Unrestricted? Legally, you should be paying a few cents to Franhauffer (I think through AOL now) every time you encode something. If you want unrestricted use Ogg Vorbis, an audio codec yielding better quality, smaller file sizes, and has no restrictions at all. I've been ripping CDs to that for a few weeks now.
Yeah, and half the point of making it was to make a format that sounded better, especially at really low bitrates (like 24kbps). The other half was the lack of patents.
The issue is not that it's not GPLd. The issue is that the new license in 1.6 may not be GPL compatible. The old license (for 1.5.2) was. The thing is, 1.6 was released before licensing issues were fully resolved. It may be compatible. It may not be. If it's not, certain programs using Python may now be using it illegally.
What will hurt python more - a lack of inclusion in commercial applications, or a lack of inclusion in GPLd applications?
Next, the issue is not that Python is not using the GPL. The problem is that GPLd code cannot be used with code from Python. Plenty of licenses are GPL compatible (new BSD, MIT, LGPL, W3C license, are some examples). Other licenses are not (Zope, NPL, IBMPL, LaTeXPPL). No one calls this software non-free; but the problem is the old Python license was compatible, and the new one is not.
As for Hurd, it's coming along. Debian is working on a GNU/Hurd distribution. I haven't run it personally beyond booting it once, but I hear X is working a little, networking is there, and a wide variety of programs work on it.
Seeing as your slashdot bio has no homepage or information, I'm curious - do you do any coding yourself?
A license cannot be totalitarianist; you can either follow it, or not. A license cannot maliciously hurt you, nor can it make a decision to remove your rights.
People are totalitarianist. People can make concious decisions to hurt you. However, no one's standing with a knife at your throat insisting that you license your software under the GPL.
Re:dept: its-about-frigging-time
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 3
Qt has, since 2.0, been Free Software and Open Source. The issue is not Qt alone, it's that KDE and Qt's licenses are seen to be incompatible.
Unfortunately, a significant number of people have obfuscated the issue to say Qt is not free, which unfortunately hurts the free software and open source movements.
I've made a quite a few websites, and all the ones I made for personal use are released under the Open Content license (for HTML and CSS, at least). And I'd be very pissed if someone took the HTML and CSS without mentioning me, or changed the license. That said, since I can't get to the site, let me elaborate on why this "stealing" might be utter bullshit.
You cannot copyright a layout. To do that is the same as copyrighting an idea, which you can't do. You can patent them, but that would be a software patent, and we know how much we like those. If the site didn't actually copy Linux.com's code, VA has no standing legally.
Look-and-feel lawsuits are just plain bad. I can't believe anyone would support them.
I'm still a Matrox pusher. Their cards aren't the fastest, but they're solid. They're excellent about drivers for other operating systems and publishing full specs for the cards. I've been using then since 1996 when I got a PPro with a Millennium 1 in it.
Yeah, and here one of my computers is running 2.2.16. Can't they get anything right? I've had to upgrade 16 times so far! 2.2.0 should've been perfect. And now I hear they have a.17, too... Linux should be tested better, even if it means waiting longer for the kernel.
The reason I didn't want to use MSVC++ had nothing to do with me feeling or wanting to feel 'better' than any of the other students.
The school compilers were not working the first week of class. I _had_ to telnet into my home computer to get any work done.
I like a command line. I can't use sed, perl, or anything like that in MSVC++. And don't give me crap about "learning a new environment". I know how to use VC++, that's why I don't like it, especially for the work in most CS classes, where algorithms and structure matter, not language semantics.
A lot of work had to be done at home. I don't have a Windows computer, I have three Linux computers. MSVC++ was useless to me at home.
I didn't have to cart media around. If I did the work over a shell to my house, I could go home, do it there, and go back to school the next day and show the teacher over the shell. More than one kid in my class turned in an assignment late because of corrupt disks.
I use a 2048 bit key; I know plenty of people that use a 4096 bit key. Look at how long it's taking distributed.net to crack 64 bit encryption. I doubt the government as a whole has as much power as d.net.
Oh yeah, and remember that each 1 bit increase makes decryption twice as hard. So take how long it's taken distributed.net to crack 64 bits (when it actually does), multiply that by 2^1984 (interesting number, there), and you get how long it would take to crack my key.
I heard rumours of a movie right after the book was published. I have a 1997 PC Gamer saying the PC game and the movie are coming RSN (like 2 months). I heard about it again in early 1999... and I still see nothing.
While I _really_ like what WotC's did with TSR (especially after fearing the worst), I worry about what Hasbro might do with WotC. Not that WotC won't keep turning out good things, but I worry Hasbro will start firing off D&D action figures or the like, leaving WotC alone, but diluting the mindshare.
On a totally unrelated note, I like Greyhawk, but I like my own campaign better. And unfortunately, the feeling I got from the 3rd Edition PHB was that they're doing a bit too much to integrate Greyhawk into the campaign world (I mean, a full pantheon that players are told is the right one. My older PCs aren't going to use it, but anyone who buys the PHB and comes into my campaign as a newbie is going to be quite shocked). It might just be me being overprotective, but some of my friends felt similarly.
I volunteered (and in fact did not sign up until I got to the convention), and although I had some issues with how they handled assignments (for example, not telling me I could leave my post at the Ball), I had no problems getting my time checked off or reimbursed. I got my work at the art show, the castle, and prereg signed off at the same time with no issues, showed up sunday morning, and got my money.
It might be a bit different for GMs, but I had no major problems.
This rule isn't in second edition, I'm pretty sure. I know it's not in third. I don't even think it's in first. You must have the original dungeons and dragons books.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, can't resist.... It's spelt spelt.
Unrestricted? Legally, you should be paying a few cents to Franhauffer (I think through AOL now) every time you encode something. If you want unrestricted use Ogg Vorbis, an audio codec yielding better quality, smaller file sizes, and has no restrictions at all. I've been ripping CDs to that for a few weeks now.
Yeah, and half the point of making it was to make a format that sounded better, especially at really low bitrates (like 24kbps). The other half was the lack of patents.
Hey, we still have almost 3 months to do all that stuff. Have a little faith :)
No! You're trying to bring together the Wired and the real world! You will have to be stopped...
The issue is not that it's not GPLd. The issue is that the new license in 1.6 may not be GPL compatible. The old license (for 1.5.2) was. The thing is, 1.6 was released before licensing issues were fully resolved. It may be compatible. It may not be. If it's not, certain programs using Python may now be using it illegally.
What will hurt python more - a lack of inclusion in commercial applications, or a lack of inclusion in GPLd applications?
See previous thread regarding RMS's RSI.
Next, the issue is not that Python is not using the GPL. The problem is that GPLd code cannot be used with code from Python. Plenty of licenses are GPL compatible (new BSD, MIT, LGPL, W3C license, are some examples). Other licenses are not (Zope, NPL, IBMPL, LaTeXPPL). No one calls this software non-free; but the problem is the old Python license was compatible, and the new one is not.
As for Hurd, it's coming along. Debian is working on a GNU/Hurd distribution. I haven't run it personally beyond booting it once, but I hear X is working a little, networking is there, and a wide variety of programs work on it.
Seeing as your slashdot bio has no homepage or information, I'm curious - do you do any coding yourself?
You'll never see me advocate Windows 2000 over GNU/Linux. But don't lie.
A license cannot be totalitarianist; you can either follow it, or not. A license cannot maliciously hurt you, nor can it make a decision to remove your rights.
People are totalitarianist. People can make concious decisions to hurt you. However, no one's standing with a knife at your throat insisting that you license your software under the GPL.
Qt has, since 2.0, been Free Software and Open Source. The issue is not Qt alone, it's that KDE and Qt's licenses are seen to be incompatible.
Unfortunately, a significant number of people have obfuscated the issue to say Qt is not free, which unfortunately hurts the free software and open source movements.
I've made a quite a few websites, and all the ones I made for personal use are released under the Open Content license (for HTML and CSS, at least). And I'd be very pissed if someone took the HTML and CSS without mentioning me, or changed the license. That said, since I can't get to the site, let me elaborate on why this "stealing" might be utter bullshit. You cannot copyright a layout. To do that is the same as copyrighting an idea, which you can't do. You can patent them, but that would be a software patent, and we know how much we like those. If the site didn't actually copy Linux.com's code, VA has no standing legally. Look-and-feel lawsuits are just plain bad. I can't believe anyone would support them.
Yeah, I can't believe I can't put a Pentium or better in my 486's case. And for that matter, I can't put a P2 or P3 in my AT Pentium case.
The P4 is a new generation chip, not just a speed enhancement. This isn't the first time it's happened. Get over it.
AMD supporters - let's see you put an Athlon in your K5's case.
If gorilla gave us permission, much like Johansen gave us permission to distribute DeCSS, sure.
I'm still a Matrox pusher. Their cards aren't the fastest, but they're solid. They're excellent about drivers for other operating systems and publishing full specs for the cards. I've been using then since 1996 when I got a PPro with a Millennium 1 in it.
That's a lie. All the benchmarks that show that have the textures downsampled from 32 bit to 16 bit.
Yeah, and here one of my computers is running 2.2.16. Can't they get anything right? I've had to upgrade 16 times so far! 2.2.0 should've been perfect. And now I hear they have a .17, too... Linux should be tested better, even if it means waiting longer for the kernel.
The reason I didn't want to use MSVC++ had nothing to do with me feeling or wanting to feel 'better' than any of the other students.
Oh yeah, and remember that each 1 bit increase makes decryption twice as hard. So take how long it's taken distributed.net to crack 64 bits (when it actually does), multiply that by 2^1984 (interesting number, there), and you get how long it would take to crack my key.
2^1984 is 17519084095371315372205096453516875976903041108531 115729944499768459
56819751541616602568796259317428464425605223064365 804210081422215355
42514943139063515195524795515663623474122144743573 364326280866892990
20917700924929117377683771354265903631662956843704 986047082885560446
87341394398676292971255828404734517580702346564613 427770683056761383
95539756433869062809321146584824404919635370302264 040020573909311827
08037783527682766702026983972145566292044203099655 470568932336087583
87329699097930255380715679250799950923553703740673 620901978370802540
21887027931481072279053989933427151436544436927568 2816
Now it says 2.
Revisionist history anyone? I'm not saying Slashdot is doing it, but man, hypertext makes it easy....
Don't hold your breath.
I heard rumours of a movie right after the book was published. I have a 1997 PC Gamer saying the PC game and the movie are coming RSN (like 2 months). I heard about it again in early 1999... and I still see nothing.
I'll wait for my Cryptonomicon sequel instead.
Which really annoyed the person in our campaign who plays a dwarven female :) She's keeping her beard, last I heard.
While I _really_ like what WotC's did with TSR (especially after fearing the worst), I worry about what Hasbro might do with WotC. Not that WotC won't keep turning out good things, but I worry Hasbro will start firing off D&D action figures or the like, leaving WotC alone, but diluting the mindshare.
On a totally unrelated note, I like Greyhawk, but I like my own campaign better. And unfortunately, the feeling I got from the 3rd Edition PHB was that they're doing a bit too much to integrate Greyhawk into the campaign world (I mean, a full pantheon that players are told is the right one. My older PCs aren't going to use it, but anyone who buys the PHB and comes into my campaign as a newbie is going to be quite shocked). It might just be me being overprotective, but some of my friends felt similarly.
That's odd.
I volunteered (and in fact did not sign up until I got to the convention), and although I had some issues with how they handled assignments (for example, not telling me I could leave my post at the Ball), I had no problems getting my time checked off or reimbursed. I got my work at the art show, the castle, and prereg signed off at the same time with no issues, showed up sunday morning, and got my money.
It might be a bit different for GMs, but I had no major problems.
The halfling female is just really damned ugly.
This rule isn't in second edition, I'm pretty sure. I know it's not in third. I don't even think it's in first. You must have the original dungeons and dragons books.