Thanks for that correction. What a bunch of bodgers. I had assumed that as it was in 2.0 but not 1.3 (I only use 1.3), that it was a feature that had been designed in specifically as a required feature. Alas, not. I should R TFM rather than just grepping it.
Only if the pre-amble that accompanies the licence contains that clause. That's not part of the licence, it accompanies it. It's perfectly possible - such as in the linux kernel - for the preamble to state explicitly that only GPL2 applies.
"Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody."
In my view, they therefore have a product/service that they can't so readily sell. So who loses out? They do. And the suppliers of this unwanted "feature". Which in Novell's case is Microsoft. So MS lose out too. If people stick to their guns.
I'm not actually particularly pro-GPL3, I share many of Linus' views, but I think it's obvious that no matter how much you think you've covered your back there are going to be some abuses of the system, and while GPL fixed the Jesus-nature of BSD, it still forces us to bite bullets when those abuses of good will occur. The GPL3 does actively address that issue.
However, I defer to Bruce on all such matters. He's the man.
One does not need the life-forms analysing placement algorithms to have come about through evolution in order for them to study genetic algorithms. If the earth had been created 6011 years ago by some deity, why could the people thereby placed on the earth not study simulated annealing, neural networks, etc.?
Keep in mind that the parent poster thinks that the population density of Finland, at ~15/km^2, is more than that of the USA, at ~30/km^2, and therefore he must, probably like his fellow countrymen, be twice as intelligent as the average northern European with an IQ of possibly even 50, dominating our pitiful 100.
They're just a ring. Additive abelian group under addition, and closed under multiplication. (OK, multiplication is commutative, and there's a multiplicative identity, but that doesn't promote them to being anything more than 'ring'.)
If you've advertised your URL in a public place then you are showing your private parts at the window; so no, they are no longer private, because you yourself have made them not private.
A GET request is someone asking "may I juggle with them", and it appears your automatic response is to thwap them into his hands without even asking who he is.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's to stop people using the 0.9 kernel from the early 90s?
Pretty much the same answer.
Thanks for that correction. What a bunch of bodgers. I had assumed that as it was in 2.0 but not 1.3 (I only use 1.3), that it was a feature that had been designed in specifically as a required feature. Alas, not. I should R TFM rather than just grepping it.
No, the point is that how we got here is /utterly irrelevant/ to my PP's argument.
And as it's irrelevant it should be excised from his argument.
Only if the pre-amble that accompanies the licence contains that clause. That's not part of the licence, it accompanies it. It's perfectly possible - such as in the linux kernel - for the preamble to state explicitly that only GPL2 applies.
"Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody."
In my view, they therefore have a product/service that they can't so readily sell. So who loses out? They do. And the suppliers of this unwanted "feature". Which in Novell's case is Microsoft. So MS lose out too. If people stick to their guns.
I'm not actually particularly pro-GPL3, I share many of Linus' views, but I think it's obvious that no matter how much you think you've covered your back there are going to be some abuses of the system, and while GPL fixed the Jesus-nature of BSD, it still forces us to bite bullets when those abuses of good will occur. The GPL3 does actively address that issue.
However, I defer to Bruce on all such matters. He's the man.
An Apache, just do:
AssignUserID user-id group-id
in each virtual host definition.
It really couldn't be simpler.
Why not just wear a big hat and pull it down over your eyes?
Much cheaper - and scratchproof to boot!
One does not need the life-forms analysing placement algorithms to have come about through evolution in order for them to study genetic algorithms. If the earth had been created 6011 years ago by some deity, why could the people thereby placed on the earth not study simulated annealing, neural networks, etc.?
Your history is out by 3 decades - the VW beetle is 1930s technology.
Keep in mind that the parent poster thinks that the population density of Finland, at ~15/km^2, is more than that of the USA, at ~30/km^2, and therefore he must, probably like his fellow countrymen, be twice as intelligent as the average northern European with an IQ of possibly even 50, dominating our pitiful 100.
Yeah. like the first ones that evolved the process of sexual reproduction - their offspring are wildly different from that of their siblings.
"J2EE, 8244 jobs"
Java, 16395 jobs
You're a worm.
I've found mine spins up of its own accord any time of day.
'one only had to look at the hard drive of any of the students' computers to see that bad content dominated over good.'
Any? Any apart from the smarties who boot from a live CD (or USB stick) and don't touch the hard drive for their "late night browsing".
This is therefore not a truecrypt/linux issue, this is a you/sysadmin issue.
... >
You wish to violate the restrictions that your system administrator has imposed, and you're blaming linux for not letting you do so.
What was your user name again?
<click click click
That's only the case if you've not got an injective mapping, such as when hashing.
If you're injective, such as encryption, then there's no weakness.
... including the media industry and the US government.
WTF?
Have you thought of adding "user" to the mount options in fstab?
They're just a ring. Additive abelian group under addition, and closed under multiplication.
(OK, multiplication is commutative, and there's a multiplicative identity, but that doesn't promote them to being anything more than 'ring'.)
tecnical nit - integer types are not a finite field.
What I consider is utterly irrelevant. I am not the law.
If you've advertised your URL in a public place then you are showing your private parts at the window; so no, they are no longer private, because you yourself have made them not private.
A GET request is someone asking "may I juggle with them", and it appears your automatic response is to thwap them into his hands without even asking who he is.
Seek therapy.
"My private web server..."
If I issue a GET request to that private server, with no identification or authentication, will you send me content?
If so, are you sure you really know what "private" means?
Thanks for making that post - you saved me the effort!
ABG right, his PP wrong.
Care to cite some cases where wholesale mirroring has been accepted as fair use?
You're not a lawyer, and you certainly don't convincingly play one on slashdot.