Posted on 10/09/2006 7:47:29 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
Excerpt:
At the moment, I'm ticked off because the Debian community's recent hissy-fit over the Mozilla Corp.'s trademarked Firefox logo has led them, and others, to forking the Firefox code to avoid the use of the logo.
Gnutella, part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, is creating "the 'GNU/Linux' version of same, to be dubbed 'IceWeasel.'" This may, or may not, become the logo-free version of Firefox that Debian will ship in its next distribution.
Regardless of how this turns out, the Firefox "bug" has been removed from Debian.
What are these people thinking!
It will mean more work for programmers. It will mean more work for Firefox, or should I say IceWeasel, extension developers. It will be what all forks are: a major pain for both users and developers.
(Excerpt) Read more at desktoplinux.com ...
Yeah...one license per install:
"Also, according to the Microsoft EULA for Windows XP/2003, a user may not simultaneously use more installations of these operating systems than the user has license(s) for. This also goes for BartPE. In practice this means that the user may not use, for instance, a single license installation on one computer while simultaneously using a BartPE installation (created using that license) on another computer."
Got that? If you use the same copy of Windows XP to install to the USB drive, then you can't simultaneously run your home computer and another from your USB drive simultaneously.
So, you pay for another Windows license to install it on a USB drive with software written by an unknown third party.
Sounds good to me.
LOL
No I was just showing ziggy didn't know what he was talking about, as usual. I knew you boys weren't concerned about license issues, or if you needed to go to hacker sites either, even though Information Week is certainly not a hacker site.
Stick with Dos 2 and forget all your worries I say!
A veritable mountain out of a molehill. I say this for three reasons:
I. The fork might not be bad--their code could end up finding its way into the mainstream program. Unlikely, but still possible nonetheless.
II. The GNU zealots want to remove the branding (a la CentOS) and release it under their own license. As far as I know (and I could be wrong), the MPL doesn't forbid this. But for this to actually succeed, what they put in there has to be clean-sheeted.
III: Nobody's forcing anyone to use it--if it's installed, all one has to do is remove it.
I won't use it--I guarantee you that much.
"I knew you boys weren't concerned about license issues..."
But if you were (as you say you always are), why would you post links to this project that violates Microsoft's EULA?
Yeah we see them in all their glory on this thread too, obviously not conservative but liber-tarian which is why they so closely resemble liber-als. Their favorite thing is anything "free", which is why they can give you a half dozen different definitions of the word via their slogans, free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in libre, etc etc etc., and even while leftists dominate their movement as you can see all they really want to talk about is destroying Microsoft since their software ISN'T free.
I have never met a true libertarian who advocated violating rights.
To blame it on them is to be totally incorrect,,at best.
Because I know better than trust a single word you say Mr Flaming Dude of Death, and the Information Week article was written by Fred Langa who is much more trustworthy than you'll ever be, even if he did get this one wrong which I doubt.
Why not, you use all of Stallman's other software without hesitation, don't tell me you're finally growing up?
I've used some pretty forked software in my day.
My experience with many who at least call themselves libertarian is that they don't really believe in much of anything that restricts their behavior in any way, including fences to keep you off of someone else's property. Maybe they are abusing the word libertarian, just as you said many abuse the word conservative.
Well, I can think of two ways:
-Jump drive holds a qcow or VMware disk image wherein Windows is installed
-XP is installed to the drive via BartPE Builder.
I don't freely choose to use RMS's software unless it's necessary to run the OS (e.g gcc). Evenso, I try to keep it to a minimum.
The other major point is that not all GPL software is Stallman's...
Even aside from that, Microsoft disowns the Windows on any live CD, and will provide no support. There's also questionable legality even if you bought a separate license for your live CD. First, while the EULA allows a network server install to run on multiple workstations, it doesn't expressly allow the creation of a live CD. Second, creation of a live CD is an install, and I'm not sure if that complies with the 30-day pre-activation limit on the EULA.
People lie. If you buy into it without finding out the truth, it can lead to exactly the type of post you made.
Good, glad to see you're making progress. As Stallman slowly gets more exposed I expect many others to work towards ditching his products as well.
Calling Libertarians out as Liberals..
You're missing the point I'm trying to make. Completely.
This isn't because of ideology (contrary to your belief); this is because right now, most of the tools that do the job aren't FSF-sanctioned items. Further, I'm not completely opposed to GNU tools--I use them when I need to.
But I don't bend over backward to use software because it does or does not use a particular license. I want what does the best job.
Well, some are. There are left-wing and right-wing libertarians.
Libertarianism is interesting in that it does not necessarily have a specific defined spot in the political continuum. This is precisely why leftist and rightist libertarians can exist.
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.