Posted on 04/10/2006 10:22:06 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Not to the general public.
Who can stop someone leftist whacko from buying a copy and giving it to the Chinese
Because they only work through corporate contracts. This isn't type in your VISA number and download a copy. But if you want it, you can download RT Linux from public sources.
Hasn't worked for anyone else, the goons from the FSF always show up and threaten to sue you
They couldn't sue in this case, as long as Concurrent gives the source to its corporate clients and obeys other minor terms of the GPL. For example, Linksys/Cisco was selling routers to the public without making the source code available to the buyers (those it was distributing the program to). That is in clear violation of the GPL.
I still wonder why you think enforcing copyright with open source is bad, but enforcing copyright with proprietary software is good.
So what, he still argued that they weren't distributing it as his claim for why the Chinese couldn't get a copy
Wow, and to think FD never wrote "China" or "Chinese" once during that thread.
You claimed the Chinese could get it because the GPL forced Concurrent to give a copy to anyone who wanted it. That is factually incorrect, a lie. FD was absolutely correct, they are not forced to give it to anyone.
As usual, you are the liar, and the people you defame are correct.
BTW, I just found out I was wrong about Concurrent. Their Linux has a lot to do with Red Hat since it is not (as I had assumed) based on RTLinux, but is a version of Red Hat modified to work in real-time. But here's where it gets strange -- they replace the Red Hat Linux kernel with their own real-time Linux kernel, so while they may be redistributing (to its corporate clients) Red Hat GPL software, they are not redistributing Red Hat's Linux (as defined by the actual Linux kernel, not the whole package of kernel + utilities). However, that is immaterial to the discussion of Concurrent having to give away code to the Chinese when asked.
You also don't know that what makes Concurrent's Linux very useful is the fact that the kernel is modified to take advantage of its proprietary tools, which are one of the big reasons to go with Concurrent rather than just downloading RTLinux.
I would agree that there are parts of Red Hawk under the GPL. However, I would also believe that the important parts (the RT stuff, for example) are not.
It is perfectly legal and possible to merge two licenses undeer one product for commercial use. See Cedega and VMware for examples.
According to the article I just linked from Linux Devices it is.
FD was absolutely correct, they are not forced to give it to anyone.
No he wasn't, the flaming dude from hell has been attempting to claim Concurrent wasn't even distributing it at all, which of course was ridiculous since the thread was a Press Release from Concurrent announcing it! LMAO!
#15: "So the Chinese can rip a free copy over the internet, and rename it "Red Flag" too then huh." -- Factually false, their products are not available over the Internet for anyone.
#21 (statements phrased as questions), all factually false, whether to redistribute the code to anyone is up to Concurrent:
#30: "But the Chicoms rename theirs "Red Flag" and use it to run their supercomputers" -- Factually false. I've caught you on this before, and you gave a half-assed retraction, yet you still repeat it. It still stands as a lie, as since you repeated it I can assume your retraction wasn't sincere.
#34: "but anyone who knows anything about these matters is well aware that you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for it, if you ever try to resell any GPL code such as a Linux distro" -- Factually false, see above.
#48: To "RedHawk is not a free distro" you stated "It will be, as soon as ANYONE who bought a copy decides to release the source code." -- Factually incorrect. The distribution comes with proprietary applications. Only GPL code within the distribution has to be released when redistributing.
#55: "China LEGALLY takes the latest copy of "Red Hat Linux" and promptly renames it ... "Asianux"" -- Partially incorrect. Asianux is a consortium between companies from China, South Korea and Japan (the last being majority owned by Oracle of the USA).
Wow, GE, that's a big list of factual, demonstrable lies for one thread. Going for a record?
Wow, so you might finally be admitting, that it would be stupid for people to release critical components of their software under that whacko leftist license, the GPL? Not that I'm expecting it, since I've been dealing with the flaming dude from hell's endless lies that they aren't even distributing it LOL.
I've never denied it. However, I also think that an OS--MS, Linux, and Apple included--does not come under the category of "critical" in terms of national security.
GE You can end this right now, please point us to a link where we can download the source for Concurrents real time tools..
Why are you suddenly running from your lies trying to claim it's not for sale?
Since of course, once you sell it, you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for a copy, who can then make infinite copies, even rename and resell just like the Chinese do with Red Flag.
These issues aren't difficult, you boys just do your darndest to make them that way. It's called a "coverup", if you never heard of one.
Maybe you can't download the whole thing, Concurrent would have to be as dumb as you boys if you can. That's what I was asking on the original thread, remember? But all I got was the flaming dude from hell's lies that it wasn't being distributed at all.
The deceiver turns to religion to win his argument.
You've reached a new low, and I didn't think that was possible.
I guess I would be offended if I respected you or your opinions.
"You got hammered by some other people for a while, then FD said in #60 "You said if you redistribute it, you have to release the source code." but I don't know where he got that from."
Yep, once again, I gave him more credit than he deserved. I have a bad habit of assuming that he understands things.
So is that a no, you cant download the important parts of redhawk?
That's what I was asking on the original thread, remember?
And FD never said 'they dont have to give it out' he said if they are not distributing it they do not have to give it out.
Yeah, and I never said it did. You had a question concerning the GPL, not what Concurrent was actually doing with RedHawk. I gave you an answer concerning the GPL, not dealing with what Concurrent was doing, and in a giant leap, you came to the conclusion that I was saying Concurrent wasn't distributing it.
Of course, it wasn't an accidental leap...it is character assasination; attributing comments to someone that they did not make so that you can smear them. That's the only way you can appear to win, but most, if not all who follow these threads can see right through you. The more you pursue this, especially throwing in the religious condemnations, the more desperate and pathetic you look.
Scary, but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. I've had dealings with people who can't accept reality, and they lead miserable lives.
Remember, facts are facts, no matter what you think of them.
Hysterical! Since we all know they are giving it out, at least every part that uses that whacko leftist license you boys are willing to lie endlessly for.
Why are you suddenly running from your lies trying to claim it's not for sale?
Not for sale to just everyone, only those they choose to enter a contract with. It is not up for general public ordering or download.
Since of course, once you sell it, you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for a copy
Didn't I just disprove that lie? I seem to remember doing it recently, even pointing to the specific clauses of the license. Selling it to one company gets the source for that one company, not "anyone." The fact that most open source programs have their full source up for everyone to get doesn't mean that it is required.
Not "maybe," you can't.
You didn't ask. You stated. Even your questions were statements in the form of questions. And you maintained your position even after you were told you were incorrect. I won't call this weaseling because I kind of like weasels, and wouldn't want to insult them with a comparison to you.
The problem is that on FR we tend to assume we're talking to intelligent, rational people. I mean, it's not like we're on DU, right?
Maybe that's it. I think I've discovered GE's origin.
People have called GE a Microsoft employee, but I've always disagreed. Microsoft might do some nasty things, but they never go for stupid. Remember the idiotic Ken Brown attack on Linux? Microsoft distanced themselves really fast on that one, and they've been staying far away from SCO. No, Microsoft is too smart a company to want to have GE as a cheerleader or FUD spewer.
However, having GE as a long-time FReeper does bring great discredit upon Free Republic. He gives perfect ammunition for the DUmmies to say "Look how stupid FReepers are!" He must be a DU plant.
DU? How did you miss my link the other day from there? Remember, when you took your normal side defending the leftists?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x665385
Knowing Their Politics by the Software They Use
By STEVE LOHR
Published: July 5, 2004
In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights....
You link to all the trendy leftist sites...
DU, stallman.com, communism.org, etc...
Yeah. Don't know what his origin is, but it's obvious that his motivation is not driven by his personal beliefs. No one can be that fanatical about software.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.