I personally would deeply miss Multi-Edit if it went under. I'm going to buy their latest version, despite it not having the one feature that that I currently have to work around, which is the ability to deal with lines longer than 16k characters.
In order to be fully self-replicating, the machine that it produces needs to contain the design information to produce another copy of itself. If the design specs are external to the machine, and need to be fed into the new copy of the machine, then it isn't a Von Neumann replicator.
The vegan POV is that we shouldn't be keeping and breeding more sheep anyway. I don't get the honey thing, because bees are necessary for agriculture anyway, so you can't get rid of them. As Einstein may or may not have said, if the bees die, mankind has four years of life left.
I'm not so sure. Whilst vegans won't even use honey because it's an animal product and requires ongoing use of animals, cultured meat does not require ongoing animal use. Once the sample is taken, no more animals are required - unless of course the sample goes bad and new samples need to be taken due to genetic ageing or something like that, in which case it might not be acceptable.
I read about this a few weeks ago and the ISP guy said "We have excellent peering links with the BBC, so that end isn't the problem" or words to that effect. It's a "last mile" problem.
I would have thought that the iPlayer would be designed to attempt to download from near neighbors
I don't know of any p2p systems that do this. It's theoretically possible but probably isn't worth the extra effort in practice. If p2p systems were much more widespread and you could therefore have a good chance of there being a piece of your file in your neighbourhood, then it might be, but I don't think that is the case at the moment. In any case, it's the last mile that's the problem so it doesn't matter whether the piece of the file comes from next door or the next state, it's still using the saturated link.
And that's why secure facilities routinely ban all USB devices and disable the ports unless there is a clear business case for needing USB on a particular machine, which will usually be behind an extra security door, perhaps in a print or store room.
And the EU reacts by seizing all Microsoft's EU property including buildings, bank accounts, and company cars, and revokes all Microsoft copyrights within the EU. They install as many copies of Windows Server as they need while spending the seized assets on migrating away from MS products.
Absolutely - get her to pick a line from a nursery rhyme, and use the first letter of each word. "ttlshiwwya" is an obvious example of this idea, a little too obvious maybe but is shows the idea.
I had a compiler on CP/M which generated assembly and sent the output to an assembler. I don't think GCC works that way. It probably generates machine code directly.
There is a very close to 1:1 mapping between assembly language and machine code. The only thing assembly gives you that machine code doesn't is readability and labels.
They clearly are developing software for the Windows platform. They can't use the source, but they can take a look and work out what the behaviour of the libraries will be in various corner cases so as to make sure that their libraries are compatible. In a closed environment, if I had access to source like this, I'd try to keep code writers away from it anyway, and only let the testing team read it in order to make test cases that check out all the corners. In an open source environment, however, I guess it's hard to make sure that contributors aren't reading and copying the source. Shouldn't be too hard to spot any copying though.
When it was 55,000 I could have bid 55,100 and been the highest bidder.
Probably not. l***i might have set a maximum bid of $1,000,000 and what you see on ebay is the second-highest bid. As soon as you bid $55,100 then all you do is bump up the person who has already outbid you to a slightly higher amount.
Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game.
GCC's output isn't bound by the same license as the program, not because it doesn't make sense for the license to do that, but because the license can't do that
With both a compiler and a web service, I believe that the licence can do that. In both cases, the output contains parts of the originating software. Compiled code contains library routines, which can be (although universally aren't) covered by the same licence as the compiler. With a web service, any client-side code or CSS or whatever that is part of the hosting software can be covered by the same licence. The FSF text that you link is specifically talking about other examples where the output does not contain parts of the originating software. Although the AGPL licence concept could be used for a compiler, it would not make sense to do so, and I do not believe that it is the FSF's intention to do that. I don't see any evidence that even Stallman believes that GCC should only be used to produce Free software. He even recommended use of the BSD licence over the GPL for libvorbis.
Yeah, that's absolutely right. The *PL's don't require that you distribute the source to the whole world, only to the recipients of the software. You can download and sell modified versions of GNU software, and you don't have to give away any source away for free, so long as it is included in the price.
GCC isn't a web service. It makes no sense to release a compiler under the AGPL, and the FSF isn't saying that anyone should. It certainly isn't the case that a program's output is always bound by the same licence as the program, it's just that it makes sense for web services to be licensed this way in order to retain freedom for the end users of software, and freedom for the software itself. No-one is forcing you to use this licence for your web app that you develop, and no-one is forcing you to host the web service software that is licences under the AGPL. The AGPL is just a tool for developers who don't want their free code to be proprietized.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally would deeply miss Multi-Edit if it went under. I'm going to buy their latest version, despite it not having the one feature that that I currently have to work around, which is the ability to deal with lines longer than 16k characters.
In order to be fully self-replicating, the machine that it produces needs to contain the design information to produce another copy of itself. If the design specs are external to the machine, and need to be fed into the new copy of the machine, then it isn't a Von Neumann replicator.
The vegan POV is that we shouldn't be keeping and breeding more sheep anyway. I don't get the honey thing, because bees are necessary for agriculture anyway, so you can't get rid of them. As Einstein may or may not have said, if the bees die, mankind has four years of life left.
I'm not so sure. Whilst vegans won't even use honey because it's an animal product and requires ongoing use of animals, cultured meat does not require ongoing animal use. Once the sample is taken, no more animals are required - unless of course the sample goes bad and new samples need to be taken due to genetic ageing or something like that, in which case it might not be acceptable.
Redirect The F'ing Asteroid?
Stupid brain, getting in the way of my free will. I should have it removed.
I read about this a few weeks ago and the ISP guy said "We have excellent peering links with the BBC, so that end isn't the problem" or words to that effect. It's a "last mile" problem.
Would a cow/whale hybrid be a Cow-orca?
And that's why secure facilities routinely ban all USB devices and disable the ports unless there is a clear business case for needing USB on a particular machine, which will usually be behind an extra security door, perhaps in a print or store room.
Order of the Stick
Penny Arcade
And the EU reacts by seizing all Microsoft's EU property including buildings, bank accounts, and company cars, and revokes all Microsoft copyrights within the EU. They install as many copies of Windows Server as they need while spending the seized assets on migrating away from MS products.
Absolutely - get her to pick a line from a nursery rhyme, and use the first letter of each word. "ttlshiwwya" is an obvious example of this idea, a little too obvious maybe but is shows the idea.
They clearly are developing software for the Windows platform. They can't use the source, but they can take a look and work out what the behaviour of the libraries will be in various corner cases so as to make sure that their libraries are compatible. In a closed environment, if I had access to source like this, I'd try to keep code writers away from it anyway, and only let the testing team read it in order to make test cases that check out all the corners. In an open source environment, however, I guess it's hard to make sure that contributors aren't reading and copying the source. Shouldn't be too hard to spot any copying though.
I doubt that that is true. Surely Boeing own the "copyrights" to their research, and I wouldn't expect to see that kind of thing go on ebay.
We called it the "coding couch".
Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game.
The proprietary algorithms in your ZODB objects wouldn't covered by the AGPL. They are the data upon which Zope operates.
Config files are definitely not part of the source. They're config files, not source. Simple. Next!
Yeah, that's absolutely right. The *PL's don't require that you distribute the source to the whole world, only to the recipients of the software. You can download and sell modified versions of GNU software, and you don't have to give away any source away for free, so long as it is included in the price.
Now you're just making shit up.
GCC isn't a web service. It makes no sense to release a compiler under the AGPL, and the FSF isn't saying that anyone should. It certainly isn't the case that a program's output is always bound by the same licence as the program, it's just that it makes sense for web services to be licensed this way in order to retain freedom for the end users of software, and freedom for the software itself. No-one is forcing you to use this licence for your web app that you develop, and no-one is forcing you to host the web service software that is licences under the AGPL. The AGPL is just a tool for developers who don't want their free code to be proprietized.