Loki started in 1998 and closed in 2002. Linux is a heck of a lot more popular now than it was back then. Popular enough? Perhaps not, but you can't use the 5-9 year old Loki experience as an argument for why Linux games can't work today.
The idea is that you have access to the source of the application if you want to review it. You don't have to look at it, ever... but it is there if you want to.
More importantly, it creates a competitive market if you want to pay someone to review/improve/port it. Dell wouldn't have to plead with ATI for better drivers if the cards' interface was publicly documented---Dell could just hire whomever the company wanted to make the drivers better.
What we really want is complete interface specifications, so we can develop our *-licensed drivers ourselves, and, y'know, actually do something new every few years.
I'm not holding my breath Me neither. I recently switched from ATI (on which I spent several days to get it to work but *still* suboptimal) to NVidia to get accelerated dualscreen and it Just Works.
... until you try to get it running on a paravirtualized Xen kernel (dom0 even). I tried and gave up.
I need complete, publicly-available interface specifications. Anything less holds me back.
Dangling pointers are quite common, but security experts and developers have said for years that there is no practical way to exploit them, so they've been considered quality-assurance problems and not security flaws.
Any security expert with at least half a brain is going to assume that a remotely-triggered crash might be exploitable, unless he can actually prove otherwise.
That said, I've known plenty "security experts" who weren't.
removing the idea from the legal system that corporations (or organizations) have the same sorts of rights as real people (specifically, free speech).
In other words, you'd like to see that individual people have the right to free speech, but when they pool their resources together, they don't. How would that even work?
I was told that because of rising costs for making games that making a custom engine in house was a costly waste of time when you could go out and license a working engine from someone like Id, Epic, or Valve (I'm not going to name them all.)
Epic and Valve might make their money from their games, but from what I've heard, id makes most of its money from its engine licensing deals.
Right now, most applications get "time", even if they don't need them... so, you are "wasting time" being a "good kernel/waiter" by going to your customer (process), and asking if he needs something more, just to wait for a "no" as answer.
Yeesh. How on earth did you get the idea that you should be commenting about how the Linux scheduler works, since it appears that you don't know what you are talking about. Basically, only processes with task->state == TASK_RUNNING get CPU time. Processes that are waiting for I/O to complete or for a signal to be delivered don't have task->state == TASK_RUNNING.
Comparing what's available now to the materials available when the PSP was being developed/introduced indicates that you don't quite understand how this "flow of time" thing works.
UMD has a capacity that remains constant over time. The capacity of MicroSD card technology, on the other hand, grows over time. If Sony had used MicroSD cards, someone could today be releasing better (well, more flashy) games for the PSP that make use of today's 2GB capacity. Instead, Sony risks being rushed to release a new console and a new disc format---just for the increased capacity---rather than being able to milk the existing cash cow until its marketing department thinks it's a good time to start pushing something new.
The characterization of computers without pre-loaded software as "naked" and mandating that software be bundled with PCs by the retailer is nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier-to-entry into the market. Now, instead of creating your own operating system and just selling it, you have to negotiate with PC retailers (who probably have exclusive contracts with Microsoft) in order to be on the same footing as the more-established players.
That Linux and FreeDOS exist is a convenient workaround to the bundling requirements, but it doesn't negate the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's "no software implies pirated software" BS.
I can buy a television without subscribing to cable TV service offered by Best Buy, why should a computer (for which there more options) be any different?
In Canada, the police need a warrant (CanLII link) to get a dialled-number recorder placed on someone's phone (though apparently such a warrant is easier to get than a wire-tapping warrant), so extending this to the Internet wouldn't really be all that scary.
I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here.
Yeah, I'm sure some guy is sitting around posting renamed Metallica tracks renamed as if they were borderline child porn. That makes a whole lot of sense.
If by friend Bob also has a copyright interest in the work, and he doesn't want it to be GPLv3 only, are you saying that I can ignore his license preference, and just do my own thing?
No.
Personally choosing to comply with a later version of the GPL, because it's one of many licenses offered to me, seems to be different from making others, downstream from me, comply with that later version of the GPL. In the first case, I'm choosing a license from an acceptable set, while in the second case, I'm altering the acceptable set.
You can't directly alter the acceptable set of licenses for anything except your own code (that you hold the copyrights to). Even then, you can't remove some licenses (e.g. any free software license) from that set. What you're actually doing is indirectly altering the acceptable set for the work as a whole by defining an acceptable set for your own work only. In my example, if people take your A+B and removes B, they can usually distribute the resulting A under "X or Y", not just "Y".
I tried to find a good website that explains this concept in detail (I could have sworn I've seen one before) but I'm obviously overlooking the right search terms for it.
but I can't force anyone else to accept the version I want, unless I'm the original author of the work.
Almost. You don't need to be the original author. You just need to have a copyright interest in the work. You can take a work under "GPLv2 or any later version", make some (copyrightable) changes, then release the modified work under "GPLv3 only".
Basically, if you have work A under terms "X or Y", and work B under terms "Y or Z", you can combine them to produce A+B. If the copyright holder of A sues you for copyright infringement, your defense would be that you complied with either terms X or terms Y. Similarly, if the copyright holder of B sues you for copyright infringement, your defense would be that you complied with terms Y or terms Z. The only way you can defend yourself simultaneously against copyright infringement suites for both A and B is to comply with terms Y.
From a legal perspective, you're not really relicensing anything. You have multiple sets of license terms that you need to comply with simultaneously in order to avoid copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be interested in the L4 microkernel.
Loki started in 1998 and closed in 2002. Linux is a heck of a lot more popular now than it was back then. Popular enough? Perhaps not, but you can't use the 5-9 year old Loki experience as an argument for why Linux games can't work today.
That's what Hauppauge cards are for: Hardware MPEG-2.
Minimig (an FPGA re-implementation of an A500) was released as GPLv3+, as of a few days ago.
More importantly, it creates a competitive market if you want to pay someone to review/improve/port it. Dell wouldn't have to plead with ATI for better drivers if the cards' interface was publicly documented---Dell could just hire whomever the company wanted to make the drivers better.
What we really want is complete interface specifications, so we can develop our *-licensed drivers ourselves, and, y'know, actually do something new every few years.
... until you try to get it running on a paravirtualized Xen kernel (dom0 even). I tried and gave up.
I need complete, publicly-available interface specifications. Anything less holds me back.
Freshmeat lists 23243 projects under the GPL category.
From the article:
Dangling pointers are quite common, but security experts and developers have said for years that there is no practical way to exploit them, so they've been considered quality-assurance problems and not security flaws.Any security expert with at least half a brain is going to assume that a remotely-triggered crash might be exploitable, unless he can actually prove otherwise.
That said, I've known plenty "security experts" who weren't.
In other words, you'd like to see that individual people have the right to free speech, but when they pool their resources together, they don't. How would that even work?
Epic and Valve might make their money from their games, but from what I've heard, id makes most of its money from its engine licensing deals.
click here
Your comment boils down to "even though this controversial issue, trust me". Tell me: Who the hell are you, and why should anyone trust you?
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but . . .You should be. Cite your damn sources next time.
The WMF vulnerability, not the zlib one.
The evidence you might want to use to defend yourself in a trial might no longer be available after a "long" time.
The Ludicrously Fair Scheduler!
Yeesh. How on earth did you get the idea that you should be commenting about how the Linux scheduler works, since it appears that you don't know what you are talking about. Basically, only processes with task->state == TASK_RUNNING get CPU time. Processes that are waiting for I/O to complete or for a signal to be delivered don't have task->state == TASK_RUNNING.
UMD has a capacity that remains constant over time. The capacity of MicroSD card technology, on the other hand, grows over time. If Sony had used MicroSD cards, someone could today be releasing better (well, more flashy) games for the PSP that make use of today's 2GB capacity. Instead, Sony risks being rushed to release a new console and a new disc format---just for the increased capacity---rather than being able to milk the existing cash cow until its marketing department thinks it's a good time to start pushing something new.
The characterization of computers without pre-loaded software as "naked" and mandating that software be bundled with PCs by the retailer is nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier-to-entry into the market. Now, instead of creating your own operating system and just selling it, you have to negotiate with PC retailers (who probably have exclusive contracts with Microsoft) in order to be on the same footing as the more-established players.
That Linux and FreeDOS exist is a convenient workaround to the bundling requirements, but it doesn't negate the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's "no software implies pirated software" BS.
I can buy a television without subscribing to cable TV service offered by Best Buy, why should a computer (for which there more options) be any different?
In Canada, the police need a warrant (CanLII link) to get a dialled-number recorder placed on someone's phone (though apparently such a warrant is easier to get than a wire-tapping warrant), so extending this to the Internet wouldn't really be all that scary.
I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here.
Ever heard of the other DeCSS?
Weren't the Mars rovers designed to last, like, 90 days or something?
No.
Personally choosing to comply with a later version of the GPL, because it's one of many licenses offered to me, seems to be different from making others, downstream from me, comply with that later version of the GPL. In the first case, I'm choosing a license from an acceptable set, while in the second case, I'm altering the acceptable set.You can't directly alter the acceptable set of licenses for anything except your own code (that you hold the copyrights to). Even then, you can't remove some licenses (e.g. any free software license) from that set. What you're actually doing is indirectly altering the acceptable set for the work as a whole by defining an acceptable set for your own work only. In my example, if people take your A+B and removes B, they can usually distribute the resulting A under "X or Y", not just "Y".
I tried to find a good website that explains this concept in detail (I could have sworn I've seen one before) but I'm obviously overlooking the right search terms for it.
Systems Hungarian or Apps Hungarian?
Almost. You don't need to be the original author. You just need to have a copyright interest in the work. You can take a work under "GPLv2 or any later version", make some (copyrightable) changes, then release the modified work under "GPLv3 only".
Basically, if you have work A under terms "X or Y", and work B under terms "Y or Z", you can combine them to produce A+B. If the copyright holder of A sues you for copyright infringement, your defense would be that you complied with either terms X or terms Y. Similarly, if the copyright holder of B sues you for copyright infringement, your defense would be that you complied with terms Y or terms Z. The only way you can defend yourself simultaneously against copyright infringement suites for both A and B is to comply with terms Y.
From a legal perspective, you're not really relicensing anything. You have multiple sets of license terms that you need to comply with simultaneously in order to avoid copyright infringement.