For some reason, the other generators in the grid couldn't take up the slack of the loss of one generator. That should have been the minimum operating condition. The system should never ever have been allowed to enter that region of operation where there was no net.
The obvious reason is that the power companies were running the generators over capacity, or in an unco-ordinated manner. Deregulation enables, nay, virtually requires, this sad state of affairs.
The actual problem with this is that it totally misunderstands what the GPL is about.
Let us call the "objectionable" license L. Let X be a software distributed under L. Let Y be another piece of software that is distributed with Y.
The key is
"any license that
requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form"
It says that L would be bad if it requires package Y to be somehow disclosed.
GPL is NOT such a license. However, GPL is explicitly clubbed in with such licenses as being bad (and vaguely implies that GPL is such a licence).
Now, if package Y intimately depended on package X, then the L would apply to package Y. If package X implemented an "open" standard, and package Y depended on X only to the extent defined in the standard, then Y doesn't intimately depend on X. (If the standard itself was distributed under license L, of course then Y has to be disclosed, but it would still have nothing to do with X).
So, the attack on this would be:
Claim that the clause listed GPL and LGPL as examples of bad licenses, and the definition of bad licenses is the subclauses a, b, c.
Show that the GPL doesn't have the properties listed as bad (which is true)
Hence, say that the choice of examples is bad, and claim that the definition doesn't apply to GPL
Hence, any restrictions on "IPR violating licenses" doesn't apply to GPL
Of course, the problem is claiming #1. You get into intent, and hairsplitting about wordings.
If nothing, this is libel against GPL and should also be objected-to on those grounds. GPL does not impair "Intellectual Property Rights" -- if at all, it is a trade of your IPRs for others' IPRs.
Well,.NET is not just about e-commerce. It is supposed to be a platform for "Ubiquitous Computing". You should be able to walk up to any computer, log in, and get your desktop up on it.
The new Passport is supposed to support that. If you buy into this model, your login is tied into Passport. Ximian may come out with a GDM that talks to Passport to log you in.
IIRC, the ZIP file format was made public domain, thus allowing the Info-ZIP people to write a program that reads ZIP archives, which in turn allowed WinZip to not have to license software from PKware.
Unlike LZW, the ZIP "deflate" algorithms (LZ77 + Shannon Fano encoding) are unemcumbered. These compression algorithms are used in GNU Zip (gzip) partly for that reason. I think gzip can even read.zip archives with only one file inside. The zip algorithm is also in the zlib library, which is used in the PNG format, for one. The "deflate" algorithm is also described in RFC 1951.
So, thanks PK, for providing one of the tools that enable us to thumb our noses at Unisys:-)
Well, the 2.3.x series has "pre-patch"es. So each point release in the 2.3.x series is probably equivalent to about two point releases on the earlier unstable release cycles.
> I applaud the improvement of gcc, but it is a > little wrong to say this backend is ``donated'' > isn't it? It is derived from GCC so must be > under GPL if it is to be distributed at all.
Since this is the terminology used on the EGCS page, it must be right:-)
> Or do I miss something?
For code to be distributed with GCC, releasing under the GPL (or another GPL-friendly licence) is just the first step. The more important step is to assign the copyright of that piece of code to the Free Software Foundation. If you don't assign copyright it won't be part of the official GCC, plain and simple (it doesn't prevent you from distributing unofficial patches, of course).
So, the word "donate" makes perfect sense in that the copyright of that code was "donated" to the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
But, that's the whole point, ain't it.
For some reason, the other generators in the grid couldn't take up the slack of the loss of one generator. That should have been the minimum operating condition. The system should never ever have been allowed to enter that region of operation where there was no net.
The obvious reason is that the power companies were running the generators over capacity, or in an unco-ordinated manner. Deregulation enables, nay, virtually requires, this sad state of affairs.
These aren't beggars.
Anyway, bait-and-switch tactics are reprehensible, even when, especially when, the recepient is monetarily poor.
Exactly. The claim that GPL is "IPR impairing" is false.
The GPL has no problems with being distributed with non-free code (as opposed to, say, the old Artistic License).
The actual problem with this is that it totally misunderstands what the GPL is about.
Let us call the "objectionable" license L. Let X be a software distributed under L. Let Y be another piece of software that is distributed with Y.
The key is
It says that L would be bad if it requires package Y to be somehow disclosed.GPL is NOT such a license. However, GPL is explicitly clubbed in with such licenses as being bad (and vaguely implies that GPL is such a licence).
Now, if package Y intimately depended on package X, then the L would apply to package Y. If package X implemented an "open" standard, and package Y depended on X only to the extent defined in the standard, then Y doesn't intimately depend on X. (If the standard itself was distributed under license L, of course then Y has to be disclosed, but it would still have nothing to do with X).
So, the attack on this would be:
- Claim that the clause listed GPL and LGPL as examples of bad licenses, and the definition of bad licenses is the subclauses a, b, c.
- Show that the GPL doesn't have the properties listed as bad (which is true)
- Hence, say that the choice of examples is bad, and claim that the definition doesn't apply to GPL
- Hence, any restrictions on "IPR violating licenses" doesn't apply to GPL
Of course, the problem is claiming #1. You get into intent, and hairsplitting about wordings.If nothing, this is libel against GPL and should also be objected-to on those grounds. GPL does not impair "Intellectual Property Rights" -- if at all, it is a trade of your IPRs for others' IPRs.
It does -- at least according to Alan Cox.
The reasoning is that
- Oracle has several "access control" features
- Customers use those "access control" features to control copyrighted material
- An Oracle exploit would then end up being a copyright control circumvention of some customer or the other
Well, if you have GNU find and xargs, you probably have GNU grep too. In which case it is much simpler to
grep -r
instead, as in the original message.
Well, .NET is not just about e-commerce. It is supposed to be a platform for "Ubiquitous Computing". You should be able to walk up to any computer, log in, and get your desktop up on it.
The new Passport is supposed to support that. If you buy into this model, your login is tied into Passport. Ximian may come out with a GDM that talks to Passport to log you in.
So, what's new. You already have the examples of BSDi and SunOS.
The article gives one instance in Northern
Virginia, and two instances in "West Virginia".
Isn't West Virginia a different State altogether?
Bangalore, We have a problem
:-)
Actually, that will more likely be
"Hassan, We have a problem"
which is more apt
The city of Hassan has ISRO's master control facility, even though a large part of ISRO is based in Bangalore.
IIRC, the ZIP file format was made public domain, thus allowing the Info-ZIP people to write a program that reads ZIP archives, which in turn allowed WinZip to not have to license software from PKware.
.zip archives with only one file inside. The zip algorithm is also in the zlib library, which is used in the PNG format, for one. The "deflate" algorithm is also described in RFC 1951.
:-)
Unlike LZW, the ZIP "deflate" algorithms (LZ77 + Shannon Fano encoding) are unemcumbered. These compression algorithms are used in GNU Zip (gzip) partly for that reason. I think gzip can even read
So, thanks PK, for providing one of the tools that enable us to thumb our noses at Unisys
It's not airing today in Minneapolis/St.Paul either (the local PBS stations are KTCA and KTCI).
However, it is being aired on KTCA on Apr 2 6:00pm, and on KTCI on Apr 6 10:00pm.
Well, the 2.3.x series has "pre-patch"es. So each point release in the 2.3.x series is probably equivalent to about two point releases on the earlier unstable release cycles.
> I applaud the improvement of gcc, but it is a
:-)
> little wrong to say this backend is ``donated''
> isn't it? It is derived from GCC so must be
> under GPL if it is to be distributed at all.
Since this is the terminology used on the EGCS
page, it must be right
> Or do I miss something?
For code to be distributed with GCC, releasing
under the GPL (or another GPL-friendly licence) is
just the first step. The more important step is
to assign the copyright of that piece of code to
the Free Software Foundation. If you don't assign
copyright it won't be part of the official GCC,
plain and simple (it doesn't prevent you from
distributing unofficial patches, of course).
So, the word "donate" makes perfect sense in that
the copyright of that code was "donated" to the
FSF.