Perhaps what was meant was that "GNOME is of the Americas?" Many in the US confuse "America" with the US of America, and forget about the rest of the (two) continents.
Ah, but they need to purchase the license *before* they begin developing. Because if you go with the free-as-in-beer approach, you are promising to make it free-as-in-speech, with that Free GPLed QT. You can't produce under the GPLed QT, and then buy a license and recompile and say it was all done under the commercial license. It wasn't.
You can't get a license to release GPLed software as commercial from QT. Trolltech is very specific about choosing, and choosing wisely, up front, at the beginning. If you did start with a GPLed QT, and did a lot of work, you'd find yourself having to a)buy a commercial license, and then b)code around the GPLed work you've done, that you can't use in a commercial work.
I think the point was that if QT had dual licensed originally, GNOME wouldn't even be. In terms of "forking KDE to follow the same design approach that GNOME has now", that wouldn't be a fork, that'd be a major from-the-ground-up rewrite. Which is *lots* of work. Which is why it took a license war reaching fever pitch to get into the activation energy levels necessary to start GNOME. The GP has a point, in that if QT had dual licensed originally then KDE would be the Linux desktop. They didn't. GNOME has the momentum, now. History is just what happens...
That seems less than relevant, since you can run those under Gnome as well as KDE. The desktop you choose isn't going to limit you choice of apps. In fact, you don't need to run Gnome or KDE in order to use those applications.
I used to be a big fluxbox fan, too. These days I use Ion as my mininal wm, and gnome for when I want eyecandy. I really like KDE's sophistication. Konqueror rocks! Gnome looks better, though, and Konqueror runs fine under Gnome.
And yes it is true, my first degree was in Physics and I've had a lot of graduate Math exposure along the way. So my take on journal requirements would tend to reflect those experiences. I've heard that Chemistry also requires LaTeX for peer reviewed journals. Nobody I know knows anybody who knows the soft sciences' requirements (they do have journals, yes?) God alone knows what Engineers do or use;-)
Wintel vs. Intdows? Sounds like "Ain't Those". I've *always* heard it suggested that that "wintel" refers to a collusion between Microsoft and Intel. Googling for "wintel collusion" finds many who define "wintel" in terms of collusion, suggesting that MS Bloat sells Intel's newer, faster chips. I've heard this, like, almost forever...
Re:"Essentially" the same data?
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
More like, one bicycle is locked up out front, one bicycle is in the back of the garage behind crates with piles of stuff on top, and yet a third bicycle is somewhere in the attic, we think. I yell "go", and time who gets around the block faster. Storage placement and access is not a fair test of the design of the bicycle.
"There is absolutely nothing that says "any third party" has to be able to get the source code, because the person/company has no relationship to random third parties, only those that it has given a copy of the binary."
It also looks like the license says so even if you are the sole source, since if you distriubte it under the GPL you must, according to the GPL, include a copy of the GPL, which says at the very beginning:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
So if you want to distribute under the GPL, you have to include the GPL with what you distriubte. The license says it applies to any program so distributed by the copyright holder. You are the sole source, you are the copyright holder. If you want to use the GPL, then you have to be bound by the GPL. When you formed the relationship with the person you distributed your source code to under the GPL, as per the GPL, it had to either be GPLed or not. If it was distributed appropriately under the GPL, then in Binary form you should have given the written notice offer, too. Otherwise you aren't distributing as per the GPL's requirements.
Now what gets interesting is what sort of relief would their be? Usually, in GPL violations, it is the person who owns the rights to a work that was modified via the GPL that has action. But consider this. Did you proport the work to be under the GPL? Can it be if you aren't following the license? Is that fraud? Seems like only the person you sold the binary to could claim damages, though...
So, in conclusion, if there is modification of GPLed code, or distribution of GPLed code, then you have to make the source code available. If you give someone a binary without the GPL attached, or without a written offer, you are not distributing the binary as per the GPL. Either you need to give them what is missing, and be GPLed, or it isn't GPLed. However, if it is GPLed, in all cases, you have to give "every third party" source code, who asks.:-)
"I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to" is anybody who requests it. The use of "third party" was intentionally to eliminate a burden to prove you had purchased the software. The clearest way to do this was to make it available to anyone who asked, which also gives you incentive to give "Bob" the source code to begin with. Now you might ask, "how would anyone know that I gave this to Bob, so how could they know they could ask." And there you are right! So long as Bob doesn't brag, how would anyone know? But in terms of the license, when you gave Bob the binary only copy you gave "every third party" the legal right to your source code. That they don't know the source code exists is your only protection.
Example 2 is exactly the same. They have the right to modify and distribute their code so long as they abide by the GPL. If they refuse "any third party" the source code for distribution costs, they have, at that point, forfieted their rights under the GPL to distriubte. It would be very stupid, and I hope anyone considering doing such would talk to a lawyer first.
Agreed that it is only specific rights. Saw references to curtailment of "liberty" and "property" rights. Nobody is taking about "life" rights, for sure!
IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun). There was reference to Indians who let their hair grow long and then braided it. The court took notice that they were *not* just rebeling, but that the style of braid was cultural and reflected a pride in their culture. Central to discussing gang-related arm bands would be the nature of the gang. I'm suspect Boy- and Girlscouts could probably catch some judical relief, so long as the identifying symbol used was subtle enough not to be distractive. A scouting t-shirt, perhaps? Now *real* gangs, and by that I mean the illegal, nefarious, sort of gangs, would surely be different. Would not a real gang in and of itself indicate conspiracy to commit a crime? If not, are they a gang or a club? Seems like the "Chess Gang" could wear t-shirts, no problem. I see an obvious distinction, and so would need to be informed if there was any constitutional rights to identify oneself as a member of a criminal group...
"Spreadsheets, graphs, presentations" are areas where LaTeX excells. I like to use gnumeric to layout my data, and gnumeric or (heavy lifting) octave for calculations, but then saving from gnumeric to latex gives infinte control of presentation. For highschool quality reports, sure, print from the spreadsheet. For anything real (try to publish to a peer reviewed journal using.doc!) use latex. For graphs, use R. It is exceptional. But again, tie it all together in latex.
a single-file container format so exchange is easy which means you want a built in tarball roller? Not a bad idea. Anybody want to add a button to Kile's File/Save?
user interface that regular users can migrate to which requires you define "regular users". I agree that for highschool, and even lower division work, office products are fine. Business, all technical users, and upper division students should be able to use better tools. (Try KDE's Kile.)
macro language!!! *snort* Do you have any clue what latex even *is*? Have you heard of TeX? Did you know that LaTeX is a set of macros?
integration with other office formats is good to great for gnumeric and abiword, OpenOffice, and KOffice. Try selecting the "save as" button. It works:-)
So unless by "regular users" you mean grandmas who have trouble sending email, or people who just want to write a quick letter, I think you underestimate LaTeX.
"This is pretty much the video game equivalent of going to a baseball game, getting 3 strikes and then complaining that you should get a 4th."
Well, except that he had been using the name since April. So really its like you start playing baseball, and its 3 strikes and you are out. Then comes May, June, Jully, Augest. Still 3 strikes and you are out. Then September. Still 3 strikes and you are out. Ah, but along comes October, and suddenly, you are called out at the first strike.
As I recall from Sunday School, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has a Buddhist Bishop, Roy Sano:
". . . this is a part of my faith that I have increasingly taken seriously of being bi-cultural.. There was a time when I used to think how can I be Christian and yet Buddhist? Increasingly as I become aware of the extent to which my Japanese culture and its Buddhism is still a part of me, I'm beginning to say how can I be Christian without being Buddhist?''
Last time I checked, there is no clause in the Constitution saying anything about how old you have to be to qualify for the First Amendment.
IANAL, but this really caught my curiosity. The best I can find is that "Common Law recognizes that persons are born with disabilities of minority, and constitutions and laws typically define some age at which those disabilities are removed, such as age 18 in the United States for purposes of voting, although it may allow for such disabilities to be removed earlier, or retained past the usual age of majority, upon petition to do so."
In terms of what rights are disabled...
Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor.
First, most of this essay applies only to public schools. As private institutions, private schools are not subject to any restrictions in terms of violations of the rights of students. Hence, while a public school might have to prove that its violations are for a higher purpose or stem from its in loco parentis responsibilities, a private school may set limits arbitrarily.
Second, students in public schools are not stripped of their rights completely. In Board v Barnette (319 US 624), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be forced to salute the flag against their will. In Tinker v. Des Moines (393 US 503), the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War could not be forced to remove the arm bands by school officials. As written in Tinker, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Finally, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of the free flow of ideas in schools: "The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas." (Keyishian v Board of Regents [385 US 589]).
Tinker was all about freedom of expression. The students in Tinker merely wore black arm bands. They did not disrupt school activities in any other way. The actions of the students are often used to distinguish the right of speech and expression for students from the rules that can govern those rights. Again the distinction hinges on the impact of the expression on the educational process.
(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today said a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court protecting the constitutional rights of minors to participate in political campaigns "represents an enormously important First Amendment victory." "The unanimous decision to uphold the constitutional rights of young people to participate in a key area of the electoral process represents an enormously important First Amendment victory," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who represented minors before the high court. "The decision clears the way for young people to exercise their First Amendment freedoms in the context of a political campaign. The decision sends a strong message that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association for young people must be protected."
Actually, yes. If you distribute GPLed software in binary only form (rather you charge for it or not is immaterial), then you must make the source code that forms those binary images available to "any third party", which means the public at large, and you can only charge your distribution cost. Thus, if you were to decide to distribute binary only, then anybody can request from you the source code, when could then be put on a web site for the general public.
In your description, what you are selling is the convienence of having compiled the software. You can charge for that, surely. GPLed software is Free, not free. But...if you don't give them the source code when you give them the binary, you have to give "any third party", i.e., everyone who as much as asks, the source code.
Ahhh...."on a medium customarily used for software interchange"....ha! Yes, I can see now what you were looking at. As IANAL, and don't pretend to be, even on TV, take me with a grain of salt. I interpret "cutomarily used" as any standard media or channel, so CD, DVD, or ftp would all be ok...but today reel-to-reel tape not so ok.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. By "FreeDOS illegality" I meant the distribution of FreeDOS utilities without adhering to the GPL requirements. Not that FreeDOS had commited a wrong doing.
Nope. I ommited nothing of substance. What section 3.b says is that if you distribute in binary only form, you must make available to "any third party" (meaning *any* third party), source code. It goes on to describe the terms under which "any third party" recieves the source code from you. That is, that it must be given to "any third party", "to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Thus, it is saying that when you distribute the software, you have to distribute with the same rights intact for users, that you yourself recieved. In terms of what rights that means "any third party" has to be granted, look to sections 1 and 2.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
So when Section 1 & 2 are first listed, they refer to the rights that you recieve when you accept GPLed software. In section three, the references to Section 1 & 2 are to insure that the next group of people who recieve the GPLed software retain those same rights. To suggest that you only have to provide sourcecode to someone who purchased a binary only form is wrong. You have to provide to *every* third party who requests it.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps what was meant was that "GNOME is of the Americas?" Many in the US confuse "America" with the US of America, and forget about the rest of the (two) continents.
Ah, but they need to purchase the license *before* they begin developing. Because if you go with the free-as-in-beer approach, you are promising to make it free-as-in-speech, with that Free GPLed QT. You can't produce under the GPLed QT, and then buy a license and recompile and say it was all done under the commercial license. It wasn't.
You can't get a license to release GPLed software as commercial from QT. Trolltech is very specific about choosing, and choosing wisely, up front, at the beginning. If you did start with a GPLed QT, and did a lot of work, you'd find yourself having to a)buy a commercial license, and then b)code around the GPLed work you've done, that you can't use in a commercial work.
I think the point was that if QT had dual licensed originally, GNOME wouldn't even be. In terms of "forking KDE to follow the same design approach that GNOME has now", that wouldn't be a fork, that'd be a major from-the-ground-up rewrite. Which is *lots* of work. Which is why it took a license war reaching fever pitch to get into the activation energy levels necessary to start GNOME. The GP has a point, in that if QT had dual licensed originally then KDE would be the Linux desktop. They didn't. GNOME has the momentum, now. History is just what happens...
That seems less than relevant, since you can run those under Gnome as well as KDE. The desktop you choose isn't going to limit you choice of apps. In fact, you don't need to run Gnome or KDE in order to use those applications.
I used to be a big fluxbox fan, too. These days I use Ion as my mininal wm, and gnome for when I want eyecandy. I really like KDE's sophistication. Konqueror rocks! Gnome looks better, though, and Konqueror runs fine under Gnome.
Well but...wouldn't it also matter if you are running GAIM on Windows or Linux? Isn't too likely a Win binary would run under linux.
And yes it is true, my first degree was in Physics and I've had a lot of graduate Math exposure along the way. So my take on journal requirements would tend to reflect those experiences. I've heard that Chemistry also requires LaTeX for peer reviewed journals. Nobody I know knows anybody who knows the soft sciences' requirements (they do have journals, yes?) God alone knows what Engineers do or use ;-)
Wintel vs. Intdows? Sounds like "Ain't Those". I've *always* heard it suggested that that "wintel" refers to a collusion between Microsoft and Intel. Googling for "wintel collusion" finds many who define "wintel" in terms of collusion, suggesting that MS Bloat sells Intel's newer, faster chips. I've heard this, like, almost forever...
Could you run that same test for Gnumeric?
More like, one bicycle is locked up out front, one bicycle is in the back of the garage behind crates with piles of stuff on top, and yet a third bicycle is somewhere in the attic, we think. I yell "go", and time who gets around the block faster. Storage placement and access is not a fair test of the design of the bicycle.
That is not true if you have modified and distriubuted code that was already GPLed. If you have any code that you have right to because of the GPL, then the only way you can distriubte is if you place the work as a whole under the GPL. At which point "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
It also looks like the license says so even if you are the sole source, since if you distriubte it under the GPL you must, according to the GPL, include a copy of the GPL, which says at the very beginning: So if you want to distribute under the GPL, you have to include the GPL with what you distriubte. The license says it applies to any program so distributed by the copyright holder. You are the sole source, you are the copyright holder. If you want to use the GPL, then you have to be bound by the GPL. When you formed the relationship with the person you distributed your source code to under the GPL, as per the GPL, it had to either be GPLed or not. If it was distributed appropriately under the GPL, then in Binary form you should have given the written notice offer, too. Otherwise you aren't distributing as per the GPL's requirements.
Now what gets interesting is what sort of relief would their be? Usually, in GPL violations, it is the person who owns the rights to a work that was modified via the GPL that has action. But consider this. Did you proport the work to be under the GPL? Can it be if you aren't following the license? Is that fraud? Seems like only the person you sold the binary to could claim damages, though...
So, in conclusion, if there is modification of GPLed code, or distribution of GPLed code, then you have to make the source code available. If you give someone a binary without the GPL attached, or without a written offer, you are not distributing the binary as per the GPL. Either you need to give them what is missing, and be GPLed, or it isn't GPLed. However, if it is GPLed, in all cases, you have to give "every third party" source code, who asks.
"I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to" is anybody who requests it. The use of "third party" was intentionally to eliminate a burden to prove you had purchased the software. The clearest way to do this was to make it available to anyone who asked, which also gives you incentive to give "Bob" the source code to begin with. Now you might ask, "how would anyone know that I gave this to Bob, so how could they know they could ask." And there you are right! So long as Bob doesn't brag, how would anyone know? But in terms of the license, when you gave Bob the binary only copy you gave "every third party" the legal right to your source code. That they don't know the source code exists is your only protection.
Example 2 is exactly the same. They have the right to modify and distribute their code so long as they abide by the GPL. If they refuse "any third party" the source code for distribution costs, they have, at that point, forfieted their rights under the GPL to distriubte. It would be very stupid, and I hope anyone considering doing such would talk to a lawyer first.
Agreed that it is only specific rights. Saw references to curtailment of "liberty" and "property" rights. Nobody is taking about "life" rights, for sure!
IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun). There was reference to Indians who let their hair grow long and then braided it. The court took notice that they were *not* just rebeling, but that the style of braid was cultural and reflected a pride in their culture. Central to discussing gang-related arm bands would be the nature of the gang. I'm suspect Boy- and Girlscouts could probably catch some judical relief, so long as the identifying symbol used was subtle enough not to be distractive. A scouting t-shirt, perhaps? Now *real* gangs, and by that I mean the illegal, nefarious, sort of gangs, would surely be different. Would not a real gang in and of itself indicate conspiracy to commit a crime? If not, are they a gang or a club? Seems like the "Chess Gang" could wear t-shirts, no problem. I see an obvious distinction, and so would need to be informed if there was any constitutional rights to identify oneself as a member of a criminal group...
Wow, thanks. Following your link I see
Founder: Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing, Regent University
The fact reported (court decision) stands on it's own, but I just went with the first source google brought me to and now I feel lazy.
"Spreadsheets, graphs, presentations" are areas where LaTeX excells. I like to use gnumeric to layout my data, and gnumeric or (heavy lifting) octave for calculations, but then saving from gnumeric to latex gives infinte control of presentation. For highschool quality reports, sure, print from the spreadsheet. For anything real (try to publish to a peer reviewed journal using .doc!) use latex. For graphs, use R. It is exceptional. But again, tie it all together in latex.
:-)
a single-file container format so exchange is easy which means you want a built in tarball roller? Not a bad idea. Anybody want to add a button to Kile's File/Save?
user interface that regular users can migrate to which requires you define "regular users". I agree that for highschool, and even lower division work, office products are fine. Business, all technical users, and upper division students should be able to use better tools. (Try KDE's Kile.)
macro language!!! *snort* Do you have any clue what latex even *is*? Have you heard of TeX? Did you know that LaTeX is a set of macros?
integration with other office formats is good to great for gnumeric and abiword, OpenOffice, and KOffice. Try selecting the "save as" button. It works
So unless by "regular users" you mean grandmas who have trouble sending email, or people who just want to write a quick letter, I think you underestimate LaTeX.
"This is pretty much the video game equivalent of going to a baseball game, getting 3 strikes and then complaining that you should get a 4th."
Well, except that he had been using the name since April. So really its like you start playing baseball, and its 3 strikes and you are out. Then comes May, June, Jully, Augest. Still 3 strikes and you are out. Then September. Still 3 strikes and you are out. Ah, but along comes October, and suddenly, you are called out at the first strike.
Jewish Christian?
And isn't George Lucas a Buddhist Methodist?
There is a Buddhist/Christian Contemplative Community at St. Paul's Methodist that celebrates pluralism.
As I recall from Sunday School, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has a Buddhist Bishop, Roy Sano:
IANAL, but this really caught my curiosity. The best I can find is that "Common Law recognizes that persons are born with disabilities of minority , and constitutions and laws typically define some age at which those disabilities are removed, such as age 18 in the United States for purposes of voting, although it may allow for such disabilities to be removed earlier, or retained past the usual age of majority, upon petition to do so."
In terms of what rights are disabled...
Actually, yes. If you distribute GPLed software in binary only form (rather you charge for it or not is immaterial), then you must make the source code that forms those binary images available to "any third party", which means the public at large, and you can only charge your distribution cost. Thus, if you were to decide to distribute binary only, then anybody can request from you the source code, when could then be put on a web site for the general public.
In your description, what you are selling is the convienence of having compiled the software. You can charge for that, surely. GPLed software is Free, not free. But...if you don't give them the source code when you give them the binary, you have to give "any third party", i.e., everyone who as much as asks, the source code.
Ahhh...."on a medium customarily used for software interchange"....ha! Yes, I can see now what you were looking at. As IANAL, and don't pretend to be, even on TV, take me with a grain of salt. I interpret "cutomarily used" as any standard media or channel, so CD, DVD, or ftp would all be ok...but today reel-to-reel tape not so ok.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. By "FreeDOS illegality" I meant the distribution of FreeDOS utilities without adhering to the GPL requirements. Not that FreeDOS had commited a wrong doing.