Which violates the spirit if not the intent of
the GPL.
The point being, that you should be able to
re-build the binaries from source and make
them *match* the distributed binary. If you can't
do that, what is the point of being able to find
the source?
Do you know that the modified GCC has not
created a problem? If you can't rebuild from
source and make it *match*, you don't have
control over the binary! You can't fix any bugs,
nor can you verify (without extensive effort)
that the binary was derived from said source.
The mods to GCC and any other build tools
*MUST* be provided.
I don't believe Google owns Usenet in any way.
I mean, Usenet is NNTP, a P2P protocol, that is
actually a method to distribute the postings
made to a Usenet server. As to those postings
that Google has collected and archived, each
individual posting is really copyright of
the poster (if not stolen), and I certainly don't
recall receiving any compensation from Google
for having the use of my copyrighted postings.
So, IMHO, Google should provide access to
all Usenet postings in the archive, with the
access method being programmatic and non-Web based.
To an "Human in space" (who knows nothing of geek "culture") someone coding on a program, or someone compiling over and over again may seem pointless and that we are out of our minds. Just a thought. I'm sure slashdot-ers are just keeping themselves busy.
Just because the source code is distributed,
does not mean that everyone is tainted.
In order to be tainted, you would have had
to read (and *understand*) the source code, and very few do that
unless they have a specific area of code
they are interested in or having a problem with.
Your possible argument (any implementation could
be considered a derivative), logically can lead to the conclusion that if someone is sentient,
anyone else having a logical
thought is infringing!
Things (at least in the U.S.) may be getting
that screwed up, but there is still hope.
When the phrase "All your thoughts are belong to us" becomes law, we *will* have a revolution.
I dropped a few (3.5) two feet
onto carpeted floor, the result being they were
unusable, could not even be formatted.
But, after I beat on one for a while, they tend to last. Basically, I'm seeing over a 20% failure rate with various brands. These are cheap, lightweight,
and I'm happy if over %50 work these days.
Actually, that is the message from Microsoft.
You *did* know that CNET is in Microsoft's back pocket didn't you?
Just another attack on Linux from Microsoft.
That make sense. If it is going to be public
knowledge that the encryption is disabled,
it's likely that the terrorists would *not* use
the phone anyway. Of course, the non-use of
the phones during the period in question
is also "Useful Information".
That's assuming that *all* of the particles are
stopped. I have my doubts. In fact, a pet theory
of mine is that frequent flyers have a higher risk of cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I must agree with you 100%.
Should be prior art, no one should ever, ever get a patent for the equivalent of the 'Dick Tracy Wristwatch'.
The point of GPL is to allow you to *trust* and *control* your software execution environment.
This is all about Reflections on Trusting Trust.
The point being, that you should be able to re-build the binaries from source and make them *match* the distributed binary. If you can't do that, what is the point of being able to find the source?
Do you know that the modified GCC has not created a problem? If you can't rebuild from source and make it *match*, you don't have control over the binary! You can't fix any bugs, nor can you verify (without extensive effort) that the binary was derived from said source.
The mods to GCC and any other build tools *MUST* be provided.
Besides having a good reason to switch, it really helps if you have motivated users.
I don't believe Google owns Usenet in any way. I mean, Usenet is NNTP, a P2P protocol, that is actually a method to distribute the postings made to a Usenet server. As to those postings that Google has collected and archived, each individual posting is really copyright of the poster (if not stolen), and I certainly don't recall receiving any compensation from Google for having the use of my copyrighted postings. So, IMHO, Google should provide access to all Usenet postings in the archive, with the access method being programmatic and non-Web based.
Of course, the puppet says he will veto.
To an "Human in space" (who knows nothing of geek "culture") someone coding on a program, or someone compiling over and over again may seem pointless and that we are out of our minds. Just a thought. I'm sure slashdot-ers are just keeping themselves busy.
As to his dream about the GPL being nullified as a valid license, it it now 100% clear that only Microsoft can be behind all of this FUD.
The *only* way for GPL to be invalid is for *copyright* to be invalid.
Your possible argument (any implementation could be considered a derivative), logically can lead to the conclusion that if someone is sentient, anyone else having a logical thought is infringing!
Things (at least in the U.S.) may be getting that screwed up, but there is still hope.
When the phrase "All your thoughts are belong to us" becomes law, we *will* have a revolution.
Finally, realizing the error of their ways, they admit they were previously awarding them on merit alone.
I dropped a few (3.5) two feet onto carpeted floor, the result being they were unusable, could not even be formatted.
But, after I beat on one for a while, they tend to last. Basically, I'm seeing over a 20% failure rate with various brands. These are cheap, lightweight, and I'm happy if over %50 work these days.
Here's what Microsoft says about the GPL being viral.
Actually, that is the message from Microsoft.
You *did* know that CNET is in Microsoft's back pocket didn't you?
Just another attack on Linux from Microsoft.
And people say that /. does not really provide a service!
You're correct, it's not hysterical.
Perhaps you should read up on the temperature of burning jet fuel and compare to the melting point of steel.
DRM.
No, I'm not going to click on it to verify.
Corruption is not inflation-proof.
Apparently, since the record companies are not yet bankrupt, the politicians are not charging enough.
Slashdot Editor -> Lost genius. Dupes. QED.
Perhaps that is why SCO's Senior Vice President of Engineering and Global Services,
appears to be bailing out.
That make sense. If it is going to be public knowledge that the encryption is disabled, it's likely that the terrorists would *not* use the phone anyway. Of course, the non-use of the phones during the period in question is also "Useful Information".
That's assuming that *all* of the particles are stopped. I have my doubts. In fact, a pet theory of mine is that frequent flyers have a higher risk of cancer.
Gee, slashdotters are actually reading!