Or, as in this case, if your GPL code links code or (binary blobs, see Linux kernel) available only under incompatible licenses, then you need to use a GPL shim and distribute the non-GPL part separately. It's actually the GPL project which is non-compliant here.
Makes sense. I made my parent comment based on the experiences of people I know, who have specifically turned down painkillers in favor of self-medication with marijuana. For most of them, I don't think they ever got far enough to find out if habituation would change their choice.
I think a lot of people replace opiates with marijuana despite inferior pain relief because it's a helluva lot easier to function in a more-or-less normal way on pot than, say, percocet or whatever.
The claim in this subthread is that the combined work becomes a GPL work. That is not the case; it becomes infringing. There are then multiple remedies which could be pursued, as discussed extensively above.
I believe that technically it's that the routing table is configured to use an insufficient amount the available CAM. According to Cisco, their devices all have enough memory, it's just that the default configuration only allocated 512k for the routing table.
You forgot the third option in this case. If Ximpleware is open to it, they could pay for a commercial license.
Right, and contra the parent, if e.g. Ximpleware already had a commercial licensing option, damages could surely be based upon the cost of that license.
The error is that the source of the combined work does not have to be released if either A) the GPL code is removed from the work or B) the author of the combined work obtains an alternate license from the owner of the GPL code.
First of all, source copyrights only cover the literal, copyrighted source itself (as well as comments and documentation). They do not cover functionality, API, ABI or any but the most literal and direct of language ports.
Second, as a developer, the GPL protects my rights in ways that public domain cannot. If I release a piece of code under the GPL, I remain free to grant or sell other licenses to my software as I please. At the same time, if users wish to release modifications of my software without acquiring another license, then they must also release the source for those modifications. I am then able to learn from their development efforts, and if I choose, integrate those changes into my source tree. Similarly, if users want to link my software as a library, then they must release the code for their software, too.
If I do want to allow users to be able to link my code without having to release theirs, for example because my code is intended for use as a library, then I can use the LGPL to allow that.
To all the other devs out there, do yourself a favor and spend 30 minutes reading about the commonly used licensing strategies on Wikipedia. It's not scary and you can choose the license that best suits your tastes and the intended uses of your software. You put in the hard time on that code and you have the right to restrict use or modification if that's what you want.
Thanks for the link. I almost like the The Economist (which is anything but clearly) just because it's so fun and easy to tear apart their articles. Bad data, false dichotomies, erroneous reductios...they go all in for the classic fallacies.
The per-kilowatt cost of solar has been on a steady decline for years, and so far the trend shows no signs of slowing. Large scale solar deployments in the future will have the benefit of further lowered costs.
It's important also to consider development area required for solar deployments. A key advantage of rooftop solar (which I think means flat panels and water heating) is that the area is already developed.
You see those maps of the world with filled in areas representing the solar deployments necessary to power everything, but not often are those areas compared to that of (already developed) rooftops
Sounds like you haven't read the book, which is not at all one of "those" stories. It is not a "what-if," or at all historically motivated, that's not the point at all. It's about something much deeper, the nature of reality as both objective and external, and as a collective, disjoint hallucination of multiple subjects.
Dick's struggle with schizophrenia, which you trivialize, did involve drug addiction. You're wrong about his ambitions however - he always craved mainstream popularity for his work.
I can also say that, having read "Man in High Castle", that's not an easy book to put to film. It's a huge, complicated story that's not easy to follow. I just hope that they put the work into making the story work, and not gloss over it just to work in explosions and effects.
I think it's my favorite work by Dick, and one of my favorite books period. I would love to see a good film adaptation (and the miniseries format is probably well suited to it). The complicated story (with all of its bizarre, but essential, elements) does pose a challenge. I'm also worried about how Imperial Japan will be handled. Contrary to some other comments here, the Nazis are basically a non-presence in the book, and the relations between the Californian characters and Japanese occupiers are racially fraught. I think there's a risk they might swap Nazi Germany for Imperial Japan, which to my mind would be a huge mistake.
I believe it was [Scott's] call that the world be dystopian rather than utopian.
The book seems pretty dystopian to me, but in retrospect Dick probably wished for things like the emotion controlling device. The Wikipedia article makes it sound even more dystopian than I remember. Does your comment only apply to the movie script?
I had heard that Ridley was interested in Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" -- [now] *that's* a movie I want to see. That book blew my mind, and I really, really, really want a good movie of that.
Yeah, me too. The message has only become more relevant in the decades since the war in Vietnam, and the interlude on crime-ridden future Earth and commentary on human sexuality could resonate with mainstream audiences now. Plus there are plenty of opportunities for explosions and effects in the original story (unlike "High Castle").
There is the original version, without the noir-style internal monologue, and the director's cut, which has it. It makes a big difference I think. Harrison Ford supposedly was against the monologue, and performed it poorly on purpose. Then Scott / the studio cut the bad monologue from the theatrical release.
Your statements seem calculated to dismiss to the reality of food insecurity in the United States without including any relevant factual information. Here you - or any earnest reader - can find the USDA's 2012 report on domestic food security, which is (in contrast) an excellent source of such information.
An estimated 14.5 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2012, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The change from 14.9 percent in 2011 is not considered statistically significant. The prevalence of very low food security was unchanged at 5.7 percent.
Slashdot Mirror
His code is in a project which doesn't depend on the Minecraft server code. It is also, illegally, used in a mod which does depend on the server code.
The AC is accurate; your comment isn't.
Or, as in this case, if your GPL code links code or (binary blobs, see Linux kernel) available only under incompatible licenses, then you need to use a GPL shim and distribute the non-GPL part separately. It's actually the GPL project which is non-compliant here.
Bukkit contains parts of Minecraft server or reverse engineered parts of Minecraft server?
It's decompiled. Java is actually pretty easy to decompile well, for example here is a good decompiler which I sometimes use. Even has IDE plugins...
Makes sense. I made my parent comment based on the experiences of people I know, who have specifically turned down painkillers in favor of self-medication with marijuana. For most of them, I don't think they ever got far enough to find out if habituation would change their choice.
I think a lot of people replace opiates with marijuana despite inferior pain relief because it's a helluva lot easier to function in a more-or-less normal way on pot than, say, percocet or whatever.
The claim in this subthread is that the combined work becomes a GPL work. That is not the case; it becomes infringing. There are then multiple remedies which could be pursued, as discussed extensively above.
Sorry, to clarify, it's 512 thousand routes worth of space, not 512 kilobytes.
I believe that technically it's that the routing table is configured to use an insufficient amount the available CAM. According to Cisco, their devices all have enough memory, it's just that the default configuration only allocated 512k for the routing table.
You forgot the third option in this case. If Ximpleware is open to it, they could pay for a commercial license.
Right, and contra the parent, if e.g. Ximpleware already had a commercial licensing option, damages could surely be based upon the cost of that license.
The error is that the source of the combined work does not have to be released if either A) the GPL code is removed from the work or B) the author of the combined work obtains an alternate license from the owner of the GPL code.
Yes, never the blame the victim, it reveals too many uncomfortable truths about the American psyche.
The AC couldn't be more wrong.
First of all, source copyrights only cover the literal, copyrighted source itself (as well as comments and documentation). They do not cover functionality, API, ABI or any but the most literal and direct of language ports.
Second, as a developer, the GPL protects my rights in ways that public domain cannot. If I release a piece of code under the GPL, I remain free to grant or sell other licenses to my software as I please. At the same time, if users wish to release modifications of my software without acquiring another license, then they must also release the source for those modifications. I am then able to learn from their development efforts, and if I choose, integrate those changes into my source tree. Similarly, if users want to link my software as a library, then they must release the code for their software, too.
If I do want to allow users to be able to link my code without having to release theirs, for example because my code is intended for use as a library, then I can use the LGPL to allow that.
To all the other devs out there, do yourself a favor and spend 30 minutes reading about the commonly used licensing strategies on Wikipedia. It's not scary and you can choose the license that best suits your tastes and the intended uses of your software. You put in the hard time on that code and you have the right to restrict use or modification if that's what you want.
Thanks for the link. I almost like the The Economist (which is anything but clearly) just because it's so fun and easy to tear apart their articles. Bad data, false dichotomies, erroneous reductios...they go all in for the classic fallacies.
The per-kilowatt cost of solar has been on a steady decline for years, and so far the trend shows no signs of slowing. Large scale solar deployments in the future will have the benefit of further lowered costs.
See chart.
It's important also to consider development area required for solar deployments. A key advantage of rooftop solar (which I think means flat panels and water heating) is that the area is already developed.
You see those maps of the world with filled in areas representing the solar deployments necessary to power everything, but not often are those areas compared to that of (already developed) rooftops
Similarly, the amount of radioactive material released by burning coal is rarely mentioned.
I don't look down on other people, even if they put others down so low that they prefer computers.
'A Scanner Darkly' is his masterpiece.
Maybe so. I really like some of his less-known stuff, like "Martian Time-Slip" and "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch."
Sounds like you haven't read the book, which is not at all one of "those" stories. It is not a "what-if," or at all historically motivated, that's not the point at all. It's about something much deeper, the nature of reality as both objective and external, and as a collective, disjoint hallucination of multiple subjects.
Dick's struggle with schizophrenia, which you trivialize, did involve drug addiction. You're wrong about his ambitions however - he always craved mainstream popularity for his work.
"High Castle" is widely considered his most masterful work. "Do Androids" is really well-known now, because of the movie adaptation.
I can also say that, having read "Man in High Castle", that's not an easy book to put to film. It's a huge, complicated story that's not easy to follow. I just hope that they put the work into making the story work, and not gloss over it just to work in explosions and effects.
I think it's my favorite work by Dick, and one of my favorite books period. I would love to see a good film adaptation (and the miniseries format is probably well suited to it). The complicated story (with all of its bizarre, but essential, elements) does pose a challenge. I'm also worried about how Imperial Japan will be handled. Contrary to some other comments here, the Nazis are basically a non-presence in the book, and the relations between the Californian characters and Japanese occupiers are racially fraught. I think there's a risk they might swap Nazi Germany for Imperial Japan, which to my mind would be a huge mistake.
I believe it was [Scott's] call that the world be dystopian rather than utopian.
The book seems pretty dystopian to me, but in retrospect Dick probably wished for things like the emotion controlling device. The Wikipedia article makes it sound even more dystopian than I remember. Does your comment only apply to the movie script?
I had heard that Ridley was interested in Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" -- [now] *that's* a movie I want to see. That book blew my mind, and I really, really, really want a good movie of that.
Yeah, me too. The message has only become more relevant in the decades since the war in Vietnam, and the interlude on crime-ridden future Earth and commentary on human sexuality could resonate with mainstream audiences now. Plus there are plenty of opportunities for explosions and effects in the original story (unlike "High Castle").
Which version of Blade Runner?
There is the original version, without the noir-style internal monologue, and the director's cut, which has it. It makes a big difference I think. Harrison Ford supposedly was against the monologue, and performed it poorly on purpose. Then Scott / the studio cut the bad monologue from the theatrical release.
It's rare to find internet users who think slower speeds and greater congestion are "in their interest." Thanks to you we know there's at least one.
Your statements seem calculated to dismiss to the reality of food insecurity in the United States without including any relevant factual information. Here you - or any earnest reader - can find the USDA's 2012 report on domestic food security, which is (in contrast) an excellent source of such information.
An estimated 14.5 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2012, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The change from 14.9 percent in 2011 is not considered statistically significant. The prevalence of very low food security was unchanged at 5.7 percent.