The GPL and LGPL does not define freedom as being free to restrict users. It your license allows that then it's not as free as a license which prohibits it.
RHEL is not dual licensed and Red Hat makes quite a lot of money on it by selling services around it. They even sell self supported versions where all you get is the software, but having a trusted party make the binaries for you can also be seen as a service.
I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.
Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.
Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.
It depends. If your operating system bundled the library and happened to ship it without the heartbeat feature enabled or included then it was also fine.
In C++ how would you write the most elegant solution that prints numbers from 1 to 100, replacing any number divisible by three with the word "fizz", and any number divisible by five with the word "buzz"?
Apart from work, do you have any personal programming projects going on? Which type of programming do you like most and is there a particular project that you would like to implement?
Apple recently introduced a language they call Swift or Objective-C without the C. It is technically a completely different language from Objective-C though. When C++ started out it had the major benefit that it was (mostly) compatible with C which at the time was immensely popular, making it trivial to mix new C++ code with existing C code. Today C is still a popular language but not as widely used as it once was. Assuming that C++ could drop C compatibility, how would you take that opportunity to improve C++?
Not sure why this is considered FUD. The thing about any DVCS is that once it is in the repo it stays in the repo.
That's true for non-DVCS too. If it's out, it's out. Doesn't matter if you distributed tarballs or Visual SourceSafe. If it's out, it out.
You have to be very careful about what is put out there in public. Given that this is git, though, I am not sure why the company does not use two repos. A private one for internal development, and a public one which has the merges from the private repo once a point in the graph clears any potential legal issues. This feature is one of the great strengths about git and github.
Well, it's going to have a social impact. There won't be much collaboration when all the company does publicly is basically code dumps.
It will keep the lawyers happy, but expect to receive less attention or even be completely ignored if your project is very small. Lots of people will simply not sign CLAs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still up to the maintainer, which is even stated in the first paragraph on the gnu.org page that you linked to.
Nothing prevents you from using the free software version of Qt commercially. You are probably confusing commercial with proprietary.
The GPL and LGPL does not define freedom as being free to restrict users. It your license allows that then it's not as free as a license which prohibits it.
RHEL is not dual licensed and Red Hat makes quite a lot of money on it by selling services around it. They even sell self supported versions where all you get is the software, but having a trusted party make the binaries for you can also be seen as a service.
I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.
Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.
Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.
LGPLv3 is the version after LGPLv2.1. A downgrade would be if they had moved from LGPLv3 to LGPLv2.1.
It depends. If your operating system bundled the library and happened to ship it without the heartbeat feature enabled or included then it was also fine.
Auto does not mean loose typing. It still has a type, you just don't have to write it but it will be there and will be enforced by the compiler.
There are plenty of cargo planes which you can easily drive a car into.
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
He has not ben charged as far as I know, there's only allegations. What's not legitimate about that?
In C++ how would you write the most elegant solution that prints numbers from 1 to 100, replacing any number divisible by three with the word "fizz", and any number divisible by five with the word "buzz"?
Apart from work, do you have any personal programming projects going on? Which type of programming do you like most and is there a particular project that you would like to implement?
C# pioneered lambda's.
(get (off) (my lawn))
Apple recently introduced a language they call Swift or Objective-C without the C. It is technically a completely different language from Objective-C though. When C++ started out it had the major benefit that it was (mostly) compatible with C which at the time was immensely popular, making it trivial to mix new C++ code with existing C code. Today C is still a popular language but not as widely used as it once was. Assuming that C++ could drop C compatibility, how would you take that opportunity to improve C++?
Not sure why this is considered FUD. The thing about any DVCS is that once it is in the repo it stays in the repo.
That's true for non-DVCS too. If it's out, it's out. Doesn't matter if you distributed tarballs or Visual SourceSafe. If it's out, it out.
You have to be very careful about what is put out there in public. Given that this is git, though, I am not sure why the company does not use two repos. A private one for internal development, and a public one which has the merges from the private repo once a point in the graph clears any potential legal issues. This feature is one of the great strengths about git and github.
Well, it's going to have a social impact. There won't be much collaboration when all the company does publicly is basically code dumps.
It will keep the lawyers happy, but expect to receive less attention or even be completely ignored if your project is very small. Lots of people will simply not sign CLAs.
Yep, but nothing stops anyone else from having you accept it before you can install it.
Do people in America really support this?
Some do, some don't.
Are you aware of the path you are on?
Yep.
Are you really ignorant of where this leads to?
Some are, some are not.
Are you all in agreement?
Nope.
You're always free to not buy locked phones.
Then the US will simply have to go to war if they want the data.
Yes they can do this. The bigger issue is if they can enforce this, which they can't.
Then someone would have to physically get to Europe and retrieve the data.
If they are different companies then why does the American company have access to the European comany's data?
Then Microsoft has to choose if they want to do business in the US or in Europe.
According to the actual bug report this problem seams to have started in 4.5. They only triggered it in 4.9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...