I'm up to your challenge
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Please name an application in which compositing gives a better user interface...
I worked in a GIS (geoprocessing) application to an electrical company. In the user's screen, a map showed up with all polls and wires that are in a location. If you clicked on a poll with, e.g., a transformer, a translucent (big) tooltip came up with all of the transformers specs, where the electricity was coming from, where it was going to, etc (like 20 lines of text). Without dismissing such tooltip, the user is capable of clicking in another poll in the map, and only the contents of the tooltip changed, (maybe it's position if it were possible to move "away" from the current part of the map. The user could even click thru the tooltip, in a poll that was showing below it! (there was a menu item/toolbar speed-button and a hot-key to close the tooltip, obviously)
This kind of interface is *very* practical and would be impossible without translucency. I implemented it in a no-nonsense 15 minutes under BorlandC++/w2k.
1. you are trolling. 2. you don't have a clue. 3. you don't respond to specific points of my discourse, but instead cite a part and repeat your argument over and over. 4. you don't cite any sources but your own mind. 5. you did not read the GPL. 6. you did not read USC17. 7. you did not read any caselaw. 8. you did not read any doctrine authors. 9. you did not work for years as a paralegal in a district attorney's office -- I did. 10. (corollary of 9) you were not involved in any copyrights lawsuits, directly or indirectly -- I was, and I did all the research work to lots of copyrights lawsuits, including criminal prosecutions. 11. you are trolling.
Good riddance. Don't bother answering to this post. Answer intelligently, intelligibly and citing good sources to any of my other posts. Google for the terms I gave in the first one. Google for "license is not a contract". Or, if you are not trolling and you are really right, educate me -- give me pointers to every relevant source (especially caselaw).
You are confusing two common usages of the term "license". Yes, a "license" is a unilateral grant of rights. But that unilateral grant of rights is usually done in return for some consideration, under a contractual agreement. That contractual agreement is commonly also called a "license" (or "license agreement"), and it imposes obligations on both parties. Those obligations may be of a monetary nature or they may involve obligations to cross-license your software or they may be something completely different.
I did not mention what you call "license agreement", except when I talked about contracts. GPL is a license: when you license your work under the GPL, you are especifically waiving certain rights. Some rights that are held by YOU. You are waiving some of those unconditionally and some conditionally. The rights held by you, and waived when you publish something under the GPL are, specifically: monopoly and controlling of copy, modification and distribution of your work and derivative works.
The GPL is not asking you to "waive any rights", nor does it even involve any kind of copyright transfer. The GPL is an agreement by two parties over transferable licenses to software to which each party holds copyright.
Never, NEVER ! The GPL is not an agreement, is a waiver! It's not asking you to do anything, it's a waiver (by the copyright holder) saying: ooooh, I hereby signed XXXX by this instrument -- the GPL -- waive my rights (monopoly on copying, modifying, publishing/distributing this work and derivatives), reserving some recall powers that I will not use provide you do something that was my exclusive rights (copying etc) in the prescribed way. Anyone can do so, even if it's a four-year-old girl, that under no circumstances would be considered a legally consenting party to enter an agreement.
You are required to license your "derivative works" under the GPL not because of copyright law, but because you entered into a legal agreement that you would do so. In fact, the GPL can (and probably does already) define "derivative works" broader than copyright law.
No. Four-year-olds can use GPL'd software, can download and install them from the internet. The GPL uses throughtout its text the expression "works based on the Program", which it defines, in its section #0:
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law
You are bound by the terms of the GPL as soon as you copy the GPL'ed software (i.e., its source or binary form) because without agreeing to the GPL, you would be violating copyright law. But the terms that govern your subsequent behavior are a combination of copyright law and the terms of the GPL. Whether you prepare derivative works has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you rights even to using the GPL'ed software in question terminate.
I will quote the relevant part of the GPL for you (section #0, paragraph 1), as it needs no further comments:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
The fact that the notion of "derivative works" in the GPL happens to be close to the copyright notion is convenient but not necessary for the GPL to apply. And in future versions of the GPL, the notion of "derivative works" will probably be broadened further.
This is not true. The notion of derivative works cannot be defined by a license, because, as defined by USC17 and doctrine and caselaw, a license is a waiver of rights, that cannot take away any rights. So, the notion of "wo
I have already said (above), Leandro, why I think it's not going to happen. Notwithstanding the lessons we've being told in the university, I learned that when you change some behaviour in a component *and* you change its interface, too, you have more options to deal with incompatibilities than when you change the behaviour and keep the interface. YMMV...
1. you started all wrong: The GPL is a license--i.e., a contract between the licensor and the licensee.
Repeat after me: a license is not a contract. Ok, now I will repeat after you: it *is*, in some jurisdictions (Brasil is one of them).
Now repeat after me, again: in the U. S. of A., a license is most definitively NOT a contract.
A contract is an agreement between two (or +) consenting parties, on their own volition: a license is an unilateral grant, to whom it may concern.
Under Brazilian law, a software license is called "Computer Program Use License Contract", and is regulated by a different set of laws than ordirnary contracts, and its validity is quite similar of the USofA law style software license.
Under USofAn law, software licenses are waivers of rights protected by USC17 to all parties whom it may concern. BR "use license contracts" are similar, but they are stronger.
In any case, under USC17, when you have a (legally-acquired) copy of some software, you have some rights under the fair use clauses of USC17, under fair use and first buy doctrines: you can use the software; you can make backup(s?); you can erase all your copies and sell these rights to another person; etc.
EULAs, especially of the shrink-wrap kind, are week because they try to subtract rights from the buyer: rights given by USC17 (e.g. the right to transfer the software), rights given by local consumer laws (e.g. the right to sue the software maker for deceitful advertising) etc. etc.... the point to shrink-wrap or click-thru EULAs is: if you tear the wrapping (or click on this button), it's the equivalent of signing a contract, which is NOT true, because you can ask a person not-legally-consenting (e.g. your 6yo nephew), and then nobody is legally bound to the terms of the EULA.
Now, this does not unbind the person from the terms of USC17: you cannot redistribute the software etc. What GPL and other Free Software licenses try to do is: waive the rights that are protected by copyright law, asking for nothing in return.
Wait, I just lied: the GPL (and many other copyleft licenses) ask in return that any derivative work be covered by the same license -- otherwise, in a judo-like fashion, your grant to the original copy is cancelled, so your derivative work is undistributable.
2. The most common thing for a license to do is to regulate the transfer of money from the licensee's pocket into the licensor's pocket. -- no, this is what contracts do; and, as I said before, you must be a legally consenting party to enter a contract.
3. In particular, if you agree to the GPL for a piece of software to which you don't hold the copyright, you may be forced to accept an obligation of licensing some software to which you hold copyright to others. No, no, no.
I'll rephrase it to you: if you agree to the GPL for a piece of software to which you don't hold the copyright, and you want to distribute a derivative work of it, then you are forced to accept the obligation of licensing [a]the copyright you hold in the derivative work [b]to the same people to whom you'll distribute said derivative work [c]under the terms of the GPL.
4. If you don't want that to happen, you just don't agree to the GPL, but then you also can't use the GPL'ed software. Again, rephrasing: if you don't want that to happen, you just don't agree to the GPL, but then you also can't distribute a derivative work of the GPL'd software. Can you use the GPL'd software? HELL YES. You could use it from the moment you put your hands legally on it. Can you make a derivative work -- without accepting the terms of the GPL? NO -- USC17 protects the copyright holders from you doing it, not the GPL.
5. There is nothing unusual about such agreements and they are certainly valid and enforceable: I give you a limited transferable license for software A if you
However, since 80% of mail is spam (according to a previous slashdot story) and 80% of spam comes from hijjacked windows computers, it stands to reason that a good number (probably a majority) of the mail in the world originates at a windows MTA. Except for the fact that hijacked computers don't use Outlook or any other Windows MTA to send their email.
This is BS. I'm sorry. Every classification system -- including manual classification -- has an error margin, and a cost. The balance here is not 5 extra spam versus 0 false postives: it's 5000+ spam versus 1 false positive. Can you manually classify (read: hit DEL key repeatedly) 5000+ times without pressing accidentally the DEL key and deleting this one false positive?
If there was anything useful for Veritas they just could rewrite from scratch pieces they needed. Veritas has enough engineers to do that. LOL. Does Veritas has enough engineers to rewrite all the goodies in JFS from scratch? And to deliver on schedule? I somehow doubt it.
1. Id like to see a more rigid Linux Kernel API (so a module doesnt have to be recompiled between kernel maintenace versions),
This is not going to happen. Linus himself already told innumerous times that he thinks this would make unnecessarily hard to change the kernel APIs, and that, notwithstanding the point "2", below, he is not interested in binary compatibility for kernel-space things between versions of the kernel. This is right, and if you did not get it yet, I'll explain it to you: it leads to Big Bad Difficult Bugs, trying to get kernel modules to work in various kernel versions. Many things evolve from one version of the kernel to the next, many assumptions change.
2. and the 'grey' area of binary modules sorted out as well. I dont think it will happen.
This one has already happened, (*) but many people still want to pretend it didn't. Some binary modules are derived works of the kernel, and such, to be distributed at all, they must be distributed under the GPL. Some binary modules are not derived work of the kernel, and as such, they can be distributed under any license that the author seems fit. What determines if a work (in the case, a binary module) is a derived work of another (the kernel) is copyright law.
In the USofA and in Brasil, the copyright law states that a derived work is the result of some non-automated transformation of the original work. USofAn case law established the method of "abstraction, filtration, and comparison" [AFC] to determine derivation of works.
There is a myth, spread by the last paragraph of the "postamble" of the GPL, "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs":
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.
I will repeat here the position I have after carefully studying the GPL, copyright law, and case law: the GPL regulates the licensing to derived works of the GPL'd work, but it cannot regulate the licensing of encompassing "anthology" works. Linking does not make a work derived on other work: to see if some work is a derived work, apply the [AFC] method. Some (not all) linking, non-derived, non-GPL'd, works can be even distributed along with a GPL'd work, because they would be covered by the "mere aggregation" clause in the 3rd paragraph of section 2 of the GPL.
And one more funny stuff: the section 6 of the GPL states:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This basically means that you can't even clarify the license further than copyright law would restrict the rights of the recipient of your work (**), without rendering it undistributable by others (and even by yourself, if your work is derived from another GPL'd work).
But, OTOH, IANAL and TINLA. But I am a paralegal. IMMV and the others TFFLAs:-)
One year and a half ago, I spent a lot of monies in a *huge* HD, and I have being using it happily ever after... until yesterday, when some bad blocks emerged. If I was using ext[23], I would fsck -b and continue to use the thing for one more year (warranty expired 6 mo ago). Now, I will have to take more "radical" measures... like fdisking "around" it or something...
If this means what I think it means, you better go see what Maya does.
For anyone that needs Office. No. (and please don't say OpenOffice is the same)
I don't use anything Office has that OpenOffice has not. YMMV.
For anyone that wants a consistant interface. No. (copy and paste != sort of copy and sort of paste)
Copy (Ctrl-C) and Paste (Ctrl-V) both work OK in my machine. _And_ Select (left-mouse-button-drag) and Paste-Selection (middle-button-click) work too, to make some things faster.
For Grandma. No.
My Granny can't operate a Windows machine, too.
For elementary school kids. No.
My son Lucas (5yo) uses exclusively Linux on my machine (he even has his own account on it, with RonaldMcDonald bg and all) and in the last two years he learned: how to log in, how to start gcompris and his other games, and how to log out.
For plug and play wireless networking. No.
My laptop had Sarge installed on it a month ago and my USB-Drive/WiFi combo worked out of the box.
For people that don't want to rebuild kernals with new revs of linux. No.
It's been a year or two since I compiled my last kernel
1) What is ourTunes? ourTunes is the continuation of several open source projects designed to allow you to browse and download from other people's iTunes Music Shares?
2) Is this a Peer to Peer (P2P) program? Aren't those things created by Satan to steal Christmas from Baby Jesus? It's not "really" a peer-to-peer program, because it doesn't allow you the opportunity to share any files or music.
3) Why am I not seeing any hosts? Is the whole internet dead? There probably aren't any people on your network sharing iTunes music. ourTunes only allows you to view connections within your networks "subnet" (often the building you are currently in, maybe a little bit more). If you are running ourTunes from home, I'm sorry to say but you'll probably be pretty disappointed. It's really only a viable program where there are lots of people living on a fast network with good taste in music (*cough* college campus *cough*).
It allows you to share with other people on the same network! OMG. nothing to see here.
2... yeah, I had a machine with some 3dfx card too (the ones you had to passthru the VGA cable)... but the games were normally not DirectX (the showcase directX game was the Microsoft Plus for Windows 95's Pinball) 4... no, lots of people used late 80's and early 90's Sun / DEC / IBM machines as desktops, and those who did could not go Windows, so they transported their X desktops to linux... both Slack and Debian (hamm) 5... Slack'96 had good file locking, a sane filesystem, and also ran both SIAG and latex (that even up to the present day can make MSOffice run for the money -- even if it's not so ez to use __and I'll grant you that__)
ok. if you were a kid, W95 had the gamez, but if you were an adult (and I was), linux was pretty much ready in 96. and the point to the whole article was: if I put a Slack with Linux 2.0 (which _is_ 96 vintage) directly connected in the net, as of today, I will have a machine with the same capabilities of w98 machine without the hassle of having my machine 0wn3d in the first 48 hours. And remember we are talking Linux'96 vs. Windows'98.
But I bet you will agree in disagreeing with me:-)
2. is the new code still bound by the GPL? A. this depends on who is the copyright owner of the last GPL'd version. if the original copyright owner (the original package owner) is the SOLE copyright owner of the last GPL'd version (as in: he did not accept any outside patches, or if he accepted only copyright-releasing-by-writing-signed-and-notarize d patches [FSF-style or MySQL-style]) -- then he can do whatever he wants with the code, BECAUSE IT's its property. But if he accepted a lot of outside patches, whithout copyright weavers (linux-the-kernel style) he would need the authorization of the patch owners OR he would need to reverse all outside patches (if possible -- in the case of linux, for instance, this is not really practical), or else he would be bound by the GPL because the current work is a derivative work on the GPL'd patches.
3. how close is too close? A. to be completely untainted, he would have to write down the complete spec to the work (in English, for example) and would have to get another person -- who had not seen the source code previously -- to re-write it in some programming language. this is what is called clean-room reimplementation.
1. NT4 was launched by the end of 1996. Don't confuse it with NT 3.51. 2. NT4 could do everything 95 could do; DirectX wasn't an issue yet, direct-hardware-accessing games were DOS-mode games. Some of those ran under NT4 (on ring3, with DOS+VGA compatibility layer) and some did not. Remember: no 3D fancy video cards in '96!!! 3. Windows 98 only got DirectX right by 1999/2000, way after 98SE. 4. A '96 vintage Slackware has many, many less known exploits than 95 and 98. Or NT4. 5. NT4 had NTFS, done-right file locking and a complete network stack -- which neither 95 nor 98 had. I *wanted* to prove your point, but I couldn't.:-) Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
yes I do: P-O-S-T-E. Poste. Pronounced "pos-ch" (open "o", like in POD).
N/T
Please name an application in which compositing gives a better user interface ...
I worked in a GIS (geoprocessing) application to an electrical company. In the user's screen, a map showed up with all polls and wires that are in a location. If you clicked on a poll with, e.g., a transformer, a translucent (big) tooltip came up with all of the transformers specs, where the electricity was coming from, where it was going to, etc (like 20 lines of text). Without dismissing such tooltip, the user is capable of clicking in another poll in the map, and only the contents of the tooltip changed, (maybe it's position if it were possible to move "away" from the current part of the map. The user could even click thru the tooltip, in a poll that was showing below it! (there was a menu item/toolbar speed-button and a hot-key to close the tooltip, obviously)
This kind of interface is *very* practical and would be impossible without translucency. I implemented it in a no-nonsense 15 minutes under BorlandC++/w2k.
1. you are trolling.
2. you don't have a clue.
3. you don't respond to specific points of my discourse, but instead cite a part and repeat your argument over and over.
4. you don't cite any sources but your own mind.
5. you did not read the GPL.
6. you did not read USC17.
7. you did not read any caselaw.
8. you did not read any doctrine authors.
9. you did not work for years as a paralegal in a district attorney's office -- I did.
10. (corollary of 9) you were not involved in any copyrights lawsuits, directly or indirectly -- I was, and I did all the research work to lots of copyrights lawsuits, including criminal prosecutions.
11. you are trolling.
Good riddance. Don't bother answering to this post. Answer intelligently, intelligibly and citing good sources to any of my other posts. Google for the terms I gave in the first one. Google for "license is not a contract". Or, if you are not trolling and you are really right, educate me -- give me pointers to every relevant source (especially caselaw).
I did not mention what you call "license agreement", except when I talked about contracts. GPL is a license: when you license your work under the GPL, you are especifically waiving certain rights. Some rights that are held by YOU. You are waiving some of those unconditionally and some conditionally. The rights held by you, and waived when you publish something under the GPL are, specifically: monopoly and controlling of copy, modification and distribution of your work and derivative works.
The GPL is not asking you to "waive any rights", nor does it even involve any kind of copyright transfer. The GPL is an agreement by two parties over transferable licenses to software to which each party holds copyright.
Never, NEVER ! The GPL is not an agreement, is a waiver! It's not asking you to do anything, it's a waiver (by the copyright holder) saying: ooooh, I hereby signed XXXX by this instrument -- the GPL -- waive my rights (monopoly on copying, modifying, publishing/distributing this work and derivatives), reserving some recall powers that I will not use provide you do something that was my exclusive rights (copying etc) in the prescribed way. Anyone can do so, even if it's a four-year-old girl, that under no circumstances would be considered a legally consenting party to enter an agreement.
You are required to license your "derivative works" under the GPL not because of copyright law, but because you entered into a legal agreement that you would do so. In fact, the GPL can (and probably does already) define "derivative works" broader than copyright law.
No. Four-year-olds can use GPL'd software, can download and install them from the internet. The GPL uses throughtout its text the expression "works based on the Program", which it defines, in its section #0:
You are bound by the terms of the GPL as soon as you copy the GPL'ed software (i.e., its source or binary form) because without agreeing to the GPL, you would be violating copyright law. But the terms that govern your subsequent behavior are a combination of copyright law and the terms of the GPL. Whether you prepare derivative works has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you rights even to using the GPL'ed software in question terminate.
I will quote the relevant part of the GPL for you (section #0, paragraph 1), as it needs no further comments:
The fact that the notion of "derivative works" in the GPL happens to be close to the copyright notion is convenient but not necessary for the GPL to apply. And in future versions of the GPL, the notion of "derivative works" will probably be broadened further.
This is not true. The notion of derivative works cannot be defined by a license, because, as defined by USC17 and doctrine and caselaw, a license is a waiver of rights, that cannot take away any rights. So, the notion of "wo
That's exactly my point.
And besides, nowadays, binary kernel modules that are not derived works on the kernel come with GPL'd "glue code", that can adapt to their needs.
[]s
Humberto Massa
0. Her name is Vanessa,
0a. indicating with some certainty she's a female!
1. She has a fiancee, not a boyfriend but she's got the Ring!
2. They've got a CAR, indicating that they are OLD ENOUGH TO DRIVE.
3. Won't someone please THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!!
NOTE TO MODERATORS (especially humour-impaired ones): please ignore me.
I have already said (above), Leandro, why I think it's not going to happen. Notwithstanding the lessons we've being told in the university, I learned that when you change some behaviour in a component *and* you change its interface, too, you have more options to deal with incompatibilities than when you change the behaviour and keep the interface. YMMV...
1. you started all wrong: The GPL is a license--i.e., a contract between the licensor and the licensee.
... the point to shrink-wrap or click-thru EULAs is: if you tear the wrapping (or click on this button), it's the equivalent of signing a contract, which is NOT true, because you can ask a person not-legally-consenting (e.g. your 6yo nephew), and then nobody is legally bound to the terms of the EULA.
Repeat after me: a license is not a contract. Ok, now I will repeat after you: it *is*, in some jurisdictions (Brasil is one of them).
Now repeat after me, again: in the U. S. of A., a license is most definitively NOT a contract.
A contract is an agreement between two (or +) consenting parties, on their own volition: a license is an unilateral grant, to whom it may concern.
Under Brazilian law, a software license is called "Computer Program Use License Contract", and is regulated by a different set of laws than ordirnary contracts, and its validity is quite similar of the USofA law style software license.
Under USofAn law, software licenses are waivers of rights protected by USC17 to all parties whom it may concern. BR "use license contracts" are similar, but they are stronger.
In any case, under USC17, when you have a (legally-acquired) copy of some software, you have some rights under the fair use clauses of USC17, under fair use and first buy doctrines: you can use the software; you can make backup(s?); you can erase all your copies and sell these rights to another person; etc.
EULAs, especially of the shrink-wrap kind, are week because they try to subtract rights from the buyer: rights given by USC17 (e.g. the right to transfer the software), rights given by local consumer laws (e.g. the right to sue the software maker for deceitful advertising) etc. etc.
Now, this does not unbind the person from the terms of USC17: you cannot redistribute the software etc. What GPL and other Free Software licenses try to do is: waive the rights that are protected by copyright law, asking for nothing in return.
Wait, I just lied: the GPL (and many other copyleft licenses) ask in return that any derivative work be covered by the same license -- otherwise, in a judo-like fashion, your grant to the original copy is cancelled, so your derivative work is undistributable.
2. The most common thing for a license to do is to regulate the transfer of money from the licensee's pocket into the licensor's pocket. -- no, this is what contracts do; and, as I said before, you must be a legally consenting party to enter a contract.
3. In particular, if you agree to the GPL for a piece of software to which you don't hold the copyright, you may be forced to accept an obligation of licensing some software to which you hold copyright to others. No, no, no.
I'll rephrase it to you: if you agree to the GPL for a piece of software to which you don't hold the copyright, and you want to distribute a derivative work of it, then you are forced to accept the obligation of licensing [a]the copyright you hold in the derivative work [b]to the same people to whom you'll distribute said derivative work [c]under the terms of the GPL.
4. If you don't want that to happen, you just don't agree to the GPL, but then you also can't use the GPL'ed software. Again, rephrasing: if you don't want that to happen, you just don't agree to the GPL, but then you also can't distribute a derivative work of the GPL'd software. Can you use the GPL'd software? HELL YES. You could use it from the moment you put your hands legally on it. Can you make a derivative work -- without accepting the terms of the GPL? NO -- USC17 protects the copyright holders from you doing it, not the GPL.
5. There is nothing unusual about such agreements and they are certainly valid and enforceable: I give you a limited transferable license for software A if you
However, since 80% of mail is spam (according to a previous slashdot story) and 80% of spam comes from hijjacked windows computers, it stands to reason that a good number (probably a majority) of the mail in the world originates at a windows MTA.
Except for the fact that hijacked computers don't use Outlook or any other Windows MTA to send their email.
This is BS. I'm sorry. Every classification system -- including manual classification -- has an error margin, and a cost. The balance here is not 5 extra spam versus 0 false postives: it's 5000+ spam versus 1 false positive. Can you manually classify (read: hit DEL key repeatedly) 5000+ times without pressing accidentally the DEL key and deleting this one false positive?
E-mail ALWAYS (sorry for the yelling) was a lossy messaging system. Initially, it did not have confirmation receipts or anything.
If there was anything useful for Veritas they just could rewrite from scratch pieces they needed. Veritas has enough engineers to do that.
LOL.
Does Veritas has enough engineers to rewrite all the goodies in JFS from scratch? And to deliver on schedule? I somehow doubt it.
This is not going to happen. Linus himself already told innumerous times that he thinks this would make unnecessarily hard to change the kernel APIs, and that, notwithstanding the point "2", below, he is not interested in binary compatibility for kernel-space things between versions of the kernel. This is right, and if you did not get it yet, I'll explain it to you: it leads to Big Bad Difficult Bugs, trying to get kernel modules to work in various kernel versions. Many things evolve from one version of the kernel to the next, many assumptions change.
2. and the 'grey' area of binary modules sorted out as well. I dont think it will happen.
This one has already happened, (*) but many people still want to pretend it didn't. Some binary modules are derived works of the kernel, and such, to be distributed at all, they must be distributed under the GPL. Some binary modules are not derived work of the kernel, and as such, they can be distributed under any license that the author seems fit. What determines if a work (in the case, a binary module) is a derived work of another (the kernel) is copyright law.
In the USofA and in Brasil, the copyright law states that a derived work is the result of some non-automated transformation of the original work. USofAn case law established the method of "abstraction, filtration, and comparison" [AFC] to determine derivation of works.
There is a myth, spread by the last paragraph of the "postamble" of the GPL, "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs": I will repeat here the position I have after carefully studying the GPL, copyright law, and case law: the GPL regulates the licensing to derived works of the GPL'd work, but it cannot regulate the licensing of encompassing "anthology" works. Linking does not make a work derived on other work: to see if some work is a derived work, apply the [AFC] method. Some (not all) linking, non-derived, non-GPL'd, works can be even distributed along with a GPL'd work, because they would be covered by the "mere aggregation" clause in the 3rd paragraph of section 2 of the GPL.
And one more funny stuff: the section 6 of the GPL states: This basically means that you can't even clarify the license further than copyright law would restrict the rights of the recipient of your work (**), without rendering it undistributable by others (and even by yourself, if your work is derived from another GPL'd work).
But, OTOH, IANAL and TINLA. But I am a paralegal. IMMV and the others TFFLAs
(*) Google for: "linus torvalds" abstraction filtration comparison binary
(**) Google: "hans reiser" derivative plagiarism
One year and a half ago, I spent a lot of monies in a *huge* HD, and I have being using it happily ever after... until yesterday, when some bad blocks emerged. If I was using ext[23], I would fsck -b and continue to use the thing for one more year (warranty expired 6 mo ago). Now, I will have to take more "radical" measures... like fdisking "around" it or something...
If this means what I think it means, you better go see what Maya does.
I don't use anything Office has that OpenOffice has not. YMMV.
Copy (Ctrl-C) and Paste (Ctrl-V) both work OK in my machine. _And_ Select (left-mouse-button-drag) and Paste-Selection (middle-button-click) work too, to make some things faster.
My Granny can't operate a Windows machine, too.
My son Lucas (5yo) uses exclusively Linux on my machine (he even has his own account on it, with RonaldMcDonald bg and all) and in the last two years he learned: how to log in, how to start gcompris and his other games, and how to log out.
My laptop had Sarge installed on it a month ago and my USB-Drive/WiFi combo worked out of the box.
It's been a year or two since I compiled my last kernel
ok?
This seems a weird way of getting a date, but if it works for both of you, I'll try not to pass judgement. :-)
And to have uncle Dick (Cheney) send someone to take the tests in my place. :-)
From the ourTunes home page ( ourtunes.sf.net: )
1) What is ourTunes?
ourTunes is the continuation of several open source projects designed to allow you to browse and download from other people's iTunes Music Shares?
2) Is this a Peer to Peer (P2P) program? Aren't those things created by Satan to steal Christmas from Baby Jesus?
It's not "really" a peer-to-peer program, because it doesn't allow you the opportunity to share any files or music.
3) Why am I not seeing any hosts? Is the whole internet dead?
There probably aren't any people on your network sharing iTunes music. ourTunes only allows you to view connections within your networks "subnet" (often the building you are currently in, maybe a little bit more). If you are running ourTunes from home, I'm sorry to say but you'll probably be pretty disappointed. It's really only a viable program where there are lots of people living on a fast network with good taste in music (*cough* college campus *cough*).
It allows you to share with other people on the same network! OMG. nothing to see here.
Come on, please don't moderate me to oblivion.
Lots of stuff told here is impractical and not viable economicaly in a 10-years timeframe. A 100-years, I would believe. See you in 2104.
Massa
2... yeah, I had a machine with some 3dfx card too (the ones you had to passthru the VGA cable) ... but the games were normally not DirectX (the showcase directX game was the Microsoft Plus for Windows 95's Pinball)
:-)
4... no, lots of people used late 80's and early 90's Sun / DEC / IBM machines as desktops, and those who did could not go Windows, so they transported their X desktops to linux... both Slack and Debian (hamm)
5... Slack'96 had good file locking, a sane filesystem, and also ran both SIAG and latex (that even up to the present day can make MSOffice run for the money -- even if it's not so ez to use __and I'll grant you that__)
ok. if you were a kid, W95 had the gamez, but if you were an adult (and I was), linux was pretty much ready in 96. and the point to the whole article was: if I put a Slack with Linux 2.0 (which _is_ 96 vintage) directly connected in the net, as of today, I will have a machine with the same capabilities of w98 machine without the hassle of having my machine 0wn3d in the first 48 hours. And remember we are talking Linux'96 vs. Windows'98.
But I bet you will agree in disagreeing with me
An *empty* string certainly qualifies as "not to be" :-)
I know what I'm talking about.
e d patches [FSF-style or MySQL-style]) -- then he can do whatever he wants with the code, BECAUSE IT's its property. But if he accepted a lot of outside patches, whithout copyright weavers (linux-the-kernel style) he would need the authorization of the patch owners OR he would need to reverse all outside patches (if possible -- in the case of linux, for instance, this is not really practical), or else he would be bound by the GPL because the current work is a derivative work on the GPL'd patches.
1. are the old versions still under GPL?
A. yes.
2. is the new code still bound by the GPL?
A. this depends on who is the copyright owner of the last GPL'd version. if the original copyright owner (the original package owner) is the SOLE copyright owner of the last GPL'd version (as in: he did not accept any outside patches, or if he accepted only copyright-releasing-by-writing-signed-and-notariz
3. how close is too close?
A. to be completely untainted, he would have to write down the complete spec to the work (in English, for example) and would have to get another person -- who had not seen the source code previously -- to re-write it in some programming language. this is what is called clean-room reimplementation.
HTH,
Massa
just use... 111 everyone ... 111 see /1/1/1
eheheh
1. NT4 was launched by the end of 1996. Don't confuse it with NT 3.51. :-) Sorry.
2. NT4 could do everything 95 could do; DirectX wasn't an issue yet, direct-hardware-accessing games were DOS-mode games. Some of those ran under NT4 (on ring3, with DOS+VGA compatibility layer) and some did not. Remember: no 3D fancy video cards in '96!!!
3. Windows 98 only got DirectX right by 1999/2000, way after 98SE.
4. A '96 vintage Slackware has many, many less known exploits than 95 and 98. Or NT4.
5. NT4 had NTFS, done-right file locking and a complete network stack -- which neither 95 nor 98 had.
I *wanted* to prove your point, but I couldn't.