Language evolves in a useful way both because people are constantly introducing changes AND because those changes are resisted. If it was a free for all then it would quickly collapse into gibberish.
In practice changes are happening all the time but many of these changes don't stick, precisely because they are resisted. Those that are useful, aesthetically pleasing, amusing or just fashionable have a good chance of thriving. That's how language develops, constant change AND constant resistance to change.
You're right that artificial constraints on language are ineffective. However, any plan to prevent having others correct our 'mistakes' and new usages is also doomed to failure.
You can't always drop it, but it can always be replaced with another word.
"Peter got shot" becomes "Peter was shot".
So 'got' is never required.
Similarly, you could always (I think) replace "ate" with "consumed", but I'm not sure there's any great significance to being able to do that. The same goes for many other words. I think I must be missing the point.
it's/its - it's is it is, its is possesive, exclusion to the rule
The possessive pronoun "its" isn't an exception to a rule. It's just a word in its own right, like "his" and "her" and "your". I can see how the variations can be awkward though.
inflammable/inoperable - same prefix, but opposite meanings
This is actually a good example in two ways. Firstly, yes, the way the word "inflammable" doesn't appear to follow an expected rule is awkward, and the confusion it causes could even be dangerous. If there was a way to remove "inflammable" from the language then that would be great.
However, since the word "inflammable" is in fact used to mean pretty much the same as "flammable" then it's a good example of a situation where correcting someone's mistakes can be important. Allowing someone to continue to make the mistake of thinking that "inflammable" means "non-flammable" could actually prove dangerous.
I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?
So if your sentences are only a little difficult to understand then you'd rather that nobody corrects you until the accumulation of bad practices over a number of years makes half of what you say gibberish?
Correcting innocent typos is pointless, and rather impolite. Correcting persistent errors (like Cmdr Taco's "than" and "then" confusion) should aid future communication.
Living as a Christian entails reachable goals (depending on who you ask). No one is ever going to make a lightsaber, especially anytime soon, to give credence to the lifestyle.
You're obviously new to the religion game. If the lightsaber thing is unworkable then it obviously isn't meant to be taken literally - it's a metaphor for something spiritual.
I am fairly certain that if the police came to sealand it would be repelled by sealands military force - it may be small but enough. And getting the army to help in a civilian matter is not something that easily can be done.
How exactly do you propose that sealand repel the police? If it involves e.g. shooting at them then there would be no obstacle to the UK using their army (or more likely navy) if police forces were not sufficient.
Christ, if you sail a boat into UK waters and try to shoot at customs/police/whoever when they approach then you'll be blown out of the water if that's what it takes. Being on an abandoned UK military platform will not exempt you.
Yes, that would be correct, when taken out of context and interpreted literally.
The entire context is right here in this thread. Please explain how the two statements can be reconciled. Be as non-literal and imaginative as you like; it might be interesting.
Let's rephrase that so that the linguistically challenge have a chance to understand it, too: It isn't socially correct from you to complain when someone else behaves similarly. In the broad sense of "you", that is.
Okay, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Do you accept that that isn't anything like the original post "it is illogical (and hypocritical) to act in a way that you would not wish to see reciprocated."
But that's not the same logic. By the OP's analogy, in this case you'd lose your right to complain if someone else rushed and got the cake first, because that's what you were doing, essentially.
That's not what he said at all. He said it would be illogical and hypocritical for me to do something that I wouldn't want others to do. Clearly it isn't.
I disagree that someone's right to complain is contingent upon their behaviour too (you always have the right to complain, even if you're wrong), but that's a different issue.
There is however one "natural" universal law - that it is illogical (and hypocritical) to act in a way that you would not wish to see reciprocated.
Absurd. If there's one cake left in the shop and I want it then maybe I'm going to rush to get it before they're sold out. I'm also hoping that nobody else is doing the same because if they get it then I don't. That isn't illogical. It also isn't hypocritical.
I think the reason they are proposing it is firstly so they can pretend they are taking serious steps to address terrorism
The ridiculous thing here is that governments from both parties really HAVE taken serious steps to address terrorism which is why I don't encounter bomb scares every time I visit London any more. They don't need ID cards for that, but they wheel out any excuse they can.
Seems weird, and bear in mind this is third or fourth hand info, but it sounds like derivative work means whatever the copyright holders want it to mean as was mentioned in one of the posts.
No, "derivative work" is a legal term and its meaning is determined by the courts. Unfortunately there isn't yet enough case law on what it means in relation to computer software to answer many questions definitively so everyone comes up with their own theories. IANAL etc.
"Requirement #3 under Getting a License Approved says Create a legal analysis of the license as it complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition...The analysis should come from a licensed practitioner of the law in your country. Fortunately, the Zesiger License is completely incompatible with that requirement since it's specifically designed to never need any "practitioners of law" in any country. It's an international license, so we're not to going even try to get legal opinions from every country in the world."
It's intended to be used internationally therefore they HAVEN'T taken legal advice anywhere at all? And you say this isn't insane? It's "designed to never need any 'practitioners of law' in any country"? Nice trick that. Doesn't really fit with your theory of the courts rejecting unsuitable retroactive changes.
That's ridiculous. We're not talking about "shared" ownership, we're talking about FORCED shared ownership, also known as confiscation.
Nonsense. If you don't like the terms on which GPLd code is made available to you then don't use it. There's no more 'force' involved than there is in the Zesiger licence.
"This license may be modified at any time, even retroactively, by Zesiger Inc., or whoever it chooses to serve in it's stead, in order to preempt all possible legal issues which may pervert the intent of this license."
Retroactively modifying the terms under which I'm already using code? Sorry but I don't believe they took legal advice on that and I wouldn't touch anything that attempted anything so insane.
Why aren't the BSD's as popular with their very good license at least in the eyes of the IBMs and HPs?
They are. If IBM or HP want to take freely available code and relicense it on other terms then BSD fits that need perfectly and is very popular for that purpose.
If, on the other hand, IBM or HP want to work on a collaborative open source project without competitors being able to relicense code under more restrictive terms then BSD is less suitable.
Slashdot Mirror
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
You're half right.
Language evolves in a useful way both because people are constantly introducing changes AND because those changes are resisted. If it was a free for all then it would quickly collapse into gibberish.
In practice changes are happening all the time but many of these changes don't stick, precisely because they are resisted. Those that are useful, aesthetically pleasing, amusing or just fashionable have a good chance of thriving. That's how language develops, constant change AND constant resistance to change.
You're right that artificial constraints on language are ineffective. However, any plan to prevent having others correct our 'mistakes' and new usages is also doomed to failure.
* This appears to not be a word. However, I feel confidant that you know what I mean.
"Unambiguity" is a good word even if that was the first time it was ever used. "Mushification" is good too. Both convey their intended meaning.
However, although "confidant" is a word, I don't think it means what you wanted to mean.
You can't always drop it, but it can always be replaced with another word.
"Peter got shot" becomes "Peter was shot".
So 'got' is never required.
Similarly, you could always (I think) replace "ate" with "consumed", but I'm not sure there's any great significance to being able to do that. The same goes for many other words. I think I must be missing the point.
it's/its - it's is it is, its is possesive, exclusion to the rule
The possessive pronoun "its" isn't an exception to a rule. It's just a word in its own right, like "his" and "her" and "your". I can see how the variations can be awkward though.
inflammable/inoperable - same prefix, but opposite meanings
This is actually a good example in two ways. Firstly, yes, the way the word "inflammable" doesn't appear to follow an expected rule is awkward, and the confusion it causes could even be dangerous. If there was a way to remove "inflammable" from the language then that would be great.
However, since the word "inflammable" is in fact used to mean pretty much the same as "flammable" then it's a good example of a situation where correcting someone's mistakes can be important. Allowing someone to continue to make the mistake of thinking that "inflammable" means "non-flammable" could actually prove dangerous.
I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?
So if your sentences are only a little difficult to understand then you'd rather that nobody corrects you until the accumulation of bad practices over a number of years makes half of what you say gibberish?
Correcting innocent typos is pointless, and rather impolite. Correcting persistent errors (like Cmdr Taco's "than" and "then" confusion) should aid future communication.
Living as a Christian entails reachable goals (depending on who you ask). No one is ever going to make a lightsaber, especially anytime soon, to give credence to the lifestyle.
You're obviously new to the religion game. If the lightsaber thing is unworkable then it obviously isn't meant to be taken literally - it's a metaphor for something spiritual.
HTH
I am fairly certain that if the police came to sealand it would be repelled by sealands military force - it may be small but enough. And getting the army to help in a civilian matter is not something that easily can be done.
How exactly do you propose that sealand repel the police? If it involves e.g. shooting at them then there would be no obstacle to the UK using their army (or more likely navy) if police forces were not sufficient.
Christ, if you sail a boat into UK waters and try to shoot at customs/police/whoever when they approach then you'll be blown out of the water if that's what it takes. Being on an abandoned UK military platform will not exempt you.
Yes, that would be correct, when taken out of context and interpreted literally.
The entire context is right here in this thread. Please explain how the two statements can be reconciled. Be as non-literal and imaginative as you like; it might be interesting.
Let's rephrase that so that the linguistically challenge have a chance to understand it, too: It isn't socially correct from you to complain when someone else behaves similarly. In the broad sense of "you", that is.
Okay, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Do you accept that that isn't anything like the original post "it is illogical (and hypocritical) to act in a way that you would not wish to see reciprocated."
SCO actually sell something?
Technically, they offer stuff for sale. You're right that nobody's buying any of it.
But that's not the same logic. By the OP's analogy, in this case you'd lose your right to complain if someone else rushed and got the cake first, because that's what you were doing, essentially.
That's not what he said at all. He said it would be illogical and hypocritical for me to do something that I wouldn't want others to do. Clearly it isn't.
I disagree that someone's right to complain is contingent upon their behaviour too (you always have the right to complain, even if you're wrong), but that's a different issue.
And this happens just when I was starting to think of IBM as the good guys... ...they bring increased employment to a developing nation.
There is however one "natural" universal law - that it is illogical (and hypocritical) to act in a way that you would not wish to see reciprocated.
Absurd. If there's one cake left in the shop and I want it then maybe I'm going to rush to get it before they're sold out. I'm also hoping that nobody else is doing the same because if they get it then I don't. That isn't illogical. It also isn't hypocritical.
I think the reason they are proposing it is firstly so they can pretend they are taking serious steps to address terrorism
The ridiculous thing here is that governments from both parties really HAVE taken serious steps to address terrorism which is why I don't encounter bomb scares every time I visit London any more. They don't need ID cards for that, but they wheel out any excuse they can.
If a tourist is run over in London, they just leave them by the side of the road and notify the relevant embassy.
It's a few years since I've been to London so maybe things have changed, but I think it's customary to loot their valuables first.
This capitalizing on video games is getting out of hand. It better be a good script.
I hope not. There must be more promising projects for any decent script writers to be working on.
You would probably find it interesting to know it just booted on my Athlon 64 X2.
:)
I'd be more interested to know where I could download it
but they are certainly not bi-partisan
Interesting comment. Which party would you say they favour?
Seems weird, and bear in mind this is third or fourth hand info, but it sounds like derivative work means whatever the copyright holders want it to mean as was mentioned in one of the posts.
No, "derivative work" is a legal term and its meaning is determined by the courts. Unfortunately there isn't yet enough case law on what it means in relation to computer software to answer many questions definitively so everyone comes up with their own theories. IANAL etc.
I just read the FAQ:
"Requirement #3 under Getting a License Approved says Create a legal analysis of the license as it complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition...The analysis should come from a licensed practitioner of the law in your country. Fortunately, the Zesiger License is completely incompatible with that requirement since it's specifically designed to never need any "practitioners of law" in any country. It's an international license, so we're not to going even try to get legal opinions from every country in the world."
It's intended to be used internationally therefore they HAVEN'T taken legal advice anywhere at all? And you say this isn't insane? It's "designed to never need any 'practitioners of law' in any country"? Nice trick that. Doesn't really fit with your theory of the courts rejecting unsuitable retroactive changes.
The intent of the license is clear, even to lawyers *gasp*.
Do you mean to say that you HAVE taken legal advice on it, or did you make that up? Just interested.
That's ridiculous. We're not talking about "shared" ownership, we're talking about FORCED shared ownership, also known as confiscation.
Nonsense. If you don't like the terms on which GPLd code is made available to you then don't use it. There's no more 'force' involved than there is in the Zesiger licence.
Have you READ that thing?
"This license may be modified at any time, even retroactively, by Zesiger Inc., or whoever it chooses to serve in it's stead, in order to preempt all possible legal issues which may pervert the intent of this license."
Retroactively modifying the terms under which I'm already using code? Sorry but I don't believe they took legal advice on that and I wouldn't touch anything that attempted anything so insane.
Why aren't the BSD's as popular with their very good license at least in the eyes of the IBMs and HPs?
They are. If IBM or HP want to take freely available code and relicense it on other terms then BSD fits that need perfectly and is very popular for that purpose.
If, on the other hand, IBM or HP want to work on a collaborative open source project without competitors being able to relicense code under more restrictive terms then BSD is less suitable.
It's horses for courses.