Author Topic: Public Lisense.... bad idea?? (Read 447 times)

yz80nomo · « **on:** 15 July 2004, 08:10 »

Ok, MS does not release their source code. We don't know what it is but we all base our ideas on the performance of their products... now to the point. If we don't know whats in the source code, then don't you think that they could just take bits and pieces from Linux and used it to fill in their blank spots? i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms). MS is allowed to create their own basterized verson of C, but allowed to "steal" another persons code because they can do any better? I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source.

Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??

insomnia · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 July 2004, 08:25 »

quote:
Originally posted by whix:
Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??

Yes,
but you still can ask money for it and you still can combine it with closed source apps.

flap · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 July 2004, 15:26 »

quote:
I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source.

Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??

Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software?

KernelPanic · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 July 2004, 16:44 »

- For your future reference -
Licence is the noun, license is the verb.

Aloone_Jonez · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 July 2004, 02:24 »

quote:
Originally posted by flap:

Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software?

How could you prove it if they have?

flap · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 July 2004, 02:38 »

Well you couldn't, but I thought he was suggesting Microsoft definitely has done that. Actually I don't think he is. However...

quote:
i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms).

Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish".

Aloone_Jonez · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 July 2004, 03:08 »

"douche baggish"
Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French.
What does it mean?
I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context.

insomnia · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 July 2004, 06:00 »

MS bought SCO code for their OS.
All the rest are third party apps.

[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

Orethrius · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 July 2004, 06:23 »

Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him.

insomnia · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 July 2004, 07:32 »

quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him.

Well...
Their does exist a counter claim that SCO used some Linux code, but I don't think MS is stupid enough to buy these parts.

The real SCO vs Linux case has nothing to do with this.
SCO only claims that IBM used some shared code(based on UNIX code), taken from AIX(both SCO
and IBM) and placed it in the Linux kernel.
All the other(even more retarted) claims came later.

[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

Stryker · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 July 2004, 10:05 »

quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
"douche baggish"
Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French.
What does it mean?
I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context.

How about, relating to a douche bag. See http://www.4woman.gov/faq/douching.htm for some more information. I didn't pay attention in high school much either but still...

hm_murdock · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 July 2004, 00:10 »

quote:
Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish".

Don't tell Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun.

flap · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 July 2004, 00:44 »

Why not?

Aloone_Jonez · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 July 2004, 06:43 »

I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to.

insomnia · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 July 2004, 08:53 »

quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to.

Nope.
SCO does claim this "code parts" are included in the
Linux kernel(version 2.4/5) and not just in 'IBM distros'.

« previous next » Print Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Author Topic: Public Lisense.... bad idea?? (Read 447 times) yz80nomo Newbie Posts: 1 Kudos: 0 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « on: 15 July 2004, 08:10 » Ok, MS does not release their source code. We don't know what it is but we all base our ideas on the performance of their products... now to the point. If we don't know whats in the source code, then don't you think that they could just take bits and pieces from Linux and used it to fill in their blank spots? i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms). MS is allowed to create their own basterized verson of C, but allowed to "steal" another persons code because they can do any better? I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source. Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it?? Logged fukk them up their stupid asses insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #1 on: 15 July 2004, 08:25 » quote: Originally posted by whix: Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it?? Yes, but you still can ask money for it and you still can combine it with closed source apps. Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #2 on: 15 July 2004, 15:26 » quote: I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source. Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it?? Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software? Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca KernelPanic VIP Posts: 1,878 Kudos: 222 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #3 on: 15 July 2004, 16:44 » - For your future reference - Licence is the noun, license is the verb. Logged Contains scenes of mild peril. Aloone_Jonez Administrator Posts: 4,083 Kudos: 954 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #4 on: 16 July 2004, 02:24 » quote: Originally posted by flap: Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software? How could you prove it if they have? Logged This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft. Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu: flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #5 on: 16 July 2004, 02:38 » Well you couldn't, but I thought he was suggesting Microsoft definitely has done that. Actually I don't think he is. However... quote: i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms). Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish". Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca Aloone_Jonez Administrator Posts: 4,083 Kudos: 954 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #6 on: 16 July 2004, 03:08 » "douche baggish" Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French. What does it mean? I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context. Logged This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft. Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu: insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #7 on: 16 July 2004, 06:00 » MS bought SCO code for their OS. All the rest are third party apps. [ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ] Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ Orethrius Member Posts: 1,783 Kudos: 982 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #8 on: 16 July 2004, 06:23 » Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him. Logged Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system. Quote from: Calum even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows. System Vitals insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #9 on: 16 July 2004, 07:32 » quote: Originally posted by Midnight Candidate: Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him. Well... Their does exist a counter claim that SCO used some Linux code, but I don't think MS is stupid enough to buy these parts. The real SCO vs Linux case has nothing to do with this. SCO only claims that IBM used some shared code(based on UNIX code), taken from AIX(both SCO and IBM) and placed it in the Linux kernel. All the other(even more retarted) claims came later. [ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ] Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ Stryker VIP Posts: 1,258 Kudos: 41 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #10 on: 16 July 2004, 10:05 » quote: Originally posted by Aloone: "douche baggish" Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French. What does it mean? I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context. How about, relating to a douche bag. See http://www.4woman.gov/faq/douching.htm for some more information. I didn't pay attention in high school much either but still... Logged hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #11 on: 17 July 2004, 00:10 » quote: Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish". Don't tell Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun. Logged Go the fuck ~ flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #12 on: 17 July 2004, 00:44 » Why not? Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca Aloone_Jonez Administrator Posts: 4,083 Kudos: 954 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #13 on: 17 July 2004, 06:43 » I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to. Logged This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft. Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu: insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Public Lisense.... bad idea?? « Reply #14 on: 17 July 2004, 08:53 » quote: Originally posted by Aloone: I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to. Nope. SCO does claim this "code parts" are included in the Linux kernel(version 2.4/5) and not just in 'IBM distros'. Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ Print Pages: [1] 2 Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » All Things Microsoft » Microsoft Software » Public Lisense.... bad idea??
Share or donate

Author Topic: Public Lisense.... bad idea?? (Read 447 times)

Share or donate