And supporting Ron Paul is great and idealistic and all, but a complete waste. He has 0% chance of winning anything, especially after those racist newsletters came out with his name on them, regardless if he wrote them.
What's more of a waste: voting for someone who loses, or voting for someone that you don't like who loses anyway? The mentality that it's better to vote for someone who you don't support because they have a better chance of winning was what killed all chances of having even a marginally relevant third party in 2000 and 2004.
(Not to say that I don't think that Ron Paul is a nut, of course.)
Their are plenty of licenses that people are asked to agree to all sorts of terms unrelated to copyright.
True, but if such linking does not create a derived work under copyright law, then you can link your work to a GPLed program or library and distribute it without having to agree to the terms of the GPL.
The usual argument is that if you link to a GPLed program, then your program contains information derived from the GPLed program (such as structure information from header files), and so is a derived work. As far as a program written in C, that argument might fly, but I'm not at all sure which side I would put my money on if the courts had to decide.
Even if the legal system OKs that, though, "linking" is a very vague term, and a sufficiently determined individual or company can find ways to "link" to the functionality of a GPLed program without turning their program into a derived work. For instance, Linus believes that NVidia's drivers violate the GPL. But it's certainly not obvious to me that their method of linking proprietary code to a wrapper that interfaces with the kernel actually makes the proprietary code a derived work.
Creationism, on the other hand, recurs to asserting that a few thousand million years (billion years in US-speak) worth of coincidences can't bring life as it is now.
Wrong; a creationist would say that it didn't, not necessarily that it can't. Making sweeping generalizations about a group based on what a subset of them say isn't exactly honest.
"Security researchers at a recent summit" obviously have a very limited knowledge of political campaigns.
On the contrary, it seems to me that these security researchers understand politics very well. They've made a claim that cannot be conclusively disproven, and that half of the country is going to believe, regardless of the outcome of the next election, when everything's over. Maybe they ought to be running for office.
Mainstream a Linux desktop, and by mainstreaming, I mean make it commercial. Make it so Joe Notageek, and his grandmother, can install it with less clicks than it takes to install Windows. Provide apps for it.
Mainstream a Linux server. Yes, I know there a lots out there, but again, only a few companies are really commercial. This is probably where Linux is most strong.
Not a Linux problem, but a parallel issue: Mainstream Linux apps. The killers are office and games, then accounting, then graphics. Open Office is quaint, but users still want MS. If the new commercial Linux Desktop seriously competes with MS, MS will start an Office Linux version. AND, game developers will create games for it that don't suck. Creating an auto-WINE that will allow a user to load existing Windows apps in Linux would help. Getting the industry to create a logo for Windows apps that are compatable under a WINE or other emu system would be great.
Even if we were to assume that your solution was correct, the scheduler patch wouldn't make a difference one way or the other. That's why this article is nonsense.
The thing is that telemarketers are not a problem until recently. If you had an unlisted number then you wouldnt get called. With area codes filling up faster than ever before its now possible for telemarketers to start dialing 211-1111, 211-1112,... , 999-9999. And get plenty of hits.
It's much more efficient for them to just buy the list of unlisted numbers from your phone company. And if you think that the phone companies don't do that, you're living in a fantasy world.
According to the article, Theo said that the Linux developers who did this "pestered the developer for a year to get it under another license" and were told "no, repeatedly." So apparently the Linux guys were aware of the fact that you should get permission, asked, and when they got an answer they didn't like, went ahead and did it anyway.
This also makes the claims of the bunches of people upthread claiming that it was a short-lived mistake seem pretty false -- if they've been talking about it for a year, and then decided to relicense against the author's stated wishes, it's pretty obvious that they knew exactly what they were doing.
Nethack is a great example of where open source game development shines. But you can't really say that it "rivals the commercial world" -- Nethack is simply not in the same market as the latest commercial 3D shooter or RPG. Commercial and FOSS games do not compete in any meaningful sense.
I have to say, though, that the summary is really silly. The kernel scheduler wouldn't make a list of the top hundred reasons why free software games don't compete with commercial software.
His point was that freshmeat lists more than seven times as many GPL projects as the number you quoted, and that's still a low count. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several times that many GPLed programs and projects around.
Another 'first effort' sign is the lack of polish in phrasing and (unfortunately), spelling.... Further runs of the book, one would hope, will correct these fundamental errors.
Probably not. Zonk's been posting stuff for a couple years now and still hasn't figured it out.
It is YOUR fault you do not want to work for the same wage as illegal immigrants do.
The same people who are supporting illegal immigration are the same ones who make it illegal for US citizens to actually work for the same wages as the illegals.
Thought linking to libraries or other components was fine as long as you where dynamically linking.
The GPL says no. Here's a quote from the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking):
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
The typical explanation is that by creating your program to be specifically dependent on the interface into the GPL'd library, you are creating a derivative work. This reasoning has never seemed to be very solid to me, as there is a vast continuum of ways that you could "link" to GPL'd code that range from being obviously derivative to obviously not, and I'm not aware of any real legal precedent that tries to define what the limits are. The FSF is pretty clear that they believe that you can't dynamically link to a GPL'd library from software under an incompatible license, though.
The GP is actually right about his conclusion -- that being 'inhumane' doesn't necessarily mean mistreating a human -- although his reasoning is off, as inhumane certainly is derived from 'human.' Saying that someone or something is inhumane means that they are acting inhuman. So if a person tortures a dog, that would be considered inhumane. Same with this test -- if you accept that it is cruel to the robot, then the test could be considered inhumane.
It is true that not everyone has the same goals. But some would be willing to cede one thing they slightly care about if they could get something they cared a lot more about.
I don't understand what you mean. The "something they care a lot more about" is the general goal that doesn't exist. Why would I give up the time and energy that I can devote to something I care about to work on this community goal that I don't?
The Linux Development community needs representative decision making, there are too many voters, hence, almost no direction or real progress towards a cohesive goal.
Your argument assumes that the "Linux Development community" (whatever that is) has, needs, or wants a common goal. There has been project after project which were supposedly to unify the "linux community" or "open source community," but historically every single one has fallen apart when it became obvious that the majority of people that the project tried to represent didn't care about the same goals or ideals.
Hm. So the guy above me makes a blatantly false claim, I (and several others) point out that he is wrong, and back it up with real facts -- and that makes me clueless. Slashdot debate at its finest.
a 170 gram can of tuna containst aboul half the mercury as a CF bulb, and YOU EAT THE TUNA. this is either a scam or a fake article.
Despite the moderators who think that this is informative, it's false. According to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html, canned albacore tuna has a mercury concentration of about 0.353 ppm. The "canned, light" tuna is listed as being about a third of that, but I'll go with the higher number to give you the benefit of the doubt. Working it out, that means that 170 grams of canned tuna has about 60 micrograms of mercury. That is about 1.2% as much as the 5 milligrams of mercury in a typical CF bulb -- nowhere close to 50%
Slashdot Mirror
What's more of a waste: voting for someone who loses, or voting for someone that you don't like who loses anyway? The mentality that it's better to vote for someone who you don't support because they have a better chance of winning was what killed all chances of having even a marginally relevant third party in 2000 and 2004.
(Not to say that I don't think that Ron Paul is a nut, of course.)
True, but if such linking does not create a derived work under copyright law, then you can link your work to a GPLed program or library and distribute it without having to agree to the terms of the GPL.
The usual argument is that if you link to a GPLed program, then your program contains information derived from the GPLed program (such as structure information from header files), and so is a derived work. As far as a program written in C, that argument might fly, but I'm not at all sure which side I would put my money on if the courts had to decide.
Even if the legal system OKs that, though, "linking" is a very vague term, and a sufficiently determined individual or company can find ways to "link" to the functionality of a GPLed program without turning their program into a derived work. For instance, Linus believes that NVidia's drivers violate the GPL. But it's certainly not obvious to me that their method of linking proprietary code to a wrapper that interfaces with the kernel actually makes the proprietary code a derived work.
The real question is -- how did it taste?
Just because you subscribe to that interpretation of Occam's razor does not mean that everyone does.
Having to maintain and update a separate version of a library, especially one as large as samba, is hardly what I would call a "non-issue."
According to the article, Theo said that the Linux developers who did this "pestered the developer for a year to get it under another license" and were told "no, repeatedly." So apparently the Linux guys were aware of the fact that you should get permission, asked, and when they got an answer they didn't like, went ahead and did it anyway. This also makes the claims of the bunches of people upthread claiming that it was a short-lived mistake seem pretty false -- if they've been talking about it for a year, and then decided to relicense against the author's stated wishes, it's pretty obvious that they knew exactly what they were doing.
Nethack is a great example of where open source game development shines. But you can't really say that it "rivals the commercial world" -- Nethack is simply not in the same market as the latest commercial 3D shooter or RPG. Commercial and FOSS games do not compete in any meaningful sense.
I have to say, though, that the summary is really silly. The kernel scheduler wouldn't make a list of the top hundred reasons why free software games don't compete with commercial software.
His point was that freshmeat lists more than seven times as many GPL projects as the number you quoted, and that's still a low count. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several times that many GPLed programs and projects around.
Let's not. How about let's assume twelve songs, legally downloaded from an online music store and burned to a CD. Total damages: $0.
What a stupid article.
The GPL says no. Here's a quote from the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking):
The typical explanation is that by creating your program to be specifically dependent on the interface into the GPL'd library, you are creating a derivative work. This reasoning has never seemed to be very solid to me, as there is a vast continuum of ways that you could "link" to GPL'd code that range from being obviously derivative to obviously not, and I'm not aware of any real legal precedent that tries to define what the limits are. The FSF is pretty clear that they believe that you can't dynamically link to a GPL'd library from software under an incompatible license, though.
The GP is actually right about his conclusion -- that being 'inhumane' doesn't necessarily mean mistreating a human -- although his reasoning is off, as inhumane certainly is derived from 'human.' Saying that someone or something is inhumane means that they are acting inhuman. So if a person tortures a dog, that would be considered inhumane. Same with this test -- if you accept that it is cruel to the robot, then the test could be considered inhumane.
Not that I agree with that point of view, though.
Your argument assumes that the "Linux Development community" (whatever that is) has, needs, or wants a common goal. There has been project after project which were supposedly to unify the "linux community" or "open source community," but historically every single one has fallen apart when it became obvious that the majority of people that the project tried to represent didn't care about the same goals or ideals.
Unfortunately, the other half has all the beer.
BogoMips. What else?
Hm. So the guy above me makes a blatantly false claim, I (and several others) point out that he is wrong, and back it up with real facts -- and that makes me clueless. Slashdot debate at its finest.
Despite the moderators who think that this is informative, it's false. According to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html, canned albacore tuna has a mercury concentration of about 0.353 ppm. The "canned, light" tuna is listed as being about a third of that, but I'll go with the higher number to give you the benefit of the doubt. Working it out, that means that 170 grams of canned tuna has about 60 micrograms of mercury. That is about 1.2% as much as the 5 milligrams of mercury in a typical CF bulb -- nowhere close to 50%