Even if you're right, the number of lines is still very meaningful. It's not interesting how long it took the particular developers in this project to create this code. It is _a_ measurement of what the code is worth.
If star programmers cobbled this together in record time, the value of code is no different than if average programmers did it in average time.
Actually, the immune system does not react to the virus itself, but to the proteins around it. For a vaccine to be effective it's therefore not necessary to contain the virus, but only its protein coat.
However, many (most, all?) vaccines are produced by producing the virus with its coat and then disabling the virus, keeping the coat or at least its proteins intact.
Mercury may be used to disable some viruses in this way, thus ending up with a mercury containing vaccine.
But I concur. There is too little information to go on to give any counsil beyond general observations.
That said, business reasons include a lot more than just money. Worker satisfaction is another reason, often overlooked. If pitched right to his company, an essentially worthless (to them) piece of code can have a positive effect on morale.
It can also be used for free publicity: require a "sponsored by [company]" tag somewhere in exchange for releasing the code. However, never attach the name of the company to the software without their express consent!
If someone upstream does not have the rights granted in the GPL, he or she cannot confer them to others. It is a general principle of law, dating back to the Roman empire, but as much a part of common law: nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habeat. Nobody can transfer more rights than he has himself.
This is one of the flaws of the free model: it relies on the trust and trustworthiness of people you don't know. If you download a piece of software under the GPL (or any another license) you can be sued by the original copyright holder if the one who attached the GPL to it does not have all rights to the software. It is also a trap for non free (as in beer) software, but the effects are less. In practice this has not proven to be a big problem though. But the risk is very much there.
The SCO case was pretty much about this: there a party claimed to have rights to software distributed against its will under the GPL. Luckily it turned out not to be the case. Yet projects may very well have such "tainted" code.
The same argument can be applied to voip and more recently internet television. But it's a logic stance for an established player with enough capital: they have the means to provide enough bandwidth to things in a traditional client-server way.
P2P is only in its infancy. More and more applications are being found for it. Joost is one example, where p2p is used in a way to allow a relatively small player to operate. New uses even bring bandwidth use down, keeping it local.
It would be stupid to kill these opportunities for the benefit of a few big players.
The problem isn't the cost that's prohibitive. It's the limited choice of texts available.
I wouldn't mind paying 0.99 per book if all books/texts in the world were available to choose from, but it cannot be. But my friends concept novel isn't. My coworker's legal notes arent. I want to be able to read that as well.
So DRM is very limited, even if the books were gratis.
Imagine that I steal a piece of code from my employer and put it on sourceforge under a GPL license. You use it in good faith, adapt it, spread it etc. My employer finds out and I deny involvement. In that case you have a problem and will be sued for breaching copyright, although you payed attention to the legal aspects. The same goes for any work licensed under CC and basically for a lot of licenses as used in open/free software, freeware and shareware.
So it's not only the subject matter, but the very work itself and it's legal status you cannot be sure about, even if a license is attached.
If you realize that people can attach a license to a work without having the appropriate rights to it (or can later deny they did so), how can you trust that license applied to any work? You can't, without validating who the maker is and without checking if the one who attached the license had the right to do so and confirming it.
So, using an image, CC license applied or no license applied at all doesn't really make a difference: you still need to do due diligence for each individual work you want to use. The license applied gives a false sense of legal security: it seems legal, but is it? Nemo plus transferre potest quam ipse habet: you cannot transfer more rights that you own. How do you know the rights transfered to you (which is not verifiable in itself) were owned by the licensor?
That false sense of security is the trap: you assume you're safe, but you just don't know.
Requiring due dilligence largely makes CC's existence largely moot. Their right of existence is not the fact that they provide licenses, but the fact that they facilitate and automate communication about authors terms (making the work available without further need for communication). However, without any saveguards, this has no value to the receiver of the work: they still need to seek out all parties and get permissions them.
In my master's thesis about CC I concluded as much, among other traps.
No, because, sadly, many applications require a specific version of the javaVM. At university we had a vpn solution that only worked with 1.4.3, although 1.5 was already released.
As an LLM I second that. There are so many intricacies in the law it is easy to incriminate oneself, even without realizing.
Exercise your rights, you've got them for a reason. Don't think it's a misunderstanding you'll explain (even if it is a misunderstanding!), cause inadequate information may shed another light on your story than you intended. Especially in a stressful situation.
I second that. I've dabbled with perl and GD and several other graphics modules for perl, but ChartDirector is the only one to easily produce good looking, anti aliased graphs. So we used that.
But our product is commercial. I would really love to see a solution for my OS projects. The aa in the article is horrible, GD just doesn't cut it.
This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. All evidence in civil cases is collected and presented by the parties, not by the courts or police services.
I partly agree. Yet the same could be said about IBM, but they have turned out (so far) to be a great supporter of F/OSS. Not for love of F/OSS, but because they have benefited greatly from it.
I think MS is looking at IBM. IBM have used F/OSS as an instrument against competitors (SUN, HP) that were moving upwards into their markets of big iron. By using F/OSS IBM has expanded into competitors' markets, not to make a huge profit there, but to protect their own market by creating a buffer, a hurdle just below their AIX offerings.
Linux is not the desktop replacement it was touted to be. Yes, I know there's a lot of efforts and projects (beryl is nice for example). It's quite possible MS is starting to look at F/OSS the same way. They can use it as a tool to enter markets to protect their current markets. If it means a little bit of competition to itself that's better than a google or IBM entering "their" market.
Jeff Garzik was too busy gutting ftape I guess. He's the maintainer of libata as well. Well, skip 2.6.20 if you're bitten by this. 2.6.20.1 will fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Item" is a better translation of "voorwerp". "Subject" would be "onderwerp".
Acually, it's a Roald Dahl story, only later filmed by Hitchcock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_to_the_Slaughter
Until five minutes ago I didn't even know AH filmed it.
Or maybe he is. For all we know BeeazleBub, the poster, is having an affair with her. A friend indeed.
what'sthe siphon?
Even if you're right, the number of lines is still very meaningful. It's not interesting how long it took the particular developers in this project to create this code. It is _a_ measurement of what the code is worth.
If star programmers cobbled this together in record time, the value of code is no different than if average programmers did it in average time.
Actually, the immune system does not react to the virus itself, but to the proteins around it. For a vaccine to be effective it's therefore not necessary to contain the virus, but only its protein coat.
However, many (most, all?) vaccines are produced by producing the virus with its coat and then disabling the virus, keeping the coat or at least its proteins intact.
Mercury may be used to disable some viruses in this way, thus ending up with a mercury containing vaccine.
Thanks for your correction. I'm not an American lawyer. I'm not even a native English speaker.
Yet it did convince you, so I guess I was more successful with the spelling error than I would have been without.
Hey, another lawyer :)
But I concur. There is too little information to go on to give any counsil beyond general observations.
That said, business reasons include a lot more than just money. Worker satisfaction is another reason, often overlooked. If pitched right to his company, an essentially worthless (to them) piece of code can have a positive effect on morale.
It can also be used for free publicity: require a "sponsored by [company]" tag somewhere in exchange for releasing the code. However, never attach the name of the company to the software without their express consent!
Disclaimer: I am not an American lawyer
If someone upstream does not have the rights granted in the GPL, he or she cannot confer them to others. It is a general principle of law, dating back to the Roman empire, but as much a part of common law: nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habeat. Nobody can transfer more rights than he has himself.
This is one of the flaws of the free model: it relies on the trust and trustworthiness of people you don't know. If you download a piece of software under the GPL (or any another license) you can be sued by the original copyright holder if the one who attached the GPL to it does not have all rights to the software. It is also a trap for non free (as in beer) software, but the effects are less. In practice this has not proven to be a big problem though. But the risk is very much there.
The SCO case was pretty much about this: there a party claimed to have rights to software distributed against its will under the GPL. Luckily it turned out not to be the case. Yet projects may very well have such "tainted" code.
For Creative Commons there was a couple of recent threads about this, but most is applicable to other licenses as well:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/08/1738232
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/22/0319252
Because the realm is the identifying element of authentication. The username/password combo automaticly resent if the realm matches.
So if you first logon to paypal and afterwards to another page on the same realm, you don't need to retype the username/password.
If another site mimics the exact realm, the username/password is sent to that site as well.
Details here: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/howto/auth.html#basicworks
The same argument can be applied to voip and more recently internet television. But it's a logic stance for an established player with enough capital: they have the means to provide enough bandwidth to things in a traditional client-server way.
P2P is only in its infancy. More and more applications are being found for it. Joost is one example, where p2p is used in a way to allow a relatively small player to operate. New uses even bring bandwidth use down, keeping it local.
It would be stupid to kill these opportunities for the benefit of a few big players.
The problem isn't the cost that's prohibitive. It's the limited choice of texts available.
I wouldn't mind paying 0.99 per book if all books/texts in the world were available to choose from, but it cannot be. But my friends concept novel isn't. My coworker's legal notes arent. I want to be able to read that as well.
So DRM is very limited, even if the books were gratis.
He's only two more than you ;)
It goes for any work licensed in such a way.
Imagine that I steal a piece of code from my employer and put it on sourceforge under a GPL license. You use it in good faith, adapt it, spread it etc. My employer finds out and I deny involvement. In that case you have a problem and will be sued for breaching copyright, although you payed attention to the legal aspects. The same goes for any work licensed under CC and basically for a lot of licenses as used in open/free software, freeware and shareware.
So it's not only the subject matter, but the very work itself and it's legal status you cannot be sure about, even if a license is attached.
I still call it a trap.
If you realize that people can attach a license to a work without having the appropriate rights to it (or can later deny they did so), how can you trust that license applied to any work? You can't, without validating who the maker is and without checking if the one who attached the license had the right to do so and confirming it.
So, using an image, CC license applied or no license applied at all doesn't really make a difference: you still need to do due diligence for each individual work you want to use. The license applied gives a false sense of legal security: it seems legal, but is it? Nemo plus transferre potest quam ipse habet: you cannot transfer more rights that you own. How do you know the rights transfered to you (which is not verifiable in itself) were owned by the licensor?
That false sense of security is the trap: you assume you're safe, but you just don't know.
Requiring due dilligence largely makes CC's existence largely moot. Their right of existence is not the fact that they provide licenses, but the fact that they facilitate and automate communication about authors terms (making the work available without further need for communication). However, without any saveguards, this has no value to the receiver of the work: they still need to seek out all parties and get permissions them.
In my master's thesis about CC I concluded as much, among other traps.
You may want to take a look at backuppc
Of course, back then, that was quite a bit of money for a teenage boy.
Equivalent to about GBP250 US$500 in today's economy, according to this calculator.
In latin the seventh sin is called superbia, so will this version be called windows superbia?
No, because, sadly, many applications require a specific version of the javaVM. At university we had a vpn solution that only worked with 1.4.3, although 1.5 was already released.
Somehow I doubt the situation has changed much.
As an LLM I second that. There are so many intricacies in the law it is easy to incriminate oneself, even without realizing.
Exercise your rights, you've got them for a reason. Don't think it's a misunderstanding you'll explain (even if it is a misunderstanding!), cause inadequate information may shed another light on your story than you intended. Especially in a stressful situation.
I second that. I've dabbled with perl and GD and several other graphics modules for perl, but ChartDirector is the only one to easily produce good looking, anti aliased graphs. So we used that.
But our product is commercial. I would really love to see a solution for my OS projects. The aa in the article is horrible, GD just doesn't cut it.
This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. All evidence in civil cases is collected and presented by the parties, not by the courts or police services.
I partly agree. Yet the same could be said about IBM, but they have turned out (so far) to be a great supporter of F/OSS. Not for love of F/OSS, but because they have benefited greatly from it.
I think MS is looking at IBM. IBM have used F/OSS as an instrument against competitors (SUN, HP) that were moving upwards into their markets of big iron. By using F/OSS IBM has expanded into competitors' markets, not to make a huge profit there, but to protect their own market by creating a buffer, a hurdle just below their AIX offerings.
Linux is not the desktop replacement it was touted to be. Yes, I know there's a lot of efforts and projects (beryl is nice for example). It's quite possible MS is starting to look at F/OSS the same way. They can use it as a tool to enter markets to protect their current markets. If it means a little bit of competition to itself that's better than a google or IBM entering "their" market.
Jeff Garzik was too busy gutting ftape I guess. He's the maintainer of libata as well. Well, skip 2.6.20 if you're bitten by this. 2.6.20.1 will fix it.