My Treo 650 has a transreflective type LCD, full color, very brightly lit indoors, and completely readable from all angles outdoors. Figuring out who makes the screens for recent Treo smartphones would be a good place to start.
I'm no EE, so I can't comment on your analysis of switching power supply circuits, but as a Macbook owner I know that the only time I hear CPU whine is while the processor is idle. Any load at all eliminates the noise. There's a program called QuietMBP which will periodically execute some instructions (every 100 microseconds or so, there's a slider) to reduce the whine. One of the first solutions to the noise was to enable the iSight camera using an app like Photobooth, but I think the only reason that helped was by occupying the CPU, unrelated to the camera itself.
But they decided to use the distribution of them to help finance the project while they do their work. They haven't asked for any special protection on these binaries above and beyond what the GPL offers.
Except for trademark and copyright on their name and logo. So that they have ultimate control of their binaries above and beyond what the GPL offers. Dork.
Know what else is sketchy? That the NeoOffice people felt the need to trademark NeoOffice and copyright their logo, so that they have legal control over the distribution of their oh-so-generous-only-$25 binary builds of 95% OOo code. Good tactic to remember for people trying to profit from F/OSS. Yeah, the jist of my whole post was that it's sketchy. I call into question the integrity of all the steps the NeoOffice people have made towards collecting money for their generous contributions towards a GPL project. You finally figured out what I initially wrote! Good job.
I never once said they violated the GPL. Read much? Read my original post. I started by saying "I know this is legal, but doesn't it seem sketchy.." and I stand by that. So I'm an ass for suggesting that people exercise their rights under the GPL and get builds of this open source software out into the community? How is that ungrateful? Oh it's nice to have the GPL written down somewhere.. but to feel that it should be used to the advantage of the community is ungrateful? To me, personally, asking for donations seems like a better solution to the NeoOffice funding problems. BTW you like to say ass a lot.
That was a verbatim quote from the preamble to the GPL. Don't like it? Talk to RMS. He wrote it, not me.;)
What are they doing if not charging for software? You have to pay them money, to be able to download it. To me, that sounds like charging for GPL'd software. Which I pointed out in my original post, IS TOTALLY LEGAL. But the GPL also says that after one person buys/subscribes/whatever and then obtains the software, they have all of the rights that are guaranteed under the GPL, including freely redistributing it, hence my call for a torrent link. Get over yourself.
The LGPL allows you to link LGPL'd code with a non-GPL program, as long as it isn't changed. This makes it convenient to use the GNU C Library in a commercial application, for instance. Any part of OpenOffice.org that they had to change during porting the entire UI to OS X, would have to be released back to the community. I imagine that the NeoOffice code is so intertwined with the OpenOffice.org code that they had no choice but to GPL the entire thing.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
etc etc..
Three little letters: G. P. L. NeoOffice is 95% OpenOffice.org. Why should I have to pay to be a bug-tester on an open source (read GPL'd) project? Bittorrenting the builds would not be piracy, it would be 100% legal under the GPL. The NeoOffice guys have no right to control the distribution of GPL'd code, duh.
I know the GPL allows you to charge for distribution costs, but I still don't like how NeoOffice requires you to pay for some kind of subscription to download their GPL'd binaries for one platform and not another. Seems pretty arbitrary. Some people should pool together for a membership and then distribute torrents of the Intel builds.
Personally I'll just keep using OpenOffice.org with X11.
Slashdot Mirror
My Treo 650 has a transreflective type LCD, full color, very brightly lit indoors, and completely readable from all angles outdoors. Figuring out who makes the screens for recent Treo smartphones would be a good place to start.
I'm no EE, so I can't comment on your analysis of switching power supply circuits, but as a Macbook owner I know that the only time I hear CPU whine is while the processor is idle. Any load at all eliminates the noise. There's a program called QuietMBP which will periodically execute some instructions (every 100 microseconds or so, there's a slider) to reduce the whine. One of the first solutions to the noise was to enable the iSight camera using an app like Photobooth, but I think the only reason that helped was by occupying the CPU, unrelated to the camera itself.
Know what else is sketchy? That the NeoOffice people felt the need to trademark NeoOffice and copyright their logo, so that they have legal control over the distribution of their oh-so-generous-only-$25 binary builds of 95% OOo code. Good tactic to remember for people trying to profit from F/OSS. Yeah, the jist of my whole post was that it's sketchy. I call into question the integrity of all the steps the NeoOffice people have made towards collecting money for their generous contributions towards a GPL project. You finally figured out what I initially wrote! Good job.
I never once said they violated the GPL. Read much? Read my original post. I started by saying "I know this is legal, but doesn't it seem sketchy.." and I stand by that. So I'm an ass for suggesting that people exercise their rights under the GPL and get builds of this open source software out into the community? How is that ungrateful? Oh it's nice to have the GPL written down somewhere.. but to feel that it should be used to the advantage of the community is ungrateful? To me, personally, asking for donations seems like a better solution to the NeoOffice funding problems. BTW you like to say ass a lot.
That was a verbatim quote from the preamble to the GPL. Don't like it? Talk to RMS. He wrote it, not me. ;)
What are they doing if not charging for software? You have to pay them money, to be able to download it. To me, that sounds like charging for GPL'd software. Which I pointed out in my original post, IS TOTALLY LEGAL. But the GPL also says that after one person buys/subscribes/whatever and then obtains the software, they have all of the rights that are guaranteed under the GPL, including freely redistributing it, hence my call for a torrent link. Get over yourself.
The LGPL allows you to link LGPL'd code with a non-GPL program, as long as it isn't changed. This makes it convenient to use the GNU C Library in a commercial application, for instance. Any part of OpenOffice.org that they had to change during porting the entire UI to OS X, would have to be released back to the community. I imagine that the NeoOffice code is so intertwined with the OpenOffice.org code that they had no choice but to GPL the entire thing.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. etc etc..
Three little letters: G. P. L. NeoOffice is 95% OpenOffice.org. Why should I have to pay to be a bug-tester on an open source (read GPL'd) project? Bittorrenting the builds would not be piracy, it would be 100% legal under the GPL. The NeoOffice guys have no right to control the distribution of GPL'd code, duh.
I know the GPL allows you to charge for distribution costs, but I still don't like how NeoOffice requires you to pay for some kind of subscription to download their GPL'd binaries for one platform and not another. Seems pretty arbitrary. Some people should pool together for a membership and then distribute torrents of the Intel builds. Personally I'll just keep using OpenOffice.org with X11.
Same people who bought Black Hat? Sucks.