PyMOL has an Open Source tool, but the manual is not really free for use, although it's browseable online. Where I work, they wanted to use the software, and I realized that we really couldn't quite do it legally without buying a subscription, which I told the money people, and they ante'd up. This is a pretty good model--you want the stuff to be free for the people who can't pay, and there to be just enough legal nip to cause those who can pay to decide that it's more reasonable to do so.
http://pymol.sourceforge.net/
The Dems certainly do have a mandate, but they're smarter than to impeach Bush. Bush shouldn't be impeached for the same reason that Saddam shouldn't be executed--it'd just make a martyr of him, and wouldn't have any practical benefit.
Instead, Bush will simply twist in the wind for the next two years, solidifying his record as America's worst president...
And if you haven't read Epictetus' Manual, you should. It's a short, intriguing read. Try Lebell's plain English version. (Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher.)
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0062511114-0
In saying that one must abide by the license terms, you are assuming that one must copy the software, which is simply not the case. No one is forced to copy GPL'ed software (or use it, for that matter). This may seem like hairsplitting, but it's not.
The GPL essentially gives you a gift: you're allowed to copy something you'd otherwise have no right to. The gift does come with some strings attached, albeit very reasonable ones. No one has to accept the gift.
You do not have to abide by the terms of the GPL. The GPL is not a contract. You merely need to obey copyright law (in the USA, at least). End of story.
...Except for one small thing. The GPL is a license that might give you permission to copy a piece of software (that you would otherwise be disallowed from copying), if you meet certain conditions.
RMS has been villified in this way almost from the beginning. The one striking thing I notice, though, is that whenever I hear him speak, or read (verbatim) his writing, his words seem logical and reasonable to me. The villification apparently is always based on some misunderstanding or distortion of his ideas.
This seems to be one more chapter in the saga. I've been hearing buzzing about how horrible the GPLv3 is, and then when I actually look closely at the details, it appears perfectly innocuous. If I understand correctly, it just says that the keys necessary to run a program on its intended target device are considered to be part of the source code for the software. Well, duh. Could this possibly be more reasonable?
Er, you seem to be saying that if I run a large number of independent ("serial") tasks at the same time that this is not parallelism. I'm trying to think of what parallelism would be, if it is not this.:-)
A license can detiorate over time in just the same way as software rots. It's not that the words/bits themselves change. Rather, if the surrounding environment/context changes, the article no longer works as designed.
$19.95? Can any technical problem be solved for $19.95? Assuming that you value your labor and the externalities and opportunity costs correctly, even the most trivial problems you're ever likely to encounter will run into the hundreds or (probably) thousands of dollars.
You're absolutely correct that OSS is never cost-free. Neither is commercial software, even if it's "free" (or pirated). The primary reason for using Free Software, or Open Source Software, is that you have reason to believe that it will be less expensive in the long run, after all costs are considered. In my experience, this generally turns out to be the case (for the problem domains addressed).
So, if I understand this correctly, a whole gaggle of astronomers have spent months (at least) pondering what is essentially a religious question anyway--Is Pluto a planet?--a question that could have been resolved in either direction with no real effect--and they still managed to screw it up.
Yup, we want the best but at the least cost. That is how it is supposed to work in a free market. Sadly it doesn't.
The free market works--just not the way you were expecting. The market here rewarded the semblance of engineering quality, rather than the actual item. Better inspections might have uncovered this, but of course the market can only provide the semblance of better inspections.
Just kidding.
Still, I can't tell you how many times over the last decade (?) I've read an IPV6 whitepaper, tutorial, or FAQ, telling myself that someday I'm going to need to know this. Well, I've had time to forget everything I know about IPV6 several times, and I've still never touched a host that was using it...
Slashdot Mirror
PyMOL has an Open Source tool, but the manual is not really free for use, although it's browseable online. Where I work, they wanted to use the software, and I realized that we really couldn't quite do it legally without buying a subscription, which I told the money people, and they ante'd up. This is a pretty good model--you want the stuff to be free for the people who can't pay, and there to be just enough legal nip to cause those who can pay to decide that it's more reasonable to do so. http://pymol.sourceforge.net/
Nice try Rummy. Now get back to emptying out your office... ;-)
Instead, Bush will simply twist in the wind for the next two years, solidifying his record as America's worst president...
I want a patch for my operating system that will automatically let me know when Congress does something stupid...
That explains why it makes such a great doorstop... :-)
I think what the poster wanted was a superstar willing to work for 85% of industry median pay...
And if you haven't read Epictetus' Manual, you should. It's a short, intriguing read. Try Lebell's plain English version. (Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher.) http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0062511114-0
As the proud owner of a new Boston Terrier, here's hoping that his need to refer to his paper-based training materials will decrease over time...
In saying that one must abide by the license terms, you are assuming that one must copy the software, which is simply not the case. No one is forced to copy GPL'ed software (or use it, for that matter). This may seem like hairsplitting, but it's not. The GPL essentially gives you a gift: you're allowed to copy something you'd otherwise have no right to. The gift does come with some strings attached, albeit very reasonable ones. No one has to accept the gift.
Sorry, but this canard is a crock. BMI is not a perfect measure, but the correlation between high BMI and excess body fat is very, very high.
This seems to be one more chapter in the saga. I've been hearing buzzing about how horrible the GPLv3 is, and then when I actually look closely at the details, it appears perfectly innocuous. If I understand correctly, it just says that the keys necessary to run a program on its intended target device are considered to be part of the source code for the software. Well, duh. Could this possibly be more reasonable?
Being certifiable in these areas may assist your career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statis tical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders :-)
Er, you seem to be saying that if I run a large number of independent ("serial") tasks at the same time that this is not parallelism. I'm trying to think of what parallelism would be, if it is not this. :-)
A license can detiorate over time in just the same way as software rots. It's not that the words/bits themselves change. Rather, if the surrounding environment/context changes, the article no longer works as designed.
Hey, at least the executives didn't waste all of their time hunting that pesky wabbit...
You're absolutely correct that OSS is never cost-free. Neither is commercial software, even if it's "free" (or pirated). The primary reason for using Free Software, or Open Source Software, is that you have reason to believe that it will be less expensive in the long run, after all costs are considered. In my experience, this generally turns out to be the case (for the problem domains addressed).
Mike
Now that's talent!
Duh. :-)
Do you mean the first time or the second time?
The free market works--just not the way you were expecting. The market here rewarded the semblance of engineering quality, rather than the actual item. Better inspections might have uncovered this, but of course the market can only provide the semblance of better inspections.
This is why we require government regulation.
Well said.
(ta dump dump)
Oh, wait, that was 'Kuomintang'...
Just kidding. Still, I can't tell you how many times over the last decade (?) I've read an IPV6 whitepaper, tutorial, or FAQ, telling myself that someday I'm going to need to know this. Well, I've had time to forget everything I know about IPV6 several times, and I've still never touched a host that was using it...