Who knows about this feature in Vista? It sounds like yet another useful, revolutionary feature although hardware manufacturer have to catch up.
From what I can see, this feature wll allow laptops (and other pcs) which are NOT ON to diplays certain types of information on screens that may, for example, be located on the front of a closed laptop case. Supposedley, it will work kind of like your cell phone's front display - giving you limited, but very usefull information.
This sounds like the kind of thing APPL will copy and then the Applebots will claim is an APPL "innovation." Anyhow, who knows about this? Do I have it right?
Zog, leaving aside the "free" question for now, since it's clear you're going to continue to repeat the same falsehoods regarding it, you claimed GPL software is not open. That is a lie, and like so many other lies I've caught you in, you simply ignore the fact that you were caught and go on to rehash more tired verbiage from your side. You do not debate in good faith at all, ZogDan.
<< GPL'd code IS free in the sense that you are free to use it and redistribute it as you see fit, the only restriction being that you must not attempt to appropriate it as your own >>
Well heck... then Microsoft software is free in the send you can use it and resell it as you see fit... the only restriction is that you cannot appropriate it as your own (as in making unlicensed copies).
You're trying to redefine the term "free" to mean "kind of free... but not for everyone in all cases."
If you want it to be free... just give it away freely without any ramifications.
<< the license simply enforces what should be common decency anyway; that's why Stallman came up with it in the first place >>
No - I think common decency would be when you call something "free" that you have no strings attached... no restrictions or requirements on the recipients.
The point of the GPL is NOT to provide freedom... it is to protect the "community property" and to advance the cause of Communist systems of development. THAT was why Stallman came up with it in the first place.
There is significant risk in resuing GPL'd code as it pertains to comingling with commercial products... and that is a direct result of the restrictions defined in the GPL. Your attempt to label GPL'd software as "free" is merely an attempt to hide the potential issues of reusing GPL'd code.
In this thread one sees the deception, lies, advocacy of theft and dishonesty spewed by one shill in one day - one shill of many, one day of many - Microsoft's legacy of bad influence piles up to the sky.
> But just don't try to fool people into thinking GPL'd code is "free" or "open" - because it's neither.
For the last time (today anyway), you lying shill, GPL'd code IS free in the sense that you are free to use it and redistribute it as you see fit, the only restriction being that you must not attempt to appropriate it as your own. The fact that it isn't you own makes it clear that such a misappropriation would be dishonest and thieving anyway; the license simply enforces what should be common decency anyway; that's why Stallman came up with it in the first place. GPL'd software is obviously open in the sense that the source code is open; what could be easier to understand than that? You're lying on both points but the second lie is particularly obvious and should cause no one any confusion whatsoever.
You've really sunk to new lows in recent days, Zoggy, no longer caring how obvious it is that you're lying. You used to be content with merely spreading lots of FUD.
<< software developers ARE free to release the products of their labors under the GPL >>
Yup... and Microsoft is free to release products of their labors under their EULA.
Does that make Microsoft software "free?" Of course not.
Neither is GPL'd code.
Developers COULD give their work away and give freedom to users without ramifications... that'd be very easy to do.
Those who release code under the GPL are specifically making the choice to NOT have their code be free and open.
And that's okay - they can protect themselves however they want.
But just don't try to fool people into thinking GPL'd code is "free" or "open" - because it's neither.
<< They are mutually exclusive characteristics so naturally no definition would include that. >>
Exactly - and since the GPL has such restrictions, by definition it is not free.
Why are you trying to hide that fact and misrepresent the ramifications of the GPL?
> If that person wanted the software to be FREE... he/she should just give it away for free, without any ramifications.
So says ZogDan, minder of everyone else's business.
Your advice is duly noted, for what it's worth.
That doesn't change the fact that software developers ARE free to release the products of their labors under the GPL, and it doesn't change the fact that we are perfectly free to refer to it as "free" for all the reasons previously given.
Now I have some advice for you: stop deliberately trying to confuse board readers with your FUD, word games and lies.
<< There are 50+- definitions, many of which do not require your artificially imposed, self-serving constraints. >>>
Show me ONE definition that includes being subject to significant restrictions and ramifications.
You can't... it's the opposite of free.