I said "cases", not "case studies". I'm afraid I don't have a $400k grant for a double-blind study into the financial obligations incurred by GPL compliance.
Who said anything about case studies? As for a "double-blind study", that just makes it clear you don't even know what a case study is!
blah blah...ad hominum in the hope you won't realise I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, and that's why I'm unable to give a single explanation but must keep on making the same claims without any reasoning. Leave my little crusade alone!
Yeah, OK. It's not really going to affect anyone living in the real world anyway. Enjoy!
"The cases"? No, I didn't because you didn't link to any. You linked to your blog, which linked to a story that says that the FSF contacted the founder of MEPIS saying he had to provide source code to comply with the GPL (duh!). The author of the story then goes on to speculate about how this will destroy the world as we know it.
They never threatened him, merely reminded him of his obligations. The story author, and you, claim that this is a difficult obligation to fulfill. I've pointed out above how easy it is to comply. You have yet to give a single argument as to why my reasoning is wrong, but continue to insist it is without ever addressing a single point.
In short: I say it's easy to comply with the GPL in on this issue because you can burn the source to the requested binary onto dvd, and charge a reasonable sum for it. Now, tell me why exactly I am wrong and this is, in fact, extremely difficult?
Are you under the impression that people would be willing to take the chance of being sued because they're a two-person operation and their basement flooded, wiping out the stored copies of six hundred GPLed software packages that haven't been obsolesced within the distro for three years yet? Does everything go exactly as planned in your world?
The parent distro has the source code. Grab it from them, burn it to dvd, supply it. The GPL requires them to supply source code for binaries. This is a case where we're talking about binaries from source that has not been modified.
Can you actually give me a real example of how this might possibly result in a lawsuit (with example parent distro and the program the source is required for), or can you only ask stupid patronising questions that have no bearing on the matter whatsoever?
The example that Hyde noticed is ironic because we might reasonably expect Ireland to distance itself from the nation she most hated, whereas, instead, she did pretty much the opposite and emulated it.
The example of 10,000 spoons is not ironic because there's no reason not to have the 10,000 spoons rather than a knife. Maybe she's in spoon factory! There's not enough there to make it ironic. It requires some reason for us to expect a knife rather than spoons (and possibly a reason to not expect the spoons at all). Neo, seeking a knife to cut himself loose from an agent trap and instead finding 10,000 spoons, would be irony...;-)
There's a financial burden -- it's just a burden that may be ameliorated by way of fees for the service.
If the cost is covered then it's no longer a financial burden, now is it?
For purposes of maintaining a full Linux distribution, though, this is hardly practical.
Burning a couple of dvd-r a month, when the cost of the media, shipping and your time is covered is "hardly practical"? Can you justify that? Some people manage to burn a couple of dvd-r a month without being paid for it at all!
I'm not even talking about Windows knock-off source-restricting distributions like Linspire -- I'm talking about community-supported and fully open-source distributions. They're being threatened with legal action for violation of the GPL thanks to GPLv2 terms that make it absurdly difficult for a grass-roots project to get started and remain financially sustainable.
There is no financial burden. From the GPL:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
So all they have to do is provide a dvd-r of the source on request, and charge a reasonable fee for it. Most people would just grab it from the mother distribution servers rather than do that anyway, so they're hardly likely to be swamped. In short, this is a non-issue.
Our allies England, France, Japan etc use oil from the The Middle East.
Erm, no...."England" (by which, presumably, you meant the UK) has its own oilfields. At least, for the next few years. I think we're due to run out soon...
Well I guess it must have been an older version. Inkscape does seem to be under rather rapid development at the moment. Perhaps you should have another look at it. The thing I really do like about Inkscape are the tutorials. Since the tutorials themselves are actually SVG files, it means you can perform the actions that are being explained as you go along.
but when I needed to rotate a bitmap I had pasted in, and found that I could only rotate to 90 degree angles I looked for another solution. Illustrator also has features such as the ability to rotate surfaces in 3d within the image that I came to find invaluable
The tutorials (under the Help menu) walk you through doing both these things in Inkscape (to rotate, click again on the image to get the rotation handles). But even without them, didn't it at least occur to you to look under Object..Transform to perform a transformation on an object?
I can't believe you didn't even do the Basic tutorial, and then decided that the software must be incapable of doing what is explained immediately after "Creating Shapes".
who happen to share their last name with a terrorist? *Gasp*!
While I agree with you in most of your post, you make it sound here like it's just a coincidence that they're both called bin Laden. Mohammed bin Laden established the family business and Osama is his son. The family business is currently run by Bakr bin Laden who is Osama's half-brother. In other words, they don't "happen to share their last name", they are his family (though they do say he's been estranged for some time).
Re:Why would they care? They just got half a B...
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Who the EFF ever heard of "Chambers Dictionary" as an authoritative source?
Actually, Chambers is a well known and respected dictionary; in fact, it's the official dictionary of Scrabble in the UK. As an aside, the life of Robert Chambers is quite interesting, not least for his authorship of "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation". Well worth looking up.
On the "about us" section they claim to be a publisher, i.e. a company with a vested interest in slanting the debate.
Oh, please! It's a reference work. Don't you think someone would have pointed out if they were mistaken?
The etymology just says "16c" so where do you get this "1800s" bit from and how do you know it applies to copyrights rather than high seas?
Since I have access to the OED, I'll give you their sources:
2. The unauthorized reproduction or use of an invention or work of another, as a book, recording, computer software, intellectual property, etc., esp. as constituting an infringement of patent or copyright; plagiarism; an instance of this.
[1654 J. MENNES Recreation for Ingenious Head-peeces clxxvi, All the wealth, Of wit and learning, not by stealth, Or Piracy, but purchase got.] 1700 E. WARD Journey to Hell II. vii. 14 Piracy, Piracy, they cry'd aloud, What made you print my Copy, Sir, says one, You're a meer Knave, 'tis very basely done.
Actually, I don't like the use of the word "piracy" because I think copyright is stupid and unnecessary. So, since I'm undermining my own efforts, I at least hope that my post has held something of interest for you!
Oh well, I got trolled. I hope at least someone reading the thread learned something new. Always leave the world a little better than you found it is my motto...
I have googled for him, and can't find anything other than the article you referenced. Why the fuck should I bother complaining to the Canada Free Press? You're the one believing their idiotic article. You should complain. As for the author of the article: he works for a PR firm. Nuff said.
The other scientists? Well, I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon and I'm sure they don't just throw their cash away...Didn't it ever occur to you to wonder why a geologist is in the forfront of an article on climate science?
Please pay attention. We talked about half up until 1980 - the second quote was that it indeed has caused a lot of the increase we've seen after that year as well.
Oops. You're quite right. I'd assumed the "half" referred to post-1980. Seems it's less than that. As I said, we expect the Earth to be warming, just not this much. Thanks for arguing my case for me.
(... and we still don't know all that much about it. Again - you seem to be far more certain of your view than you have facts supporting it)
The facts are that the Earth is warming more rapidly than can be accounted for if you ignore CO2 emissions. We know CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". Just about everyone who has studied in this field says that the CO2 levels are what are causing the additional warming. Now, if you have a better theory that fits the facts, go get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You'll be famous!
Calling everything localised won't win you many arguments, btw. The whole earth, in one way or the other, is just a bunch of localised weather.
If the gulf stream were to stop flowing due to global warming, then the UK would become much colder in winter and have an overall lower average temperature. Localised warming or cooling does not prove anything about global temperatures. I assume that you were trying to show something with your Viking example?
It should be noted that Stott's 2003 work mentioned in the model section above largely revised his assessment, and found a significant solar contribution to recent warming, although still smaller than that of the green house gases
You seem to be far more certain about your claims than the scientific community.
What? So now the solar contribution is reckoned to be less than half? How does this in any way negate what I was saying? Everyone knows the Earth should be warming slightly; the problem is the amount and rate of that warming is way above what we'd expect if the increase in CO2 levels is ignored.
(PS: The Vikings still held cattle on Greenland. Try doing that today)
I'm sure you're not so ignorant as to think that localised temperature variations are significant here?
No, it's half. That leaves the other half unaccounted for even if you do accept their most recent figures (which are doubtful since the first set were refuted).
Deviations after 1980 could be the _cleaner_ atmosphere that ended the path to global cooling. We don't know. We definitely do not know enough to blame CO2 almost singlehandledly as some try to do just because it's popular.
Unlikely, since that would affect the data previous to the 1800s also. CO2 isn't blamed because it's popular to do so, it's blamed because we know it should have an effect and it explains the temperature rises better than any other theory. If you have a better one, go get it published in a peer reviewed journal.
I read in a post further down that there are claims....
Who cares. I care what the scientists who actually study the subject are saying, not what some random slashdot post claims.
(I'm all for global warming - I think it'll bring a lot of positive effects outside of the flooded coastal areas.
As, no doubt, do many who've had easy lives. You may change your mind should the climate changes bring a famine to your country and it's your family that are starving to death.
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K.
Ahh, Dr. Dick Morgan....does he even exist? Since they don't do climate research at Exeter, and he isn't listed as either staff or researcher, it seems not. Can you tell me who this guy is?
"Damon and Laut report in Eos[21] that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to in the literature,and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph.[22] Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless,the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.[21] Note that the prior link to "graph" is one such example of this."
"On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[24]"
In other words, Lassen himself no longer holds with this theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, OK. It's not really going to affect anyone living in the real world anyway. Enjoy!
"The cases"? No, I didn't because you didn't link to any. You linked to your blog, which linked to a story that says that the FSF contacted the founder of MEPIS saying he had to provide source code to comply with the GPL (duh!). The author of the story then goes on to speculate about how this will destroy the world as we know it.
They never threatened him, merely reminded him of his obligations. The story author, and you, claim that this is a difficult obligation to fulfill. I've pointed out above how easy it is to comply. You have yet to give a single argument as to why my reasoning is wrong, but continue to insist it is without ever addressing a single point.
In short: I say it's easy to comply with the GPL in on this issue because you can burn the source to the requested binary onto dvd, and charge a reasonable sum for it. Now, tell me why exactly I am wrong and this is, in fact, extremely difficult?
Can you actually give me a real example of how this might possibly result in a lawsuit (with example parent distro and the program the source is required for), or can you only ask stupid patronising questions that have no bearing on the matter whatsoever?
No, it's not.
;-)
The example that Hyde noticed is ironic because we might reasonably expect Ireland to distance itself from the nation she most hated, whereas, instead, she did pretty much the opposite and emulated it.
The example of 10,000 spoons is not ironic because there's no reason not to have the 10,000 spoons rather than a knife. Maybe she's in spoon factory! There's not enough there to make it ironic. It requires some reason for us to expect a knife rather than spoons (and possibly a reason to not expect the spoons at all). Neo, seeking a knife to cut himself loose from an agent trap and instead finding 10,000 spoons, would be irony...
Burning a couple of dvd-r a month, when the cost of the media, shipping and your time is covered is "hardly practical"? Can you justify that? Some people manage to burn a couple of dvd-r a month without being paid for it at all!
So all they have to do is provide a dvd-r of the source on request, and charge a reasonable fee for it. Most people would just grab it from the mother distribution servers rather than do that anyway, so they're hardly likely to be swamped. In short, this is a non-issue.
Dunno what areas they cover, but Be Unlimited do 24Mbit for £24 a month.
Well I guess it must have been an older version. Inkscape does seem to be under rather rapid development at the moment. Perhaps you should have another look at it. The thing I really do like about Inkscape are the tutorials. Since the tutorials themselves are actually SVG files, it means you can perform the actions that are being explained as you go along.
I can't believe you didn't even do the Basic tutorial, and then decided that the software must be incapable of doing what is explained immediately after "Creating Shapes".
Oh, please! It's a reference work. Don't you think someone would have pointed out if they were mistaken?
Since I have access to the OED, I'll give you their sources:
Actually, I don't like the use of the word "piracy" because I think copyright is stupid and unnecessary. So, since I'm undermining my own efforts, I at least hope that my post has held something of interest for you!
You don't say what distro you're using, but try here
Oh well, I got trolled. I hope at least someone reading the thread learned something new. Always leave the world a little better than you found it is my motto...
I have googled for him, and can't find anything other than the article you referenced. Why the fuck should I bother complaining to the Canada Free Press? You're the one believing their idiotic article. You should complain. As for the author of the article: he works for a PR firm. Nuff said.
The other scientists? Well, I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon and I'm sure they don't just throw their cash away...Didn't it ever occur to you to wonder why a geologist is in the forfront of an article on climate science?
The facts are that the Earth is warming more rapidly than can be accounted for if you ignore CO2 emissions. We know CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". Just about everyone who has studied in this field says that the CO2 levels are what are causing the additional warming. Now, if you have a better theory that fits the facts, go get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You'll be famous!
If the gulf stream were to stop flowing due to global warming, then the UK would become much colder in winter and have an overall lower average temperature. Localised warming or cooling does not prove anything about global temperatures. I assume that you were trying to show something with your Viking example?
I'm sure you're not so ignorant as to think that localised temperature variations are significant here?
Unlikely, since that would affect the data previous to the 1800s also. CO2 isn't blamed because it's popular to do so, it's blamed because we know it should have an effect and it explains the temperature rises better than any other theory. If you have a better one, go get it published in a peer reviewed journal.
Who cares. I care what the scientists who actually study the subject are saying, not what some random slashdot post claims.
As, no doubt, do many who've had easy lives. You may change your mind should the climate changes bring a famine to your country and it's your family that are starving to death.
From Wikipedia's entry on Solar variation:
"Damon and Laut report in Eos[21] that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to in the literature,and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph.[22] Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless,the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.[21] Note that the prior link to "graph" is one such example of this."
"On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[24]"
In other words, Lassen himself no longer holds with this theory.
Uhh...you don't run your own business. You work for Microsoft (at least, according to your blog). Don't astroturf; it's unprofessional.
Sounds a bit like Cremola foam...