It wouldn't be the first time someone has slipped something under Richard's radar. I would be very surprised if he'd agree to allowing Tivoizing like that.
Do you really think it can tell the difference between bananas at $0.69 a pound and organically grown bananas at $1.19 a pound? How about a Fuji apple and a Gala apple?
In either of these cases it will pop up a set of pictures for the customer to select from.
This is not intended to prevent fraud, but to help the customer who can't recall whether the PLU was 637263 or 631263.
They promised us moonbases and flying cars, and instead we've got Lolbush's "Mars Tomorrow" scheme and $4.00 a gallon gas. People are living online and in VR, already, because that's the only place you can get a reliable jetpack... and some of the coolest stories on the net are about things like steampunk laptops... so who cares about something as mundane as a reverse-dorian-gray fetish?
Section 4.d.1 is one of two alternatives. The purpose of these alternatives is to satisfy this requirement: You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
To do this you may satisfy 4.d.1 or 4.d.0. Given the normal Java packaging mechanism this should be trivial, since a JAR is just a ZIP containing class files and other components that are easily replaced.
According to the Wikipedia page the purpose of the Classpath exception is to allow conveyance of a combined work in a way that restricts modification of the library contained in the combined work: This restriction requires software projects which integrate a code library licensed under the LGPL to ensure that the license covering the combined work provides such permissions. Such a requirement can be difficult to meet, for example, in the case where code is distributed as statically linked software in an embedded device.
I believe this pretty seriously violates the intent of the GPL, as expressed in the preamble and in the GNU manifesto.
Where precisely does the LGPL require opening the application source code when linking with the library? The whole point of the LGPL is that you don't need to release source of components that are not covered by the LGPL. You *do* have to provide a linkable version of the non-LGPL components, but that doesn't require source.
So you're using google to check on whether this anonymous article about LMG swiftboating Google by the guy who allegedly invented swiftboating is legitimate? Dude, that's so recursive it's positively fractal.
Dennis Ritchie donated the setuid bit patent to the public domain. That was, by the way, the first software patent... so that's a heck of a precedent. That covers the company against someone else patenting it (prior art? oh, just this other patent) without contributing to the problem.
Erm, my point is that Sharepoint *is* using HTML, which is a standard API, without problems. They rarely have to use extensions... and nobody would expect Sharepoint to use ODF.
And, frankly, I would rather they removed some of the "full features" in Sharepoint because they do not work very well even in IE... for example what they call a Wiki is horrible, I frequently have to edit the raw HTML for a page to get rid of the incorrect tags and attributes it throws in when you edit in IE.
The raindrops were not camera-angle dependent effects. I don't know how much time-dependent differences between scenes can be accommodated, but it's not as simple as angle-dependent changes.
On another note, I noticed some ghosting on the "repaired" tree and flowers.
How is being responsible for CAPTCHA breakage useful?
Look, just because the guy who more or less invented both trolling and automated trolling is an eminent UNIX guru and textbook author that doesn't mean his trolling on net.suicide was any less disgusting. I was appalled at the people who laughed along with Pike when he revealed that he was behind Bimmler and Shaney. This kind of thing is just not acceptable no matter who you are.
Complying with standards where it makes sense (like text document formats) doesn't mean you have to have explicit support in the standard for everything you do (like Sharepoint). If anything, a bit more intelligence and general standards compliance in Sharepoint (have you tried using the Sharepoint Wiki interface in anything but Internet Explorer?) would go a long way, and using HTML instead of (say) COM objects for Sharepoint doesn't seem to have hurt them.
Slashdot Mirror
That was 3 the third lamest 3 time travel 3 story ever.
No, that would be the one where Kirk dies, twice. Pity that was in a novel instead of onscreen.
There's so little real news today that /. has a review by someone who thinks it's more important to make fun of a trainee than train them? Crikey!
I didn't say anything about whether the OP was wrong or right. Just commenting on the strangeness of the times.
What virtual reality are you living in?
According to this chart it hasn't been over $3.50 in 2008 dollars since 1918.
It wouldn't be the first time someone has slipped something under Richard's radar. I would be very surprised if he'd agree to allowing Tivoizing like that.
Do you really think it can tell the difference between bananas at $0.69 a pound and organically grown bananas at $1.19 a pound? How about a Fuji apple and a Gala apple?
In either of these cases it will pop up a set of pictures for the customer to select from.
This is not intended to prevent fraud, but to help the customer who can't recall whether the PLU was 637263 or 631263.
What part of "news for nerds" do you not understand?
They promised us moonbases and flying cars, and instead we've got Lolbush's "Mars Tomorrow" scheme and $4.00 a gallon gas. People are living online and in VR, already, because that's the only place you can get a reliable jetpack... and some of the coolest stories on the net are about things like steampunk laptops... so who cares about something as mundane as a reverse-dorian-gray fetish?
Thank you for those informative links.
Section 4.d.1 is one of two alternatives. The purpose of these alternatives is to satisfy this requirement: You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
To do this you may satisfy 4.d.1 or 4.d.0. Given the normal Java packaging mechanism this should be trivial, since a JAR is just a ZIP containing class files and other components that are easily replaced.
According to the Wikipedia page the purpose of the Classpath exception is to allow conveyance of a combined work in a way that restricts modification of the library contained in the combined work: This restriction requires software projects which integrate a code library licensed under the LGPL to ensure that the license covering the combined work provides such permissions. Such a requirement can be difficult to meet, for example, in the case where code is distributed as statically linked software in an embedded device.
I believe this pretty seriously violates the intent of the GPL, as expressed in the preamble and in the GNU manifesto.
U convinced me. Lolcat iz the prez 4 me!
No, I don't remember that. What part of "news for nerds" is hard to understand?
Where precisely does the LGPL require opening the application source code when linking with the library? The whole point of the LGPL is that you don't need to release source of components that are not covered by the LGPL. You *do* have to provide a linkable version of the non-LGPL components, but that doesn't require source.
The classpath exception is a different use case from LGPL which doesn't make sense in the mobile world where dynamic libraries can't be deployed
I suspect there's something more complex than that, because the LGPL doesn't require dynamic libraries.
Is this another one of those "LGPL-like" variants of the GPLv2?
The LWUIT home page doesn't mention it, it just provides a link to the GPL2 page.
Three cheers and a tiger!
So you're using google to check on whether this anonymous article about LMG swiftboating Google by the guy who allegedly invented swiftboating is legitimate? Dude, that's so recursive it's positively fractal.
Unless they add a daughterboard adjusting the position of the connectors, isn't this drive going to be a docking nightmare?
Dennis Ritchie donated the setuid bit patent to the public domain. That was, by the way, the first software patent... so that's a heck of a precedent. That covers the company against someone else patenting it (prior art? oh, just this other patent) without contributing to the problem.
Erm, my point is that Sharepoint *is* using HTML, which is a standard API, without problems. They rarely have to use extensions... and nobody would expect Sharepoint to use ODF.
And, frankly, I would rather they removed some of the "full features" in Sharepoint because they do not work very well even in IE... for example what they call a Wiki is horrible, I frequently have to edit the raw HTML for a page to get rid of the incorrect tags and attributes it throws in when you edit in IE.
The raindrops were not camera-angle dependent effects. I don't know how much time-dependent differences between scenes can be accommodated, but it's not as simple as angle-dependent changes.
On another note, I noticed some ghosting on the "repaired" tree and flowers.
How is being responsible for CAPTCHA breakage useful?
Look, just because the guy who more or less invented both trolling and automated trolling is an eminent UNIX guru and textbook author that doesn't mean his trolling on net.suicide was any less disgusting. I was appalled at the people who laughed along with Pike when he revealed that he was behind Bimmler and Shaney. This kind of thing is just not acceptable no matter who you are.
Complying with standards where it makes sense (like text document formats) doesn't mean you have to have explicit support in the standard for everything you do (like Sharepoint). If anything, a bit more intelligence and general standards compliance in Sharepoint (have you tried using the Sharepoint Wiki interface in anything but Internet Explorer?) would go a long way, and using HTML instead of (say) COM objects for Sharepoint doesn't seem to have hurt them.
What stupid county do you live in, then?
It's not like there's any industrialized countries that don't have ludicrous copyright laws, one way or another.
So you're making unsupported assumptions, too?