Why read someone's paraphrasing of the GPL when you can easily read the GPL itself. Note third party servers are an option. The distributor does not have to make the source available himself. Because I have more important things to do and legal documents like the GPL really isn't that exciting to read.:)
But anyway, it's stated in the GNU FAQ that you must distribute the sources with the binaries. You can't just refer to upstream or some other site because they might change. The exception is if you've made a deal with a site to keep the sources for you.
The requirement to supply source code is covered by section 3 of the second version of the GPL. Under these sections, the distributor of GPL code is obligated to provide source code "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" for up to three years. In practice, this medium is usually a CD or DVD, or a server from which it can be downloaded. Under section 6 of the GPL, each distributor of the code comes under the obligations specified in section 3. This obligation is specified even more strongly in section 10 of the draft for the third version of the GPL, which specifically states that "downstream users" (those who, like Woodford, adopt the work of another project -- the "upstream distributor" -- for their own use) fall under these obligations.
"We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."
And if what they claim (that they use, but haven't modified vnc/openssh) then there's no problem here, and no, as per their Web site, it isn't open source. I don't know about BSD code or other licenses but if they're using GPL code they need to make the sources available, whether they've modified them or not. They can't just refer to the original distributor since they're distributing it themselves.
...since there is so many versions. If you don't care about the 9x versions and NT4, which people actually still use, or the obscure versions like fundamentals, embedded, tablet PC, itanium etc. you'll have to support:
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 64 bit
Windows XP
Windows XP 64 bit (Which is actually a 64 bit windows 2003 relabeled as XP.)
Windows MCE
Windows 2003
Windows 2003 64 bit
Windows Vista
Windows Vista 64 bit
And it gets even worse due to the fact that each windows have several different versions (home, pro, premium etc.) which you have to make sure your driver works with. So the manufactures just chooses to support what most people use. I know other hardware that claims to support windows XP but doesn't work under windows XP 64 bit.
And while it's possible to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS, this needs to be supported in the kernel; and there need to be 32 bit libraries available. It currently works reasonably smoothly under 64 bit linux, but the favoured method (as far as I'm aware) is to have an entire 32 bit install alongside the 64 bit one; any 32 bit apps run inside a chroot, so they see a 32 bit world. The kernel handles the remaining messy details.
You don't need a chroot to run 32 bit apps in a 64 bit linux. The 32 bit libraries can be installed along with the 64 bit libraries (/usr/lib and/usr/lib32 for ex.).
NVIDIA's stance is to neither help nor hinder Nouveau. We are committed to supporting Linux through a) an open source 2d "nv" X driver which NVIDIA engineers actively maintain and improve, and b) our fully featured proprietary Linux driver which leverages common code with the other platforms that NVIDIA supports.
But what will they do when nouveau is complete, and replaces the nv driver? Will they stop commiting to xorg?
> Or you could follow the published bugzilla etiquette and not make pointless arguments in a bug that is WONTFIXed. > You are ignored when you do because making the same arguments over and over again doesn't add anything to the discussion.
I was talking about before the bugs where closed as WONTFIX, but I guess it wont really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, Xenu is imprisoned forever by a force field powered by an eternal battery.
Someone needs to scan all 4000 pages first. I don't think you can get legal papers on a CD or DVD in sweden.
Haha. Good one!
Someone please mod parent +1 funny, I'm out of mod points.
Actually you can. Just install the firefox tourettes extension. :)
http://fffff.at/tourettes-machine
Does it run Linux?
Indeed: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f1/Terrorist_Err.PNG
But anyway, it's stated in the GNU FAQ that you must distribute the sources with the binaries. You can't just refer to upstream or some other site because they might change. The exception is if you've made a deal with a site to keep the sources for you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
http://www.linux.com/articles/55285
The requirement to supply source code is covered by section 3 of the second version of the GPL. Under these sections, the distributor of GPL code is obligated to provide source code "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" for up to three years. In practice, this medium is usually a CD or DVD, or a server from which it can be downloaded. Under section 6 of the GPL, each distributor of the code comes under the obligations specified in section 3. This obligation is specified even more strongly in section 10 of the draft for the third version of the GPL, which specifically states that "downstream users" (those who, like Woodford, adopt the work of another project -- the "upstream distributor" -- for their own use) fall under these obligations. "We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."
How about a version without the TCPA / Trusted computing crap? The vPro platform was the first to fully implent this technology.
I'm moving to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to start my own country. Anyone care to join me?
Will there be any decent ISP's on your island?
Well, they could of course have replaced it with something else than Linux, like BSD or a pirated windows. I don't think many people kept FreeDOS.
Or perhaps divide it by zero? :P
Or do you think a DVD reader or CD writer will do?
...since there is so many versions. If you don't care about the 9x versions and NT4, which people actually still use, or the obscure versions like fundamentals, embedded, tablet PC, itanium etc. you'll have to support:
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 64 bit
Windows XP
Windows XP 64 bit (Which is actually a 64 bit windows 2003 relabeled as XP.)
Windows MCE
Windows 2003
Windows 2003 64 bit
Windows Vista
Windows Vista 64 bit
And it gets even worse due to the fact that each windows have several different versions (home, pro, premium etc.) which you have to make sure your driver works with. So the manufactures just chooses to support what most people use. I know other hardware that claims to support windows XP but doesn't work under windows XP 64 bit.
And while it's possible to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS, this needs to be supported in the kernel; and there need to be 32 bit libraries available. It currently works reasonably smoothly under 64 bit linux, but the favoured method (as far as I'm aware) is to have an entire 32 bit install alongside the 64 bit one; any 32 bit apps run inside a chroot, so they see a 32 bit world. The kernel handles the remaining messy details.
/usr/lib32 for ex.).
You don't need a chroot to run 32 bit apps in a 64 bit linux. The 32 bit libraries can be installed along with the 64 bit libraries (/usr/lib and
Trusted Computing is one security measure I'd like to see broken.
I don't know, but it will probably have the side effect that googling for "people" and/or "business" will bring up microsoft.
Please wake me up when someone creates a google-bomb with the phrase "People-ready business".
It used to run on Linux... I believe it was back in the Photoshop 3.x days.
Photoshop 3 and some other old versions where ported to solaris and irix but I doubt there ever was a linux-port.
.. the USA tries to force others to adopt their copyright and patent laws.
NVIDIA's stance is to neither help nor hinder Nouveau. We are committed to supporting Linux through a) an open source 2d "nv" X driver which NVIDIA engineers actively maintain and improve, and b) our fully featured proprietary Linux driver which leverages common code with the other platforms that NVIDIA supports.
But what will they do when nouveau is complete, and replaces the nv driver? Will they stop commiting to xorg?
Actually we do. Sweden is one of the few countries that has one.
ESC = cancel, enter = OK, no matter how they're arranged in the window. So how can you choose the wrong option when using the keyboard?
> Or you could follow the published bugzilla etiquette and not make pointless arguments in a bug that is WONTFIXed.
> You are ignored when you do because making the same arguments over and over again doesn't add anything to the discussion.
I was talking about before the bugs where closed as WONTFIX, but I guess it wont really matter.