Its supposed to go up within 24 hours...so why not just add a link at the bottom of the entry in question. Optimize the appearance of fairness, yet since most people read these sequentially you wouldn't have to worry to much about people going back and rereading yesterday's blog. Thus, you comply and still get to (mostly) express just your side (to most of your readers).
First, they state on their webpage (did you go there?) that you can bring your own popcorn into the movie. Second, by your reasoning, OPEC isn't a cartel, since OPEC doesn't produce oil (rather its just the members of OPEC that produce oil).
Does anyone understand this? It appears to indicate that the patent on their work stands alone...
To the extent that you,
or your licensees under the GPL,
make any modifications to,
or derive (through reverse engineering or otherwise)
other software products and/or functionality from,
the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities ("Modifications and/or
Derivatives"), neither OpenTV nor the GPL licenses you,
implicitly or otherwise,
under any OpenTV patents that cover the Modifications and/or
Derivatives,
whether alone or in combination with the OpenTV Distributed GNU
Utilities.
You are wrong regarding the GPL. The GPL comes into play as soon as you distribute. The fact that you are distributing an unmodified binary doesn't exclude the requiredment that you make sourcecode available. This is explictly stated in 3.a,b,c.
And squid is GPL-ed http://bulle.bitforbit.no/ftp/linux/squid/squid-2. 4-200109042300/COPYRIGHT
The GPL also requires that you either recieve the source with the binary, or a *written* offer of the source, (or a third non-commercial only clause). Its not non-commercial. Source isn't included. So where was the written offer?
b) 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
Its not "any valid third party", rater it is "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". So, technically, no "proof of possession" of a binary is required.
Yes, it is the point. Although it happens molecule by molecule when it happens in mass, there wasn't a way to control the applicatiion of a signal and stimulate emmision from a chosen molecule. Now there is. For the first time ever, *a* molecule is made to emit when electrically stimulated.
Re:SCO has another problem too
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
Well but doesn't it matter that Caldara is still distributing their version of linux? Aren't all the GPL required GPL textfiles in place? Then wouldn't it be more like continuing to sign contracts that specifiy that the terms of documents are also in play? (Which my university does, by the way. Our student contract spells out certain behaviors, then specifies that we are also bound by the rest of the "rules and regulations", without specificly listing said rulebooks.)
Yeah and I bet you're still waiting for the british to throw those dirty tea thieves into jail for dressing up like Indians and raiding british cargo ships. I admit I wouldn't DOS. Yet the RIAA wouldn't want me on any jury, either.
You start: "Why do people insist on comparing a celeron to a P4 or athlon?"
You end: explaining why the P4 is in a different class. My $0.02: Why not compare *similarly* priced AMDs to Celerons? The fact that the AMD is functionally in a different class shouldn't matter if one is first and foremost price conscious. Why pay the same price for less?
They were indexing all available material in windows shared folders at their university. So the only way they could have "shut their networks down" so that "the file-trading stopped (over their networks at least)" would be to nuke the university's network because the students didn't have any stinking network. Please get a clue. Mod +4 is shameful.
The two are not orthoganal. To be accountable one must be identifiable. To be indentifiable is the same as being "signed". You differentiate between "directly indicating" vs. being "tracked". There is no such difference, excepting only the degree of exertion.
"The courts have consistently decided that you can operate "unsigned," in that it would abridge or chill your freedoms of speech and silence to make your identifying signatures compulsory."
So then I won't have my freedoms chilled if only those who *really* want my ass can find me?
No, Joe didn't break any laws. Some of the students who *accessed* some of the shared folders broke the law. Not the students who put files into shared folders nor the students who indexed the available files. Big difference.
I average closer to 10 spams/day @yahoo.com. Whats more of an issue is that their spamblock sends IBM DevloperWorks and movingon.org emails into the bulk mail folder. I've sent these to yahoo for "review", where they should realize that 1)I've signed up for these notifications, and 2) Its easy to opt-out. Repeated "reviews" still result in spam in my inbox and real email in my bulk folder. Which means I can't just delete everything in the bulk folder. Since I have to look at all the headers first, whats the difference? Yahoo sucks. When it was young it was fun, but now its just sad.
This is especially useful for converting users of WinXP who have only a "recovery" disk. The recovery disk boots win95 which then performs fdisk, format, install. This returns the HD to its original state, destroying all partioning you've done. Its not possible to have a dualboot system (with this crippled toy OS "recovery disk") unless you use the single physical partion MS "grants"/allows you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I believe a quick google would show you lots of GPL-ed java, including specific apps as well as technologies.
Its supposed to go up within 24 hours...so why not just add a link at the bottom of the entry in question. Optimize the appearance of fairness, yet since most people read these sequentially you wouldn't have to worry to much about people going back and rereading yesterday's blog. Thus, you comply and still get to (mostly) express just your side (to most of your readers).
First, they state on their webpage (did you go there?) that you can bring your own popcorn into the movie. Second, by your reasoning, OPEC isn't a cartel, since OPEC doesn't produce oil (rather its just the members of OPEC that produce oil).
Does anyone understand this? It appears to indicate that the patent on their work stands alone...
To the extent that you,
or your licensees under the GPL,
make any modifications to,
or derive (through reverse engineering or otherwise)
other software products and/or functionality from,
the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities ("Modifications and/or Derivatives"),
neither OpenTV nor the GPL licenses you,
implicitly or otherwise,
under any OpenTV patents that cover the Modifications and/or Derivatives,
whether alone or in combination with the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities.
You are wrong regarding the GPL. The GPL comes into play as soon as you distribute. The fact that you are distributing an unmodified binary doesn't exclude the requiredment that you make sourcecode available. This is explictly stated in 3.a,b,c. And squid is GPL-ed http://bulle.bitforbit.no/ftp/linux/squid/squid-2. 4-200109042300/COPYRIGHT
The GPL also requires that you either recieve the source with the binary, or a *written* offer of the source, (or a third non-commercial only clause). Its not non-commercial. Source isn't included. So where was the written offer?
b) 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
Its not "any valid third party", rater it is "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". So, technically, no "proof of possession" of a binary is required.
"SCO proprietary code -> IBM -> Linux kernel -> SCO -> release under the GPL"
Sorry Charlie, but my copy of Caldera predates IBM's involvement in Linux. Caldera bought SCO, not the other way around.
Yes, it is the point. Although it happens molecule by molecule when it happens in mass, there wasn't a way to control the applicatiion of a signal and stimulate emmision from a chosen molecule. Now there is. For the first time ever, *a* molecule is made to emit when electrically stimulated.
Well but doesn't it matter that Caldara is still distributing their version of linux? Aren't all the GPL required GPL textfiles in place? Then wouldn't it be more like continuing to sign contracts that specifiy that the terms of documents are also in play? (Which my university does, by the way. Our student contract spells out certain behaviors, then specifies that we are also bound by the rest of the "rules and regulations", without specificly listing said rulebooks.)
Yeah and I bet you're still waiting for the british to throw those dirty tea thieves into jail for dressing up like Indians and raiding british cargo ships. I admit I wouldn't DOS. Yet the RIAA wouldn't want me on any jury, either.
Well, it does require gcc to compile...and even if you just download binaries, someone somewhere had to compile it. GNU/X/QT/KDE/Linux, anyone?
The "g" in "gnu" is pronounced.
You start: "Why do people insist on comparing a celeron to a P4 or athlon?"
You end: explaining why the P4 is in a different class.
My $0.02: Why not compare *similarly* priced AMDs to Celerons? The fact that the AMD is functionally in a different class shouldn't matter if one is first and foremost price conscious. Why pay the same price for less?
They were indexing all available material in windows shared folders at their university. So the only way they could have "shut their networks down" so that "the file-trading stopped (over their networks at least)" would be to nuke the university's network because the students didn't have any stinking network. Please get a clue. Mod +4 is shameful.
Now IBM vs. MS in a litigate to the death match would be worth buying tickets for!!!
The two are not orthoganal. To be accountable one must be identifiable. To be indentifiable is the same as being "signed". You differentiate between "directly indicating" vs. being "tracked". There is no such difference, excepting only the degree of exertion.
"The courts have consistently decided that you can operate "unsigned," in that it would abridge or chill your freedoms of speech and silence to make your identifying signatures compulsory."
So then I won't have my freedoms chilled if only those who *really* want my ass can find me?
Upgrading the HD killed a friends winxp. The OEM "recovery" disk recognized it wasn't the same system and refused to install.
No, Joe didn't break any laws. Some of the students who *accessed* some of the shared folders broke the law. Not the students who put files into shared folders nor the students who indexed the available files. Big difference.
she can't be wrong about what her own requirements are
"I want to make toast in the morning when I go camping, but since I'm left handed I only considered oxy-acetylene torches."
Oh yes, its possible.
I average closer to 10 spams/day @yahoo.com. Whats more of an issue is that their spamblock sends IBM DevloperWorks and movingon.org emails into the bulk mail folder. I've sent these to yahoo for "review", where they should realize that 1)I've signed up for these notifications, and 2) Its easy to opt-out. Repeated "reviews" still result in spam in my inbox and real email in my bulk folder. Which means I can't just delete everything in the bulk folder. Since I have to look at all the headers first, whats the difference? Yahoo sucks. When it was young it was fun, but now its just sad.
This is especially useful for converting users of WinXP who have only a "recovery" disk. The recovery disk boots win95 which then performs fdisk, format, install. This returns the HD to its original state, destroying all partioning you've done. Its not possible to have a dualboot system (with this crippled toy OS "recovery disk") unless you use the single physical partion MS "grants"/allows you.
Except that most software is developed inhouse for company use. Those developers do meet with the "customer".
Ah yes, the "SGI/Sun/Apple/Sony/AMD" merger rumors surface again...
Actually what I'm wondering about is Dell. Now that HP-paq is the "bigger dog", and Cisco views Dell as a competitor, what does this bode for Dell?