See point 6 of the article: "Player constraints". IMO, it is easier to stop and resume at a clear point, than from the middle of a random sentence that just happened to be split at the page or the line that you have bookmarked.
Remove the only file convered by AGPL, and the program is GNU GPLv3-only again.
As for one file making the whole program GPL, who told you to use the file? You didn't have to, it is your fault.
Also, a 1 line (which is a 100-character line, not a 30KiB obfuscated program, and not a large encoded image) file should not be licensed under GPL. It would be ridiculous, and remind everyone of "09 F9".
What I predict will happen is that unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the traditional definition of F/OSS (or perhaps have just been turned on to F/OSS), will grab a piece of software licensed under the Affero license, believing it to be "free" when, in fact, it's not really "free".
I know there are those who will say "tough shit, should have read the license first." Those people will have lost the ticket to the clue train, because anyone who feels like they've been duped into this scenario (regardless of whether they have read the license or not) will become the worst type of enemy for F/OSS.
Yes, they should have read the license first.
Compare:
unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the popular erroneous "definition" of "free software", will grab a piece of software licensed under the GNU LGPL license, believing it to be public domain when, in fact, it's not really public domain.
...which happens often.
That said, I think GNU AGPL has to be used with a care, because it makes one release even dirty hacks like removing character filtering from vsftpd logging feature. OTOH, anyone who uses such a hack should be banned from running an FTP server until they fix it (it's pretty easy), because that is a security hole, whether it is published, or not.
That's the swap file update. Remember -- the one you have to e-mail them in case of support difficulties? After the update, the registry is cleaned up (or, if it is... clean?.. some of your other files...)
You will either have to cite a certain version of the page, or have your reference marked "[citation needed]" or removed.
If no one notices it while you are writing the paper, then the paper is probably about nothing. If the paper is successful, though, then it is probably not about Wikipedia, but about stupidity.
IMHO, expanding fair use allows for anyone to say that prohibiting everything (including that which is "fair") is fine, because "the law will allow it anyway, because of fair use".
For some senses of "game"... The Russian engine mentioned is not that much "smaller", so it is gamed way too often, by multiple people putting up links to a certain site with the same words in the link text. Worse, the engine just ranks the paid results higher, without marking them in any way.
Yeah, that's the problem with GNU/Linux: people often advise the CLI way and don't know about the GUI way, because they themselves have been advised the CLI way in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
See point 6 of the article: "Player constraints". IMO, it is easier to stop and resume at a clear point, than from the middle of a random sentence that just happened to be split at the page or the line that you have bookmarked.
And I say you deserve it, but this comment of mine should be modded offtopic and flamebait.
Remove the only file convered by AGPL, and the program is GNU GPLv3-only again.
As for one file making the whole program GPL, who told you to use the file? You didn't have to, it is your fault.
Also, a 1 line (which is a 100-character line, not a 30KiB obfuscated program, and not a large encoded image) file should not be licensed under GPL. It would be ridiculous, and remind everyone of "09 F9".
What I predict will happen is that unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the traditional definition of F/OSS (or perhaps have just been turned on to F/OSS), will grab a piece of software licensed under the Affero license, believing it to be "free" when, in fact, it's not really "free".
I know there are those who will say "tough shit, should have read the license first." Those people will have lost the ticket to the clue train, because anyone who feels like they've been duped into this scenario (regardless of whether they have read the license or not) will become the worst type of enemy for F/OSS.
Yes, they should have read the license first.
Compare:
unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the popular erroneous "definition" of "free software", will grab a piece of software licensed under the GNU LGPL license, believing it to be public domain when, in fact, it's not really public domain.
...which happens often.
That said, I think GNU AGPL has to be used with a care, because it makes one release even dirty hacks like removing character filtering from vsftpd logging feature. OTOH, anyone who uses such a hack should be banned from running an FTP server until they fix it (it's pretty easy), because that is a security hole, whether it is published, or not.
I guess you are a troll, since there's never been a "?GPL" (AFAIK).
nxGPL is a good goal. I am not sure it is really an FSF's goal, though.
Show you goatse?
That's the swap file update. Remember -- the one you have to e-mail them in case of support difficulties? After the update, the registry is cleaned up (or, if it is... clean?.. some of your other files...)
Netmail tracker, anyone?
If this was a stupid Microsoftloving site, it would have been "Microsoft's new photosharing service brings revolution to the Web".
Unfortunately, this comment is too real to be eligible for "Funny".
You will either have to cite a certain version of the page, or have your reference marked "[citation needed]" or removed.
If no one notices it while you are writing the paper, then the paper is probably about nothing. If the paper is successful, though, then it is probably not about Wikipedia, but about stupidity.
IANA
PS: Shouldn't you write the paper _first_?
I think you are trying to get past the filter.
Ah, right. :( Thanks.
Are Microsoft operating systems the only operating systems there are?
Is NBC (or General Electric, or Vivendi SA) a Microsoft subsidiary?
I don't think you say what you think you mean.
Oh wait... both Vivendi SA and Microsoft are RIAA subsidiaries!?
Also, can't this be bad for copyleft?
IMHO, expanding fair use allows for anyone to say that prohibiting everything (including that which is "fair") is fine, because "the law will allow it anyway, because of fair use".
It cannot work, because you cannot call an LGPL violation "piracy", but a violation is still possible.
Then stop calling it "free"?
Fair use is not just "non-free", it is less free than any "by-nc-nd, but do not use for military/religious/yourmom" crap.
For some senses of "game"... The Russian engine mentioned is not that much "smaller", so it is gamed way too often, by multiple people putting up links to a certain site with the same words in the link text. Worse, the engine just ranks the paid results higher, without marking them in any way.
Well, if she wouldn't, she wouldn't be able to install Windows, either. Don't know about Mac OS X.
Yeah, that's the problem with GNU/Linux: people often advise the CLI way and don't know about the GUI way, because they themselves have been advised the CLI way in the first place.
Lincity(-NG)?
# rm -rf /
is shorter, and it does.
40 days from now, "piracy" will include that in Russia, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
For a moment, I thought it was "TCPA".