Whether or not I'm right or correct has nothing to do with anything. It's a point of view not an absolute statement.
The notion of beliefs as the source of evil that humans use to justify and cause harm to others is what's at issue.
If you believe you are right you are likely perpetrating evil in the world against other human beings. Eliminate your belief. Change your thinking. Become aware of the real reality that has no beliefs.
Now if only it could shatter the most destructive viruses that infect humans: the Human Mind Viruses such as any thought that is taken to be true without evidence. Yes, ALL beliefs are a form of virulent virus with some being highly toxic to those infected and, more often than not, to others who are the victim of humans infected by a belief - aka a meme, aka a human mind virus.
Destroy all beliefs.
The worst offender is of course the notion of god.
Typical reference designs involved a satellite in geostationary orbit, several kilometers on a side, that used photovoltaic arrays to capture the sunlight, then convert it into radio frequencies of 2.45 or 5.8 GHz where atmospheric transmission is very high, that were then beamed toward a reference signal on the Earth at intensities approximately 1/6th of noon sunlight. The beam was then received by a rectifying antenna and converted into electricity for the grid, delivering 5 - 10 gigawatts of electric power.
The Sun is a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located some 150 million km from the Earth, radiating 2.3 billion times more energy than what strikes the disk of the Earth, which itself is more energy in a hour than all human civilization directly uses in a year, and it will continue to produce free energy for billions of years.
You gotta like that. The SUN is conveniently located!
The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low - intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.
A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt - years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of mankind's ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of today's technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space-based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.
Ah, this is a repeat of a number of patent lawsuits. It's too bad that Alan Kay's group with Dan Ingalls et. al. invented overlapping windows in a GUI in the 1970's. Woops, forgot about the prior art. How about that.
Was it for killing people? If so then he might be a terrorist. However, can you believe what the government tells you? No. They MUST PROVE THEIR ALLEGATIONS.
However his acts of alleged terrorism doesn't excuse the British Government's acts of terrorism.
Well, anonymous coward, that's an enlightened comment. How about some real debate from you on the topic at hand? Terrorism by the State and Terrorism as Defined by the State?
Clearly the State, in this case The United States of America and The United Kingdom have committed many atrocities and acts of terror by invading Iraq. You see it on the news every day. It is evident that they have killed and terrorized more people than Al Queda, although Al Queda is quickly catching up (or hopes to surpass).
None can rival the mass murder committed by governments of the world. The USA is guilty of many crimes. Bush and Cheney are war criminals - all you need to is look at the news and see the dead bodies that are the result of their military campaigns which they promoted and proclaimed to have ordered on television. Their own propaganda - as seen on Fox and CNN - is the evidence that they are guilty of said war crimes and state sponsored terrorism.
What will you do to convict Bush and Cheney and other members of the USA government of terrorism and mass murder?
What will you do to stop the terrorism of your country's government?
What will you do to stop the fake terrorism charges against people simply for possessing technical materials?
What will you do to stop your government's terrorism at home and abroad?
What will you do to stop international terrorism by governments and groups such as Al Queda?
Why is it that people who are attempting to kill themselves find that the "god" concept will "save them"? It simply dooms them to be the walking dead followers of the Zombie Jesus cult who don't and can't think for themselves as a result of their wacked out pre-middle ages belief system?
Since you can't prove there is a god, gods, or even God, you can't prove any statements about said super natural beings. Thus every statement you know or spout from your mouth hole about said super natural being or beings is pure make believe nonsense.
When the belief-stricken and the faith-stricken conceed that point they then put forward the weak argument (at least weak to people who can actually critically think for themselves) that the belief in god, gods, or God, must be taken on "faith" without any evidence.
Furthermore, when pushed further some will even suggest the silly notion - actually a cult indoctrination technique - that you must ask the universe for guidance from God and only then will "he" reveal himself to you. That is a sure path to a couple of laughs or if you're of a non-critical mind a membership in the cult of God.
The very notion of God is evil, especially the God that is written about in the Bible, Koran and Torra. What an evil god that is (see Dawkin's assessment of that particular god).
"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven." -- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
It's was a sad day for you and those around you when you entered you delusion about Christ.
If possession of the Anarchist Cook Book is Terrorism what is possession of weapons by the UK Government? That certainly classifies as Terrorism! Oh, and they actually use them to kill people too, that is actual Terrorism carried out in fact by the Government. The UK Government is guilty of Terrorism just by possession weapons and by actually using them.
The rule of Law doesn't work if the laws don't apply to ALL PEOPLE in the country in question. It's interesting that most laws are written to exclude members of the Government. That's very convenient way to set up a two tier society: those with immunity for crimes they commit in Governments name, and those that are subject to the laws. That's the height of arrogance by those who think that they have sovereign powers.
Sovereign powers are an illusion created by some in order that they can rule others through force and intimidation and yes, terrorist tactics even if they are in the name of self defense.
All those in Government are to be assumed guilty of terrorism unless otherwise proved innocent in a war crimes trial conducted by people who have never served government in any capacity what so ever. Let the war crimes investigations of world governments begin.
Yes, they forgot - or didn't know - that Americans are blood thirsty when it comes to Revenge and will use whatever means is at their disposal to achieve their religiously inspired and justified revenge intensity to kill blindly. It almost doesn't matter if they kill the people who inflicted 911 upon them (assuming the mainstream view of 911 is correct that is) since what matters in revenge is simply killing those who might be responsible. Once they started their revenge killing they just kept going and will keep going for decades since they gotta take revenge for each new dead of their own. It's a meat grinding machine let loose upon the world.
Governments are the largest mass murders on the planet. What will you do to convict your government leaders of war crimes?
Excellent comment. Right on the target of evil terrorism in the world: Bush, Cheney, Blair, Governments, and least we not forget gorilla organizations such as the evil Al Queda. They are all evil mass killers who need to be brought to justice in a series of war crimes tribunals.
Actually, Bush, Cheney, Blair and most Governments actually provide a lot of public evidence of their crimes so convicting them with their own propaganda broadcasts should be easy.
What was amazing was George Takai's comments to Shatner's face during the infamous Roast for Shatner. Takai rocks!
Rumor has it that Shatner killed the idea of a Star Trek movie as Captain Sulu. It would have been fun to explore the other characters than Kirk, Spock and Bones for a change.
There was a Spreadsheet made for the CIA by Xerox that would easily be the Nerds Nerd of spreadsheets as it enabled full access to the underlying programming language, Smalltalk.
Often on the path to invention you need to shake things up. It's time. The Linux Kernel is stale and stagnant without significant innovation for quite some time now. Shake it up. Innovate.
Fork it, fork it good. Take it in new directions.
Take it where you want it.
Take it in the direction of a true microkernel or exokernel or even in a new direction that hasn't been thought of yet.
Basically The Treaty mentioned gives Earth Governments total power and control over the entire Universe!
It's a ridiculous and worthless piece of paper written by arrogant power hungry and greedy humans who have the gumption to think that they have sovereign power and control who can go where and when and with whom. Then they tell everyone that they are "free" and we buy it.
Do as the fictional Astronaut Farmer did, ignore them. He tried it there way and they just tried to protect their interest of control over power and freedom of movement. Then he just went.
Ignore the Treaty, it's worthless. Go to the moon. Do it now. Go to Mars. Do it now.
What will they do? Shoot you down after you launch? There's a good chance of that, but, na, the worst they'll try to do is give you a ticket or want you to slap their silly NASA logo onto YOUR ship. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be cheering you all the way.
Freedom. True Freedom is freedom from the control of others. True Freedom and Power. Of course, with power comes responsibility... as Ben Parker says... and which current world governments and those with power fail to heed.
Do we really want our Sol Solar System run and controlled by the likes of those in power (pick any country in the world)? Not on your life. Most governments on Earth are anti-peace through their actions of killing people via their state sponsored terrorism.
"Even the most vile serial killers have nothing on the deadliest organizations on Earth - governments that encourage war and genocide." - Elliott Leyton.
"The Man Who Studies Murder, Part 2: The Anthropology of Murder looks at the culture of killing and why some countries produce more killers than others. The murder rate in Canada is 1 in 100,000 while in the United States it is a remarkable 10 murders per 100,000, the highest rate of any western, developed nation. Leyton argues, using Newfoundland as an example, that this can be explained by cultural differences. Killing is rare in that province because the people there developed a peaceful means of preventing conflict and violence using ostracism, gossip and ridicule. In the United States, on the other hand, violence was instrumental in the creation of the country, and, as a result, became socially acceptable. It is an American's constitutional right to bear arms, and the United States is the only western nation to still use capital punishment."
"Leyton also argues that governments are the real serial killers by ordering their soldiers to go to war. While the politicians try to justify wars and make them legitimate with propaganda, they are still murder. Government complicity in mass murder is highlighted using the examples of genocide in Rwanda and the holocaust in Nazi Germany. The tape does not explain the cultural causes of those tragedies." http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/vol11/no11/themanwhostudiesmurder.html
Yes, it's crucial to know what their license means in terms of *their* projects! When it comes to others projects it's irrelevant unless they are derived works from the UCB projects!
UCB may not care if the *BSD projects amend the licenses as long as it's essentially the same, as is UCB's right. You'd have to ask them! UCB can conduct itself as they see fit. I don't enough of the salient facts of the UCB case to get in to it in depth.
Besides, it's not relevant who wrote the license. What is relevant is what the license means. What is relevant is how the authors of a work decide how to conduct themselves in regards to people who make derivative works. What is relevant is how authors enforce their rights when others abuse them.
It's not just "retain", it's must retain this list of conditions! That has power beyond the don't remove, it has impact that says don't alter the list since any other list isn't this list of conditions. Since you aren't granted the right to alter the license you can't make the changes regardless. Copyright law prevails in any case and without an explicit permission to alter the license you can't.
You can "retain this list of conditions" and add another one to it. As long as those conditions are still there, then "this list" is still there. "This list" is no different from saying "these conditions" - it's not in exclusive language, and had that been the intent this would be a very badly written license.
You are deeply mistaken. No where does the BSD License or Copyright Law give you any grant to modify the license. In fact they both say you can't!
You've deemphasized the part about "the above copyright notice," but it's essential to understanding the meaning of the license. You can't argue that "retain" applies in an exclusive manner (prohibiting additions) to the license terms, but an inclusive manner (permitting additions) to the copyright. Either it means you are permitted to add attributions and terms, or are prohibited from adding either. Don't tell me that "this list" is somehow more restrictive than "the above...notice." If it is clear then, from over two decades of use, that the provision in regard to the copyright notice is inclusive, then it must logically also be inclusive with regard to the list of conditions.
While your argument might sound logical, it's pure nonsense from a legal point of view. You fail to comprehend. Law doesn't work the way you think programmer.
In the USA and some other countries but not in all countries, the author of a derivative work may gain a Copyright IF AND ONLY IF THEIR WORK QUALIFIES by being different enough or having substantial enough changes. This then entitles them by law to add a copyright notice to the derived work as long as it's clear that their copyright is ONLY relevant to their substantial changes. They can't alter the existing license or copyright notice. So it would be inappropriate to add their copyright DIRECTLY after the original authors notice.
It would be difficult to argue before a judge that the subsequent authors, once they have successfully demonstrated that they are entitled to a derivative work copyright in the work, wouldn't be entitled to mark their copyright with a notice appropriately applied to the work.
Now it may be prudent to resolve any question or concerns you have about this by contacting the original authors and negotiate how the new copyright notice should be applied and the changes described clearly so people know who owns what.
It's also prudent for projects to keep an accurate and redundant copy of all changes to their project, who made them, who gifted what, who asserts copyrights in the work, etc... for resolving any legal issues.
I really don't care at all about UCB that much. UCB may have given permission to alter the license terms! Not all projects will! I don't know all the facts in that matter. It's not relevant to interpreting how to conduct yourself properly in accordance with copyright laws and the license terms, especially for projects that you are making any significant efforts into.
It's clear that with the aggressive assimilation policy coming out of the FSF Inc and as implemented by it's gnusance cult membership that many authors who choose true freedom for their software using the ISC or BSD licenses (or other similar licenses) that the GPL BORG MENACE must be stopped from absorbing their software!
THE GPL IS A THREAT TO ALL FREE SOFTWARE! REPORT ALL VIOLATIONS BY GPL BORG CULT MEMBERS TO THE NEAREST BSD/ISC NEWS GROUP OR BLOG OR TO SLASHDOT OR TO THE POLICE OR TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE IN QUESTION.
ALL DUAL LICENSED BSD AND GPL SOFTWARE MUST BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS HAVE AUTHORIZED SAID DUAL LICENSE.
Note that it has yet to be determined what impact dual licenses have. Use them with extreme caution as if they were radio active. Protect yourself and your software from the GPL BORG MENACE.
No, it says you must "retain" the license terms and the "above" copyright. I don't know why you are saying "No", since you are saying the same thing as I in that sentence.
A lawyer will tell you to tread carefully when dealing with the future of your program code. A lawyer will also tell you that they only deal with specific cases that require legal advice.
My advice, proceed carefully and seek legal council from a law firm that has experience with international copyright laws, the berne convention and true-freedom licenses - as well as closed source, open source licenses and the worse of all, the pernicious assimilation oriented communistic commune-software licenses of the double speak named corporation, FSF, with it's rapacious GPL - to put it succinctly: the GNUsance cult.
Under US Copyright Law the author of a derived work does have copyright to their enhancements (if they are substantial enough to qualify for copyright); the original authors of course keep their original ownership. Under German and French copyright that may be quite different with the original authors holding all the rights. These rights may be in effect in other countries like the USA due to the Berne Convention.
Read and learn the Copyright Laws, Court cases, Berne Convention and License terms to protect yourself from legal problems with your code or code that you are attempting to use (or assimilate if you have devious plans on it).
ONLY IF your changes qualify for a copyright you're creating a derivative work; since significant changes are copyrightable you have a right to add a copyright notice for your changes ONLY. However, since you are using the work under a granting of conditional permission from the BSD License you can't add, modify or delete any of the license terms! Unless you get permission from the original authors!!! (Get it in writing).
Under the ISC License it's Copyright Law that clearly blocks you from modifying the license terms.
Now, this is important, ALMOST ALL changes that open source, communal source (GPL), or true freedom developers (BSD) make are insubstantial when compared to the whole work and thus do NOT qualify for a new copyright and thus do not form a new derivative work under copyright law.
This has serious implications for almost all open source, truly freedom source, and yes especially for commune software (GPL) due to their assimilation BORG cult attitude.
Consulting a lawyer you'll find out that it's recommended that the "contributors" of non-copyrightable changes make said changes a "gift" to the program/project in question. It's then entirely up to the original authors if they wish to amend the copyright with the contributors name or include the contributor on a list of contributors somewhere.
I suspect that the lineage of many open source programs, true freedom programs and most of all, GPL commune software is highly suspect and may in fact be contrary to the original authors copyright and license terms.
By the way, I've not refused to address anything - I am free to reply as I choose.
It's irrelevant how you perceive how the UCB and *BSD projects have conducted themselves over N years. They are free to allow more liberal usage of their code licensed. Just because a project who uses a BSD license has a liberal policy that might not be as controlling as a legal interpretation of the license terms doesn't change the legal reading of the BSD license terms.
I am simply reading Copyright Law, Court Decisions, and the BSD License (and ISC and similar licenses) to understand from a software developers and a lawyers perspective what they mean and their impact to developers and users alike.
Just because the GPL cult members or others think that you can do anything with BSD code including altering the license without permission doesn't mean that they are correct about that. In fact I've shown clearly that no one has a legal right to alter the license in anyway except the original aut
The authors have rights in the derived works derived from Copyright Law. The BSD license doesn't take away or give away these rights.
The license says you can't change the license, including preventing you from changing it's license terms. This applies to all changes regardless of whether or not it is a derived work. That's the meaning of what is said.
The issue of ammending the copyright in a set of changes that qualify as a derived work is interesting. Certainly if the changes qualify for copyright they have rights in their changes (and no rights in the original authors work which they are deriving from) then they should be allowed to have their copyright amended. It would need to be done in such a way as to indicate what changes were made and in such a way that doesn't alter the original authors license.
Now since the changes are being merged into a derived work it's license must be followed as a result of Copyright Law and the way the BSD license is worded otherwise you loose your grant to redistribute the derived work.
Many authors might allow you to dual license the software, that's their right. Get it in writing though as the BSD license terms read from a view of clarity and precision don't allow that as it stands.
Ultimately, if you are taking anthers work and wanting to make significant changes to the license you'd be well advised to simply talk it over with them and get their permission, if they are willing to give it. Get it in writing signed. That's what snail mail is for for those of you who've never sent an actual letter.;--)
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The above sentence from the BSD License is quite clear. "Redistribution of source code must retain this list of conditions" is a shorter direct version of the sentence with the other items in the list removed for clarity on this point.
must retain this list of conditions is speaking about one list of conditions specifically, no other lists, but only the one that follows in the subsequent text of the license. As soon as you change the list of conditions it no longer is same "this list of conditions" that follows - it's a different other list but not the same list that follows! The right to redistribute a derived work is based upon "this list of conditions" and when it changes into some other list you loose your grant to "redistribute with or without modifications".
Furthermore, as you are barred from making alterations to the license you are barred from adding to, changing, or removing any part of "this list of conditions". This is a kicker that makes it much much harder to say that you can do what you want with it. Modify the BSD License and you violate it's terms thus you loose your grant to redistribute the derived work in question.
No problem for the double posting, it's a fault of slashdot's choice of tools for inputing post comments.
Microsoft, or any commercial company, has no problems with using BSD licensed code within their system. They don't have to publish the original code they used or versions that have their modifications in it. They are free to do what they do with it. They can link with BSD licensed code just fine without it infecting other files under their own copyright. If they publish the source it must be correctly attributed. The binary too.
I'm reading the BSD License in the context of copyright laws and the rights that they provide. Yes, the fact that you "must retain" the license terms exactly means that you can't alter the agreement. I explained that clearly in the prior posting in this sub thread.
THE BSDL SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU MAY MAKE MODIFICATIONS AND REDISTRIBUTE THEM **PROVIDED** THAT RETAIN THE LIST OF CONDITIONS. If you modify any of the conditions, by adding to them, changing their wording, or deleting from them you may NOT use the software. It is very clear actually about this. As regards to derivative works, the original authors control whether or not you are permitted to make a derived work. They have given their permission in the BSDL for you to redistribute your modified versions - whether or not your work qualifies as a derivative work - ONLY under the provision that you adhere to the license terms as spelled out exactly in the license. No where are you granted a right to add new license terms! Authors have the right to control who makes derivative works and under what terms that they do that, which they clearly do in the BSD license: they never grant the right to modify the license.
Remember it's not just the four or five paragraphs of the BSD license you must contend with, it's the principles of Copyright Law! That's were these rights are specified.
Just because people make mistakes in how they work with BSD licensed code thinking that they do what they want doesn't mean that they will get away with it forever. Authors will eventually assert their rights in court.
The good folks over at the GPL gnusance propaganda organization, FSFI (Free Software Fondation, Inc.), will eventually end up in court if they keep up assimilating BSD code and BSD derived code without first obtaining permission from the original authors.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. Cute.
Since your comment a belief it must be destroyed.
Whether or not I'm right or correct has nothing to do with anything. It's a point of view not an absolute statement.
The notion of beliefs as the source of evil that humans use to justify and cause harm to others is what's at issue.
If you believe you are right you are likely perpetrating evil in the world against other human beings. Eliminate your belief. Change your thinking. Become aware of the real reality that has no beliefs.
Now if only it could shatter the most destructive viruses that infect humans: the Human Mind Viruses such as any thought that is taken to be true without evidence. Yes, ALL beliefs are a form of virulent virus with some being highly toxic to those infected and, more often than not, to others who are the victim of humans infected by a belief - aka a meme, aka a human mind virus.
Destroy all beliefs.
The worst offender is of course the notion of god.
Woops, you made an error of three orders of magnitude, that's five to ten gigawatts not megawatts.
From the report.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Typical reference designs involved a satellite in geostationary orbit, several kilometers on a side, that used photovoltaic arrays to capture the sunlight, then convert it into radio frequencies of 2.45 or 5.8 GHz where atmospheric transmission is very high, that were then beamed toward a reference signal on the Earth at intensities approximately 1/6th of noon sunlight. The beam was then received by a rectifying antenna and converted into electricity for the grid, delivering 5 - 10 gigawatts of electric power.
The Sun is a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located some 150 million km from the Earth, radiating 2.3 billion times more energy than what strikes the disk of the Earth, which itself is more energy in a hour than all human civilization directly uses in a year, and it will continue to produce free energy for billions of years.
You gotta like that. The SUN is conveniently located!
The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low - intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.
A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt - years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of mankind's ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of today's technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space-based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.
Let's get it done!!!
Ah, this is a repeat of a number of patent lawsuits. It's too bad that Alan Kay's group with Dan Ingalls et. al. invented overlapping windows in a GUI in the 1970's. Woops, forgot about the prior art. How about that.
http://news.squeak.org/2007/10/12/smalltalk-to-the-rescue-microsoft-ex-execs-sue-red-hat/
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
If that's the case one must determine his intent.
Was it for learning?
Was it for killing people? If so then he might be a terrorist. However, can you believe what the government tells you? No. They MUST PROVE THEIR ALLEGATIONS.
However his acts of alleged terrorism doesn't excuse the British Government's acts of terrorism.
Well, anonymous coward, that's an enlightened comment. How about some real debate from you on the topic at hand? Terrorism by the State and Terrorism as Defined by the State?
Clearly the State, in this case The United States of America and The United Kingdom have committed many atrocities and acts of terror by invading Iraq. You see it on the news every day. It is evident that they have killed and terrorized more people than Al Queda, although Al Queda is quickly catching up (or hopes to surpass).
None can rival the mass murder committed by governments of the world. The USA is guilty of many crimes. Bush and Cheney are war criminals - all you need to is look at the news and see the dead bodies that are the result of their military campaigns which they promoted and proclaimed to have ordered on television. Their own propaganda - as seen on Fox and CNN - is the evidence that they are guilty of said war crimes and state sponsored terrorism.
What will you do to convict Bush and Cheney and other members of the USA government of terrorism and mass murder?
What will you do to stop the terrorism of your country's government?
What will you do to stop the fake terrorism charges against people simply for possessing technical materials?
What will you do to stop your government's terrorism at home and abroad?
What will you do to stop international terrorism by governments and groups such as Al Queda?
Why is it that people who are attempting to kill themselves find that the "god" concept will "save them"? It simply dooms them to be the walking dead followers of the Zombie Jesus cult who don't and can't think for themselves as a result of their wacked out pre-middle ages belief system?
Since you can't prove there is a god, gods, or even God, you can't prove any statements about said super natural beings. Thus every statement you know or spout from your mouth hole about said super natural being or beings is pure make believe nonsense.
When the belief-stricken and the faith-stricken conceed that point they then put forward the weak argument (at least weak to people who can actually critically think for themselves) that the belief in god, gods, or God, must be taken on "faith" without any evidence.
Furthermore, when pushed further some will even suggest the silly notion - actually a cult indoctrination technique - that you must ask the universe for guidance from God and only then will "he" reveal himself to you. That is a sure path to a couple of laughs or if you're of a non-critical mind a membership in the cult of God.
The very notion of God is evil, especially the God that is written about in the Bible, Koran and Torra. What an evil god that is (see Dawkin's assessment of that particular god).
"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
It's was a sad day for you and those around you when you entered you delusion about Christ.
Please return to being a natural human being.
If possession of the Anarchist Cook Book is Terrorism what is possession of weapons by the UK Government? That certainly classifies as Terrorism! Oh, and they actually use them to kill people too, that is actual Terrorism carried out in fact by the Government. The UK Government is guilty of Terrorism just by possession weapons and by actually using them.
The rule of Law doesn't work if the laws don't apply to ALL PEOPLE in the country in question. It's interesting that most laws are written to exclude members of the Government. That's very convenient way to set up a two tier society: those with immunity for crimes they commit in Governments name, and those that are subject to the laws. That's the height of arrogance by those who think that they have sovereign powers.
Sovereign powers are an illusion created by some in order that they can rule others through force and intimidation and yes, terrorist tactics even if they are in the name of self defense.
All those in Government are to be assumed guilty of terrorism unless otherwise proved innocent in a war crimes trial conducted by people who have never served government in any capacity what so ever. Let the war crimes investigations of world governments begin.
Yes, they forgot - or didn't know - that Americans are blood thirsty when it comes to Revenge and will use whatever means is at their disposal to achieve their religiously inspired and justified revenge intensity to kill blindly. It almost doesn't matter if they kill the people who inflicted 911 upon them (assuming the mainstream view of 911 is correct that is) since what matters in revenge is simply killing those who might be responsible. Once they started their revenge killing they just kept going and will keep going for decades since they gotta take revenge for each new dead of their own. It's a meat grinding machine let loose upon the world.
Governments are the largest mass murders on the planet. What will you do to convict your government leaders of war crimes?
Excellent comment. Right on the target of evil terrorism in the world: Bush, Cheney, Blair, Governments, and least we not forget gorilla organizations such as the evil Al Queda. They are all evil mass killers who need to be brought to justice in a series of war crimes tribunals.
Actually, Bush, Cheney, Blair and most Governments actually provide a lot of public evidence of their crimes so convicting them with their own propaganda broadcasts should be easy.
That's a bizarre waste of an otherwise good motherboard.
How about letting us put whatever OS we want on it instead? Ick, Linux.
How about Minux? OpenBSD? FreeBSD? ExoKernel? ___OS?
Linux. Ick to the max.
What was amazing was George Takai's comments to Shatner's face during the infamous Roast for Shatner. Takai rocks!
Rumor has it that Shatner killed the idea of a Star Trek movie as Captain Sulu. It would have been fun to explore the other characters than Kirk, Spock and Bones for a change.
As long as we don't hear Shatner singing anymore.
Nicely stated AC.
There was a Spreadsheet made for the CIA by Xerox that would easily be the Nerds Nerd of spreadsheets as it enabled full access to the underlying programming language, Smalltalk.
Here are some links to the old version and newer developments.
http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/The+Analyst
http://www.mojowire.com/TravelsWithSmalltalk/DaveThomas-TravelsWithSmalltalk.htm
http://www.sunless-sea.net/wiki/SmallTalk
http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22the+analyst%22+xerox+smalltalk&btnG=Search&meta=
Often on the path to invention you need to shake things up. It's time. The Linux Kernel is stale and stagnant without significant innovation for quite some time now. Shake it up. Innovate.
Fork it, fork it good. Take it in new directions.
Take it where you want it.
Take it in the direction of a true microkernel or exokernel or even in a new direction that hasn't been thought of yet.
Sure, let's have lunch. They are likely quite tasty. Yum. ;--)
An excellent mp3 (19:46) audio interview with Elliot Layton.
Web page: http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2007/04/anthropologist_and_author_elli.html
mp3: http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/CBC%20News%20Online%20Your%20Interview%20-%20Elliott%20Leyton%20-%20Mass%20murderers.mp3
Basically The Treaty mentioned gives Earth Governments total power and control over the entire Universe!
It's a ridiculous and worthless piece of paper written by arrogant power hungry and greedy humans who have the gumption to think that they have sovereign power and control who can go where and when and with whom. Then they tell everyone that they are "free" and we buy it.
Do as the fictional Astronaut Farmer did, ignore them. He tried it there way and they just tried to protect their interest of control over power and freedom of movement. Then he just went.
Ignore the Treaty, it's worthless. Go to the moon. Do it now. Go to Mars. Do it now.
What will they do? Shoot you down after you launch? There's a good chance of that, but, na, the worst they'll try to do is give you a ticket or want you to slap their silly NASA logo onto YOUR ship. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be cheering you all the way.
Freedom. True Freedom is freedom from the control of others. True Freedom and Power. Of course, with power comes responsibility... as Ben Parker says... and which current world governments and those with power fail to heed.
Do we really want our Sol Solar System run and controlled by the likes of those in power (pick any country in the world)? Not on your life. Most governments on Earth are anti-peace through their actions of killing people via their state sponsored terrorism.
"Even the most vile serial killers have nothing on the deadliest organizations on Earth - governments that encourage war and genocide." - Elliott Leyton.
See the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's excellent two part documentary series "The Man Who Studies Murder", part two is on State sponsored Murder - the largest killer of humans on the planet:
http://www.arts.mun.ca/anthropology/people/scau/leytonE.php
http://www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=51458
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2007/04/anthropologist_and_author_elli.html
http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=+%22the+man+who+studies+murder%22&btnG=Search&meta=
"The Man Who Studies Murder, Part 2: The Anthropology of Murder looks at the culture of killing and why some countries produce more killers than others. The murder rate in Canada is 1 in 100,000 while in the United States it is a remarkable 10 murders per 100,000, the highest rate of any western, developed nation. Leyton argues, using Newfoundland as an example, that this can be explained by cultural differences. Killing is rare in that province because the people there developed a peaceful means of preventing conflict and violence using ostracism, gossip and ridicule. In the United States, on the other hand, violence was instrumental in the creation of the country, and, as a result, became socially acceptable. It is an American's constitutional right to bear arms, and the United States is the only western nation to still use capital punishment."
"Leyton also argues that governments are the real serial killers by ordering their soldiers to go to war. While the politicians try to justify wars and make them legitimate with propaganda, they are still murder. Government complicity in mass murder is highlighted using the examples of genocide in Rwanda and the holocaust in Nazi Germany. The tape does not explain the cultural causes of those tragedies."
http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/vol11/no11/themanwhostudiesmurder.html
One can also point to Iraq
Yes, it's crucial to know what their license means in terms of *their* projects! When it comes to others projects it's irrelevant unless they are derived works from the UCB projects!
UCB may not care if the *BSD projects amend the licenses as long as it's essentially the same, as is UCB's right. You'd have to ask them! UCB can conduct itself as they see fit. I don't enough of the salient facts of the UCB case to get in to it in depth.
Besides, it's not relevant who wrote the license. What is relevant is what the license means. What is relevant is how the authors of a work decide how to conduct themselves in regards to people who make derivative works. What is relevant is how authors enforce their rights when others abuse them.
It's not just "retain", it's must retain this list of conditions! That has power beyond the don't remove, it has impact that says don't alter the list since any other list isn't this list of conditions. Since you aren't granted the right to alter the license you can't make the changes regardless. Copyright law prevails in any case and without an explicit permission to alter the license you can't.
You can "retain this list of conditions" and add another one to it. As long as those conditions are still there, then "this list" is still there. "This list" is no different from saying "these conditions" - it's not in exclusive language, and had that been the intent this would be a very badly written license.
You are deeply mistaken. No where does the BSD License or Copyright Law give you any grant to modify the license. In fact they both say you can't!
You've deemphasized the part about "the above copyright notice," but it's essential to understanding the meaning of the license. You can't argue that "retain" applies in an exclusive manner (prohibiting additions) to the license terms, but an inclusive manner (permitting additions) to the copyright. Either it means you are permitted to add attributions and terms, or are prohibited from adding either. Don't tell me that "this list" is somehow more restrictive than "the above...notice." If it is clear then, from over two decades of use, that the provision in regard to the copyright notice is inclusive, then it must logically also be inclusive with regard to the list of conditions.
While your argument might sound logical, it's pure nonsense from a legal point of view. You fail to comprehend. Law doesn't work the way you think programmer.
In the USA and some other countries but not in all countries, the author of a derivative work may gain a Copyright IF AND ONLY IF THEIR WORK QUALIFIES by being different enough or having substantial enough changes. This then entitles them by law to add a copyright notice to the derived work as long as it's clear that their copyright is ONLY relevant to their substantial changes. They can't alter the existing license or copyright notice. So it would be inappropriate to add their copyright DIRECTLY after the original authors notice.
It would be difficult to argue before a judge that the subsequent authors, once they have successfully demonstrated that they are entitled to a derivative work copyright in the work, wouldn't be entitled to mark their copyright with a notice appropriately applied to the work.
Now it may be prudent to resolve any question or concerns you have about this by contacting the original authors and negotiate how the new copyright notice should be applied and the changes described clearly so people know who owns what.
It's also prudent for projects to keep an accurate and redundant copy of all changes to their project, who made them, who gifted what, who asserts copyrights in the work, etc... for resolving any legal issues.
I really don't care at all about UCB that much. UCB may have given permission to alter the license terms! Not all projects will! I don't know all the facts in that matter. It's not relevant to interpreting how to conduct yourself properly in accordance with copyright laws and the license terms, especially for projects that you are making any significant efforts into.
It's clear that with the aggressive assimilation policy coming out of the FSF Inc and as implemented by it's gnusance cult membership that many authors who choose true freedom for their software using the ISC or BSD licenses (or other similar licenses) that the GPL BORG MENACE must be stopped from absorbing their software!
THE GPL IS A THREAT TO ALL FREE SOFTWARE! REPORT ALL VIOLATIONS BY GPL BORG CULT MEMBERS TO THE NEAREST BSD/ISC NEWS GROUP OR BLOG OR TO SLASHDOT OR TO THE POLICE OR TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE IN QUESTION.
ALL DUAL LICENSED BSD AND GPL SOFTWARE MUST BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS HAVE AUTHORIZED SAID DUAL LICENSE.
Note that it has yet to be determined what impact dual licenses have. Use them with extreme caution as if they were radio active. Protect yourself and your software from the GPL BORG MENACE.
No, it says you must "retain" the license terms and the "above" copyright.
I don't know why you are saying "No", since you are saying the same thing as I in that sentence.
A lawyer will tell you to tread carefully when dealing with the future of your program code. A lawyer will also tell you that they only deal with specific cases that require legal advice.
My advice, proceed carefully and seek legal council from a law firm that has experience with international copyright laws, the berne convention and true-freedom licenses - as well as closed source, open source licenses and the worse of all, the pernicious assimilation oriented communistic commune-software licenses of the double speak named corporation, FSF, with it's rapacious GPL - to put it succinctly: the GNUsance cult.
Under US Copyright Law the author of a derived work does have copyright to their enhancements (if they are substantial enough to qualify for copyright); the original authors of course keep their original ownership. Under German and French copyright that may be quite different with the original authors holding all the rights. These rights may be in effect in other countries like the USA due to the Berne Convention.
Read and learn the Copyright Laws, Court cases, Berne Convention and License terms to protect yourself from legal problems with your code or code that you are attempting to use (or assimilate if you have devious plans on it).
ONLY IF your changes qualify for a copyright you're creating a derivative work; since significant changes are copyrightable you have a right to add a copyright notice for your changes ONLY. However, since you are using the work under a granting of conditional permission from the BSD License you can't add, modify or delete any of the license terms! Unless you get permission from the original authors!!! (Get it in writing).
Under the ISC License it's Copyright Law that clearly blocks you from modifying the license terms.
Now, this is important, ALMOST ALL changes that open source, communal source (GPL), or true freedom developers (BSD) make are insubstantial when compared to the whole work and thus do NOT qualify for a new copyright and thus do not form a new derivative work under copyright law.
This has serious implications for almost all open source, truly freedom source, and yes especially for commune software (GPL) due to their assimilation BORG cult attitude.
Consulting a lawyer you'll find out that it's recommended that the "contributors" of non-copyrightable changes make said changes a "gift" to the program/project in question. It's then entirely up to the original authors if they wish to amend the copyright with the contributors name or include the contributor on a list of contributors somewhere.
I suspect that the lineage of many open source programs, true freedom programs and most of all, GPL commune software is highly suspect and may in fact be contrary to the original authors copyright and license terms.
By the way, I've not refused to address anything - I am free to reply as I choose.
It's irrelevant how you perceive how the UCB and *BSD projects have conducted themselves over N years. They are free to allow more liberal usage of their code licensed. Just because a project who uses a BSD license has a liberal policy that might not be as controlling as a legal interpretation of the license terms doesn't change the legal reading of the BSD license terms.
I am simply reading Copyright Law, Court Decisions, and the BSD License (and ISC and similar licenses) to understand from a software developers and a lawyers perspective what they mean and their impact to developers and users alike.
Just because the GPL cult members or others think that you can do anything with BSD code including altering the license without permission doesn't mean that they are correct about that. In fact I've shown clearly that no one has a legal right to alter the license in anyway except the original aut
The authors have rights in the derived works derived from Copyright Law. The BSD license doesn't take away or give away these rights.
;--)
The license says you can't change the license, including preventing you from changing it's license terms. This applies to all changes regardless of whether or not it is a derived work. That's the meaning of what is said.
The issue of ammending the copyright in a set of changes that qualify as a derived work is interesting. Certainly if the changes qualify for copyright they have rights in their changes (and no rights in the original authors work which they are deriving from) then they should be allowed to have their copyright amended. It would need to be done in such a way as to indicate what changes were made and in such a way that doesn't alter the original authors license.
Now since the changes are being merged into a derived work it's license must be followed as a result of Copyright Law and the way the BSD license is worded otherwise you loose your grant to redistribute the derived work.
Many authors might allow you to dual license the software, that's their right. Get it in writing though as the BSD license terms read from a view of clarity and precision don't allow that as it stands.
Ultimately, if you are taking anthers work and wanting to make significant changes to the license you'd be well advised to simply talk it over with them and get their permission, if they are willing to give it. Get it in writing signed. That's what snail mail is for for those of you who've never sent an actual letter.
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The above sentence from the BSD License is quite clear. "Redistribution of source code must retain this list of conditions" is a shorter direct version of the sentence with the other items in the list removed for clarity on this point.
must retain this list of conditions is speaking about one list of conditions specifically, no other lists, but only the one that follows in the subsequent text of the license. As soon as you change the list of conditions it no longer is same "this list of conditions" that follows - it's a different other list but not the same list that follows! The right to redistribute a derived work is based upon "this list of conditions" and when it changes into some other list you loose your grant to "redistribute with or without modifications".
Furthermore, as you are barred from making alterations to the license you are barred from adding to, changing, or removing any part of "this list of conditions". This is a kicker that makes it much much harder to say that you can do what you want with it. Modify the BSD License and you violate it's terms thus you loose your grant to redistribute the derived work in question.
No problem for the double posting, it's a fault of slashdot's choice of tools for inputing post comments.
Microsoft, or any commercial company, has no problems with using BSD licensed code within their system. They don't have to publish the original code they used or versions that have their modifications in it. They are free to do what they do with it. They can link with BSD licensed code just fine without it infecting other files under their own copyright. If they publish the source it must be correctly attributed. The binary too.
I'm reading the BSD License in the context of copyright laws and the rights that they provide. Yes, the fact that you "must retain" the license terms exactly means that you can't alter the agreement. I explained that clearly in the prior posting in this sub thread.
THE BSDL SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU MAY MAKE MODIFICATIONS AND REDISTRIBUTE THEM **PROVIDED** THAT RETAIN THE LIST OF CONDITIONS. If you modify any of the conditions, by adding to them, changing their wording, or deleting from them you may NOT use the software. It is very clear actually about this. As regards to derivative works, the original authors control whether or not you are permitted to make a derived work. They have given their permission in the BSDL for you to redistribute your modified versions - whether or not your work qualifies as a derivative work - ONLY under the provision that you adhere to the license terms as spelled out exactly in the license. No where are you granted a right to add new license terms!
Authors have the right to control who makes derivative works and under what terms that they do that, which they clearly do in the BSD license: they never grant the right to modify the license.
Remember it's not just the four or five paragraphs of the BSD license you must contend with, it's the principles of Copyright Law! That's were these rights are specified.
Just because people make mistakes in how they work with BSD licensed code thinking that they do what they want doesn't mean that they will get away with it forever. Authors will eventually assert their rights in court.
The good folks over at the GPL gnusance propaganda organization, FSFI (Free Software Fondation, Inc.), will eventually end up in court if they keep up assimilating BSD code and BSD derived code without first obtaining permission from the original authors.