* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
That sentence is pretty clear. Not all BSD code can be relicensed.
Let me remind you however, that this was the work of an individual who posted to a public mailing list. It hasn't been accepted into Linus's or Morton's tree.
Noone's disputing the fact that Apple's (deservedly) growing.
What the OP was pointing out was the headline implies that one in six Laptops sold are Apple branded. That's false. More like one in nineteen (according to the linked article):
data it released last month put Apple's share of U.S. sales at 5.6%, far behind leaders HP (28.4%) and Dell (23.6%) but tied with Gateway.
Offtopic: If you're going to link to sad blogs at least put it in your sig rather than the main body of your post.
I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:
Open Standards != Open Source Open Source is a software development and distribution model, which does not equate to how easily the software interoperates with other software or how open or standardized the interfaces are.
If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.
Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
And thank you for reminding me that everyone with an opinion isn't a FUD spreader - I should have given you a proper reply instead of saying "Wrong. Dumass" (*hangs*head*in*shame*). Lucky you persevered.
Dear God - never believe information week. The article you linked to even mentioned web services, which many people speculated would be part of the GPL3, but did not make it into any draft.
My apologies for calling you a dumbass - I thought you were deliberately spreading fud, but apparently you've just fallen for it.
The GPL3 does not restrict your usage of software covered by it in any way shape or form. It only stops one restricting other's usage of the software.
It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological "protection" measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, he will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws.
As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software, it just stops them from restricting others.
You also said:It also tries to stonewall the MS-Novell agreement. That's also restricting use.
Please explain how Microsoft and Novell's use of the software is restricted. (You dumbass)
but it sounds strikingly similar to the GPL in terms of limits and goals.
Totally incorrect. You don't have to accept the GPL to use the software. Honest to god, try to at least understand the discussion before accusing others of trolling.
One things is for sure - they all rely on proprietary Microsoft produts (.Net, sharepoint, SQL server, etc) to run. They're not particularly useful to the Open Source community, just the Microsoft community. (In Debian, they would sit in the non-free repositorty).
open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"
Some open source is good for MS - the sort of not particularly open software that relies on MS's OS & libs. Any software that can be easily ported to another platform is a threat.
Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
In fact, it's what "entrepreneur" means. That's a word whose original meaning is not so muchy lost as deliberately concealed. An entrepreneur is someone who tries to insert himself in a flow - of cash, a commodity or other resource - and then act as the gatekeeper, thus making money. Because it means "taker in the middle".
No, that's not what entrepreneur means. It's derrived from the same french word enterprise in derrived from - entreprendre, to undertake.
Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping
*shrug* I don't think anything I say is going to affect Linux's market share, but calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.
The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.
Nonsense. Linux occupies (or dominates) many computing markets (embedded devices, servers).
I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing). Pointing out it hasn't made much inroads into Desktops (or mobile phones for that matter) doesn't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me remind you however, that this was the work of an individual who posted to a public mailing list. It hasn't been accepted into Linus's or Morton's tree.
I think that they are more upset with the attitude more than anything.
You're upset at the behavior of an individual on a public mailing list?
How on earth do you cope with the wider internet? (and manage to post on slashdot for god's sake).
It appears that someone's submitted a patch to the LKML that wrongly strips the BSD atheros driver of its license - a clear violation of copyright.
However, until it's in Linus's tree (or even the MM tree), the violation is not by "linux", but the contributor, Jiri Slaby.
Anyway, thanks to the OpenBSD team for these great drivers. Thanks to the Linux team for including them (under the correct license).
What the OP was pointing out was the headline implies that one in six Laptops sold are Apple branded. That's false. More like one in nineteen (according to the linked article):Offtopic: If you're going to link to sad blogs at least put it in your sig rather than the main body of your post.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com
I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.
Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
And thank you for reminding me that everyone with an opinion isn't a FUD spreader - I should have given you a proper reply instead of saying "Wrong. Dumass" (*hangs*head*in*shame*). Lucky you persevered.
Dear God - never believe information week. The article you linked to even mentioned web services, which many people speculated would be part of the GPL3, but did not make it into any draft.
My apologies for calling you a dumbass - I thought you were deliberately spreading fud, but apparently you've just fallen for it.
The GPL3 does not restrict your usage of software covered by it in any way shape or form. It only stops one restricting other's usage of the software.
According to these guys, google sky is (like google earth) stitched together actual photographs.
Could be more accurate than a generated model.
Let's hope that its as useful (eventually) to amateurs as google earth is to geologists.
Sure.
You said: You can't use GPLv3'd software with DRM, with or without redistribution. That's restricting use.
From the GPL V3 FAQ:
You also said:It also tries to stonewall the MS-Novell agreement. That's also restricting use.
Please explain how Microsoft and Novell's use of the software is restricted. (You dumbass)
You can't use GPLv3'd software with DRM,
Wrong. Dumbass.
I take it you're not a fan of the GPLv3 then?
You don't have to accept the GPLv3 to use software covered by it.
You're quite right. Typed to hastily.
I'm no expert on it,
Clearly. Comprehension status: Failed.
but it sounds strikingly similar to the GPL in terms of limits and goals.
Totally incorrect. You don't have to accept the GPL to use the software. Honest to god, try to at least understand the discussion before accusing others of trolling.
open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"
Some open source is good for MS - the sort of not particularly open software that relies on MS's OS & libs. Any software that can be easily ported to another platform is a threat.
Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:
But most of the world (and me!) enjoy watching dumb clips on youtube.
:-(
That's going to mean we stick with 32 bit firefox for the moment
Firefox already has a sugar daddy - Google.
The difference between your bad analogy & what tbe OHSU team are doing?
The OHSU team know wtf they're doing. Your team obviously didn't.
In fact, it's what "entrepreneur" means. That's a word whose original meaning is not so muchy lost as deliberately concealed. An entrepreneur is someone who tries to insert himself in a flow - of cash, a commodity or other resource - and then act as the gatekeeper, thus making money. Because it means "taker in the middle".
No, that's not what entrepreneur means. It's derrived from the same french word enterprise in derrived from - entreprendre, to undertake.
See the Online etymology dictioanry.
Pacaos? That's an interesting acrostic. What does it mean?
PacaOS is the operating system for Pacas - its a fork of rodentOS. HTH.
Seriously, why is this on Slashdot? Did the editor think it was about 10.5 or something?
Indeed - this so-called-article is taking up valuable iPhone fluff story screen real estate.
Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping
*shrug* I don't think anything I say is going to affect Linux's market share, but calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.
The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.
Nonsense. Linux occupies (or dominates) many computing markets (embedded devices, servers).
I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing). Pointing out it hasn't made much inroads into Desktops (or mobile phones for that matter) doesn't change that.
In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.
That's because you're a troll - a sad, stupid troll at that.
Let me explain it in small words. You're comparing installing windows on a blank HDD, with installing linux on a drive shared with windows.
Installing windows on a HDD with an existing OS & preserving that OS is not easy, certainly not as easy as getting Ubuntu to coexist with other OSes.
By your standards, Windows isn't ready for the mass market (you dumbass).
I'm reasonably computer savvy,
No - you're reasonably windows savvy. The rest of your post makes that abundantly clear.
Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.
it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.
By your own account, you didn't actually use linux, just attempted to install it - so you've no basis to make that judgment.
Well, it's not that typical - the editor made it much less inflamatory than my original submission.