1. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal. 2. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal. 3. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal.
I have no idea how anyone could possibly start thinking otherwise.
If Slap-Chop Manufacturing And Brain Surgeries Inc. gives you stuff in exchange for your endorsement of Slap-Chop, then you're affected. If they don't, you are not. Does it get any simpler than that?
Atlantic salmon is called Salmo salar in biology-speak. It is the model species of the entire order Salmoniformes. Salmon doesn't get any truer than that. Pacific species belong to the genus Oncorhynchus. They are true salmons too. "Trouts" belong to both Oncorhynchus and Salmo (and another 5 genera). Some of these trouts have anadromous forms (that is, go to the seas and return to the rivers to spawn), for instance, the rainbow trout (called steelhead in its anadromous form) is Oncorhynchus mykiss and the brown trout (sea trout) is Salmo trutta.
I say, tetrachromatism for all! You get a shot of vision genes toether with your polio vaccine and that's it, you see in RGZB like everyone else. Then we will redo all our imaging software and hardware to work in 4 colours. And then someone will develop a pentachromatism gene treatment. The possibilities are exciting.
Kids these days. Carbon nanotube this, carbon nanotube that. What's wrong with ye olde goode carbon STEEL? Last time I checked, springs can store mechanical energy!
Suppose Microsoft distributed the software under some kind of closed-source, commercial license. Suppose further the software contained something patented by Microsoft. (This happens a zillion times per year, think programs like Windows and Office). You wouldn't worry about obtaining separate patent licenses for the patented stuff, would you? The software license you've got IS the permission to use it, together with whatever patented stuff may be contained within. Furthermore, if the software contained stuff patented by third parties, you wouldn't worry too much about obtaining separate licenses from these third parties either. We rely on Microsoft's legal team which would supposedly care to obtain sublicensing rights in relevant patents first.
Now it all suddenly changes when Microsoft distribute software under GPL, and I don't understand why. Microsoft have granted you a permission to do a very specific list of things with the software, under a very specific list of conditions. Why do you think you need some kind of additional permission (connected to patents or other IP) to do these things? GPL IS THE permission. Why do Microsoft suddenly have a right to impose additional conditions on you, conditions like obtaining a patent license? They supposedly don't have such a right when they give you (for a fee or without one) Windows or Office or dotNet or whatever, including stuff you can redistribute.
Microsoft has Patent X. Microsoft incorporates X in Software Y. Microsoft distributes Y under License Z.
Now, if you use Y only as permitted by Z, why do you need a separate license for X, distinct from Z? One certainly would not expect a need for a separate license if Z == Microsoft EULA, so why GPLv2 should be any different?
The standard must be this and that, and also bake your rolls and serve your coffee, but for any number of reasons whe have the standard that we have. Respect it, or don't touch the compiler with your little dirty hands. What could be simpler?
You can download something called "Oracle Enterprise Linux" from Oracle's servers. Looking at the name, I conjecture that it's Oracle's, and that it's Linux. Are you absolutely positively sure it's not a distribution?
You can download (most of) RHEL sources from RHT servers, recompile, rebrand and make your own RHEL clone. There's a popular distro (CentOS) doing exactly that, and a few more obscure ones. Oracle Enterprise Linux, a direct competition of RHEL, is also based off RHEL sources. If that's not "free" and "open source", I don't know what is.
Please, for the love of Bob, stop hacking C compilers. You are doing it wrong. You are supposed to read and understand the standard first. And you need to make a habit of answering any question about C code validity by quoting the chapter and verse of the standard, not by some vague reasoning.Go read the standard and find where it talks about OFFSETOF and null pointer dereference. I no longer have a copy on hand, and there's no online free copies, so I can't do it for you. But I assure you that &(((struct foo*)0)->bar) is UB when used in user code. An implementation may implement OFFSETOF in terms of &(((struct foo*)0)->bar) (and most of them do), but the programmer is not supposed to do that himself. He can only call OFFSETOF.
What exactly works in Moonlight? I only see a gray rectangle where the player is supposed to be. This is a mild improvement over "your browser is not supported" screen.
Just compare their components/SWVDService.js file with FlashGot's components/flashgotService.js (identical to FG 1.1.9), or search for "flashgot" or even "maone" in their files.
There's no components/SWVDService.js in their code, nor there is any mention of "flashgot" or "maone". We perhaps need a more up-to-date version of the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal.
2. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal.
3. Yes, you have to mention that you're getting free stuff out of the deal.
I have no idea how anyone could possibly start thinking otherwise.
//unfortunately, "how" to state so is not defined//
Why, it is. "Clearly and Conspicuously" is the magic formula.
If Slap-Chop Manufacturing And Brain Surgeries Inc. gives you stuff in exchange for your endorsement of Slap-Chop, then you're affected. If they don't, you are not. Does it get any simpler than that?
Atlantic salmon is called Salmo salar in biology-speak. It is the model species of the entire order Salmoniformes. Salmon doesn't get any truer than that. Pacific species belong to the genus Oncorhynchus. They are true salmons too. "Trouts" belong to both Oncorhynchus and Salmo (and another 5 genera). Some of these trouts have anadromous forms (that is, go to the seas and return to the rivers to spawn), for instance, the rainbow trout (called steelhead in its anadromous form) is Oncorhynchus mykiss and the brown trout (sea trout) is Salmo trutta.
I say, tetrachromatism for all! You get a shot of vision genes toether with your polio vaccine and that's it, you see in RGZB like everyone else. Then we will redo all our imaging software and hardware to work in 4 colours. And then someone will develop a pentachromatism gene treatment. The possibilities are exciting.
//larger than hard drives I got just 7 years ago.//
It's larger than hard drives I have NOW, you insensitive clod!
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+%2B3GS+missing+features
Do what you want with that, I can't be bothered to open the links. Wake me up when they add multitasking.
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+3G+missing+features
Did it help?
Go to Google and type in the search field: windows suc
Look at the drop-down suggestions.
Now do the same with Bing.
Works with US English settings of both Google and Bing. Other versions tend to behave differently.
I don't have mod points, so let me just say this:
Mod Parent Up!
Kids these days. Carbon nanotube this, carbon nanotube that. What's wrong with ye olde goode carbon STEEL? Last time I checked, springs can store mechanical energy!
I see what you mean. Now consider this.
Suppose Microsoft distributed the software under some kind of closed-source, commercial license. Suppose further the software contained something patented by Microsoft. (This happens a zillion times per year, think programs like Windows and Office). You wouldn't worry about obtaining separate patent licenses for the patented stuff, would you? The software license you've got IS the permission to use it, together with whatever patented stuff may be contained within. Furthermore, if the software contained stuff patented by third parties, you wouldn't worry too much about obtaining separate licenses from these third parties either. We rely on Microsoft's legal team which would supposedly care to obtain sublicensing rights in relevant patents first.
Now it all suddenly changes when Microsoft distribute software under GPL, and I don't understand why. Microsoft have granted you a permission to do a very specific list of things with the software, under a very specific list of conditions. Why do you think you need some kind of additional permission (connected to patents or other IP) to do these things? GPL IS THE permission. Why do Microsoft suddenly have a right to impose additional conditions on you, conditions like obtaining a patent license? They supposedly don't have such a right when they give you (for a fee or without one) Windows or Office or dotNet or whatever, including stuff you can redistribute.
Care to explain why it doesn't apply to the initial distribution?
(yet another "I am not a lawyer" comment)
Microsoft has Patent X. Microsoft incorporates X in Software Y. Microsoft distributes Y under License Z.
Now, if you use Y only as permitted by Z, why do you need a separate license for X, distinct from Z? One certainly would not expect a need for a separate license if Z == Microsoft EULA, so why GPLv2 should be any different?
Wow, thanks. It used to sell for about 140,000 of today's dollars in my day. Good to see it available for free.
The standard must be this and that, and also bake your rolls and serve your coffee, but for any number of reasons whe have the standard that we have. Respect it, or don't touch the compiler with your little dirty hands. What could be simpler?
You can download something called "Oracle Enterprise Linux" from Oracle's servers. Looking at the name, I conjecture that it's Oracle's, and that it's Linux. Are you absolutely positively sure it's not a distribution?
Remember, price has little to do with freedom.
You can download (most of) RHEL sources from RHT servers, recompile, rebrand and make your own RHEL clone. There's a popular distro (CentOS) doing exactly that, and a few more obscure ones. Oracle Enterprise Linux, a direct competition of RHEL, is also based off RHEL sources. If that's not "free" and "open source", I don't know what is.
Please, for the love of Bob, stop hacking C compilers. You are doing it wrong. You are supposed to read and understand the standard first. And you need to make a habit of answering any question about C code validity by quoting the chapter and verse of the standard, not by some vague reasoning.Go read the standard and find where it talks about OFFSETOF and null pointer dereference. I no longer have a copy on hand, and there's no online free copies, so I can't do it for you. But I assure you that &(((struct foo*)0)->bar) is UB when used in user code. An implementation may implement OFFSETOF in terms of &(((struct foo*)0)->bar) (and most of them do), but the programmer is not supposed to do that himself. He can only call OFFSETOF.
All characters are blank.
Slashdotters are happy with their Windows machines, it seems.
What exactly works in Moonlight? I only see a gray rectangle where the player is supposed to be. This is a mild improvement over "your browser is not supported" screen.
By the time we have reasonably working 2.0 support, they will be out with 4.0, or 6.5.
Sigh.
A decent film SLR is still about $500.
/me being new here and all.
FlashGot developer sez:
There's no components/SWVDService.js in their code, nor there is any mention of "flashgot" or "maone". We perhaps need a more up-to-date version of the claim.