Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability.
Neither have they happened with most GPL software projects. This proves no point.
You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems.
No, I'm conflating them both with restrictions, since that's what licenses are for.
The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose.
I assume you're speaking of the GPL here. I think the "purpose" the GPL restrictions serve have been clearly stated in the "boring" GPL canon. The GPL restrictions serve as much purpose to those developing GPL software as the BSD restrictions do to those using BSD style licenses.
Limiting "distribution" is clearly a limitation on the use of the software: when you cannot distribute your software, limits have been placed on where it can be used, and by who it can be used by.
Yeah, causes unnecessary "problems" in the same way that all licenses do: you can't use the software in a way the license forbids.
"Unnecessary problems" are common to all non-public-domain software, and most have more of these "problems" than software licensed under the GPL.
Although it's great that we have Moonlight as an open source implementation of Silverlight, it seems that it downloads a non-FOSS codec in order to play the video that's currently being aired on the site.
Protection from parasites, for example (i.e., the parasitic theory of sexual reproduction). And be careful about saying that it has to be a con "for the genes": while this is true, remember that it is generally in a "gene's" "benefit" (i.e., it's going to be passed on to children, rather than solely consume the organism) if the whole organism still functions well enough to have children. Of course, things can start to play rather odd here: look at sickle cell anaemia, which makes an organism pretty sick, but does have enough of an advantage in certain special circumstances to keep the genes for it present in the genetic pool.
Just about every species that uses asexual reproduction also has sexual reproduction: in RL, asexual reproduction just has too many cons. Also, the post called this a genetic programming approach: by definition it clearly is not, with a "population" of only one individual.
Slashdot Mirror
Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability.
Neither have they happened with most GPL software projects. This proves no point.
You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems.
No, I'm conflating them both with restrictions, since that's what licenses are for.
The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose.
I assume you're speaking of the GPL here. I think the "purpose" the GPL restrictions serve have been clearly stated in the "boring" GPL canon. The GPL restrictions serve as much purpose to those developing GPL software as the BSD restrictions do to those using BSD style licenses.
Limiting "distribution" is clearly a limitation on the use of the software: when you cannot distribute your software, limits have been placed on where it can be used, and by who it can be used by.
Yeah, causes unnecessary "problems" in the same way that all licenses do: you can't use the software in a way the license forbids. "Unnecessary problems" are common to all non-public-domain software, and most have more of these "problems" than software licensed under the GPL.
Although it's great that we have Moonlight as an open source implementation of Silverlight, it seems that it downloads a non-FOSS codec in order to play the video that's currently being aired on the site.
Protection from parasites, for example (i.e., the parasitic theory of sexual reproduction). And be careful about saying that it has to be a con "for the genes": while this is true, remember that it is generally in a "gene's" "benefit" (i.e., it's going to be passed on to children, rather than solely consume the organism) if the whole organism still functions well enough to have children. Of course, things can start to play rather odd here: look at sickle cell anaemia, which makes an organism pretty sick, but does have enough of an advantage in certain special circumstances to keep the genes for it present in the genetic pool.
Just about every species that uses asexual reproduction also has sexual reproduction: in RL, asexual reproduction just has too many cons. Also, the post called this a genetic programming approach: by definition it clearly is not, with a "population" of only one individual.