Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 116

Thread: Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    there are two major things which GPLv3 changed versus GPLv2, one is that it prevented tivoization (which meant that a company like Tivo must allow end users to be able to build AND run modified versions of the GPL code Tivo shipped on the actual machines)
    I'd like to add that this is very important - essential if you will - for the FOSS survival in today's world where corporations are ready to go to extreme lengths just to take our freedoms away from us.
    Last edited by prodigy_; 12-25-2013 at 01:48 AM.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
    My contribution is in the form of "Patches", "Premake Scripts", "Documentation", "Lua Binding around various Library's" everything else is BSD/MIT/Zlib/Boost Licensed via there authors, and already available to the public.

    Disney, Pixar, Sony, DreamWorks, IBM, Nvidia, AMD, Blackberry, Google contributions make up at-least 50% of what I have outside of the core, many of those particular library's can be found not only in Blender, Gimp, Krita, MyPaint ... but also in Autodesk(Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder), The Foundry products(Mari, Nuke, Modo, ..), and many others.

    Those very same "Proprietary Evil Bastards" contribute more code to Open Source and Linux, then every single FSF GNU developer combined.

    I have Linux versions of Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder, Modo, Mari, Nuke, 3DCoat on an education License and with the exception to Mari(Texture Painting with Shaders) and 3DCoat(Voxel Sculpting) I prefer Blender over all the rest, because I feel its a better tool.


    Open and Closed Source can and does co-exist, and regardless I still have my source, and if someone decided to take everything and close source it, has absolutely no effect on me. And that's there right if they do choose todo so.
    But only if its no problem for company's that sell ccs apps or closed hardware. If it comes it critical parts like infrastructure to boot etc they are not so frendly to oss software.
    In my opionion its ok to use oss code in ccs code but only if they give their changes back, so if they sell a device with a custom version of grub or add some flags to gcc they should give their changes back.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I really can't see the motivation for calling "operating system" what historically and technically is NOT part of the operating system. In case of Linux, the kernel IS the operating system; Linux is the OS and GNU is not part of it. Things are different for microkernels but, in any case, it is clear what is in fact part of the operating system.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beetreetime View Post
    Your comments should just how much you need a lobotomy. BSD libc is even more crappy then glibc. Itís less portable, more insecure functions, more bloated and the functions have poorer performance and less functionality then their GNU counterparts.

    The benchmarks have already proven that clang produces slower, bloated and low quality binaries then gcc. Compiling is unnoticeably faster but F.Y.I applications are compiled once and runned many times. So guess which is more important to have speed. The binary itself, something that BSD nuts like you could never understand due to your BSD dumbness or refuse to accept due to your BSD doublethink.
    Your mission in life seems to be to troll BSD; your life must really suck.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Your mission in life seems to be to troll BSD; your life must really suck.
    It's funny that you accuse him of trolling when he actually has a point and your post is a petty ad hominem attack.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
    My contribution is in the form of "Patches", "Premake Scripts", "Documentation", "Lua Binding around various Library's" everything else is BSD/MIT/Zlib/Boost Licensed via there authors, and already available to the public.

    Disney, Pixar, Sony, DreamWorks, IBM, Nvidia, AMD, Blackberry, Google contributions make up at-least 50% of what I have outside of the core, many of those particular library's can be found not only in Blender, Gimp, Krita, MyPaint ... but also in Autodesk(Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder), The Foundry products(Mari, Nuke, Modo, ..), and many others.

    Those very same "Proprietary Evil Bastards" contribute more code to Open Source and Linux, then every single FSF GNU developer combined.

    I have Linux versions of Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder, Modo, Mari, Nuke, 3DCoat on an education License and with the exception to Mari(Texture Painting with Shaders) and 3DCoat(Voxel Sculpting) I prefer Blender over all the rest, because I feel its a better tool.


    Open and Closed Source can and does co-exist, and regardless I still have my source, and if someone decided to take everything and close source it, has absolutely no effect on me. And that's there right if they do choose todo so.
    Of course you have the right to make closed source, that's not the point. The point is about giving the right to take rights out of your source code, while that may seem right it means more unusable code for me.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default The solution to The Conflict, known since the earliest of times.

    To truly solve this, one needs to look at the real problem. If anyone in the forum here has that level, I do not know though.

    http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1659717.html

    PBWY

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prodigy_ View Post
    I'd like to add that this is very important - essential if you will - for the FOSS survival in today's world where corporations are ready to go to extreme lengths just to take our freedoms away from us.
    The only one's I see trying to take away my freedom are patent trolls. Other than that you people appear even more paranoid than I am.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prodigy_ View Post
    It's funny that you accuse him of trolling when he actually has a point and your post is a petty ad hominem attack.
    You all can have BSD Libc and Glibc, I am going to stick with Musl Libc.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
    The only one's I see trying to take away my freedom are patent trolls.
    On the contrary, patent trolls are slowly undermining the foundations of the patent system itself so in a way - unintentionally of course - they are playing right into our hands. Tivoization on the other hand is a very serious problem because it implies abusing GPL-ed code to facilitate and promote DRM. Helping forge tools of our oppression somehow doesn't feel comfortable at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •