As long as I keep the modified binaries for myself, then I can still distribute the original binaries. As long as I can distribute the original binaries, then I can distribute the original code.
For example, someone other than the party it was sold to can't just swipe a copy of the code and redistribute it, even if its gpl.
I added the emphasis, both above and below.
The thief swipes the program, but doesn't have the source... how is he going to comply with this clause? The short answer - he can't. So he is in breach of the gpl license, and thus cannot distribute at all.
I can't believe I'm, having a conversation with somebody who says that GPL code can only be given to certain people by certain people.
Actually, I'd like to ammend what I said. Selling to competitors is an option, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Selling to competitors is an option because at least some of the money that they would have spent is now coming to my/your company. I'm not saying that that is the wisest option. I'm just saying that it is an option.
I wasn't talking about selling the customizations. I wasn't talking about selling to competitors. Not everybody thinks like you. You'd only need 1 wrench in the cog to mess things up.
think for two seconds... whoever bought it for $10k isn't going to start selling copies of it - they bought it for a reason, and that reason isn't going to be "get into the software selling bix."
I was busy, so I couldn't reply sooner.
Businesses sell their assets all the time. If anybody can sell it for $10k, without paying for development, or royalties, etc., then it would help to reduce the costs of doing business. If you own a small business, $100k in cash [10 units sold @ $10k, unless my math is bad] would help prevent that bankruptcy in the first place. Also, I'd rather be somebody trying to earn thousands in cash by selling the software, than somebody auctioning off office stuff to make up for the bankruptcy and the money owed to me.
Or, if they're going to dispose of it in a bankruptcy for $10k, why don't YOU buy it back at that price and preserve your $100k-a-pop market?
Are you serious?
I wouldn't buy my own software back for $10k, because they are allowed to keep the source. That's the idea of GPL. With GPL, you can do nothing to stop somebody from having a copy.
Well, you could always find a way to disable the Back button. Also, if a user tries to close a tab, then your JavaScript can try to cause the entire browser to crash.
Most importantly, abandon HTML as much as possible, and serve every page as a Flash file.
I saw what you said about guardrails. If you're going that route, then you might as well aadd these to your list.
* on top of street lamps and various other posts * bus shelters [I can't crunch the numbers, but it would be nice to see public transit give someting back to become a little bit more financially sustaining]. * wind mills [the blades, the poles, the other part] * bus roof * train roof
Re:I got my anti-windmill dvd in the mail last wee
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
Actually, now that you ask, I speculate that they probably don't build lighthouses anymore. If they use GPS or other electronic claptraptions, then they won't need lighthouses anymore. I guess that I brought up the idea because lighthouses were shut down, according to what I read, to save money, and not because there were technological advances.
Re:I got my anti-windmill dvd in the mail last wee
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
I've thought about the photo. It makes the windmill look very peaceful. If people see a picture of a windmill in a wheat field, then there may be less NIMBYism, because if the food is safe enough to eat, then it is a clean source of energy.
An idea came to me shortly after we started this discussion. It would be nice to build a lighthouse with a windmill attachment. There would probably be enough electricity to pay for it.
Re:Goes with the conservative backlash mythology
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
Yes. I wouldn't argue with that. From your point of view and mine, government shouldn't own property unnecessarily. From what I understood of the discussion context, it was as if the government claimed a certain territory [morally or unmorally; legally or illegally], then gave it to a realestate company, and then bought it from the company. My point was that it wouldn't cost extra if the territory wasn't given away in the first place, which I assume to be the case with forrests and park lands.
I'm probably misunderstanding something here, and misusing specific terminology.
Re:I got my anti-windmill dvd in the mail last wee
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
I live in BC, and only lived in Calgary, AB for about 6 months, so I'm not sure that British Columbians have that luxury of using windmills just yet. On a positive note, though, the government or power company, or whatever, is trying to build 1 or more windmills on Vancouver Island. It's up on the northern part, if I recall correctly. The newspaper, that I got that information from, portrayed it in a positive manner, so I suppose that the NIMBYism and BANANAism has been kept to a minimum if not illiminated for that instance.
Also, there was that Canadian show, Daily Planet, which did a bit on a windmill set up at a high school or college football [not soccer] field, or some kind of playing field. People who were interviewed were very optimistic about it also. I don't recall a single complaint. This shows that at the very least, somebody is supporting the technology.
I'm beginning to feel very optimistic about this for Canadians. As for Americans and others, I'll still keep my hopes up.
Thanks for the photos. Once again, this proves that the technology is viewed highly by some people. I just can't understand why more people don't do this. The photo was very well done. Was it by you?
Re:Goes with the conservative backlash mythology
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
the mythical liberal elite from Hollywood, New England, and the "Left Coast" that rules America in spite of the efforts of trod-upon, underdog conservatives.
Ah, yes. Now I know what they mean. From the news that I hear, they are usually portrayed in a similar manner, but without the specific label of "Ivy League", etc. I can understand that. Universities tend to be powerful influences. It's pretty hard to argue with what the professor says. After all, he's the fellow with all the data and evidence.
Personally, I just want to know what the heck "waffle-stomping" is supposed to mean.
I'd like to know also. Maybe it's somekind of party-pooper? "Somebody stomped over my waffle! He just ruined my momentary happiness!"? Just guessing.:^)
His specific objections are to federally-owned nature preserves (as opposed to parks used for camping, etc.). In his opinion, if something isn't being exploited for commercial gain, then it isn't worth anything, and he views wildlife preserves as an obscene waste.
Ah, okay. That doesn't seem too bad anymore, because the value of nature preserves tends to be more subjective than buildings and the property they are on. Don't get me wrong. I still disrespect his view, because nature preserves are very important and valuable.
In the US, doesn't the government get to keep nature preserves from free? I figure that in any country, if the land hasn't been sold, then the land is owned by the government.
Re:Calgary's C-Train is completely powered by wind
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
Run what faster? The train? How do they do that, when there isn't enough energy? I think that I misunderstand your question.
Re:I got my anti-windmill dvd in the mail last wee
on
Tilting At Windmills
·
· Score: 1
Ah, yes. I heard that Calgary's C-Train is completely powered by wind. It's good to see that we Canadian's are open to it, at least to some extent.
How strange. I never thought of eviromentalists as Harvard graduates. I also never thought of government not owning property. What? They are supposed to pay rent of some sort for the rest of the country's life? This guy sounds strange.
I agree with you. The thought of windmills seems so peaceful and exciting to me. I have never seen a modern one 1 in real life, that I can recall, but still. I really wonder how much noise they make.
Well, it happens to be used as a dish cleanser and a clothing cleanser. I think that I have a right and responsibility to be concerned about what goes in my food!!!
You are very insightful. When it comes to being medicated and all that, it isn't so much the belief system as it is the context. If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that if the marjority of people believe in pasta worship or wearing of socks, then you'll be fine.
In Canada, you get to keep your house, if you don't pay taxes. You just can't sell it, and they watch you in some sort of way. For example, they make deductions off your pay cheque before you get it. I think that's fair.
Don't forget that you can borrow DVDs from some public libraries for free. The DVDs usually have closed captioning, and sometimes alternate language audio, and alternate language closed captioning. This is great for those who are hard of hearing, and/or those who want to learn a new language. You could literally use the DVD for several, several hours before being finished with it. You could instantly replay the last few seconds, in case you missed something, thus making the experience more interactive.
It's a totally different experience.
I hate sitting in theatres, wondering what the characters said.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered wearing support hosiery? If that isn't good enough, then you could probably get a prescription for compression hosiery.
There are many styles of hosiery that could pass for socks under pants.
I have a hosiery blog [MySpace of all places] that speaks about trying to make hosiery on men mainstream.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
As long as I keep the modified binaries for myself, then I can still distribute the original binaries. As long as I can distribute the original binaries, then I can distribute the original code.
Actually, I'd like to ammend what I said. Selling to competitors is an option, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Selling to competitors is an option because at least some of the money that they would have spent is now coming to my/your company. I'm not saying that that is the wisest option. I'm just saying that it is an option.
I wasn't talking about selling the customizations. I wasn't talking about selling to competitors. Not everybody thinks like you. You'd only need 1 wrench in the cog to mess things up.
If they can't sell it off during a bankruptcy, then they'll want to sell it off before the bankruptcy.
They wouldn't have to sell it to their competitors. Although, that's always an option.
Businesses sell their assets all the time. If anybody can sell it for $10k, without paying for development, or royalties, etc., then it would help to reduce the costs of doing business. If you own a small business, $100k in cash [10 units sold @ $10k, unless my math is bad] would help prevent that bankruptcy in the first place. Also, I'd rather be somebody trying to earn thousands in cash by selling the software, than somebody auctioning off office stuff to make up for the bankruptcy and the money owed to me.
All they would have to do is sell it on eBay.
I wouldn't buy my own software back for $10k, because they are allowed to keep the source. That's the idea of GPL. With GPL, you can do nothing to stop somebody from having a copy.
Well, you could always find a way to disable the Back button. Also, if a user tries to close a tab, then your JavaScript can try to cause the entire browser to crash.
;^)
Most importantly, abandon HTML as much as possible, and serve every page as a Flash file.
I saw what you said about guardrails. If you're going that route, then you might as well aadd these to your list.
* on top of street lamps and various other posts
* bus shelters [I can't crunch the numbers, but it would be nice to see public transit give someting back to become a little bit more financially sustaining].
* wind mills [the blades, the poles, the other part]
* bus roof
* train roof
Actually, now that you ask, I speculate that they probably don't build lighthouses anymore. If they use GPS or other electronic claptraptions, then they won't need lighthouses anymore. I guess that I brought up the idea because lighthouses were shut down, according to what I read, to save money, and not because there were technological advances.
I've thought about the photo. It makes the windmill look very peaceful. If people see a picture of a windmill in a wheat field, then there may be less NIMBYism, because if the food is safe enough to eat, then it is a clean source of energy.
An idea came to me shortly after we started this discussion. It would be nice to build a lighthouse with a windmill attachment. There would probably be enough electricity to pay for it.
Yes. I wouldn't argue with that. From your point of view and mine, government shouldn't own property unnecessarily. From what I understood of the discussion context, it was as if the government claimed a certain territory [morally or unmorally; legally or illegally], then gave it to a realestate company, and then bought it from the company. My point was that it wouldn't cost extra if the territory wasn't given away in the first place, which I assume to be the case with forrests and park lands.
I'm probably misunderstanding something here, and misusing specific terminology.
I live in BC, and only lived in Calgary, AB for about 6 months, so I'm not sure that British Columbians have that luxury of using windmills just yet. On a positive note, though, the government or power company, or whatever, is trying to build 1 or more windmills on Vancouver Island. It's up on the northern part, if I recall correctly. The newspaper, that I got that information from, portrayed it in a positive manner, so I suppose that the NIMBYism and BANANAism has been kept to a minimum if not illiminated for that instance.
Also, there was that Canadian show, Daily Planet, which did a bit on a windmill set up at a high school or college football [not soccer] field, or some kind of playing field. People who were interviewed were very optimistic about it also. I don't recall a single complaint. This shows that at the very least, somebody is supporting the technology.
I'm beginning to feel very optimistic about this for Canadians. As for Americans and others, I'll still keep my hopes up.
Thanks for the photos. Once again, this proves that the technology is viewed highly by some people. I just can't understand why more people don't do this. The photo was very well done. Was it by you?
In the US, doesn't the government get to keep nature preserves from free? I figure that in any country, if the land hasn't been sold, then the land is owned by the government.
Run what faster? The train? How do they do that, when there isn't enough energy? I think that I misunderstand your question.
Ah, yes. I heard that Calgary's C-Train is completely powered by wind. It's good to see that we Canadian's are open to it, at least to some extent.
How strange. I never thought of eviromentalists as Harvard graduates. I also never thought of government not owning property. What? They are supposed to pay rent of some sort for the rest of the country's life? This guy sounds strange.
I agree with you. The thought of windmills seems so peaceful and exciting to me. I have never seen a modern one 1 in real life, that I can recall, but still. I really wonder how much noise they make.
Well, it happens to be used as a dish cleanser and a clothing cleanser. I think that I have a right and responsibility to be concerned about what goes in my food!!!
You are very insightful. When it comes to being medicated and all that, it isn't so much the belief system as it is the context. If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that if the marjority of people believe in pasta worship or wearing of socks, then you'll be fine.
In Canada, you get to keep your house, if you don't pay taxes. You just can't sell it, and they watch you in some sort of way. For example, they make deductions off your pay cheque before you get it. I think that's fair.
Don't forget that you can borrow DVDs from some public libraries for free. The DVDs usually have closed captioning, and sometimes alternate language audio, and alternate language closed captioning. This is great for those who are hard of hearing, and/or those who want to learn a new language. You could literally use the DVD for several, several hours before being finished with it. You could instantly replay the last few seconds, in case you missed something, thus making the experience more interactive.
It's a totally different experience.
I hate sitting in theatres, wondering what the characters said.