To be fair, the idea of specifying an explicit path using./ is new to many users who are familiar with other command shells (DOS, old versions of Red Hat Linux, AmigaDOS, etc).
tech: now when that's finished type attitude d-i-s-t minus upgrade
Damn it Jim, it's upgrade! Nobody (except Debian developers) should ever have done a dist-upgrade of any given Debian machine more than a dozen times. dist-upgrade is for switching between major versions of the distribution. It's not for everyday use!
On the other hand, it's exactly what I'd expect from some techs, just like a lot of them thing ping is a DNS query tool.
<troll>And I'm so glad it's not bloody Ubuntu!</troll>
Heh. Or Gentoo.
Can you imagine phone support for Gentoo?
Customer: "I try to run Firefox, but it says "command not found".
Support: "Okay, Sir, just type emerge firefox"
Customer: "Okay."
Support [45 minutes later]: "Sir?"
Customer: "It's still compiling."
Support: "Ah, okay."
Customer [30 minutes later]: "Okay, done, but now it crashes."
Support: "Okay, I'll log in remotely."
Support [15 minutes later]: "I don't know how you did this, but somehow you managed to compile your entire kernel with ccmalloc. What were you thinking?"
Customer: "IT MAKES IT RUN FASTER." ...
Knoppix and Debian are different enough that when it comes to troubleshooting, you really have to treat them separately. Just try asking about Knoppix in #debian or Debian in #knoppix (or try answering questions about one when the person is really asking about the other... extremely frustrating).
Now, are you going to be a man and admit that you were wrong, or are you going to reinforce the American stereotype by burying your head in the sand and insisting what you believe is true, even when it contradicts every available piece of evidence to the contrary?
This is the part where he covers his eyes and yells "LA LA LA LA LA". You won't be seeing a reply.
Olga (and similar sites) do not publish recordings of songs
Notation is a recording.
Three words: Straw man argument. You deliberately misinterpreted what the grandparent meant by "recordings". Stop insulting my intelligence, even though I'm a Slashdot reader.
Not everything is protectable by copyright law. Take, for example, typefaces. They are clearly art, intellectual output, etc, and yet they are also not protected under U.S. copyright law. Making arguments on the (false) premise that copyright law is unversally applicable will get you nowhere.
The question here is whether or not these guitar tabulatures are covered by copyright law. The operators of the OLGA site assert that they are not. The NMPA and the MPA assert that they are. The courts will decide, and if we don't like the results, Congress can change the rules.
But the service packs are free, so this wouldn't apply there.
I don't think it's quite that simple. For example, if the product was originally advertised as coming with "free security updates", then one could argue that Microsoft is obligated to provide the free updates they advertised under the same terms as the original product. If the EULA isn't enforceable for the original product, then it's probably not enforceable the the service pack. Another example is if you lawfully received the service pack without agreeing to an EULA beforehand (such as if you get an update CD from Microsoft). Or, certain terms in Microsoft's EULAs might also not be enforceable because of their the company's monopoly status.
I'm not actually saying that I *know* that an EULA wouldn't be enforceable, I'm saying that it's not wise to just assume that it is in all cases. Again, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
Have a look at the Envolution project. The company involved tried to conceal access to both source and binaries for GPL software behind a subscription fee. They're not doing business anymore.
I think there was an alternative firmware for the Linksys WRT54G that did more-or-less the same thing.
Talk to your lawyer. Depending on the circumstances, there's a good chance that those EULAs aren't enforceable anyway, regardless of what Microsoft tells you.
Some of the videos have links to actual video files. I tend to use them instead of Flash because Flash is quite slow on my computer, but mplayer is not.
This is the line that people say might already forbid tivoization:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
The contention is that if you haven't been given enough information to actually make modifications to a work and use those modifications, then you haven't been given the source code. It's clearly the intent of GPLv2 (in my opinion) but, as many have pointed out, there are other possible interpretations. GPLv3draft2 attempts to clarify the situation.
It is in no way against the spirit or nature of the GPL[v2].
That is your interpretation. My interpretation (which, incidentally, is the same as the FSF's interpretation) is that the GPL is designed to ensure that all users of the software have the four freedoms enumerated by the FSF. However, a judge might agree with your interpretation rather than mine, and that's why the FSF wants to add a clearer definition of Corresponding Source to GPLv3.
There is no reason for a software license to dictate that manufacturers cannot sell specific hardware in specific configurations because all the sudden people think that the manufacturer should let them run any program they want on all the hardware they sell.
There is no legal mechanism for the GPL (or any copyright licence) to simply dictate terms to hardware manufacturers---it simply can't be done, regardless of what the FSF or anybody else writes on paper. It can, however, dictate the terms under which those manufactuers can use the GPL as a legal defence for what would otherwise be considered actions that constitute copyright infringement.
Linksys distributes a router that runs Linux, and also distributes Linux with this router. This would normally be copyright infringement, but if anyone sues Linksys over copyright infringement, Linksys can point to the GPL (which says, "you are allowed to do X if you also do Y"), and say "yes, we did X, which would normally constitute copyright infingement, but we also did Y, so we have permission".
Similarly, TiVo distributes PVR hardware, and also distributes Linux with that hardware. This would again be considered copyright infringement, if not for the GPL. The idea behind the provisions in GPLv3 is to explicitly state that if you want to distribute a work under the GPL, then it needs to be modifiable in a practical sense.
Now what have you gaines if you cannot run the xource code on hardware? You have gained any changes they might have made. More importantly, you have the ability to use those changes on different hardware.
Big deal. If that was good enough for me, I wouldn't have released my software exclusively under the GPL.
Under GPLv3, it is questionabley possible that intel's or AMD's practice of locking out overclocking by hardware restrictions would make it against GPLv3 and make it incompatible
Not unless e.g. Intel or AMD distribute GPL-covered software (not copyrighted by them) that is capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions, but if I modify that software, it won't be equally capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions.
Part of the reason I release code under the GPL (and will probably release it under GPLv3, when it comes out) is because that I want to give a competitive advantage to the Linksyses and Red Hats of the world over the TiVos and the Microsofts of the world. If you're a hardware manufacturer, and you are willing to give your customers the four freedoms, then you get to save time and money by distributing my software with your hardware. Otherwise, you don't.
GPLv3 will serve my interests as a software developer. If others don't like the terms, then they are free to develop their own software, or negotiate with me separately (i.e. pay me) for a release under different terms. Don't like it? Tough. Ignore the rules and distribute my work anyway? That's copyright infringement; I'll see you in court.
That's an interesting datum, since XMMS (well, XMMS2, actually) is in the middle of a re-write because the XMMS code is said to be quite inflexible. And it reportedly has a lot of bugs.
I, for one, would not be comfortable using a license when nobody can seem to satisfactorily explain what can or can't be done with the code, and I certainly would not cross my fingers and hope that the courts happen to see things the way I think they should.
If you want the license explained, read the FSF's GPL FAQ, Groklaw, or any of the other places where people discuss licenses. If all those places can't "satisfactorily explain" the GPL to you, then you probably won't believe anything except what a lawyer advises you.
Most licenses are vague in some way. Even the n-clause BSD licenses, if you take the strict English interpretation of them, are ambiguous: they basically say that "redistribution is allowed if redistributions of source code must..." without actually saying that "redistributions of source code must..". The reality is that licenses are interpreted by the courts, and all of us have to take some risk and assume that we are interpreting the licenses the same way that the courts ultimately will. Even if you hire a lawyer, there's always the risk that the judge will disagree with your lawyer. There's not much the FSF can do about that.
As for GPLv3draft2, it's really quite clear: You have to distribute (or offer to distribute in designated ways) the Corresponding Source when you distribute binaries. The Corresponding Source includes any "keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.". If your package manager has a list of keys that it trusts, but you can change that list, then the keys I use to sign the binaries are not "necessary to install and/or execute modified versions", and thus are not part of the Corresponding Source. If you can't change that list, then trusted keys are part of the Corresponding Source. These two cases are not "exactly the same" as far as the courts are concerned. If I'm distributing binaries without the Corresponding Source, then the permissions granted in GPLv3draft2 don't apply to me, and so I need another lawful excuse to distribute the copyrighted code.
I suggest you re-read the GPLv3 draft, and also read the rationale document (PDF). You have to read it a few times before you'll fully understand it, but it's really not that difficult to grasp.
If you're competent---which, in this industry, means you're way above average---then you'll do fine. If you're no more useful than somebody who can be hired from India, then you don't stand a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the idea of specifying an explicit path using ./ is new to many users who are familiar with other command shells (DOS, old versions of Red Hat Linux, AmigaDOS, etc).
My HP printer works fine, thanks to hplip (which, incidentally, is also a Debian package).
You could always, you know, help, if you think you can do better.
Damn it Jim, it's upgrade! Nobody (except Debian developers) should ever have done a dist-upgrade of any given Debian machine more than a dozen times. dist-upgrade is for switching between major versions of the distribution. It's not for everyday use!
On the other hand, it's exactly what I'd expect from some techs, just like a lot of them thing ping is a DNS query tool.
Indeed. On the other hand, the users who attend #debian on Sundays all had the ability to start up an IRC client and find the channel.
<troll>And I'm so glad it's not bloody Ubuntu!</troll>
Heh. Or Gentoo.
Can you imagine phone support for Gentoo?
Customer: "I try to run Firefox, but it says "command not found".
...
Support: "Okay, Sir, just type emerge firefox"
Customer: "Okay."
Support [45 minutes later]: "Sir?"
Customer: "It's still compiling."
Support: "Ah, okay."
Customer [30 minutes later]: "Okay, done, but now it crashes."
Support: "Okay, I'll log in remotely."
Support [15 minutes later]: "I don't know how you did this, but somehow you managed to compile your entire kernel with ccmalloc. What were you thinking?"
Customer: "IT MAKES IT RUN FASTER."
Knoppix and Debian are different enough that when it comes to troubleshooting, you really have to treat them separately. Just try asking about Knoppix in #debian or Debian in #knoppix (or try answering questions about one when the person is really asking about the other... extremely frustrating).
It's non-free and non-free and not open source and not GPL compatible.
I'm about as likely to use this shared-source "GPU" as I am to use XFree86 4.4.
I'm even less likely to contribute to it.
This is the part where he covers his eyes and yells "LA LA LA LA LA". You won't be seeing a reply.
She can read your mind. You can't read hers. I'd hate to be Riker.
Three words: Straw man argument. You deliberately misinterpreted what the grandparent meant by "recordings". Stop insulting my intelligence, even though I'm a Slashdot reader.
Not everything is protectable by copyright law. Take, for example, typefaces. They are clearly art, intellectual output, etc, and yet they are also not protected under U.S. copyright law. Making arguments on the (false) premise that copyright law is unversally applicable will get you nowhere.
The question here is whether or not these guitar tabulatures are covered by copyright law. The operators of the OLGA site assert that they are not. The NMPA and the MPA assert that they are. The courts will decide, and if we don't like the results, Congress can change the rules.
Nice troll. Well done!
Exactly. Or Xerox?
This is Slashdot. Most of the people here are too young to get your joke.
No, it isn't.
Mods: The parent is trolling. Please moderate accordingly.
I don't think it's quite that simple. For example, if the product was originally advertised as coming with "free security updates", then one could argue that Microsoft is obligated to provide the free updates they advertised under the same terms as the original product. If the EULA isn't enforceable for the original product, then it's probably not enforceable the the service pack. Another example is if you lawfully received the service pack without agreeing to an EULA beforehand (such as if you get an update CD from Microsoft). Or, certain terms in Microsoft's EULAs might also not be enforceable because of their the company's monopoly status.
I'm not actually saying that I *know* that an EULA wouldn't be enforceable, I'm saying that it's not wise to just assume that it is in all cases. Again, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
Have a look at the Envolution project. The company involved tried to conceal access to both source and binaries for GPL software behind a subscription fee. They're not doing business anymore.
I think there was an alternative firmware for the Linksys WRT54G that did more-or-less the same thing.
Talk to your lawyer. Depending on the circumstances, there's a good chance that those EULAs aren't enforceable anyway, regardless of what Microsoft tells you.
Some of the videos have links to actual video files. I tend to use them instead of Flash because Flash is quite slow on my computer, but mplayer is not.
This is the line that people say might already forbid tivoization:
The contention is that if you haven't been given enough information to actually make modifications to a work and use those modifications, then you haven't been given the source code. It's clearly the intent of GPLv2 (in my opinion) but, as many have pointed out, there are other possible interpretations. GPLv3draft2 attempts to clarify the situation.
That is your interpretation. My interpretation (which, incidentally, is the same as the FSF's interpretation) is that the GPL is designed to ensure that all users of the software have the four freedoms enumerated by the FSF. However, a judge might agree with your interpretation rather than mine, and that's why the FSF wants to add a clearer definition of Corresponding Source to GPLv3.
There is no legal mechanism for the GPL (or any copyright licence) to simply dictate terms to hardware manufacturers---it simply can't be done, regardless of what the FSF or anybody else writes on paper. It can, however, dictate the terms under which those manufactuers can use the GPL as a legal defence for what would otherwise be considered actions that constitute copyright infringement.
Linksys distributes a router that runs Linux, and also distributes Linux with this router. This would normally be copyright infringement, but if anyone sues Linksys over copyright infringement, Linksys can point to the GPL (which says, "you are allowed to do X if you also do Y"), and say "yes, we did X, which would normally constitute copyright infingement, but we also did Y, so we have permission".
Similarly, TiVo distributes PVR hardware, and also distributes Linux with that hardware. This would again be considered copyright infringement, if not for the GPL. The idea behind the provisions in GPLv3 is to explicitly state that if you want to distribute a work under the GPL, then it needs to be modifiable in a practical sense.
Big deal. If that was good enough for me, I wouldn't have released my software exclusively under the GPL.
Not unless e.g. Intel or AMD distribute GPL-covered software (not copyrighted by them) that is capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions, but if I modify that software, it won't be equally capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions.
Part of the reason I release code under the GPL (and will probably release it under GPLv3, when it comes out) is because that I want to give a competitive advantage to the Linksyses and Red Hats of the world over the TiVos and the Microsofts of the world. If you're a hardware manufacturer, and you are willing to give your customers the four freedoms, then you get to save time and money by distributing my software with your hardware. Otherwise, you don't.
GPLv3 will serve my interests as a software developer. If others don't like the terms, then they are free to develop their own software, or negotiate with me separately (i.e. pay me) for a release under different terms. Don't like it? Tough. Ignore the rules and distribute my work anyway? That's copyright infringement; I'll see you in court.
That's an interesting datum, since XMMS (well, XMMS2, actually) is in the middle of a re-write because the XMMS code is said to be quite inflexible. And it reportedly has a lot of bugs.
I feel your pain. Then again, my job involves mostly programming in PHP. PHP 4.
If you want the license explained, read the FSF's GPL FAQ, Groklaw, or any of the other places where people discuss licenses. If all those places can't "satisfactorily explain" the GPL to you, then you probably won't believe anything except what a lawyer advises you.
Most licenses are vague in some way. Even the n-clause BSD licenses, if you take the strict English interpretation of them, are ambiguous: they basically say that "redistribution is allowed if redistributions of source code must..." without actually saying that "redistributions of source code must..". The reality is that licenses are interpreted by the courts, and all of us have to take some risk and assume that we are interpreting the licenses the same way that the courts ultimately will. Even if you hire a lawyer, there's always the risk that the judge will disagree with your lawyer. There's not much the FSF can do about that.
As for GPLv3draft2, it's really quite clear: You have to distribute (or offer to distribute in designated ways) the Corresponding Source when you distribute binaries. The Corresponding Source includes any "keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.". If your package manager has a list of keys that it trusts, but you can change that list, then the keys I use to sign the binaries are not "necessary to install and/or execute modified versions", and thus are not part of the Corresponding Source. If you can't change that list, then trusted keys are part of the Corresponding Source. These two cases are not "exactly the same" as far as the courts are concerned. If I'm distributing binaries without the Corresponding Source, then the permissions granted in GPLv3draft2 don't apply to me, and so I need another lawful excuse to distribute the copyrighted code.
I suggest you re-read the GPLv3 draft, and also read the rationale document (PDF). You have to read it a few times before you'll fully understand it, but it's really not that difficult to grasp.
If you're competent---which, in this industry, means you're way above average---then you'll do fine. If you're no more useful than somebody who can be hired from India, then you don't stand a chance.
When your electronics smell, it's usually not a good thing.