Posted on 08/28/2007 9:43:45 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
a little help folks....
Non tech speak translation please.
Nope, you said 1.
then in one or more posts later in the thread where I may have mispoke you jump all over it.
You lost your chance to say "oops, mistake" a long time ago. After you were caught you went on a personal attack binge instead of simply saying you mistyped. You quietly changed your text, but never admitted even a typo.
Bottom line Linux use is stalled or declining, stats show it, companies like Linksys prove it
I don't see how Linksys proves it, with over 50 current Linux products where before they mainly had the WRT series. It looks to me they've vastly increased their Linux product lineup.
Not originally, I'm certain I said most did not, link the thread and I'll show the exact posts. Contrast that with lies you have admitted to knowingly posting out of the gate.
May the schwartz be with you.
AntiRepublic is starting to waver more on his defense of the software license I've been warning people about for years put out by the green party moonbat Richard Stallman. The license can force those who use it to hand over their internally developed code to Stallman's "community" if you're not very careful, or waive your patent rights over your own product. AR still supports fully supports Stallman in his attempts to somehow stick it to Microsoft though of course, as do most of the wafflers.
The Linux operating system is licensed under a license called the GPL.
The GPL allows you to use and distribute Linux for free, provided a few things, the main one of which is that any changes you make must also be licensed under the GPL and made freely available if you decide to distribute the resulting derivative work of Linux.
TiVO makes a digital video recorder and uses a modified version of Linux to run it. They have licensed their modifications under the GPL and published them according to the license.
The TiVO hardware will only run software that has been signed by TiVO. Signing in this sense means that if one bit of the software is changed, then the signing is invalid, and the hardware won't run it. Signing is generally used to enhance the security of systems by ensuring that no unauthorized (or maliciously compromised) software can run on it.
With this signing, people are still free to download and modify TiVO's Linux and use it elsewhere, but it will not work on the TiVO hardware if it has been modified.
The new version of the GPL has a clause that effectively prohibits this practice. It doesn't affect only TiVO, but it was specifically put in there because the author of the GPL thinks that TiVO should be forced to open their hardware in addition to complying with the redistribution terms.
Linux is not currently under the new version of the GPL because the guy who controls Linux has vehemently opposed such conditions, but it is not inconceivable that Linux could move to the new version in the future.
Linksys made a product.
They included Linux in the product, and modified Linux.
Under the terms of the license that allows you to use Linux, if you change it you have to provide the changes.
Linux developers asked for the source. Linksys was obligated to provide it and did, plus code they did not have to provide. Linksys willingly gave more than they had to give, legally.
Golden Eagle claims this was a leftist coup.
Generally, if you use software you have to abide by the license. A license that tells you to do something illegal can be nullified.
Golden eagle still has yet to show once instance where the GPL was used to infringe on property rights.
Misleading, of course. Linux still uses Stallman's "copyleft" license, a leftist pun on "copyright". Also "Linux" typically refers to a distributed version of the software, within which Stallman's leftist groups hold the copyright on more files than anyone.
How did I know you'd do that? You've been "warning" (actually, spreading misinformation and distortions) about the GPL2. This is about the GPL3, specifically a clause in it that I have been against since the early drafts.
The license can force those who use it to hand over their internally developed code to Stallman's "community" if you're not very careful
The correct non-tech translation:
If you are caught infringing on the copyright for software licensed under the GPL, one of your options is to just come into compliance with the license. This means releasing the code that you would have released had you been distributing the GPL code as required by the license in the first place.
The other option is to cease distribution of the GPL software that doesn't belong to you and possibly pay restitution or damages as you would have to do in any other copyright infringement case.
In the case of Cisco/Linksys, which is what he is referring to, they had sold literally millions of wireless routers powered by Linux without complying with the license terms. That is likely hundreds of millions of dollars in profit made in part by infringing copyrights. I don't know precisely much a damage award can be in a case like this, but we can safely assume that the damages would dwarf the value of that small amount of code they decided to release to come into compliance.
Not misleading. I clearly differentiate between new version and old version as it applies to the subject of this thread. Your whole post has nothing to do with explaining the issue hand.
I've rarely if ever seen you criticize the moonbat Stallman, you claimed you did earlier but of course said you couldn't easily find it. I'll admit you have on rare occassion as part of your normal circle talk routine, but typically you rush to his defense especially whenever Microsoft comes up, and then blame it on your typical ALCU defense of his rights to be a moonbat LOL.
Whatever. I saw a factual error, I corrected it, and you purposefully evaded admitting it was an error -- if it was. You lied.
link the thread
That is funny.
Contrast that with lies you have admitted to
Exactly! Who's more honest:
“Lies” means you posted something you know was false. I’ve never done that, made a few mistakes, sure, but always when posting against leftists and their causes.
You on the other hand, have admitted to knowingly posting false information, and continuing to knowingly post it for months. Equally as bad is your purpose, defending leftists and foreign criminals who oppose traditional US copyright.
I see you've got some fanatical PC thing going on here, where anyone who doesn't criticize someone you hate as much as you do is not considered PC. I've told you before, Stallman isn't important to me. I don't really care about him. I don't have a vendetta against him like you do. What, did he whack your pee-pee when you were a kid? What's with the hatred that has you foaming at the mouth, blind with rage, devoid of logic so often?
you claimed you did earlier but of course said you couldn't easily find it.
I've even reminded you of this before, even linked to the thread before. You even replied to the post where I said it! Your memory must suck. This is the last time I'm covering for your willful ignorance.
Hilarious! Simple example with the Microsoft/BSD issue. The facts of my position that Microsoft didn't steal were right in that post. My post was a DEFENSE OF MICROSOFT against claims of theft. Yet you proceeded to state that I said Microsoft stole. You didn't only do it once, you did it multiple times, each time after being corrected.
How about this one: "it exposed two distinct lies he is always attempting to make: that copyright cases can't be criminal, and that only distributing the crack and not the copyrighted material wasn't breaking copyright law". I corrected your purposeful misrepresentation of my position multiple times, yet you have never admitted you lied.
Meanwhile, I did it once, guided you to the truth, and finally gave the truth myself when you couldn't figure it out.
defending leftists and foreign criminals who oppose traditional US copyright.
Traditional copyright does not include the DMCA, which is what these hackers violated. I support traditional copyright, which is a balance between the rights of the authors and the interests of the people, always keeping in mind the purpose stated in the Constitution when it allowed copyright to exist.
Unfortunately we now have copyright law purchased by power-hungry corporations and enacted by their bribed elected officials at the expense of the people. There's a reason they said "Senator Fritz Hollings (D)Disney" even though he was from South Carolina. That is the copyright that you support -- at least for some.
I doubt it, if you were I probably mistook it for your normal double talk, besides why should I take anyone seriously who has outright admitted they make up lies out of the blue and continue to post them for months in defense of those violating US law?
You act like you deserve respect, but you might as well forget it since you have already admitted to lying on purpose before, and posting them repeatedly for months, in defense of those who broke our laws. It's pretty hilarious, but grotesque at the same time.
AntiRepublican getting up on his populist ACLU soapbox again LOL. Thinks this excuses his lies posted knowingly on support of foreign hackers who violate US copyright laws.
What happens in your paranoid alternate reality has no bearing here, where the text in that post and several others clearly defended Microsoft on the subject. You took my post out of context. You tried to distort my position. You lied, and you lied repeatedly.
I still don't see why you harp on the fact that I admitted. It only makes you look all the worse for never having admitted to your proven lies. Even right now you're defending a proven, purposeful lie of yours instead of admitting it.
There, fixed it.
What typo did I make while you were defending leftists this time?
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.