You are most certainly wrong here. From what I heard, they will use nVidia Terga GPUs, for which it will be pretty easy to have a driver.
Yeah, I must be wrong. Surely. That's why nVidia GPUs are fully supported by Free Software, and I wouldn't have to loose my rights to nVidias's proprietary software licensing. NOT! On all accounts. Nouveaux isn't really Free Software (it still carries blobs), and nVidias's drivers are as proprietary as it can get.
Besides: What is all that talk about “software freedom”?
It's my rights to run the software for any purpose, study, modify and distribute it. Software licensing that forbids any of these actions is just plain immoral and I can't accept it's terms and conditions.
It’s just a driver. If you really thought that to the end, you would have to only use hardware with all the specs available!
Just a driver, hey? Well, that just only hides that you have a horribly slow interface, perhaps not so energy efficient, without any bells and whistles! Is it still just? Not important at all?
And which are buildable with openly available tools, whose specs are available too, etc, etc, etc. Basically the ability do dig stuff out of the earth, to build machines with it, that build machines, that build your laptop, where you can put your free software on.
Please tell me where I can legally get nVidia's, PowerVR's etc... as Free Software so I can build it with openly available tools. Oh, heck... I don't need code, just get us those specs which are available as well...
Everything else is just ignorance.
And to say the best about you, you must be an ignorant.
Most (if not all) of those ARM devices have proprietary graphics cards, so the only way to maintain our software freedom is to use framebuffer (when possible at all).
It'll mean nothing [to dominate the ARM devices market] if our software freedom has bow before the shackles of a few companies.
Bada is a GNU/Linux, running E17. Anyone used to program with EFL already heard the news a while ago, and will be able to recognize familiar Elementary elements in some of the screenshots.
They are zip files. I've used several times plain ZIP to change jar files. No problem at all. Since you said that, are you a Java developer? Seems so...
So your point is that a very popular non Free Software phone, backed by Google and major phone makers has more fame? You just won the Sherlock Holmes award!
BTW, OpenMoko is the first Free Software Android Phone....
The EU directive is not that strict, but the law in EU countries might be. An EU directive is not a law by itself, it is a directive to enact a law. The EU members can exceed the requirements of the directive, and if the UK has enacted a law which requires ISPs to store web URLs, then the UK has clearly "overaccomplished" (surprise surprise...)
The data retention directive specifically says they must retain elements that identify the origin and the destination.
From what they demand to storing URLs, is merely a matter of semantics, and the danger of that being done was predicted long before the directive was approved.
The Data Retention Directive is the equivalente to having a spy per citizen, noting down who he talks with, where and for how long.
Would you accept this in real life? No. Why do you accept it online?
What you write in software is the expression of one idea in a certain language.
You don't "invent" software, software has been invented many eons ago when living beings got brains.
What software patents cover is the concept. If they covered a specific implementation, they would provide a worse legal environment than the copyright, in the point of view of the authors, for it would last many, many years less.
And as anyone who wrote software can tell you, ideas are a dime a dozen, the devil is in the details. It's the expression that counts in software, and not the concept.
Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:
the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL
They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...
in that you can do anything you want with it
No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.
including closing it if you are so inclined.
That you can, and it is a crying shame.
Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.
Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.
Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?
No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.
Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.
Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.
No, they don't. The government assured JP SÃ Couto that they would buy at least 500.000 units.
BTW, JP SÃ Couto was one of the companies that added to the shameful situation in Portugal about Microsoft's OOXML, by only showing up to vote in favour like a good lapdog partner.
This could perhaps be best viewed like a nice reward...
Except that giving a "BSD exception" to the GPL would make the point of the GPL kind of moot.
The GNU GPL is there to make sure every single user of GPL'ed code has the 4 software freedoms.
The BSD's only make sure for the first recipient.
I'm not claiming the first is better than the second (although I believe so), just that their purposes are different enough to make it a childish request instead of coding your own version like a real man.
OpenBSD doesn't want to take GPL'ed code. They can, but they don't want to.
They are perfectly fine to include it (and they do include GCC, for instance), and even link to it (but then the derived work will have to be GPL'ed and they don't want that).
And some projects have the problem in the inverse direction. Linux can't benefit from dtrace except in design principles.
Or even the fantastic ZFS.
Oh well, I guess it's all down to the same premise: if you don't want/can't use it, then stop bitching and go write your own, spoiled brats...
The number of excessively-Microsoft-friendly (beyond what could be considered reasonable, for instance this article which talks about nothing that matters for nerds and only mentions some ridiculous luser features instead of non-standards compliance, or the other one where a fake Open Source operating system from Microsoft was published, etc...) articles has increased hugely.
Slashdot Mirror
Majority of Linux installations use RPM or APT, and those had GPG signing since ~2005.
Actually, Red Hat's RPM usage included gpg signing of each of the packages individually since before 2000 :)
Hardly, for instance... take my tablet, a WeTab. It's a keyboad-less netbook, and has run Fedora 15, 16 and now the just released 17.
And it won't be the first, as if it uses nVidia, then it'll hardly run well with fully free software.
Or monkeying with the random number generator.
After being ignored by arrogant dolts who didn't bother to correct him and guide into providing a better fix.
The correct link is http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html sorry for the typo.
Yeah, I must be wrong. Surely. That's why nVidia GPUs are fully supported by Free Software, and I wouldn't have to loose my rights to nVidias's proprietary software licensing. NOT! On all accounts. Nouveaux isn't really Free Software (it still carries blobs), and nVidias's drivers are as proprietary as it can get.
It's my rights to run the software for any purpose, study, modify and distribute it. Software licensing that forbids any of these actions is just plain immoral and I can't accept it's terms and conditions.
Just a driver, hey? Well, that just only hides that you have a horribly slow interface, perhaps not so energy efficient, without any bells and whistles! Is it still just? Not important at all?
Please tell me where I can legally get nVidia's, PowerVR's etc... as Free Software so I can build it with openly available tools. Oh, heck... I don't need code, just get us those specs which are available as well...
And to say the best about you, you must be an ignorant.
If you had cared to search before you posted... http://www.allpmp.com/
Here's one (and I have the SmartQ7 model): http://www.smartdevices.com.cn/
Nice and cheap.
Most (if not all) of those ARM devices have proprietary graphics cards, so the only way to maintain our software freedom is to use framebuffer (when possible at all).
It'll mean nothing [to dominate the ARM devices market] if our software freedom has bow before the shackles of a few companies.
BadOS? Was Windows Mobile rebranded?
Bada is a GNU/Linux, running E17. Anyone used to program with EFL already heard the news a while ago, and will be able to recognize familiar Elementary elements in some of the screenshots.
They are zip files. I've used several times plain ZIP to change jar files. No problem at all. Since you said that, are you a Java developer? Seems so...
Kill X, login in the console, rmmod the kernel module, insmod the new one, start X.
Voit-lá, no reboot for upgrade of graphics card driver.
So your point is that a very popular non Free Software phone, backed by Google and major phone makers has more fame? You just won the Sherlock Holmes award!
BTW, OpenMoko is the first Free Software Android Phone....
How come whenever software patent defenders are challenged on the merits of software patents, they *only* come up with hardware as an excuse?
Get the &"%# off software, you leeches.
The EU directive is not that strict, but the law in EU countries might be. An EU directive is not a law by itself, it is a directive to enact a law. The EU members can exceed the requirements of the directive, and if the UK has enacted a law which requires ISPs to store web URLs, then the UK has clearly "overaccomplished" (surprise surprise...)
The data retention directive specifically says they must retain elements that identify the origin and the destination.
Please read it. The level of fachism scares me.
From what they demand to storing URLs, is merely a matter of semantics, and the danger of that being done was predicted long before the directive was approved.
The Data Retention Directive is the equivalente to having a spy per citizen, noting down who he talks with, where and for how long.
Would you accept this in real life? No. Why do you accept it online?
Repeal the Data Retention directive now!
It totally begs the question: how is that a benefit to society?
What you write in software is the expression of one idea in a certain language.
You don't "invent" software, software has been invented many eons ago when living beings got brains.
What software patents cover is the concept. If they covered a specific implementation, they would provide a worse legal environment than the copyright, in the point of view of the authors, for it would last many, many years less.
And as anyone who wrote software can tell you, ideas are a dime a dozen, the devil is in the details. It's the expression that counts in software, and not the concept.
Well, suppose you're selling GNU/Linux desktops. Now to make your bidding for a public tender in Portugal you need to NOT USE your own dogfood?
You need to buy from your competitors in order to compete against them?
Seriously folks, this is a REAL issue (plus, this mess was paid with my taxes, I'll have to demand a refund).
Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:
They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...
No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.
That you can, and it is a crying shame.
Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.
No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.
Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.
Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.
Because they are friends of Microsoft and that makes them look like good lap dogs?
No, they don't. The government assured JP SÃ Couto that they would buy at least 500.000 units.
BTW, JP SÃ Couto was one of the companies that added to the shameful situation in Portugal about Microsoft's OOXML, by only showing up to vote in favour like a good lapdog partner.
This could perhaps be best viewed like a nice reward...
I believe you're the one spreading FUD, since what you propose would in fact destroy the GNU GPL's objectives.
I think you never even read the GNU GPL or its FAQ and just believe blindly whatever some guy (whom you think you can trust) told you.
Except that giving a "BSD exception" to the GPL would make the point of the GPL kind of moot.
The GNU GPL is there to make sure every single user of GPL'ed code has the 4 software freedoms.
The BSD's only make sure for the first recipient.
I'm not claiming the first is better than the second (although I believe so), just that their purposes are different enough to make it a childish request instead of coding your own version like a real man.
OpenBSD doesn't want to take GPL'ed code. They can, but they don't want to.
They are perfectly fine to include it (and they do include GCC, for instance), and even link to it (but then the derived work will have to be GPL'ed and they don't want that).
And some projects have the problem in the inverse direction. Linux can't benefit from dtrace except in design principles.
Or even the fantastic ZFS.
Oh well, I guess it's all down to the same premise: if you don't want/can't use it, then stop bitching and go write your own, spoiled brats...
Don't worry Jerry, all the chairs have been occupied in Portugal ;)
The number of excessively-Microsoft-friendly (beyond what could be considered reasonable, for instance this article which talks about nothing that matters for nerds and only mentions some ridiculous luser features instead of non-standards compliance, or the other one where a fake Open Source operating system from Microsoft was published, etc...) articles has increased hugely.