Actually the GPL is more likely to hold in court because of the way it works: it grants you extra rights, unlike a Microsoft(TM) license, which only takes away your rights. The point is that you are free to not agree with the GPL, at which point you are bound by ordinary copyright law and nothing else. But not agreeing to the GPL will get you nowhere.
Hmm... if this is the only explanation there is (and I have no reason to assume otherwise) then I suppose I don't have to feel bad about stubbornly using the "real" apostrophe instead, deprecated or no.:)
So, basically, they have two billion codepoints at their disposal and they still think it's necessary to unify two symbols with a completely different meaning?
Yes, the symbols look similar. So do the latin 'o' and the cyrillic '', yet those have different codepoints, as they should. They just aren't the same letter.
Similarly, the function of an apostrophe is wildly different from that of a quote. An apostrophe denotes an omitted letter, a closing quote the end of a citation. A typeface designer is now unable to make different characters for an apostrophe and a closing quote. Personally I would prefer if an apostrophe would look more like a prime character (). But the typeface designer had to supply something which can function both as a quote and as an apostrophe. Sounds like a bad bargain to me.
I know what the current Unicode recommendation is. I just wonder why they recommend it.
I notice that Joe Clark consistently uses a single closing quote (') as an apostrophe in his text.
Now I know this is common practice in the typesetting business, but aren't those two characters conceptually different symbols?
Wouldn't it be better--and easier--to use the simple ASCII apostrophe (') instead?
PLEASE NOTE: You MUST delete old Phoenix profiles and create a new one for 0.3. This can be done by running phoenix.exe -ProfileManager. You also must delete your old Phoenix directory instead of just overwriting the files there. We feel justified in requiring this given that this is not a final release, but simply a testing milestone.
Yes and no. He can't force people to use the new license, but if he changes it to read "RMS can make distribute non-free copies" then he would be able to apply his new license to any piece of GPL software out there. This is kind of a card blanche for the FSF, restrained only by the "similar in spirit" interpretation, which is kind of vague.
With regards to nobody having respect for RMS, I think you are mistaken. But even if you were right it would make no difference to a lawyer.
You gotta make some allowances for the visionary type. Name one more socially acceptable person who's innovated something like the GPL universe, while not leaving a loophole for himself to direct and control it.
If I'm not going to say it, someone else will.
Wouldn't section 9 of the GPL qualify as a loophole for RMS/FSF?
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Whether this hole is exploitable depends on the interpretation of "similar in spirit".
No, because to qualify as open source, there may be no discrimination to who uses it or for what.
If a commercial entity may not use the software, it's not open source or free software.
The problem is of course in constructing the Palladium
emulator (VmPd).
You'd have to break a real one open to get the encryption keys out, and even if you succeed, the key of the real Palladium is licensed to you (and
can be traced back to you). You won't be able
to put it on a website without violating some agreement you signed when it was licensed to you.
So yes, it could work, but it's not going to be
easy and it will be a significant threshold for anyone who wants to upload new materials to p2p.
It'll be possible, but not casually so.
I'm probably tripping over Godwin's law here,
but the first abuse that comes to mind is what happened here in the Netherlands when the government was changed to a German one: SELECT * FROM population WHERE religion = 'Jewish';
ID-cards are distributed and are therefore harder to abuse.
No. That would be "Where the Buffalo Roam" by Hans Bjordahl. "Where the Buffalo Roam" started in 1991, and had its own Usenet group long before Doctor Fun came along, and is still running on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the GPL is more likely to hold in court because of the way it works: it grants you extra rights, unlike a Microsoft(TM) license, which only takes away your rights. The point is that you are free to not agree with the GPL, at which point you are bound by ordinary copyright law and nothing else. But not agreeing to the GPL will get you nowhere.
That's funny, a 32-bits MIPS processor has 32 registers of 4 bytes each.
Troll indeed :)
It won't do the backwards thing, though.
Hmm... if this is the only explanation there is (and I have no reason to assume otherwise) then I suppose I don't have to feel bad about stubbornly using the "real" apostrophe instead, deprecated or no. :)
Thanks.
So, basically, they have two billion codepoints at their disposal and they still think it's necessary to unify two symbols with a completely different meaning?
Yes, the symbols look similar. So do the latin 'o' and the cyrillic '', yet those have different codepoints, as they should. They just aren't the same letter.
Similarly, the function of an apostrophe is wildly different from that of a quote. An apostrophe denotes an omitted letter, a closing quote the end of a citation. A typeface designer is now unable to make different characters for an apostrophe and a closing quote. Personally I would prefer if an apostrophe would look more like a prime character (). But the typeface designer had to supply something which can function both as a quote and as an apostrophe. Sounds like a bad bargain to me.
I know what the current Unicode recommendation is. I just wonder why they recommend it.
</rant>
I notice that Joe Clark consistently uses a single closing quote (') as an apostrophe in his text. Now I know this is common practice in the typesetting business, but aren't those two characters conceptually different symbols?
Wouldn't it be better--and easier--to use the simple ASCII apostrophe (') instead?
You'd have to write it as 10 then :)
still feel a bit embarrassed when I tell people that I saw Nausicaa in a theater :(
Embarrassed?! If they'd show Nausicaa in a theater again you'd find me at the front row on the first showing!
if you want to be anal about upper/lower case: it's "Hz", not "hz".
From the release page:
PLEASE NOTE: You MUST delete old Phoenix profiles and create a new one for 0.3. This can be done by running phoenix.exe -ProfileManager. You also must delete your old Phoenix directory instead of just overwriting the files there. We feel justified in requiring this given that this is not a final release, but simply a testing milestone.
Yes and no. He can't force people to use the new license, but if he changes it to read "RMS can make distribute non-free copies" then he would be able to apply his new license to any piece of GPL software out there. This is kind of a card blanche for the FSF, restrained only by the "similar in spirit" interpretation, which is kind of vague.
With regards to nobody having respect for RMS, I think you are mistaken. But even if you were right it would make no difference to a lawyer.
You gotta make some allowances for the visionary type. Name one more socially acceptable person who's innovated something like the GPL universe, while not leaving a loophole for himself to direct and control it.
If I'm not going to say it, someone else will. Wouldn't section 9 of the GPL qualify as a loophole for RMS/FSF?
Whether this hole is exploitable depends on the interpretation of "similar in spirit".
lilo works fine with XFS.
Of course, grub is much better anyway (yes, it can read FreeBSD slices).
If you think SARA would be impacted by that you apparently don't know what SARA is :)
That will happen when hell freezes over, because Linus can't even stand distribution of binary code, much less universalized binary code.
But anyone can distribute a signed kernel ("download this kernel to play $GAME!").
Or would the GPL count the secret RSA key as a "source" file? :) Heh, amusing concept.
The author of the article is an idiot, he thinks that spammers don't forge headers and therefore his relay is closed.
The proper way to close a relay is to check the sender IP address (from the TCP connection) and check if it's a local net.
No, because to qualify as open source, there may be no discrimination to who uses it or for what. If a commercial entity may not use the software, it's not open source or free software.
The problem is of course in constructing the Palladium emulator (VmPd). You'd have to break a real one open to get the encryption keys out, and even if you succeed, the key of the real Palladium is licensed to you (and can be traced back to you). You won't be able to put it on a website without violating some agreement you signed when it was licensed to you.
So yes, it could work, but it's not going to be easy and it will be a significant threshold for anyone who wants to upload new materials to p2p. It'll be possible, but not casually so.
Apparently you can't complain properly either. It's 'somebody set up us the...'
So nyah.
I'm probably tripping over Godwin's law here, but the first abuse that comes to mind is what happened here in the Netherlands when the government was changed to a German one: SELECT * FROM population WHERE religion = 'Jewish';
ID-cards are distributed and are therefore harder to abuse.
I should learn to read. Sorry folks.
Is Doctor Fun the oldest comic on the Internet?
No. That would be "Where the Buffalo Roam" by Hans Bjordahl. "Where the Buffalo Roam" started in 1991, and had its own Usenet group long before Doctor Fun came along, and is still running on the web.
shred -fuz
It happens often that software is tested only under lab conditions, the user environment often has strange quirks that weren't anticipated.
IHBT?