If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic,
But that's not a protest, if the person is non-religious, then that's merely a statement of fact and/or uncertainty. Writing "Jedi", or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or some other gag faith is a much stronger protest, because it mocks the very idea of religion as something special, something society should make special allowances for (tax exemptions, special schools, fawning faux-respect from public figures). And it always prompts someone complain, "You can't be Jedi/FSM/etc! That's just something someone made up!" so you can smugly reply, "Yes, they're all made up!" (As happened with "tehcyder", above.)
Writing "agnostic" is like shrugging and mumbling "i dunno", writing "Jedi" is shouting "Because fuck you! (also I like Star Wars)"
I find it hard to believe that adults would do this sober
Is there a rule that you can't get high on census night? (170,000 in a population of 50m actually seems pretty mild.)
There's no way for a paying customer to give anyone else a copy while complying with the GPL. Since there's neither source nor an "offer" of source included in the original binary package, no customer can't pass on that "offer".
[Theoretically, the customer can find a link to the distributor, contact the distributor, ask for the source and hope that the distributor complies, then bundle that source with the binary and distribute that. But under GPL a non-commercial redistributor isn't required to do that, he should be able to comply merely by passing on a copy of the original package unchanged.]
Yes, including the port's author himself, and Google Play as distributor. And that is what everyone is shouting about.
If you decide to provide the binaries without including the source, you take on a special burden under GPL of providing the source for three years to anyone who has received those binaries, not just the people who received the binaries from you. The reason is that anyone can redistribute the binaries non-commercially, GPL merely requires them to also pass on the "offer" of you providing the source.
[Commercial redistributors take on the burden of providing the source themselves.]
It is unclear from the original Ask Slashdot whether source is included with the binary distribution of DOSBox Turbo.
According to that port's author, it didn't, but he intends to with the next version. Happy ending. Win for the home team. Ticker tape for everyone.
I also don't see how this prevents anyone from charging a full binary license fee for the source, since GPL can be satisfied by providing the source with the binary -- do that, and you've met the requirement of Section 3 without any requirement to distribute source to anyone else.
Yes. And this is the easiest option. If anyone wants to then give away the binary, as they are permitted under GPL, they can also include the source they received. But if someone chooses not to include the source, they take on an added burden under GPL of offering and providing the source by reasonable means (and at no more than cost-of-materials/postage) to any third party who asks.
so I am going to begin distributing the sources with the binary starting with the next release
[Bows] Your wisdom is heralded by angels.
My understanding, based upon reading the GPL was that distributors were only responsible to those they've distributed the binary to, not the whole world.
The key is that you are claiming the same rights as those who released the original DOSBox code, but your users also get the same rights that you have, and so does anyone your users distribute your program to, and anyone they distribute it to, and so on. That's the point, the heart, of GPL.
If you distribute your source with your binaries (as you intent to do), you are completely covered. Job done, game over.
But if you don't want to include the source with the binaries, and instead offer them separately, then the binaries must include a reasonable "written offer" from you to provide the source... but... and this is the key and why everyone was shouting at you... under GPL that "written offer" can also be passed on to third parties by your customers, and you are required by GPL to honour that passed-on offer even though it is being claimed by a non-customer.
If you have any contact point within the prior versions (eg. email/link/etc), it may pay you to treat that as the "written offer", provided you honour any requests for source that come through that contact point, even if not from a direct customer. That should cover you for any prior failed compliance; you might still pedantically be in breach, but you're honouring the spirit of the agreement, and that seems to matter a lot to open-source/FSF types.
[Note: I wasn't criticising the general idea of catfish adapting to more time out of water, just pointing out that this hunting isn't likely to contribute to it. I would expect other adaptation, to increase the success rate (I noticed that even when they get the bird underwater, it often can get free, that's a prime situation where small differences between fish probably make a big difference.)]
Or it could be something else such as a preference to watch overhead more since that's where most predators come from. Seems reasonable since most of the time there not that many things ready to spring up out of the ground at you,
However, they must deal with cats/foxes/etc, all of which are sneak/ambush predators. And I noticed in the video, the catfish's back is well out of the water before it strikes, meaning there's plenty of disturbance on the surface of the water. It's a weird blind-spot for an animal that has to deal with much sneakier/faster predators, and which is normally a fast learner.
No. If you choose not to make the source available with the binaries, then you must instead include an offer of that source. However, section 3c permits anyone to redistribute the binaries and the offer of source from the original distributor. Section 3b binds the original distributor to that redistributed offer. In other words, if you choose not to place the source within your original distro, you must honour a source request from anyone.
(Commercial redistributors take on the burden of hosting or giving away the source, but non-commercial redistributors merely have to pass on whatever source or offer they received with the binaries.)
It's a subtle but very deliberate distinction to prevent exactly what Yahma is doing, charging a full binary licence price for the source. But it also protects Yahma from having the same thing done to him that he's doing to the prior DOSBox development whose code he is using.
If someone else gets the binary from you, does not accept your offer of the source code, then technically they cannot give the binary to anyone else! Why not? Because the same rules apply to them. If THEY give the binary to someone else, they are distributing, and THEY have to provide the source code.
No quite. If they are redistributing non-commercially, they can comply with section 3c merely by passing on the original written offer from the dev/distributor (Yahma).
However, if Yahma isn't including an offer of source to his customers for them to pass on (nor is he providing the source with the binaries), then he wasn't complying with the licence for the original DOSBox source he has modified. He therefore isn't entitled to use that code to base his derived work from. (Similarly Google Play, being a distributor, is also not compliant.)
(That said, I don't think Yahma is being a deliberate dick about it, he just jumbled his interpretation of section 3a and 3b of the GPL licence. He thinks 3a gives him the right to only give his source to paying customers (and it does, provided you give the source in the original distribution, enabling recipients to redistribute it), and 3b gives him the right to charge people a licence fee for the source (it doesn't.))
It's my understanding that the GPL requires only that you give source code to people that that have legally acquired the binary from you. It does not require that you provide source to anyone else, even if they otherwise legally obtained your binary.
This only applies if you distribute the source along with every copy of the binary. (3a.) It's the easiest way to comply, just give buyers the source, and you have no further requirements.
But if you don't provide the source with the binary, you have the added burden of providing a "written offer" of a copy of the source to any third party (3b), recovering only the cost of distribution. The issue with DOSBox Turbo is that the distributor of the modified GPL is abiding by neither part. They neither give the source to their customers, nor do they provide their customers with a written offer of source.
Which means that anyone who redistributes the binary non-commercially (ie, anyone who wants to give a free copy to other people, as is their right under 3c), cannot comply with the GPL even if they want to, because they can't include the source, nor can they include a copy of the original written offer for the source.
Actually, no, that's not quite right. You can't resell his binary without his permission.
I can't see that interpretation being compatible with...
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [three options for distributing the source]
You may copy and distribute the executable, providing you also distribute the source. Doesn't seem especially ambiguous.
They're just drinking. No need to read anything more into it. Why they don't see the threat of the catfish, I don't know. But why they are there in the first place is pretty mundane.
Catfish already evolved the ability to cross mud flats between water bodies. The amount of time they spend out of the water here is trivial by comparison.
However, I'm surprised the pigeons haven't learned to avoid the much larger animal very obviously moving through the shallows toward them. Pigeons are usually pretty good at avoiding predators, such as hawks, vehicles, and children. Good pattern recognition and very twitchy reflexes.
In fact, just the other day I found out that one of Nasa's prime missions was to
find a way to reach out to the Muslim world [...]
You mistook my defence of SpaceX as a sign that I'm one of your fellow close-minded rightwing Fox-News-worshipping cretins. When in fact, I despise you all.
No. Dirt is weathered. Lunar regolith is not. The lack of atmosphere on the moon means the dust is extremely sharp, extremely fine, and can work its way into fine joints, cause problems with life-support, and you can't just brush it off your EVA suits. The Apollo astronauts' suits, from just a couple of hours jumping around, were nearly black with dust from the knees down. Imagine doing major construction work, for weeks.
Meteor impacts mean the lunar regolith is a mix of tiny sharp nickel-iron filings, tiny sharp glass shards, and raw ground rock dust of the type that gives miners silicosis. Fun mix.
Weird example for you to pick. Health care is the one area where you do have clear examples of the superiority of government run systems. Such as countries with government health care having half the costs per person as US health care. Such as government programs even in the US being more efficient/effective healthcare than rival private systems.
Yeah, it is somewhat easier to do things economic when a government institution has already done decades of legwork for you.
People keep saying this, and yet they miss their own point... everything SpaceX does was already available to NASA. So... why can't NASA build their own rocket and capsule, SLS/MPCV, for less than $3b per year for more than fifteen years? SpaceX spent less building multiple versions of an entirely new rocket engine, building and flying two entirely new launchers into orbit (~$300m) than NASA spent modifying a single existing shuttle SRB for a stand-alone sub-orbital test launch (Ares-1X, ~$450m).
The annual development budget for Merlin, Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon-cargo would contained entirely with a single minor NASA research program. While a single flagship program, like SLS, ISS or JWST, could fund dozens of parallel programs in the same scale.
Slashdot Mirror
don't you have to be charged before you can be arrested?
Contempt of court? Failure to appear?
You may have just invoked Rule 34 on Queen Elizabeth and Hayden Christensen.
Your comment implies that you think you've set some kind of clever rhetorical trap. I'm mildly curious what the punchline is, so...
A-theist: Not religious.
A-gnostic: Lacking knowledge of god(s).
Okay, trap sprung, ow m' leg. Now what?
If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic,
But that's not a protest, if the person is non-religious, then that's merely a statement of fact and/or uncertainty. Writing "Jedi", or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or some other gag faith is a much stronger protest, because it mocks the very idea of religion as something special, something society should make special allowances for (tax exemptions, special schools, fawning faux-respect from public figures). And it always prompts someone complain, "You can't be Jedi/FSM/etc! That's just something someone made up!" so you can smugly reply, "Yes, they're all made up!" (As happened with "tehcyder", above.)
Writing "agnostic" is like shrugging and mumbling "i dunno", writing "Jedi" is shouting "Because fuck you! (also I like Star Wars)"
I find it hard to believe that adults would do this sober
Is there a rule that you can't get high on census night? (170,000 in a population of 50m actually seems pretty mild.)
Why list republicans? They are just a subset of the first two groups...
Jedi and Wiccans?
Huh.
Yep, looks like exactly the same situation. They are violating DOSBox's GPL.
and a case of beer hunting mice.
Guess how I first interpreted that.
There's no way for a paying customer to give anyone else a copy while complying with the GPL. Since there's neither source nor an "offer" of source included in the original binary package, no customer can't pass on that "offer".
[Theoretically, the customer can find a link to the distributor, contact the distributor, ask for the source and hope that the distributor complies, then bundle that source with the binary and distribute that. But under GPL a non-commercial redistributor isn't required to do that, he should be able to comply merely by passing on a copy of the original package unchanged.]
Yes, including the port's author himself, and Google Play as distributor. And that is what everyone is shouting about.
If you decide to provide the binaries without including the source, you take on a special burden under GPL of providing the source for three years to anyone who has received those binaries, not just the people who received the binaries from you. The reason is that anyone can redistribute the binaries non-commercially, GPL merely requires them to also pass on the "offer" of you providing the source.
[Commercial redistributors take on the burden of providing the source themselves.]
It is unclear from the original Ask Slashdot whether source is included with the binary distribution of DOSBox Turbo.
According to that port's author, it didn't, but he intends to with the next version. Happy ending. Win for the home team. Ticker tape for everyone.
I also don't see how this prevents anyone from charging a full binary license fee for the source, since GPL can be satisfied by providing the source with the binary -- do that, and you've met the requirement of Section 3 without any requirement to distribute source to anyone else.
Yes. And this is the easiest option. If anyone wants to then give away the binary, as they are permitted under GPL, they can also include the source they received. But if someone chooses not to include the source, they take on an added burden under GPL of offering and providing the source by reasonable means (and at no more than cost-of-materials/postage) to any third party who asks.
so I am going to begin distributing the sources with the binary starting with the next release
[Bows] Your wisdom is heralded by angels.
My understanding, based upon reading the GPL was that distributors were only responsible to those they've distributed the binary to, not the whole world.
The key is that you are claiming the same rights as those who released the original DOSBox code, but your users also get the same rights that you have, and so does anyone your users distribute your program to, and anyone they distribute it to, and so on. That's the point, the heart, of GPL.
If you distribute your source with your binaries (as you intent to do), you are completely covered. Job done, game over.
But if you don't want to include the source with the binaries, and instead offer them separately, then the binaries must include a reasonable "written offer" from you to provide the source... but... and this is the key and why everyone was shouting at you... under GPL that "written offer" can also be passed on to third parties by your customers, and you are required by GPL to honour that passed-on offer even though it is being claimed by a non-customer.
If you have any contact point within the prior versions (eg. email/link/etc), it may pay you to treat that as the "written offer", provided you honour any requests for source that come through that contact point, even if not from a direct customer. That should cover you for any prior failed compliance; you might still pedantically be in breach, but you're honouring the spirit of the agreement, and that seems to matter a lot to open-source/FSF types.
(IANAL/IANYL/IAN)
[Note: I wasn't criticising the general idea of catfish adapting to more time out of water, just pointing out that this hunting isn't likely to contribute to it. I would expect other adaptation, to increase the success rate (I noticed that even when they get the bird underwater, it often can get free, that's a prime situation where small differences between fish probably make a big difference.)]
Or it could be something else such as a preference to watch overhead more since that's where most predators come from. Seems reasonable since most of the time there not that many things ready to spring up out of the ground at you,
However, they must deal with cats/foxes/etc, all of which are sneak/ambush predators. And I noticed in the video, the catfish's back is well out of the water before it strikes, meaning there's plenty of disturbance on the surface of the water. It's a weird blind-spot for an animal that has to deal with much sneakier/faster predators, and which is normally a fast learner.
(Why did the catfish cross the mud flats?)
To get to the other tide!
No. If you choose not to make the source available with the binaries, then you must instead include an offer of that source. However, section 3c permits anyone to redistribute the binaries and the offer of source from the original distributor. Section 3b binds the original distributor to that redistributed offer. In other words, if you choose not to place the source within your original distro, you must honour a source request from anyone.
(Commercial redistributors take on the burden of hosting or giving away the source, but non-commercial redistributors merely have to pass on whatever source or offer they received with the binaries.)
It's a subtle but very deliberate distinction to prevent exactly what Yahma is doing, charging a full binary licence price for the source. But it also protects Yahma from having the same thing done to him that he's doing to the prior DOSBox development whose code he is using.
If someone else gets the binary from you, does not accept your offer of the source code, then technically they cannot give the binary to anyone else! Why not? Because the same rules apply to them. If THEY give the binary to someone else, they are distributing, and THEY have to provide the source code.
No quite. If they are redistributing non-commercially, they can comply with section 3c merely by passing on the original written offer from the dev/distributor (Yahma).
However, if Yahma isn't including an offer of source to his customers for them to pass on (nor is he providing the source with the binaries), then he wasn't complying with the licence for the original DOSBox source he has modified. He therefore isn't entitled to use that code to base his derived work from. (Similarly Google Play, being a distributor, is also not compliant.)
(That said, I don't think Yahma is being a deliberate dick about it, he just jumbled his interpretation of section 3a and 3b of the GPL licence. He thinks 3a gives him the right to only give his source to paying customers (and it does, provided you give the source in the original distribution, enabling recipients to redistribute it), and 3b gives him the right to charge people a licence fee for the source (it doesn't.))
It's my understanding that the GPL requires only that you give source code to people that that have legally acquired the binary from you. It does not require that you provide source to anyone else, even if they otherwise legally obtained your binary.
This only applies if you distribute the source along with every copy of the binary. (3a.) It's the easiest way to comply, just give buyers the source, and you have no further requirements.
But if you don't provide the source with the binary, you have the added burden of providing a "written offer" of a copy of the source to any third party (3b), recovering only the cost of distribution. The issue with DOSBox Turbo is that the distributor of the modified GPL is abiding by neither part. They neither give the source to their customers, nor do they provide their customers with a written offer of source.
Which means that anyone who redistributes the binary non-commercially (ie, anyone who wants to give a free copy to other people, as is their right under 3c), cannot comply with the GPL even if they want to, because they can't include the source, nor can they include a copy of the original written offer for the source.
Actually, no, that's not quite right. You can't resell his binary without his permission.
I can't see that interpretation being compatible with...
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [three options for distributing the source]
You may copy and distribute the executable, providing you also distribute the source. Doesn't seem especially ambiguous.
They're just drinking. No need to read anything more into it. Why they don't see the threat of the catfish, I don't know. But why they are there in the first place is pretty mundane.
Catfish already evolved the ability to cross mud flats between water bodies. The amount of time they spend out of the water here is trivial by comparison.
However, I'm surprised the pigeons haven't learned to avoid the much larger animal very obviously moving through the shallows toward them. Pigeons are usually pretty good at avoiding predators, such as hawks, vehicles, and children. Good pattern recognition and very twitchy reflexes.
Okay. He also wants to go to the moon in order to mine Helium-3.
In fact, just the other day I found out that one of Nasa's prime missions was to
find a way to reach out to the Muslim world [...]
You mistook my defence of SpaceX as a sign that I'm one of your fellow close-minded rightwing Fox-News-worshipping cretins. When in fact, I despise you all.
"lunar dust"? You mean dirt?
No. Dirt is weathered. Lunar regolith is not. The lack of atmosphere on the moon means the dust is extremely sharp, extremely fine, and can work its way into fine joints, cause problems with life-support, and you can't just brush it off your EVA suits. The Apollo astronauts' suits, from just a couple of hours jumping around, were nearly black with dust from the knees down. Imagine doing major construction work, for weeks.
Meteor impacts mean the lunar regolith is a mix of tiny sharp nickel-iron filings, tiny sharp glass shards, and raw ground rock dust of the type that gives miners silicosis. Fun mix.
"Very carefully".
Indeed. And the proof of the pudding is to ask who Orbcomm is going to use to launch the rest of their next-gen constellation.
Weird example for you to pick. Health care is the one area where you do have clear examples of the superiority of government run systems. Such as countries with government health care having half the costs per person as US health care. Such as government programs even in the US being more efficient/effective healthcare than rival private systems.
Yeah, it is somewhat easier to do things economic when a government institution has already done decades of legwork for you.
People keep saying this, and yet they miss their own point... everything SpaceX does was already available to NASA. So... why can't NASA build their own rocket and capsule, SLS/MPCV, for less than $3b per year for more than fifteen years? SpaceX spent less building multiple versions of an entirely new rocket engine, building and flying two entirely new launchers into orbit (~$300m) than NASA spent modifying a single existing shuttle SRB for a stand-alone sub-orbital test launch (Ares-1X, ~$450m).
The annual development budget for Merlin, Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon-cargo would contained entirely with a single minor NASA research program. While a single flagship program, like SLS, ISS or JWST, could fund dozens of parallel programs in the same scale.