KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

[zester]

Yes. I mean XAML. I don't understand what you are pointing out.

I "think" a good demonstration is xaml, It is available under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise. As long as you don't deviate from the specification that is.

It's my understanding that with XAML and Open Document Format your only covered under the patents they grant if
your implementation(Programming Library) is compliant with the specification.

For Open Document Format, I think its a matter of they can only guarantee protection if your implementation(Programming Library)
is compliant to there standard.

For XAML, I think its a matter of Microsoft not wanting you to create a incompatible competing standard based on XAML.


My point ..... I don't know I had a point but apparently I didn't make it clear enough as I am lost my self. lol

Give me awhile I am still foggy.

[brosis]

I "think" a good demonstration is xaml, It is available under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise. As long as you don't deviate from the specification that is. I get the impression that brosis thinks the Apache and GPL3 licenses are magical and protect you from legal recourse on any and all IP violations. They don't.

Its not "impression" - Apache and GPL3 protect us from patent attack, of course IF the implementation in question is really GPL'ed or Apache'd, not sublicensed from BSD.
Because its stated in the license and everything is legally correct.

MS Open Specification, is ... m$'que. Unrelated. Talk about MS-only 3d industry API. Or recently suggested to IEEE MS-only graphical compression format...

I listed some Librarys (VFX Related) BSD licensed that were released by Disney, Sony, Nvidia, ... or people working for those company's. And someone said(Note: There on my ignore list so quoting them is going to be a pain in the ass to find.) That they don't like ... because of DRM in there movies, and blah blah blah.

Well for whoever said it your blanketing an entire company and the people who work there because of something one division of that company does.

And brosis if you hate the BSD license so much then you might want to find another operating system to use because, a large part of the Linux kernel contains code License under BSD, close to half. Even thou the kernel is on a whole GPL2. But for you it sounds like the "one drop" rule might apply, so I would find a new OS to use.
GNU Hurd maybe?

First of all, I repeat - I don't hate BSD license. I researched a bit, found out BSD is not granting anything patent-related. As such patent cases are to be regulated separate with it (if necessary), otherwise - threated.

Hurd is not an OS.

And finally, the libraries you listed are all clearly under BSD, thus you are not granted right to use the implementations under this licenses, in any form in countries with software patents allowed. Mind you, nearly all Linux distributions ship without codecs exactly due to this case.

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).

Yes. Thanks for bringing that up in memory.

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.

The FAT drivers are the case why Android devices were charged by M$, till european (?) court ruled out M$ patent claims on FAT are invalid. In that sense, BSD fits pretty well into embrace, expand, etc. ("Here, take this nice free format..." Smiling at first, smirking later)

I don't understand whats the reason to modify, if can't use, but .... one never knows the intent of original copyright/patent holder.
Still, as I see BSD requires separate patent agreement. I don't think that contributor agreement fits here - contributor agreements are for reassigning the authorship rights, and are usually bad if we are talking about free libre software (unless the organization in question has crystal reputation). As for BSD, it allows sublicensing and provides minimal obligations, so unless one wants to step back from just those obligations, its not really needed.

[deanjo]

If it is true that you say, then it is legal in US. But real court cases would really help, would be really interesting to clear this case. I have information that BSD license is not suited for any serious project with legal weight.
But outside of US, in Russia for example, BSD is not legal.

I happen to be had dinner with the lawyer tonight and as she is very familiar with international copyright law (she has practiced in Canada, Russia, US, UK and South Africa) and she still maintains that the BSD license is valid and recognized in even Russia. Sorry, gotta go with her on this.

[Vim_User]

I happen to be had dinner with the lawyer tonight and as she is very familiar with international copyright law (she has practiced in Canada, Russia, US, UK and South Africa) and she still maintains that the BSD license is valid and recognized in even Russia. Sorry, gotta go with her on this.

Now someone will come up with: "Invalid, argument by authority!!!!!!!111!!"
Seriously, BSD and similar licenses are used by so many projects that there would have already been serious fallout if that license would be invalid.

[zester]

3, 2, 1, .... Hmmm I am shocked brosis hasn't gone all master troll on your BSD comments yet.

[deanjo]

3, 2, 1, .... Hmmm I am shocked brosis hasn't gone all master troll on your BSD comments yet.

Lol, if I were to go mod on every license troll and dispute there would hardly be any users on the forum.

(this reply has been posted under the CC license)

[deanjo]

Seriously, BSD and similar licenses are used by so many projects that there would have already been serious fallout if that license would be invalid.

It's just typical FUD coming from a fan of one license trying to come up with a "the sky is falling if you don't use xxx license".

[zester]

After reviewing whats going on with udev, systemd and kdbus.

The udev development has moved to:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd

Systemd minimal dependence's.
-------------------------------------
acl
bash
dbus-core (dbus, dbus)
glib2
hwids
kbd
kmod
libcap
libgcrypt
pam
util-linux
xz

Notice the Gtk+ code

Lets go back a couple of days.

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?90792-Can-the-FBI-turn-on-the-web-cams-of-linux-users/page3

Do a little research on redhat, who works there, who there biggest customer is etc. Then look at what linux projects they basically control.
Then try reading the news once in awhile, and connect the dots for your self.

This is a thread about the FBI and spying, worry about all US government agencies including the NSA because if its Linux they have there hand in the
cookie jar hence why I don't touch anything I can't control, audit, maintain. And neither should you.

But you won't listen, and chances are a bunch of you are going to go all Troll and Fanboy on me but whatever. At-least I have a chance at some form of privacy.

And while your at it look into your webcam and smile for General Henry Hugh Shelton chairman of Redhat.

Yahhhh I am totally going to avoid udev, systemd and kdbus for now on, thank god I started my project when I did.
I might sound like a nutcase, but I don't trust Red Hat and anything they touch.

[zester]

You’re a troll cause none of those dependencies have gtk+ code. Nice FUD, BSD troll.

And no body will use your crap cause the systemd and GPL equivents will be far better and your crap little project will be taken from you and incorperated into both GPL and proprietary software confirming that you are a BSD loser.


Funny, most of their security frameworks and features are developmented by the Linux community while almost all of BSD’s are developed by the NSA, FBI, CIA and other shadowy agencies.

Just because glib is a separate package does mean is not part of Gtk numb nuts, its still developed by Red Hat.
And most of our security related code came from the NSA SELinux is a NSA project, there are a few others that are DOD projects.

[zester]

I will say it again

But you won't listen, and chances are a bunch of you are going to go all Troll and Fanboy on me but whatever. At-least I have a chance at some form of privacy.

And while your at it look into your webcam and smile for General Henry Hugh Shelton chairman of Redhat.