The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Do you support Open Source licensing?

CNET doesn't, nor do they respect the GPL, BSD, CDDB, or other Open Souirce licenses.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Do you support Open Source licensing?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Do you support Open Source licensing?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
CDDB (which stands for Compact Disc Database) is a licensed

In reply to: Do you support Open Source licensing?

CDDB (which stands for Compact Disc Database) is a licensed trademark of Gracenote, Inc.

Your opening remark seems to be confused since CDDB is not open source at all.
Bob

Collapse -
Confusing statement

In reply to: CDDB (which stands for Compact Disc Database) is a licensed

Much the same as you not wanting people to know what license are not respected by CNET?
Or as confusing as why you won't do the research?

Collapse -
The confusion...

In reply to: Confusing statement

-> You included CDDB in your list of open source licenses when it's not open source at all...it's proprietary.

-> You claim that Cnet doesn't respect open source licenses but then decline to explain why you believe that is so or offer any evidence of it.

-> You claim that Bob does not want "people to know what license are not respected by CNET" when in fact it was he who told you to start a new thread on the topic.

-> You claim Bob "won't do the research" when he did regarding CDDB...it is you who did not look up its current status.

Thus, it is you who are causing confusion by making unsupported claims and repeatedly changing the subject of the conversation instead of addressing the comments of others. Sorry, but discussions which have no foundation or direction aren't discussions at all.

John

Collapse -
This is what you need.

In reply to: The confusion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
CDDL, a spelling error. Too bad you weren't obsessed with yourselves, you'd notice that.
I had to pick the easiest loink of all. Follow it to bsd, and bsd licenses.
Since the core is made up of this, and the core has parts from the freebsd project, the core is subject to being available to the public undfer these license.

T
Collapse -
CDDL...

In reply to: This is what you need.

Someone obsessed with himself/herself would speak primarily of himself/herself, ignoring what others had to say. We, on the other hand, have been speaking of open source licensing and your posts, not ourselves, so your latest claim makes no sense. Further, you specified CBBD, which does exist, and so we had faith that you were thinking of CBBD, just as you said. Mistakes are understandable, but you cannot expect others to be mind readers and automatically know when you write the wrong acronym.

Beyond that, you still have not addressed any of the points made previously, including:
-> Why you believe Cnet to disrespect open-source licenses.
-> Why you believe Bob does not want "people to know what license are not respected by CNET" when in fact it was he who told you to start a new thread on the topic.
-> Why you claim Bob "won't do the research" when he did regarding CDDB. (Even after Bob's post stating what CDDB was you accused him of not knowing what he was talking about, when you later admitted you made a mistake.)
-> What the subject of the post was that you claim was deleted.
-> Why and how you believe Cnet must "respect" all licenses, even when the company does not use the software.

In short, you've ignored every valid question raised, instead choosing to, for the most part falsely, criticize others. So, I offer the opportunity again: Clarify what you mean and state your case or move on.

John

Collapse -
I have presented my case.

In reply to: CDDL...

I listed the licenses and corrected myself. I did not post CBBD.
Here is the argument again.
The Mac OS X contains elements from different Open Source licenses.
What I presented was a legal way of creating a Mac clone and of modifying a system without breaking any agreement. EULA means nothing if it prevents an Open Source license from being used.
Maybe if you let people who use the OSX system that there is a way of improving and adding onto the system without breaking any copyright or agreement. Harware becomes supported when someone builds the drivers for it.
Did I post any links to cracking the OS X? No.
Did I present any method that would mean modifying the system to run on untested hardware? No
Did I present sound methods of rebuilding and improving the OS by using the proper tools and sources? Yes.

I've gone through Aplle's Open licenses. It's written similar to Redhat's but is a BSD style. The new kernel is 5.4 and is still behind. Even the old system came under the BSD license. I presented the fact that parts of the system had inspired a GPL project and that this project was available to use. I presented the fact that a system environment could be built with Open Source tools and distributions.
Not one time did I ever present a method that was illegal in any sense.

You don't mention the developmental model of Apple's systems nor do you let people know that parts of the system are and can be modified by sound means.

I have stated myself and I have done it with proof.

Collapse -
Try again please.

In reply to: I have presented my case.

Post this in the right forum. This isn't it. A fresh post with your comments and assertions is most welcome.
Bob

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.