Then there will be a big FUD/marketing campain letting everybusiness now what the XGPL does and how it protect thier products from crazed activism the the GPLv3 showed, and businesses will be encouraged to make sure their OSS used this protection.
And I'm sure you'll help them.
By the way, you could have gotten a username that does not sound suspiciously like dumbass.
So, saying that the GCC is going to GPLv3 and that somehow places restrictions on a GPLv2 code base
Why would that be? GCC does not apply its own license to its output, and proprietary software can be compiled with it. Why would there be a conflict when a GPLv3 GCC is used to compile a GPLv2 package?
If you have some software that is GPLv3 and it is neccesary for the GPLv2 licensed kernel to run or be installed or pratical to be used, then there is a conflict and it can't be used. No kernel!
May I ask you how, if what you said would be true, it can be legal to run proprietary software on the GPLv2 kernel, but illegal to run GPLv3 software on the GPLv2 kernel?
He got lucky when MS took Java seriously rather than ignoring it, but missed the opportunity to make Java a force on the Windows desktop by suing MS over J++.
In what way would it be better to have J++ than the.NET stack? If they hadn't sued Microsoft over J++, sure, J++ could have been a force on the desktop, but how would that benefit Sun?
Which is why Debian, under its current charter, has no chance to survive.
What, more specifically, do you mean with survive? Are you suggesting it will be dismantled or just never be one of the popular desktop distros? The first alternative could have implications for Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is based on Debian.
So, in the end, the customer may like Open Source, but ends up with as closed a solution as any proprietary coded system.
Not exactly. With the source, the customer can cancel the support agreement with one support vendor, and get another. That isn't really possible with closed source software. In that case, the original developer is the only support option. The only other option is to switch systems.
Coherence is not one of his strong points. I've had discussions with him before, but I avoid getting into discussions with him nowadays, the incoherence, bad spelling and often very long posts made me give up. He is full of sheer hatred for the GPLv3, even though it isn't finished, and spouts assertions left and right about the doomsday effects the GPLv3 will mean for OSS.
They are attempting to control what you do with your hardware with the anti-DRM clause. Again, I strongly disagree with your interpretation. It applies only to distributing software, not what I do with my hardware if I'm not distributing software at all.
His grievances is that TiVo cannot do whatever they want with "their hardware" (i.e. hardware TiVo made) and free software. He thinks that it is unfair (to say the least) for the GPLv3 to restrict TiVo from applying DRM to free software so that only software versions approved by TiVo can run on the device. He thinks that this is not for the software authors to decide, and that it is a decision that should rest solely with TiVo.
You can have a look at two of my former discussions with him here and here.
Do you know why this yarr phrase is associated with pirates? I see it everywhere on the 'net, but I fail to see the connection. My spontaneous guess is that it comes from some movie, but I really haven't got the faintest idea.
If they added 'FreeDOS', 'Linux', or 'No OS' to the 'Operating System' choice option the whole deal would be quite a lot more obvious and available. If that's what they're actually interested in.
But then, people might really start asking questions they don't want to answer.
Many people do not understand the difference between Compiz/Beryl and XGL/AIGLX. They think that the cube is XGL, and are not aware of that the cube is actually created by Compiz or Beryl, with XGL or AIGLX being the framework that makes this possible.
Maybe you'd be better off with Centos, in which case you have something very comparable with Debian, with the 'non-free' packages added.
What "non-free" software is in CentOS but not in Debian? CentOS is built from Red Hat's source RPMs, and to my knowledge they do not contain any non-free software.
I wonder when CentOS will release their clone of RHEL5.
If you had read the article, you would have found out that they asked CentOS about this. In 14 days is the answer i386 and x86_64, while other architectures such as ia64 have separate release schedules and their release dates were not specified.
I'm sure there are 'ways' to get this version free
The above seems to imply that there would be something wrong with that. It isn't. Red Hat releases the complete distribution for free download in source RPM form. You'll have to build it yourself to be able to run it though. Fortunately, there are already projects that do this, such as CentOS and ScientificLinux.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure you'll help them.
By the way, you could have gotten a username that does not sound suspiciously like dumbass.
Why would that be? GCC does not apply its own license to its output, and proprietary software can be compiled with it. Why would there be a conflict when a GPLv3 GCC is used to compile a GPLv2 package?
May I ask you how, if what you said would be true, it can be legal to run proprietary software on the GPLv2 kernel, but illegal to run GPLv3 software on the GPLv2 kernel?
Alert: The parent is a cut and paste post. This usually indicates a troll.
Other instances of this post are here and here.
Sigh! One GPLv3-hating troll surely understands another.
Where are my mod points when I need them? Well said!
It should have been "I, for one, welcome our new Indian hacker overlords". ;)
So what? Why would it need a GUI as part of the kernel?
Lindows, now Linspire, comes to mind.
May I guess that you use Firefox with the NoScript extension? The same happened to me. Enable scripts and try again.
In what way would it be better to have J++ than the .NET stack? If they hadn't sued Microsoft over J++, sure, J++ could have been a force on the desktop, but how would that benefit Sun?
What, more specifically, do you mean with survive? Are you suggesting it will be dismantled or just never be one of the popular desktop distros? The first alternative could have implications for Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is based on Debian.
Not exactly. With the source, the customer can cancel the support agreement with one support vendor, and get another. That isn't really possible with closed source software. In that case, the original developer is the only support option. The only other option is to switch systems.
Coherence is not one of his strong points. I've had discussions with him before, but I avoid getting into discussions with him nowadays, the incoherence, bad spelling and often very long posts made me give up. He is full of sheer hatred for the GPLv3, even though it isn't finished, and spouts assertions left and right about the doomsday effects the GPLv3 will mean for OSS.
They are attempting to control what you do with your hardware with the anti-DRM clause. Again, I strongly disagree with your interpretation. It applies only to distributing software, not what I do with my hardware if I'm not distributing software at all.His grievances is that TiVo cannot do whatever they want with "their hardware" (i.e. hardware TiVo made) and free software. He thinks that it is unfair (to say the least) for the GPLv3 to restrict TiVo from applying DRM to free software so that only software versions approved by TiVo can run on the device. He thinks that this is not for the software authors to decide, and that it is a decision that should rest solely with TiVo.
You can have a look at two of my former discussions with him here and here.
Do you know why this yarr phrase is associated with pirates? I see it everywhere on the 'net, but I fail to see the connection. My spontaneous guess is that it comes from some movie, but I really haven't got the faintest idea.
But then, people might really start asking questions they don't want to answer.
Plus the cost of a Windows license? Why would you buy an n-series computer if you want Windows on it anyway.
Ehrm, what? I didn't have any crashes at all in several years in Linux and very few crashes in Windows, except for known hardware issues.
I've seen people more than once that believe that OpenBSD is a Linux distribution.
OOXML usually means (Microsoft) Office Open XML. OpenOffice.org uses the Open Document Format (ODF).
Many people do not understand the difference between Compiz/Beryl and XGL/AIGLX. They think that the cube is XGL, and are not aware of that the cube is actually created by Compiz or Beryl, with XGL or AIGLX being the framework that makes this possible.
You could have waited two weeks, which is when CentOS 5 (based on RHEL 5) is due to be released.
What "non-free" software is in CentOS but not in Debian? CentOS is built from Red Hat's source RPMs, and to my knowledge they do not contain any non-free software.
If you had read the article, you would have found out that they asked CentOS about this. In 14 days is the answer i386 and x86_64, while other architectures such as ia64 have separate release schedules and their release dates were not specified.
The above seems to imply that there would be something wrong with that. It isn't. Red Hat releases the complete distribution for free download in source RPM form. You'll have to build it yourself to be able to run it though. Fortunately, there are already projects that do this, such as CentOS and ScientificLinux.