Slashdot Mirror
Revising the GPL
Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License). This story discusses a few changes that the new GPL will include. Will the new GPL draw users to it, rather then using other licenses such as Apache's License or the Netscape Public License?"
35/M/London
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Asian, Single, Ladyboy.
All the rage in Britain.... Everyone who is anyone is doing one.
Force is measured in Newtons. Mass is measured in kilos. :)
If you agree with me don't mod me up (just adds to the problem), mod parent offtopic.
When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not/M/Dagobah
16/Yes Please!/Anywhere!!1one!
The ability to plan your way out of a cardboard box.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus?
We just go and restore the most recent version from CVS of course!
liqbase
...a visionary way ahead of his time...
;-)
Well, if he wasn't "ahead of his time", I think you could call him a historian
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
This is not bad grammar. There is nothing wrong with the syntax, other than the use of an adverb ("then") where "than" (a preposition or conjunction depending on how you look at it) should have been. This, of course, is just a spelling mistake.
..." could apply.
Semantically, it doesn't make sense, because the GPL as a license itself does not use other licenses. However, by logical elimination, you *do* understand that the alternative (introduced by "rather than") applies to the noun phrase "users" and not "the new GPL". There is no other noun to which the verb phrase (in the present progressive) "using other licenses such as
"He ain't there" is not grammatically incorrect. The syntax of this sentence breaks down using the following phrase structure rules, all of which are valid in English:
S -> [NP] + [VP]
NP -> [Pronoun]
VP -> [V] + [AdvP]
AdvP -> [Adv]
Perhaps you have an issue with the non-standard lexicon, which allows "ain't" as special case in the general contraction rules, but the lexicon is not the grammar. New words are formed far more often than new phrase structures are. They even occupy different areas of the brain (Wernicke(lexicon) and Broca(grammar)). Please note that this phonological phenomenon of removing the final consonant and changing the vowel preceding it ("ain't" started as a contraction for "am not") is not unique -- it happens in "will not" -> "won't" as well. In fact, using a 'standard' contraction rule would give you "amn't" which is against English phonological grammar.
You understood perfectly what the person was saying. You're just being an elitist snob. Next time know what "language" means, instead of being a sociolinguistic politicking arsewipe.