GNU is not just development tools. It is, as another poster has mentioned, all the little things like 'ls' and much of the other stuff that makes the system WORK.
On the other hand I dont know that changing the commonly used name really makes sense.
Lets change the level of abstraction a little here, and look at just the kernel itself. Looking inside the Linux kernel source files you will see that the copyrights are held by many many different people, and not just linux. This does NOT mean we should call it the Linux/Ever/other/author/who/contributedux kernel.
Same this with the OS. The title Linux has developed to refer to the entire Kernel/Operating system components working together, and I dont see a problem with this. Whats more, the GNU utilities are, or atleast CAN be, used as the base of ANY Unix-link operating system. So instead of calling them each GNU/Linux, GNU/Otherux, and so on, why no simply refer to it as Linux or Otherux as that is the distingushing name.
Sure Linus might get more credit than he deserves, but as was also mentioned in another article today, many people might still think Bill Gates writes the majority of microsoft windows. Those who are smart enough, and care enough realize that this is not the situation.
But in the end, if you are REALLY passionate about including GNU in the title, show your support by running Debian. All you can do is show support for the causes which are important to you. This one is not important to me.
Scott.
Re:100,000 pieces? Is that a lot?
on
Lego Addictions
·
· Score: 1
If you check out this link and scroll down a little bit you will see that the model used roughly 100,000 pieces.
I seem to remember reading something about an organization filing a freedom on information act requestion a simple count of how many such warrents have been issued.
I think your rights and freedoms are important, but I stringly believe anything the government can do to stop these perverts should be done, and if it tramples on their rights a little, that's too bad.
This is exactly the problem. Blocking peoples access to these specific sites will do very little. We need to hit the problem at the source, we need to shut down the sites that generate the material.
The people ruining childrens lives are the ones making the porn, and the ones running the sites.
As far as freedoms goes, this is pretty nasty as now any state has the precedent to block ANY and all sites the choose. THAT is censorship plain and simple.
I dont know that this is a particually libertarian point of view.
But.. I was sitting on the can yesterday thinking about this sort of stuff.. all the kids who died young, and people who are not as fortunate.
I decided that I will not feel guilty for being alive.
Yes, we should help other people, but that doesnt mean that you are a bad person for enjoying the benifits that your parents and grand parents worked hard to get for you.
In my family, at least, the way my parents, and certainly grandparents lived is not as nice as the lifestyle I have. But they worked hard to get it. And I will work hard to make sure my kids have even better opportunities (Assuming I get a girlfriend, etc.:)
Scott.
Re:Again: "Perspective"
on
Skydriving
·
· Score: 1
Second, how many people skydrive? Maybe a few dozen ever.
I used to jump at a SMALL drop zone in WI. They had like 20 or more people there who jumped EVERY DAY, and on weekends like 10-20 more people who would come through and do their first jumps.
This is nothing compared to places like skydive chicago, Im sure.
A few dozen is entirely off base.
However, getting back to the origional post about rollercoasters. The major difference is, as mentioned skydivers are aware of the risks (or more likely to be than the average roller coaster rider), and beyong that they are required to have training and be certified.
While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon.
Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds, though Robertson hopes his students and others can now rigorously and cheaply test those ideas.
So, 1) we still cant move faster than light and 2) Its not even usable to send real signals.
Way to go guys! Why dont we just have a big party with the grant money instead?
Thank you. That was very helpful and clearly worded. I guess there are some people on/. who know what they're talking about:P
Scott.
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Of course, back then we had a president who knew how to use the english language.
The End.
What are we fighting for?
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
From the article Many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism," said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, based in Arlington, Va., which commissioned the survey. Almost half also said the media has been too aggressive in asking the government questions about the war on terrorism.
My Question to these (49 percent! ack!) people is simply the following: Why are we fighting terrorism. Could it be maybe because we believe in our country, and that our way of life is valid?
While Im not sure just having a mp3 decoder liscensed under the GPL is not pissible, certainly distributing it for a charge is.
Does anyone know if a BSD liscense would not have such problems? Or any other free (as in beer, and not so much as in freedom) liscense would work?
If so, it should be as simple as having the mp3 decoders copyright owner reliscense under a BSD (or other)liscense. Then RedHat can have mp3 deocders again.
IADNAL but from what I understand from this the only way there will be a conflict with the GPL and the current "policy" for mp3 liscenseing (as to if the policy is different from the actual liscense is another matter) is if 1) the GPL software is an mp3 decoder and 2) the mp3 decoded is distributed for a charge.
In the case this happens, the issue is not really a problem with the mp3 liscense, but a problem with the GPL. As you can read below "then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program".
So as long as you dont sell the mp3 decoder, you can distribute it. If you try to sell it, you cant distribute it legaly.
This would seem to explain why RedHat (Commercial) has stoped distributing this mp3 decoders. This should not be an issue for decoders which are distributed freely under the GPL.
---- 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
After reading through all the.pdfs linked to in this article, Im starting to think IP law of somekind would be pretty sweet (And genuinely interresting) to be involved with.
Slashdot Mirror
Not Quite.
GNU is not just development tools. It is, as another poster has mentioned, all the little things like 'ls' and much of the other stuff that makes the system WORK.
On the other hand I dont know that changing the commonly used name really makes sense.
Lets change the level of abstraction a little here, and look at just the kernel itself. Looking inside the Linux kernel source files you will see that the copyrights are held by many many different people, and not just linux. This does NOT mean we should call it the Linux/Ever/other/author/who/contributedux kernel.
Same this with the OS. The title Linux has developed to refer to the entire Kernel/Operating system components working together, and I dont see a problem with this. Whats more, the GNU utilities are, or atleast CAN be, used as the base of ANY Unix-link operating system. So instead of calling them each GNU/Linux, GNU/Otherux, and so on, why no simply refer to it as Linux or Otherux as that is the distingushing name.
Sure Linus might get more credit than he deserves, but as was also mentioned in another article today, many people might still think Bill Gates writes the majority of microsoft windows. Those who are smart enough, and care enough realize that this is not the situation.
But in the end, if you are REALLY passionate about including GNU in the title, show your support by running Debian. All you can do is show support for the causes which are important to you. This one is not important to me.
Scott.
If you check out this link and scroll down a little bit you will see that the model used roughly 100,000 pieces.
Scott.
snpp.com kicks all kinds of ass.
Do you know how long has this site been around? I just found it the other day.
Scott.
Kudos to you.
I hope more people like you and your coworkers are making similiar efforts.
Scott.
I seem to remember reading something about an organization filing a freedom on information act requestion a simple count of how many such warrents have been issued.
Anyone know of a link to this?
Scott.
I think your rights and freedoms are important, but I stringly believe anything the government can do to stop these perverts should be done, and if it tramples on their rights a little, that's too bad.
This is exactly the problem. Blocking peoples access to these specific sites will do very little. We need to hit the problem at the source, we need to shut down the sites that generate the material.
The people ruining childrens lives are the ones making the porn, and the ones running the sites.
As far as freedoms goes, this is pretty nasty as now any state has the precedent to block ANY and all sites the choose. THAT is censorship plain and simple.
Scott.
I dont know that this is a particually libertarian point of view.
:)
But.. I was sitting on the can yesterday thinking about this sort of stuff.. all the kids who died young, and people who are not as fortunate.
I decided that I will not feel guilty for being alive.
Yes, we should help other people, but that doesnt mean that you are a bad person for enjoying the benifits that your parents and grand parents worked hard to get for you.
In my family, at least, the way my parents, and certainly grandparents lived is not as nice as the lifestyle I have. But they worked hard to get it. And I will work hard to make sure my kids have even better opportunities (Assuming I get a girlfriend, etc.
Scott.
Second, how many people skydrive? Maybe a few dozen ever.
I used to jump at a SMALL drop zone in WI. They had like 20 or more people there who jumped EVERY DAY, and on weekends like 10-20 more people who would come through and do their first jumps.
This is nothing compared to places like skydive chicago, Im sure.
A few dozen is entirely off base.
However, getting back to the origional post about rollercoasters. The major difference is, as mentioned skydivers are aware of the risks (or more likely to be than the average roller coaster rider), and beyong that they are required to have training and be certified.
Very different situations.
Scott.
If they havent.. I need to get back to my parents house and destroy some evidence :P
Scott.
While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon.
Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds, though Robertson hopes his students and others can now rigorously and cheaply test those ideas.
So, 1) we still cant move faster than light and 2) Its not even usable to send real signals.
Way to go guys! Why dont we just have a big party with the grant money instead?
Scott.
I saw the men being discussed on CNN yesterday. They were denying that then ever said ANYTHING the nurse claims.
Check it out here.
I personally find it sick they after having all charges droped, that they are still being asked to study at a different medical school. Its insane!
Scott.
Two Chicks at the same time.
Thank you. That was very helpful and clearly worded. I guess there are some people on /. who know what they're talking about :P
Scott.
Of course, back then we had a president who knew how to use the english language.
The End.
From the article Many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism," said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, based in Arlington, Va., which commissioned the survey. Almost half also said the media has been too aggressive in asking the government questions about the war on terrorism.
My Question to these (49 percent! ack!) people is simply the following: Why are we fighting terrorism. Could it be maybe because we believe in our country, and that our way of life is valid?
Scott.
Can you point to the part of the GPL which lays this out. I think Ive read wording to this effect before.
Something along the lines of "if you cannot distribute this program in a way such that all the rights are blah blah.. to the next person"
I would just like to see the relevant section.
Scott.
Mod parent up!
The post that he replied to is utter crap.
Kudos to crawling_chaos
While Im not sure just having a mp3 decoder liscensed under the GPL is not pissible, certainly distributing it for a charge is.
Does anyone know if a BSD liscense would not have such problems? Or any other free (as in beer, and not so much as in freedom) liscense would work?
If so, it should be as simple as having the mp3 decoders copyright owner reliscense under a BSD (or other)liscense. Then RedHat can have mp3 deocders again.
Scott.
Check out this part of the GPL below.
IADNAL but from what I understand from this the only way there will be a conflict with the GPL and the current "policy" for mp3 liscenseing (as to if the policy is different from the actual liscense is another matter) is if 1) the GPL software is an mp3 decoder and 2) the mp3 decoded is distributed for a charge.
In the case this happens, the issue is not really a problem with the mp3 liscense, but a problem with the GPL. As you can read below "then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program".
So as long as you dont sell the mp3 decoder, you can distribute it. If you try to sell it, you cant distribute it legaly.
This would seem to explain why RedHat (Commercial) has stoped distributing this mp3 decoders. This should not be an issue for decoders which are distributed freely under the GPL.
----
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Nyquil.
Enough said.
Definitely.
.pdfs linked to in this article, Im starting to think IP law of somekind would be pretty sweet (And genuinely interresting) to be involved with.
After reading through all the
Scott.
Anything NOT blocked by smart filter?
Congratulations on the (Score:3, Flamebait)
:P
Ive never seen that one before
I want a digital copy when you do it!
Fight the power!
Dont you know deep linking is illegal?
RUN! They're coming for you!
Scott.