Ok, but your original comment was "Hardware and build env's are not governed by source code GPL." As in no build envs. That's a very different statement from "they have to release a build env that compiles a valid artifact, but not necessarily the right build env to get it working." I stand by my statement that your original comment, as written and as interpreted by an average native-English-speaker of reasonable intelligence, is refuted by those links I posted. The other part of your statement, that "most likely no violation was made" is probably also refuted because according to what the OP said it sounds like they released zero build environments. I say probably because it's not completely clear, given the vagueness of the post.
Keep standing by your comments if you like, though.
People quote it as though it's a technical definition out of the DSM or something
That's not such a great example. The DSM is pretty superficial, and sometimes dead wrong.
My point had nothing to due with the accuracy of the DSM, but with the difference between technical and colloquial usage. The DSM gives technical definitions of each of the conditions, such as "A person has ADD if they regularly display six of the following ten behaviors:..." whereas it's more colloquial to say "You have ADD if you're often distracted by shiny things!" or "You lost your keys again? God, that's so ADD of you!" People often give the Rita Mae Brown quote as though it were a precise definition rather than a silly aphorism.
Insanity and stupidity are not the same thing
I'm not so sure that they're not related (playing devil's advocate).
And I'm not sure thunder and lightning aren't related (my previous example). In fact I am sure they are related. But they're not identical, so it would be rather silly to define lightning as "that loud booming noise that comes from electrical sparks between clouds and the ground." That would just confuse the issue.
Each of the links you list only refer to the requirement to provide a build env that produces an output that can be installed....Example: You don't have to cough up a VLSI design for and x86 chipset do you? Why the interface is made public.
So I stand by my statements.
Yeah, but you originally said build envs and hardware were exempt. Now it appears you only meant hardware. If you had only said hardware specs, I wouldn't have questioned it.
Sorry but the hypocrisy of your statement is so in my face I have to say something.
You are keeping the identity of these companies secret for what end? It's GPL there for open there for it should not be a secret.
I never realized the purpose of the GPL was to put an end to secrets. Gosh, what a fool I've been! Here I thought the purpose was to give users freedom to modify and redistribute!
P.S. Most likely no violation was made. Hardware and build env's are not governed by source code GPL. Unless of course the hardware or build env is also derived from a GPL reference.
He can't sue, because he has no standing. He's not the copyright owner.
I would think in future version of the GPL this could be fixed by adding a provision permitting users to pursue claims against violators, either on behalf on the copyright holder or on behalf of the users themselves, who are harmed by the violation. A copyright holder can't assign standing to pursue copyright violators other than by transferring copyright, but the parties to a license should be able to assign standing to pursue license violators by specifying other interested parties in the terms of the license.
Since the OP has given us no details as to the specifics of the two cases, it's impossible to offer any kind of rational comment.
Since you've informed us, a priori, that the remainder of your comment was irrational, I've decided not to take the time to read it. Which makes me wonder, why did you take the time to write more with a disclaimer like that at the front end?
Are you saying that it's impossible that Einstein also said the same thing?
Yes. Not because of some exclusion principal. Because it's so stupid. People quote it as though it's a technical definition out of the DSM or something. Even colloquially, it's a piss-poor definition of insanity; it's really much closer to a definition of stupidity. Insanity and stupidity are not the same thing, any more than lightning is the same thing as thunder.
MAYBE, but in your country you walk a block to the local DVD store and choose from a selection of thousands of pirated DVDs, each selling for the equivalent of 1.25 USD per disc? That's what it's like living in any city in China.
Man, you had to go a whole block? Surprised they didn't have a table set up closer than that.
It's probably impossible to buy a NON-pirated DVD in China (I for one have never seen one!)
Actually it's fairly easy, especially for Chinese movies/shows, primarily at the bigger stores like Wal-Mart. It's just that it's 10 or 20 times easier to find the bootlegs, so Laowai like us never look for the legit stuff.
maybe if you applied even the slightest modicum of thought to it, you would realise that air resistance will probably slow it down to terminal velocity on the 70000 ft drop into the ocean.
If they cut the engines. Terminal velocity only applies to free fall.
The kids at the Air Force never got over it. Now their toys are bigger and much more expensive - but they're still fun to shoot off in a blaze of glory - never to be recovered. I love this country - and how our tax dollars get used.
Couldn't we just give the air force guys one model rocket apiece and tell them to be satisfied?
Ah, yes, now I see it is fixed. Perhaps the error was the site's response to too many views in a short time from this referrer domain, or just due to randomness.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean it stars $#4!ner.
In Britain "$#4!" is a colloquial past tense of "to $#*!" as in "he $#4! his pants".
You, sir, just made my day. Thank you. (It's actually that in the US too, just less often used, so I'm inclined to forget)
It stars Shatner and it might be a trainwreck?
Because Boston Legal sucked so much?
Yeah, but the Spader-beam counters the Shatner-field.
By this logic Qbert was the filthiest game ever made.
Q*bert was the filthiest game ever made. Just look at the appendage on that guy. I think you and I both can imagine what that thing was made for.
(Filter error: please use fewer 'junk' characters. I guess slashdot does find them offensive.)
Yeah, on Slashdot it's offensive NOT to spell out "shit".
The rest of it might be a trainwreck, but it's off to a great start.
It stars Shatner and it might be a trainwreck?
Ok, but your original comment was "Hardware and build env's are not governed by source code GPL." As in no build envs. That's a very different statement from "they have to release a build env that compiles a valid artifact, but not necessarily the right build env to get it working." I stand by my statement that your original comment, as written and as interpreted by an average native-English-speaker of reasonable intelligence, is refuted by those links I posted. The other part of your statement, that "most likely no violation was made" is probably also refuted because according to what the OP said it sounds like they released zero build environments. I say probably because it's not completely clear, given the vagueness of the post.
Keep standing by your comments if you like, though.
That's not such a great example. The DSM is pretty superficial, and sometimes dead wrong.
My point had nothing to due with the accuracy of the DSM, but with the difference between technical and colloquial usage. The DSM gives technical definitions of each of the conditions, such as "A person has ADD if they regularly display six of the following ten behaviors:..." whereas it's more colloquial to say "You have ADD if you're often distracted by shiny things!" or "You lost your keys again? God, that's so ADD of you!" People often give the Rita Mae Brown quote as though it were a precise definition rather than a silly aphorism.
I'm not so sure that they're not related (playing devil's advocate).
And I'm not sure thunder and lightning aren't related (my previous example). In fact I am sure they are related. But they're not identical, so it would be rather silly to define lightning as "that loud booming noise that comes from electrical sparks between clouds and the ground." That would just confuse the issue.
Each of the links you list only refer to the requirement to provide a build env that produces an output that can be installed....Example: You don't have to cough up a VLSI design for and x86 chipset do you? Why the interface is made public.
So I stand by my statements.
Yeah, but you originally said build envs and hardware were exempt. Now it appears you only meant hardware. If you had only said hardware specs, I wouldn't have questioned it.
All that goldfarming has to stop.
Without a currency realignment, Chinese-farmed gold will still be able to out-compete American-farmed gold.
He's only 50% insightful.
(I refer you to the other replies to see why)
Sorry but the hypocrisy of your statement is so in my face I have to say something.
You are keeping the identity of these companies secret for what end? It's GPL there for open there for it should not be a secret.
I never realized the purpose of the GPL was to put an end to secrets. Gosh, what a fool I've been! Here I thought the purpose was to give users freedom to modify and redistribute!
P.S. Most likely no violation was made. Hardware and build env's are not governed by source code GPL. Unless of course the hardware or build env is also derived from a GPL reference.
I refer you to the numerous threads above which have pre-refuted this statement.
He can't sue, because he has no standing. He's not the copyright owner.
I would think in future version of the GPL this could be fixed by adding a provision permitting users to pursue claims against violators, either on behalf on the copyright holder or on behalf of the users themselves, who are harmed by the violation. A copyright holder can't assign standing to pursue copyright violators other than by transferring copyright, but the parties to a license should be able to assign standing to pursue license violators by specifying other interested parties in the terms of the license.
Since the OP has given us no details as to the specifics of the two cases, it's impossible to offer any kind of rational comment.
Since you've informed us, a priori, that the remainder of your comment was irrational, I've decided not to take the time to read it. Which makes me wonder, why did you take the time to write more with a disclaimer like that at the front end?
Are you saying that it's impossible that Einstein also said the same thing?
Yes. Not because of some exclusion principal. Because it's so stupid. People quote it as though it's a technical definition out of the DSM or something. Even colloquially, it's a piss-poor definition of insanity; it's really much closer to a definition of stupidity. Insanity and stupidity are not the same thing, any more than lightning is the same thing as thunder.
MAYBE, but in your country you walk a block to the local DVD store and choose from a selection of thousands of pirated DVDs, each selling for the equivalent of 1.25 USD per disc? That's what it's like living in any city in China.
Man, you had to go a whole block? Surprised they didn't have a table set up closer than that.
It's probably impossible to buy a NON-pirated DVD in China (I for one have never seen one!)
Actually it's fairly easy, especially for Chinese movies/shows, primarily at the bigger stores like Wal-Mart. It's just that it's 10 or 20 times easier to find the bootlegs, so Laowai like us never look for the legit stuff.
Does that make it sad that Nethack is the absolute killer app for me on the N900?
Nethack is the killer app. Period.
maybe if you applied even the slightest modicum of thought to it, you would realise that air resistance will probably slow it down to terminal velocity on the 70000 ft drop into the ocean.
If they cut the engines. Terminal velocity only applies to free fall.
Priceless?
Oh no this indeed does have a pricetag, many of them in fact and they are big.
I think you need to employ a dictionary.
How long we have been waiting for this? 10, 20 years?
Maybe you've been waiting that long. Some of us have faithfully adhered to the proverb, "never wait for a scramjet."
The kids at the Air Force never got over it. Now their toys are bigger and much more expensive - but they're still fun to shoot off in a blaze of glory - never to be recovered. I love this country - and how our tax dollars get used.
Couldn't we just give the air force guys one model rocket apiece and tell them to be satisfied?
Or that cheese comes in a can? Wait, what were we talking about again?
Not just any can. A spray can.
It worked perfectly fine for me.
Ah, yes, now I see it is fixed. Perhaps the error was the site's response to too many views in a short time from this referrer domain, or just due to randomness.
Are you implying that the only thing holding off Linux On The Desktop is Tuxracer?
Yes. Yes I am.
I guess the pirates finally got his last coin. Or he finally ate the chocolate square with the soap on it.
Really? Because my cat is perfectly fine...Wait...I don't have a cat...
Is the cat you don't have alive or dead? Or have you been to lazy to check?