Are you nuts? Half way there? do you realize how freaking hard it is to detonate a atomic pit?
I would say you're more than half way there. Once you understand how neutrons ignore the Coulomb force, destabilize the nucleus of certain atoms and cause them to release energy and more neutrons; I would say you're half way there. The rest in an exercise in engineering.
The biggest thing I learned was that building a nuke is insanely difficult.
Unless you're insane and use a gun fission weapon instead of an implosion. Still not easy, but not nearly as difficult or complex as an implosion device.
RMS hasn't said anything about renaming the linux kernel project. He just wants mixtures of Linux and GNU software to be referred to as GNU/Linux. That does not seem unreasonable to me. It doesn't hurt anyone in any way to do that.
It hurts the Linux Foundation's ability to defend the trademark. And creates ambiguity between GNU Projects and Linux; Linux the OS is not a GNU Project and calling Linux GNU/Linux certainly makes it look like one. The FSF should have formally branded its distro as GNU/Linux rather than Debian then there would be no ambiguity. In fact even the Debian Documentation refers to either Debian Linux or simply Linux, not as GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ ap-manifesto.en.html#sA.1
I think you missed (or just ignored) the part where I said why they did this and that other projects do the same thing.
I assume you mean: "adopted the project and copyright as a GNU project". As opposed to creating a campaign to rebrand another project as GNU. That's fine if you want you're project adopted by GNU and want to give up your copyright which is your ownership and control of the project. Its not fine if you want to maintain ownership and control.
It's not "taking over" another project because it was my project to begin with. RMS has only asked for transfer of copyright on contributions to GNU Emacs, not XEmacs.
Once you sign over the copyright, its not your project anymore, it's a GNU/FSF project and you must abide by their restrictions. If they weren't hypocrites they would just use other people's code as licensed under the GPL, like the authors of XEmacs originally did with the GNU Emacs codebase, rather than asking for the copyright. As for needing the copyright to enforce the GPL, after using XEmacs code in GNU Emacs under the GPL they're perfectly capable of enforcing the GPL on that code because the derived works are covered by the GPL v2.0 section 2 - b; unless they don't believe that clause is enforcible.
If XEmacs is indeed largely independent code (I don't know because I haven't looked), RMS doesn't have a claim to the name.
It doesn't matter if its largely independent code. Its a separate project, and nothing in the GPL states that derived works, must be named after the parent or the copyright holders of the original project has any control over the naming of derived works.
Its there, its GPL, nothing prevents you from doing so.
Well, I asked whether it was ok, not whether it was legal. I know it is legal, but I'm not sure I am ethically ok with taking large chunks of another project and not at least mentioning that my project is derived from a different project. I suppose a better question is, would you take the linux kernel and credit Alan Cox for his contributions, but not Andrew Morton?
The kernel contributors still own the copyright to the software they've written. You're use of that software in your project modified or unmodified doesn't change that. And if they didn't want their software used in another project they would not have released it under the GPL. And by releasing your project and adhering to the GPL of the contributed code you are giving the original authors credit. In addition the name of a project has nothing to do with who owns the copyright or who is given credit. Linus is documented as giving credit to the FSF and GNU project for their contributions. That credit doesn't extend to kowtowing to RMS's ego and renaming software because he says so.
What happened with GNU and XEmacs says something completely different.
Not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to the debate over copyright assignment, the FSF asks all GNU projects to transfer their copyright so they are better able to prosecute GPL violations. The FSF is certainly not the only organization to do this. Easy Software Products and the CUPS project is a recent example that has received attention lately due to the buyout from Apple. The contention between XEmacs and GNU Emacs is that XEmacs occasionally wants to contribute code back to GNU Emacs, but the FSF wants the copyright transferred. It's a conflict between the two projects, yes, but I think suggesting that the FSF is trying to "take over" XEmacs is a deliberate misconstruing of the actual situation. And what does this have to do with the linux kernel? Where is the posting on LKML where RMS asks all of the kernel developers to transfer over their copyrights to the FSF?
You're starting to catch on: "the FSF asks all GNU projects to transfer their copyright". Transfer of copyright is transfer of ownership or "take over". Another take on XEmacs actually comes from the XEmacs FAQ http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/xema cs-faq_2.html#SEC54.
His attempts to rebrand Linux as GNU/Linux are effectively trying to brand Linux as a GNU package; and GNU packages belong to the FSF. So when RMS says GNU/Linux even thought he claims that's he giving credit where credit is due, he's really saying, Linux should be a GNU project. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesUsing TheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware
So, if I took the linux kernel and rewrote the SCSI subsystem, and then rebranded and distributed it as Rutulian's superkernel, that would be completely ok with you?
No problem at all. Your kernel, your responsibility. For all I care you don't even have to rewrite the SCSI subsystem, just assume full responsibility for maintenance and distribution. Its there, its GPL, nothing prevents you from doing so.
Nothing prevents RMS and the FSF from forking and distributing their own kernel. Except of course Linus preventing them from calling it GNU/Linux because he owns the trademark: "Linux". So they would lose the value of the Linux brand.
What about the fact that branding it GNU/Linux is effectively an attempt to make it part of GNU?
No it's not. 'nuff said
What happened with GNU and XEmacs says something completely different.
But it is understandable for RMS to request that people refer to it as GNU/Linux. And, if I was ever writing or speaking about it in some sort of official capacity, I would probably extend him that courtesy.
What about his adamant refusal to accept "No" as the answer?
What about the fact that branding it GNU/Linux is effectively an attempt to make it part of GNU?
Stallman's request for systems that use both the Linux kernel and GNU software to be called GNU/Linux does not sound that unreasonable to me.
It is completely unreasonable; Linux is not part of GNU and it is not owned by the FSF. Naming it GNU/Linux improperly means that its part of GNU. Should all applications that are dependednt on glibc and gcc be named GNU/Whatever?
Building an OS from GPL software does not give the writers of the free software components the right to rename the OS. If it did it would have be part of the GPL. RMS should have put that energy into completing his kernel back in the 80s. Furthermore Linus would have had to ask permission from the FSF to actually call his operating system GNU/Linux because the FSF controls the GNU.
What worse is if Linus had signed his code over to the FSF, it would have been DOA because its "inferior" to the GNU HURD microkernel, (or whatever they were calling it back then). Inferior in the Computer Science/theoretical design perspective; not the works with a wide range of hardware and runs user-space applications.
In essence the FSF wants to reap the success of the Linux where their years of kernel development failed. So I think the Linux developers do have a right to be outraged by RMS's BS.
Once again the name of the operating system is Linux. It even though its dependent on GNU it is not part of GNU and does not belong to the FSF -- they have Debian or more correctly GNU/Debian.
Then its not my decision what goes onto the web page to begin with, and my boss can choose to fork out the money to payoff Microsoft or whoever to deliver the emails. And its not my problem.
The folks who SEND the newsletters don't have the luxury of telling all their subscribers to "use Gmail." They have to deal with the fact that a large percentage of their readership may not use Gmail (for any number of reasons) and the fact that Gmail exists doesn't help them in the least.
They don't? They don't have the ability to send confirmation emails when a user sends a subscription request or post: "Cannot send news to Hotmail" on their webpage?
When I leave the company,... I must reimburse the company for the costs involved in this.
Considering what the rest of the conditions are, they're going to fuck you over; unless the cost is negotiated ahead of time don't be surprised if costs you 5 to 20K for this, and the system is hosed when you get it back.
These ideas all sound nice and pretty, but generally what it comes down to is cost. 12k for a home entertainment? Who can afford that? Who'd WANT to afford that?
One large vendor doing so has caused enough disruption.
What is this disruption you refer to? Its it something new from the FUD that has been circulation for years, fodder for/. or idiotic articles in Computerworld?
It was a good essay other than she didn't spend much time on class distinctions rather she focused on the migration of web fads from college students to high school students, and the propagation in the military. College-high school is not a class distinction it is an age distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
Too late Elton, the recording industry already did that.
Also called Gnomeflingers.
I would say you're more than half way there. Once you understand how neutrons ignore the Coulomb force, destabilize the nucleus of certain atoms and cause them to release energy and more neutrons; I would say you're half way there. The rest in an exercise in engineering.
Unless you're insane and use a gun fission weapon instead of an implosion. Still not easy, but not nearly as difficult or complex as an implosion device.
Denied entry for not having a visa is not the same as being kicked out.
Perhaps you should check the 'liberal' immigration and visa laws in Mexico before you make sweeping statements like that.
How about Jimmy Carter and his Nobel Peace Prize?
The there's the thousands of people with humanities degrees every year, and they still haven't gotten us world peace either.
Hollywierd is in CA which is more Democrat than Republican; so of course more money is being donated to Democrats.
I you want to get around the warrant issue, you can try to immigrate to North Korea.
It hurts the Linux Foundation's ability to defend the trademark. And creates ambiguity between GNU Projects and Linux; Linux the OS is not a GNU Project and calling Linux GNU/Linux certainly makes it look like one. The FSF should have formally branded its distro as GNU/Linux rather than Debian then there would be no ambiguity. In fact even the Debian Documentation refers to either Debian Linux or simply Linux, not as GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ ap-manifesto.en.html#sA.1
I assume you mean: "adopted the project and copyright as a GNU project". As opposed to creating a campaign to rebrand another project as GNU. That's fine if you want you're project adopted by GNU and want to give up your copyright which is your ownership and control of the project. Its not fine if you want to maintain ownership and control.
Once you sign over the copyright, its not your project anymore, it's a GNU/FSF project and you must abide by their restrictions. If they weren't hypocrites they would just use other people's code as licensed under the GPL, like the authors of XEmacs originally did with the GNU Emacs codebase, rather than asking for the copyright. As for needing the copyright to enforce the GPL, after using XEmacs code in GNU Emacs under the GPL they're perfectly capable of enforcing the GPL on that code because the derived works are covered by the GPL v2.0 section 2 - b; unless they don't believe that clause is enforcible.
It doesn't matter if its largely independent code. Its a separate project, and nothing in the GPL states that derived works, must be named after the parent or the copyright holders of the original project has any control over the naming of derived works.
The kernel contributors still own the copyright to the software they've written. You're use of that software in your project modified or unmodified doesn't change that. And if they didn't want their software used in another project they would not have released it under the GPL. And by releasing your project and adhering to the GPL of the contributed code you are giving the original authors credit. In addition the name of a project has nothing to do with who owns the copyright or who is given credit. Linus is documented as giving credit to the FSF and GNU project for their contributions. That credit doesn't extend to kowtowing to RMS's ego and renaming software because he says so.
You're starting to catch on: "the FSF asks all GNU projects to transfer their copyright". Transfer of copyright is transfer of ownership or "take over". Another take on XEmacs actually comes from the XEmacs FAQ http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/xema cs-faq_2.html#SEC54 .
His attempts to rebrand Linux as GNU/Linux are effectively trying to brand Linux as a GNU package; and GNU packages belong to the FSF. So when RMS says GNU/Linux even thought he claims that's he giving credit where credit is due, he's really saying, Linux should be a GNU project. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesUsing TheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware
No problem at all. Your kernel, your responsibility. For all I care you don't even have to rewrite the SCSI subsystem, just assume full responsibility for maintenance and distribution. Its there, its GPL, nothing prevents you from doing so.
Nothing prevents RMS and the FSF from forking and distributing their own kernel. Except of course Linus preventing them from calling it GNU/Linux because he owns the trademark: "Linux". So they would lose the value of the Linux brand.
What happened with GNU and XEmacs says something completely different.
What about his adamant refusal to accept "No" as the answer?
What about the fact that branding it GNU/Linux is effectively an attempt to make it part of GNU?
It is completely unreasonable; Linux is not part of GNU and it is not owned by the FSF. Naming it GNU/Linux improperly means that its part of GNU. Should all applications that are dependednt on glibc and gcc be named GNU/Whatever?
Building an OS from GPL software does not give the writers of the free software components the right to rename the OS. If it did it would have be part of the GPL. RMS should have put that energy into completing his kernel back in the 80s. Furthermore Linus would have had to ask permission from the FSF to actually call his operating system GNU/Linux because the FSF controls the GNU.
In addition to for Linus to actually name the system GNU/Linux the FSF probably would have asked him to turn the Copyright of his kernel over to the FSF. If you don't believe me you can ask XEmacs team http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/xema cs-faq_2.html#SEC54
What worse is if Linus had signed his code over to the FSF, it would have been DOA because its "inferior" to the GNU HURD microkernel, (or whatever they were calling it back then). Inferior in the Computer Science/theoretical design perspective; not the works with a wide range of hardware and runs user-space applications.
In essence the FSF wants to reap the success of the Linux where their years of kernel development failed. So I think the Linux developers do have a right to be outraged by RMS's BS.
Once again the name of the operating system is Linux. It even though its dependent on GNU it is not part of GNU and does not belong to the FSF -- they have Debian or more correctly GNU/Debian.
Then its not my decision what goes onto the web page to begin with, and my boss can choose to fork out the money to payoff Microsoft or whoever to deliver the emails. And its not my problem.
They don't? They don't have the ability to send confirmation emails when a user sends a subscription request or post: "Cannot send news to Hotmail" on their webpage?
That's less than 1/2 of 1 month's profit. It would take a fine of more than twice that to actually hurt.
Or just an Amazon top reviewer.
Considering what the rest of the conditions are, they're going to fuck you over; unless the cost is negotiated ahead of time don't be surprised if costs you 5 to 20K for this, and the system is hosed when you get it back.
Perhaps you need to get a little deeper into kernel development to find out why Eiffel is a bad choice:
In summary languages that do stuff for you behind the scenes suck for kernel development.
You've obviously don't know any audiophiles.
Bachelor Chow, now with flavor!
What is this disruption you refer to? Its it something new from the FUD that has been circulation for years, fodder for /. or idiotic articles in Computerworld?
This is Microsoft, it has nothing to do with competition.
You can rehabilitate stupidity?
It was a good essay other than she didn't spend much time on class distinctions rather she focused on the migration of web fads from college students to high school students, and the propagation in the military. College-high school is not a class distinction it is an age distinction.