Really?
"Red Hat will not issue any more security advisories for the MySQL 5.0 packages (mysql-5.0.* and related packages). Security advisories will be provided only for MySQL 5.5."
https://access.redhat.com/docu...
Yep. A lot of entry-level systems start at around $500 to $1000.
Plus, RedHat are the one pushing for new and untested systemd. That's another example of something you don't expect of a stable server distribution.
It's not new and untested, it's been used in at least Fedora since Fedora 15.
No, RedHat is not 'cool' or stable. They're fishing for consulting dollars, and they're trying to monopolize Linux mindshare by pushing systemd (themselves being the authors), and injecting it as a dependency everywhere else.
Yeah exactly, Red Hat supports a project that they ships as part of their product. That's outrageous, or something.
Yep, even RHEL 5 (seven years old) ships with MySQL 5.5.
Oh, my mistake. Wrong browser.
It is 64 bit, check about:buildconfig.
RHEL 6.5 uses Upstart. It does not have Systemd.
Take an extra look at your Minecraft folder. There's lots of native libraries there. Java is only used for the top UI layer.
The problem is that Richard Stallman is a fucking egocentric hypocrite and the gpl contract should be voided. If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.
Yes that is ridiculous, that's why it doesn't work that way.
Linux has no unix code(different algorithms but same results) but it looks like unix and it runs like unix, wouldn't this be a violation of unix patents?
Patents has not a lot to do with copyright.
GPL and LGPL is not OSS, it's free software which is fundamentally different from OSS. It considers the user to be more free by eliminating the risk that someone will restrict them. It does not consider freedom to restrict freedom as something positive, rather it's negative in the freedom dimension.
Contributing your changes upstream was of course a good thing to do but you actually didn't have to. You have misunderstood the GPL. It only requires that you pass on the freedoms when you distribute the software. Therefore, if you don't distribute the program then you don't have to distribute your modifications. And if you distribute your program then you only have to pass on the source code to whoever you distribute it to, not who you got it from.
There's nothing in the LGPL that prevent you from linking statically. Static linking is not even mentioned. You just have to be able to relink it, so shipping your object files is fine. That's essentially why VLC moved to LGPL, they wanted to be compatible with Apple's mobile app store where it has to be linked statically.
The simple solution is of course trivial, license your program under a compatible license.
It's still up to the maintainer, which is even stated in the first paragraph on the gnu.org page that you linked to.
Nothing prevents you from using the free software version of Qt commercially. You are probably confusing commercial with proprietary.
The GPL and LGPL does not define freedom as being free to restrict users. It your license allows that then it's not as free as a license which prohibits it.
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
