Huh, no it's not. With Android and iOS -style appstores, users get their apps pushed/updated by a central app store. Developers push their own updates to the up store. That's not like the old Windows pre-store style of users installing applications manually, and each app handling its own updates automatically, if it even did.
If you think about it for a couple seconds, you'll realize that this is how Android and iOS works, and the whole appstore model trend is leading. It's also the reason most Android users don't care that they're stuck on Gingerbread on their mobiles -- the (leaf) apps they use keep being updated regardless.
I can't wait for a cross distro appstore model to trickle into mainstream distributions, where leave application maintainers push their upstream instead of having distro packagers do it. I'm hoping that something like the "Listaller" project really succeeds.
And somehow that argument forgets that they wrote it to work as an extension of a GPL kernel.
IOW, you somehow think its fine for them to to stand on the shoulders of all the kernel's GPL code, without respecting that kernel's GPL license.
If you don't want to GPL your work, then don't make your code a derivative of another GPL work in the first place. This is the crux of the question.
> It is THEIRS, they wrote it, they can do what they will and license it any damned way they want!
Yes, and the people who write the kernel they extended think the same way. But the license they, the kernel copyright owners, chose, is the GPL. If this scsi work is a derivate (again, _that's_ what is in the open), and they don't abide by the GPL, then they don't have a license from all the kernel copyright holders to distribute the resulting kernel.
But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines? Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:
Now Digia should acquire the Trolltech trademark as well if they haven't, and rebrand themselves as Trolltech. Then everyone could forget Nokia ever happened.
Appologies, I misunderstood your other comment as saying something like if "you're caught infringing on GPL, then you have to release your sources". I now see that's not what you meant.
> If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project > because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous.
What is completely ridiculous is that people still spread this FUD. You do _not_ have to publish the code to your entire multi-million dollar software project. If you fail to comply with the license, then you don't have a license to use the GPL library, and then you're infringing copyright.
Releasing your code is one way to rectify the situation, that it is not the only one. Nothing _forces_ you to publish your code.
Are you worried about sensitivity issues? That does not seem to be a valid technical reason. Even if such image pops up, you're being tor, so nobody will know you've seen it. That does not seem a good reason to spread unjustified "Never visit.onion sites with images enabled in your browser!" FUD.
As for #2, yes, that's what I was thinking. Even a frame could be load from non-onion sites. Heck, you can easily wrap the whole page inside a frame... It seems to be that if that's a worry, then the browser should forbid accesses to non-onion sites from onion sites, either built in, or with a plugin (for user clicks, pop-up a "are you sure you want to go there" warning).
#3 and #4 seem to have nothing to do with onion at all. Those can trigger in non-onion domains just the same.
The FSF, who wrote the GPL, are totally okay with businesses using GPLed code. (a link to a reference escapes me now, but it's there over fsf.org).
You're also wrong in thinking that only volunteers use the GPL -- lots of company's have business models mounted on GPL code. E.g., Red Hat, AdaCode,.. You're dead wrong if you think for example, the Linux kernel, which is GPL, is written mostly by volunteers.
By that reasoning, everything you do in the analog world that will be replicated in the digital world is patentable as "innovation".
E.g., under that reasoning, I would patent a method to input text letter by letter, by pressing specific areas in a touchscreen, which may or may not have the letters drown on the touchscreen.
Then you'd say, a "keyboard is not a touch screen".
With ICS (and probably others) allowing doing more things in that clock screen, like getting access to notifications, and direct access to the camera, this argument gains even more weight.
yes, that is what I said, they won't be doing anything that someone else hasn't done before them. But I think the people that like gaming on ipads, aren't the type to buy a home console. They are the lowest of the low gamers. They are basicly the people who play solitare on windows. You don't need horsepower for the games they play.
I disagree, and predicting ahead, I think you're just plain wrong. For example, I quite enjoy playing 3d racing games on my galaxy tab 10.1. Time will tell.
Tablet (with good processing power) + Airplay (or some other video/audio transport good enough for HD with acceptable latency over a local wifi network). Which is, connecting the dots you already have, and realizing the console in the living room can become irrelevant or not necessary.
It looks to me that the experience isn't far off from Nintendo's new Wii U controller. But, with the big difference that you'll see thousands of tittles cheap or free on the app market.
"That’s impressive, but it’s also old news. Visual Planet has been installing these films for years. If you’ve read Singularity Hub regularly (which causes much less brain cancer than you would think) you may remember our earlier coverage of Displax. The Portuguese company did many of the same demonstrations. That makes sense as they were one of Visual Planet’s partners. There are true competitors, however. 3M has had a similar technology for years, and as you get into smaller sizes the number of available solutions skyrockets."
The current vulgar definition of "hacker" is not what the original term meant back in the days. And it's also not Eric S. Raymond's definition either.
Most people miss the point that they're not comparing the church with the "hackers" that do DoS attachs on some major servers to prove a point, or those that crack into major databases to expose private intel.
The Jargon File contains a bunch of definitions of the term "hacker", most having to do with technical adeptness and a delight in solving problems and overcoming limits. If you want to know how to become a hacker, though, only two are really relevant.
There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term "hacker". Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker.
The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them "hackers" too and some claim that the hacker nature is really independent of the particular medium the hacker works in. But in the rest of this document we will focus on the skills and attitudes of software hackers, and the traditions of the shared culture that originated the term "hacker".
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people "crackers" and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word "hacker" to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
If you want to be a hacker, keep reading. If you want to be a cracker, go read the alt.2600 newsgroup and get ready to do five to ten in the slammer after finding out you aren't as smart as you think you are. And that's all I'm going to say about crackers. "
"A tide of cheap, mediocre Chinese tablets would kill the platform before it catches on."
Nonsense. On contrary, it would thrive the platform.
If that happens, then _everybody_ can afford _a_ tablet, and the market gets way larger, and the platform becomes ubiquitous and the best platform for developers to spend resources on. Those who want better and more featureful devices would still get them from HTC/Motorola/Apple whatnot or whatever company wants to built tablets with top-of-the-art hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, no it's not. With Android and iOS -style appstores, users get their apps pushed/updated by a central app store. Developers push their own updates to the up store. That's not like the old Windows pre-store style of users installing applications manually, and each app handling its own updates automatically, if it even did.
Go check out Listaller, will you?
Hear! Hear!
If you think about it for a couple seconds, you'll realize that this is how
Android and iOS works, and the whole appstore model trend is leading.
It's also the reason most Android users don't care that they're stuck
on Gingerbread on their mobiles -- the (leaf) apps they use keep being updated regardless.
I can't wait for a cross distro appstore model to trickle into mainstream distributions,
where leave application maintainers push their upstream instead of having distro packagers do it.
I'm hoping that something like the "Listaller" project really succeeds.
And somehow that argument forgets that they wrote it to work as an extension of a GPL kernel.
IOW, you somehow think its fine for them to to stand on the shoulders of all the kernel's GPL code, without respecting that kernel's GPL license.
If you don't want to GPL your work, then don't make your code a derivative of another GPL work in the first place. This is the crux of the question.
> It is THEIRS, they wrote it, they can do what they will and license it any damned way they want!
Yes, and the people who write the kernel they extended think the same way. But the license they, the kernel copyright owners, chose, is the GPL. If this scsi work is a derivate (again, _that's_ what is in the open), and they don't abide by the GPL, then they don't have a license from all the kernel copyright holders to distribute the resulting kernel.
Who is leaching who again?
In a nutshell, Apple lied.
But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines?
Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109130213229
Good.
Now Digia should acquire the Trolltech trademark as well if they haven't, and rebrand themselves as Trolltech. Then everyone could forget Nokia ever happened.
Appologies, I misunderstood your other comment as saying something like if "you're caught infringing on GPL, then you have to release your sources". I now see that's not what you meant.
> If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project
> because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous.
What is completely ridiculous is that people still spread this FUD. You do _not_ have to publish the code to your entire multi-million dollar software project. If you fail to comply with the license, then you don't have a license to use the GPL library, and then you're infringing copyright.
Releasing your code is one way to rectify the situation, that it is not the only one. Nothing _forces_ you to publish your code.
> I agree, but what makes me ponder is that the European court said to allow copyright on an API would allow
> monopolizing ideas.
Ponder what? This is exactly what Alsup also said.
s/being tor/behind tor/
Where's the edit button...
Are you worried about sensitivity issues? That does not seem to be a valid technical reason. Even if such image pops up, you're being tor, so nobody will know you've seen it. That does not seem a good reason to spread unjustified "Never visit .onion sites with images enabled in your browser!" FUD.
As for #2, yes, that's what I was thinking. Even a frame could be load from non-onion sites. Heck, you can easily wrap the whole page inside a frame... It seems to be that if that's a worry, then the browser should forbid accesses to non-onion sites from onion sites, either built in, or with a plugin (for user clicks, pop-up a "are you sure you want to go there" warning).
#3 and #4 seem to have nothing to do with onion at all. Those can trigger in non-onion domains just the same.
> Warning: view either site with images and cookies disabled in your browser. Never visit .onion sites with images enabled in your browser!
Why? Any reference to where the issue is described?
That's not true at all.
#1 - glibc is a GNU project
#2 - to contribute code you do need a copyright assignment to the FSF.
You've confused something else.
> She said that for the first 2 months after we met she understood about 20% of what I said.
Still! she dates you? You must be some piece of work. ;-)
You're wrong. That's not why the GPL was invented. There must be a lot of uninformed people out there to mod that insightful...
The GPL was invented as license that preserves the user's 4 freedoms as the code is passed between users:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The FSF, who wrote the GPL, are totally okay with businesses using GPLed code. (a link to a reference escapes me now, but it's there over fsf.org).
You're also wrong in thinking that only volunteers use the GPL -- lots of company's have business models mounted on GPL code. .. You're dead wrong if you think for example, the Linux kernel, which is GPL, is written mostly by volunteers.
E.g., Red Hat, AdaCode,
Most easy example: keystrokes.
Data, e.g., passwords, sent over https encrypted connections aren't visible by the carrier.
Yet, if the carrier logs keystrokes, they get to see them. A malicious third party could hijack the data as well.
Got it?
Wait, is google just making fun of the patent system, showing how it is flawed?
More likely they're just adding something innovative like forum moderators to google groups+ or something or the sort, though...
By that reasoning, everything you do in the analog world that will be replicated in the digital world is patentable as "innovation".
E.g., under that reasoning, I would patent a method to input text letter by letter, by pressing specific areas in a touchscreen, which may or may not have the letters drown on the touchscreen.
Then you'd say, a "keyboard is not a touch screen".
Spot on.
With ICS (and probably others) allowing doing more things in that clock screen, like getting access to notifications, and direct access to the camera, this argument gains even more weight.
yes, that is what I said, they won't be doing anything that someone else hasn't done before them. But I think the people that like gaming on ipads, aren't the type to buy a home console. They are the lowest of the low gamers. They are basicly the people who play solitare on windows. You don't need horsepower for the games they play.
I disagree, and predicting ahead, I think you're just plain wrong. For example, I quite enjoy playing 3d racing games on my galaxy tab 10.1. Time will tell.
> Gate One is dual-licensed: AGPLv3 or Proprietary.
> static/bell.ogg - Taken from KDE's default sound theme (KDE-Sys-App-Message.ogg)
> which is licensed under the GPLv2:
gplv2 and gplv3 are incompatible. If it's the "gplv2 or later" version, then mention so.
The combining work will be under agplv3.
I assume you're not including that gpl'ed sound file in the proprietary license version. I suggest you clarify that.
No, they're just going to push forward on:
http://osxdaily.com/2011/06/19/ipad-2-ios-5-airplay-video-mirroring-become-a-tv-gaming-console/
Tablet (with good processing power) + Airplay (or some other video/audio transport good enough for HD with acceptable latency over a local wifi network).
Which is, connecting the dots you already have, and realizing the console in the living room can become irrelevant or not necessary.
It looks to me that the experience isn't far off from Nintendo's new Wii U controller. But, with the big difference that you'll see thousands of tittles cheap or free on the app market.
Is is. Even from the article itself...:
"That’s impressive, but it’s also old news. Visual Planet has been installing these films for years. If you’ve read Singularity Hub regularly (which causes much less brain cancer than you would think) you may remember our earlier coverage of Displax. The Portuguese company did many of the same demonstrations. That makes sense as they were one of Visual Planet’s partners. There are true competitors, however. 3M has had a similar technology for years, and as you get into smaller sizes the number of available solutions skyrockets."
URL or it didn't happen. Please.
The current vulgar definition of "hacker" is not what the original term meant back in the days. And it's also not Eric S. Raymond's definition either.
Most people miss the point that they're not comparing the church with the "hackers" that do DoS attachs on some major servers to prove a point, or those that crack into major databases to expose private intel.
See Eric's definition here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
"What Is a Hacker?
The Jargon File contains a bunch of definitions of the term "hacker", most having to do with technical adeptness and a delight in solving problems and overcoming limits. If you want to know how to become a hacker, though, only two are really relevant.
There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term "hacker". Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker.
The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them "hackers" too and some claim that the hacker nature is really independent of the particular medium the hacker works in. But in the rest of this document we will focus on the skills and attitudes of software hackers, and the traditions of the shared culture that originated the term "hacker".
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people "crackers" and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word "hacker" to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
If you want to be a hacker, keep reading. If you want to be a cracker, go read the alt.2600 newsgroup and get ready to do five to ten in the slammer after finding out you aren't as smart as you think you are. And that's all I'm going to say about crackers.
"
"A tide of cheap, mediocre Chinese tablets would kill the platform before it catches on."
Nonsense. On contrary, it would thrive the platform.
If that happens, then _everybody_ can afford _a_ tablet, and the market gets way larger, and the platform becomes ubiquitous and the best platform for developers to spend resources on. Those who want better and more featureful devices would still get them from HTC/Motorola/Apple whatnot or whatever company wants to built tablets with top-of-the-art hardware.