Ayup, I've worked at a lab doing that for the past few years...
The Interactive Media Laboratory (IML) is part of the Department of Community and Family Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. IML specializes in combining emerging technology with innovative instructional design. For over 18 years, it has produced high-end interactive multimedia educational programs for both patients and health care providers. Additionally, it has developed distance learning systems capable of delivering rich multimedia over the Internet.
What I find really interesting is that it's often not the complexity of games and interactions in games that drives adoption and success, but careful selection of course material, subject-matter experts, and good underlying layout and design. Although leisure games are often sold solely on the level of explosive interaction and realistic blood-and-guts, at the end of the day, so-called "Serious Games" (yeah, I think it's funny, too) have to really provide more tangible results than "Total Kills," and as a result there has to be a interesting balance between pure amusement and education.
In October 2005, Schmeiser's farm was visited yet again by Monsanto, and again, in the form of their RoundUp Ready Canola. Schmeiser took advantage of the company's removal program, but discovered that they would only remove the plants if he signed a release form that contained a confidentiality clause, which he disapproved of. What followed led to an out of court settlement on March 19, 2008, and Monsanto paid Schmeiser the $660 it cost him to have the plants removed.
Note that Monsanto requires a release form (which sounds reasonable if they're coming on your property and removing stuff), but there's also a confidentiality clause (which sounds rather excessive).
If Monsanto wants to claim that they have patented gene XXX in plant Foo, then bless their money-grubbing little hearts. I say, go for it!
In crime scenes, DNA evidence is used to identify persons of interest -- you know, people that were there, bystanders, perhaps a victim or two, and potentially, the perpetrator.
When Monsanto releases a GM plant, I assume that they patent the gene, the position, the encoding, and so forth. In giving this information to the Patent Office, they've given the public a free copy of the DNA fingerprint for one of their lab creations.
If a given state is having issues with hard-to-kill weeds, perhaps because they were contaminated with GM material from Monsanto plants, then I would suggest that they bring in a forensic team and "DNA fingerprint" the plants. If one of Monsanto's patented genes appears, then I suggest that the state charge Monsanto with littering. I'd suggest that they bring one littering charge for every 'tainted' plant that they find. Oh, and of course, all that DNA testing is expensive, so I'd charge them for that as well.
Sure, Monsanto can turn around and try to find and sue the particular farmer whose crop of GM plants were the culprits that contaminated the weeds, but my guess is that such a thing would be much harder to discover and to prove in a court of law than the State's simple case of showing that the GM gene is in the weeds.
Outcomes?
We have an interesting triple of outcomes here:
1) Unsuccessful in suing farmers, Monsanto gets bled dry from littering costs. 2) Successful in suing farmers, Monsanto sees farmers getting scared enough to stop buying from them. 3) Monsanto gives up patent control on seed, to avoid prosecution
Outcome #3 is particularly interesting.
Of course, I don't think that any of the politicians and DAs in the US have big enough balls to actually go forward and confront Monsanto like this, which is really too bad...
Somehow, though, I'm guessing Monsanto will prove most unwilling to go around hand weeding "their" IP when it becomes a pest.
They haven't done that personally, no. But they have paid to have it done when farmers have complained about contamination.
1) That sounds like a Herculean task.
2) Wait, no, that sounds like a task that even Hercules would fail at, as there are thousand and millions of plants out there, and only one of him.
3) Wait, Monsanto's actually paid for cleanup or done anything when farmers complain? Please cite your sources, because that's news to me!
I mean, just to put this in proportion, BP is currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars cleaning up a small amount of oil that leaked into the Gulf. Over time, the oil will precipitate out of the water, and each year the contamination of the oil will have a lesser and lesser effect.
In sharp contrast, GM modified genes will likely exist in a given ecosystem for the next... 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? More? For every XYZ-resistant plant they pull up, how many grains of pollen will escape and cross-fertilize from another plant into a weed or food plant population? The net effort required to keep a population of GM genes in check, once released into a given ecosystem, is staggering.
To be honest, I don't think Monsanto has the money or the brains (let alone the will or ethical mindset) to clean up their own mess.
I cannot figure out why the headline says that the EFF won this case.
As I'm sure Bradley and the rest of y'all are well aware, sometimes Slashdot messes up some of the small, important details in articles.
I mean, that's the price we pay for our News for Nerds. At a more reputable news source like LWN, for example, we wouldn't see any kind of....oh wait, they screwed-up, too.:-)
Hmm, maybe the SFLC and the Conservancy just need some more (geek) exposure so that people know who they are. What do people think about some kind of trivia game in which people have to identify a group by its initialization, and then describe what they do?
We've got: ASF CC EFF FSF FSFE ISC LF OMNow OSI PSF SFC SFLC SPI... and so forth
I'm thinking that some of the more adventurous open hardware folks might think about working on a completely open hardware scope. I mean, what's better than being able to use open tools to build open projects?
For example, bending resistance is proportional to the third power of thickness.
Sure, they could have said something like that as well.
My big point is that they're changing both the thickness as well as the strength variables. I'd either like to see the actual function describing the relationship, or just have them keep one of those variables constant.
Gorilla is two to three times stronger than chemically strengthened versions of ordinary soda-lime glass, even when just half as thick, company scientists say.
So to put that in simpler terms, Gorilla glass is 4 to 6 times stronger than regular glass, at any given thickness.
They don't offer any with 10.04, and two of the four models they offer still have 9.04. Doesn't seem like they're too keen on it.
Maybe Dell isn't too keen on upgrading to the latest version of Ubuntu. Well, sucks to be us. And by us, I mean all of the people that put their money where their mouth is and bought a laptop preloaded with Ubuntu from Dell.
But that has just about nothing to do with the central point, or should I say fallacy of this article.
Here it is:
Linux: Dell Drops Ubuntu PCs From Its Website
Well, I can sure see them on the website.
"Dell has stopped selling consumer PCs preloaded with Ubuntu from its website, and doesn't know when they're coming back.
Nope, it didn't happen.
Dell insists that it's continuing to sell Ubuntu systems, but only over the phone, and has no idea when — or even if — the Ubuntu PCs will return online.
Well at least there is that much, right?
A search for Ubuntu on the Dell UK website returns only one laptop — the Dell Latitude 2100 from the company's business range.
Now wait just a second, first people say that there are no cannibals in the British Navy...erm... I mean, they say that there are no Ubuntu laptops sold on the Dell website, and now you're saying that there's just one?
Now that's just taking the piss!
Speaking of the UK, I'll kindly point people at The FAQ that notes:
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem.
That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.
What do you mean by "providing a service"?
IANAL, but my interpretation is that under the terms of the GPLv2 (thanks for clarifying that WP was under that license), there's no onus on a person running a GPLed program on a server to provide code unless they distribute code.
Now if you're talking about "service" as in Software as a Service, then yes, many people including the FSF believe that people should be privy to the software that they run, whether the software is running on a personal machine, on a remote piece of hardware, or even running on a virtualized server. But that's a philosophical argument, and doesn't have any direct bearing on the GPLv2.
I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2.
Thanks for clarifying.
Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.
First, you don't distribute the config file (at least I hope you don't!), nor do you distribute code from within it. As a result, if there's no act of distribution, there's no need for the distribution clauses of the GPLv2 to kick in.
Second, even if the license were AGPL, you don't have to distribute your authentication keys, login credentials, and other site-specific data along with the code. You just need to provide the code necessary for someone else to run the code with their own data.
Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.
That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.
What do you mean by "providing a service" ?
IANAL, but let's say I have some software "S" running on a web server and allow the public to see the output of S. If S is GPLv2 (just like WordPress -- thanks for pointing that out below), I don't have an obligation to provide the source to "S", unless I'm distributing code from S directly.
The reason the AGPL exists as a license is so that authors of FOSS can ensure that others may not use SaaS to perform an end-run around Freedom #1, "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2.
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying that.
Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.
Note that you're not publishing or making available the code in that modified config file. The GPLv2 talks about distributing copies of Free Software, but as the config file is never available to the public (or at least it isn't as long as WP is set up properly...:-), then no distribution has taken place.
Even with the AGPL, as long as the public only sees the effect of the configuration file and not the code (if any) inside it, then I believe that there's no onus on you to provide the file to the public.
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.
IANAL, but it seems as though all end-users creating custom themes may be breaking the license terms?
The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.
I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.
The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:
In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?
Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.
Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.
BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?
Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:
I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.
In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.
Just one geek's perspective here, but the Nexus One wasn't attractive enough for me.
I'm switching away from Verizon to T-mobile so that I can choose what phone hardware I run (actually, I'm about to throw in the SIM card once I can find where I put the envelope). I picked up a G1 for cheap on eBay and I'm excited to be running a mostly-free phone.
Of course, the software on the G1 isn't completely free. And neither is the software running on the Nexus One. Given that the latter was going to cost several times the cost of the former, I figured I'd just go the cheaper route.
Android is an okay OS in my book, but I'm still hoping for a phone running a more mainstream Linux-based OS like MeeGo. Sure, the n900 is about as close as anyone's gotten, but the n900 is still about... $400? Maybe more? And, again, there are still closed drivers and other components required for all of the parts to work properly. So the n900 isn't attractive enough, either.
But MeeGo development is chugging along quite nicely, and Android development isn't stopping anytime soon. For now, I'm going to try installing the Replicant builds on my G1 and see how close we've gotten to a fully-FOSS phone.
OT: Dear Slashdot Admins: PLEASE FIX the mod box
on
Is Open Source SNORT Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm forced to post something in this thread to throw away an accidental mod of "Troll".
If the moderation box gets focus for any reason, it's going to fire off and moderate the person once you exit it. No ifs, ands, or buts.
So here I am, having to throw away 4 or 5 reasonable (well, I thought so, anyway) mods to this article in order to not unfairly peg someone as a Troll.
Plus I have to write this lame post. I mean, who wants to see this lame post?
Mary Lou Jepsen (sp?) has mad technical skills, and from what I remember reading about her company,
1) They make displays that are designed to be visible in all light, including near-direct sunlight
2) She said in one video that replacing the display is so easy a child can do it.
Sure, your laptop will be a little more expensive than just buying a regular laptop, as you'll have to pay for the first screen and an aftermarket screen, but it should solve your problem nicely.
Most techies don't understand that the internet is a negative right, not a positive one. No one owes you internet, you simply have the right to pursue it.
I'm not sure that I agree that direct legislation is the right answer here, but it's hard to deny that the average person doesn't have the same ability to choose providers of broadband hard-wired Internet access as they do to choose gas stations, supermarkets, or brands of automobile.
If the government really wants to see innovation and choice in customer access to the Internet/Voice and Video communication/etc..., they should seriously consider how they're allocating spectrum and make sure that they're setting up a market where small companies can jump into the market and provide novel services (such as symmetric up/down pipes), should (read: when) the larger companies drag their heels.
I've never carried a blackberry myself, although I do know a fair number of people who were issued them for work. I remember my father saying that there were a few younger folks at his workplace that loved their crackberries back in the day, but for him it was just an oversized cell phone.
Now that you can get similar devices on pretty much every cell network, with your choice of iPhone, Android, or Windows Mobile (Win7?) OSes, I really don't see why anyone would particularly care about what RIM is creating, especially as AFAIK they have a pretty closed environment with no corresponding desktop OS.
I gotta assume that there's some way to develop applications for the Blackberry OS, but I can't ever remember anyone talking about it.
I guess there are some companies that might issue a standard set of devices, just like issuing standard laptops to everyone, but I'm still finding it hard for them to justify the tablet form factor.
So.... why would anyone actively *want* a Blackberry tablet?
Except that charging/discharging times are not linear. Google "RC constant".
That's what I was concerned about at first, however the article makes statements that connect "50% full" (their words) with an ability to "travel a further 50 miles". If the battery is 50% full and thus can travel 50 miles, it seems logical to assume that a battery at a so-called "100% full" would be able to travel 100 miles.
Sure, one might make the argument that the way that the car can use the first "50%" of the stored charge is more or less efficient than the way in which it can use the second "50% of the stored charge. But at that point I think that one could argue that the original wording of "50% full" was misleading and/or just flat-out wrong.
Of course, that's assuming a battery that can be charged to 100% of its spec'd capacity. Gas tanks don't shrink in size over the lifetime of a car, while batteries tend to lose capacity over time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ayup, I've worked at a lab doing that for the past few years...
The Interactive Media Laboratory (IML) is part of the Department of Community and Family Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. IML specializes in combining emerging technology with innovative instructional design. For over 18 years, it has produced high-end interactive multimedia educational programs for both patients and health care providers. Additionally, it has developed distance learning systems capable of delivering rich multimedia over the Internet.
http://iml.dartmouth.edu/
What I find really interesting is that it's often not the complexity of games and interactions in games that drives adoption and success, but careful selection of course material, subject-matter experts, and good underlying layout and design. Although leisure games are often sold solely on the level of explosive interaction and realistic blood-and-guts, at the end of the day, so-called "Serious Games" (yeah, I think it's funny, too) have to really provide more tangible results than "Total Kills," and as a result there has to be a interesting balance between pure amusement and education.
Monsanto agreed to pay the Schmeisers $660...for costs associated with removing the patented Roundup Ready canola from their field in 2005.
Sweet!
This says that his wife got $140. That looks like a different case.
Here's an article about the $660:
In October 2005, Schmeiser's farm was visited yet again by Monsanto, and again, in the form of their RoundUp Ready Canola. Schmeiser took advantage of the company's removal program, but discovered that they would only remove the plants if he signed a release form that contained a confidentiality clause, which he disapproved of. What followed led to an out of court settlement on March 19, 2008, and Monsanto paid Schmeiser the $660 it cost him to have the plants removed.
Note that Monsanto requires a release form (which sounds reasonable if they're coming on your property and removing stuff), but there's also a confidentiality clause (which sounds rather excessive).
You mean Simple Random Sampling, right?
Wikipedia has a bunch of other interesting expansions for that TLA...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium_sulfide
Self-Regenerative System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Racing_Syndicate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Serbia
Heck, maybe if we did a survey we'd find out that the Serbs really like BSD...
Perhaps my best idea yet:
If Monsanto wants to claim that they have patented gene XXX in plant Foo, then bless their money-grubbing little hearts. I say, go for it!
In crime scenes, DNA evidence is used to identify persons of interest -- you know, people that were there, bystanders, perhaps a victim or two, and potentially, the perpetrator.
When Monsanto releases a GM plant, I assume that they patent the gene, the position, the encoding, and so forth. In giving this information to the Patent Office, they've given the public a free copy of the DNA fingerprint for one of their lab creations.
If a given state is having issues with hard-to-kill weeds, perhaps because they were contaminated with GM material from Monsanto plants, then I would suggest that they bring in a forensic team and "DNA fingerprint" the plants. If one of Monsanto's patented genes appears, then I suggest that the state charge Monsanto with littering. I'd suggest that they bring one littering charge for every 'tainted' plant that they find. Oh, and of course, all that DNA testing is expensive, so I'd charge them for that as well.
Sure, Monsanto can turn around and try to find and sue the particular farmer whose crop of GM plants were the culprits that contaminated the weeds, but my guess is that such a thing would be much harder to discover and to prove in a court of law than the State's simple case of showing that the GM gene is in the weeds.
Outcomes?
We have an interesting triple of outcomes here:
1) Unsuccessful in suing farmers, Monsanto gets bled dry from littering costs.
2) Successful in suing farmers, Monsanto sees farmers getting scared enough to stop buying from them.
3) Monsanto gives up patent control on seed, to avoid prosecution
Outcome #3 is particularly interesting.
Of course, I don't think that any of the politicians and DAs in the US have big enough balls to actually go forward and confront Monsanto like this, which is really too bad...
Somehow, though, I'm guessing Monsanto will prove most unwilling to go around hand weeding "their" IP when it becomes a pest.
They haven't done that personally, no. But they have paid to have it done when farmers have complained about contamination.
1) That sounds like a Herculean task.
2) Wait, no, that sounds like a task that even Hercules would fail at, as there are thousand and millions of plants out there, and only one of him.
3) Wait, Monsanto's actually paid for cleanup or done anything when farmers complain? Please cite your sources, because that's news to me!
I mean, just to put this in proportion, BP is currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars cleaning up a small amount of oil that leaked into the Gulf. Over time, the oil will precipitate out of the water, and each year the contamination of the oil will have a lesser and lesser effect.
In sharp contrast, GM modified genes will likely exist in a given ecosystem for the next... 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? More? For every XYZ-resistant plant they pull up, how many grains of pollen will escape and cross-fertilize from another plant into a weed or food plant population? The net effort required to keep a population of GM genes in check, once released into a given ecosystem, is staggering.
To be honest, I don't think Monsanto has the money or the brains (let alone the will or ethical mindset) to clean up their own mess.
I cannot figure out why the headline says that the EFF won this case.
As I'm sure Bradley and the rest of y'all are well aware, sometimes Slashdot messes up some of the small, important details in articles.
I mean, that's the price we pay for our News for Nerds. At a more reputable news source like LWN, for example, we wouldn't see any kind of....oh wait, they screwed-up, too. :-)
Hmm, maybe the SFLC and the Conservancy just need some more (geek) exposure so that people know who they are. What do people think about some kind of trivia game in which people have to identify a group by its initialization, and then describe what they do?
We've got: ... and so forth
ASF
CC
EFF
FSF
FSFE
ISC
LF
OMNow
OSI
PSF
SFC
SFLC
SPI
Actually, there's at least company with open hardware oscilloscopes:
http://www.bitscope.net/.
Building a Cheap Oscilloscope Using Your PC?
There are some interesting suggestions there.
I'm thinking that some of the more adventurous open hardware folks might think about working on a completely open hardware scope. I mean, what's better than being able to use open tools to build open projects?
For example, bending resistance is proportional to the third power of thickness.
Sure, they could have said something like that as well.
My big point is that they're changing both the thickness as well as the strength variables. I'd either like to see the actual function describing the relationship, or just have them keep one of those variables constant.
Gorilla is two to three times stronger than chemically strengthened versions of ordinary soda-lime glass, even when just half as thick, company scientists say.
So to put that in simpler terms, Gorilla glass is 4 to 6 times stronger than regular glass, at any given thickness.
Why didn't they just say that in the first place?
yep, no matter how many times you type password1, it will show to us as *********
Here ya go:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
a compiler switch option, as in `GCC Windows -VHB - P32'
Sure, there'd be a kind of cool-geeky factor in being able to compile Windows with gcc, but would you feel somewhat....dirty after doing so?
For now.
They don't offer any with 10.04, and two of the four models they offer still have 9.04. Doesn't seem like they're too keen on it.
Maybe Dell isn't too keen on upgrading to the latest version of Ubuntu. Well, sucks to be us. And by us, I mean all of the people that put their money where their mouth is and bought a laptop preloaded with Ubuntu from Dell.
But that has just about nothing to do with the central point, or should I say fallacy of this article.
Here it is:
Linux: Dell Drops Ubuntu PCs From Its Website
Well, I can sure see them on the website.
"Dell has stopped selling consumer PCs preloaded with Ubuntu from its website, and doesn't know when they're coming back.
Nope, it didn't happen.
Dell insists that it's continuing to sell Ubuntu systems, but only over the phone, and has no idea when — or even if — the Ubuntu PCs will return online.
Well at least there is that much, right?
A search for Ubuntu on the Dell UK website returns only one laptop — the Dell Latitude 2100 from the company's business range.
Now wait just a second, first people say that there are no cannibals in the British Navy...erm... I mean, they say that there are no Ubuntu laptops sold on the Dell website, and now you're saying that there's just one?
Now that's just taking the piss!
Speaking of the UK, I'll kindly point people at The FAQ that notes:
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem.
Try again, editors. Try again.
Thoughtful reply, thank you!
You're welcome!
That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.
What do you mean by "providing a service"?
IANAL, but my interpretation is that under the terms of the GPLv2 (thanks for clarifying that WP was under that license), there's no onus on a person running a GPLed program on a server to provide code unless they distribute code.
Now if you're talking about "service" as in Software as a Service, then yes, many people including the FSF believe that people should be privy to the software that they run, whether the software is running on a personal machine, on a remote piece of hardware, or even running on a virtualized server. But that's a philosophical argument, and doesn't have any direct bearing on the GPLv2.
I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2.
Thanks for clarifying.
Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.
First, you don't distribute the config file (at least I hope you don't!), nor do you distribute code from within it. As a result, if there's no act of distribution, there's no need for the distribution clauses of the GPLv2 to kick in.
Second, even if the license were AGPL, you don't have to distribute your authentication keys, login credentials, and other site-specific data along with the code. You just need to provide the code necessary for someone else to run the code with their own data.
Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.
That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.
What do you mean by "providing a service" ?
IANAL, but let's say I have some software "S" running on a web server and allow the public to see the output of S. If S is GPLv2 (just like WordPress -- thanks for pointing that out below), I don't have an obligation to provide the source to "S", unless I'm distributing code from S directly.
The reason the AGPL exists as a license is so that authors of FOSS can ensure that others may not use SaaS to perform an end-run around Freedom #1, "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2.
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying that.
Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.
Note that you're not publishing or making available the code in that modified config file. The GPLv2 talks about distributing copies of Free Software, but as the config file is never available to the public (or at least it isn't as long as WP is set up properly... :-), then no distribution has taken place.
Even with the AGPL, as long as the public only sees the effect of the configuration file and not the code (if any) inside it, then I believe that there's no onus on you to provide the file to the public.
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.
IANAL, but it seems as though all end-users creating custom themes may be breaking the license terms?
The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.
I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.
The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:
In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?
Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.
Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.
BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?
Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:
I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.
In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.
Just one geek's perspective here, but the Nexus One wasn't attractive enough for me.
I'm switching away from Verizon to T-mobile so that I can choose what phone hardware I run (actually, I'm about to throw in the SIM card once I can find where I put the envelope). I picked up a G1 for cheap on eBay and I'm excited to be running a mostly-free phone.
Of course, the software on the G1 isn't completely free. And neither is the software running on the Nexus One. Given that the latter was going to cost several times the cost of the former, I figured I'd just go the cheaper route.
Android is an okay OS in my book, but I'm still hoping for a phone running a more mainstream Linux-based OS like MeeGo. Sure, the n900 is about as close as anyone's gotten, but the n900 is still about... $400? Maybe more? And, again, there are still closed drivers and other components required for all of the parts to work properly. So the n900 isn't attractive enough, either.
But MeeGo development is chugging along quite nicely, and Android development isn't stopping anytime soon. For now, I'm going to try installing the Replicant builds on my G1 and see how close we've gotten to a fully-FOSS phone.
I'm forced to post something in this thread to throw away an accidental mod of "Troll".
If the moderation box gets focus for any reason, it's going to fire off and moderate the person once you exit it. No ifs, ands, or buts.
So here I am, having to throw away 4 or 5 reasonable (well, I thought so, anyway) mods to this article in order to not unfairly peg someone as a Troll.
Plus I have to write this lame post. I mean, who wants to see this lame post?
Sincerely,
-- Us
Nobody puts Acrobat in a sandbox, nobody!
Mary Lou Jepsen (sp?) has mad technical skills, and from what I remember reading about her company,
1) They make displays that are designed to be visible in all light, including near-direct sunlight
2) She said in one video that replacing the display is so easy a child can do it.
Sure, your laptop will be a little more expensive than just buying a regular laptop, as you'll have to pay for the first screen and an aftermarket screen, but it should solve your problem nicely.
..which planet?
We can probably blame the MIB (or those they police) for this latest development...
Most techies don't understand that the internet is a negative right, not a positive one. No one owes you internet, you simply have the right to pursue it.
Maybe not Stateside, but the folks over in Finland now have a legal right to 1Mb Broadband Internet access.
I'm not sure that I agree that direct legislation is the right answer here, but it's hard to deny that the average person doesn't have the same ability to choose providers of broadband hard-wired Internet access as they do to choose gas stations, supermarkets, or brands of automobile.
If the government really wants to see innovation and choice in customer access to the Internet/Voice and Video communication/etc..., they should seriously consider how they're allocating spectrum and make sure that they're setting up a market where small companies can jump into the market and provide novel services (such as symmetric up/down pipes), should (read: when) the larger companies drag their heels.
I've never carried a blackberry myself, although I do know a fair number of people who were issued them for work. I remember my father saying that there were a few younger folks at his workplace that loved their crackberries back in the day, but for him it was just an oversized cell phone.
Now that you can get similar devices on pretty much every cell network, with your choice of iPhone, Android, or Windows Mobile (Win7?) OSes, I really don't see why anyone would particularly care about what RIM is creating, especially as AFAIK they have a pretty closed environment with no corresponding desktop OS.
I gotta assume that there's some way to develop applications for the Blackberry OS, but I can't ever remember anyone talking about it.
I guess there are some companies that might issue a standard set of devices, just like issuing standard laptops to everyone, but I'm still finding it hard for them to justify the tablet form factor.
So.... why would anyone actively *want* a Blackberry tablet?
Except that charging/discharging times are not linear. Google "RC constant".
That's what I was concerned about at first, however the article makes statements that connect "50% full" (their words) with an ability to "travel a further 50 miles". If the battery is 50% full and thus can travel 50 miles, it seems logical to assume that a battery at a so-called "100% full" would be able to travel 100 miles.
Sure, one might make the argument that the way that the car can use the first "50%" of the stored charge is more or less efficient than the way in which it can use the second "50% of the stored charge. But at that point I think that one could argue that the original wording of "50% full" was misleading and/or just flat-out wrong.
Of course, that's assuming a battery that can be charged to 100% of its spec'd capacity. Gas tanks don't shrink in size over the lifetime of a car, while batteries tend to lose capacity over time.