Did the original license back when actually meet the Open Source Definition? I was of the impression that it didn't, and that no one forked it because of that. Given how popular it was back then, it's hard to believe that people wouldn't have forked it if that had been possible.
I don't care if they're GPLing this version of MT. Who knows when they'll change their mind again?
Once they've GPL'd it, they can't really unGPL it. (Though they could release later versions as non-GPL.) So it doesn't really matter if they change their mind, as it will be possible for others to continue development of the GPL version.
It's unclear why anyone would want GPL'd MT at this point as opposed to the alternatives, but having more Free Software is a Good Thing.
Re:Much less difficult?
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 1
No, it's like saying that it's much less difficult to become the President after you've been a Congressman or Governor for years, built up support in the party and with the public, raised millions of dollars in campaign funds, run television and print advertisments, etc.
Did you even look at the links I posted before replying? I wasn't talking about people jumping off aircraft parked on runways. I cited examples of people who jumped without parachutes from altitudes more than 15000 feet above ground level.
One of the cases I cited, Nick Alkemade, survived without broken bones.
Re:64 years late!
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the cases I cited, the people apparently did plan to jump without a parachute. They were faced with two alternatives, of which both were likely fatal, and chose to jump.
I disagree with your assessment that "it's not quite so amazing if a couple survive." Someone falling from tens of thousands of feet with no protection and surviving is amazing by any reasonable standard.
This guy wants to be one from one -- much more difficult.
I disagree with that also. If you plan it for months or years, develop suitable technology, model and simulate it, do various tests before the real attempt, etc., it should be much less difficult to survive it than if you're forced to do it by circumstances.
64 years late!
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 5, Informative
one guy who wants to be the first to jump from a plane and land without a parachute (and live)
He's at least 64 years too late. Alan Magee and Nick Alkemade already survived jumps from aircraft without parachutes in 1943 and 1944.
Found an answer of sorts in a PDF file on their web site: LiPS and Android Q&A. They appear to be competing. LiPS claims as advantages a formal standardization process and wider license compatability, i.e., someone could build a LiPS phone using proprietary software components, while OHA is based on shared code using the Apache 2.0 license.
I haven't looked at the actual standards, but perhaps it would be possible to extend the OHA code to add LiPS support, to produce a phone that can run apps developed for either.
The point isn't that the world's poor need computers or that they need to be on the internet. The point is that they need better education. Currently a major cost of education is textbooks. The OLPC is intended, in combination with suitable content, to replace printed textbooks. The cost of an OLPC, even at US$188, is less than the cost of printed textbooks a child needs for five years of school. By providing the children with OLPCs, it should be possible to give them a better education while saving money.
If he took 200 lines from a 560,000 line work, that would weigh in favor of a finding of fair use but wouldn't make it fair use automatically.
If the proposed reuse is commercial (e.g., going into a product offered for sale), it is much less likely to be fair use than a non-commercial use would be. That's one of the four prongs of the fair use test applied by courts.
On the other hand, if the source code was posted in a public forum, that might make it less likely that a court would find that reusing it would deprive the owner of revenue, and that's another prong.
Before the server ran Fedora, it ran Red Hat Linux (from back before Enterprise existed). At two times I considered switching to CentOS. The first time, there wasn't yet support in CentOS (and presumably RHEL) for the network interface on the new hardware the server had just migrated to. The second time, I wasn't able to get a piece of commercial software to run on the then-current release of CentOS, though it ran on Fedora or a down-rev CentOS.
I don't think of either case as a failing of CentOS or RHEL. My requirements simply were for newer code, which is inconsistent with the slower release cycle of RHEL.
If I started having trouble with the use of Fedora on my server, I'd certainly spend more time investigating switching to CentOS. Thus far, however, I've had few problems with Fedora.
I use Fedora on a server because RHEL (or Centos) is too far behind the times to have some of the things I need for other purposes. I usually keep it about one Fedora release behind the bleeding edge, and apply security updates.
Re:I tried the live cd
on
Fedora 8 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
actually nvidia is at fault here, they should either release specs or source for their drivers, so that they can be supported properly by Xorg
As ATI has started doing with the R500 and R600 series. So far the technical docs they've released basically only cover the frame buffer, but they've stated that the 3D docs will be forthcoming. (2D acceleration is done using the 3D engine.)
For now, it looks like the 3D graphics hardware with the best open source support is the Intel GMA-X3000 integrated graphics in the G965 and GM965 chipsets. The performance is lower than the bleeding-edge ATI and Nvidia parts, but it's adequate for most purposes.
Re:Waiting for Fedora 9
on
Fedora 8 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Fedora 7 is horribly unstable,
I've been running Fedora 7 on five machines, including one publicly-visible web and mail server, and have seen no stability issues at all, other than minor problems with one update kernel which were fixed in less than 24 hours. Of course, I'm probably using different parts of F7 than those with which you have had trouble. What areas caused problems for you? And weren't they fixed in F7 updates?
Fedora 8 isn't related too much to RHEL (RHEL 5 was built on Fedora Core 6).
RHEL 6 will most likely be built on a future Fedora release, such as Fedora 9 or Fedora 10. In some sense Fedora 8 can serve as a preview of some of what's to come in RHEL.
but I do know that Sun forced Microsoft to stop distributing their own Java platform.
Factually incorrect. Sun forced Microsoft to stop calling their incompatible implementation "Java". The most glaring incompatibilities were the lack of support for Java RMI and Java JNI, which Microsoft instead replaced with proprietary alternatives.
Microsoft could have fixed these deliberately introduced incompatibilities, or called it something other than Java (which they did for a while: "J++"), but ultimately chose to drop it. If Microsoft can't control something, they would rather develop their own competing "solution".
I agree that the FBI has done things in the past that were not legitimate; however I think the vast majority of their work is of great service to the public good.
I don't dispute that, but nevertheless I'm not willing to break the law to assist them based on vague claims that doing so will help them fight terrorism.
Whether it's the FBI or your next-door neighbor, by what logic is it bad to voluntarily help someone who is doing something that you have determined to be worthwhile?
If you're a telco, and the FBI or NSA asks you to hand over records they want to use for investigation of terrorism, how do you know that they're really going to use it for that purpose, rather than to dig up dirt on someone the administration wants to discredit?
The law says they need a warrant, and for good reason. Why should I assume that the FBI or NSA's claims are more important than the laws passed by Congress and the established case law on need for warrants?
However requiring a warrant (and by extension probable cause) for military intelligence gathering is irrational.
It might be irrational to require that for the CIA to gather intelligence in a foreign country; I'm not fully willing to concede that point but it is not germane to the case at hand. It is NOT irrational to require a warrant to gather intelligence within US jurisdiction, where it is very difficult to tell whether that intelligence collection will infringe the rights of US persons.
The law already gave them a 72 hour grace period to apply for the warrant AFTER executing the searches (and I would argue that THAT might be unconstitutional), but they didn't even bother to do that.
As others have pointed out, the big carriers have legal departments that are well-versed in what their legal obligations are, so they can't plead ignorance. Not that ignorance should be a valid defense anyhow.
If you'd like to live in a police state, there are many places in the world where you can do just that. Let's not turn the US into a police state; I'd rather live with the slightly higher risk of falling victim to terrorist activity than give the government the power to spy on anyone without a warrant.
I will do no such thing. As I am in favor of the FBI succeeding and criminals failing, I am more than happy to go out of my way to help the FBI where I can.
Are you in favor of helping the FBI when they're digging up dirt on someone for the president to use politcally? That's just one of the many things they've been known to do in the past. If the FBI shows up at your door and demands information that they have no legal basis to demand, your helping them is not necessarily a good thing.
In fact, I'd argue that it's a bad thing even if their aims are worthwhile. If they need a certain kind of information, they should either get a warrant, or convince Congress that they should have the authority to obtain it without a warrant.
In the case at hand, there were very good reasons why FISA prohibited exactly the kind of things the NSA was doing. The assertion that the NSA was doing it to fight terrorism does not justify letting them break the law, or letting the telecom carriers break the law at the NSA's request. They didn't get a warrant because they knew that the court wouldn't give them one, so they just proceeded without one.
If we are going to throw out the Rule of Law any time that the president claims there's some kind of threat, we may as well not bother having Rule of Law at all.
If the US government asks a telecom carrier to violate the FISA laws, Congress argues that the carrier "acted in good faith". If the US government asks me to buy drugs, and I do, nobody says I'm acting in good faith. Instead I wind up behind bars.
The fact that government asks a person (or corporation) to do something wrong shouldn't excuse either the person or the government from responsibility for the action.
Because if one person thinks it's OK to send hundreds of email messages to me that take me three seconds each to delete, then thousands more people will think the same thing. Maybe one spammer doesn't waste too much of my life but collectively they sure do.
You can model it as a utility function. It's basic economics; there's nothing complicated about the analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
If I enter the US with a (paper) diary, are the customs agents allowed to read the diary, and make a photocopy of it?
Did the original license back when actually meet the Open Source Definition? I was of the impression that it didn't, and that no one forked it because of that. Given how popular it was back then, it's hard to believe that people wouldn't have forked it if that had been possible.
It's unclear why anyone would want GPL'd MT at this point as opposed to the alternatives, but having more Free Software is a Good Thing.
No, it's like saying that it's much less difficult to become the President after you've been a Congressman or Governor for years, built up support in the party and with the public, raised millions of dollars in campaign funds, run television and print advertisments, etc.
Did you even look at the links I posted before replying? I wasn't talking about people jumping off aircraft parked on runways. I cited examples of people who jumped without parachutes from altitudes more than 15000 feet above ground level.
One of the cases I cited, Nick Alkemade, survived without broken bones.
I disagree with your assessment that "it's not quite so amazing if a couple survive." Someone falling from tens of thousands of feet with no protection and surviving is amazing by any reasonable standard.
I disagree with that also. If you plan it for months or years, develop suitable technology, model and simulate it, do various tests before the real attempt, etc., it should be much less difficult to survive it than if you're forced to do it by circumstances.I haven't looked at the actual standards, but perhaps it would be possible to extend the OHA code to add LiPS support, to produce a phone that can run apps developed for either.
Is it competing, or are they complementary?
The point isn't that the world's poor need computers or that they need to be on the internet. The point is that they need better education. Currently a major cost of education is textbooks. The OLPC is intended, in combination with suitable content, to replace printed textbooks. The cost of an OLPC, even at US$188, is less than the cost of printed textbooks a child needs for five years of school. By providing the children with OLPCs, it should be possible to give them a better education while saving money.
On the other hand, if the source code was posted in a public forum, that might make it less likely that a court would find that reusing it would deprive the owner of revenue, and that's another prong.
Before the server ran Fedora, it ran Red Hat Linux (from back before Enterprise existed). At two times I considered switching to CentOS. The first time, there wasn't yet support in CentOS (and presumably RHEL) for the network interface on the new hardware the server had just migrated to. The second time, I wasn't able to get a piece of commercial software to run on the then-current release of CentOS, though it ran on Fedora or a down-rev CentOS.
I don't think of either case as a failing of CentOS or RHEL. My requirements simply were for newer code, which is inconsistent with the slower release cycle of RHEL.
If I started having trouble with the use of Fedora on my server, I'd certainly spend more time investigating switching to CentOS. Thus far, however, I've had few problems with Fedora.
I use Fedora on a server because RHEL (or Centos) is too far behind the times to have some of the things I need for other purposes. I usually keep it about one Fedora release behind the bleeding edge, and apply security updates.
For now, it looks like the 3D graphics hardware with the best open source support is the Intel GMA-X3000 integrated graphics in the G965 and GM965 chipsets. The performance is lower than the bleeding-edge ATI and Nvidia parts, but it's adequate for most purposes.
Microsoft could have fixed these deliberately introduced incompatibilities, or called it something other than Java (which they did for a while: "J++"), but ultimately chose to drop it. If Microsoft can't control something, they would rather develop their own competing "solution".
See "On Distributed Communications", published in 1964.
The law says they need a warrant, and for good reason. Why should I assume that the FBI or NSA's claims are more important than the laws passed by Congress and the established case law on need for warrants?
It might be irrational to require that for the CIA to gather intelligence in a foreign country; I'm not fully willing to concede that point but it is not germane to the case at hand. It is NOT irrational to require a warrant to gather intelligence within US jurisdiction, where it is very difficult to tell whether that intelligence collection will infringe the rights of US persons.The law already gave them a 72 hour grace period to apply for the warrant AFTER executing the searches (and I would argue that THAT might be unconstitutional), but they didn't even bother to do that.
As others have pointed out, the big carriers have legal departments that are well-versed in what their legal obligations are, so they can't plead ignorance. Not that ignorance should be a valid defense anyhow.
If you'd like to live in a police state, there are many places in the world where you can do just that. Let's not turn the US into a police state; I'd rather live with the slightly higher risk of falling victim to terrorist activity than give the government the power to spy on anyone without a warrant.
In fact, I'd argue that it's a bad thing even if their aims are worthwhile. If they need a certain kind of information, they should either get a warrant, or convince Congress that they should have the authority to obtain it without a warrant.
In the case at hand, there were very good reasons why FISA prohibited exactly the kind of things the NSA was doing. The assertion that the NSA was doing it to fight terrorism does not justify letting them break the law, or letting the telecom carriers break the law at the NSA's request. They didn't get a warrant because they knew that the court wouldn't give them one, so they just proceeded without one.
If we are going to throw out the Rule of Law any time that the president claims there's some kind of threat, we may as well not bother having Rule of Law at all.
If the US government asks a telecom carrier to violate the FISA laws, Congress argues that the carrier "acted in good faith". If the US government asks me to buy drugs, and I do, nobody says I'm acting in good faith. Instead I wind up behind bars.
The fact that government asks a person (or corporation) to do something wrong shouldn't excuse either the person or the government from responsibility for the action.
that out of 100 Senators, there is ONE that thinks that telecom carriers should not be above the law.
Because if one person thinks it's OK to send hundreds of email messages to me that take me three seconds each to delete, then thousands more people will think the same thing. Maybe one spammer doesn't waste too much of my life but collectively they sure do. You can model it as a utility function. It's basic economics; there's nothing complicated about the analysis.