Where to begin...I guess with Math. People don't find math a "natural" way to think. Yet despite the learning curve, many people persist. Maybe its because its so useful. Now consider calculators. Most modern calculators use algebraic entry. Only HP calcs use RPN. That reverse polish notation is sure alot like "the way computers think". Its stack based and there isn't even an equal sign. But try it. Don't use it for a day, use it for a month. You will change the way you approach key entry and would hate to go back. Algebraic entry is slower, takes more keystrokes, and you are more apt to make a mistake because its based on the way we READ math rather than the way math actually is.
Ease of use means being able to easily do easy things and also to do hard things with relative ease. Yet any interface that has a learning curve is "only for geeks". There is indeed a tradeoff involved, and I for one don't want to only be able to do the easiest things without thinking, while not being able to do hard things at all. Consider that its not called "dumbed down" because it was made easy, but because its problem domain was limited.
I'd hate to live in a world that only used "the natural human way" of speech. There are times when its you get a more perceptive and more useful answer when you interject "just show me the math".
Actually one of the reasons I hate to use Windows at school is because I find it so visually drab and boring. And changing colors just isn't enough. Of the people I know who've decieded to try linux, the fact that its so pretty and so customizable was the first real chink in their MS-armour.
Well but isn't it under the Apple Public Source License rather than the GPL? The APSL does conform to the definition of Free Software Licenses, as certified by the Free Software Foundation, but its not GPL.
Actually Walmart currently does make sections of CDs available so that you can determine whether you want to buy the product. As far as "literature" and "content"...you said it first, not me.
Agreed. My school's physics dept. makes a point of telling the lower classmen not to buy from our bookstore. Amazon sells new textbooks cheaper (delivered) than our bookstore's used textbooks cost.
I doubt anyone else would consider "Some name"-uncensored to be a service of "Some name". The uncensored is pretty much a clue that the site is unofficial. My question is, if the name was "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_thoughts", would this still infract upon UCSD? How about "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_own_unaffiliated_thou ghts"? Is use of "UCSD" simply verbotten under all circumstances?
You confuse me, in that under the GPL source must be made available to everyone who asks and not just those who recieve binaries. It isn't true that only those who recieve binaries can request source. Thus where you "disagree" with RMS you are in fact stating that the GPL should be exactly as it is. Well at least one of us is confused...
Also checkout Kile, a KDE editor for latex that is very well laid out. Its rather like quanta (for markup: sgml to xhtml) or kate (a programmer's editor).
I use linux. My school uses AIX on our mailserver. Our Chemistry Beowulf cluster uses linux. Perhaps you aren't affected, but *alot* of people I know are at least threatened.
Might that "trial drags out for two years" relate to IE not being changed for 2 years? (Rumors of the inability to upgrade/evolve IE and the need for a complete rewrite...or just wait and see which way the legal wind is a' gonna blow?)
Perhaps its because then you are at the mercy of macromedia (who partners with microsoft)? Whats to stop macromedia's binary formats from "evolving" just as MSWord formats do? Maybe this won't happen, but the uncertainty exists. Give me well implemented W3C, please.
I think the point is that whether you say import foo and call it myclass, or you call it foo.myclass, is not really relevant. Either way, you are linking.
Such a work, in isolation, in unaffected (we can't tell you to change it). However, if it leaves isolation (is run in a VM) then at that point section 6 comes into play. Only at that point does it mean that either you already released in terms agreeable to section 6, or else are in violation. Distribution probably implies it will run in a VM. So at the point of distributing your code, it is no longer in isolation, but rather is for all practical points running in the VM.
My understanding is that, in your scenerio, it might happen that someday you upgrade your jar. The people who have purchased the proprietary jar (which "uses" your LGPL-ed jar) have the right under section 6 to reverse engineer the proprietary jar for the purpose of modifying the propietary jar so that it continues to work with your LGPL-ed jar.
They were specific that the restriction is *not* that the code would have to be LGPLed, but rather that section 6 would be in effect. Section 6 does not LGPL the code. Section 6 does place restrictions. Not the same thing. What appears relevant (besides user notification...) is "distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."
David Turner summarizes, "Section 6 of the LGPL is not the same hereditary thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against the library, does not need to be licensed under the LGPL. But you do have some obligations -- you need to allow people to relink your code with new versions of the library, for example."
Urban legend? Please get a clue, man.You are over off by a factor of 400
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
... the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
Funny how "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" becomes "reserved for the states". And its not just you. Power is delegated from us, the people. What powers we haven't delegated to specific authorities remain ours. We need to remember that.
If you are an *employed* professional you had better be aware of "them" / "us". Try explaining to your boss at Ford why you authorized the purchase of a fleet of Pontiacs for executive use. "Oh, and we'll be using Chevy vans for delivery."
"Yes, we're reducing our Linux deployment, eliminating Linux entirely -- or at least we're thinking about it: 9 percent." Hardly "running away screaming." Beware, ajs, SCO has probably claimed patents on FUD, too!;-)
The GPL won't allow for "Linux liscenses". You'd have to get every single author involved to agree to change the liscense for their contribution. Never happen. Coding around tainted sections, no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Where to begin...I guess with Math. People don't find math a "natural" way to think. Yet despite the learning curve, many people persist. Maybe its because its so useful. Now consider calculators. Most modern calculators use algebraic entry. Only HP calcs use RPN. That reverse polish notation is sure alot like "the way computers think". Its stack based and there isn't even an equal sign. But try it. Don't use it for a day, use it for a month. You will change the way you approach key entry and would hate to go back. Algebraic entry is slower, takes more keystrokes, and you are more apt to make a mistake because its based on the way we READ math rather than the way math actually is. Ease of use means being able to easily do easy things and also to do hard things with relative ease. Yet any interface that has a learning curve is "only for geeks". There is indeed a tradeoff involved, and I for one don't want to only be able to do the easiest things without thinking, while not being able to do hard things at all. Consider that its not called "dumbed down" because it was made easy, but because its problem domain was limited. I'd hate to live in a world that only used "the natural human way" of speech. There are times when its you get a more perceptive and more useful answer when you interject "just show me the math".
Actually one of the reasons I hate to use Windows at school is because I find it so visually drab and boring. And changing colors just isn't enough. Of the people I know who've decieded to try linux, the fact that its so pretty and so customizable was the first real chink in their MS-armour.
My school's library uses netware. Actually the largest single LAN at our school. My far the most extranet traffic.
Well but isn't it under the Apple Public Source License rather than the GPL? The APSL does conform to the definition of Free Software Licenses, as certified by the Free Software Foundation, but its not GPL.
Fair use does allow professors to have chapters of books and magazine articles reproduced for distribution to their students, however.
Actually Walmart currently does make sections of CDs available so that you can determine whether you want to buy the product. As far as "literature" and "content"...you said it first, not me.
Agreed. My school's physics dept. makes a point of telling the lower classmen not to buy from our bookstore. Amazon sells new textbooks cheaper (delivered) than our bookstore's used textbooks cost.
I doubt anyone else would consider "Some name"-uncensored to be a service of "Some name". The uncensored is pretty much a clue that the site is unofficial. My question is, if the name was "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_thoughts", would this still infract upon UCSD? How about "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_own_unaffiliated_thou ghts"? Is use of "UCSD" simply verbotten under all circumstances?
You confuse me, in that under the GPL source must be made available to everyone who asks and not just those who recieve binaries. It isn't true that only those who recieve binaries can request source. Thus where you "disagree" with RMS you are in fact stating that the GPL should be exactly as it is. Well at least one of us is confused...
Also checkout Kile, a KDE editor for latex that is very well laid out. Its rather like quanta (for markup: sgml to xhtml) or kate (a programmer's editor).
I use linux. My school uses AIX on our mailserver. Our Chemistry Beowulf cluster uses linux. Perhaps you aren't affected, but *alot* of people I know are at least threatened.
Might that "trial drags out for two years" relate to IE not being changed for 2 years? (Rumors of the inability to upgrade/evolve IE and the need for a complete rewrite...or just wait and see which way the legal wind is a' gonna blow?)
Perhaps its because then you are at the mercy of macromedia (who partners with microsoft)? Whats to stop macromedia's binary formats from "evolving" just as MSWord formats do? Maybe this won't happen, but the uncertainty exists. Give me well implemented W3C, please.
I think the point is that whether you say import foo and call it myclass, or you call it foo.myclass, is not really relevant. Either way, you are linking.
Such a work, in isolation, in unaffected (we can't tell you to change it). However, if it leaves isolation (is run in a VM) then at that point section 6 comes into play. Only at that point does it mean that either you already released in terms agreeable to section 6, or else are in violation. Distribution probably implies it will run in a VM. So at the point of distributing your code, it is no longer in isolation, but rather is for all practical points running in the VM.
My understanding is that, in your scenerio, it might happen that someday you upgrade your jar. The people who have purchased the proprietary jar (which "uses" your LGPL-ed jar) have the right under section 6 to reverse engineer the proprietary jar for the purpose of modifying the propietary jar so that it continues to work with your LGPL-ed jar.
They were specific that the restriction is *not* that the code would have to be LGPLed, but rather that section 6 would be in effect. Section 6 does not LGPL the code. Section 6 does place restrictions. Not the same thing. What appears relevant (besides user notification...) is "distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."
David Turner summarizes, "Section 6 of the LGPL is not the same hereditary thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against the library, does not need to be licensed under the LGPL. But you do have some obligations -- you need to allow people to relink your code with new versions of the library, for example."
Urban legend? Please get a clue, man.You are over off by a factor of 400
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
... the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
Funny how "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" becomes "reserved for the states". And its not just you. Power is delegated from us, the people. What powers we haven't delegated to specific authorities remain ours. We need to remember that.
Tabs just plain rock. I hope GUI dev.s everywhere learn this.
Looks to perhaps accelerate a bit faster than you would suggest.
If you are an *employed* professional you had better be aware of "them" / "us". Try explaining to your boss at Ford why you authorized the purchase of a fleet of Pontiacs for executive use. "Oh, and we'll be using Chevy vans for delivery."
"The ability to destroy a thing is the ability to control it". -Maudib
"Yes, we're reducing our Linux deployment, eliminating Linux entirely -- or at least we're thinking about it: 9 percent." Hardly "running away screaming." Beware, ajs, SCO has probably claimed patents on FUD, too! ;-)
The GPL won't allow for "Linux liscenses". You'd have to get every single author involved to agree to change the liscense for their contribution. Never happen. Coding around tainted sections, no problem.