 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:52:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:41:27 -0400, gregjohn wrote:
>
>> > If someone told me linux costs $40, I'd have jumped for it.
>
>> Linux doesn't cost $40. Access to the proprietary media formats is
>> what costs.
>
> Actually nothing would stop me from making a linux distro and start
> selling it for $1000 per piece if I want. It's completely legal and
> conforms to the GPL license.
Absolutely. I know that well, as I work for a company that sells
Linux....
> (Of course expecting anyone to actually buy it is a bit hopeless given
> that I must distribute the sources on demand.)
Actually, I don't believe it's "on demand", it's that you must distribute
sources for any binaries (built from GPL code) you distribute, period.
> Some people are willing to pay some money for a complete solution
> nicely packed eg. on a DVD disk, even if that solution would contain
> nothing but free software. There's nothing wrong with that, and the GPL
> license certainly doesn't forbid that.
Yep, that's also true. Again, given who I work for, shouldn't be
surprising that I'm familiar with this. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:54:13 -0400, gregjohn wrote:
> Many distros will not play MP3's immediately upon install, even if they
> "come with" music playing software. I understood this to be due to two
> reasons: i) legal issues related to the IP around these codecs, and ii)
> philosophy of open source thing.
Yes to both of those. MP3 is covered by licensed technology from
Frauenhoffer; they typically only expect royalties for encoding
technologies (like lame or sox), IIRC, unless it's an embedded device
like an iPod. IAANAL, but ISTR that it's unclear enough that most won't
take the risk.
Similarly, binary drivers with the kernel - apart from tainting the
kernel (and making crash diagnosis more difficult as a result), it's not
clear about the legality of including them, so the approach openSUSE has
taken has been to not include them on the disc but with 11.0 during the
installation you are given the choice of adding the ATI or nVidia driver
repos to the installation. The 11.0 install is *very* slick.
> I imagine that paying for these
> would allay fears (IANAL).
It does - there are some customers who look at it that way. That's also
the reason for indemnification being included with the license - it's not
that anyone's likely to be sued by anyone other than SCO (and they don't
have a lot of money left for that any more), but that it gives the
customer an "out" in case someone does start asserting patent violations.
> I would have paid $40 just for convenience's
> sake when I started tinkering with Linux.
Some people are willing to do that - and of course that's their call to
make. Me, I like tinkering with stuff like that.
> Telling folks just to do without Flash ("crippled codecs"?) is the "live
> in a mud hut" approach to computing.
Huh, Flash works fine here, and was a snap to install. Come to think, it
was included on the OpenSUSE 11.0 DVD, I believe.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
> Telling folks just to do without Flash ("crippled codecs"?) is the "live in a
> mud hut" approach to computing.
I use AdBlock in Firefox both at home Linux and work Windows. I rarely
see Flash, except in sites that don't know how to use HTML+CSS for menus.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Similarly, binary drivers with the kernel - apart from tainting the
> kernel (and making crash diagnosis more difficult as a result), it's not
> clear about the legality of including them, so the approach openSUSE has
> taken has been to not include them on the disc but with 11.0 during the
> installation you are given the choice of adding the ATI or nVidia driver
> repos to the installation. The 11.0 install is *very* slick.
>
Ubuntu 8.10 (alpha) gives you an on-screen notification about its activation
proprietary drivers for graphics AND wifi drivers that it's already decided to
use. The purist is free at that point to leave the room if need be. *That* I
believe is the best approach.
The removal of ath_pci is precisely the reason I left openSUSE for my hobby use.
Somehow it was more annoying because I loved SUSE so much I had decided to pay
for 10.1 CD's as soon as they were available. It was such a bummer not to be
able to use the internet.
http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/SUSE_10.1
I had much appreciated the professional polish (and I don't mean eye candy) of
SUSE. I was a bit bummed that its repositories for povray and blender were so
old.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > (Of course expecting anyone to actually buy it is a bit hopeless given
> > that I must distribute the sources on demand.)
> Actually, I don't believe it's "on demand", it's that you must distribute
> sources for any binaries (built from GPL code) you distribute, period.
I think the GPL doesn't require you to distribute the source *with*
the binary, only that you provide the source code by some means, eg.
separately through a different channel.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I think the GPL doesn't require you to distribute the source *with*
> the binary, only that you provide the source code by some means, eg.
> separately through a different channel.
>
That's what I've understood also.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> gregjohn escreveu:
>> Telling folks just to do without Flash ("crippled codecs"?) is the
>> "live in a
>> mud hut" approach to computing.
>
> I use AdBlock in Firefox both at home Linux and work Windows. I rarely
> see Flash, except in sites that don't know how to use HTML+CSS for menus.
I think his point was that some people don't use Flash because of its
proprietary nature.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> gregjohn escreveu:
>>> Telling folks just to do without Flash ("crippled codecs"?) is the
>>> "live in a
>>> mud hut" approach to computing.
>> I use AdBlock in Firefox both at home Linux and work Windows. I rarely
>> see Flash, except in sites that don't know how to use HTML+CSS for menus.
>
> I think his point was that some people don't use Flash because of its
> proprietary nature.
And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
Well, unless you want to use youtube or google chat.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
>
> Well, unless you want to use youtube or google chat.
>
Youtube can be used via downloaders. It's not as practical, but possible.
Flash, in the form it exists right now, should be banned from this
world. It's a nice idea, but pretty much screwed up as a system.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
