Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Some OS X projects that deserve more attention (Score 1) 152

by barzam (#36772384) Attached to: The Best Unknown Open Source Projects
"The MAME OS X source is released under an MIT license. However, the core MAME source is covered under its own license. It is not an Open Source license. Thus, the resulting binary is covered under MAME's license, and is subject to its restrictions."

Comment: Copyright is not GPL (Score 2, Interesting) 4

by barzam (#32156946) Attached to: Can Employer Usurp Copyright On GPL-derived Work?
GPL=! copyright. That's the first thing to understand. Copyright gives you a number of rights, such as the right to distibute the work as you see fit. By licensing the work with the GPL you don't lose the copyright (in the sense of droit moral at least) only some of the rights associated with copyright ("the four freedoms" etc). Bottom line: if the libraries are published under the LGPL you can use them in a derived work without publishing it under the LGPL, if they are licensed under the GPL you must license the derived work under the same GPL license as the original work (or a newer version of the GPL).

All the simple programs have been written.