Creative commons lets you pick and choose which elements you want to use, this license is an all or nothing thing, but it was obviously inspired by creative commons.
That's very true. I would probably not be typing this on Linux right now if I hadn't had a coworker around the year 2000 that insisted his dev box run Linux, so I could see all the neat Enlightenment desktop type stuff, MP3 players, browsers that didn't suck too bad, etc. I had used BSD in college with TWM or some crappy WM, and I had thought Linux was the same way.
It also helped that in 1999 I started using Opera in Windows instead of IE, and knew that was available in Linux too. (Nowadays the more likely migration path here would be IE->firefox windows->firefox linux).
It's just an example of CYA bullshit that actually causes more risk of something bad happening. If something breaks you can fix it.
"Complete testing cycles" are used because if something breaks, the IT guy can shift blame instead of taking responsibility for the systems they maintain.
Alright, fine. What do you do when, as an average user, you switch monitors and X won't start up because the scanrate is set to something invalid for your current monitor. Remember, you can't be bothered to learn any command line utilities, so those are offlimits.
What are you talking about? Crypto is illegal in france, unless you turn your keys over to the government, who then sells them to your competitiors under the table.
France also is reported to have signed this "code of conduct" without any hesitation, which precipitated my post.
I don't know why you bring up that stuff about Iraq, it's not related to this story and is offtopic.
Companies do listen. I tried to use Firefox on linux with turbotax.com, and their browser detection code had a bug that locked me out. I sent them an email about it, and now I can use it with Firefox in Linux just fine.
Intuit is no small company either. I don't know if I was the only one complaining, probably not, but either way, they fixed it.
Yet again, France surrenders. This rule goes nicely alongside their anti-crypto laws, making France the most freedom-hostile country in europe.
France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already. A version of this code was signed last July by three French ministers, representatives of the music industry, major ISPs and telecoms operators there. It allows collection societies and the like to create files from telecoms traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to "mutualise the battle against the piracy of works". Some subscribers have been cut off; others have been sued for file-sharing.
You realize EM energy stops acting like electricity at those frequencies, right?
A transistor can never be created that operates at 6Thz. You might be able to make something that acts like a transistor, but it won't be a transistor, it will be something fundamentally different.
You were trolled to prove you lack understanding of physics, and you took the bait.
People wanting RHEL software stability without the pricetag and still want to have security support would be using Woody for the last 3 years
No, we just run CentOS.
And it's a completely different situation with Windows. You can buy or download pretty much any software and run it on Windows 2000.
If you want a newer version of something on Debian, you have to play dependancy hell updating half of your system libraries to get it working.
And don't bet on apt doing that for you, unless you are very well versed in "pinning" and other exotic stuff. Or if you are lucky, it's in the backports repo, and it might work.
I'm not siding with the rich, nor do I view the top 25% as rich... but they sure as hell aren't poor.
I was in the lower top 25%, yes. My situation very closely resembles your example.
My effective federal income tax rate was in the single digits.
The average tax rate for the top 25%, which I consider the "middle class", was 16.99%... still not very high.
The way they wrote those numbers, that top 25% includes all the higher brackets too. If we were to look at the people only in the top 25% but not in the top 5%, that effective tax rate average would probably be even lower.
I'm not saying there isn't a rich elite with a huge chunk of the wealth, the top 1%. But those 1200 people picked up a full third of the tax bill of the entire nation. That doesn't sound like they were let off too easily.
Well, it's wrong in almost every case, and Olsen should be ashamed for saying that. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if an article came out tomorrow saying he was "misquoted").
Nearly all GPL software is released under "v2 or (at your [the user's] option) any later version". If not that, then it's "v2 only".
Never seen "v2, unless there is a later version, then the latest applies" So he's wrong about the retroactivity.
Paying with your wallet isn't even an option with a lot of projects either, most projects with mixed code bases (i.e. they accept patches from many devs) are not at the liberty to relicense under a different license, unless they can contact each and every dev that ever submitted more than a 1 line patch.
So I'm not sure if Olsen's words got very twisted up by the idiot journalist, or he just doesn't understand the GPL. If it is the latter case, that's kinda sad.
If such a provision were to find its way into any license that made it so that companies and individuals were not subject to the same terms,
The GPL de facto already does this, at least to proprietary closed source software companies. That's the intent! I'm a big GPL supporter, but if you email RMS and ask him if the GPL descriminates against proprietary software companies, he'll answer honestly, and in the affirmative.
See, that's the thing, they have to be careful addressing the web services "loophole" to prevent venturing out of the safe harbor of normal copyright and into EULA land.
The output of a program is not covered by the license of the program, unless that output copies parts that are licensed verbatim from the body of the work. That's not GPL, that's copyright law.
Now, the gray area comes in when the output isn't wholly based on the input. Suppose there's an initialization block or a block of comments in the output, copied verbatim from a distribution file, or even a block of error message text. Or something like ghostscript that copies parts of the GPL/AFPL postscript code that ships with it into the output (large parts of what makes up gs are written in postscript).
Those gray areas might trigger copyright protection from the output. I've questioned Artifex on the gs issue, and they said "our intent is not to cover the documents generated with gs under the license you aquire gs under" (paraphrased). Nonetheless, these are gray areas of copyright law there.
One example is that I use gs to dynamically generate documents that are sent to users over the web based on user requests.
If you modify the GPLed code, that automatically can trigger the GPL protections, even though the GPL FAQ says that nondistributed modifications don't, copyright law does apply to even nondistributed devivative works. They chose not to pursue this, but nothing in the GPL says they can't. Only the probably non-binding GPL FAQ.
The GPL could clarify most of these issues, all without ever touching the "web services" loophole directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Not Debian stable = no committment to timely security releases = Can't use it at work.
Period. I'm not alone.
Creative commons lets you pick and choose which elements you want to use, this license is an all or nothing thing, but it was obviously inspired by creative commons.
That's very true. I would probably not be typing this on Linux right now if I hadn't had a coworker around the year 2000 that insisted his dev box run Linux, so I could see all the neat Enlightenment desktop type stuff, MP3 players, browsers that didn't suck too bad, etc. I had used BSD in college with TWM or some crappy WM, and I had thought Linux was the same way.
It also helped that in 1999 I started using Opera in Windows instead of IE, and knew that was available in Linux too. (Nowadays the more likely migration path here would be IE->firefox windows->firefox linux).
The thing is, Moore has attributed to him something far more fundamental. The exponential growth of technology.
As long as our technology is applied in helping us create new technology, the exponential growth will not cease.
It's just an example of CYA bullshit that actually causes more risk of something bad happening. If something breaks you can fix it.
"Complete testing cycles" are used because if something breaks, the IT guy can shift blame instead of taking responsibility for the systems they maintain.
You've had Internet since before 1985? That's pretty amazing.
A businessman who doesn't understand what "Low barrier to entry" means, is a fool.
Alright, fine. What do you do when, as an average user, you switch monitors and X won't start up because the scanrate is set to something invalid for your current monitor. Remember, you can't be bothered to learn any command line utilities, so those are offlimits.
What are you talking about? Crypto is illegal in france, unless you turn your keys over to the government, who then sells them to your competitiors under the table.
France also is reported to have signed this "code of conduct" without any hesitation, which precipitated my post.
I don't know why you bring up that stuff about Iraq, it's not related to this story and is offtopic.
Companies do listen. I tried to use Firefox on linux with turbotax.com, and their browser detection code had a bug that locked me out. I sent them an email about it, and now I can use it with Firefox in Linux just fine.
Intuit is no small company either. I don't know if I was the only one complaining, probably not, but either way, they fixed it.
Quick, the server is down, and you are miles away on a slow connection... what do you do to fix it?
That's right, there's nothing you can do. A real admin could ssh in and fix it, but you viewed that kind of knowledge as optional. Too bad for you.
8.3% of the market is huge. It's big enough that companies can no longer have an IE only site, that would lock out nearly 10% of their market.
Really, it's past the tipping point now, that critical mass needed to ensure web developers pay attention to it.
Yet again, France surrenders. This rule goes nicely alongside their anti-crypto laws, making France the most freedom-hostile country in europe.
France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already. A version of this code was signed last July by three French ministers, representatives of the music industry, major ISPs and telecoms operators there. It allows collection societies and the like to create files from telecoms traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to "mutualise the battle against the piracy of works". Some subscribers have been cut off; others have been sued for file-sharing.
You realize EM energy stops acting like electricity at those frequencies, right?
A transistor can never be created that operates at 6Thz. You might be able to make something that acts like a transistor, but it won't be a transistor, it will be something fundamentally different.
You were trolled to prove you lack understanding of physics, and you took the bait.
People wanting RHEL software stability without the pricetag and still want to have security support would be using Woody for the last 3 years
No, we just run CentOS.
And it's a completely different situation with Windows. You can buy or download pretty much any software and run it on Windows 2000.
If you want a newer version of something on Debian, you have to play dependancy hell updating half of your system libraries to get it working.
And don't bet on apt doing that for you, unless you are very well versed in "pinning" and other exotic stuff. Or if you are lucky, it's in the backports repo, and it might work.
Well, linux implements division by zero. So there.
Actually, they often use public domain works like project gutenberg.
Don't worry, it isn't a real word. Looks like something acedemic idiots made up to feel special.
I'm not siding with the rich, nor do I view the top 25% as rich... but they sure as hell aren't poor.
I was in the lower top 25%, yes. My situation very closely resembles your example.
My effective federal income tax rate was in the single digits.
The average tax rate for the top 25%, which I consider the "middle class", was 16.99%... still not very high.
The way they wrote those numbers, that top 25% includes all the higher brackets too. If we were to look at the people only in the top 25% but not in the top 5%, that effective tax rate average would probably be even lower.
I'm not saying there isn't a rich elite with a huge chunk of the wealth, the top 1%. But those 1200 people picked up a full third of the tax bill of the entire nation. That doesn't sound like they were let off too easily.
Here's some data to back that up:
Link
Note the top 25% of income, people making greater than $56k a year, in 2001, paid 83% of the total tax bill.
And the top 10%, making 92k or more a year, paid 65%.
The bottom 50%, below 28k, paid only 3.5% of the total income tax bill.
That doesn't sound like "tax the poor and spare the rich" to me.
You are weak on numbers apparently. An very large majority of the taxes in this country are paid by a small minority, the richest 15% or so.
Under your definition, a set of wire screens, each one finer than the last, is intelligent, because it can sort marbles of varying size.
Well, it's wrong in almost every case, and Olsen should be ashamed for saying that. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if an article came out tomorrow saying he was "misquoted").
Nearly all GPL software is released under "v2 or (at your [the user's] option) any later version". If not that, then it's "v2 only".
Never seen "v2, unless there is a later version, then the latest applies" So he's wrong about the retroactivity.
Paying with your wallet isn't even an option with a lot of projects either, most projects with mixed code bases (i.e. they accept patches from many devs) are not at the liberty to relicense under a different license, unless they can contact each and every dev that ever submitted more than a 1 line patch.
So I'm not sure if Olsen's words got very twisted up by the idiot journalist, or he just doesn't understand the GPL. If it is the latter case, that's kinda sad.
If such a provision were to find its way into any license that made it so that companies and individuals were not subject to the same terms,
The GPL de facto already does this, at least to proprietary closed source software companies. That's the intent! I'm a big GPL supporter, but if you email RMS and ask him if the GPL descriminates against proprietary software companies, he'll answer honestly, and in the affirmative.
See, that's the thing, they have to be careful addressing the web services "loophole" to prevent venturing out of the safe harbor of normal copyright and into EULA land.
The output of a program is not covered by the license of the program, unless that output copies parts that are licensed verbatim from the body of the work. That's not GPL, that's copyright law.
Now, the gray area comes in when the output isn't wholly based on the input. Suppose there's an initialization block or a block of comments in the output, copied verbatim from a distribution file, or even a block of error message text. Or something like ghostscript that copies parts of the GPL/AFPL postscript code that ships with it into the output (large parts of what makes up gs are written in postscript).
Those gray areas might trigger copyright protection from the output. I've questioned Artifex on the gs issue, and they said "our intent is not to cover the documents generated with gs under the license you aquire gs under" (paraphrased). Nonetheless, these are gray areas of copyright law there.
One example is that I use gs to dynamically generate documents that are sent to users over the web based on user requests.
If you modify the GPLed code, that automatically can trigger the GPL protections, even though the GPL FAQ says that nondistributed modifications don't, copyright law does apply to even nondistributed devivative works. They chose not to pursue this, but nothing in the GPL says they can't. Only the probably non-binding GPL FAQ.
The GPL could clarify most of these issues, all without ever touching the "web services" loophole directly.