I tried to explain that BSD-licensed code doesn't necessarily become more restricted since it can often live together with more restricted code without problem (ie. without getting restricted itself).
Any examples? What I've usually seen happening is BSD licensed code is re-licensed under a more restrictive license. (This is trivial to do, btw: O'Reilly could close the X docs by simply saying `our changes are integrated so tightly that you can't separate the original code from our copyrighted changes'. Just changing the wording here and there is sufficient.)
Well, yes. That's all true. But: name me a license which does have this two-way property. Any time two licenses are compatible, the effect is to trend toward the more restrictive license. So, the effect of BSD-style licenses is to trend toward proprietary software.
It's nice to see Sco getting it's ass handed to it, but the patent move is so counterproductive. It goes against everything that Linux stands for.
No. It's a defensive patent suit, no different than a GPL enforcement. Obviously, Linux and GPL enforcements are compatible, so I'd assume Linux and defensive patents are too.
I don't know about YOU, but does this seem at all like the commie witchhunts happening all over again?
``Commie witchhunts''... You know, there were communists in the State Department, and State (and both Rosevelt and Truman) did laugh it off. Are you saying there really are muslim terrorists in the US (and modern liberals are illegitemately laughing it off)? You may have a point there...
"...held him as a material witness until charges were filed five weeks later."
Is anyone else disturbed by this?
I'm not. If the government arrested me and told me I was a material witness, I would assume they wanted my testimony and would release me when they had it. In fact, I would consider it my duty to both myself and my country to testify as much and as quickly as possible, so I could be released as quickly as possible. But, then again, I would be innocent.
What? Everyone knows the Soviets were a totalitarian regime, and they were accusing people of preposterous charges. However bad America is, it is not a totalitarian regime, nor is the charge preposterous. Have you any evidence for the comparison?
They are not members of a qualifying militia. You're allowed to hunt down and punish arms-carrying thugs you encounter in the process of a war, obviously.
GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.
Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.
I never questioned Model, View, Controller. I questioned whether this standard (or your approach) is successful, overall, in convincing programmers to adopt this approach, or whether it's simply successful in convincing programmers to go elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean `neo-com', not `neo-con'
Except the bad effects are 10x as likely to show up if you're using Windows.
You have a way of cooperating against their will?
One of which is mentioned on the news periodically and the other was previously mentioned in the interview...
A choice between masters is not freedom. It's democracy.
And here come the bites...
No. You are allowed to execute those engaged in espionage. We are being strictly more gracious than the Geneva Convention requires.
Odd. He seems to have gotten a +5 rating.
Any examples? What I've usually seen happening is BSD licensed code is re-licensed under a more restrictive license. (This is trivial to do, btw: O'Reilly could close the X docs by simply saying `our changes are integrated so tightly that you can't separate the original code from our copyrighted changes'. Just changing the wording here and there is sufficient.)
Well, yes. But BSD had already bent over to proprietary licenses. So where's the problem?
Well, yes. That's all true. But: name me a license which does have this two-way property. Any time two licenses are compatible, the effect is to trend toward the more restrictive license. So, the effect of BSD-style licenses is to trend toward proprietary software.
No. It's a defensive patent suit, no different than a GPL enforcement. Obviously, Linux and GPL enforcements are compatible, so I'd assume Linux and defensive patents are too.
``Commie witchhunts''... You know, there were communists in the State Department, and State (and both Rosevelt and Truman) did laugh it off. Are you saying there really are muslim terrorists in the US (and modern liberals are illegitemately laughing it off)? You may have a point there...
What? You don't think we should be scared of people aiding foreign powers bent on world domination?
Actually, under our Constitution a judge is precisely the right officer to approve (or deny) prosecutorial action leading up to a trial.
I'm not. If the government arrested me and told me I was a material witness, I would assume they wanted my testimony and would release me when they had it. In fact, I would consider it my duty to both myself and my country to testify as much and as quickly as possible, so I could be released as quickly as possible. But, then again, I would be innocent.
Got any evidence?
How do you know this?
But you know how the DOJ conducted their investigation. How nice.
But your case against the government (of mis-conduct of an investigation) is proven without a shred of evidence. How nice.
What? Everyone knows the Soviets were a totalitarian regime, and they were accusing people of preposterous charges. However bad America is, it is not a totalitarian regime, nor is the charge preposterous. Have you any evidence for the comparison?
Precisely. We have no idea. Why don't you go dig up some evidence instead of throwing around baseless accusations?
You ``are sure''? He asked for evidence, Coward.
You're not anything if you seriously believe the Taliban needed a scrap more evidence bin Laden had done `something wrong' even before 9/11.
They are not members of a qualifying militia. You're allowed to hunt down and punish arms-carrying thugs you encounter in the process of a war, obviously.
Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.
I never questioned Model, View, Controller. I questioned whether this standard (or your approach) is successful, overall, in convincing programmers to adopt this approach, or whether it's simply successful in convincing programmers to go elsewhere.
But why do you find `consumer' derogatory?