This is the same guy whose company is banning cryptocurrency ads.
I guess that means he's holding bitcoin and is worried about it.
Even the bitcoin fans will tell you why that won't work. Crazy overhead to validate transactions, limited number of transactions, overall currency limit.
And the big reason, which is that it's not money. It's just a fantasy. OK, I think dollars are a fantasy too, but cryptocurrency takes all of the problems of fiat currency and amplifies them.
No, I live in California. You live in the State of Jefferson, where there is "more freedom" (so that rich folks like your internet provider, their executives, and their venture capitalists don't have to concern themselves with poor folks like you), lower taxes (so that the folks who would have protected you all have to get jobs elsewhere), and less government (meaning they don't give a s**t what happens to you anyway). Might as well be Afghanistan.
I was a little closer to the Caldera/SCO situation than you sound. Besides knowing many of the players, I had stock in the company before they got really bad. Ray Noorda was the real founder of Caldera. Ransom is a nice guy, but never functioned near that level and anyway they didn't ever let him run the company. He was just the spokesman. The way the Noorda family let Yarrow run off with SCO instead of continuing legal action against him is just insane, caused us unending grief, and appears to have resulted in their only daughter's suicide as well as that of Robert Penrose.
I have no problem with saying that Caldera used the two words in sequence once. It's just completely irrelevant.
The kernel developers have some chance of bringing suits, and all who would actually do so had already offered much longer periods for infringers to resolve their issues before this agreement. Companies that are involved in Open Source software have a strong business reason not to sue and scare customers away. So, there is a pretty big element of posturing IMO.
And if the kernel team are now so enamored of GPL3's terms, why don't they adopt the license, which they so defamed when it came out?
I am not convinced that McHardy is discovering new infringements. Thus, the parties he has gone after have probably been informed years ago, perhaps by another member of the kernel team or SFC. This doesn't mean I think McHardy's nice.
The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.
There seems to be one "bad actor". Just one. But he's only a bad actor in terms of a completely voluntary community norm which nobody is compelled to follow, rather than the law.
Also, these companies would be practicing what they preach if they extended cure periods to their proprietary licenses. Which I doubt they do. They are still BSA members, and BSA has been a model for copyright trolling which the bad actor in this case might have been inspired by.
Not every company is Oracle with an army of lawyers on the offensive, deciding which hostages customers they're going to beat up today.
No, but having spent a long time fighting Microsoft's lawyers when they were working to get royalty-bearing patents in Internet standards, which would have been bad for Open Source, I think they are guilty of the same sins as Oracle.
Trademark, not copyright. I suspect that ship has sailed. Note also that there are trademark categories, one does not register the word for all possible uses.
It also seems to me quite silly for you to rail about this because SCO, the organization that inanely tried to sink the ship of Linux, used the term once, not meaning the same thing, back when they were still called Caldera and were releasing the source for DR-DOS.
Perhaps you should bother Intel about previous uses of their corporate name as a short form of "intelligence". Or Tesla, named after a scientist who might not even have approved of them.
"Us"? Since when do you get to speak for Free Software, when the Open Source Initiative which you champion is diluting its message with your talk of what supposedly is and is not Open Source?
This is new. I've not seen you actually attempt to champion Free Software.
Well, I'm a Free Software author, and in general apply FSF licenses like the GPL to my work. Thus, I apply words like we and us to myself and other people like me.
Also, as is widely published and I'd hope you would have read it by now, my founding of the Open Source initiative was done to help to attract people to the concept of Free Software, and specifically FSF and Richard's philosophy, by introducing it to them in terms they would more readily understand and sympathize with. And as far as I am aware, this has been effective.
I hope you're doing well. As we've previously discussed, the fact that someone else used the words "Open" and "Source" together simply doesn't matter. And nobody but you seems to care about this. Certainly it is your first amendment right to make as much noise as you wish about it, even though as far as I can tell nobody's really listening and your effort serves only to bring the heat death of the universe a millisecond closer.
Other than this particular tilting at a windmill, you seem to be a nice person and have my best wishes.
The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.
I'm afraid you have to work on your understanding of licensing.
All copyright holders can bring suit. Thus, if some company modifies your GPL software to which you own the copyright, you can still bring suit regarding the part you wrote.
Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.
Just in case it isn't clear enough to you, buying a security with insider knowledge of an unannounced problem with the company, then announcing the problem in the expectation that the announcement will manipulate the price of the stock, and attempting to profit from that, is securities fraud. It is the kind of thing that should be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and charges should be filed if appropriate.
Well, if you buy American cars that might be true. They are still mostly rip-offs. Edmunds claims that it's 11% the moment you drive off the lot, and about 20% per year, on average. I'd actually like to find that guy who takes care of his cars perfectly for a year, doesn't put too much mileage on them,
and sells year-old cars at 40% of new value. But then I never pay full price for new cars anyway, so maybe that is counting the fake dealer price.
A new Camry, Prius, and Jeep don't really impress anyone. They're purchased for other reasons.
Grow a fucking dick and walk yourself to bed with a little light: small torch, phone screen, anything that suits *you*. If it happens to wake up your wife, tell the stupid bitch to shut the fuck up and go back to sleep.
Hey, I've been married to a wonderful woman for 30 years. She's smart, beautiful, sexy, and she absolutely adores me and would do anything for me. Do you know how I got that?
I've driven a 1990 Toyota Camry from brand-new to 150,000 miles and 17 years of age, when I replaced it with a 2007 Prius which I have so far driven from brand-new to 120,000 miles. I also have a 2015 Jeep which I use to pull my trailer. There are three drivers in the home.
All of these are modest vehicles not purchased to impress the neighbors, and all are driven to the point that the cost of a single service to replace rubber parts (engine mounts, CVC boots, etc.) approaches the remaining book value of the vehicle.
I can make a pretty good case that the annual cost of ownership of each of these vehicles approaches $8500, given the cost of insurance, tires, maintenance, legal compliance (inspection, registration), and fuel. For the Prius, the AAA estimated cost per mile comes out to around a dollar, and it's been driven 10K/miles year, so this is really a no-brainer.
Given that we take good care of these vehicles and drive each of them to the point that further maintenance is uneconomical, rather than when they become "unimpressive" (not that they ever were impressive), I don't believe you can make a case that a used vehicle would have been a better value.
Consider that there was exactly one test burn of F9H, on Pad 39a. They never built a test stand large enough at Macgregor. Then it launched. And certainly they have flight data. So I would call this something that gives them confidence in banking 27 engines, which hasn't been tried since N1. But maybe not something that they had to do before they built BFR.
What we're really waiting for is routine launches with thousands-of-launches reuse. Like jet aircraft. If we ever get that, all of today's launch vehicles are toast. It doesn't matter that the rocket is too big, you just put together a big enough manifest for one flight.
Now, Elon thinks BFR might get us there. The jury is still out.
Not just a fitting, but a new fairing that will hold larger payloads, and the new Fairing 2.0 isn't it. They are waiting for a customer to pay the NRE. If they US Government wants it, they will make it. I don't see who else would go for it. Something like a scale-up of X-37 might require this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but I'll feel better this way :-)
It would be one of these.
This is the same guy whose company is banning cryptocurrency ads.
I guess that means he's holding bitcoin and is worried about it.
Even the bitcoin fans will tell you why that won't work. Crazy overhead to validate transactions, limited number of transactions, overall currency limit.
And the big reason, which is that it's not money. It's just a fantasy. OK, I think dollars are a fantasy too, but cryptocurrency takes all of the problems of fiat currency and amplifies them.
No, I live in California. You live in the State of Jefferson, where there is "more freedom" (so that rich folks like your internet provider, their executives, and their venture capitalists don't have to concern themselves with poor folks like you), lower taxes (so that the folks who would have protected you all have to get jobs elsewhere), and less government (meaning they don't give a s**t what happens to you anyway). Might as well be Afghanistan.
I was a little closer to the Caldera/SCO situation than you sound. Besides knowing many of the players, I had stock in the company before they got really bad. Ray Noorda was the real founder of Caldera. Ransom is a nice guy, but never functioned near that level and anyway they didn't ever let him run the company. He was just the spokesman. The way the Noorda family let Yarrow run off with SCO instead of continuing legal action against him is just insane, caused us unending grief, and appears to have resulted in their only daughter's suicide as well as that of Robert Penrose.
I have no problem with saying that Caldera used the two words in sequence once. It's just completely irrelevant.
This isn't the case you're looking for. There was a driver behind the wheel, and he (or she) was responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
I haven't heard of any good cases regarding autonomous mining trucks like CAT 794f, but those might come first.
The kernel developers have some chance of bringing suits, and all who would actually do so had already offered much longer periods for infringers to resolve their issues before this agreement. Companies that are involved in Open Source software have a strong business reason not to sue and scare customers away. So, there is a pretty big element of posturing IMO.
And if the kernel team are now so enamored of GPL3's terms, why don't they adopt the license, which they so defamed when it came out?
I am not convinced that McHardy is discovering new infringements. Thus, the parties he has gone after have probably been informed years ago, perhaps by another member of the kernel team or SFC. This doesn't mean I think McHardy's nice.
The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.
There seems to be one "bad actor". Just one. But he's only a bad actor in terms of a completely voluntary community norm which nobody is compelled to follow, rather than the law.
Also, these companies would be practicing what they preach if they extended cure periods to their proprietary licenses. Which I doubt they do. They are still BSA members, and BSA has been a model for copyright trolling which the bad actor in this case might have been inspired by.
No, but having spent a long time fighting Microsoft's lawyers when they were working to get royalty-bearing patents in Internet standards, which would have been bad for Open Source, I think they are guilty of the same sins as Oracle.
Trademark, not copyright. I suspect that ship has sailed. Note also that there are trademark categories, one does not register the word for all possible uses.
It also seems to me quite silly for you to rail about this because SCO, the organization that inanely tried to sink the ship of Linux, used the term once, not meaning the same thing, back when they were still called Caldera and were releasing the source for DR-DOS.
Perhaps you should bother Intel about previous uses of their corporate name as a short form of "intelligence". Or Tesla, named after a scientist who might not even have approved of them.
This is new. I've not seen you actually attempt to champion Free Software.
Well, I'm a Free Software author, and in general apply FSF licenses like the GPL to my work. Thus, I apply words like we and us to myself and other people like me.
Also, as is widely published and I'd hope you would have read it by now, my founding of the Open Source initiative was done to help to attract people to the concept of Free Software, and specifically FSF and Richard's philosophy, by introducing it to them in terms they would more readily understand and sympathize with. And as far as I am aware, this has been effective.
Hi Martin,
I hope you're doing well. As we've previously discussed, the fact that someone else used the words "Open" and "Source" together simply doesn't matter. And nobody but you seems to care about this. Certainly it is your first amendment right to make as much noise as you wish about it, even though as far as I can tell nobody's really listening and your effort serves only to bring the heat death of the universe a millisecond closer.
Other than this particular tilting at a windmill, you seem to be a nice person and have my best wishes.
Thanks
Bruce
Of course to us it's as if you don't exist as well.
The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.
I'm afraid you have to work on your understanding of licensing.
All copyright holders can bring suit. Thus, if some company modifies your GPL software to which you own the copyright, you can still bring suit regarding the part you wrote.
Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.
The companies involved have never been known to bring suit regarding Open Source licenses. The promise to give a cure period is thus hollow.
In discussions with deists, I have sometimes heard them deny that there is an objective reality.
And yes, this also applies to purchasing short positions in the same stock before that sort of announcement.
Just in case it isn't clear enough to you, buying a security with insider knowledge of an unannounced problem with the company, then announcing the problem in the expectation that the announcement will manipulate the price of the stock, and attempting to profit from that, is securities fraud. It is the kind of thing that should be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and charges should be filed if appropriate.
I am especially unreliable! Kava! Kava! Booyah! Picard Maneuver! Han Shot First!
However, I can't imagine what your comment has to do with this story.
Well, if you buy American cars that might be true. They are still mostly rip-offs. Edmunds claims that it's 11% the moment you drive off the lot, and about 20% per year, on average. I'd actually like to find that guy who takes care of his cars perfectly for a year, doesn't put too much mileage on them, and sells year-old cars at 40% of new value. But then I never pay full price for new cars anyway, so maybe that is counting the fake dealer price.
A new Camry, Prius, and Jeep don't really impress anyone. They're purchased for other reasons.
Hey, I've been married to a wonderful woman for 30 years. She's smart, beautiful, sexy, and she absolutely adores me and would do anything for me. Do you know how I got that?
By not being an immature man-child like you.
I've driven a 1990 Toyota Camry from brand-new to 150,000 miles and 17 years of age, when I replaced it with a 2007 Prius which I have so far driven from brand-new to 120,000 miles. I also have a 2015 Jeep which I use to pull my trailer. There are three drivers in the home.
All of these are modest vehicles not purchased to impress the neighbors, and all are driven to the point that the cost of a single service to replace rubber parts (engine mounts, CVC boots, etc.) approaches the remaining book value of the vehicle.
I can make a pretty good case that the annual cost of ownership of each of these vehicles approaches $8500, given the cost of insurance, tires, maintenance, legal compliance (inspection, registration), and fuel. For the Prius, the AAA estimated cost per mile comes out to around a dollar, and it's been driven 10K/miles year, so this is really a no-brainer.
Given that we take good care of these vehicles and drive each of them to the point that further maintenance is uneconomical, rather than when they become "unimpressive" (not that they ever were impressive), I don't believe you can make a case that a used vehicle would have been a better value.
Consider that there was exactly one test burn of F9H, on Pad 39a. They never built a test stand large enough at Macgregor. Then it launched. And certainly they have flight data. So I would call this something that gives them confidence in banking 27 engines, which hasn't been tried since N1. But maybe not something that they had to do before they built BFR.
You are certainly right about that.
What we're really waiting for is routine launches with thousands-of-launches reuse. Like jet aircraft. If we ever get that, all of today's launch vehicles are toast. It doesn't matter that the rocket is too big, you just put together a big enough manifest for one flight.
Now, Elon thinks BFR might get us there. The jury is still out.
Not just a fitting, but a new fairing that will hold larger payloads, and the new Fairing 2.0 isn't it. They are waiting for a customer to pay the NRE. If they US Government wants it, they will make it. I don't see who else would go for it. Something like a scale-up of X-37 might require this.