In the last episode (Jun 03), Steven Hartland said:
> I've been trying to do a direct comparison of game server cpu usages
> across various OS. Our current primary OS is FreeBSD 5.X running a
> 200HZ kernel. Initial tests on a dual boot opteron showed Linux using
> 0% CPU for 32 player servers so I
I've been trying to do a direct comparison of game server cpu usages
across various OS. Our current primary OS is FreeBSD 5.X running
a 200HZ kernel. Initial tests on a dual boot opteron showed Linux
using 0% CPU for 32 player servers so I got suspicious.
>From talking to people it appears that Li
Hi
Could you people please take this flamewar off our lists?
Thanks!
M
>
> --part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ?
I'm a free man, not a commercial sample!
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.co
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
> > > Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is
> redefining
> > > the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
> > >
> > > free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
> >
> > Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'.
>
> You're saying t
In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > [ The dict command is your friend ]
> >
> > 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
> > restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
> > own impulse
> [ The dict command is your friend ]
>
> 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
> restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
> own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
> own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
> > Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is
redefining
> > the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
> >
> > free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
>
> Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'.
You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't n
-- 06/01/01 21:44 -0800 - Jeremiah Gowdy :
> Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining
> the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
>
> free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'.
> The word has absolutel
I found this message to be so off base, that I felt it necessary to
reply. I hope the original author wil not mind.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining
> the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet
> What's so "free" about software that you don't pay money for? Pretty much
> nothing compared to software that you are /free/ to modify and /free/ to
use
> any way you want is "free". There is very little of that for Windows
> compared to for Unix in general.
Okay, this levels of "free" concep
"Jeremiah Gowdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uuuuh, I'm gonna have to agree with Murray that there is a complete
> > dearth of free software for Windows. Go search shareware.com, or
> > Tucows, or any of the other Windows-centric software sites, and just
> > TRY to find most of the same tools
At 20:29 29/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>Perfect for your purposes. I, as user (and with some machines
>running on FreeBSD), want to be able to rebuild the kernel at any
>time, and fix myself when needed. I don't want any binary packages
>that can cause trouble and delay days.
before
>
> > >Core has stated in the past a strong desire for developers not to
> > >break kernel interfaces within minor releases.
> >
> >
> > 4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the
> > mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility
>in
> > th
Dennis wrote:
> >: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community"
> >: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support
for
> >: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly
> >: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dennis writes:
: 4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the
: mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility in
: the worst way possible.
Agreed. There are too many things that have been MFC'd that change
th
> I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince
> people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD.
> now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes
> the way people build the kernel.
> what we did is provide procedures to modify the ke
>: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community"
>: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support for
>: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly
>: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclusion of binary driver
> Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
> valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
> driver for some obscure card.
Key word here: "arguably", meaning "can be argued indefinitely", and
loosely translates to "drop this argument -
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Taavi Talvik writes:
: On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
:
: > If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if
: > the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would
: > be accepted.
: >
: > ie. if we just made fun
> Uuuuh, I'm gonna have to agree with Murray that there is a complete
> dearth of free software for Windows. Go search shareware.com, or
> Tucows, or any of the other Windows-centric software sites, and just
> TRY to find most of the same tools or applications you take for
> granted on your Unix
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if
> the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would
> be accepted.
>
> ie. if we just made function foo() more generic and then you could
> simply provide a KLD
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 07:33:03PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince
> people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD.
> now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes
> the way people build the kern
> >Afaik, anybody can spend any amount of advertising dollars he
> >wants.
>
> Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
> valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
> driver for some obscure card.
Well, I don't think so. Good qualit
At 17:07 28/12/00 -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
> > If you slant your judgement so far against the other products,
> > it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about
> > (no offense). You need to point out the pros and cons of ALL
> > t
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> If you slant your judgement so far against the other products,
> it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about
> (no offense). You need to point out the pros and cons of ALL
> three systems. Not just the pros of FreeBSD and the con
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> > The amount of free Windows software is much less than what is
> > available for Unix.
>
> I almost choked to death on my Submarina Sandwich when I read
> this. I think you need to take a step back and think a bit on
> this one. Do you really think
just wanna jump in while it's hot...
I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince
people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD.
now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes
the way people build the kernel.
what we did is provide
At 12:44 26/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
> > language) it isn't GPL.
>
>Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
>Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL)
what if you read b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dennis writes:
>Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
>valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
>driver for some obscure card.
It depends a lot on the goals of the project. FreeBSD has pretty goo
>
> >How many
> > advertising dollars has Mr Kamp spent promoting the use of FreeBSD?
>
>Afaik, anybody can spend any amount of advertising dollars he
>wants.
Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or sub
> Mr Kamps comments are also "Well documented". I would think that EVERYONE
> on this list would be offended by his insinuation that anyone that uses
> FreeBSD and doesnt contribute source to FreeBSD is stealing. Where is that
> outcry on that ridiculous idea? If you are offended by people usin
r operating systems.
> Windows is adequate for routine desktop apps, but it is unable to
handle heavy network loads.
A broad statement with no support. Define heavy network loads.
> A few organizations try to make it work as an Internet server.
Only a few ?
> For instance, barnesan
> Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> >
> > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
> >
> > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
> >
> > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
> > software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse
> At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
> > >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that
> > >other people are using your work without
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>>Then again, I may decide not to do it: My latest port submission has been
>>sitting in the GNATS database for months, so why bother submitting more
>>when nobody cares anyway?
>
>Welcome to the Animal Farm THIS was my point about the Fr
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, someone on freebsd-hackers wrote:
> > They dont want your stinking binary contributions. Get used to it.
>
> Not suprisingly you're both wrong. Many binary-only ports exist
> in the FreeBSD ports tree.
World is not black and white.
There are binary ports (for example netsc
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
> > >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insu
At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
> >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that
> >other people are using your work without paying for
At 01:16 PM 12/19/2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>We have a saying in Denmark, which I'm sure exist in as many forms
> >>as there are languages in the world:
> >>
> >>"A thief belive everybody steals."
> >>
> >>Dennis, considering the recorded history of your arguments in our
> >>mailing list a
Just a comment on this...
I used to work for a pretty big Unix OS vendor in the operating systems
development group. 90% of the bug fixes I applied were never found by
the QA group (otherwise they would have been fixed long before I ever
worked there :-). Where they really found problems were c
>.
>Apparently you never did reverse engineering. When I did such things
>I got the code de-compiled (manually) back to the C language. It's a
>bit boring but not too much work even for the RISC machines (and
>mauch easier for IA-32 than for RISC). And it's legal to do outside US
>for the purpose
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote:
>
> > I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can
> > then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at
> ^
> > trade shows, published on bsdi.c
Alex Belits wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > That depends on the type of "aggregation". If you produce a single-purpose
> > device, like an "internet radio", the entire device has a single purpose,
> > therefore every part of the device is "derived from" every other part
[ -hackers -> -chat ]
On Tue 2000-12-26 (12:44), Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
> > language) it isn't GPL.
>
> Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
> Python. Only modifications TO python (if it
> I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
> language) it isn't GPL.
Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL)
> For legal and security reason they cannot
> share changes to code they m
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:32:03 -0700
> From: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
>
> In message <[EM
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is
> that companies actually believe they are protecting something when
> they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation
> available. It has been well
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex
>Belits writes:
> : Your attorneys are stupid.
>
> Are they now? The GPL was designed to force companies to release
> sources. The FSF put a lot of time and effort into it so that they
> could force people to give back mods to gcc a
SteveB wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Wes Peters
> > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:29 PM
> > To: Drew Eckhardt
> > Cc: SteveB; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: R
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 07:40:35PM -0800, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
> Those are the kind of Linux people I dislike. Calmer people, rational
> people, intelligent people, are often reasonable enough to simply be shown
> FreeBSD, and they will comment on the merits of FreeBSD themselves.
And they w
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:39:40PM -0800, SteveB wrote:
> ...
> New comers to Linux are getting intimidated hearing the constant trash
> talk. It's far more productive to talk about why 'BSD is better.
Better yet, to try and see what good both have to offer, and make one's
choises based on an `ob
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:
> I may go looking. I have a passel of '875 cards that *don't* work, for
> one reason or another. The symptom is, the card "probes" (it is identified
> by the SRM console as an '875 rather than getting only product/vendor ID), but
> the SRM console do
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "SteveB" writes:
: Since when is a product required to be open source to run on Linux? My
: understanding was if an product was developed using GPL'd code or
: libraries then that product is required to offer source. But just an
: application running on Linux, that
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex
Belits writes:
: Your attorneys are stupid.
Are they now? The GPL was designed to force companies to release
sources. The FSF put a lot of time and effort into it so that they
could force people to give back mods to gcc and the like. It was
applied to a k
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Dillon
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:59 AM
> To: Peter Seebach
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
>
>
> You guys ca
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> : No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of
> : software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely
> : certain by now.
>
> No. You are wrong. The fact that large amounts of software has been
> created is irrel
You guys can argue the GPL thing to death and still not come to
a resolution. How many commercial products are running on top of
linux and not sharing their source? Lots. See any lawsuits flying?
I don't. Threats aside, it isn't going to happen. Threats with, it
is sti
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex
Belits writes:
: > That is your interpretation. Other lawyers disagree with that
: > interpretation.
:
: No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of
: software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely
: certain by now
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
, Alex Belits writes:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
>> : This is simply not true -- unless your hardware is the result of
>> : modification of GPL'ed program, something that I don't expect to see any
>> : soon, as so far no hardware ever was GPL'ed in th
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
> modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the
> rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has
> been properly adjudicated, you cannot say wit
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> It's quite common for a manufacturer to completely stop
> driver development once a particular model of hardware
> (say a certain video card) is no longer sold.
>
> This, in turn, leads to the situation where the user has
> to chose between the following options:
>
> 1.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
>On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
>> it's not possible to just set a bit and make it work with, say, a 3C875J
>> card,
>You sure? The PC164 that was Beast.freebsd.org had an 875 card:
Yes, sure. The 3C875J is
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
> it's not possible to just set a bit and make it work with, say, a 3C875J
> card,
You sure? The PC164 that was Beast.freebsd.org had an 875 card:
sym0: <875> port 0x1-0x100ff mem 0x8201-0x82010fff,0x82011000-0x820110ff irq
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> FreeBSD advocacy is prefectly alright.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with calling them Linux weenies in
> FreeBSD circles :) I usually don't even say it that nicely when
> I'm referring to the more rabid Linux "weenies": "Linux is
> better than anyt
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matt Dillon wrote:
> > :Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior to high-level
> > :language source code as to not be a concern, plus its illegal so it cant be
> > :marketed.
> > Reverse engineering is very legal,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rik van Riel writes:
>THIS is the real reason for preferring source code support drivers.
>Not even the usually higher quality of the open source drivers or
>the faster availability of the manufacturer's drivers change this
>situation.
As a nice concrete example,
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is
> that companies actually believe they are protecting something when
> they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation
> available. It has been well
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writ
es:
>One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
>modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the
>rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has
>been properly adjudicated, you cannot
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex
Belits writes:
: WTF are you talking about? Derived work is the result of modification of
: the original, not just something dependent on its functionality.
One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
modifying tables in the kernel with
Drew Eckhardt wrote:
> To be pedantic, you only need to provide source for works derived
> from GPL'd software which in this case means the kernel propper. User
> land applications and device drivers may be shipped in binary-only
> form because they are separate works, even when distributed in
> a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Wes Peters
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:29 PM
> To: Drew Eckhardt
> Cc: SteveB; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
>
Peter Mutsaers wrote:
> >> "Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In Europe, software
> >> patents do not exist and cannot be granted.
>
> Julian> Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I
> Julian> learnt about back in Univers
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:40:07PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote:
>
> > I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can
> > then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at
> ^^^
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 12:28:36AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> isn't coming to the forefront: commercial companies have formal QA staff
> because their development staff either can't or won't do the QA themselves.
I would not agree with that at all. Commercial companies have format QA
because it
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> > To be pedantic, you only need to provide source for works derived
> > from GPL'd software which in this case means the kernel propper. User
> > land applications and device drivers may be shipped in binary-only
> > form because they are separate works, e
Drew Eckhardt wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, admin@bsdfan
> .cncdsl.com writes:
> >Here's the thing about open software that still concerns me. My
> >background is with the major software development tools companies, so
> >that is my point of reference. It is great that code is availa
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
> >
> > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
> >
> > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
>
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> In that respect, I personally will not run anything inside my kernel that
> I don't have source for. Now, I don't run frame-relay or T1's into
> FreeBSD boxes, so I'm not commenting on your software specifically. I'm
> commenting in general. The problem i
Drew Eckhardt wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> m writes:
> >Yes but most commercial uses take advantage of the binary distribution
> >capability of the BSD license AFTER they've poured their corporate dollars
> >into enhancements. With linux you have to give your wor
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Jeremiah Gowdy
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 7:41 PM
> To: Rik van Riel; Murray Stokely
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
- Original Message -
From: "Rik van Riel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Murray Stokely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murra
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote:
> I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can
> then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at
^
> trade shows, published on bsdi.com and/or freebsd.org, etc..
Haha
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
> > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
>
> United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
>
> My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
> software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the
SteveB wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:54 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
> > Linux, Solaris,
Dennis wrote:
>
> Source is more of a "hassle", binary loads right up. the SNMP package is a
> great example. Doing it from source is a nightmare. Missing includes, wrong
> paths. compile failures. The package loads right up and Im running.
This is an example of why the build environment must be
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Exactly the same in Europe, only the sharing parts are new for me.
>The difference seems to be:
>The problem is that in the US, it is legal to override this with the
>licensing conditions. In Europe this right is inalienable.
Some courts
>> "Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In Europe, software
>> patents do not exist and cannot be granted.
Julian> Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I
Julian> learnt about back in University in the late 70's, it
Julian>
"SteveB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. Hardware decisions
> in general are mirrors of software cases. Hardware reverse
> engineering tends to be legal. But with software they use Clean
> programmer, Dirty programmer. In other words you can write
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
>
> United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
>
> My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
> software (firmware is software), you ca
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:03:23PM -0800, Gilbert Gong wrote:
> > It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
> > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
> > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
> > training ground to gain fami
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Jeremiah Gowdy
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:30 PM
> To: SteveB; Drew Eckhardt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
>> Trouble is
> Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the
software for the purpose of achiving
On
> Behalf Of Drew Eckhardt
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
>
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Examiners at the European Patent Office http://w
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Examiners at the European Patent Office http://www.epo.org tell me:
> Reverse engineering is legal in Europe, Illegal in USA.
Back in the early nineties, Nintendo sued some one in America
for reverse engineering the circuit included
Hello Julian,
Thursday, December 21, 2000, 5:20:31 PM, you wrote:
I really hope that software patent´s wont be possible in Europe. This
would be a real problem for some of us who are not only consulting but
developing, too.
I remember that a lot of people try to get a patent on the lamest
routi
* Gilbert Gong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001221 18:45] wrote:
> > It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
> > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
> > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
> > training ground to gain familiari
> It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
> enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
> releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
> training ground to gain familiarity with a OS and a chance to
> communicate with developers.
>
> S
Peter Mutsaers wrote:
> >> "babkin" == babkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> babkin> Sorry for a stupid question but why would not they patent
> babkin> this protocol then ? For example, PostScript is patented
> babkin> by Adobe and the only reason everyone is able to use it is
> b
Matt Dillon wrote:
> :If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct.
> FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to
> open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last
> few years.
> :Reverse engineering is a myth. The
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
