Why in the world.
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
Are you telling me this is the best 'news for nerds, stuff that matters'/. could find?
This gets posted, but RMS firing the lead dev of the Hurd OS over license issues doesn't. Hell, RMS want a less free license and the Hurd lead wanted a more free license.
You must not live in an area that has a bad fire ant problem. They (fire ants) need to all be destroyed, and the use of multistage nukes should not be ruled out! No, there use should be encouraged.
The city/state of New York is currently fighting to fix a leak in one of the major NYC water lines. Why are they fighting? Well, the leak made the are a wetland and they greens are saying they can not fix it because it would destroy the wetland.
It is easier in France because people live a lot closer together.
"With an average population of 107 inhabitants per km2, France is relatively densely populated in global terms. The average population density worldwide is 45 inhabitants per km2, and the United States has a population density of only 29 inhabitants per km2. "
What is the price per kw/h you have to pay in france.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
Why? FSF is being more petty than usual.
on
FSF Wants Your Vouchers
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800 From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Subject: What's up with the GFDL? To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org X-Spam-Level:
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation. By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will die. I do not know what would prevent that.
Thomas
Technical Addendum - ------------------
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software licenses.
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be distributed in,
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800 From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Subject: What's up with the GFDL? To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org X-Spam-Level:
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation. By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will die. I do not know what would prevent that.
Thomas
Technical Addendum - ------------------
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software licenses.
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be distributed in, which work to prohibit encryption and the like. No such restriction exists for free software licenses.
Screwdrives, cars and keyboards are not one of the basis of culture. Language is. And to say that the entire human race should change their spoken language to make it easier for machines to understand is rather stupid.
This is either the second, third or forth time in the past 24 months that Microsoft has said the security is a top priority.
But, then again, this is the same company that testified under oath that reveling the Windows source code would harm the National Security of the US. Then they licensed the source code to China.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you telling me this is the best 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' /. could find?
This gets posted, but RMS firing the lead dev of the Hurd OS over license issues doesn't. Hell, RMS want a less free license and the Hurd lead wanted a more free license.
But I guess apple pays more.
Just damn.
Because the article was written by a BRITISH news outlet?
My point is that the blackout hit that entire area. It just didn't hit the areas with high pop density.
You must not live in an area that has a bad fire ant problem. They (fire ants) need to all be destroyed, and the use of multistage nukes should not be ruled out! No, there use should be encouraged.
(Can you tell I don't really care for fire ants?)
Debian has trouble distributing GFDLed docs! Yes, it does cause trouble. And so does RMS when he uses petty politics to remove a project lead.
And that is what he has done, play petty politics.
Some do.
The city/state of New York is currently fighting to fix a leak in one of the major NYC water lines. Why are they fighting? Well, the leak made the are a wetland and they greens are saying they can not fix it because it would destroy the wetland.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/deepeas t01/background/dumping/media/dumping2.html
It is easier in France because people live a lot closer together.
"With an average population of 107 inhabitants per km2, France is relatively densely populated in global terms. The average population density worldwide is 45 inhabitants per km2, and the United States has a population density of only 29 inhabitants per km2. "
What is the price per kw/h you have to pay in france.
Wrong.
All those listining that pay taxes are already contributing. NPR receives tax dollars, or did you forget?
Just read the newest entry in my journal to see what happened when the lead Hurd developer disagreed with RMS on a doc license issue.
RMS removed/fired him.
That isn't freedom, that is the work of a dictator.
Then what do you suggest? Should we just let anyone say they are an engineer?
If there is a quicker way to get yourself shot, I don't know of it.
Then why does the FSF support the GFDL? That looks like a rather non-free license.
9 457
From: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86513&cid=751
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
RMS 'fires' Lead Hurd Dev over license dispute.
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discuss io ni/2003-November/008465.html
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800
From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: What's up with the GFDL?
To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation.
By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used
for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best
thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to
express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU
project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when
he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly
solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the
speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has
gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that
while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will
die. I do not know what would prevent that.
Thomas
Technical Addendum
- ------------------
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not
controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be
changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't
permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial
restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can
be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to
copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a
single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the
inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant
sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software
licenses.
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be
distributed in,
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussio ni/2003-November/008465.html
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800
From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: What's up with the GFDL?
To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation.
By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used
for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best
thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to
express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU
project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when
he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly
solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the
speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has
gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that
while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will
die. I do not know what would prevent that.
Thomas
Technical Addendum
- ------------------
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not
controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be
changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't
permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial
restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can
be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to
copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a
single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the
inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant
sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software
licenses.
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be
distributed in, which work to prohibit encryption and the like. No
such restriction exists for free software licenses.
I am not so sure they love it now. Not with Microsoft selling Microsoft branded Nics, Wi-Fi, and Switches in 'a store near you'
And the only way to backup those innodb tables with out taking the db down is to pay a chunk of money for their backup tools.
Screwdrives, cars and keyboards are not one of the basis of culture. Language is. And to say that the entire human race should change their spoken language to make it easier for machines to understand is rather stupid.
Repeat after me. Computers are tools, they adapt to us, not us to them.
PgAdmin 3 is also ready and in now multiplatform.
So how much Apple stock do you own? :->
No. You can't box up a tradesecret then sell it to millions. That kind of kills its tradesecret status.
This is either the second, third or forth time in the past 24 months that Microsoft has said the security is a top priority.
But, then again, this is the same company that testified under oath that reveling the Windows source code would harm the National Security of the US. Then they licensed the source code to China.
Then why do so many Americans have to train their H1B replacements for 30,60,90 days before they leave?
It is much easier in China to bribe those that make the decisions.