KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

[zester]

As said, you're wrong. I gave a reference pointing that out. I talked about kdbus though. Suggest also working on your English because you make so many mistakes your posts become almost unreadable.

Just repeating your errors doesn't make them true :P

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!!

[Teho]

Looks like mostly typo fixes, for "gnome-games" and "systemd" and he's a filthy gnome developer, probably a Microsoft lover during the Gnome Dark Ages.

Right... I'm still waiting you to show any proof that you have done any notable developement on any project ever. I also echo what Greg K-H said, who are "we"?

He should kill him self, for even being associated with Gnome.

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

[zester]

Anyways I'm done here the community is tearing into poor old greg about kdbus better than I ever could. Although he did ask if I wanted to maintain the
kernel, I accepted and he never responded. I then suggested he contact Andrew Morton if he didn't want to do it anymore.

Slashdot is just ripping him to pieces over kdbus and systemd.

And with that I am going to go find me another GPL/LGPL project to harass.

[Teho]

Although he did ask if I wanted to maintain the kernel, I accepted and he never responded.

You do understand that it was a joke? You are a nobody and Greg K-H is one key developers of Linux kernel. The Linux kernel developement is based on web of trust. Linux trust the maintainers to take care their subsystems and so on. No one becomes a key kernel maintainer just like that.

I then suggested he contact Andrew Morton if he didn't want to do it anymore.

Jesus... obviously Greg K-H is interested in continuing the kernel developement. He however maintains couple of very active branches which he could definetly use help on and Andrew Morton is obviously aware of this. Why you brought his name up, I have no idea.

Slashdot is just ripping him to pieces over kdbus and systemd.

So there are other people as ignorant as you in this world...

And with that I am going to go find me another GPL/LGPL project to harass.

You have some serious mental issues that you should seek help on.

[zester]

That's understandable. I think you shouldn't care and do what you think is the best. There are many morons out there (usually from gnome camp, responsible for cairo and many stupid and political decisions which were bad for KDE). I have nothing against you, your work and projects, but I don't like when someone attacks GPL. This was an only reason for my participation in this thread. What I can do is to wish you luck and persistence. I apologize if I offended you and I want to say thank you for your work.

I missed this one, just seen it in my mail box.

Thank you, I took no offence. I don't have a problem with the GPL other than a few headaches with mixing GPL2/3 code as we all know is not allowed.
So don't take it personally.

If your into 3d modeling and blender, then you might be happy to know that while I am not trolling the fanboys I am
trolling "Propitiatory Software"

Like ...

There is an asset pack for unity called Medieval Environment, I purchased the pack when I used unity. The problem is ..
1. I don't use unity anymore.
2. The models are of very poor quality as you will see.
3. I like the assets but I would rather use them in other engines, like Maratis.
4. The assets are under a very restrictive license, so I cant share them with others.
In order to solve all of the above problems I started re-modeling all of the assets provided with the Medieval Environment pack from scratch using the originals as a reference.
My models are not an exact copy of there's I did do somethings different, as you will see.

Have a look especially in the wiki I have lots of stuff there.

http://forum.maratis3d.com/viewtopic.php?id=792

[zester]

Here is a character i did, and a AAA character texture painting tutorial I did for blender.

http://wiki.maratis3d.org/index.php?title=Characters

Tutorial:

http://forum.maratis3d.com/viewtopic.php?id=791

[erendorn]

I'm impressed you guys managed to bring this discussion to 220 posts already!

[brosis]

Your always under threat of a patent attack regardless of what License you use. A smart developer will contribute code without attribution, because you can't sue
someone for infringing code unless you know who your suing. Most software patents are trivial, I think you would be hard pressed to find a develop that didn't violate someones IP on accident at one time or another.

No, Apache for example have patent retaliation and patent grant.

GPL3 has patent retalition and patent grant by means of abadoning any patent claims.

BSD has no patent protection.

See: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clau...tware_licences

Even a small developer can jeopardize project of any size, if he issues a patent infrigement claim.
This is possible as soon as you start distribution the code which contains patented material (under license without patent protection).

Your argumentation above is similar to software piracy, which is also illegal in many EULAs, which all-in-all boils down to ignoring license and ignoring patents - which is clearly illegal.

Ofc, this applies only to countries where software patents are not appliable (but in many countries, for example Germany ,unprotected licensed car component can be patent-sued)

Is this correct, that you response above was "I don't know / I acknowledge the possibility"?

precisely (as does gpl v2 btw ). which is obvious if you consider that patents (as long as they are valid and enforced) apply cover the workings and semantics of a sw system as invented, while code only makes up the form in which such mechanism and its working is concretely delivered - so if i obtain / license source code to reuse in my solution i may skimp on the implementation effort, but if such code implements patented algorithms i'm not exempt from paying royalties for them...
which is again quite obvious and logical if you enter the mindset that bsd as a license seems more intended to spread code and industrial standards rather than promote an ideology...

No, there is only ONE version of GPL - actual. Consult source please.
If licensee prefers only ONE version of GPL, that is, by modifying original license grant, removing "or any later", then it is his own problem.

Current version of GPL protects against patent threats, which invalidates your claim.

which is again quite obvious and logical if you enter the mindset that bsd as a license seems more intended to spread code and industrial standards rather than promote an ideology...

Also, ideology can't be patented or infringe patents, so your claim here is beyond any logic.

A BSD-licensed code spread can't promote industry standards, but rather only code implementations.

Thus, one receives an access to source code on how to implement any specific action, but without right to modify, use or distribute it, if a patent on this approach exists. Ultimately, this restricts everything possible with this implementation except storing this implementation on a harddrive or viewing it.

[erendorn]

Thus, one receives an access to source code on how to implement any specific action, but without right to modify, use or distribute it, if a patent on this approach exists. Ultimately, this restricts everything possible with this implementation except storing this implementation on a harddrive or viewing it.

You have the full right to modify and distribute code that implement a mechanism protected by a patent. You just don't have the right to use the protected mechanism unless you have a patent license. This license can be acquired in a manner completely orthogonal to the means you obtained a license to use the code of the implementation.
E.g:
- For Win 2K FAT driver, you have the code (more or less), the right to use the compiled code (if you have a win2K license), but not the right to modify and distribute the code.
- For the fuse FAT driver, you have the code, the right to modify and distribute the code, but not the right to use the compiled code (depending on your jurisdiction).

Because they are independent matters, I find it better to use a contributor agreement + license statement in which you deal with patents, rather than include patent clauses in a copyright license (eg: VP9 video format: patent are dealt separately, reference implementation is BSD), but then everyone is free to choose what he likes best. Also small projects/lone devs may not have the legal department of Google, and a protective license that deals with everything can be a reasonable choice.

[mrugiero]

Thus, one receives an access to source code on how to implement any specific action, but without right to modify, use or distribute it, if a patent on this approach exists. Ultimately, this restricts everything possible with this implementation except storing this implementation on a harddrive or viewing it.

Actually, I think you are wrong about the 'modify' part. Everything else sounds correct, but because of free speech, you are free to modify the source code, as long as the license allows you, regardless of patents. However, as long as you are using the patented algorithm, it is illegal for you to use such modifications. But again, being able to modify means that, if you have an alternative algorithm, you can fix the patent problem by avoiding it altogether. That's actually what Carmack did with Doom 3, he had to write an alternative ray casting IIRC, because the one used in Doom 3 was patented by someone else (he got away with the commercial version alledging parallel development, I think, or maybe he paid for a license).