I don't think the author is wrong. I only think that if this is what he wants, he should be more explicit next time. I think what author _says_ he wants (when he dual-licenses his code GPL/BSD) is not what he really wants given the last statement you linked to. One important notice: I happen to disagree with TdR most of the time. But his argument -- even if we are wrong -- deserves to be pondered upon.
When a BSD/GPL code is passed along, it will be forever dual-licensed because the GPL guarantees it:
"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The key words being "all the rights". Including the rights that you get by way of the BSD license. He. He. That is to say, if you make the option of using the BSD license, well, you can do anything you want with the code, but, if you want to make the option of using the GPL license (and the kernel must make that option), you must pass along both options to those whom you distribute it to. Nice, uh?
Are you referring to national borders? That's hardly a real issue; at least no moreso than patroling the existing land and sea borders. Granted there would be a LOT more 'air traffic' if everyone had a flying car, but if the law required you to cross the border at a land based checkpoint, pretty much everyone but a criminal would obey it. So the few cars that tried to sneak over would be no worse than handlign the private yachts and planes that do it now. Only that a private plane/yatch is far more expensive = there are far less of them.
and The War on Drugs are reasons why the MIT-folding-wings thing (and this flying-saucer thing) will NEVER be classified as a light aircraft. Not to mention the War on Free Trade Between Nations Without Abusive Protectionist Taxes. No government has the resources to avoid the flow of people and merchandise once instead of patrolling a two-dimentional line it has to patrol a 3d surface. Planes don't really count because as they can't park outside airstrips/airports -- in principle --you only have to police those. Choppers are becoming more and more of an issue...
Re:"PCI" or "PCI" ?
on
PCI Compliance
·
· Score: 5, Informative
AC:
Lots of companies advertise lots of things. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read the contract. By all means. But that doesn't mean that they should be advertising such things, nor that they won't go belly up if someone takes them to court.
1. They advertise the plan as "unlimited bandwidth". Things in public ads are _more_ binding to a company than the terms of service IMHO. 2. That kind of contract clause is called in BR law "leonine clauses" and are automatically void. They would be obligated to spell what the limit is -- in the contract _and_ in the advertising (even if only in the "small letters nobody can read on TV without 1080p but you can see on paper and magazine ads").
What we _do_ have here is a clause that says "the ISP will provide at least 15% of the nominal bandwidth 24/7 and 100% of the nominal bandwitdh at least 15% of the time." and it's barely legal as is. But, thank $DEITY, no DL cap. Disclaimer: in my town [third largest in the country, 4M inhabitants], there are at least six providers of broadband.
(I have no time to confirm it) that 3000 development units were requested, 1500 of them are already with the buyers, the second 1500-sized lot is coming out next week. I don't think Neo will be a geeks-only thing.
I only have one thing to add: _my_ point, the whole time, is that elections (paper, electronic, or electronic+paper) are an essencially fragile thing, and you have to balance the guarantees for anonymity and for correctness (too much anonymity, you lose the guarantee of correctness and vice-versa).
See some of the comments above for some things many people can do with you when they know who you voted for: 1. Your boss: "you didn't vote for my candidate, you're fired"; 2. The sheriff: "you didn't vote for me, let me write your complaint here on my imaginary machine" 3. The mayor: "you didn't vote for me, where should I put the new low-income-housing zone?? oh, yes, your neighborhood is fine to me"; 4. Another unscupulous politician: "you didn't vote for me, BANG! send a ham to the widow, Smithers" Un-secret vote is no vote at all. Secrecy on the vote is one of the pillars of the representative democracy. OTOH, There is NO way that I know of to reconcile secrecy of votes with certainty of election results. Not with paper ballots, not with electronic voting.
It's interesting to note how religious trolls relate a lack of religion to a lack of morals. The dialogs posted by the OP are actually mocking christians for having such stupid views about atheism, not mocking atheists for having no morals. s/christians/self-appointed christian guardians of the Righteous Truth/ s/atheism/atheism, drugs, sexuality, birth control, religious tolerance AND morals/
I agree with you in the fact that Linus has complete control of the features that enter the linux kernel and you may be subject to his priorities. However I don't know how he would ban a country from using his software? I Understood that the parent poster was referring to banning from modifying Linux, like you can be banned from modifying WP.
Either way, forking the linux kernel isn't a viable alternative unless you're a team of highly skilled developers who want to dedicate a large portion of their lives keeping up with the linux kernel. As I see it there's no better alternative, Open Source doesn't mean the developer is your slave or is free to let anyone taint his software with bogus code or untested modules. And Wikipedia is not your slave to publish anything you think is right, even if you are pretty sure you're right and you are a PhDios in the subject at hand.
Although there are quite a few variations in how open source projects are managed, and some work better than others, however... I don't think it wise to criticise open source, for closed source projects can do this just as easily. I'm sure most open source projects would be willing to develop the features you need if you throw enough money their way. This is how much closed source works as well, as far as I know. Agreed. Anyway, owlnation had stated:
Yes, this is very questionable. Particularly with the relentless controversies that pursue Wikipedia like a pack of hounds. And will continue to do so for a long time to come.
Also, while the wiki template is open, large parts of the content are very much not open in any true sense. You can very easily get your IP address banned if some Wikinazi disagrees with your opinion, no matter who knowledgeable or correct your opinion is. Entire countries have had their IP addresses banned. This in not in any way open by my definition. Which, IMHO, is a load of dang. Again, my points: 1. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource; 2. It's far better and far more unbiased than any other privately-done encyclopedia; 3. I use WP since its inception, and I have yet to find a factual error or a purposeful vandalism while doing a normal, day-by-day research; 4. Even when I find some controversial information on WP, it's correctly marked; 5. It's open like Linux is open: you can always take the whole or part of WP, copy to your website and define your rules for edition. Isn't it what those other guys are doing?
For the sake of personal interest: If photons don't have mass, how is it that they are affected by gravitational fields? According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.
The problem here is: IMHO (and RMS's opinion) non-free software is unethical, because it's basically a scam: making software is a service with value; making copies of software is of (marginally) zero value. So, the GPP is right on the mark. If a company that makes (unethical) proprietary software starts making some (ethical) Free Software, it is (1) improving its act and (2) contributing to the pool of Free Software. If a company that makes Free Software starts making proprietary software, it is (1) starting to make unethical things and (2) contributing less to the pool of Free Software. So, that's the reason why we praise non-free-software companies that open um and we boo free-software companies that close down. Putting it like the GPP: would you praise a country that permitted slave labour and then passwd a law freeing some of its slaves? (like mine did in 1871...) And would you protest a country without slaves that passed a law allowing for some to have slaves? HTH.
IMHO, your steps (1) and (2) [non-numbered bullets, above] should be done also in the Patent Office, before the patent is granted. And to register a pantent, the registrant should bear the burden of proving that (1) his patent is novel and (2) his patent is non-trivial.
Admittedly this is not a familiar punitive mechanism to those of us in much of the English speaking world, but we shouldn't be so quick to judge the customs and traditions of foreign cultures. Remember, this is coming from the same country that introduced us to high quality inexpensive digital watches, cars that would last for more than 60000 miles, Takeshi's Castle, and tentacle porn. Oh, I didn't know Thailand had brought the world all those great things.</sarcasm>
Matters of national security are made secret relative to their threat level. The problem being when they are not -- as seems to be the case here.
Beyond monomaniac-moderator peer-conformance and inappropriate, fallacious joking, I'd really like to hear a sensible argument for the abolishment of state secrets given the current capabilities of mankind and the state of the world. I tend to think there isn't one, but if you have one, go ahead and post it. No, you're right. As I said above, the problem is that to maintain democracy, you have to severely limit what can be classified and what cannot be classified. And a Constitution-maiming plan to permit warrantless wiretapping IMHO is something that absolutely has to pass the public opinion and discussion before being approved -- IE, something that absolutely canNOT be classified.
Anyway, the PP was talking about _hired_ security, like in a corporate environment (or in the White House), goons with guns. OTOH, when you need goons with guns, you always have to worry about your goons not turning against you...
you would be equally wrong. But to stay in the topic (of porn) in the small towns of my (once _very_ conservative) state of Minas Gerais, sex shops are flourishing, because people (especially the ladies) go there in packs to buy sex toys... and porn.
Even though Linux is "free" it would probably cost me $5-15/month in electricity to run it on my Mac, and it would at the same time put more wear and tear on my hardware. Funny, my laptop runs cooler under linux than under WindowsXP. It suspends automagically if I close the lid, and takes like five seconds to restore when I open the lid and press any key. I smell some FUD here.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the author is wrong. I only think that if this is what he wants, he should be more explicit next time. I think what author _says_ he wants (when he dual-licenses his code GPL/BSD) is not what he really wants given the last statement you linked to. One important notice: I happen to disagree with TdR most of the time. But his argument -- even if we are wrong -- deserves to be pondered upon.
This post brought to you by reading comprehension, and the letter K.
Actually, it does not look that way.I read the GPL many times, thank you (my desktop has exactly 80 [*] copies of the GPLv2 installed on it), and I have already made a comprehensive effort to try to understand its dipositions and its interactions with other, different-but-compatible licenses.
Please, read this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg0
and this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg0
[*]
Theo is right on this one. His argument is:
When a BSD/GPL code is passed along, it will be forever dual-licensed because the GPL guarantees it:
"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The key words being "all the rights". Including the rights that you get by way of the BSD license. He. He. That is to say, if you make the option of using the BSD license, well, you can do anything you want with the code, but, if you want to make the option of using the GPL license (and the kernel must make that option), you must pass along both options to those whom you distribute it to. Nice, uh?
That the Shaolin monks don't try something more ... physical towards the troll. ;-)
and The War on Drugs are reasons why the MIT-folding-wings thing (and this flying-saucer thing) will NEVER be classified as a light aircraft. Not to mention the War on Free Trade Between Nations Without Abusive Protectionist Taxes. No government has the resources to avoid the flow of people and merchandise once instead of patrolling a two-dimentional line it has to patrol a 3d surface. Planes don't really count because as they can't park outside airstrips/airports -- in principle --you only have to police those. Choppers are becoming more and more of an issue...
1. They advertise the plan as "unlimited bandwidth". Things in public ads are _more_ binding to a company than the terms of service IMHO.
2. That kind of contract clause is called in BR law "leonine clauses" and are automatically void. They would be obligated to spell what the limit is -- in the contract _and_ in the advertising (even if only in the "small letters nobody can read on TV without 1080p but you can see on paper and magazine ads").
What we _do_ have here is a clause that says "the ISP will provide at least 15% of the nominal bandwidth 24/7 and 100% of the nominal bandwitdh at least 15% of the time." and it's barely legal as is. But, thank $DEITY, no DL cap. Disclaimer: in my town [third largest in the country, 4M inhabitants], there are at least six providers of broadband.
(I have no time to confirm it)
that 3000 development units were requested, 1500 of them are already with the buyers, the second 1500-sized lot is coming out next week. I don't think Neo will be a geeks-only thing.
but the Neo1973 has GPS. And removable storage. And replaceable battery. :-(
But No camera
I only have one thing to add: _my_ point, the whole time, is that elections (paper, electronic, or electronic+paper) are an essencially fragile thing, and you have to balance the guarantees for anonymity and for correctness (too much anonymity, you lose the guarantee of correctness and vice-versa).
See some of the comments above for some things many people can do with you when they know who you voted for:
1. Your boss: "you didn't vote for my candidate, you're fired";
2. The sheriff: "you didn't vote for me, let me write your complaint here on my imaginary machine"
3. The mayor: "you didn't vote for me, where should I put the new low-income-housing zone?? oh, yes, your neighborhood is fine to me";
4. Another unscupulous politician: "you didn't vote for me, BANG! send a ham to the widow, Smithers"
Un-secret vote is no vote at all. Secrecy on the vote is one of the pillars of the representative democracy.
OTOH, There is NO way that I know of to reconcile secrecy of votes with certainty of election results. Not with paper ballots, not with electronic voting.
s/christians/self-appointed christian guardians of the Righteous Truth/
s/atheism/atheism, drugs, sexuality, birth control, religious tolerance AND morals/
I corrected it for you, ok? HTH.
Also, while the wiki template is open, large parts of the content are very much not open in any true sense. You can very easily get your IP address banned if some Wikinazi disagrees with your opinion, no matter who knowledgeable or correct your opinion is. Entire countries have had their IP addresses banned. This in not in any way open by my definition. Which, IMHO, is a load of dang.
Again, my points:
1. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource;
2. It's far better and far more unbiased than any other privately-done encyclopedia;
3. I use WP since its inception, and I have yet to find a factual error or a purposeful vandalism while doing a normal, day-by-day research;
4. Even when I find some controversial information on WP, it's correctly marked;
5. It's open like Linux is open: you can always take the whole or part of WP, copy to your website and define your rules for edition. Isn't it what those other guys are doing?
At least the PSP browser only plays flash 6 and has too little memory; so, no YouTube.
(I normally RTFA before posting)
The problem here is: IMHO (and RMS's opinion) non-free software is unethical, because it's basically a scam: making software is a service with value; making copies of software is of (marginally) zero value. So, the GPP is right on the mark.
If a company that makes (unethical) proprietary software starts making some (ethical) Free Software, it is (1) improving its act and (2) contributing to the pool of Free Software.
If a company that makes Free Software starts making proprietary software, it is (1) starting to make unethical things and (2) contributing less to the pool of Free Software.
So, that's the reason why we praise non-free-software companies that open um and we boo free-software companies that close down.
Putting it like the GPP: would you praise a country that permitted slave labour and then passwd a law freeing some of its slaves? (like mine did in 1871...) And would you protest a country without slaves that passed a law allowing for some to have slaves?
HTH.
IMHO, your steps (1) and (2) [non-numbered bullets, above] should be done also in the Patent Office, before the patent is granted. And to register a pantent, the registrant should bear the burden of proving that (1) his patent is novel and (2) his patent is non-trivial.
Anyway, the PP was talking about _hired_ security, like in a corporate environment (or in the White House), goons with guns. OTOH, when you need goons with guns, you always have to worry about your goons not turning against you...
you would be equally wrong.
But to stay in the topic (of porn) in the small towns of my (once _very_ conservative) state of Minas Gerais, sex shops are flourishing, because people (especially the ladies) go there in packs to buy sex toys... and porn.
He probably shouldn't have posted about it in kuro5hin...