This is just trying to help people to not get into legal problems. I really don't see how this is a reason for flaming the FSF.
I'm not--I merely want to point out a fact. Too often people on slashdot think of the FSF as this perfect organization, but it's not. It looks out for its own interests. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm merely pointing it out anyway.
Read the BSD and GPL licenses. It tells you how you may re-release the code yourself. It gives certain restrictions. Those restrictions are also part of the GPL. The BSD does not forbid adding restrictions. The GPL adds restrictions not found in the BSD license. Therefore, you can re-release BSD code under a GPL license. It is still available from elsewhere under the BSD license, but only available from you under the GPL.
If you want to prove your point, show me an example of how you can release BSD code under a licence that does not comply with the requirements of the BSD licence. I think you'll find you can't.
Right. I can't find a way to release BSD code under a license that doesn't comply with the BSD license requirements. However, I can certainly release it under a license that does comply with the BSD license requirements, such as the GPL.
You're putting words in my mouth. I can name a license which does allow that--the BSD license.
The BSD license says you must give credit to the original author, you must keep the disclaimer, and you must not use the original author's name to endorse the product (there are other minor things, like if you make a binary release you still have to have the above visible to users in some way). All of these are also conditions of the GPL, and the BSD license makes no restriction as to adding clauses. So I can re-release BSD code, comply with the terms of the BSD, and add other clauses, to form the GPL.
The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, so you are free to relicense BSD code under the GPL. It is still available under a less restrictive license elsewhere, but you are not required to keep it available under that license.
By "GPL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product. By "APL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product.
Can I take code released under the APL and put it in a GPL'd product? That's under debate. However, I can take code from several other open source licenses and put them in a GPL'd product.
Can I take code released under the GPL and re-release it using/any/ other license, including the APL? No. The owners of the code can grant you the right to release it under another license, but then they have not solely used the GPL to distribute their code.
Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.
Is the GPL APL-compatible? Is the GPL compatible with/any/ other license? No. However, the FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible.
Capitalism is the belief that if something is needed, people will provide it for a price and those that need it will pay the best price to get it from those who have it.
Like if I have something (say, power to influence standards decisions at the UN), and there are people willing to pay for it (say, Microsoft), I will provide my good/service for a price and my buyer will accept if the price is reasonable?
This is still corruption, but it's no less capitalism.
It's a worthwhile penalty for cell phone users showing a disregard for others. For the 100 million or so users in the US, there's plenty of smacktards using them. All that's needed is better judgement to not disturb others.
Ok, if you kill the signal of somebody being annoying you also kill the signal of others--are they guilty by association? O wait--they don't matter--you just don't want to have to deal with that one person talking a little louder than everyone else.
You actually think that's fun? People are paying for their cellphones and service, and you and your friends show reckless disregard for their property. If there was a simple way to detect scum like you I hope police would use it.
I have only ever seen a normal power socket in a bathroom in Australia, when I expressed my horror, the lady concerned assured me that Australian electricity was safer than British electricity..... (the evidence is to the contrary, actually.)
I'm not sure I've seen a bathroom without power sockets. Maybe some public bathrooms, but I doubt it. It's not illegal in any way in the United States.
I choose to view all headers, but then I click the [-] in the top left corner of the headers and then see a single line with Subject:, From:, and time. Then when I want to reclassify something, I click the [+] (same place as the [-]) and copy the X-POPFile-Link header to Firebird or whatever browser you use. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23114 > is probably what they were referring to when they said this is an email client issue. If that bug is fixed, POPFile will be perfect for me. (Remember that Bugzilla doesn't take/. referrals--you'll have to copy and paste the link location.)
Spam is indeterminate, but mailing lists are determinate - using Bayesian filtering on them is using sledgehammers to crack nuts. A rule on the "From:" should be sufficient.
All the automated emails I get (roughly 15-20 lists) easily get sorted into the bots category by POPFile (rather than creating 15-20 filter rules).
For other lists, I used simple filters (POPFile calls them magnets) to train a category for each club I'm in, and then removed the filters so that spam sent to the lists gets sent to the spam folder rather than the club's folder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, many license are GPL-compatible, but the GPL is not *-compatible. For instance, the GPL isn't BSD-compatible.
Read the BSD and GPL licenses. It tells you how you may re-release the code yourself. It gives certain restrictions. Those restrictions are also part of the GPL. The BSD does not forbid adding restrictions. The GPL adds restrictions not found in the BSD license. Therefore, you can re-release BSD code under a GPL license. It is still available from elsewhere under the BSD license, but only available from you under the GPL.
I know why they do it, I just like to bring up the point every so often.
You're putting words in my mouth. I can name a license which does allow that--the BSD license.
The BSD license says you must give credit to the original author, you must keep the disclaimer, and you must not use the original author's name to endorse the product (there are other minor things, like if you make a binary release you still have to have the above visible to users in some way). All of these are also conditions of the GPL, and the BSD license makes no restriction as to adding clauses. So I can re-release BSD code, comply with the terms of the BSD, and add other clauses, to form the GPL.
It depends on the terms of "X license".
The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, so you are free to relicense BSD code under the GPL. It is still available under a less restrictive license elsewhere, but you are not required to keep it available under that license.
That's GPL-compatible licenses. I still cannot take GPL'd code and release it under another license. For instance, the GPL isn't BSD-compatible.
By "GPL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product. By "APL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product.
/any/ other license, including the APL? No. The owners of the code can grant you the right to release it under another license, but then they have not solely used the GPL to distribute their code.
Can I take code released under the APL and put it in a GPL'd product? That's under debate. However, I can take code from several other open source licenses and put them in a GPL'd product.
Can I take code released under the GPL and re-release it using
Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.
Is the GPL APL-compatible? Is the GPL compatible with /any/ other license? No. However, the FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible.
This is still corruption, but it's no less capitalism.
So non-Apache products distributed under the Apache License cannot be redistributed under the GPL. This just doesn't seem like big news to me.
I guess it makes sense they'd be lower power, but they're still there.
You actually think that's fun? People are paying for their cellphones and service, and you and your friends show reckless disregard for their property. If there was a simple way to detect scum like you I hope police would use it.
You don't have ethernet jacks in your bathroom? I thought everyone did.
Also, the GPL and the CC licenses refer to different things. The GPL covers source code, and the CC licenses cover content.
I choose to view all headers, but then I click the [-] in the top left corner of the headers and then see a single line with Subject:, From:, and time. Then when I want to reclassify something, I click the [+] (same place as the [-]) and copy the X-POPFile-Link header to Firebird or whatever browser you use. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23114 > is probably what they were referring to when they said this is an email client issue. If that bug is fixed, POPFile will be perfect for me. (Remember that Bugzilla doesn't take /. referrals--you'll have to copy and paste the link location.)
For other lists, I used simple filters (POPFile calls them magnets) to train a category for each club I'm in, and then removed the filters so that spam sent to the lists gets sent to the spam folder rather than the club's folder.
And I have POPFile set up now anyway.
I've tried it, but I use POPFile to sort work email, family email, automated emails, clubs I'm in, and personal email as well as spam.