Did you read the line at the top of the link you posted?
This is only one method of organizing an essay.
Yes, the definition of a "Five paragraph essay" is purely structural, but that's not the definition of an "essay". The first word of the quote above is "This", not "There".
Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd, utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr.
This would be a lot easier to read without that misplaced comma.
(Sure that breaks the "only one prime factoring" property of any integer, but if we get a signal that said 1 2 3 5... we shouldn't drop it because it contains 1:-)
But if we do, our reply should start out "You dumbass,..."
They give an interesting idea. Instead of first broadcasting signals that require decoding the aliens simply broadcast pulses in a sequence of prime numbers.
Unfortunately, the aliens started their broadcast in AD 712, and the primes they're broadcasting are all so big now that they look like random gibberish. If only they would realize that we don't have 10000 year attention spans like they do!
there are many solar systems in our galaxy which are MILLIONS of light years away..
No, not really. The diameter of the galaxy is only around 100000 light years, and the Magellanic clouds are around 200000 light years away. To get to millions, you need to go to the Andromeda galaxy or further.
Any civilization using radio may be using a lot of encrypted digital signals to communicate among themselves. Wouldn't a sufficiently advanced spread spectrum scheme seem like noise?
Compression also makes a signal look like noise, but I don't think the SETI people are counting on accidentally picking up WiFi signals. Their search
is designed to find signals that the originators want them to hear.
I was just on their website, and could find no such posting.
Remember, the writer is a priest in a one or two thousand year old religion. He may have meant "etched into stone" or "written on paper" when he said "posted".
That said, why didn't the guy simply walk into the library, sit down at one of their nice tables and use his laptop on the Internet in the Library using the wifi? The cop may not have been right, but there is nothing more dangerous than a cop who is willing to be wrong.
One of the followup articles explained that the library was closed at the time.
Another one said
The Atheneum has just now posted a policy stating that the wifi connection is available only between a half-hour after they open to a half-hour before they close, on days that they're open. The stated reasonn is "for better maintenance and operation." Case closed.
I think you're right that number 2 is the most likely outcome, except that it will never come to that, because Zed has offered to remove any code on request. So an offended contributor will say "You've got to GPL the whole thing, because my contribution was GPL'd", Zed will say, "Oops, sorry, I didn't realize that, I'll take your stuff out", and the injunction will be irrelevant.
Zed is not the total copyright holder on X-Chat. If he was, you'd be right, but he's not, so you're wrong. I know at least one person who has written patches for X-Chat that were accepted and were never consulted about this move (and they're pretty pissed off).
Your friend should go over his correspondence and see if he just sent in his contribution without any explicit license, or if he said that his contribution was GPL'd. In the former case, I don't see that he has any remedy other than asking Zed to remove the code: it was just a misunderstanding, Zed thought he was free to use the contribution as he saw fit, because it was freely sent to him.
In the latter, if he's mad enough, he can go after Zed for copyright violation. However, even in that case, I doubt that it will be worth the trouble: do you really think a judge would take any further action if Zed just agreed to GPL the Windows additions? What damage would the contributor have suffered?
And if you do provide the source code, then somebody else will compile & distribute it, so that pretty soon the market won't bear any cost from you.
In fact, the FSF says that everyone has the right to redistribute the binary you sold them, as long as they distribute your source with it. I didn't believe this when I was told it a while back*, so I emailed the FSF, and they confirmed that was their interpretation.
I think the problem is that this guy took contributions for years to a piece of software that was GPLed, and then claimed that the people contributing didn't think that their patches were "GPL", as they didn't explicitly specify them. Instead, he is using their code unless they explicitly tell him to remove it.
I think your use of the passive voice ("was GPLed") is misleading. He wrote a program, and helicensed it to others under the GPL. Some people sent him patches, apparently without any explicit license statement.
I would be very, very angry if someone did this to my code. There is a very clear and well-understood principle that when you are contributing code to a single-license GPLed codebase, that you expect your patch to be GPL. You don't have to slap a license on each patch -- it would be a huge hassle otherwise.
You're saying that because he had licensed his code under the GPL, all contributions were licensed to him under the GPL: even though none of them followed the basic GPL requirement of including the GPL notice. I just don't think that's going to fly in court.
It seems to me that Zed may make contributors angry, but they don't really have a legal leg to stand on.
One way to get back at him for his mistreatment of contributors is for them to explicitly GPL all new contributions. Then he can't incorporate them into his shareware release.
If nobody contributes anything that he wants to use, he'll get away with it.
I've also got a P2046, and while I like it in many ways, I'm not sure I'd buy another Fujitsu.
- The key labels have worn off half the keys. I'm a touch-typist so it doesn't bug me too much, but sometimes I'm typing one handed, and then it's a PITA.
- the spring loaded clip that holds in the removable drive/battery fell out long ago. Friction has been enough, but I make sure I carry the laptop right-way up.
- The drive-bay battery was obscenely expensive ($400, if I remember correctly), and it's getting close to time for a new one.
- It has a stupid VGA dongle. Why not a real port? There's room...
- Crusoe is slow.
- The mouse pointer needs too much pressure, even at the most sensitive setting.
- It's got three useless Windows keys in the bottom row, but the Insert and Delete keys are way off in right field.
- The video driver can't do OpenGL properly.
Other than those things, I really love it:-) I wish someone else would manufacture this form factor.
You need to trust the person who compiled it, not just the person who wrote it. So be sure that the mirror you download from really mirrors the original, and isn't serving up recompiled binaries with spyware added.
It would be nice if the GPL allowed authors to forbid anyone else from distributing binaries (so that if you get a binary, you know who it came from), but apparently it doesn't.
Yes, on re-reading it I think you're right. I think I was misled by this part of the preamble:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
I thought the second sentence (the right to get the source code) was a description of the rights, not just one of several.
The preamble should say next: "You must also make sure that they, too, can distribute anything that you have distributed."
To me, this sounds more like a guarantee of free beer than free speech.
That seems like a clear answer, but it begs the question: why not? What is it in the GPL that compels me to allow someone to distribute a binary that I've produced? As far as I can see the GPL only compels me to allow distribution of source code.
The question is about the rights to distribute a binary. Can I put more restrictions on a binary than I put on the source?
For example, it's generally a bit of work to compile a program in Windows, so most Windows users will download binaries, not source code. But we all know that there is all kinds of malware out there that might infect a binary. So users would like to be sure the binary comes from a trusted source. Can that source charge for the service of compiling, and forbid redistribution of their compiled binaries?
I think you are missing the point of the GPL. It's not a license to guarantee free beer for everyone, it's a license to guarantee free speech. It gives you the obligation to publish source code, and gives others the right to republish it, and to build new things from it.
Try reading the GPL sometime. Section 3 - "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form..."
You just need to include the GPL and the offer of source that was attached to the original when you got it.
You might be right, but I don't think so. I think the "Program" is the source code, and the "work based on it" is something you produced yourself. That's what section 2 is talking about.
So yes, I'm allowed to recompile the Sveasoft code and distribute it (as long as I accompany it with source), but no, I'm not allowed to distribute their binary without obtaining permission beyond the GPL.
Otherwise, it would seem to say that I have the right to redistribute any program based on GPL code, whether the author has distributed it or not: and the GPL is pretty clear that authors are allowed to make local modifications and keep them to themselves.
Who produced the binaries? If they are the original Sveasoft binaries, the guy is still in violation of their copyright. The GPL gives him the right to publish source. It's up to the copyright holder (the one who produced the binaries) to give or withhold permission to distribute them, and pretty clearly Sveasoft didn't give their permission.
Why do you want to bring your car into Manhattan? Wouldn't this be a lot easier if you parked it at the end of the two major highways, and just took a passenger train into the city?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the line at the top of the link you posted?
This is only one method of organizing an essay.
Yes, the definition of a "Five paragraph essay" is purely structural, but that's not the definition of an "essay". The first word of the quote above is "This", not "There".
The obvious error is using "sentence" when you meant "line", right?
Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd, utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr.
This would be a lot easier to read without that misplaced comma.
(Sure that breaks the "only one prime factoring" property of any integer, but if we get a signal that said 1 2 3 5... we shouldn't drop it because it contains 1 :-)
..."
But if we do, our reply should start out "You dumbass,
They give an interesting idea. Instead of first broadcasting signals that require decoding the aliens simply broadcast pulses in a sequence of prime numbers.
Unfortunately, the aliens started their broadcast in AD 712, and the primes they're broadcasting are all so big now that they look like random gibberish. If only they would realize that we don't have 10000 year attention spans like they do!
there are many solar systems in our galaxy which are MILLIONS of light years away..
No, not really. The diameter of the galaxy is only around 100000 light years, and the Magellanic clouds are around 200000 light years away. To get to millions, you need to go to the Andromeda galaxy or further.
Compression also makes a signal look like noise, but I don't think the SETI people are counting on accidentally picking up WiFi signals. Their search is designed to find signals that the originators want them to hear.
Yeah, and I've also seen "where's the followup?"
I was just on their website, and could find no such posting.
Remember, the writer is a priest in a one or two thousand year old religion. He may have meant "etched into stone" or "written on paper" when he said "posted".
That said, why didn't the guy simply walk into the library, sit down at one of their nice tables and use his laptop on the Internet in the Library using the wifi? The cop may not have been right, but there is nothing more dangerous than a cop who is willing to be wrong.
One of the followup articles explained that the library was closed at the time.
Another one said
The Atheneum has just now posted a policy stating that the wifi connection is available only between a half-hour after they open to a half-hour before they close, on days that they're open. The stated reasonn is "for better maintenance and operation." Case closed.
I think you're right that number 2 is the most likely outcome, except that it will never come to that, because Zed has offered to remove any code on request. So an offended contributor will say "You've got to GPL the whole thing, because my contribution was GPL'd", Zed will say, "Oops, sorry, I didn't realize that, I'll take your stuff out", and the injunction will be irrelevant.
Zed is not the total copyright holder on X-Chat. If he was, you'd be right, but he's not, so you're wrong. I know at least one person who has written patches for X-Chat that were accepted and were never consulted about this move (and they're pretty pissed off).
Your friend should go over his correspondence and see if he just sent in his contribution without any explicit license, or if he said that his contribution was GPL'd. In the former case, I don't see that he has any remedy other than asking Zed to remove the code: it was just a misunderstanding, Zed thought he was free to use the contribution as he saw fit, because it was freely sent to him.
In the latter, if he's mad enough, he can go after Zed for copyright violation. However, even in that case, I doubt that it will be worth the trouble: do you really think a judge would take any further action if Zed just agreed to GPL the Windows additions? What damage would the contributor have suffered?
And if you do provide the source code, then somebody else will compile & distribute it, so that pretty soon the market won't bear any cost from you.
7 2311
In fact, the FSF says that everyone has the right to redistribute the binary you sold them, as long as they distribute your source with it. I didn't believe this when I was told it a while back*, so I emailed the FSF, and they confirmed that was their interpretation.
* http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115657&cid=98
P.S. Why won't Slashdot accept the URL above in a regular <a href=""> link??
I think the problem is that this guy took contributions for years to a piece of software that was GPLed, and then claimed that the people contributing didn't think that their patches were "GPL", as they didn't explicitly specify them. Instead, he is using their code unless they explicitly tell him to remove it.
I think your use of the passive voice ("was GPLed") is misleading. He wrote a program, and helicensed it to others under the GPL. Some people sent him patches, apparently without any explicit license statement.
I would be very, very angry if someone did this to my code. There is a very clear and well-understood principle that when you are contributing code to a single-license GPLed codebase, that you expect your patch to be GPL. You don't have to slap a license on each patch -- it would be a huge hassle otherwise.
You're saying that because he had licensed his code under the GPL, all contributions were licensed to him under the GPL: even though none of them followed the basic GPL requirement of including the GPL notice. I just don't think that's going to fly in court.
It seems to me that Zed may make contributors angry, but they don't really have a legal leg to stand on.
One way to get back at him for his mistreatment of contributors is for them to explicitly GPL all new contributions. Then he can't incorporate them into his shareware release.
If nobody contributes anything that he wants to use, he'll get away with it.
I've also got a P2046, and while I like it in many ways, I'm not sure I'd buy another Fujitsu.
:-) I wish someone else would manufacture this form factor.
- The key labels have worn off half the keys. I'm a touch-typist so it doesn't bug me too much, but sometimes I'm typing one handed, and then it's a PITA.
- the spring loaded clip that holds in the removable drive/battery fell out long ago. Friction has been enough, but I make sure I carry the laptop right-way up.
- The drive-bay battery was obscenely expensive ($400, if I remember correctly), and it's getting close to time for a new one.
- It has a stupid VGA dongle. Why not a real port? There's room...
- Crusoe is slow.
- The mouse pointer needs too much pressure, even at the most sensitive setting.
- It's got three useless Windows keys in the bottom row, but the Insert and Delete keys are way off in right field.
- The video driver can't do OpenGL properly.
Other than those things, I really love it
You need to trust the person who compiled it, not just the person who wrote it. So be sure that the mirror you download from really mirrors the original, and isn't serving up recompiled binaries with spyware added.
It would be nice if the GPL allowed authors to forbid anyone else from distributing binaries (so that if you get a binary, you know who it came from), but apparently it doesn't.
Yes, on re-reading it I think you're right. I think I was misled by this part of the preamble:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
I thought the second sentence (the right to get the source code) was a description of the rights, not just one of several.
The preamble should say next: "You must also make sure that they, too, can distribute anything that you have distributed."
To me, this sounds more like a guarantee of free beer than free speech.
That seems like a clear answer, but it begs the question: why not? What is it in the GPL that compels me to allow someone to distribute a binary that I've produced? As far as I can see the GPL only compels me to allow distribution of source code.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town.
The question is about the rights to distribute a binary. Can I put more restrictions on a binary than I put on the source?
For example, it's generally a bit of work to compile a program in Windows, so most Windows users will download binaries, not source code. But we all know that there is all kinds of malware out there that might infect a binary. So users would like to be sure the binary comes from a trusted source. Can that source charge for the service of compiling, and forbid redistribution of their compiled binaries?
I think you are missing the point of the GPL. It's not a license to guarantee free beer for everyone, it's a license to guarantee free speech. It gives you the obligation to publish source code, and gives others the right to republish it, and to build new things from it.
Try reading the GPL sometime. Section 3 - "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form..."
You just need to include the GPL and the offer of source that was attached to the original when you got it.
You might be right, but I don't think so. I think the "Program" is the source code, and the "work based on it" is something you produced yourself. That's what section 2 is talking about.
So yes, I'm allowed to recompile the Sveasoft code and distribute it (as long as I accompany it with source), but no, I'm not allowed to distribute their binary without obtaining permission beyond the GPL.
Otherwise, it would seem to say that I have the right to redistribute any program based on GPL code, whether the author has distributed it or not: and the GPL is pretty clear that authors are allowed to make local modifications and keep them to themselves.
Who produced the binaries? If they are the original Sveasoft binaries, the guy is still in violation of their copyright. The GPL gives him the right to publish source. It's up to the copyright holder (the one who produced the binaries) to give or withhold permission to distribute them, and pretty clearly Sveasoft didn't give their permission.
See how James Ewing of Sveasoft treats people who follow the GPL!
Posting binaries without source is a violation of the spirit and letter of the GPL. Ewing is right to go after that jerk.
Why do you want to bring your car into Manhattan? Wouldn't this be a lot easier if you parked it at the end of the two major highways, and just took a passenger train into the city?
"in 3 billion years when our star collapses we won't be able to escape?"
When do you propose we start thinking about the problem? 2.99 billion years from now?
No, I figure a thousand years should be long enough to work this out. So let's wait 2.999999 billion years.