Our broadband consumers (30%) are in the 300-2000 bps range (US$ 20-40 / month). But this is shared bandwidth. For each 10-20 consumers mega-bps, there is only one mega-bps in the shared upstream link, and so on. ISPs wait till they get 20 more mega-bps demand to upgrade their links. This means I can max out my connection, but not all my "brothers" can max out the connections at the same time. Their links have shared bandwitdh also; there is only so much fiber:-)
that bandwidth is on an exponential upward curve? Down here (Brasil), at least, total available bandwidth vs. time is represented by a sub-linear growth curve (meaning bw(t+1) bw(t)*k for every t)
this happens in Unix too (that's how we get she-bangs and scripts to work.) The difference is only in the eXecute bit: in Windows, it's ON by default, in unix it's OFF by default. If what you tell me is true, it's enough to set all execute priviledges off in all directories (or in C:\ ??) and catch all your executables and turn the X bit on on them. This is not very difficult, and should be doable by a quite simple program. From the moment you do this on, you'll have to set the X bit for the other programs you install, but this should not be difficult to accomplish, either.
These people are paying for service (to clean their computer from viruses), for software (anti-viruses), why should someone else, except themselves, bother? Because viruses and worms and other malware in general spend from the finite well of bandwidth, that is a shared resource, and drive up bandwidth prices (and accordingly, other service prices) for everybody, not only for themselves. Got it?
I am under the impression that (almost?) all of the WebCore enhancements over plain KHTML were re-integrated in Konqi 3.5 (which I am using nowadays). Flame on about ACID2 being relevant or not! Woot!!!
Literacy + Health_infrastructure + Government_infrastructure are all aspects of the "technology" thing. First you learn to wash your hands and drink only clean water, then you learn to read, then you learn to think, then you learn to vote, then you learn a trade, then you succeed in life as a society.
If you give a man a fish, he'll have food for a day...
The third world does not really need (*) the kind of assistance that the rich countries offer most of the time (food and medicine). The third world does need:
1. technology (vide my first phrase above) 2. fair trade
Yeah, basically, that's it. And yes, I do live in a 3rd world country. My father comes from a really poor rural area, and both his sons to college, and me an my brother are sort of living the (South) American Dream.
(*) except in the most emergencial cases, of course.
think it was one of Linus's better thought out moves. Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?
You've gotta do that now anyway, since some code could be GPLv1, BSD, Artistic, etc. This is no different; if you want to use GPLv2-only code in your GPLv2+ or GPLv3 project, you'll just have to include a note saying that that particular code will just have to stay GPLv2 (but it won't stop the rest of the code from being GPLv3). IF the GPLv3 is compatible with the GPLv2. Now, if the GPLv3 adds some kind of patents clauses, or tries to make strongly explicit the "inexistent linking clause", or even adds choice-of-{venue,law} clauses, that could be construed as "additional restrictions" and the distribution of the combination of the GPLv3 modules with GPLv2 modules is forbidden to anyone but the original (common) copyright holder of both.
Short-lived? Four seasons? Ok. But the name of the character is Harvey Lipschultz. And the actor who plays it is Fyvush Finkel. So, you probably mixed it up.:-)
(3) Not really. 1. So basically you don't trust them because you don't agree with them. -- No, actually I don't trust them because they are actively misrepresenting stuff. 2. Regardless, they made their position clear before you came around, -- No, actually I am around for approximately the same time as them, and their position was not made clear (read the conflicting "that is to say" GPL clause); and when they "clarified" their position about things, it was to _remove_ rights from people who considered (by reading their text) they had it. 3. they're still transparent -- I can't really believe in transparency when I consider things are being misrepresented. 4. and their position hasn't changed. -- granted; ie, once they "clarified" their position, it hasn't changed (even though I think they should reconsider).
(*) MHO: 1. I respect RMS for his role in setting in motion the Free Software movement. 2. (corollary) I respect RMS for his role in starting GCC (which I use) and EMACS (which I don't use). 3. I respect the FSF and RMS for their roles in furthering the cause of Free software. 4. I don't trust the FSF and RMS to know that sometimes even well-intentioned people do things contrary to their own beliefs. 5. (corollary) The GFDL is non-free and sucks. Freedom should be equally applicable to all kinds of software: programs, libraries and other content types. 6. (corollary) The whole "GPL forbids (dyn)linking with GPL-incompatible works" party line is an outrageous lie, and it sucks. And, even if it seems to boost the FS movement (GPL'd Qt! Hey!) I think it does more harm than good.
what is worth more? Your knowledge about said software or the original authors'? And besides, the guy to which you sold your "derivative work" for less can also sell it for even less, and take away your costumers! He can even post the code on the Internet for free! People who sell Free Software are usually selling more commodity (the CD, the paper manuals), services (support, upgrades) than the software/per//se/.
1. There is no clause obligating GPL licensers to license a work under the GPL version X "or any subsequent versions". As a matter of fact, most of the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL v2 ONLY; arguably, as most of linux is a derivative work of the initial GPL v2 ONLY Torvalds job, they have to abide to the terms of the GPL v2.
2. It's a matter of trusting the FSF (which I don't (*)) or trusting [INSERT PERSON HERE]; my proposal is simpler: Trust the LAW. It's the only thing that (much like a computer) will do exactly as told to (and, much like a computer, you may be saying different from what you mean).
So, my suggestions will be (I'm signing in right now):
1. keep all rights given by the GPLv2, so GPLv3 will be compatible; 2. eliminate the "nonexistent linking clause", by:
2.1. stating what is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED a derivative work;
2.2. leaving all other definitions to the law. 3. don't try to mess with patents or trademarks because this would be incompatible with #1. 4. don't try to mess with choice of law or choice or venue because this would be incompatible with #1 AND non-free. 5. change the language so it's more comprehensible and leave no ambiguity behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Our broadband consumers (30%) are in the 300-2000 bps range (US$ 20-40 / month). :-)
But this is shared bandwidth. For each 10-20 consumers mega-bps, there is only one mega-bps in the shared upstream link, and so on. ISPs wait till they get 20 more mega-bps demand to upgrade their links. This means I can max out my connection, but not all my "brothers" can max out the connections at the same time. Their links have shared bandwitdh also; there is only so much fiber
no one knows if you Yoda are.
that bandwidth is on an exponential upward curve?
Down here (Brasil), at least, total available bandwidth vs. time is represented by a sub-linear growth curve (meaning bw(t+1) bw(t)*k for every t)
Neither ICQ nor AIM is very popular. Most Brasileiros have MSN, though. And GoogleTalk is still unknown.
this happens in Unix too (that's how we get she-bangs and scripts to work.) The difference is only in the eXecute bit: in Windows, it's ON by default, in unix it's OFF by default. If what you tell me is true, it's enough to set all execute priviledges off in all directories (or in C:\ ??) and catch all your executables and turn the X bit on on them. This is not very difficult, and should be doable by a quite simple program. From the moment you do this on, you'll have to set the X bit for the other programs you install, but this should not be difficult to accomplish, either.
These people are paying for service (to clean their computer from viruses), for software (anti-viruses), why should someone else, except themselves, bother? Because viruses and worms and other malware in general spend from the finite well of bandwidth, that is a shared resource, and drive up bandwidth prices (and accordingly, other service prices) for everybody, not only for themselves. Got it?
I am under the impression that (almost?) all of the WebCore enhancements over plain KHTML were re-integrated in Konqi 3.5 (which I am using nowadays). Flame on about ACID2 being relevant or not! Woot!!!
They'll frecking bury it, they have done it before, they will do it again, ....
Literacy + Health_infrastructure + Government_infrastructure are all aspects of the "technology" thing.
First you learn to wash your hands and drink only clean water,
then you learn to read,
then you learn to think,
then you learn to vote,
then you learn a trade,
then you succeed in life as a society.
If you give a man a fish, he'll have food for a day...
The third world does not really need (*) the kind of assistance that the rich countries offer most of the time (food and medicine).
The third world does need:
1. technology (vide my first phrase above)
2. fair trade
Yeah, basically, that's it. And yes, I do live in a 3rd world country. My father comes from a really poor rural area, and both his sons to college, and me an my brother are sort of living the (South) American Dream.
(*) except in the most emergencial cases, of course.
think it was one of Linus's better thought out moves.
Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?
You've gotta do that now anyway, since some code could be GPLv1, BSD, Artistic, etc. This is no different; if you want to use GPLv2-only code in your GPLv2+ or GPLv3 project, you'll just have to include a note saying that that particular code will just have to stay GPLv2 (but it won't stop the rest of the code from being GPLv3). IF the GPLv3 is compatible with the GPLv2. Now, if the GPLv3 adds some kind of patents clauses, or tries to make strongly explicit the "inexistent linking clause", or even adds choice-of-{venue,law} clauses, that could be construed as "additional restrictions" and the distribution of the combination of the GPLv3 modules with GPLv2 modules is forbidden to anyone but the original (common) copyright holder of both.
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
Short-lived? Four seasons? Ok. :-)
But the name of the character is Harvey Lipschultz.
And the actor who plays it is Fyvush Finkel.
So, you probably mixed it up.
slice of liver...
half a kidney...
(drools)
Especially if they already know you! :-)
(3) Not really.
1. So basically you don't trust them because you don't agree with them. -- No, actually I don't trust them because they are actively misrepresenting stuff.
2. Regardless, they made their position clear before you came around, -- No, actually I am around for approximately the same time as them, and their position was not made clear (read the conflicting "that is to say" GPL clause); and when they "clarified" their position about things, it was to _remove_ rights from people who considered (by reading their text) they had it.
3. they're still transparent -- I can't really believe in transparency when I consider things are being misrepresented.
4. and their position hasn't changed. -- granted; ie, once they "clarified" their position, it hasn't changed (even though I think they should reconsider).
You haven't watched Lost, Angel, Buffy, or Supernatural, have you? :-)
You need to watch Friends. :-)
(*) MHO:
1. I respect RMS for his role in setting in motion the Free Software movement.
2. (corollary) I respect RMS for his role in starting GCC (which I use) and EMACS (which I don't use).
3. I respect the FSF and RMS for their roles in furthering the cause of Free software.
4. I don't trust the FSF and RMS to know that sometimes even well-intentioned people do things contrary to their own beliefs.
5. (corollary) The GFDL is non-free and sucks. Freedom should be equally applicable to all kinds of software: programs, libraries and other content types.
6. (corollary) The whole "GPL forbids (dyn)linking with GPL-incompatible works" party line is an outrageous lie, and it sucks. And, even if it seems to boost the FS movement (GPL'd Qt! Hey!) I think it does more harm than good.
MODERATORS PLEASE MOD PARENT -6 Unfunny.
Or someone in his area take him behind the barn and end his misery.
what is worth more? Your knowledge about said software or the original authors'? /per/ /se/.
And besides, the guy to which you sold your "derivative work" for less can also sell it for even less, and take away your costumers! He can even post the code on the Internet for free!
People who sell Free Software are usually selling more commodity (the CD, the paper manuals), services (support, upgrades) than the software
The OpenBSD CD, as a collective work, is licensed under a non-liberal license (not even remotely free).
1. There is no clause obligating GPL licensers to license a work under the GPL version X "or any subsequent versions". As a matter of fact, most of the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL v2 ONLY; arguably, as most of linux is a derivative work of the initial GPL v2 ONLY Torvalds job, they have to abide to the terms of the GPL v2.
2. It's a matter of trusting the FSF (which I don't (*)) or trusting [INSERT PERSON HERE]; my proposal is simpler: Trust the LAW. It's the only thing that (much like a computer) will do exactly as told to (and, much like a computer, you may be saying different from what you mean).
So, my suggestions will be (I'm signing in right now):
1. keep all rights given by the GPLv2, so GPLv3 will be compatible;
2. eliminate the "nonexistent linking clause", by:
2.1. stating what is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED a derivative work;
2.2. leaving all other definitions to the law.
3. don't try to mess with patents or trademarks because this would be incompatible with #1.
4. don't try to mess with choice of law or choice or venue because this would be incompatible with #1 AND non-free.
5. change the language so it's more comprehensible and leave no ambiguity behind.