I don't know the first thing about processors, so thi smay be a stupid question, but why not just go the whole way and put the GPU right on the CPU, like they did with FPUs (or MMX, etc.)? I.e., just add matrix-processing to the CPU's main instruction set.
If I understand the GPL correctly, it doesn't say anywhere "I will give you the source", only "you must give the next guy the source". So, if I give you a binary, and say you have a license under the GPL, all it means is that if you give a copy to your friend, you must give your friend the source. Don't have the source? Too bad, I guess you can't give your friend a copy then.
No, copyright doesn't force you to give up the changes you make. Neither does anyone else.
Copyright does prohibit you from making copies of your derived work. So, if you change, e.g., GNU ls, you are not allowed to distribute the derived work, according to copyright law.
Now, what the GPL says, is that if you want to distribute that modified version, you must pay. Not with cash, but with the source code. If you want, you can lock the modified version in a safe and that's absolutely OK. Even if you use if every day.
Well, what you're forgetting is that many different people want different things. While "the movement" in general may be about "doing it better", some people, call it a "sub-movement" or whatever, have marketshare as a goal. Unfortunately (and I'm not attacking your parent specifically, but in general), some of those people tend to think that all of "the movement" must be about that and get pissed off when people do things that are counterproductive to that end. But that's a whole different rant.
You're confusing the requester and the referrer. Let's say you open two browsers, one with/. and one with google, as you said. The requester for both of them will be your computer, and there will be no referrer (no webpage/server referred you to/., you just opened them). Now if/. has two frames, as you said, then the referrer to google (inside/.) will indeed be/., but the requester will still be your computer. That's because the code merely tells your browser to get google (i.e., refers your browser), but your brwser is what actually contacts google. The arguments above you were based on the assumption that google checks for fraud based on the requester, and not the referrer. (I don't claim to know whether that's true or not, though)
I don't think you're seeing disappointment at people working on other developers' software, so much as that other developers not working on the software themselves. This, too, isn't a general thing, it's there because it's Microsoft, who definitely disbelieve in the OSS philosophy. Therefore, most of the disappointment I got from this thread was at the double standard posed by Microsoft. I doubt people were disappointed at the actual work done, as such (though I'm sure people were disappointed that it went against their political agendas).
I believe Linux already has some pretty sophisticated "traffic shaping" features, where you can set priorities for different streams based on source, destination, and a handful of other properties of the TCP stream. See the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control website.
Redistribution (meaning distrbution of a copy) is not a right that is granted to you under First Sale anyway
It most certainly is.
You're absolutely right, of course. What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear about it) is that you don't have the right to distribute an additional copy, beyond the one you own.
I don't think the GPL can force you to distribute the source when you simply give (or sell) your own copy, just when you make a new copy. I believe this means that if I buy a CD with Debian Stable from some vendor, I can then sell it to you, and I won't be obligated to give you the sources.
If gcc libraries were GPL your software would probably be GPL
That's just wrong. What you mean to say is that if gcc libraries were GPL, you would not be allowed to redistribute the software unless you GPLed it. The very important difference, IMHO, is that the GPLing does not happen automatically.
I do believe that if you receive the binaries only (on a CD), you can then sell (but not redistribute) that CD. Redistribution (meaning distrbution of a copy) is not a right that is granted to you under First Sale anyway, so the GPL can give you that right with restrictions.
What your parent is trying to say it, of course, that you can't allow only selective use if your ultimate goal is freedom of code use, which is is historically in the case of the GPL (The GPL was based on that exact ideal: Anyone can use my code). That's also a tautology.
However, absolute freedom is self-contradictory, because as they say, "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins". You may indeed decide that certain freedoms of "ours" are more important than "their" freedom to use code (for certain values of "us" and "them"). Your parent post seems to have decided (as is well his right) that "their" freedom to use code outweighs "our" other rights, and I personally can think of at least one reason in his favor: That of the slippery slope. Ban GPL code from Saddam and SCO, and soon you'll find people banning code from producers of pocket-lint- and speed-bump-related products (to be extreme:-)).
C was the successor to a language called B (which was built on BCPL, which was built on CPL, both of which look more like Pascal than anything else, but I digress) and yet the successor to C was C++.
It's supposed to ultimately benefit the customers. If Static and others like them were left alone, the end result would be that printer manufacturers would never write programs on chips, ever again (because then anyone could copy them, so they wouldn't be able to make money off them).
Yes, I'm stretching it a bit, but that's the main point of IP law I believe.
I think what you just stated is THE reason why RMS wants you to call it that. Of course, in the spirit of Freedom, anyone is allowed to disagree and call it whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Grandparent: "by 1889 all drivers I needed for my job ..."
Parent: "Steam [steampowered.com]?"
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?
Isn't that triangle backwards?
But that wouldn't seperate multi-word arguments, nor would it finish off at an empty argument, both of which seem to be very important features.
I don't know the first thing about processors, so thi smay be a stupid question, but why not just go the whole way and put the GPU right on the CPU, like they did with FPUs (or MMX, etc.)? I.e., just add matrix-processing to the CPU's main instruction set.
IANAL, etc.
If I understand the GPL correctly, it doesn't say anywhere "I will give you the source", only "you must give the next guy the source". So, if I give you a binary, and say you have a license under the GPL, all it means is that if you give a copy to your friend, you must give your friend the source. Don't have the source? Too bad, I guess you can't give your friend a copy then.
No, copyright doesn't force you to give up the changes you make. Neither does anyone else.
Copyright does prohibit you from making copies of your derived work. So, if you change, e.g., GNU ls, you are not allowed to distribute the derived work, according to copyright law.
Now, what the GPL says, is that if you want to distribute that modified version, you must pay. Not with cash, but with the source code. If you want, you can lock the modified version in a safe and that's absolutely OK. Even if you use if every day.
Well, what you're forgetting is that many different people want different things. While "the movement" in general may be about "doing it better", some people, call it a "sub-movement" or whatever, have marketshare as a goal. Unfortunately (and I'm not attacking your parent specifically, but in general), some of those people tend to think that all of "the movement" must be about that and get pissed off when people do things that are counterproductive to that end. But that's a whole different rant.
Just wondering, is the D in there for Did or for Didn't? :-)
You're confusing the requester and the referrer. /. and one with google, as you said. The requester for both of them will be your computer, and there will be no referrer (no webpage/server referred you to /., you just opened them). /. has two frames, as you said, then the referrer to google (inside /.) will indeed be /., but the requester will still be your computer. That's because the code merely tells your browser to get google (i.e., refers your browser), but your brwser is what actually contacts google. The arguments above you were based on the assumption that google checks for fraud based on the requester, and not the referrer. (I don't claim to know whether that's true or not, though)
Let's say you open two browsers, one with
Now if
I don't think you're seeing disappointment at people working on other developers' software, so much as that other developers not working on the software themselves. This, too, isn't a general thing, it's there because it's Microsoft, who definitely disbelieve in the OSS philosophy. Therefore, most of the disappointment I got from this thread was at the double standard posed by Microsoft. I doubt people were disappointed at the actual work done, as such (though I'm sure people were disappointed that it went against their political agendas).
And at the risk of sounding annoying (I'm just joking around), well done for following the rule about spelling mistakes in grammar flames. :-)
Joe job.
Wherein you hate me, so you spam everyone in town with my web address (or whatever).
Information about the "cog" ad, including a few links to the ad itself.
I believe Linux already has some pretty sophisticated "traffic shaping" features, where you can set priorities for different streams based on source, destination, and a handful of other properties of the TCP stream. See the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control website.
It most certainly is.
You're absolutely right, of course. What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear about it) is that you don't have the right to distribute an additional copy, beyond the one you own.
I don't think the GPL can force you to distribute the source when you simply give (or sell) your own copy, just when you make a new copy. I believe this means that if I buy a CD with Debian Stable from some vendor, I can then sell it to you, and I won't be obligated to give you the sources.
If gcc libraries were GPL your software would probably be GPL
That's just wrong. What you mean to say is that if gcc libraries were GPL, you would not be allowed to redistribute the software unless you GPLed it. The very important difference, IMHO, is that the GPLing does not happen automatically.
I do believe that if you receive the binaries only (on a CD), you can then sell (but not redistribute) that CD. Redistribution (meaning distrbution of a copy) is not a right that is granted to you under First Sale anyway, so the GPL can give you that right with restrictions.
However, absolute freedom is self-contradictory, because as they say, "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins". You may indeed decide that certain freedoms of "ours" are more important than "their" freedom to use code (for certain values of "us" and "them"). Your parent post seems to have decided (as is well his right) that "their" freedom to use code outweighs "our" other rights, and I personally can think of at least one reason in his favor: That of the slippery slope. Ban GPL code from Saddam and SCO, and soon you'll find people banning code from producers of pocket-lint- and speed-bump-related products (to be extreme :-)).
C was the successor to a language called B (which was built on BCPL, which was built on CPL, both of which look more like Pascal than anything else, but I digress) and yet the successor to C was C++.
Careful, goatse link
It's supposed to ultimately benefit the customers. If Static and others like them were left alone, the end result would be that printer manufacturers would never write programs on chips, ever again (because then anyone could copy them, so they wouldn't be able to make money off them).
Yes, I'm stretching it a bit, but that's the main point of IP law I believe.
I think what you just stated is THE reason why RMS wants you to call it that. Of course, in the spirit of Freedom, anyone is allowed to disagree and call it whatever they want.
Better check that code. It's "GNU's not Unix".
Project manager, I think.