Because if you need a project to scale, you will NEED to understand databases and have custom built queries and query caching in place.
That's simply not true. My customers tend to be editorial types who want a simple API to access the data AND they want it to scale but they don't know jack squat about DBs and honestly they shouldn't have to.
Building these into a separate database layer easily makes it so the DBA can make these changes separate from the application.
Which is exactly what we do with our ORM mapping.
While ORM may simplify in some respects, it also overcomplicates the process and makes queries take longer or return too much data thus increasing the load on a database
Again, this isn't true. You can needlessly increase the load on a DB with bad ORM, but you can do exactly the same thing with bad SQL. You sound like someone arguing that assembly will always be better than high level languages or that C will always be better than Java because of better use of resources (I used to make this same argument myself). It turns out that while technically you can always produce a faster more efficient solution in ASM/SQL/C, in practice, once the competing technology has matured the performance differences are negligible. Further, the gains you achieve in maintainability tend to outweigh the losses in computing resources. Sure, oracle instances are expensive but they're nothing compared to engineering man-hours.
A truly database driven application that is intended to scale to any level beyond an entry level market would not use ORM.
I've seen an ORM based solution for creating search indexes of basically the entire music catalog of all the major labels in the united states with significant connectivity between the records. If you simply believe it can't be done, then there's nothing I can do to force you to believe otherwise. But I've seen it done, so I believe.
... OOP model is overkill...
In my experience anyone who says this or anything like it is focused too much on execution and not enough on maintainability. OOP is overkill for toy problems and that's about it.
The database preserves your relationships, why do you need to preserve the relationships between objects containing that data??
The database preserves the relationships and enforces them. It does not make them easy to use or understand as anyone who's had to work with a schema involving more than a handful of tables and dozens if not hundreds of foreign key relationships will understand. Indeed you don't have to know anything about SQL at all in order to take advantage of an ORM mapping (though it helps). People who think that SQL is the best solution to interacting with a DB are a priori DB people. But there are a lot more people that have to work with information out of a DB than just DB people.
I work on a huge content management system system for a major media company. The fact that we have an ORM mapping to this system gives us several advantages. First off, its about 10 times easier to maintain and extend than the previous SQL only based system. Second, its a library that we can build on easily. We have dozens of apps based on this library from bulk data import, to an editing and viewing web application to bulk indexing of data for internal search engines. All these things would (and in some cases did) require extensive custom SQL code for each application. Finally, the ORM library is easy to hand out to people for them to build upon without the customer requiring a detailed understanding of the schema. In 4 years of working with this ORM model, the ONLY time I've had to resort to SQL was to get around a design flaw in the schema that predates the use of ORM.
Your commentary about security is nonsense. The data model does not equal the access control model and conflating them in order to demonstrate ORM is somehow flawed or dangerous is either disingenuous or ill-informed. If you're actually trying to stuff them into a single entity then its small wonder you're having lots of problems.
Their reasoning is that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.
That's a straw man argument.
Much better reasoning is nutrition drawn from meat still takes 10 times as much energy to produce as nutrition drawn from plants. i.e. you have to feed the equivalent of 10 loaves of bread to an animal in order to get an amount of meat equivalent to the nutritional value of 1 load of bread. Looked at another way, a given area of arable land that could keep 10 people alive with the crops it grows can only keep 1 person alive if its used as livestock feed instead. This isn't going to change just because meat is grown in a lab instead of a living animal. Most of that energy wasted is just going into generating the heat that warm blooded animals need to stay alive and that's going to be true for lab grown meat too.
ORM preserves relationships between tables much more effectively than pure SQL backended DAO's. The hierarchy navigation mechanism is much more natural. For instance its a lot easier to make a query for 'track.album.artist.image.url' than to do the corresponding SQL joins, and if you were to write those SQL joins, that SQL would likely be useful nowhere else. What's more, its likely to break on the smallest schema change. I use hibernate extensively and while I had many reservations about it at first, virtually every problem I've encountered was solved by gaining a deeper understanding of the framework and its query language.
In my experience, 7 times out of 10, the functionality you want IS there, you're just not well versed enough in the framework to know how to get at it. 1 time out of 10, you should be writing code, but extending the framework, not abandoning it. 1 time out of 10 you should be writing your own code separate from the library. The remaining 10% of cases are the customer asking for something retarded or overreaching the requirements into implementation.
Anyone else see this as odd? He's found dead, no questions, no nothing? Anyone else think this could have been a pro hit?
Even assuming some mafioso got fed up with junk mail enough to decide to call in a hit on someone who had ALREADY been sentenced to prison, killing an entire family including a 3 year old doesn't strike me as very 'professional'. Occam's razor says he did it himself.
That works both ways. If you don't vote for a bill because of one sticky amendment, people will ask "Why didn't you vote for this important bill doing X, Y, Z?". And you usually doing get a chance for rebuttal when that question is asked rhetorically in a campaign ad by an opponent. Even when you can try and rebut, its the kind of subtlety that is usually lost on the American public.
Remember the big 'He voted for the funding then he voted against it' sound bite that the GOP used against him repeatedly? What Kerry did was vote for funding the war with a check book and against funding it with a credit card, so to speak. If he'd said THAT in the debates, he wouldn't have looked like quite such a dithering old fool.
The difference is that an engineer does the things needed, may it be building a bridge or designing a new chip while the humanists just talk and make social theories.
This is fairly telling as you seem to imply that the latter isn't as important as the former. However, if you expressed it as "An engineer designs a weapon, a sociologist asks why", then it becomes a little more murky. Sure, engineers build thing people need, but need isn't self-evident. Does Freedonia need a new school system, or a network infrastructure, or does it need a huge new arsenal of munitions? Typically the engineer's response to a question like that is predicated on what is the more interesting problem to solve, not which benefits the recipients the most.
Problem is it wont fly. Chips are made to be as cheap as possible. Paying a licensing fee and then requiring the damn thing to be on the internet to be activated is not only stupid but completely unmarketable.
The thing is, this isn't for consumers. This is a measure to avoid theft in between chip manufacturing and retail device manufacturers. If the cost of adding this functionality is less than the cost of this kind of loss then its going to be adopted, and the only people it will really affect are Intel and Dell (or any other combination of chip manufacturer and retailer.
The piracy being discussed her is ACTUAL physical piracy, so all the knee-jerk anti-DRM rhetoric is just stupid.
Whatever possible savings you might gain from writing a special representation of dates for loan calculations is going to be greatly offset by the extra QA time, bug fixing and so on. No programmer worth his salt is going to invent a new binary time representation just because the timestamps in question have a resolution of days, hours, years, whatever. They're going to stick it in the universal time type and be done with it. Even if they're using some higher level structure like a date class, internally that class is going to use the lowest common denominator of time storage mechanisms, which is time_t.
Besides, date manipulation is a mind-boggling nest of special case rules and only some sort of fetishist is going to try to write a new date representation if he doesn't have to.
but 9 times out of 10 if you're implementing something in closed source, you're duplicating something that's already available in open source and more mature to boot.
I call bullshit.
I'm sorry, I meant to say, 90% of code written TODAY is reimplementing something already extant. Not that 90% of products over the history of software development.
This is a retarded sentiment. I'm a developer and I understand the call of the wild, the desire to reimplement everything from the ground up using 'new technology' but this really falls into the trap of thinking that new is automatically better. The older software is, the more mature it is and the fewer bugs it has. Sure, if there's new hardware to take advantage of or some new radical shift in methodology then there might be a reason to go back to the drawing board, but 9 times out of 10 if you're implementing something in closed source, you're duplicating something that's already available in open source and more mature to boot. My own company is having a difficult moving away from an entrenched custom build system, and an entrenched web based page navigation framework and UI framework and data access layer that is all homegrown and closed source and we're spending more time doing that than we would have if we'd just gone with Struts or Spring or Hibernate in the beginning. Not only does closed source end up making poor copies of open source functionality half the time, but one of the number one reasons to use open source is that you can hire people off the street who have extensive experience in whatever you're using. Try doing that with closed source technology.
>Code which is placed on the internet by its author, without any license or qualification as to what it may be used for, is free for anyone to use, at least in the US. Period.
>How does the OP know that the code on the forum was posted by the original author ?
If the person who posted the code claims it as his own and is lying, unless there's an obvious indication that's he's lying, then the illegality now lies with the poster of the code. If the actual original author showed up and proved his ownership of the code and didn't want to grant the company the license, then the company would certainly have to remove the code but likely wouldn't be subject to any damages.
Its not just in the US. Generally speaking its every country that is part of the WTO or signatory to the Berne Convention, which for all practical purposes is everywhere code is written. Even the most basic research into IP law will show you your original assertion that no notice equals public domain is completely wrong.
>That's only the question to ask if you are a blood sucking lawyer.
Lawyers don't care if you have enough evidence to defend yourself. They get paid whether you win or lose. For a lawyer the more ambiguous the issue, the better. In point of fact, if you're asking yourself if you'll win a lawsuit, then you've already lost. In this situation, aside from the ethical stance of ripping off another coder (which depending on original coder's intent may not be an issue) but am I exposing my company to litigation. Allowing your company to be sued because you didn't exercise due diligence is stupid, whatever the outcome of the case might be.
>200 lines of code from the Internet, posted by their author, are free. Period.
You would be hard pressed to be more wrong. All creative works are copyrighted and unless licensed are not free for anyone to use except under very specific conditions.
>Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
That's an asinine comparison. A quarter isn't a creative work. Quarters are not covered under intellectual property law. The comparison you're looking for is finding a novel manuscript on the ground, picking it up, putting your name on it and selling it to a publisher.
Perhaps the code was posted by magical faries, but that doesn't mean shit. The OP didn't say where it came from, and the implication was that there was no explicit license associated with the code, otherwise why bother asking. That being the case, social norms don't mean shit when you go before a judge. It may be the social norm trade music whether by cassette or on the internet, but 'social norms' doesn't make something legal.
The intent of the author DOES NOT MATTER. Unless there is a license or the forum has an implicit license somewhere (which the author of the original code could not have missed), then the code is copyrighted and not usable under any license whatsoever, no matter what the author meant. I KNOW it doesn't make sense, but that's the way the law is. And even if you're somehow in some gray area, that's actually worse than an outright violation in most cases, because you're better off paying damages and fixing the problem than a year of litigation, stays preventing sales of your product and lawyers crawling up your ass with a microscope during discovery.
The vast misunderstanding of basic copyright law here reminds me of this exchange (used without permission and don't think the irony is lost on me)
JOSH So, if we're lucky, foreign aid's going to be funded for another 90 days at 75 cents on the dollar. No one who's ever said they wanted bipartisanship has ever meant it. But the people are speaking. Because 68% think we give too much in foreign aid, and 59% think it should be cut.
WILL You like that stat?
JOSH I do.
WILL Why?
JOSH Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Then again, MOST ask slashdot discussions remind me of that exchange.
This is actually probably the worst thing you can do. Commenting the code makes it clear you knew about the violation and did it anyway, which opens you up to all sorts of new damages.
In the case of 'black' is free and clear with no chance of being sued, and white is 'doing something clearly illegal, open and shut case', gray usually means 'spend $$$ and time finding out whether you're in the black or in the white'. In this case, you want to avoid both white and gray, so they might as well be the same thing.
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant by 'make a buck from cmdr taco' and assumed you were cutting and pasting auth code from the code for slashdot. In the corrected case, you can't sue someone for reproducing something if you knew the natural result of performing an action would be that the item would be reproduced (you know exactly what the post button does). In addition, if the code you are writing can't be substantially implemented in any other way, or more than 1 or 2 ways, then its not copyrightable. I can't copyright code that does some simple thing like deleting a file in java because its simply not possible to do it in more than a couple different ways. The same would apply to this auth snippet I imagine. Note that in a real world situation (one in which it wasn't patently clear that your goal in posting code was to enable litigation, and one in which it was a bit more ambiguous whether the code could only be implemented in X many ways), both of these situations are likely to leave you open to being sued by some asshat who wants to tie up your company in red tape, whether or not the law eventually comes down on your side. Its safer just to steer clear of such situations entirely, whenever reasonably possible.
Based on the replies to this, there appear to be three basic camps of thinking, which can be summarized by the extremes.
Camp A people would fire someone for taking the time to worry about this because it happens all the time and you're never going to get caught, and the original author of the code probably meant it to be public anyway, even though its illegal.
Camp B people would fire someone for NOT taking the time to worry about this because its illegal, regardless of intent of the original author and if it came to light it would expose the company to bad press and possibly litigation.
Camp C people have no earthly clue how copyright law actually works and are speaking out of their collective asses. Sadly, these people would most likely reason along the same lines as Camp A out of ignorance rather than malice and simply behave the same way with the exception that they don't realize they're breaking the law.
The original poster can certainly decide what kind of person he is (probably B since he asked the question in the first place) and can probably make a guess about what kind of people his employers are (I'm guessing A, again since he had to ask). Then you have to decide what is more important, your job or your ethics. It is a slippery slope when you first start copying code. I had a friend who copied code once. Now he professionally eats babies. True story.
The fact is that all the commonsense notions about how copyright law works or should work don't take into account that copyright law is not written by individuals, but largely by companies like Disney and Warner Brothers (among others), companies that have a vested interest in maintaining control over a certain mouse and rabbit (among others), both of whom would now long since be in the public domain if not for the endlesssuccession of copyright extensions lobbied for by said corporations. Originally (well, since 1909) copyright expired after 28 years, or 56 if you decided to renew it. And this was a copyright you had to explicitly register. In 1976, copyright became automatic and consisted of life plus 50 years after the authors death (or a static 75 years for 'work for hire'). In 1998 it became life + 70 and either 120 years after creation, or 95 years after publication, whichever is sooner. Its interesting to note the effect on Mickey Mouse. Created in 1928, MM would have left copyrighted status (though still been covered under trademark restrictions) in 1984. Because of the 1976 act, that was pushed to 2003. The 1998 act pushed that back to 2023 at the earliest. So look for another copyright law in 2018 or so.
>(e.g. I guess if it was an answer to a question like "does anyone have some code I could use", posting the code in the answer probably implies a license to use it).
Seems like it should be, but isn't. Maybe the responder is taunting the person making the request. No license is no license, period.
Slashdot Mirror
That's simply not true. My customers tend to be editorial types who want a simple API to access the data AND they want it to scale but they don't know jack squat about DBs and honestly they shouldn't have to.
Which is exactly what we do with our ORM mapping.
Again, this isn't true. You can needlessly increase the load on a DB with bad ORM, but you can do exactly the same thing with bad SQL. You sound like someone arguing that assembly will always be better than high level languages or that C will always be better than Java because of better use of resources (I used to make this same argument myself). It turns out that while technically you can always produce a faster more efficient solution in ASM/SQL/C, in practice, once the competing technology has matured the performance differences are negligible. Further, the gains you achieve in maintainability tend to outweigh the losses in computing resources. Sure, oracle instances are expensive but they're nothing compared to engineering man-hours.
I've seen an ORM based solution for creating search indexes of basically the entire music catalog of all the major labels in the united states with significant connectivity between the records. If you simply believe it can't be done, then there's nothing I can do to force you to believe otherwise. But I've seen it done, so I believe.
In my experience anyone who says this or anything like it is focused too much on execution and not enough on maintainability. OOP is overkill for toy problems and that's about it.
The database preserves the relationships and enforces them. It does not make them easy to use or understand as anyone who's had to work with a schema involving more than a handful of tables and dozens if not hundreds of foreign key relationships will understand. Indeed you don't have to know anything about SQL at all in order to take advantage of an ORM mapping (though it helps). People who think that SQL is the best solution to interacting with a DB are a priori DB people. But there are a lot more people that have to work with information out of a DB than just DB people.
I work on a huge content management system system for a major media company. The fact that we have an ORM mapping to this system gives us several advantages. First off, its about 10 times easier to maintain and extend than the previous SQL only based system. Second, its a library that we can build on easily. We have dozens of apps based on this library from bulk data import, to an editing and viewing web application to bulk indexing of data for internal search engines. All these things would (and in some cases did) require extensive custom SQL code for each application. Finally, the ORM library is easy to hand out to people for them to build upon without the customer requiring a detailed understanding of the schema. In 4 years of working with this ORM model, the ONLY time I've had to resort to SQL was to get around a design flaw in the schema that predates the use of ORM.
Your commentary about security is nonsense. The data model does not equal the access control model and conflating them in order to demonstrate ORM is somehow flawed or dangerous is either disingenuous or ill-informed. If you're actually trying to stuff them into a single entity then its small wonder you're having lots of problems.
That's a straw man argument.
Much better reasoning is nutrition drawn from meat still takes 10 times as much energy to produce as nutrition drawn from plants. i.e. you have to feed the equivalent of 10 loaves of bread to an animal in order to get an amount of meat equivalent to the nutritional value of 1 load of bread. Looked at another way, a given area of arable land that could keep 10 people alive with the crops it grows can only keep 1 person alive if its used as livestock feed instead. This isn't going to change just because meat is grown in a lab instead of a living animal. Most of that energy wasted is just going into generating the heat that warm blooded animals need to stay alive and that's going to be true for lab grown meat too.
ORM preserves relationships between tables much more effectively than pure SQL backended DAO's. The hierarchy navigation mechanism is much more natural. For instance its a lot easier to make a query for 'track.album.artist.image.url' than to do the corresponding SQL joins, and if you were to write those SQL joins, that SQL would likely be useful nowhere else. What's more, its likely to break on the smallest schema change. I use hibernate extensively and while I had many reservations about it at first, virtually every problem I've encountered was solved by gaining a deeper understanding of the framework and its query language.
In my experience, 7 times out of 10, the functionality you want IS there, you're just not well versed enough in the framework to know how to get at it. 1 time out of 10, you should be writing code, but extending the framework, not abandoning it. 1 time out of 10 you should be writing your own code separate from the library. The remaining 10% of cases are the customer asking for something retarded or overreaching the requirements into implementation.
Anyone else see this as odd? He's found dead, no questions, no nothing? Anyone else think this could have been a pro hit?
Even assuming some mafioso got fed up with junk mail enough to decide to call in a hit on someone who had ALREADY been sentenced to prison, killing an entire family including a 3 year old doesn't strike me as very 'professional'. Occam's razor says he did it himself.
Remember the big 'He voted for the funding then he voted against it' sound bite that the GOP used against him repeatedly? What Kerry did was vote for funding the war with a check book and against funding it with a credit card, so to speak. If he'd said THAT in the debates, he wouldn't have looked like quite such a dithering old fool.
I don't get it.
The piracy being discussed her is ACTUAL physical piracy, so all the knee-jerk anti-DRM rhetoric is just stupid.
Besides, date manipulation is a mind-boggling nest of special case rules and only some sort of fetishist is going to try to write a new date representation if he doesn't have to.
This is a retarded sentiment. I'm a developer and I understand the call of the wild, the desire to reimplement everything from the ground up using 'new technology' but this really falls into the trap of thinking that new is automatically better. The older software is, the more mature it is and the fewer bugs it has. Sure, if there's new hardware to take advantage of or some new radical shift in methodology then there might be a reason to go back to the drawing board, but 9 times out of 10 if you're implementing something in closed source, you're duplicating something that's already available in open source and more mature to boot. My own company is having a difficult moving away from an entrenched custom build system, and an entrenched web based page navigation framework and UI framework and data access layer that is all homegrown and closed source and we're spending more time doing that than we would have if we'd just gone with Struts or Spring or Hibernate in the beginning. Not only does closed source end up making poor copies of open source functionality half the time, but one of the number one reasons to use open source is that you can hire people off the street who have extensive experience in whatever you're using. Try doing that with closed source technology.
Troll.
If the person who posted the code claims it as his own and is lying, unless there's an obvious indication that's he's lying, then the illegality now lies with the poster of the code. If the actual original author showed up and proved his ownership of the code and didn't want to grant the company the license, then the company would certainly have to remove the code but likely wouldn't be subject to any damages.
Its not just in the US. Generally speaking its every country that is part of the WTO or signatory to the Berne Convention, which for all practical purposes is everywhere code is written. Even the most basic research into IP law will show you your original assertion that no notice equals public domain is completely wrong.
Lawyers don't care if you have enough evidence to defend yourself. They get paid whether you win or lose. For a lawyer the more ambiguous the issue, the better. In point of fact, if you're asking yourself if you'll win a lawsuit, then you've already lost. In this situation, aside from the ethical stance of ripping off another coder (which depending on original coder's intent may not be an issue) but am I exposing my company to litigation. Allowing your company to be sued because you didn't exercise due diligence is stupid, whatever the outcome of the case might be.
You would be hard pressed to be more wrong. All creative works are copyrighted and unless licensed are not free for anyone to use except under very specific conditions.
>Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
That's an asinine comparison. A quarter isn't a creative work. Quarters are not covered under intellectual property law. The comparison you're looking for is finding a novel manuscript on the ground, picking it up, putting your name on it and selling it to a publisher.
Perhaps the code was posted by magical faries, but that doesn't mean shit. The OP didn't say where it came from, and the implication was that there was no explicit license associated with the code, otherwise why bother asking. That being the case, social norms don't mean shit when you go before a judge. It may be the social norm trade music whether by cassette or on the internet, but 'social norms' doesn't make something legal.
The vast misunderstanding of basic copyright law here reminds me of this exchange (used without permission and don't think the irony is lost on me)
Then again, MOST ask slashdot discussions remind me of that exchange.This is actually probably the worst thing you can do. Commenting the code makes it clear you knew about the violation and did it anyway, which opens you up to all sorts of new damages.
In the case of 'black' is free and clear with no chance of being sued, and white is 'doing something clearly illegal, open and shut case', gray usually means 'spend $$$ and time finding out whether you're in the black or in the white'. In this case, you want to avoid both white and gray, so they might as well be the same thing.
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant by 'make a buck from cmdr taco' and assumed you were cutting and pasting auth code from the code for slashdot. In the corrected case, you can't sue someone for reproducing something if you knew the natural result of performing an action would be that the item would be reproduced (you know exactly what the post button does). In addition, if the code you are writing can't be substantially implemented in any other way, or more than 1 or 2 ways, then its not copyrightable. I can't copyright code that does some simple thing like deleting a file in java because its simply not possible to do it in more than a couple different ways. The same would apply to this auth snippet I imagine. Note that in a real world situation (one in which it wasn't patently clear that your goal in posting code was to enable litigation, and one in which it was a bit more ambiguous whether the code could only be implemented in X many ways), both of these situations are likely to leave you open to being sued by some asshat who wants to tie up your company in red tape, whether or not the law eventually comes down on your side. Its safer just to steer clear of such situations entirely, whenever reasonably possible.
Camp A people would fire someone for taking the time to worry about this because it happens all the time and you're never going to get caught, and the original author of the code probably meant it to be public anyway, even though its illegal.
Camp B people would fire someone for NOT taking the time to worry about this because its illegal, regardless of intent of the original author and if it came to light it would expose the company to bad press and possibly litigation.
Camp C people have no earthly clue how copyright law actually works and are speaking out of their collective asses. Sadly, these people would most likely reason along the same lines as Camp A out of ignorance rather than malice and simply behave the same way with the exception that they don't realize they're breaking the law.
The original poster can certainly decide what kind of person he is (probably B since he asked the question in the first place) and can probably make a guess about what kind of people his employers are (I'm guessing A, again since he had to ask). Then you have to decide what is more important, your job or your ethics. It is a slippery slope when you first start copying code. I had a friend who copied code once. Now he professionally eats babies. True story.
The fact is that all the commonsense notions about how copyright law works or should work don't take into account that copyright law is not written by individuals, but largely by companies like Disney and Warner Brothers (among others), companies that have a vested interest in maintaining control over a certain mouse and rabbit (among others), both of whom would now long since be in the public domain if not for the endless succession of copyright extensions lobbied for by said corporations. Originally (well, since 1909) copyright expired after 28 years, or 56 if you decided to renew it. And this was a copyright you had to explicitly register. In 1976, copyright became automatic and consisted of life plus 50 years after the authors death (or a static 75 years for 'work for hire'). In 1998 it became life + 70 and either 120 years after creation, or 95 years after publication, whichever is sooner. Its interesting to note the effect on Mickey Mouse. Created in 1928, MM would have left copyrighted status (though still been covered under trademark restrictions) in 1984. Because of the 1976 act, that was pushed to 2003. The 1998 act pushed that back to 2023 at the earliest. So look for another copyright law in 2018 or so.
Seems like it should be, but isn't. Maybe the responder is taunting the person making the request. No license is no license, period.