that doesn't change the exact copy that is already in use in the kernel.
I think you are right. If someone changed the license, it would not affect the current version, only upcoming versions. And then someone might simply deny the inclusion of the new GPLv3-licensed code into the Linux kernel, to make sure that the kernel as a whole stays GPLv2.
remember who it is that insists on a name change another persons project to "advertise" the gnu project
Are you referring to the term GNU/Linux? In this case, you are wrong. Stallman does not insist on Linus to change the name of Linux, he just insists on using the term GNU/Linux when referring to a working (GNU/)Linux system, which contains a lot more than the Linux kernel. I understand his argument, and in principle I agree, but using the term GNU/Linux in practice is unduly complex.
He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.
I wonder what would happen if the authors of some important part of the kernel suddenly change the license for their contributions to GPLv3. It is certainly in their power to do so (unless they transferred copyrights). This might effectively change the license of the entire kernel, since use of said part would require adherence to the new GPLv3 restrictions.
I assume the copyright would be granted to whatever body oversees linux. It would be a nightmare to maintain otherwise.
As other people have already pointed out, every developer owns the copyright to the piece of code they wrote. The is one advantage of this not yet mentioned in this thread: By retaining the copyright to the code you wrote, you can prevent Linus (or the suggested oversight body) changing the license to a proprietary one, locking the code up along with your contributions. Not that I see this happen too soon, but it is still a kind of insurance against this happening in the future.
I'd refuse contributing my spare time to a project that requests me to transfer the copyright of the code I wrote.
You may be able to see the source, but you can't use my changes because your future alterations will no longer execute on the hardware you own.
The way Linus sees it is from the "developer" viewpoint. The code is still free from this viewpoint, since all modifications are published. You can modify it and run it on a DRM-free machine. The FSF rather thinks of the "end users" viewpoint, where modifying the code and running the modified code on the same machine is paramount.
For myself, I understand Linus view, but I tend to go along with the FSF view. Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.
So to sum it up, I'd say they can write their own OS, or license a commercial one, if they don't want to give their customers the same freedoms they have.
Why hasnt anyone thought of blatantly ripping off the Windows GUI for a Linux distro?
I think they have. It looks very much like a Windows desktop, although not using the Luna theme. And this was only after 10 seconds of searching, other Windows-lookalikes that look even closer may exist.
You can run the Win32-based version just fine in Linux in Wine, FWIW.
Plain Wine, or Cedega? If it will run with plain Wine I may actually try it, but I have no need for Cedega since all my machines are dual-boot with Windows XP. Running it though plain Wine would be more like "just because I can".
those of you who are Americans and bash Microsoft, remember that they are a great overseas revenue generator for America
That is also why we non-americans should refrain from buying Microsoft software. Our money is shipped out of the country to the detriment of the local economy. And I cannot see any large amounts of money return to make up for the outflow.
you're an asshole for wanting to steal LICENSED, COPYRIGHTED software.
Don't be too hard on him about that, it's not his fault that many media outlets claim that OSS = Public Domain. This claim ought to be corrected though.
Pointing out that the media is wrong is fine, no need to start calling names though.
If the officer is undercover and wants to remain so, he shouldn't be arresting people in public. Arresting people is a pretty good giveaway that you're a police officer.
I agree. I don't know how they do it in the real world, but on TV undercover officers operating as criminals are arrested with the real criminals to avoid blowing their cover. This seems sensible to me.
Forty percent of MySQL's downloads are by Windows users.
I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing. I got my MySQL with my Linux distro, not from the MySQL web site, and I would guess this applies to a lot of others as well. Trying to get an estimate of the OS share of an OSS application is just as hard as counting the users of OSS applications. Unlike proprietary software, sharing OSS software is not only legal, it is encouraged, making download statistics from the software developer essentially worthless.
As long as it's backed by some Israel company, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
I guess this means he won't touch any Intel processors of the Pentium M or Core/Core 2 varieties, since they were all developed in Israel. This means that it's Intel Netburst, Itanium or AMD processors for him.
Oh, gee, the Microsoft employees who develop Microsoft Flight Simulator are upbeat about DirectX 10?
According to Microsoft themselves, FSX is developed by "game developer ACES". I'm not sure what this means, but my guess is that ACES is a game studio that develop the game with Microsoft as the publisher.
This relies on application developers doing the right thing to make it work. Therefore, it won't.
I know, I know. In Linux this is more of a packaging issue, since only some distributions use SELinux, while others don't, and different distributions have different preferences about where certain files should be placed. But in Windows, AFAIK it is very rare to have different packagers and developers (not referring to people, but rather organizations).
Patent infringement has until now been a civil infringement handled in civil courts by way of lawsuits. If this passes, patent infringement will be a crime with prison time as potential sentence. Can you imagine how this will impact business? How about if software patents are sneaked in though some new directive, such as the community patent directive?
Do YOU want to go through and tell the system what files each and every program you want to run may access?
The suggested solution sounds a lot like SELinux, where such information is part of the security policy. Each program can be supplied with such a security policy, specifying exactly what files it will need to access. I'm sure that a similar system could be implemented for Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are right. If someone changed the license, it would not affect the current version, only upcoming versions. And then someone might simply deny the inclusion of the new GPLv3-licensed code into the Linux kernel, to make sure that the kernel as a whole stays GPLv2.
Are you referring to the term GNU/Linux? In this case, you are wrong. Stallman does not insist on Linus to change the name of Linux, he just insists on using the term GNU/Linux when referring to a working (GNU/)Linux system, which contains a lot more than the Linux kernel. I understand his argument, and in principle I agree, but using the term GNU/Linux in practice is unduly complex.
I wonder what would happen if the authors of some important part of the kernel suddenly change the license for their contributions to GPLv3. It is certainly in their power to do so (unless they transferred copyrights). This might effectively change the license of the entire kernel, since use of said part would require adherence to the new GPLv3 restrictions.
As other people have already pointed out, every developer owns the copyright to the piece of code they wrote. The is one advantage of this not yet mentioned in this thread: By retaining the copyright to the code you wrote, you can prevent Linus (or the suggested oversight body) changing the license to a proprietary one, locking the code up along with your contributions. Not that I see this happen too soon, but it is still a kind of insurance against this happening in the future.
I'd refuse contributing my spare time to a project that requests me to transfer the copyright of the code I wrote.
The way Linus sees it is from the "developer" viewpoint. The code is still free from this viewpoint, since all modifications are published. You can modify it and run it on a DRM-free machine. The FSF rather thinks of the "end users" viewpoint, where modifying the code and running the modified code on the same machine is paramount.
For myself, I understand Linus view, but I tend to go along with the FSF view. Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.
So to sum it up, I'd say they can write their own OS, or license a commercial one, if they don't want to give their customers the same freedoms they have.
I think they have. It looks very much like a Windows desktop, although not using the Luna theme. And this was only after 10 seconds of searching, other Windows-lookalikes that look even closer may exist.
Plain Wine, or Cedega? If it will run with plain Wine I may actually try it, but I have no need for Cedega since all my machines are dual-boot with Windows XP. Running it though plain Wine would be more like "just because I can".
That is also why we non-americans should refrain from buying Microsoft software. Our money is shipped out of the country to the detriment of the local economy. And I cannot see any large amounts of money return to make up for the outflow.
Don't be too hard on him about that, it's not his fault that many media outlets claim that OSS = Public Domain. This claim ought to be corrected though.
Pointing out that the media is wrong is fine, no need to start calling names though.
I guess you haven't heard of this:
Source: Wikipedia article on Homeworld.
I think that this is the real problem: What management thinks.
I think the lack of calendar is intentional, to keep Thunderbird a mail client and not everything and the kitchen sink.
I agree. I don't know how they do it in the real world, but on TV undercover officers operating as criminals are arrested with the real criminals to avoid blowing their cover. This seems sensible to me.
Note that userland does not mean unprivileged, but rather not in kernel mode.
From the article:
I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing. I got my MySQL with my Linux distro, not from the MySQL web site, and I would guess this applies to a lot of others as well. Trying to get an estimate of the OS share of an OSS application is just as hard as counting the users of OSS applications. Unlike proprietary software, sharing OSS software is not only legal, it is encouraged, making download statistics from the software developer essentially worthless.
I guess this means he won't touch any Intel processors of the Pentium M or Core/Core 2 varieties, since they were all developed in Israel. This means that it's Intel Netburst, Itanium or AMD processors for him.
If this IRC log is factually accurate of course.
Now you have.
Do you realize that all these applications will still compete for access to the harddrive? Ever tried copying two sets of files at once?
According to Microsoft themselves, FSX is developed by "game developer ACES". I'm not sure what this means, but my guess is that ACES is a game studio that develop the game with Microsoft as the publisher.
Right, and the Linux kernel project started one year ago.
And according to them, the Linux kernel project started one year ago.
I know, I know. In Linux this is more of a packaging issue, since only some distributions use SELinux, while others don't, and different distributions have different preferences about where certain files should be placed. But in Windows, AFAIK it is very rare to have different packagers and developers (not referring to people, but rather organizations).
But in theory, it could work even in Windows. :)
Patent infringement has until now been a civil infringement handled in civil courts by way of lawsuits. If this passes, patent infringement will be a crime with prison time as potential sentence. Can you imagine how this will impact business? How about if software patents are sneaked in though some new directive, such as the community patent directive?
At least I don't think he throws chairs.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
The suggested solution sounds a lot like SELinux, where such information is part of the security policy. Each program can be supplied with such a security policy, specifying exactly what files it will need to access. I'm sure that a similar system could be implemented for Windows.