Well, there's no advertising clause, but there is this:
2 a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change
So you would be obligated to state in each of those files that you changed them, and when, which should make it easy for people to see what you did (and did not do).
If you want to know whether video games are art or not, just take a look at the credits... artists/audio engineers typically outnumber programmers 1.5:1 - 2:1
I think the difference between Microsoft's tactics of making customers slaves and ducking responsibility for their own products and Alan Cox's "civil obedience" protest is sufficiently clear that no parallel can be drawn between them.
Uh... yeah... except that Velikovsky is a certified crackpot, and that the article has nothing to do with Venus coming close to the Earth.
From Scientific American, page 30, Oct. 2001, in the "Skeptic" column by Michael Shermer:
Nearly a quarter of a century later, after a special session devoted to his theory was organized by Carl Sagan at the 1974 AAAS meeting, Velikovsky boasted, despite all the errors and mistakes that experts had identified in his book, that "my
Worlds in Collision as well as Earth in Upheaval do not require any revisions, whereas all books on terestrial and celestial science of 1950 need complete rewriting... and nobody can change a single sentence in my books." Unwillingness to submit to peer review and inability to admit error are the antitheses of good science.
where does Trolltech get its revenues from? Support, selling some other product?
You may write commercial/proprietary/non-free software only if you have purchased the Professional or Enterprise Edition. Qt for Windows is only available as Professional or Enterprise Editions.
So, basically, you can (have to) pay to get away from the GPL/QPL/whatever their license is called these days.
They also sell training.
See http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/general.ht ml?cr=1
You may or may not care about a very short essay I wrote on this subject that was published at here, entitled "The Alexandria Effect", in which DRM leads to a new sort of Dark Ages, similar to what happened after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
Most if not all of your concerns are answered in "Open Source Development with CVS" (Coriolis, ISBN 1-57610-490-7), most of which can be downloaded from
here.
Interesting. Is that a legal convention, because I have never seen provided used that way in regular conversational english...
Not at all... that's exactly what I've been saying all along. In plain old regular English "provided" has stronger conotations than "if". In fact, "provided" is always used this way in regular conversational English.
In English there are often two or more words that express the exact same idea, but often vary in their conotations, linguistic baggage, etc.: "unmarried woman" and "spinster" functionally mean exactly the same thing, but have quite different conotations (best example I could think of off the top of my head:) )
Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing
Sure... but they carry different conotations.
It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
Huh? It certainly does imply that. "may" implies permission: the condition for that permission is that you do Y. If you do not do Y, then you do not have permission to do X. Said another way, in order to obtain permission to do X, you must fullfill the conditions spelled out in Y. If you do not fullfull those conditions, you don't have permission. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y".
Actually, it's "You may do X *provided* you do Y". You can only do X on condition of doing Y also. Same with Section 2: "You may do B *provided* you do C".
So, they slapped together a box and shipped it out without mentioning Linux or GNU. Does the GPL say anything about this?
Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.
If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?
Yes. Again, section 1.
What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs
I don't see what the pain is in putting the GPL in your manual along with a written offer to provide source (see section 3 b) of the GPL).
but were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers).
And now some of you who say the FSF (and by extension, RMS) are "control freaks" since they ask that the copyright of GNU stuff be assigned to them see the reason why.
The legality is in question, IMHO, because version B uses GPL'd source, which means it must be GPL'd as well, right?
Not if every line of code is under Sistina's copyright.
The problem may arise if people have contributed code and did not assign the copyright of their code to Sistina, in which case they will need to track down every contributor and ask permission to change the license.
That's why the FSF requires people to assign copyright to them on GNU projects before accepting work/patches from contributors.
Of course, you're trying to imply that "Mozilla is getting buggier" is a simpler, therefore correct, explanation.
While certain possible, it doesn't jive with the fact that most people find the latest builds of Mozilla much more stable than previous builds.
While this is anectdotal evidence may be somewhat weak, it is evidence nonetheless that your theory doesn't take into account.
Don't forget the "sine neccessitate" part when you invoke poor old Willam's name.
A possible explanation for the increased bug rate:
The rate increase in bug reporting is possibly due to wider use; as each build got better and better, more and more people tried it and found more and more things (little things) wrong.
In which case, that just means that Mozilla is getting more and more refined. I think this correlates with most people's experiences with Mozilla from build to build.
Slashdot Mirror
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-12/msg00612.ht
m l
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-12/msg00676.ht
m l
I'll most likely post the Apache patch on Monday.From /etc/services:
59/tcp any private file service
59/udp any private file service
So... I still don't know, but it sounds unpleasant.
If you want to know whether video games are art or not, just take a look at the credits... artists/audio engineers typically outnumber programmers 1.5:1 - 2:1
MSNBC has this article which is a pretty description of the origins of copyright in the US and how the system is currently completely out of whack.
I think the difference between Microsoft's tactics of making customers slaves and ducking responsibility for their own products and Alan Cox's "civil obedience" protest is sufficiently clear that no parallel can be drawn between them.
From Scientific American, page 30, Oct. 2001, in the "Skeptic" column by Michael Shermer:
Amen.Uh... the "root of all evil" quote comes from the King James Version. Don't rely solely on the NIV for "original" Bible material.
You may write commercial/proprietary/non-free software only if you have purchased the Professional or Enterprise Edition. Qt for Windows is only available as Professional or Enterprise Editions.
So, basically, you can (have to) pay to get away from the GPL/QPL/whatever their license is called these days.
They also sell training.
See http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/general.ht ml?cr=1
You may or may not care about a very short essay I wrote on this subject that was published at here, entitled "The Alexandria Effect", in which DRM leads to a new sort of Dark Ages, similar to what happened after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
Let's see...
Mozilla has about 1000 developers (see http://www.cvshome.org/cyclic/cvs/proj-moz.html) and "many" source files.
OpenBSD http://www.openbsd.org/why-cvs.html claims 70+ developers working on 75,000 files that total 1349 MB.
Sounds pretty scalable to me...
Most if not all of your concerns are answered in "Open Source Development with CVS" (Coriolis, ISBN 1-57610-490-7), most of which can be downloaded from here.
Not at all... that's exactly what I've been saying all along. In plain old regular English "provided" has stronger conotations than "if". In fact, "provided" is always used this way in regular conversational English.
In English there are often two or more words that express the exact same idea, but often vary in their conotations, linguistic baggage, etc.: "unmarried woman" and "spinster" functionally mean exactly the same thing, but have quite different conotations (best example I could think of off the top of my head :) )
Sure... but they carry different conotations.
It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
Huh? It certainly does imply that. "may" implies permission: the condition for that permission is that you do Y. If you do not do Y, then you do not have permission to do X. Said another way, in order to obtain permission to do X, you must fullfill the conditions spelled out in Y. If you do not fullfull those conditions, you don't have permission. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Can you provide any backup to that assertion?
See above.
Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.
There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".
"provided" has stronger conotations than "if".
"provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y", whereas "if" is a little weaker in conotation: "if you do Y then you may do X".
Shades of meaning, and "provided" has a stronger meaning than "if".
Actually, it's "You may do X *provided* you do Y". You can only do X on condition of doing Y also. Same with Section 2: "You may do B *provided* you do C".
Big difference between "if" and "provided".
Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.
If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?
Yes. Again, section 1.
What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs
I don't see what the pain is in putting the GPL in your manual along with a written offer to provide source (see section 3 b) of the GPL).
Effecient != fast.
you've gotta wonder what prompts evolution...
Natural selection + random genetic drift.
And now some of you who say the FSF (and by extension, RMS) are "control freaks" since they ask that the copyright of GNU stuff be assigned to them see the reason why.
It isn't about control: it's about protection.
The problem may arise if people have contributed code and did not assign the copyright of their code to Sistina, in which case they will need to track down every contributor and ask permission to change the license.
That's why the FSF requires people to assign copyright to them on GNU projects before accepting work/patches from contributors.
The most reliable source? Nope. :)
Thanks for setting it straight.
Of course, you're trying to imply that "Mozilla is getting buggier" is a simpler, therefore correct, explanation.
While certain possible, it doesn't jive with the fact that most people find the latest builds of Mozilla much more stable than previous builds. While this is anectdotal evidence may be somewhat weak, it is evidence nonetheless that your theory doesn't take into account.
Don't forget the "sine neccessitate" part when you invoke poor old Willam's name.
The rate increase in bug reporting is possibly due to wider use; as each build got better and better, more and more people tried it and found more and more things (little things) wrong.
In which case, that just means that Mozilla is getting more and more refined. I think this correlates with most people's experiences with Mozilla from build to build.
Just a thought.
Simulate means "to assume the appearance of, without the reality".
Mimic means "to imitate". Mimic also has slightly more negative conotations.
We're imitating, and not even close to "assuming the appearance of".