OK - so it is copied from the Google Accounts TOS. Does that change anything? It is in the Chrome EULA - so it applies to Chrome. And also this is stated at the beginning at the EULA that Service in that document means collectively: "products, software, services and web sites" - with Chrome being 'software' as I understand.
Right at the beginning of the EULA you have definition of the word Service - as it is used in that document:
Google Chrome Terms of Service
These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.
1. Your relationship with Google
1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.
So when in the point 9.1. they use the word 'Service' it clearly means: "products, software, services and web sites" and that includes Chrome.
Re:Establishing de facto (open source) standard ?
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Parrot would fit your wishes? Once it is finished.
Competitions looks like a good way to support Open Source projects. Of course the best way is to publish your own code - but if a company wants to do something more and support some OS project they can pay some of the project contributors - but this can destroy the motivation of the other contributors and pack it with politics. Making a competition can be a good way of supporting a project without distorting it's structure.
The code has not been released - so all the discussion is a bit void
The reasons for it's development seem to be based on misunderstandings and 'white listing' of allowed modules (plus only Perl 5.6 allowed)
It looks like Siemens, which in some way administers BBC working environment, is very reluctant to white list new CPAN modules - so the BBC developers reinvent on a grand scale.
If someone knows someone from Siemens involved in the whitelisting process - then please ask him why it is so slow and ask how the Perl community could help them to make it faster.
http://www.perlmonks.org/ - this is The perl community forum. Recently it seems a bit crowded there - but it is still the forum where I would go to get help on general Perl matters. Mailing lists and IRC are good for more specific questions related to some particular library.
The main idea behind patents was that companies don't hold the ideas secret so that other can build further inventions upon them. If you admit that companies don't licence their inventions to others than it means that you agree that patents dont support their reason d'etre. Perhaps it is not that all patents are wrong, perhaps we only should change the law so that companies can profit from licencing patents more than from keeping them for themselves.
I have proposed a similar measure for emails - you can publish your address together with some information how to pass your spam filters, and the spam filters generaly throwing away everything that does not comply to your rules.
As far as I remember linux kernel does not use BIOS for reading disks. Only the booloader uses it - so the modification would need to be even more complicated.
OK. I can take that definition. But than it means that it is not possible to refactor when there are differences in essential behaviour between the current code base and the goal. So you cannot say that refactoring is allways better than writing from scratch because sometimes it is not possible.
Then imagine refactoring a web serwer to become a video card driver. Do you still think refactoring is better all the times? It all depends on how far from the goal is the current code base. But I admit that people sometimes too easily dismiss the legacy code. They don't see the whole picture, don't like to learn someones else code idiosyncrasies or a general NIH syndrom comes to action.
That was a great story! But you forgot to mention that the story is actually about how such a system is gaining power much bigger than enyone expected and how people lose any authority over it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of using the 'nyet' transcription is that it suggests that the 'n' sound is 'softened' while 'net' does not.
Here is the link for you: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html And the referenced text is there.
OK - so it is copied from the Google Accounts TOS. Does that change anything? It is in the Chrome EULA - so it applies to Chrome. And also this is stated at the beginning at the EULA that Service in that document means collectively: "products, software, services and web sites" - with Chrome being 'software' as I understand.
Right at the beginning of the EULA you have definition of the word Service - as it is used in that document:
Google Chrome Terms of Service
These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.
1. Your relationship with Google
1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.
So when in the point 9.1. they use the word 'Service' it clearly means: "products, software, services and web sites" and that includes Chrome.
Maybe Parrot would fit your wishes? Once it is finished.
Competitions looks like a good way to support Open Source projects. Of course the best way is to publish your own code - but if a company wants to do something more and support some OS project they can pay some of the project contributors - but this can destroy the motivation of the other contributors and pack it with politics. Making a competition can be a good way of supporting a project without distorting it's structure.
- The code has not been released - so all the discussion is a bit void
- The reasons for it's development seem to be based on misunderstandings and 'white listing' of allowed modules (plus only Perl 5.6 allowed)
- It looks like Siemens, which in some way administers BBC working environment, is very reluctant to white list new CPAN modules - so the BBC developers reinvent on a grand scale.
If someone knows someone from Siemens involved in the whitelisting process - then please ask him why it is so slow and ask how the Perl community could help them to make it faster.http://www.perlmonks.org/ - this is The perl community forum. Recently it seems a bit crowded there - but it is still the forum where I would go to get help on general Perl matters. Mailing lists and IRC are good for more specific questions related to some particular library.
Perhaps some introduction to the theory of Peer Production would be beneficial for understanding the economic foundation of Open Source. Some links: Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm, The Economics of Peer Production
The main idea behind patents was that companies don't hold the ideas secret so that other can build further inventions upon them. If you admit that companies don't licence their inventions to others than it means that you agree that patents dont support their reason d'etre. Perhaps it is not that all patents are wrong, perhaps we only should change the law so that companies can profit from licencing patents more than from keeping them for themselves.
I have proposed a similar measure for emails - you can publish your address together with some information how to pass your spam filters, and the spam filters generaly throwing away everything that does not comply to your rules.
s hingEmailAddresses
http://zby.aster.net.pl/kwiki/index.cgi?SafePubli
You might like to read this: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/W igner.html
The rule that new theories should simplify everyghing is not that inevitable.
As far as I remember linux kernel does not use BIOS for reading disks. Only the booloader uses it - so the modification would need to be even more complicated.
Why there is nowhere a link to the source (or even the binary).
OK. I can take that definition. But than it means that it is not possible to refactor when there are differences in essential behaviour between the current code base and the goal. So you cannot say that refactoring is allways better than writing from scratch because sometimes it is not possible.
Then imagine refactoring a web serwer to become a video card driver. Do you still think refactoring is better all the times? It all depends on how far from the goal is the current code base. But I admit that people sometimes too easily dismiss the legacy code. They don't see the whole picture, don't like to learn someones else code idiosyncrasies or a general NIH syndrom comes to action.
They can keep backup passwords to important parts of the system in a safe.
???
the linke once again:
"screen frozen, but mouse pointer moves" bug
The drivers NVIDIA produces are not the best quality: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3 1858
Would it be better if it was all open source? I don't know, but possibly with more eyes the bug would be eventually find?
That was a great story! But you forgot to mention that the story is actually about how such a system is gaining power much bigger than enyone expected and how people lose any authority over it.
I have a page at my wiki for discussing such systems. I had created that page before I heard any of them anounced.
I don't know about tango, but samba was mentioned in the article.
The really interesting bit is about using the word Astroturf by the Guardian.
You should see this:
Seksmisja.