These agreements specifically deny certain freedoms developers need and explicitly "clone products" like Samba that actually provide the "interoperability" MS is crowing about. The true aim of these agreements is put Linux users on an (eventual) migration path to Windows while increasing developer fear of being sued. Oh well, yet another Linux vendor I won't be doing business with. Thanks ESR!
No need to be snarky. But since you were snarky first, allow me to retort: Since "forcing" one to open code is so reprehensible, the likes of Microsoft will be happy, more than happy, to make write them a very large check in addition to not distributing the work. Additionally, proprietary copyright holders have been known to accept the copyrights "and all materials pertaining to" as a term of settlement. Now why is it that if MS "forced" me to hand over my copyright (perhaps I distributed an SDK out-license) then that is just "doing business" while when FOSS projects do the same thing it is communism run amuck?
More to the point, why is it moral and good when proprietary vendors enforce their licenses but it is the worst sort of buggery when FOSS projects do it?
I think the parent may have meant if changes are made to the original codebase then they can't be used in the differently licensed fork. The FSF directly owns copyright on glibc, gcc, and various other goodies which will make maintaining forks of all that problematical.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism but constancy is an important element of trust. The kernel devs have been carrying on as they are now for many years and only shift slowly and openly in response to the opinions of others. You may not always agree with them but you know where you stand with them. Alas, this hasn't always been true of Sun. An infamous example was McNealy wearing a Tux suit to a trade show to show how friendly and interoperable they were going to be with Linux. A few months later he delighted in showing off the "decapitated" penguin head to his office visitors. Sun is rather infamous for how often their strategies and positions shift.
All we can say now is that Sun is more open than they have been in the past. The question is can I trust they will be so in the future. That affects whether or not I and others will do business with them which ties directly into their capitalist ambitions.
While we're on the subject, I will express appreciation for OpenOffice and other genuine contributions they've made to Open Source. Johnathon Schwartz also showed some real class in response to Ballmer's recent diarrhea of the mouth. Sun has done many laudable things, but they sometimes act in ways that make it difficult for me to know what to make of them.
Forcible opening of code is not a prescribed legal remedy. All a court can make you do is stop distributing the infringing work and (possibly) pay damages. Many OSS projects will accept opening code as a term of settlement but no court will force it on you. Settling legal cases is often a less risky move than accepting a courts judgement, hence some infringers may elect to open code rather than pay megabucks.
Put him in an electric chair where the switch has been replaced with dial that is labeled: 1. Barely Stings 2. Kinda Painful... and so on all the way up to "11 - Smokey and Crispy".
Let the spamming piece of s*** sit there while flustered mail admins take turns jazzing the dial back and forth under "6. Life Threatening". When we think he's had enough (not that it'll ever happen), we'll slather some K.C. Masterpiece on him and give "11" a try.
There was a lot of back and forth and Apple has improved their interaction with the KHTML devs. Apple has since made the Giant Patch of Doom available in a CVS repository and have been a bit more helpful and where and what they changed and why. It's probably not perfect according most FOSS project standards but it is better than the picture you paint.
You've heard wrong. Windows disks can be slowed down quite badly by fragmentation. I've cut long log-in times anywhere from one-half to two-thirds by defragging Windows clients and servers.
I'll stand this on it's head: Why should the technically competent or even just those with a lick of common sense be penalized for the actions of the stupid?
Actually that isn't strictly true although using WINE on other arches isn't really worth the trouble. If you like, you can google up using x86 wine through QEMU on PPC. It's fairly slick in that you don't have to fire up an entire other os in a window but it's still hackish. It is also (theoretically) possible to recompile Windows apps to an alternate arch target with Winelib. It is my understanding though that that latter use case isn't very common and isn't well tested by the Wine team. That is a pity because it cuts into what is the best use of wine: quickly adapting a Windows app to a Linux environment. Wine is no great shakes as an general solution to running $RANDOM Windows app although it can do well as a way to quickly bring a targeted app to Linux.
Qalculate (qalculate.sourceforge.net or even apt-get install qalculate-kde or apt-get install qalculate-gtk) has an RPN entry mode and seems to be quite the nifty desktop calculator besides.
This is a small single board system that is intended to teach electronics and video game programming. The system is designed to be simple enough that a learner can deeply understand every chip and function of the system yet fast and powerful enough to do interesting things. Capability wise this machine seems to act most like a highly overclocked Apple IIGS with a really good framebuffer.
They characterized NeoOffice as "being available through X11". Methinks they must not have even bothered to download and try it. The entire point of NeoOffice is to not need X11. There are valid criticisms that can be made about Neo's load time, Office compatibility, interface quirks, memory requirements and so forth but needing X11 isn't one of them.
NeoOffice has submitted patches for problems they've encountered in the OOO codebase (mostly related to file i/o on fileshares). And yes, the patches were offered under Sun's guidelines to be suitable for incorporation to the OOO codebase. OOO has apparently found the source of these bugfixes to be politically incorrect as they still have to fix these whenever they graft their interface on to new OOO releases. IMHO the characterization of the NeoOffice guys as "parasites" is unfair.
The FSF only has authority over their own software. Sure they offend you but there is no reason for a reasonably free society to 'outlaw' or 'eradicate' them. We already tolerate actual communists, nazis, a rogues gallery of actual cults, and a number of other groups with the audacity to have a different point of view. All the FSF really does is publish software under some licenses and allow others to use those licenses. Well, they also have the unmitigated gall to exercise their free speech rights too. Yeah, we have a real hotbed of terrorist subversives there. Many not affiliated with them like to use their licenses but then reasonably free societies allow free association too.
The key word you used here is "perceive". No one is entitled to freedom from being offended regardless of what the Politically Correct crowd says. Don't like the FSF? Don't use their software or software covered by their licenses. This is only entitlement you have in regards to them. The FSF is only (properly) exercising their rights in a free society. I don't agree with everything they say and do either but like others have said: I'll defend to the death their right to do it.
You advocate only commercial software companies being allowed to write software and Open Source (a form of free speech) be outlawed. The state only allowing corporates to create things is one definition of fascism. So yes, you advocate a form a fascism.
If you don't get down here in the next 30 minutes and buy a car from me "I'm GOING TO CLUB THIS BABY SEAL! That's right! I'll club a seal to make a deal!"
"Standing silhouetted in the doorway through which they had entered the vault was the man who wasn't pleased to see them. His displeasure was communicated partly by the barking hectoring quality of his voice and partly by the viciousness with which he waved a long silver Kill-O-Zap gun at them. The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. "Make it evil," he'd been told. "Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with."
I'm still free to choose or create code not covered by abusive licenses. I mostly avoid MS' products because of the onerous and abusive terms under which I'm permitted to use them (no negative reviews of MS products for instance). If the terms of abusive licenses are enforced by various forms of Fritz chips then I'll allow that the FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4. As things stand, licenses are tools and the FSF has created useful ones which I am grateful for. If you think some of the things in EULAs are completely over the top, I'd agree with you but I don't think any developer is obligated to buy into the FSF take on things lock, stock, and barrel. Openness is a feature that matters to me quite a lot but if I have a problem that has to be solved right now and something proprietary is the best solution then guess what? I'm professionally answerable to others and can't be a Stallman-bot all the time. (And yes, I use quite bit of FOSS code as well. My employers don't care about movement ideology; all they care about is whether or not what I deploy works. Where FOSS code works acceptably, I happily deploy it.)
The FSF isn't ever going to be in a position to dictate over code they didn't write unless it links to their code. Even if the words of FSF proponents can be twisted into some sort of impending dystopia, it ain't gonna happen. The words of the FSF in no way detract from the validity of mine (Torvalds' actually): He who writes the code chooses the license.
Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.
What's so great about a world where Bill Gates and Co. are basically entitled to my money because that is the only legal way to use a computer? FOSS doesn't put them out of business but it sure forces a degree of honesty out of them. Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license. That is TRUE freedom whether apparent fascists such as yourself like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
These agreements specifically deny certain freedoms developers need and explicitly "clone products" like Samba that actually provide the "interoperability" MS is crowing about. The true aim of these agreements is put Linux users on an (eventual) migration path to Windows while increasing developer fear of being sued. Oh well, yet another Linux vendor I won't be doing business with. Thanks ESR!
Blueshift relative to Earth or even blueshifts relative to other objects relatively near the supernova in question.
No need to be snarky. But since you were snarky first, allow me to retort: Since "forcing" one to open code is so reprehensible, the likes of Microsoft will be happy, more than happy, to make write them a very large check in addition to not distributing the work. Additionally, proprietary copyright holders have been known to accept the copyrights "and all materials pertaining to" as a term of settlement. Now why is it that if MS "forced" me to hand over my copyright (perhaps I distributed an SDK out-license) then that is just "doing business" while when FOSS projects do the same thing it is communism run amuck?
More to the point, why is it moral and good when proprietary vendors enforce their licenses but it is the worst sort of buggery when FOSS projects do it?
I think the parent may have meant if changes are made to the original codebase then they can't be used in the differently licensed fork. The FSF directly owns copyright on glibc, gcc, and various other goodies which will make maintaining forks of all that problematical.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism but constancy is an important element of trust. The kernel devs have been carrying on as they are now for many years and only shift slowly and openly in response to the opinions of others. You may not always agree with them but you know where you stand with them. Alas, this hasn't always been true of Sun. An infamous example was McNealy wearing a Tux suit to a trade show to show how friendly and interoperable they were going to be with Linux. A few months later he delighted in showing off the "decapitated" penguin head to his office visitors. Sun is rather infamous for how often their strategies and positions shift.
All we can say now is that Sun is more open than they have been in the past. The question is can I trust they will be so in the future. That affects whether or not I and others will do business with them which ties directly into their capitalist ambitions.
While we're on the subject, I will express appreciation for OpenOffice and other genuine contributions they've made to Open Source. Johnathon Schwartz also showed some real class in response to Ballmer's recent diarrhea of the mouth. Sun has done many laudable things, but they sometimes act in ways that make it difficult for me to know what to make of them.
Forcible opening of code is not a prescribed legal remedy. All a court can make you do is stop distributing the infringing work and (possibly) pay damages. Many OSS projects will accept opening code as a term of settlement but no court will force it on you. Settling legal cases is often a less risky move than accepting a courts judgement, hence some infringers may elect to open code rather than pay megabucks.
You're right: jail isn't warranted.
...
Put him in an electric chair where the switch has been replaced with dial that is labeled:
1. Barely Stings
2. Kinda Painful
and so on all the way up to
"11 - Smokey and Crispy".
Let the spamming piece of s*** sit there while flustered mail admins take turns jazzing the dial back and forth under "6. Life Threatening". When we think he's had enough (not that it'll ever happen), we'll slather some K.C. Masterpiece on him and give "11" a try.
There was a lot of back and forth and Apple has improved their interaction with the KHTML devs. Apple has since made the Giant Patch of Doom available in a CVS repository and have been a bit more helpful and where and what they changed and why. It's probably not perfect according most FOSS project standards but it is better than the picture you paint.
You've heard wrong. Windows disks can be slowed down quite badly by fragmentation. I've cut long log-in times anywhere from one-half to two-thirds by defragging Windows clients and servers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03E68F6599Q
I'll stand this on it's head: Why should the technically competent or even just those with a lick of common sense be penalized for the actions of the stupid?
Actually that isn't strictly true although using WINE on other arches isn't really worth the trouble. If you like, you can google up using x86 wine through QEMU on PPC. It's fairly slick in that you don't have to fire up an entire other os in a window but it's still hackish. It is also (theoretically) possible to recompile Windows apps to an alternate arch target with Winelib. It is my understanding though that that latter use case isn't very common and isn't well tested by the Wine team. That is a pity because it cuts into what is the best use of wine: quickly adapting a Windows app to a Linux environment. Wine is no great shakes as an general solution to running $RANDOM Windows app although it can do well as a way to quickly bring a targeted app to Linux.
e lib-introduction
http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-guide/win
Qalculate (qalculate.sourceforge.net or even apt-get install qalculate-kde or apt-get install qalculate-gtk) has an RPN entry mode and seems to be quite the nifty desktop calculator besides.
http://www.xgamestation.com/
This is a small single board system that is intended to teach electronics and video game programming. The system is designed to be simple enough that a learner can deeply understand every chip and function of the system yet fast and powerful enough to do interesting things. Capability wise this machine seems to act most like a highly overclocked Apple IIGS with a really good framebuffer.
They characterized NeoOffice as "being available through X11". Methinks they must not have even bothered to download and try it. The entire point of NeoOffice is to not need X11. There are valid criticisms that can be made about Neo's load time, Office compatibility, interface quirks, memory requirements and so forth but needing X11 isn't one of them.
NeoOffice has submitted patches for problems they've encountered in the OOO codebase (mostly related to file i/o on fileshares). And yes, the patches were offered under Sun's guidelines to be suitable for incorporation to the OOO codebase. OOO has apparently found the source of these bugfixes to be politically incorrect as they still have to fix these whenever they graft their interface on to new OOO releases. IMHO the characterization of the NeoOffice guys as "parasites" is unfair.
The FSF only has authority over their own software. Sure they offend you but there is no reason for a reasonably free society to 'outlaw' or 'eradicate' them. We already tolerate actual communists, nazis, a rogues gallery of actual cults, and a number of other groups with the audacity to have a different point of view. All the FSF really does is publish software under some licenses and allow others to use those licenses. Well, they also have the unmitigated gall to exercise their free speech rights too. Yeah, we have a real hotbed of terrorist subversives there. Many not affiliated with them like to use their licenses but then reasonably free societies allow free association too.
The key word you used here is "perceive". No one is entitled to freedom from being offended regardless of what the Politically Correct crowd says. Don't like the FSF? Don't use their software or software covered by their licenses. This is only entitlement you have in regards to them. The FSF is only (properly) exercising their rights in a free society. I don't agree with everything they say and do either but like others have said: I'll defend to the death their right to do it.
You advocate only commercial software companies being allowed to write software and Open Source (a form of free speech) be outlawed. The state only allowing corporates to create things is one definition of fascism. So yes, you advocate a form a fascism.
If you don't get down here in the next 30 minutes and buy a car from me "I'm GOING TO CLUB THIS BABY SEAL! That's right! I'll club a seal to make a deal!"
www.freerepublic.com
It's your new online home. You'll fit right in.....
Actually, they put me in mind of Kill-O-Zap guns:
"Standing silhouetted in the doorway through which they had entered the vault was the man who wasn't pleased to see them. His displeasure was communicated partly by the barking hectoring quality of his voice and partly by the viciousness with which he waved a long silver Kill-O-Zap gun at them. The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. "Make it evil," he'd been told. "Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with."
I'm still free to choose or create code not covered by abusive licenses. I mostly avoid MS' products because of the onerous and abusive terms under which I'm permitted to use them (no negative reviews of MS products for instance). If the terms of abusive licenses are enforced by various forms of Fritz chips then I'll allow that the FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4. As things stand, licenses are tools and the FSF has created useful ones which I am grateful for. If you think some of the things in EULAs are completely over the top, I'd agree with you but I don't think any developer is obligated to buy into the FSF take on things lock, stock, and barrel. Openness is a feature that matters to me quite a lot but if I have a problem that has to be solved right now and something proprietary is the best solution then guess what? I'm professionally answerable to others and can't be a Stallman-bot all the time. (And yes, I use quite bit of FOSS code as well. My employers don't care about movement ideology; all they care about is whether or not what I deploy works. Where FOSS code works acceptably, I happily deploy it.)
The FSF isn't ever going to be in a position to dictate over code they didn't write unless it links to their code. Even if the words of FSF proponents can be twisted into some sort of impending dystopia, it ain't gonna happen. The words of the FSF in no way detract from the validity of mine (Torvalds' actually): He who writes the code chooses the license.
Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.
What's so great about a world where Bill Gates and Co. are basically entitled to my money because that is the only legal way to use a computer? FOSS doesn't put them out of business but it sure forces a degree of honesty out of them. Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license. That is TRUE freedom whether apparent fascists such as yourself like it or not.http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+zappa/jesus+thi nks+youre+a+jerk_20056591.html