I just read the entry where Gord supposedly knocked around some shoplifter. Maybe it's true, but at this point I believe it's pure fantasy. I'll pass on the rest.
Its not disingenuous its the law. For something to be more than an aggregation there needs to be someone with standing for the total product. The only thing that gives Red Hat the right to redistribute FSF code is the GPL. So the FSF would be completely within its rights to tell Red Hat that their Enterprise distributions are violating the GPL ("mere aggregation" vs "part of a whole") and that they are forbidden from distributing FSF code. You are mistaken that FSF needs to have copyright to everything in the product. They have rights to the code they own, and if they feel the inclusion of their code extends beyond "mere aggregation", it is completely within their rights to sue.
You guys were much better than I expected from a Slashdot posting, and probably on par for a generic song on the radio. I don't agree with the other comments about the singer -- he has talent. But the music isn't inspired; it's ok, but not inspired.
Reminds me a little bit of Stabbing Westward. They had a hit in the 90s that I loved ("Shame"). Ok, I'm rambling now, sorry:)
Linux the operating system is not under any license. Huge parts of any Linux operating system are from GNU and under the copyright of the FSF. Linus chose to distribute his kernel under GPL because of that. To call an operating system distribution "mere aggragation" is disingenuous.
Fedora 1 released November 6, 2003 RH Linux 9 released March 31, 2003 December 2001: "Since the release of Red Hat 7.2 in October, the company has been more actively pursuing what it sees as trademark violations by CD resellers such as UnixCD.com and CheapBytes.com."
As for RHEL... the GPL has always specifically avoided aggregation restrictions. That's "mere aggregation" of separate works -- like the old shareware bundles of independent programs that you used to get on floppies. GPL version 2 also says "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Back in the late 1980s when people were using GPL software (like gcc or emacs) under SunOS there was no argument that SunOS was open source or should be. Your analogy is bad. Red Hat would have nothing to sell without Linux. Quite clearly Red Hat is selling an OS, one based completely on GPL code with enterprise features added on top of it. To claim that it is a separate work not based on GPL works is wrong, and even Red Hat recognizes this because they release their enhancements under the GPL. The fact that Red Hat releases their source as GPL is probably why the FSF gives them a free pass over the trademark poisoning.
Two points. There was a long time before Fedora where no version of Red Hat was freely distributable without "scrubbing". Second, the existence of Fedora does not mitigate the "enterprise" lockdown of GPL'd software.
Read the article? I read the summary and knew it was a Slashvertisement. It was so blatant I'm just reading this thread to look for any kind of response from the editors. Not that I really expect to find any but ya never know.
because most of us actually *understand* the business we're in Yes, you do. You guys are the open source version of Microsoft. You're doing exactly what RMS was worried about when he started GNU -- building on top of the source and becoming the "standard" version of a GNU-based system. You do it via trademark poisoning. It's completely against the spirit of the GPL that binary copies of Red Hat CDs can't be redistributed. Instead the source has to be carefully scrubbed and recompiled. I remember the days when you could get an exact copy of Red Hat for a buck from Cheap Bytes, before all this "enterprise" lockdown.
The question isn't "Why does Red Hat tolerate CentOS?", but why does FSF tolerate Red Hat? I suppose it's because they eventually get the source back, even if it means they have to they have to manually "clean" it before they can re-release it. Who ever said RMS is an extremist that doesn't compromise?
I hate jazz. From what I could find on youtube based on your recommendations, I still do. You know, it really is ok for somebody to not share your taste in music.
There's no 'inside session passing' or rubbish. Simply, a cross-sell is a product offered by a company that uses the same billing company as the site. You're wrong in the case of Webloyalty. The original merchant and Webloyalty do not necessarily use the same credit card company.
I wonder, have you ever signed a document without reading every word on it? Like when the cable guy comes to install, do you really read every last word? Have you never agreed to a software license agreement without reading through the whole thing?
You admit these people are being tricked with nasty fine print and misleading presentation, yet you equate their behavior with gross negligence. This isn't like some Nigerian scam. These people are just shopping at a site they already trust, that they have already given their credit card information to, and are made to believe they are getting a coupon for their next purchase, when in reality they are signed up to some bullshit "rewards" program that autocharges their card monthly, just by entering their email address.
All true, but inheritance is a recognized principle in society. Even if you are alive and assert ownership, somebody more powerful can take stuff away from you. That's why as a society we agree on "contrived" ideas.
If only small-time etailers knew that.:( It'd be a lot better if Visa got off their asses and actually fixed the system so that Mom and Pop don't have access to "secret" data. Also, it's not just Mom and Pop, it's also the big mega-corporations like TJ Maxx.
You must have very poor memory, nuzak, if you can't recall what it was like learning your trade. I'm not the grandparent, but I can remember being puzzled by all the acronymns and tech-jargon. But then again, that was back in the 80s, and now it's 2007. Googling for "datacenter" brings up a Wikipedia article on the second link. The article also mentions "colocation", and Googling for that also brings up a Wikipedia article. People really shouldn't be on Slashdot asking such basic questions with comprehensive Wikipedia articles a few seconds away.
Yes, without trademark protection, Microsoft would market a line of Linux buttplugs in a side market, and people all over the place would just smirk when somebody proudly exclaimed that they were a 'Linux user.' Classic! Though the scary thing is I could actually see something like this happening. Reminds me of the iPod/vibrator ads.
And how many of them will be disappointed that they got a 720p set when they have to go back for another in a few years? Most of the tv-watching public isn't used to upgrading their tvs more than once every 5 years or so, and for sure by 2012 Full HD content will be mainstream. Doubtful. Look how long it is taking to roll out 720 content. You think in 5 years it's all going to magically be 1080, when the majority of people have 720? Hell, how many PS3 games are "Full HD", which was one of the main selling points of the PS3?
How could it not be considered a "debt"? If you refused to pay for services you have used, wouldn't your account be referred to a "debt collection" agency? And if you declared bankruptcy, wouldn't you avoid paying that "debt"? What else can it be but a debt?
Wow, what a bizarre story. Sounds like some White House insider knew him as a gay escort friendly to conservative causes and used him as a plant. This, Senator Craig's bathroom exploits, and other stories are surreal. Is the whole far-right movement based on closet homosexuals?
Slashdot Mirror
I just read the entry where Gord supposedly knocked around some shoplifter. Maybe it's true, but at this point I believe it's pure fantasy. I'll pass on the rest.
You guys were much better than I expected from a Slashdot posting, and probably on par for a generic song on the radio. I don't agree with the other comments about the singer -- he has talent. But the music isn't inspired; it's ok, but not inspired.
:)
Reminds me a little bit of Stabbing Westward. They had a hit in the 90s that I loved ("Shame"). Ok, I'm rambling now, sorry
If Windows went away tomorrow, and Linux or Mac took over with >90% market share, the botnet problem would pick up right where it left off.
Wow, you paid $5 for an album you didn't even like?
RH Linux 9 released March 31, 2003 December 2001: "Since the release of Red Hat 7.2 in October, the company has been more actively pursuing what it sees as trademark violations by CD resellers such as UnixCD.com and CheapBytes.com." As for RHEL... the GPL has always specifically avoided aggregation restrictions. That's "mere aggregation" of separate works -- like the old shareware bundles of independent programs that you used to get on floppies. GPL version 2 also says "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Back in the late 1980s when people were using GPL software (like gcc or emacs) under SunOS there was no argument that SunOS was open source or should be. Your analogy is bad. Red Hat would have nothing to sell without Linux. Quite clearly Red Hat is selling an OS, one based completely on GPL code with enterprise features added on top of it. To claim that it is a separate work not based on GPL works is wrong, and even Red Hat recognizes this because they release their enhancements under the GPL. The fact that Red Hat releases their source as GPL is probably why the FSF gives them a free pass over the trademark poisoning.
Two points. There was a long time before Fedora where no version of Red Hat was freely distributable without "scrubbing". Second, the existence of Fedora does not mitigate the "enterprise" lockdown of GPL'd software.
Read the article? I read the summary and knew it was a Slashvertisement. It was so blatant I'm just reading this thread to look for any kind of response from the editors. Not that I really expect to find any but ya never know.
Hardcore, yes. Cool, no. I've got nothing against him, but building your own CPU and OS from scratch is nerdy as hell.
The question isn't "Why does Red Hat tolerate CentOS?", but why does FSF tolerate Red Hat? I suppose it's because they eventually get the source back, even if it means they have to they have to manually "clean" it before they can re-release it. Who ever said RMS is an extremist that doesn't compromise?
I hate jazz. From what I could find on youtube based on your recommendations, I still do. You know, it really is ok for somebody to not share your taste in music.
Wonderful
You rock :)
I wonder, have you ever signed a document without reading every word on it? Like when the cable guy comes to install, do you really read every last word? Have you never agreed to a software license agreement without reading through the whole thing?
You admit these people are being tricked with nasty fine print and misleading presentation, yet you equate their behavior with gross negligence. This isn't like some Nigerian scam. These people are just shopping at a site they already trust, that they have already given their credit card information to, and are made to believe they are getting a coupon for their next purchase, when in reality they are signed up to some bullshit "rewards" program that autocharges their card monthly, just by entering their email address.
All true, but inheritance is a recognized principle in society. Even if you are alive and assert ownership, somebody more powerful can take stuff away from you. That's why as a society we agree on "contrived" ideas.
Are you intentionally mispelling "confused"? Somehow I think not.
Hmm, I have mod points, and I was going to mod this guy up, but I really hate the mod commanders. Oh well :)
How could it not be considered a "debt"? If you refused to pay for services you have used, wouldn't your account be referred to a "debt collection" agency? And if you declared bankruptcy, wouldn't you avoid paying that "debt"? What else can it be but a debt?
Wow, what a bizarre story. Sounds like some White House insider knew him as a gay escort friendly to conservative causes and used him as a plant. This, Senator Craig's bathroom exploits, and other stories are surreal. Is the whole far-right movement based on closet homosexuals?