it's like unix & windows.
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Unix is a collection of small things, each trying to do something well, with the bower being in the combinations. Windows tries to do everything.
vi is like unix, while emacs is like windows: yes, there's a GNU operating system, although it's not the so-called GNU/Linux [1]. Emacs is an operating system that tries to do everything you could possibly conceive of. Vi edits.
GNU/Linux would be like a tire and engine with no body, steering, seats, frame, etc. It's not until you include the rest of the stuff like perl, X, bsd stuff, etc. that you get what we normally call "Linux" and that you're able to get any work done.
ob flame: besides, a large portion of emacs user move beyond the heresy of emacs and get arrested for unnatural acts with goats:)
It's a text editor. Screen dumps? Ooh, look: a v, and an i, and an m. And all those vowels . . .
:)
hawk
but it's solid content!
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Finally, after all the errors, reposts, gullibility, and the like, we have solid information being reported on slashdot. No reasonable person can dispute what he wrote, save possibly the technical issue of whether "wrong" and "criminally insane" are in any way contradictory--but anyone who waste time on that matter would probably use emacs, anyway . . .
It's not for the athlons & mb. It's for the entire system. Anywone buying one of these would typically be loading it up with lots of u160 scsi drives and the like.
Once the prices settle after the October chip announcements, I'll be having one of these built with the Thunder board (unless something else comes along:). I *do* need u160 scsi, and will be loading it up with about 4 15k cheetahs for my workstation. mmm, raw power . . .
Microsoft did not charge for channel bar placements. Instead, they required that sites receiving placement have significant advantages when used with explorer (read: not work properly under netscape). Microsoft turned town in the neighborhood of $100M (yes,a hundred milllion dollars) in offered fees in order to make this attack on netscape. Read it in the Findings of Fact . . .
This still isn't legal advice. If you can't find the full disclaimer above, you're too damned stupid to understand it anyway . . .
I'll clump a bunch of responses right here.
>[Completely irrelevant aside: if somebody claims to be a "lawyser",
>shouldn't they be dispensing "legsal advice" or maybe "legal advuice"
>or something like that?]
yeah. but i'm not an accurate tsypsists, either:)
>OK, so how high a standard do you need for "intent" here?
For criminal purposes, it would be at the time the goods (labor) were acquired. It's going to be tough to make the criminal case, though; it is a very high standard. Also, when companies get *this* far down (that employees won't get paid in bankruptcy), the current shareholders typically get nothing in Chapter 11 save what the creditors are willing to pay them for future work.
>It's not legal advice because
And it isn't applied to a specific set of circumstances, but in general. It's possible to offer legal advice where I"m not admitted, it's just a crime:)
>I bet that's why iXL kept 'mysteriously losing' the paychecks of ALL
>its contractors for at least four or five months in a row rather
than
>actually saying that they weren't paying htem.
Contractors don't fall under employment law; paying bills late is rarely a crime. The criminal case would be even harder than for employees.
>What about just refusing to return borrowed equipment (such as a home
>use computer) until your salary was paid?
This will vary from state to state. You might have a security interest in it (unlikely). More likely, a mechanics lien (the term is used for many types of services) might apply in some states. Civilly, the doctrine is setoff: they owe you a certain amount for labor, you owe them for conversion, and someone pays the difference. Criminally, unless you have an actual right to do so in your state, the unpaid wages would not be a defense (though you're unlikely to be prosecuted).
>I don't know where you get your information,
The bankruptcy code and several years of practicing law in bankruptcy courts.
>but please post a link
not likely; if I'm going hunting for legal authories, pay me first:)
>and a quote.
You have one. I'm a bankruptcy attorney, among other things
>I believe bankruptcy varies state to state:
>"Also, laws may vary since the state determines what you can keep, so
>even if you may keep your home in Florida, you may lose it in New
>York. "
>http://www.dollar4dollar.com/bankrupt/txbankt. htm
That is a reference to exemptions, the property the bankrupt keeps. The federal code has a list of exempt property, but debtors bay also use state law exemptions *by explicit permission of the federal code*. States may also opt out of the federal list by statute, again by permission of the federal code.
>I believe there are also several aspects however which are federal,
Everything except federally granted state options on exemption and the law governing the validity of underlying debts.
>but your simple statement is just wrong.
No, it isn't--but yours is ignorant. You are taking an out of context
quote and applying it in general. This is why it is so dangerous to
rely on friends instead of lawyers for legal advice . . .
This still isn't legal advice. If you can't find the full disclaimer above, you're too damned stupid to understand it anyway . . .
I'll clump a bunch of responses right here.
[Completely irrelevant aside: if somebody claims to be a "lawyser",
shouldn't they be dispensing "legsal advice" or maybe "legal advuice"
or something like that?]
yeah. but i'm not an accurate tsypsists, either:)
> OK, so how high a standard do you need for "intent" here?
For criminal purposes, it would be at the time the goods (labor) were acquired. It's going to be tough to make the criminal case, though; it is a very high standard. Also, when companies get *this* far down (that employees won't get paid in bankruptcy), the current shareholders typically get nothing in Chapter 11 save what the creditors are willing to pay them for future work.
> It's not legal advice because
And it isn't applied to a specific set of circumstances, but in general. It's possible to offer legal advice where I"m not admitted, it's just a crime:)
> I bet that's why iXL kept 'mysteriously losing' the paychecks of ALL
its contractors for at least four or five months in a row rather than
actually saying that they weren't paying htem.
Contractors don't fall under employment law; paying bills late is rarely a crime. The criminal case would be even harder than for employees.
> What about just refusing to return borrowed equipment (such as a home
use computer) until your salary was paid?
This will vary from state to state. You might have a security interest in it (unlikely). More likely, a mechanics lien (the term is used for many types of services) might apply in some states. Civilly, the doctrine is setoff: they owe you a certain amount for labor, you owe them for conversion, and someone pays the difference. Criminally, unless you have an actual right to do so in your state, the unpaid wages would not be a defense (though you're unlikely to be prosecuted).
I don't know where you get your information,
The bankruptcy code and several years of practicing law in bankruptcy courts.
but please post a link
not likely; if I'm going hunting for legal authories, pay me first:)
and a quote.
You have one. I'm a bankruptcy attorney, among other things
I believe bankruptcy varies state to state:
"Also, laws may vary since the state determines what you can keep, so
even if you may keep your home in Florida, you may lose it in New
York. "
http://www.dollar4dollar.com/bankrupt/txbankt.htm
That is a reference to exemptions, the property the bankrupt keeps. The federal code has a list of exempt property, but debtors bay also use state law exemptions *by explicit permission of the federal code*. States may also opt out of the federal list by statute, again by permission of the federal code.
>I believe there are also several aspects however which are federal,
Everything except federally granted state options on exemption and the law governing the validity of underlying debts.
but your simple statement is just wrong.
No, it isn't--but yours is ignorant. You are taking an out of context quote and applying it in general. This is why it is so dangerous to rely on friends instead of lawyers for legal advice . . .
>1) Because mice themselves are not an example of an intuitive
> interface. No one really ever seems to know what it is, or how to use
> it, until they've seen it in action.
The answer: 26 minutes.
The question: How long doe it take from cracking the shipping case on a new mac to set it up and have your secretary's first memo printing. [I believe the figure is now substantiall longer0.
The early mac interface was intuitive; it lost a lot over times (and even more in windows).
>3) Because Jef Raskin simply decided to go with a single button by
> fiat. IIRC he did no user testing.
HUH??? No. bzzzt. etc.
Apple did extensive testing before determining that training time was significantly less for one button. istr that raskin fought for mre and lost.
the MS mouse has two for the simple reason that apple has one. Three is a minimum for my tastes:)
hawk, still amused that the comment was moderated insightful rather than funny . . .
> I know at least one person who has specifically not gotten a mac
> laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.
Not the fastest snail on the leaf, is he?
I was hardly an early adopter, but I had two buttons on my mac in '92 or so (ok, hardly an early adopter of the second button. I had a 128k mac brand new . ,
They're availalbe all over the place, and come with the software to make that second button do whatever you want . . .
hawk, who gets a kick out of folks with the button-deprived windows mouse mocking those only slightly more deprived
>Unless this is a federal law, this stuff would vary from state to
>state though. So you may both be correct- just not for the same place.
>(IANAL)
Bankruptcy is federal.
The criminal aspect of state law will not very all that much among states (you really couldn't cross the intent line I draw above and pass constitutional muster . ..), but civil responses will vary. I'd be shocked, though, to find a state in which wandering off with the goodies is legal . . .
I am a lawyser, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
>On the other hand, the fact that it's illegal to stiff
>your employees out of wages due them, even in a bankruptcy, isn't
>mentioned in the article...
Uhh, no. That's not the law. There is certainly a breach of contract when an employee does not get paid, but in the absence of prior intent not to pay, it's generally not a crime.
IN bankruptcy, it's a special set of rules. Employee wages up to a fixed amount (I forget the current number) are a priority claim; they get paid before the regular debts (but only to that amount). One of two things happen: 1) they all get paid, or 2) the "self help" took away assets that would have been used to pay all employees.
Walking off with the expensive stuff could solve the former employee's food and housing nees for a couple of years, though . . .
> Isn't it time that there was a dynamic Open Source license which
>had a series of checkboxes that dumped out the license appropriate
>to your project at the end of it
The Raptor licenses do that. Noone uses them (ok, and if I'd put them all in one place it might help:)
Roughly as follows. Add up the clauses used to specify a license as "Raptor n"
Section 0:
You may do anything you damned well feel like with this source code, save as restricted under later clauses.
Section 1:
Any derived work must retain the copyright notices contained herein.
Section 2:
Any derived work must be under this license.
Section 4:
You must make the source code available in the same manner as the binary distribution for no more than duplication and shipping costs.
Section 8:
No derived work may link to any code not assimilible by this license.
Section 16:
No derivative work may be released under a license which restricts the ability to combine software under differing licenses in any manner.
Section 32:
Any distributions of source code or binaries must be made without modification: all modifications must be patches to source code unless written permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
Section 64:
No modified version may be distributed under the same name as this software.
Section 128:
Any advertising or packaging for this product must contain the acknowledgement
"RMS is a nunu-head" [phrase will vary]
Section 256:
The authors have realized that their actions conflicted with the terms stated in the original license. The original license was Raptor [number], while the correct and binding license is Raptor [number] with the following additional provisions
[provisions]
Section 512:
Changes to this license may be made by the following entities in the following manner:
[governance terms]
Notes:
Raptor 0 is all but public domain (it doesn't assign the copyright).
Raptor 1 is pretty much BSD/X
The GPL is pretty close to Raptor 15.
Clause 16 is a poison pill to prevent assimilation by the GPL for those who object to its proprty of only taking code from other licenses but not sharing back.
32 is Pine-ish
64 is Artistic License-ish
128 is old BSD
256 is for situations such as where software purports to release under GPL, but from day 1 had dependencies upon closed source software. The current Lyx license is like this.
I'm perionally partial to a stock 145, but . . .
:)
hawk, who reluctantly left the phrase "including coordinating nuclear attacks on Australia, plotting the overthrow of your government, or exterminating an endangered species" out of clause 0.
>Yes, exactly. And note that in the text of the license, it doesn't
>exclude only sites that disparage MS, but also sites that contain
>racist content, pornography, etc, etc.
is that microsoft is classifying itself in the same category as hate speech and pornography.
o.b. gratutitious recursive acronym-like stuff: Does this mean that publishing this portion of the license violates the license???
>On a larger scale, we've got IBM, SGI, and Compaq (all competitors)
>contributing to the Linux kernel. I can't imagine that IBM, for
>example, would port their JFS to Linux if they thought Compaq could
>integrate it into Tru64 and use it to poach IBM's customers. The GPL
>ensures that everybody has to play by the same rules, so there is less
>risk.
They're in the same situation, with linux being a commodity part. None of these firms have a real interest in having their own flavor of unix; it's not practical to distinguish a unix enough to be a competitive advantage in a small system markets. These firms sell hardware and consulting; having a reliable unix to slap on the machines is necessary. [as a side note, this is Linux' biggest contribution to *nix: it provides a common reference point without anyone having to accept his competitor's version.]
Note that IBM pays a price if the JFS stuff is GPL'd: They can't use changes to it in their other systems (AIX), either. I suspect that they'd be better off in that regard with a public license . . .
> An interesting article. I'd love to see the final copy.
I actually submitted it here after the conference, but they never took nor accepted it . . .
> Question: Wouldn't it make more sense for Apple to release under a
> viral license than a public licenese?
apparently not:)
Under the public license there's
> the risk that a competitor will build on Darwin and not release the
> source back to Apple. With a viral license a competitor can still
> build on Darwin, but at least Apple could see some benefit.
That was my initial impression, and relates to the material I need to supplement.
There's a couple of things going on here. The first is that Apple sees no harm from someone running off with the code; they're no worse off than before. But Apple really has no competitors--or even potential competitors--for Darwin. Darwin is like a hard drive or memory chip for Apple; it's a commodity part used to build their specialized product. Apple would just as happily use FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, or MS-DOS underneath if it had all the needed elements and was stable.
Anyway, another firm has the same incentives as apple to contribute changes back to the common base. The competitor also can wander off with any of the *BSD for a base, and these are likely to be about as close as Darwin to what is needed for an arbitrary project--either will require massive modification, and if the changes aren't returned, the company is on its own for maintenance.
This leaves minimal chances for someone to run off with it, and no problem for apple if someone does (it saddles itself with unnecessary costs!)
On the other hand, if Apple went viral rather than public, it saddles *itself* with that license with regard to any contributions from the outside. This limits apple's options to later fork off on one-off projects--say, a tivo-like device.
Overall, there appears to be no net cost to Apple for choosing public over viral, and a couple of gains.
There's a bit more. One of the thoughts that came back from the conferrence is that generally, code must be so heavily modified to use for something else that lost revenue from the "wandered" variation is probably nil (there's not a huge advantage to the competitor in using the code base). Another is that public licenses give better ability to mix and match pieces under different public licenses, whereas viral licenses are incompatible with each other and, in many cases, third party closed source software.
Finally, the public license precludes a reaction that can fairly be characterized as "rabid" over suspected "violations"--this is just a hassle that firms don't need.
I'll be adding a longer section on when a viral license makes sense, as well as a brief section on when a VIRAL licesnes has economic advantages (after discussion there, it's close to irrelevant) and a short literature review before it goes to a journal. Unlike the rest of the economics I do, this one has no math beyond addition, and, even more amazingly, no greek characters.
Darwin is closely tied to FreeBSD now; Jordan Hubbard now works for them.
In a nutshell, Darwin is not a a distinguishing product for apple, but rather a necessary component. It is less expensive for apple to keep to the public base and benefit from joint maintenance on Darwin than to keep private patches which must be maintained. There is a gain from making it all public, and no benefit to keeping any piece of Darwin private.
>I can see why companies like Apple and AMI might choose to keep their
> patches to themselves,
Except for the minor detail that Apple *doesn't* keep them to themselves. They sent massive number of bugfixes back, and released Darwin under a free license. . .
>I personally think that it's a pretty big deficiency of the GPL that it
>doesn't require access to be provided to allow the owner modify the
>system on which the source is used.
This would have the result of banning any ROM--or at least those soldered
to the mother board . . .
As shipped, junkbuster blocks nothing. It has no settings to block all banner ads, or to change content. As near as I can tell, it has *no* ability to change any content in any form.
What it *does* do is allow you to specify sites or pathnames from the root of any site that simply don't load. If it's an image, you get a broken image thingie. If it's a page, junkbuster tells you that the page is blocked.
It can also acti in a similar manner with cookies.
But it never, ever, changes things, and has no universal settings. They explicitly refuse to offer those (though they do tell you how to find sites where you can see what others have done).
Slashdot Mirror
vi is like unix, while emacs is like windows: yes, there's a GNU operating system, although it's not the so-called GNU/Linux [1]. Emacs is an operating system that tries to do everything you could possibly conceive of. Vi edits.
GNU/Linux would be like a tire and engine with no body, steering, seats, frame, etc. It's not until you include the rest of the stuff like perl, X, bsd stuff, etc. that you get what we normally call "Linux" and that you're able to get any work done.
ob flame: besides, a large portion of emacs user move beyond the heresy of emacs and get arrested for unnatural acts with goats
L
hawk
:)
hawk
:)
hawk
hawk
Once the prices settle after the October chip announcements, I'll be having one of these built with the Thunder board (unless something else comes along
hawk
hawk, esq.
This still isn't legal advice. If you can't find the full disclaimer above, you're too damned stupid to understand it anyway . . .
I'll clump a bunch of responses right here.
>[Completely irrelevant aside: if somebody claims to be a "lawyser",
>shouldn't they be dispensing "legsal advice" or maybe "legal advuice"
>or something like that?]
yeah. but i'm not an accurate tsypsists, either
>OK, so how high a standard do you need for "intent" here?
For criminal purposes, it would be at the time the goods (labor) were acquired. It's going to be tough to make the criminal case, though; it is a very high standard. Also, when companies get *this* far down (that employees won't get paid in bankruptcy), the current shareholders typically get nothing in Chapter 11 save what the creditors are willing to pay them for future work.
>It's not legal advice because
And it isn't applied to a specific set of circumstances, but in general. It's possible to offer legal advice where I"m not admitted, it's just a crime
>I bet that's why iXL kept 'mysteriously losing' the paychecks of ALL
>its contractors for at least four or five months in a row rather
than
>actually saying that they weren't paying htem.
Contractors don't fall under employment law; paying bills late is rarely a crime. The criminal case would be even harder than for employees.
>What about just refusing to return borrowed equipment (such as a home
>use computer) until your salary was paid?
This will vary from state to state. You might have a security interest in it (unlikely). More likely, a mechanics lien (the term is used for many types of services) might apply in some states. Civilly, the doctrine is setoff: they owe you a certain amount for labor, you owe them for conversion, and someone pays the difference. Criminally, unless you have an actual right to do so in your state, the unpaid wages would not be a defense (though you're unlikely to be prosecuted).
>I don't know where you get your information,
The bankruptcy code and several years of practicing law in bankruptcy courts.
>but please post a link
not likely; if I'm going hunting for legal authories, pay me first
>and a quote.
You have one. I'm a bankruptcy attorney, among other things
>I believe bankruptcy varies state to state:
>"Also, laws may vary since the state determines what you can keep, so
>even if you may keep your home in Florida, you may lose it in New
>York. "
>http://www.dollar4dollar.com/bankrupt/txbankt. htm
That is a reference to exemptions, the property the bankrupt keeps. The federal code has a list of exempt property, but debtors bay also use state law exemptions *by explicit permission of the federal code*. States may also opt out of the federal list by statute, again by permission of the federal code.
>I believe there are also several aspects however which are federal,
Everything except federally granted state options on exemption and the law governing the validity of underlying debts.
>but your simple statement is just wrong.
No, it isn't--but yours is ignorant. You are taking an out of context
quote and applying it in general. This is why it is so dangerous to
rely on friends instead of lawyers for legal advice . . .
hawk, esq.
I'll clump a bunch of responses right here.
[Completely irrelevant aside: if somebody claims to be a "lawyser",
shouldn't they be dispensing "legsal advice" or maybe "legal advuice"
or something like that?]
yeah. but i'm not an accurate tsypsists, either
> OK, so how high a standard do you need for "intent" here?
For criminal purposes, it would be at the time the goods (labor) were acquired. It's going to be tough to make the criminal case, though; it is a very high standard. Also, when companies get *this* far down (that employees won't get paid in bankruptcy), the current shareholders typically get nothing in Chapter 11 save what the creditors are willing to pay them for future work.
> It's not legal advice because
And it isn't applied to a specific set of circumstances, but in general. It's possible to offer legal advice where I"m not admitted, it's just a crime
> I bet that's why iXL kept 'mysteriously losing' the paychecks of ALL
its contractors for at least four or five months in a row rather than
actually saying that they weren't paying htem.
Contractors don't fall under employment law; paying bills late is rarely a crime. The criminal case would be even harder than for employees.
> What about just refusing to return borrowed equipment (such as a home
use computer) until your salary was paid?
This will vary from state to state. You might have a security interest in it (unlikely). More likely, a mechanics lien (the term is used for many types of services) might apply in some states. Civilly, the doctrine is setoff: they owe you a certain amount for labor, you owe them for conversion, and someone pays the difference. Criminally, unless you have an actual right to do so in your state, the unpaid wages would not be a defense (though you're unlikely to be prosecuted).
I don't know where you get your information,
The bankruptcy code and several years of practicing law in bankruptcy courts.
but please post a link
not likely; if I'm going hunting for legal authories, pay me first
and a quote.
You have one. I'm a bankruptcy attorney, among other things
I believe bankruptcy varies state to state:
"Also, laws may vary since the state determines what you can keep, so
even if you may keep your home in Florida, you may lose it in New
York. "
http://www.dollar4dollar.com/bankrupt/txbankt.htm
That is a reference to exemptions, the property the bankrupt keeps. The federal code has a list of exempt property, but debtors bay also use state law exemptions *by explicit permission of the federal code*. States may also opt out of the federal list by statute, again by permission of the federal code.
>I believe there are also several aspects however which are federal,
Everything except federally granted state options on exemption and the law governing the validity of underlying debts.
but your simple statement is just wrong.
No, it isn't--but yours is ignorant. You are taking an out of context quote and applying it in general. This is why it is so dangerous to rely on friends instead of lawyers for legal advice . . .
hawk, esq.
> interface. No one really ever seems to know what it is, or how to use
> it, until they've seen it in action.
The answer: 26 minutes.
The question: How long doe it take from cracking the shipping case on a new mac to set it up and have your secretary's first memo printing. [I believe the figure is now substantiall longer0.
The early mac interface was intuitive; it lost a lot over times (and even more in windows).
>3) Because Jef Raskin simply decided to go with a single button by
> fiat. IIRC he did no user testing.
HUH??? No. bzzzt. etc.
Apple did extensive testing before determining that training time was significantly less for one button. istr that raskin fought for mre and lost.
the MS mouse has two for the simple reason that apple has one. Three is a minimum for my tastes
hawk, still amused that the comment was moderated insightful rather than funny . . .
well, yes, but sometimes we get lazy
hawk, who actually has used ed a couple of times in the last few weeks
Now compare this to the typical reaction when it's suspected that GPL code has been used . . .
When GPL code is misappropriated, the lynch mobs form. When GPL code misapprorpriates other code, it seems to be a different story . . .
hawk
real men, of course.
to even *think* that an emacs user could write such code . . . oh, wait a minute, he didn't write it, making emacs more likely
hawk, who doesn't endanger his immortal soul with the heretical emacs
> Now before you Anti-MS Dolts
>get your panties tied in a Knot.
>And Office:Mac has
>consistently blown the pants off of Office:windows For a long time.
Well, I suppose that explains it. With her pants blown off, the poor gal is tieing the knot just to get some more coverage . . .
:)
hawk, afraid he's giving someone an idea for another porn site . . .
> laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.
Not the fastest snail on the leaf, is he?
I was hardly an early adopter, but I had two buttons on my mac in '92 or so (ok, hardly an early adopter of the second button. I had a 128k mac brand new . ,
They're availalbe all over the place, and come with the software to make that second button do whatever you want . . .
hawk, who gets a kick out of folks with the button-deprived windows mouse mocking those only slightly more deprived
oh, no. Implying that the self-helper gets three squares a day and an opportunity to do laundry for the guy with the most cigarettes . . .
:)
hawk
>state though. So you may both be correct- just not for the same place.
>(IANAL)
Bankruptcy is federal.
The criminal aspect of state law will not very all that much among states (you really couldn't cross the intent line I draw above and pass constitutional muster . .
hawk, esq.
>On the other hand, the fact that it's illegal to stiff
>your employees out of wages due them, even in a bankruptcy, isn't
>mentioned in the article...
Uhh, no. That's not the law. There is certainly a breach of contract when an employee does not get paid, but in the absence of prior intent not to pay, it's generally not a crime.
IN bankruptcy, it's a special set of rules. Employee wages up to a fixed amount (I forget the current number) are a priority claim; they get paid before the regular debts (but only to that amount). One of two things happen: 1) they all get paid, or 2) the "self help" took away assets that would have been used to pay all employees.
Walking off with the expensive stuff could solve the former employee's food and housing nees for a couple of years, though . . .
hawk, esq.
>had a series of checkboxes that dumped out the license appropriate
>to your project at the end of it
The Raptor licenses do that. Noone uses them (ok, and if I'd put them all in one place it might help
Roughly as follows. Add up the clauses used to specify a license as "Raptor n"
Section 0:
You may do anything you damned well feel like with this source code, save as restricted under later clauses.
Section 1:
Any derived work must retain the copyright notices contained herein.
Section 2:
Any derived work must be under this license.
Section 4:
You must make the source code available in the same manner as the binary distribution for no more than duplication and shipping costs.
Section 8:
No derived work may link to any code not assimilible by this license.
Section 16:
No derivative work may be released under a license which restricts the ability to combine software under differing licenses in any manner.
Section 32:
Any distributions of source code or binaries must be made without modification: all modifications must be patches to source code unless written permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
Section 64:
No modified version may be distributed under the same name as this software.
Section 128:
Any advertising or packaging for this product must contain the acknowledgement
"RMS is a nunu-head" [phrase will vary]
Section 256:
The authors have realized that their actions conflicted with the terms stated in the original license. The original license was Raptor [number], while the correct and binding license is Raptor [number] with the following additional provisions
[provisions]
Section 512:
Changes to this license may be made by the following entities in the following manner:
[governance terms]
Notes:
Raptor 0 is all but public domain (it doesn't assign the copyright).
Raptor 1 is pretty much BSD/X
The GPL is pretty close to Raptor 15.
Clause 16 is a poison pill to prevent assimilation by the GPL for those who object to its proprty of only taking code from other licenses but not sharing back.
32 is Pine-ish
64 is Artistic License-ish
128 is old BSD
256 is for situations such as where software purports to release under GPL, but from day 1 had dependencies upon closed source software. The current Lyx license is like this.
I'm perionally partial to a stock 145, but . . .
:)
hawk, who reluctantly left the phrase "including coordinating nuclear attacks on Australia, plotting the overthrow of your government, or exterminating an endangered species" out of clause 0.
>Yes, exactly. And note that in the text of the license, it doesn't
>exclude only sites that disparage MS, but also sites that contain
>racist content, pornography, etc, etc.
is that microsoft is classifying itself in the same category as hate speech and pornography.
o.b. gratutitious recursive acronym-like stuff: Does this mean that publishing this portion of the license violates the license???
:)
hawk
>contributing to the Linux kernel. I can't imagine that IBM, for
>example, would port their JFS to Linux if they thought Compaq could
>integrate it into Tru64 and use it to poach IBM's customers. The GPL
>ensures that everybody has to play by the same rules, so there is less
>risk.
They're in the same situation, with linux being a commodity part. None of these firms have a real interest in having their own flavor of unix; it's not practical to distinguish a unix enough to be a competitive advantage in a small system markets. These firms sell hardware and consulting; having a reliable unix to slap on the machines is necessary. [as a side note, this is Linux' biggest contribution to *nix: it provides a common reference point without anyone having to accept his competitor's version.]
Note that IBM pays a price if the JFS stuff is GPL'd: They can't use changes to it in their other systems (AIX), either. I suspect that they'd be better off in that regard with a public license . . .
hawk
I actually submitted it here after the conference, but they never took nor accepted it . . .
> Question: Wouldn't it make more sense for Apple to release under a
> viral license than a public licenese?
apparently not
Under the public license there's
> the risk that a competitor will build on Darwin and not release the
> source back to Apple. With a viral license a competitor can still
> build on Darwin, but at least Apple could see some benefit.
That was my initial impression, and relates to the material I need to supplement.
There's a couple of things going on here. The first is that Apple sees no harm from someone running off with the code; they're no worse off than before. But Apple really has no competitors--or even potential competitors--for Darwin. Darwin is like a hard drive or memory chip for Apple; it's a commodity part used to build their specialized product. Apple would just as happily use FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, or MS-DOS underneath if it had all the needed elements and was stable.
Anyway, another firm has the same incentives as apple to contribute changes back to the common base. The competitor also can wander off with any of the *BSD for a base, and these are likely to be about as close as Darwin to what is needed for an arbitrary project--either will require massive modification, and if the changes aren't returned, the company is on its own for maintenance.
This leaves minimal chances for someone to run off with it, and no problem for apple if someone does (it saddles itself with unnecessary costs!)
On the other hand, if Apple went viral rather than public, it saddles *itself* with that license with regard to any contributions from the outside. This limits apple's options to later fork off on one-off projects--say, a tivo-like device.
Overall, there appears to be no net cost to Apple for choosing public over viral, and a couple of gains.
There's a bit more. One of the thoughts that came back from the conferrence is that generally, code must be so heavily modified to use for something else that lost revenue from the "wandered" variation is probably nil (there's not a huge advantage to the competitor in using the code base). Another is that public licenses give better ability to mix and match pieces under different public licenses, whereas viral licenses are incompatible with each other and, in many cases, third party closed source software.
Finally, the public license precludes a reaction that can fairly be characterized as "rabid" over suspected "violations"--this is just a hassle that firms don't need.
hawk
Not just on an apple box, ut on a generic x86 box!
I actually have a paper on the economics involved that was presented last summer. It's at
http://www.personal.psu.edu/reh18/research/01.sc e/ Open_Source.conference.ps
I'll be adding a longer section on when a viral license makes sense, as well as a brief section on when a VIRAL licesnes has economic advantages (after discussion there, it's close to irrelevant) and a short literature review before it goes to a journal. Unlike the rest of the economics I do, this one has no math beyond addition, and, even more amazingly, no greek characters.
Darwin is closely tied to FreeBSD now; Jordan Hubbard now works for them.
In a nutshell, Darwin is not a a distinguishing product for apple, but rather a necessary component. It is less expensive for apple to keep to the public base and benefit from joint maintenance on Darwin than to keep private patches which must be maintained. There is a gain from making it all public, and no benefit to keeping any piece of Darwin private.
hawk
> patches to themselves,
Except for the minor detail that Apple *doesn't* keep them to themselves. They sent massive number of bugfixes back, and released Darwin under a free license. . .
hawk
>doesn't require access to be provided to allow the owner modify the
>system on which the source is used.
This would have the result of banning any ROM--or at least those soldered
to the mother board . . .
hawk
What it *does* do is allow you to specify sites or pathnames from the root of any site that simply don't load. If it's an image, you get a broken image thingie. If it's a page, junkbuster tells you that the page is blocked.
It can also acti in a similar manner with cookies.
But it never, ever, changes things, and has no universal settings. They explicitly refuse to offer those (though they do tell you how to find sites where you can see what others have done).
hawk