Simply use something besides missiles. Seems like laser-based tech holds the best promise for long-range repetitive targeting.
The "repetetive" part is still a problem with lasers.
If your laser has enough energy to destroy a missile it's going to burn up a big chunk of something every time it's fired, something being capacitor charge time, reactor output or horrible chemicals.
It's probably also going to have to deal with some nasty heat disposal problems.
No. He simply gave a gift, and the son was polite enough to ask to modify it.
And the father said "yes". That is permission, i.e. a license, to produce modified works.
But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
Ok, so you don't want people to make derived works(*) from the code you publish unless they ask you explicitly. I'm ok with that, it's your code after all, but I'd rather you be a bit clearer about your intentions.
When you said this:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
you weren't exactly being honest.
((*) I originally wrote "use" instead of this horrid legalism, as I programmer I usually think of "using" code as modifying it, including it in other programs and so on, rather that just running it. Difference between a poet and a reader of poetry).
What does RMS have to do with it? It's simple copyright law.
When you make a work you own all the rights. If you want other people to be able to anything other than read it you have to put it into the public domain or give people a license. "License" means "to give permission". Since you own all the rights to your work people can't use it unless you give them permission. You are absoutely not required to give permission (to, e.g. run the code, make derived versions...), but if you don't then all people can legaly do is read your code. If that's what you want, then good, but if you imagine that Microsoft are going to use it to make the next version of windows then you're dreaming.
In your parable of the father and the three sons the father gives a license to produce derived works to the second son.
So what is your problem with licenses, you say yourself you will give them if asked.
The second son said that although he liked his story about the leopard, he's prefer it if it was a lion. That's OK says his father, feel free to change the story yourself. You change it to a lion if you want.
So the Father gave a license to the second son.
The third son was indeed ungrateful, the Father had given him a gift of the story. But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
In Appliances, we prototyped, had test samples of new parts build from the production molds, built models for test and test the bejesus out of them. THEN we had two test production runs, tested the heck out of samples of THOSE, then released for production.
You have a really fucked up attitude for someone with such a low id number. The person you replied to had valid points and you come off like some shitbird who does not have a fucking clue.
No, the problem is bureaucracy. Bureaucratic systems inefficient at management, partially due to a misunderstanding of and over-reliance upon digital data.
WTF does this even mean?
"Bureaucratic systems"? You mean Boeing is run by unelected people working in offices? How is this different from any other company?
I've had friends in entirely different companies tell me that they saw a "(c) Lucian Wischik" header in some of their company's codebase, which had used some of my public domain work from 10 years ago.
If it said "(c) Lucian Wischik" it wasn't public domain.
If it was public domain the companies have every right to use it.
If it's not public domain and their is no license then the people who copied the code into the codebase should be fired. You claim you won't sue, but why should anyone trust you?
It's not that I don't give a shit about your licenses. It's that I dislike your licenses.
What's wrong with:
Copyright (c) %YEAR, %OWNER All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
No it's not yelling you brain dead slashdot "filter". It's a fucking quote of the fucking 2 clause BSD license.
There's certainly a gift here, and many people have thanked me for it. It's exactly attitudes and rudeness you are demonstrating that means I will never issue an open source license. You are what's called freetard. Expect to get everything for free, treating everything as a right rather than a gift. And get rude about anything that's not the way you want it.
Ah, so you were simply lying when you said:
. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
How am I wrong? I know full well copyright applies and I'm happy to keep that right. So how am I wrong?
I'm allowed to do what ever I want with my source.
Yes, but without a license noone else is. You said:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
That, if it were written in what GNU call LEGALBOL and it were more explicitly associated with your code is a license.
But I'm not going to try to assert my rights in this case. I suspect others who release code without a license would do the same. It might not be correct in our legal framework but it happens without consequence at some frequency.
And nobody who is sane will use your software.
Today you say you won't assert your rights. Tomorrow?
Slashdot Mirror
Simply use something besides missiles. Seems like laser-based tech holds the best promise for long-range repetitive targeting.
The "repetetive" part is still a problem with lasers.
If your laser has enough energy to destroy a missile it's going to burn up a big chunk of something every time it's fired, something being capacitor charge time, reactor output or horrible chemicals.
It's probably also going to have to deal with some nasty heat disposal problems.
I wonder how we could do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
So the Father gave a license to the second son.
No. He simply gave a gift, and the son was polite enough to ask to modify it.
And the father said "yes". That is permission, i.e. a license, to produce modified works.
But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
Ok, so you don't want people to make derived works(*) from the code you publish unless they ask you explicitly. I'm ok with that, it's your code after all, but I'd rather you be a bit clearer about your intentions.
When you said this:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
you weren't exactly being honest.
((*) I originally wrote "use" instead of this horrid legalism, as I programmer I usually think of "using" code as modifying it, including it in other programs and so on, rather that just running it. Difference between a poet and a reader of poetry).
You've fallen for RMS's propaganda.
Read this.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3420777&cid=42756441
What does RMS have to do with it? It's simple copyright law.
When you make a work you own all the rights. If you want other people to be able to anything other than read it you have to put it into the public domain or give people a license. "License" means "to give permission". Since you own all the rights to your work people can't use it unless you give them permission. You are absoutely not required to give permission (to, e.g. run the code, make derived versions...), but if you don't then all people can legaly do is read your code. If that's what you want, then good, but if you imagine that Microsoft are going to use it to make the next version of windows then you're dreaming.
In your parable of the father and the three sons the father gives a license to produce derived works to the second son.
So what is your problem with licenses, you say yourself you will give them if asked.
I count 7 responses from you in my inbox.
Yeah, it was a boring afternoon at work.
I'm interesting in defending people's right not to buy into the open source license propaganda.
By ignoring copyright law.
The second son said that although he liked his story about the leopard, he's prefer it if it was a lion. That's OK says his father, feel free to change the story yourself. You change it to a lion if you want.
So the Father gave a license to the second son.
The third son was indeed ungrateful, the Father had given him a gift of the story. But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
MBAs are like politicians. .
No. Politicians are competent and useful (when compared to MBA's).
NiMH and NiCad are similar enough, I presume?
Why doi you assume that? Because the first two letters are the same?
Now multiply that by one zillion subcontractors all operating more or less without adult oversight
And those "adults" would be who? Some white guys, you know, the ones who started the whole clusterfuck?
In Appliances, we prototyped, had test samples of new parts build from the production molds, built models for test and test the bejesus out of them. THEN we had two test production runs, tested the heck out of samples of THOSE, then released for production.
Splendid. Now do that with a 787.
(Rushes off to buy stock in Airbus...)
You have a really fucked up attitude for someone with such a low id number. The person you replied to had valid points and you come off like some shitbird who does not have a fucking clue.
And you come across as?
A guy who knows how to type <b>.
No, the problem is bureaucracy. Bureaucratic systems inefficient at management, partially due to a misunderstanding of and over-reliance upon digital data.
WTF does this even mean?
"Bureaucratic systems"? You mean Boeing is run by unelected people working in offices? How is this different from any other company?
"misunderstanding of digital data"?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Are you sure? Have you asked them?
I had a girl try to come on to me, asking if I were "into" the para-normal.
I said, "No. Just regular sex."
You siscon liar, Jerry.
if there is no license than someone can take the work, use it for their own product, make money and not give anything back
once this happens, what is the point of making a piece of software better?
No, that's exactly the opposite of the truth.
If there is no license nobody else can legally take the work.
They can look at it, because you published it, but that's it.
I've had friends in entirely different companies tell me that they saw a "(c) Lucian Wischik" header in some of their company's codebase, which had used some of my public domain work from 10 years ago.
If it said "(c) Lucian Wischik" it wasn't public domain.
If it was public domain the companies have every right to use it.
If it's not public domain and their is no license then the people who copied the code into the codebase should be fired. You claim you won't sue, but why should anyone trust you?
As I said, anyone that wants to redistribute it can ask me, and I'll say yes
Oh, so if someone asks you you'll give them a license.
But you wait for them to ask.
Ok, can't see the point myself, but I guess having Ivan Owen's hand stuck up your arse all day makes you a bit wierd.
Screw licenses, I'm not interested. And neither are the people that have downloaded my software.
For someone who's not interested in licenses you sure spend a lot of time talking about them.
I've released open source on the internet without a license
No you haven't. Without a license it's not open source.
Without a license the is no "gift". People can read your source, and that's it. Nothing else.
Maybe that's what you want. But stop pretending that you're "releasing open source software".
It's not that I don't give a shit about your licenses. It's that I dislike your licenses.
What's wrong with:
Copyright (c) %YEAR, %OWNER
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
No it's not yelling you brain dead slashdot "filter". It's a fucking quote of the fucking 2 clause BSD license.
Aargh! Let me post my bloody message.
There's certainly a gift here, and many people have thanked me for it. It's exactly attitudes and rudeness you are demonstrating that means I will never issue an open source license. You are what's called freetard. Expect to get everything for free, treating everything as a right rather than a gift. And get rude about anything that's not the way you want it.
Ah, so you were simply lying when you said:
. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
.
How am I wrong? I know full well copyright applies and I'm happy to keep that right. So how am I wrong?
I'm allowed to do what ever I want with my source.
Yes, but without a license noone else is. You said:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
That, if it were written in what GNU call LEGALBOL and it were more explicitly associated with your code is a license.
Without a declaration, the originator owns it, IMHO.
What's so terrible about that? Maybe he still wants to own it, whilst giving people freedom to look at it and play with it if they want.
Then he has to provide a license.
Without a license nobody has any right to do anything with it.
3 possibilities:
1. Stick it in the public domain.
2. License it.
3. or nobody else can use it.
But I'm not going to try to assert my rights in this case. I suspect others who release code without a license would do the same. It might not be correct in our legal framework but it happens without consequence at some frequency.
And nobody who is sane will use your software.
Today you say you won't assert your rights. Tomorrow?
Never thought I'd see it.
Brought tears to my eyes.
Mod parent up for great justice!