordix that is based on linux, use it only in their company, and you would have absolutely NO rights to the code. You would not even be allowed to see it.
Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? What do you think?" Translated to Slashdotian: FLAME WAR!!! EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!!! God forbid if this gets posted to OSNews.
IBM didn't choose to limit their 9th counterclaim as you say, SCO took the counterclaim out of context.
When the lawsuit first started, SCO attempted to terminate IBM's Unix license which allowed IBM to distribute AIX. Novell stepped in and gave IBM the go-ahead to continue to distribute AIX, which they were specifically allowed to do, regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights, by the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation (not the same as The SCO Group, 2 different companies in-case someone here doesn't know that).
After SCO completed attempting to terminate the license, IBM continued to distribute AIX. SCO ammended their complaint to add a claim for copyright infringement because IBM was distributing AIX without a license (or so they claimed). They then notified IBM customers that they could be liable for using AIX.
IBM then filed a counter-suit against SCO (their 9th claim) that IBM wasn't infringing SCO's alledged copyrights by continuing to distribute AIX.
SCO, when trying to ammed this complaint now, argued that it should be allowed to because IBM's counter-claim dealt with whether IBM ever had a license to use Unix SVR4 code on the Power Arch. in AIX.
This WAS NOT IBM's intention when filing the counter-claim. They were merely trying to prove that SCO hadn't legally terminated their AIX license, not that they had a right to Unix SVR4 code. SCO purposefully took this out of context to try to slide their new amended complaint through.
So, in-fact, IBM's request to limit its 9th counterclaim wasn't actually changing the claim, but to just clarify its scope and to show that SCO was taking it out of context.
And this is why the judge ordered that the counter-claim had to be viewed in the context of when it was filed, not the circumstances now. It makes sense, cause the court can't really force IBM to prosecute a claim they never intended to file