Exactly - we look at something and go "huh?" because we lack the "metadata". In this case it may be something as simple time not being what we thing it is. If that's the case, going back in time and killing your ancestors can result in you ceasing to exist without it being a paradox or loop - it's "just the way things work" and someone with a better overview would say "of course, that's the only way it CAN work."
No, the original xbox was supposed to be the gateway to Microsoft being the centerpiece and rent-seeker of your home media center. Didn't work out that way. Too bad, so sad.
But this, like almost every failure in the last years, isn't Ballmer's fault - almost every one of these sucky projects was started under Gates.
I called you names because you seem to think the universe is incapable of observing itself. The observer to the tree falling could be a bird, it could be a tape recorder, it could be other trees, it could be the sunshine itself.
BZZT! Wrong rationalization. Sorry, but the two-slit diffraction tests prove that an inanimate object, such as a tape recorder, or the sunshine itself, are incapable of making observations.
The law against paradoxes is that objects in the universe interact with each other, and that interaction has to work, otherwise there would be no point. In case you haven't noticed, we live inside of a machine, and that machine continues to function whether we do or not.
Total garbage - the universe doesn't have to have to have a point. You are guilty of anthropomorphizing:-) Again.
You've taken a sound idea - which is that the universe doesn't care about us - and inverted it to the point where humans are required for anything to happen. Actually, the universe cares about itself. That's why there were stars and planets long before there was us to observe them.
The universe is indifferent to both itself and to humans - it is not a conscious thing. It can no more care about itself than your pet rock can.
The existence of stars and planets is irrelevant to the question of paradoxes. As long as there is no conscious observer, the universe functions according to one set of rules. Introduce an observer - anywhere - and the rules change, because the experiment is no longer the same. It's like dipping a frozen thermometer into a small test-tube of water - your taking the waters temperature changed the waters temperature. Similarly, our being present to observe changes the state of the thing being observed.
Want to try again, or are you ready to look at alternatives, such as that life is extremely rare (the odds certainly indicate that we are alone at least in this galaxy).
You can buy a cheap netbook at the local store for $300, and it will include a dvd burner (unlike their $200 POS), as well as keyboard, mouse, and screen.
build-your-own is now more expensive than buying a pre-built branded pc. So sell the old monitor you were going to use with the $200 POS for $20, sell the keyboard and mouse for $5, sell the table you were you were going to sit all that on for $25, save $50 on shipping - and you're at the same price for a better machine. Use the wifi (which the POS doesn't have) so you don't need an internet account, and you're ahead.
Do I have to explain everyLittleTeenyWeenyObviousDetail?:-)
You pull the brand new, never-before-booted hard drive, with the install files on the second partition, out of the laptop and sell it. The new owner can install just fine - Windows has never seen the laptop.
There's bound to be some poor sucker stuck with a Vista box who would be happy with a legit upgrade and a bigger hd than what they have.
Except that we already know that classic causality is a poor description of the universe. It doesn't explain the arrow of time, though it depends on it being unidirectional - something that has not been proven (if time were running backwards, how would you even know it? It would be "normal" to you.). However, my statement is a bit more nuanced - there is no law that says that paradoxes cannot exist. And there is no support for such a law. And the universe doesn't require it, since it is not an observer.
Where do you get 479 euros - I'm talking 479 dollars Canadian - 450 US.
And you can buy cheaper - they have a nice one at Future $hit for $360, but lower spec (but it still has a dvd burner screen, mouse, keyboard, speakers, battery and is portable - and it will use less energy than you will with your 10-year-old crt. And you're going to have to replace that crt soon anyways). Oh, and you also have dual monitor capability built right in - and at the full 1920x1080 for hdtv. And you can actually pop a dvd in and play it, which you can't on that $192 system - no dvd. And you can lug it to the living room or den to watch the dvd on the big screen instead of that 10-year-old 17" crt.
A friend of mine wanted to build himself a quad-core box this winter. 3 x 1TB hard drives, 8 gigs of ram, dual 24" lcds. It was cheaper for him to buy an HP desktop from Future Crap than it would have been to build it himself, and he gets a better warranty than if he does it himself (one of the lcds had a stuck pixel - they took it back and gave him another). Why do you think almost all the beige-box guys are out of business? They can't compete on price, and they can't compete on warranty.
Wow. You're amazingly stupid. So if a tree falls in a forest, it doesn't make a sound?
I know it makes for a great philosophical question, and even leads into discussions about cats in boxes, but...on a practical level, yes, we all know that it does make a sound.
Prove it. Just prove it. The simple fact is you cannot. To prove it, you need an observer. That is the way the universe works. And even then, it's irrelevant to my point, which is that there is no law that requires the universe not to allow paradoxes.
Prove otherwise, or stop calling other people stupid.
$25 credit because the $200 box has no dvd - that's a serious lack.
AND since you now have a recent laptop, you can actually use your big-screen tv at 1920x1080. Try doing that with the crappy diy $192 special.
Also, there are plenty of instructions on the net on how to replace screens and keyboards, though you most likely won't have to if you have half a clue. The only people I know who have broken screens are dummies who leave the laptop on the car roof and drive away. Your diy would probably need a new hard drive after something like that.
Only because people are lazy. Get out your camcorder, make a video of you refusing the agreement, and installing linux, and tell microsoft you want your money back. What's the big deal?
Or if you want to get more than Microsoft will refund, find someone who wants a legit version, and do a dd if=/dev/whatever_windows_partition of=/their_bare_hard_drive-partition#2, and give them the license sticker.
Even simpler, sell them the original hard drive with the install files on it, and use the money to buy yourself an even bigger drive for your laptop (and this way Microsoft can't even try to claim that it's tied to the hardware - the hardware it was on went with the OS). A 320gig laptop hard drive with a valid new windows license should net you enough to buy a 500gig to 640 gig laptop hard drive.
Why would they get a new monitor? You can find one at a garage sale for $25 if you really want a cheap computer.
s/monitor/computer/g;
Also, is a machine really all that usable without a dvd? I didn't add that into the cost equations.
But if you're really cheap, you can get p4s and athlon64s if you go dumpstersourcing. jawtheshark keeps finding good machines , and it won't be long before dual-core machines end up in dumpsters as well.
The concept of a paradox is entirely a human concept - in other words, it's in the eye of the observer. The universe wouldn't "classify" you going back in time and killing your great-grandparents before you were born as a paradox, simply because the universe is not an observer. It would happen - so what - "It is what it is". That would just be part and parcel of the way the universe works in that particular case.
Attempting to say that this would result in a paradox as far as the universe is concerned is anthropomorphizing the universe to an absolutely unforgivable degree. Sure, it makes for a good time travel story, but the universe won't lose any sleep over it, any more than it does for me writing "The next phrase is false." "The previous phrase is true." "Both the previous phrases are true" "The previous phrase is true" There's no paradox. The universe doesn't suddenly go wonky, and cats mate with dogs, etc.
If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library.
You cannot link source code files - and php scripts are source code, not executables. They are also not libraries - a collection of routines in compiled object format, ready to be linked to by other programs via a linker. Ask any assembler programmer what a library is. It's not what script monkeys think (and script monkeys, by definition not having worked with object code files, are simply not qualified to say what linking means - they've never used a linker, nor have they ever manually "patched jmp instructions into libraries of code because they can" - which I was doing 20 years ago).
Also, it doesn't matter if one script depends on the other to function - that is NOT the definition of linking used by the FSF. Otherwise, no php, perl, or python script, even a stand-alone one, could every be anything but GPL because they all depend on GPL'd interpreters.
Scripts that are interpreted by a runtime simply cannot interact with each other - only the runtime interacts with them - and only to the extent of loading them into memory as data. This is an important point, but so-called "programmers" who don't understand what an object file is, or what linking does, or who think that a library of routines in a php file is something that can be linked to and who have never written a real linkable object code library, will continue to waste real programmers' time with nonsense babble. It is this reason, more than any other, that makes real programmers shake our heads when we hear webmonkeys pontificate about interpreted scripts using the language of compiled programs.
"
Libraries contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Some executables are both standalone programs and libraries, but most libraries are not executables. Executables and libraries make references known as links to each other through the process known as linking, which is typically done by a linker."
Libraries are compiled code - not scripts. DLLs are libraries,.so files are libraries. They can be linked to Your php script is not a library that can be linked to by an executable.
Oh, almost forgot - the laptop also has a dvd burner - their el cheapo box has NO optical drive. So, a cheap optical drive is $25, so the laptop purchase is a no-brainer instead of their cheap POS.
The problem with upgrading just the cpu is that you're throwing out a cpu. Most people will upgrade both the cpu and motherboard, and keep the old ones as a spare, or make them into a headless file server, or give away the whole thing.
Also, most people would be better off buying a cheap dual-core laptop $479 - 3 gig ram, dual core, 320 gig hd), refusing the MS install (-$55) and getting a refund on Windows, and they also won't have to buy a monitor (-$100), keyboard and mouse (-$25) mouse, ups (-$40), or wireless networking to steal wifi since they're so cheap ($25). So, laptop $479-$245=$234 vs their machine ($192) = $42 (and you don't have to pay shipping on the laptop or assemple it), for twice the hd space and 3x the ram - or you can sell the 2 gigs of ram to someone else and you're ahead of the game.
What could be another reason and would that reason be any better?
Maybe they also have a few other words mixed in that the filters object to:
"We're upset about business blocking us - we have absolutely no pornographic content whatsoever!" said Marsha Sexsmith, a resident of Cockburn Street, Originally from Scunthorpe, England, she's an anthropologist. She's traveled to Matiti (French Polynesia), Clitheroe, Fistina, Woody Bay (UK), Pisset, Balsac, and Pussy (France), Bastardo (Italy), Hashita (Israel), Youfukyou and Fuxingmen(China), Labia (Egypt), Licking (US) and Titicaca (Titicaca, Peru, Titicaca Creek in the US, and of course Titicaca court in Western Australia). "It's only in Titicaca, Washington, that I saw anything as silly as this! Even Suckstem and Cassman Spring (also in the US) weren't as bad!" Ms. SexSmith was commenting from her campaign office on Fistula Street in Queensland.
Binary code is able to be statically or dynamically linked to other code. Try man dlopen(). The cpu is able to load the bytes of the compiled program directly into registers - your scripts can not do that.
There should be a law against people talking about linking programs if they've never actually used a real compiler (no, that fake shite Java "compiler" or any other runtime system doesn't count).
Does a PHP file operating a Wordpress theme require Wordpress to work? Yes
Totally irrelevant. They BOTH require an interpreter. Neither one is capable of running on it's own, and certainly not capable of calling functions in the other file. The interpreter does that. At no point does either file execute any code. There's no linking, despite what the stupid web monkey claimed. It's one reason why there's web monkeys and then there are real programmers.
Real programmers program in c and assembler. Wannabes program in Java - an interpreted language - which is why it sucks.
You're NOT linking any code with a script written in php, or python, or perl. Scripting languages do NOT link to libraries. The INTERPRETER might, but as long as the interpreter is licenses as per compatible terms (such as GPL), there's no problem, any more than your Great American Novel has to be GPLed if you wrote it with GPL software.
Scripts are data for an interpreter - they cannot call library functions in any api - that's the interpreter's job.
So before going on and on, start with the simplest fact - scripts are NOT able to link or call libraries. No need to go any further. You can create proprietary theme scripts for gpl software.
While you might argue that in Slashdot, it will not fly in the courts. There is no difference between compiled and interpreted code as far as law is concerned.
Actually, the courts do recognize the difference. Judges aren't necessarily as dumb as the average web-monkey who can't read the definition of:"linking". And if they have a problem, they can get an expert witness - or they could even look it up.
It's actually a very simple case:
Were either of the files passed through a compiler? No.
Is there any object code in either of the files? No.
Have either of the files been passed through a linker? No.
Have the two files been combined into one? No.
So if the guy hadn't done a cut-n-paste, he'd be fine. PHP scripts are not executable software - they're data for an interpreter.
Constructive dismissal is the illegal practice of changing the working conditions of the employee such that they have no real alternative but to quit. When the job conditions are changed too much, it's no longer the job you were hired for, so in effect the employer has terminated your original job, and instead silently substituted another one on a "take it or leave it" basis.
It's the employment equivalent of "bait-and-switch."
It can be anything from social ostracism (in one case, the employee was moved to a desk away from everyone else, and everyone else was instructed not to talk to them), to changing job tasks, pay cuts above a certain amount, sexual or other harassment, or simply not giving the employee the tools to do the job they were hired for.
php "code" is not run. It is just data that's fed to an interpreter. Thus, we cannot talk about php code "linking" to other php code, or "running" in the same process space, since it is never run - it's just data that an interpreter loads. The interpreter runs. At no point does the operating system execute a single instruction from the original file - the php files are text, not executable binary, so the "developer" is channeling the goat guy when he talks about "running in the same process space" and "linking".
As for plugins - in scripting languages, plug-ins do not modify the parent. Both files remain the same - unmodified, unlike, for example, a call to dlopen(), which resolves jump addresses in the loaded binary file if successful. The php "code" is never patched - it has NOT been modified, neither on disk, nor in memory. It doesn't get "patched" with the jump address for functions in the other file - because it's not object code, and as such, cannot be run, it can only be interpreted.
Since interpreted code can never be run directly, it never directly modifies anything - in fact, it's totally passive. Only the interpreter runs anything, and only it's own internal functions, libraries, and calls to external operating system functions. It NEVER runs "code" in the php script, because that's not really code - it's just a plain-text file. Attempting to call it the same way as it calls, for example, the operating system's library function to load a file, would be a disaster.
This is the opposite of "back in the day", when dBase, (as an example) could also load and call.bin programs that you could write, that WERE compiled code, and not text files, or some intermediate byte-code like Java class files or dbase dbo files.
Saying that scripts somehow "link" to each other, or "run in the same process space" is pure ignorant bullshit. Yes, it's late, I'm tired and cranky, and more and more, I think that web monkeys should be required to have at least 5 years of c or assembler before commenting on such things as "linking" and "process space". The whole "they run in the same process space" argument is bogus - they do NOT run. Period. To repeat, they are data, not compiled code. They cannot run. They can only be used as data for the interpreter.
Interpreting scripts has nothing to do with linking. This is a major fail in understanding by the original author, and it's obvious from reading the debate that, like most web monkeys, he's not had extensive experience with real programming languages, where you have a compile and LINK.
Scripts do not "link" to each other at any time. To link has a very specific meaning. It binds a jump instruction to an address. Interpreters don't do that, because the php scripts are not object code.
In fact, if you have two php scripts that are mutually dependent, neither one actually calls the other - the interpreter is sitting there in the middle. IT doesn't call either script, since there's no object code to "call". Instead, it reads the script, interprets it, and runs it's own internal code based on the parameters in the script. For example, when it sees a printf() command it doesn't run the printf code in the script - there is none. Instead, it reads the parameters, then run's it's own internal copy of printf.
Same thing with include(). The main file never actually "includes" the other file - instead, the interpreter sees the request, looks for the parameter, then executes a whole sequence of events - loading the file and interpreting it.. At no point does the first file now "include" any code from the second file. It is totally unchanged, both on disk and, more importantly, in memory.
Simply put, scripts that interact via an interpreter with other scripts can have their own separate license. There is no "viralness" in an interpreted world, since there is no linking, and no "incorporating" one script into another unless they are physically appended on the disk before being loaded into the interpreter. You can distribute a php script you wrote that interacts with a GPL script, and you're free to attach any conditions you want to your script - or none.
What causes it to be "part of WP" is the fact that the contents of the file in question literally become part of WP.
Not true. The code never "becomes part of wordpress". It is never "run by wordpress" - which is what the original post is claiming. It is loaded by the php interpreter - not by wordpress. Wordpress cannot call any part of the other code directly, simply because wordpress is not a stand-alone executable. It is entirely dependent on the interpreter, and it is the interpreter that calls wordpress, makes calls by wordpress to other files, and by other files to wordpress. At no point are the files ever "linked together" within the meaning of the term "link". Neither one can ever make a direct call into the other, simply because neither one has code that can be directly executed.
This is unlike a compiled program, where calling code has the actual memory address of the linked-in functions (that's part and parcel of linking - even dynamic linking), and can jump to those instructions. This is a far cry from an interpreter, which the source code says "I want to run this - please do it for me." No linkage, even at runtime.
In other words, if they hadn't originally done a cut-n-paste, they would not have created a derivative work.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - we look at something and go "huh?" because we lack the "metadata". In this case it may be something as simple time not being what we thing it is. If that's the case, going back in time and killing your ancestors can result in you ceasing to exist without it being a paradox or loop - it's "just the way things work" and someone with a better overview would say "of course, that's the only way it CAN work."
But this, like almost every failure in the last years, isn't Ballmer's fault - almost every one of these sucky projects was started under Gates.
BZZT! Wrong rationalization. Sorry, but the two-slit diffraction tests prove that an inanimate object, such as a tape recorder, or the sunshine itself, are incapable of making observations.
Total garbage - the universe doesn't have to have to have a point. You are guilty of anthropomorphizing :-) Again.
The universe is indifferent to both itself and to humans - it is not a conscious thing. It can no more care about itself than your pet rock can.
The existence of stars and planets is irrelevant to the question of paradoxes. As long as there is no conscious observer, the universe functions according to one set of rules. Introduce an observer - anywhere - and the rules change, because the experiment is no longer the same. It's like dipping a frozen thermometer into a small test-tube of water - your taking the waters temperature changed the waters temperature. Similarly, our being present to observe changes the state of the thing being observed.
Want to try again, or are you ready to look at alternatives, such as that life is extremely rare (the odds certainly indicate that we are alone at least in this galaxy).
build-your-own is now more expensive than buying a pre-built branded pc. So sell the old monitor you were going to use with the $200 POS for $20, sell the keyboard and mouse for $5, sell the table you were you were going to sit all that on for $25, save $50 on shipping - and you're at the same price for a better machine. Use the wifi (which the POS doesn't have) so you don't need an internet account, and you're ahead.
Do I have to explain everyLittleTeenyWeenyObviousDetail? :-)
You pull the brand new, never-before-booted hard drive, with the install files on the second partition, out of the laptop and sell it. The new owner can install just fine - Windows has never seen the laptop.
There's bound to be some poor sucker stuck with a Vista box who would be happy with a legit upgrade and a bigger hd than what they have.
Except that we already know that classic causality is a poor description of the universe. It doesn't explain the arrow of time, though it depends on it being unidirectional - something that has not been proven (if time were running backwards, how would you even know it? It would be "normal" to you.). However, my statement is a bit more nuanced - there is no law that says that paradoxes cannot exist. And there is no support for such a law. And the universe doesn't require it, since it is not an observer.
Where do you get 479 euros - I'm talking 479 dollars Canadian - 450 US.
And you can buy cheaper - they have a nice one at Future $hit for $360, but lower spec (but it still has a dvd burner screen, mouse, keyboard, speakers, battery and is portable - and it will use less energy than you will with your 10-year-old crt. And you're going to have to replace that crt soon anyways). Oh, and you also have dual monitor capability built right in - and at the full 1920x1080 for hdtv. And you can actually pop a dvd in and play it, which you can't on that $192 system - no dvd. And you can lug it to the living room or den to watch the dvd on the big screen instead of that 10-year-old 17" crt.
A friend of mine wanted to build himself a quad-core box this winter. 3 x 1TB hard drives, 8 gigs of ram, dual 24" lcds. It was cheaper for him to buy an HP desktop from Future Crap than it would have been to build it himself, and he gets a better warranty than if he does it himself (one of the lcds had a stuck pixel - they took it back and gave him another). Why do you think almost all the beige-box guys are out of business? They can't compete on price, and they can't compete on warranty.
Prove it. Just prove it. The simple fact is you cannot. To prove it, you need an observer. That is the way the universe works. And even then, it's irrelevant to my point, which is that there is no law that requires the universe not to allow paradoxes.
Prove otherwise, or stop calling other people stupid.
So let's do it with a $299 netbook.
$25 credit because the $200 box has no dvd - that's a serious lack.
AND since you now have a recent laptop, you can actually use your big-screen tv at 1920x1080. Try doing that with the crappy diy $192 special.
Also, there are plenty of instructions on the net on how to replace screens and keyboards, though you most likely won't have to if you have half a clue. The only people I know who have broken screens are dummies who leave the laptop on the car roof and drive away. Your diy would probably need a new hard drive after something like that.
Only because people are lazy. Get out your camcorder, make a video of you refusing the agreement, and installing linux, and tell microsoft you want your money back. What's the big deal?
Or if you want to get more than Microsoft will refund, find someone who wants a legit version, and do a dd if=/dev/whatever_windows_partition of=/their_bare_hard_drive-partition#2, and give them the license sticker.
Even simpler, sell them the original hard drive with the install files on it, and use the money to buy yourself an even bigger drive for your laptop (and this way Microsoft can't even try to claim that it's tied to the hardware - the hardware it was on went with the OS). A 320gig laptop hard drive with a valid new windows license should net you enough to buy a 500gig to 640 gig laptop hard drive.
s/monitor/computer/g;
Also, is a machine really all that usable without a dvd? I didn't add that into the cost equations.
But if you're really cheap, you can get p4s and athlon64s if you go dumpstersourcing. jawtheshark keeps finding good machines , and it won't be long before dual-core machines end up in dumpsters as well.
The concept of a paradox is entirely a human concept - in other words, it's in the eye of the observer. The universe wouldn't "classify" you going back in time and killing your great-grandparents before you were born as a paradox, simply because the universe is not an observer. It would happen - so what - "It is what it is". That would just be part and parcel of the way the universe works in that particular case.
Attempting to say that this would result in a paradox as far as the universe is concerned is anthropomorphizing the universe to an absolutely unforgivable degree. Sure, it makes for a good time travel story, but the universe won't lose any sleep over it, any more than it does for me writing "The next phrase is false." "The previous phrase is true." "Both the previous phrases are true" "The previous phrase is true" There's no paradox. The universe doesn't suddenly go wonky, and cats mate with dogs, etc.
From the GPL:
You cannot link source code files - and php scripts are source code, not executables. They are also not libraries - a collection of routines in compiled object format, ready to be linked to by other programs via a linker. Ask any assembler programmer what a library is. It's not what script monkeys think (and script monkeys, by definition not having worked with object code files, are simply not qualified to say what linking means - they've never used a linker, nor have they ever manually "patched jmp instructions into libraries of code because they can" - which I was doing 20 years ago).
Also, it doesn't matter if one script depends on the other to function - that is NOT the definition of linking used by the FSF. Otherwise, no php, perl, or python script, even a stand-alone one, could every be anything but GPL because they all depend on GPL'd interpreters.
Scripts that are interpreted by a runtime simply cannot interact with each other - only the runtime interacts with them - and only to the extent of loading them into memory as data. This is an important point, but so-called "programmers" who don't understand what an object file is, or what linking does, or who think that a library of routines in a php file is something that can be linked to and who have never written a real linkable object code library, will continue to waste real programmers' time with nonsense babble. It is this reason, more than any other, that makes real programmers shake our heads when we hear webmonkeys pontificate about interpreted scripts using the language of compiled programs.
Here - a free clue:
" Libraries contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Some executables are both standalone programs and libraries, but most libraries are not executables. Executables and libraries make references known as links to each other through the process known as linking, which is typically done by a linker."
Libraries are compiled code - not scripts. DLLs are libraries, .so files are libraries. They can be linked to Your php script is not a library that can be linked to by an executable.
Oh, almost forgot - the laptop also has a dvd burner - their el cheapo box has NO optical drive. So, a cheap optical drive is $25, so the laptop purchase is a no-brainer instead of their cheap POS.
Also, most people would be better off buying a cheap dual-core laptop $479 - 3 gig ram, dual core, 320 gig hd), refusing the MS install (-$55) and getting a refund on Windows, and they also won't have to buy a monitor (-$100), keyboard and mouse (-$25) mouse, ups (-$40), or wireless networking to steal wifi since they're so cheap ($25). So, laptop $479-$245=$234 vs their machine ($192) = $42 (and you don't have to pay shipping on the laptop or assemple it), for twice the hd space and 3x the ram - or you can sell the 2 gigs of ram to someone else and you're ahead of the game.
The city of Licking would probably be considered obscene by porn filters when it's preceded by the city of Labia in Egypt.
Maybe they also have a few other words mixed in that the filters object to:
There should be a law against people talking about linking programs if they've never actually used a real compiler (no, that fake shite Java "compiler" or any other runtime system doesn't count).
Totally irrelevant. They BOTH require an interpreter. Neither one is capable of running on it's own, and certainly not capable of calling functions in the other file. The interpreter does that. At no point does either file execute any code. There's no linking, despite what the stupid web monkey claimed. It's one reason why there's web monkeys and then there are real programmers.
Real programmers program in c and assembler. Wannabes program in Java - an interpreted language - which is why it sucks.
Scripts are data for an interpreter - they cannot call library functions in any api - that's the interpreter's job.
So before going on and on, start with the simplest fact - scripts are NOT able to link or call libraries. No need to go any further. You can create proprietary theme scripts for gpl software.
Actually, the courts do recognize the difference. Judges aren't necessarily as dumb as the average web-monkey who can't read the definition of :"linking". And if they have a problem, they can get an expert witness - or they could even look it up.
It's actually a very simple case:
Were either of the files passed through a compiler? No.
Is there any object code in either of the files? No.
Have either of the files been passed through a linker? No.
Have the two files been combined into one? No.
So if the guy hadn't done a cut-n-paste, he'd be fine. PHP scripts are not executable software - they're data for an interpreter.
Constructive dismissal is the illegal practice of changing the working conditions of the employee such that they have no real alternative but to quit. When the job conditions are changed too much, it's no longer the job you were hired for, so in effect the employer has terminated your original job, and instead silently substituted another one on a "take it or leave it" basis.
It's the employment equivalent of "bait-and-switch."
It can be anything from social ostracism (in one case, the employee was moved to a desk away from everyone else, and everyone else was instructed not to talk to them), to changing job tasks, pay cuts above a certain amount, sexual or other harassment, or simply not giving the employee the tools to do the job they were hired for.
php "code" is not run. It is just data that's fed to an interpreter. Thus, we cannot talk about php code "linking" to other php code, or "running" in the same process space, since it is never run - it's just data that an interpreter loads. The interpreter runs. At no point does the operating system execute a single instruction from the original file - the php files are text, not executable binary, so the "developer" is channeling the goat guy when he talks about "running in the same process space" and "linking".
As for plugins - in scripting languages, plug-ins do not modify the parent. Both files remain the same - unmodified, unlike, for example, a call to dlopen(), which resolves jump addresses in the loaded binary file if successful. The php "code" is never patched - it has NOT been modified, neither on disk, nor in memory. It doesn't get "patched" with the jump address for functions in the other file - because it's not object code, and as such, cannot be run, it can only be interpreted.
Since interpreted code can never be run directly, it never directly modifies anything - in fact, it's totally passive. Only the interpreter runs anything, and only it's own internal functions, libraries, and calls to external operating system functions. It NEVER runs "code" in the php script, because that's not really code - it's just a plain-text file. Attempting to call it the same way as it calls, for example, the operating system's library function to load a file, would be a disaster.
This is the opposite of "back in the day", when dBase, (as an example) could also load and call .bin programs that you could write, that WERE compiled code, and not text files, or some intermediate byte-code like Java class files or dbase dbo files.
Saying that scripts somehow "link" to each other, or "run in the same process space" is pure ignorant bullshit. Yes, it's late, I'm tired and cranky, and more and more, I think that web monkeys should be required to have at least 5 years of c or assembler before commenting on such things as "linking" and "process space". The whole "they run in the same process space" argument is bogus - they do NOT run. Period. To repeat, they are data, not compiled code. They cannot run. They can only be used as data for the interpreter.
Interpreting scripts has nothing to do with linking. This is a major fail in understanding by the original author, and it's obvious from reading the debate that, like most web monkeys, he's not had extensive experience with real programming languages, where you have a compile and LINK.
Scripts do not "link" to each other at any time. To link has a very specific meaning. It binds a jump instruction to an address. Interpreters don't do that, because the php scripts are not object code.
In fact, if you have two php scripts that are mutually dependent, neither one actually calls the other - the interpreter is sitting there in the middle. IT doesn't call either script, since there's no object code to "call". Instead, it reads the script, interprets it, and runs it's own internal code based on the parameters in the script. For example, when it sees a printf() command it doesn't run the printf code in the script - there is none. Instead, it reads the parameters, then run's it's own internal copy of printf.
Same thing with include(). The main file never actually "includes" the other file - instead, the interpreter sees the request, looks for the parameter, then executes a whole sequence of events - loading the file and interpreting it.. At no point does the first file now "include" any code from the second file. It is totally unchanged, both on disk and, more importantly, in memory.
Simply put, scripts that interact via an interpreter with other scripts can have their own separate license. There is no "viralness" in an interpreted world, since there is no linking, and no "incorporating" one script into another unless they are physically appended on the disk before being loaded into the interpreter. You can distribute a php script you wrote that interacts with a GPL script, and you're free to attach any conditions you want to your script - or none.
Not true. The code never "becomes part of wordpress". It is never "run by wordpress" - which is what the original post is claiming. It is loaded by the php interpreter - not by wordpress. Wordpress cannot call any part of the other code directly, simply because wordpress is not a stand-alone executable. It is entirely dependent on the interpreter, and it is the interpreter that calls wordpress, makes calls by wordpress to other files, and by other files to wordpress. At no point are the files ever "linked together" within the meaning of the term "link". Neither one can ever make a direct call into the other, simply because neither one has code that can be directly executed.
This is unlike a compiled program, where calling code has the actual memory address of the linked-in functions (that's part and parcel of linking - even dynamic linking), and can jump to those instructions. This is a far cry from an interpreter, which the source code says "I want to run this - please do it for me." No linkage, even at runtime.
In other words, if they hadn't originally done a cut-n-paste, they would not have created a derivative work.