Myself and a few co-workers were just talking about this. You see, Google's financials are excellent. By all accounts hey are making serious profits, all while doing R&D and maintaining infrastructure. So why the hassle of an IPO? We came up with two possibilities, one boring and one intriguing.
First explanation, their VCs have decided that now is the time to make some money and move on (markets looking up and such). Boring, but very likely.
Or... Google wants to buy somebody. They see an opportunity to do something big. We thought maybe they want to buy a big media company and become the defacto place to buy digital media. Everybody and their cousin seems to be starting online music stores. Maybe Google figures they can leverage their infrastructure and search market share to sell people music in the same place they search. But just another online music store is also boring. What if they bought MGM? Or a big slice of Vivendi? Music and movies.
This statement is easily amended to be 100% accurate.
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they do protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications)."
Close. All occurences of the string "protect" should be replaced with "restrict". Let's call a spade a spade and stop hiding behind the warm fuzzy "protect". The difference between the licenses is restrictions. One restricts certain uses and the other doesn't.
"(1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (...) and (2) those that do (...) ensure that the code will always remain open/free)."
He's talking about derivative works.
I know. I just find the statement "the code will always remain open/free" vague and misleading. I'll explain further with help from the rest of your reply.
Alternately, they'd like to get compensated in another way - in form of the modifications others have made. The GPL licence is giving them a reason to release the code, the BSD licence does not. With the BSD licence, you're not guaranteed to get anything back - anything at all.
So what you are saying is that the GPL has nothing to do with keeping the code "open and free" and everything to do with compensation. Fundamentally what you are saying is "Use my code, it's free! But I want something from you in return..." That's not free.
This may lead to proper understanding of GPL, BSD and other licenses... Slashdot replies may never be the same again;)
I wish. Unfortunately the lawyer resorts to the same GPL FUD I see all the time:
Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they ensure that the code will always remain open/free).
BZZZT, wrong Lawyer-man. Pointing out that "Protective Licenses... ensure that the code will always remain open/free" gives the misleading impression that "Non-Protective Licenses" do not. Keeping the code open is not an ongoing function of the license but the community. If I release some code under the BSD license it will always be open as long as someone is willing and able to redistribute it. No one (not even me) can "close" it as long as there is a copy of it available out there. The birth of OpenSSH is a perfect example of this.
So if "Protective" licenses offer no additional protection for my code than "Non-Protective" licenses, the question is what is the difference and why is Lawyer-man lying about it?
But from the point of view of a US citizen it would be preferable that that $1 billion of high-tech spending occur in North America. Sorry for being greedy and self-serving;-(
First, read the article. The 1 billion Euro telescope is being proposed by the ESO - the European Southern Observatory. No Ameri-bucks were harmed in the planning of this telescope (though they would welcome American involvement - astronomers ain't political).
Second, engage your brain. Even if it was an American project all the high cash high tech work would be done by experts from the US. The precision pieces would be built in the US, packed (carefully) and shipped (carefully) to wherever to be assembled mostly by US experts flown in.
Because we are getting a little tired of it. Brief summary of what we have been wrongly blamed for lately.
Missed opportunity to help both our industries.
Don't you mean a quasi capitalist totalitarian regime? China is nothing like Europe, and still doesn't respect human rights. If anything, it'll become a model for what corporations want America to be like: a country ruled by the corporations for the corporations with no rights given to the individual.
Close, but it is a country ruled by the military backed elite for the corporations with no rights given to the individual. We have a word for this merging of totalitarianism and corporatism: fascism. The only deviation from the standard definition of fascism is the absence of a single, demigod-like leader (ie. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin). Though it could be argued that the memory of Mao serves this purpose.
Regardless, the person who compared China to Europe is spectacularly stupid. Unless they meant Europe of the 1930s.
Just to nitpick, Firefly was not strictly a Western, but rather a metaphor for the post-Civil War Reconstruction era of the United States. It's just that most Westerns are set in the same time period. Reynolds and Zoe are ex-Confederate soldiers, the Feds are the Union army, the outer systems are the western territories, Reavers are the savage Indians (as they were viewed at that time), etc., etc.
I'm considering releasing another litle app that I've built, and I'll probably default to GPL, but what's better? And how is it better? Note that I am not interested in giving away my software under a license that allows it to be closed by someone else.
This should have been at the top of the myth list: If I don't use the GPL someone will come along and STEAL MY CODE!
Engage your brain for a second. No one can steal or "close" your code. Unless they delete every copy in the world and erase your memory.
Personally I prefer the BSD license. All it says is:
"I wrote this. Feel free to use and distribute it as you wish. I make no guarantees about its quality and am not responsible for how it is used. You cannot remove this notice."
It allows a much wider group of people to use my code. Isn't that the ultimate goal of releasing your code? To get as many people as possible to use your code instead of wasting time reinventing the wheel?
Time to panic!
Didn't you see the movie "The Core?" (It stars the lucious Hillary Swank and shows the devastation that awaits a loss of the magnetosphere. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/)
People with pacemakers will all die! Pigeons will get confused and fly into buildings! Electrical Superstorms will destroy ancient Roman Colosseums!
Pictures of what we can expect during the impending cataclysm:
The Coliseum getting destroyed.
Italians being
chased by lightning.
I don't know what the hell
this is but it doesn't look good at all.
well, do you care much at all about which way around the toilet your water swirls as it goes down the drain? of course you don't -- and it's a good thing because if you cross the equator and flush your toilet again, the water will go down the other direction.
It may be incorrect, but you can't mute an action sequence. It would boring and awkward to watch it.
Firefly did it, and it worked. If anything it heightens the tension and forces you to focus more. Fellow fans will remember the excellent airlock gun-in-the-spacesuit scene from "Our Mrs. Reynolds".
I want a roll-your-own solution (possibly SmoothWall, possibly something else) that runs on the equivalent of LinkSys hardware:
- No moving parts. Preferably not even a fan.
- Flash memory for filesystem.
- Multiple 10/100 ports, preferably independently controllable so you can set up a DMZ, or different rules for different machines.
Does such a beast exist, in a relatively user-friendly form and without being more expensive than the old desktop that would otherwise be used?
Soekris. Check out their net4801.
Whack OpenBSD on that and you are pretty much done.
This way is actually better in my view, even though it sends money out
of the country, as the Canadian artist only method I thought they used seemed idiotically
unfiar.
The problem is the industry sales pitch to get the CD-R levy was "Help protect Canadian culture." If they hadn't played the American cultural imperialism card we probably wouldn't have the levy. And now that their foot is in the door they can push stuff like this ISP tax.
Yeah, getting stuff frozen at only -26 is on the wimpy side, but if we're going to recall every model that has this type of problem we'd be back to dogsleds.
That would KICK ASS. But with the way we insist on individual transportation in Canada everybody would have to have their own sled+team and we would end up with dogs outnumbering people 10 to 1.
The great part of the existing CD levy is that it only goes to Canadian artists, IIRC.
No, it doesn't. It goes to the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA which plans to distribute it according to CD sales. Regardless of the nationality of the artist. A lot of money will be flowing out of Canada (when the money eventually gets flowing).
"Theory", by (proper) definition, means experimentally verifiable and useful as a predictor. Otherwise it is simply "hypothesis" or even "conjecture".
The casual use of the word "theory" is a pet peeve of mine, especially when scientists - who should know better - do it. A theory is the top step of the science podium; the vast majority of "theories" we hear about are just hypotheses and conjecture. It confuses the masses and is why we hear dimwits say things like "Well evolution is just a theory." AARRGH!
The comic strip 9 Chickweed Lane once had an explanation of "theory" that I really like. I can't seem to find it online, but I'm pretty sure I cut it out and saved it...
Slashdot Mirror
TiVo needs money. Does MythTV have any money? No.
First explanation, their VCs have decided that now is the time to make some money and move on (markets looking up and such). Boring, but very likely.
Or... Google wants to buy somebody. They see an opportunity to do something big. We thought maybe they want to buy a big media company and become the defacto place to buy digital media. Everybody and their cousin seems to be starting online music stores. Maybe Google figures they can leverage their infrastructure and search market share to sell people music in the same place they search. But just another online music store is also boring. What if they bought MGM? Or a big slice of Vivendi? Music and movies.
Think about it.
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they do protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications)."
Close. All occurences of the string "protect" should be replaced with "restrict". Let's call a spade a spade and stop hiding behind the warm fuzzy "protect". The difference between the licenses is restrictions. One restricts certain uses and the other doesn't.
Why can't people be honest about this?
He's talking about derivative works.
I know. I just find the statement "the code will always remain open/free" vague and misleading. I'll explain further with help from the rest of your reply.
Alternately, they'd like to get compensated in another way - in form of the modifications others have made. The GPL licence is giving them a reason to release the code, the BSD licence does not. With the BSD licence, you're not guaranteed to get anything back - anything at all.
So what you are saying is that the GPL has nothing to do with keeping the code "open and free" and everything to do with compensation. Fundamentally what you are saying is "Use my code, it's free! But I want something from you in return..." That's not free.
I wish. Unfortunately the lawyer resorts to the same GPL FUD I see all the time:
BZZZT, wrong Lawyer-man. Pointing out that "Protective LicensesSo if "Protective" licenses offer no additional protection for my code than "Non-Protective" licenses, the question is what is the difference and why is Lawyer-man lying about it?
I know the answer, do you?
First, read the article. The 1 billion Euro telescope is being proposed by the ESO - the European Southern Observatory. No Ameri-bucks were harmed in the planning of this telescope (though they would welcome American involvement - astronomers ain't political).
Second, engage your brain. Even if it was an American project all the high cash high tech work would be done by experts from the US. The precision pieces would be built in the US, packed (carefully) and shipped (carefully) to wherever to be assembled mostly by US experts flown in.
Because we are getting a little tired of it.
Brief summary of what we have been wrongly blamed for lately.
Missed opportunity to help both our industries.
Close, but it is a country ruled by the military backed elite for the corporations with no rights given to the individual. We have a word for this merging of totalitarianism and corporatism: fascism. The only deviation from the standard definition of fascism is the absence of a single, demigod-like leader (ie. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin). Though it could be argued that the memory of Mao serves this purpose.
Regardless, the person who compared China to Europe is spectacularly stupid. Unless they meant Europe of the 1930s.
And change whatever mechanism they use for editing messages so that included text goes on TOP and replies follow at the BOTTOM.
A lot of people don't understand this and should.
Just to nitpick, Firefly was not strictly a Western, but rather a metaphor for the post-Civil War Reconstruction era of the United States. It's just that most Westerns are set in the same time period. Reynolds and Zoe are ex-Confederate soldiers, the Feds are the Union army, the outer systems are the western territories, Reavers are the savage Indians (as they were viewed at that time), etc., etc.
Clearly a Slashdot poll is needed.
(I'd vote Kaylee)
Sort of. This is its parent site.
Damn funny though.
Neat, I can actually see the University of Alberta where I work.
Or to put it another way, they weren't lying, they're just stupid?
This should have been at the top of the myth list: If I don't use the GPL someone will come along and STEAL MY CODE!
Engage your brain for a second. No one can steal or "close" your code. Unless they delete every copy in the world and erase your memory.
Personally I prefer the BSD license. All it says is:
It allows a much wider group of people to use my code. Isn't that the ultimate goal of releasing your code? To get as many people as possible to use your code instead of wasting time reinventing the wheel?Didn't you see the movie "The Core?" (It stars the lucious Hillary Swank and shows the devastation that awaits a loss of the magnetosphere. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/)
People with pacemakers will all die! Pigeons will get confused and fly into buildings! Electrical Superstorms will destroy ancient Roman Colosseums!
Pictures of what we can expect during the impending cataclysm:
The Coliseum getting destroyed.
Italians being chased by lightning.
I don't know what the hell this is but it doesn't look good at all.
Um, no.
Firefly did it, and it worked. If anything it heightens the tension and forces you to focus more. Fellow fans will remember the excellent airlock gun-in-the-spacesuit scene from "Our Mrs. Reynolds".
Good one.
- No moving parts. Preferably not even a fan.
- Flash memory for filesystem.
- Multiple 10/100 ports, preferably independently controllable so you can set up a DMZ, or different rules for different machines.
Does such a beast exist, in a relatively user-friendly form and without being more expensive than the old desktop that would otherwise be used?
Soekris. Check out their net4801. Whack OpenBSD on that and you are pretty much done.
The problem is the industry sales pitch to get the CD-R levy was "Help protect Canadian culture." If they hadn't played the American cultural imperialism card we probably wouldn't have the levy. And now that their foot is in the door they can push stuff like this ISP tax.
That would KICK ASS. But with the way we insist on individual transportation in Canada everybody would have to have their own sled+team and we would end up with dogs outnumbering people 10 to 1.
Pets.com was ahead of its time.
No, it doesn't. It goes to the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA which plans to distribute it according to CD sales. Regardless of the nationality of the artist. A lot of money will be flowing out of Canada (when the money eventually gets flowing).
The casual use of the word "theory" is a pet peeve of mine, especially when scientists - who should know better - do it. A theory is the top step of the science podium; the vast majority of "theories" we hear about are just hypotheses and conjecture. It confuses the masses and is why we hear dimwits say things like "Well evolution is just a theory." AARRGH!
The comic strip 9 Chickweed Lane once had an explanation of "theory" that I really like. I can't seem to find it online, but I'm pretty sure I cut it out and saved it...