To tell the true, the GPL says explicit that you cannot submit further restrictions to anyone beyond the ones the GPL enforces.
Doing a per seat licensing you are restricting a user to share his software to someone (as the software was licensed to ONE seat), but the GPL don't forbid anyone to share : it stimulates you to do so!!!
So per seat software licensing it is an infraction under the GPL.
I'm not thinking that the words non-commercial and the GPL go together. It's one thing for them to have a per seat license [...], but entirely another thing for them to limit the use of the source to non-commercial use.
Sorry, pal... But you are wrong. The item 9 from the FAQ says that non-commercial folks can download and use the Free Sources of United Linux. It doesn't says "only non-commercial people can download and use", neither "the download is forbidden for commercial use".
I don't like capcious meaning as anyone, and so I don't like this FAQ's question. But there is no GPL violation here.
The call bill always goes to who mades the call. So, if John Doe call me in my cell, John Doe will be billed for that call. If John Dow wastes one hour of cell rate to sell someone something (10 times the normal fee, at cheap times), John Doe will waste almost 20 bucks. Can you guess how many telemarketers had phone me since I brought my cell phone 10 years ago? 8-)
The main bottleneck of modern microprocessors is, in fact, the extra space and heat produced by the complex logic you defend.
The RISC processors was born because the CISC complexity was impairing performance as hell. CISC was good when the processing bottleneck was the instruction fetching : every slice of clock saved by reading hard to decode but compact bytecode worth the pain.
But now, the bottleneck was shifted to inner spheres. Nowadays a CISC processor waste more time translating the bytecode and executing the microcode that anything else. In this panorama Itanium made the right thing : lets get ripped out of complex bytecode. The really bad drawback (and yes, you are right on this) is the huge increase in complexity in coding in a cripped machine language level.
But think : how many compilers was written in the computer history, and how many applications was written with these compilers? This ratio will prove that it's worth the trade. Of course compilers will be more complex and hard to code, but once that damn thing was done, it was done.
Thet's the way MIPS, SPARC and Alpha was done, and they did very well in the past.
> > Typing issues.
> There are no typing issues with Lisp. If you want a string you've got a string. You can't go changing it without explicit conversion, just like in C. The idea that Lisp is weakly typed is a myth, something perpetuated from the 1960s and 1970s. Just like the myth that Lisp is slow, which is also a holdover from the 1960s
On high school I did some A.I. schedules using LISP, and I did it on a Apple//e using CP/M. Yes, I runned LISP (and runned well) on a 8 bits machine with 64K RAM.
It was hard in the beggining, but once I learned this beast, I never did so compact and clean list processing and AI logic in any other language than I did on muLisp.
Humm... On a second thought, I think I did some very nice "systems specialists" (sorry, my mother tongue isn't english) on PROLOG... 8-)
Slashdot Mirror
This does not contradict you, only complements your concept.
You can build a house with a hammer, or kill your parents with one. Even a pencil can be harmfull.
What makes the difference is the people behind the tools.
Someone here remembers make and gcc?
How about a little more work, and a little less nonsense?
Doing a per seat licensing you are restricting a user to share his software to someone (as the software was licensed to ONE seat), but the GPL don't forbid anyone to share : it stimulates you to do so!!!
So per seat software licensing it is an infraction under the GPL.
I don't like capcious meaning as anyone, and so I don't like this FAQ's question. But there is no GPL violation here.
Yes, I did. But Yesterday a virus came and erased all my mail boxes...
Humm!!! It's true!! It works!! Now I have no email at all to worry about!!!!
The call bill always goes to who mades the call. So, if John Doe call me in my cell, John Doe will be billed for that call. If John Dow wastes one hour of cell rate to sell someone something (10 times the normal fee, at cheap times), John Doe will waste almost 20 bucks. Can you guess how many telemarketers had phone me since I brought my cell phone 10 years ago? 8-)
You wants to prevent SMS spam? Bill them! 8-)
The main bottleneck of modern microprocessors is, in fact, the extra space and heat produced by the complex logic you defend.
The RISC processors was born because the CISC complexity was impairing performance as hell. CISC was good when the processing bottleneck was the instruction fetching : every slice of clock saved by reading hard to decode but compact bytecode worth the pain.
But now, the bottleneck was shifted to inner spheres. Nowadays a CISC processor waste more time translating the bytecode and executing the microcode that anything else. In this panorama Itanium made the right thing : lets get ripped out of complex bytecode. The really bad drawback (and yes, you are right on this) is the huge increase in complexity in coding in a cripped machine language level.
But think : how many compilers was written in the computer history, and how many applications was written with these compilers? This ratio will prove that it's worth the trade. Of course compilers will be more complex and hard to code, but once that damn thing was done, it was done.
Thet's the way MIPS, SPARC and Alpha was done, and they did very well in the past.
> > Typing issues. > There are no typing issues with Lisp. If you want a string you've got a string. You can't go changing it without explicit conversion, just like in C. The idea that Lisp is weakly typed is a myth, something perpetuated from the 1960s and 1970s. Just like the myth that Lisp is slow, which is also a holdover from the 1960s On high school I did some A.I. schedules using LISP, and I did it on a Apple //e using CP/M. Yes, I runned LISP (and runned well) on a 8 bits machine with 64K RAM.
It was hard in the beggining, but once I learned this beast, I never did so compact and clean list processing and AI logic in any other language than I did on muLisp.
Humm... On a second thought, I think I did some very nice "systems specialists" (sorry, my mother tongue isn't english) on PROLOG... 8-)