The GPL talks about "forming a work based on the Program". It does not discuss linking.
The FSF has an opinion that linking, static or dynamic, creates a derived work. But their opinion is worth no more that yours or mine - I find it unconvincing that dynamic linking necessarily creates a derived work.
Drawing the line on what constitutes a derived work in software will probably left up to the courts, poor bastards.
GNU tools isn't much of a useable OS by itself either.
"GNU tools" isn't a OS. GNU is an OS, which Stallman et. al. started working on in 1984. It was shy only a working kernel when Linux came along in 1991. Poeple put the Linux kernel into the OS that the GNU project had been working to create for seven years and created GNU/Linux.
It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one
And the Constitution explicitly says all rights not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States.
First, it says "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." There were plenty of people in the rebelling states who were not in favor of secession - should the U.S. allow those loyal citizens to be overrun by a new government?
Second, the powers of a fully sovereign nation are reserved to the Federal government (Article I, Section 10). No "departure from the Union" to form a new nation can occur without violating that section.
The Civil War was not a victory for human rights or freedom, but for politicians
It did have the result of ENDING SLAVERY in North America. That is a pretty large victory for human rights.
You have to stay in the union because the constitution says so[0], and you have to obey the constitution to stay in the union....
No. You don't have to obey the constitution to stay in the union; you have to obey the constitution because it's the law of the land. No circular reasoning, it's hierarchical reasoning with the Constition at the top. (I'm not a fan of hierarchical reasoning in general, but a hierarchy with a law at the top rather than a king was a pretty good step forward.)
Something tells me that a guy who refers to them as "Confederate terrorists" has probably NOT put a massive amount of brainpower into thinking about it.
Okay, and where in the Constitution does it outlaw secession? Keep looking, bucko...
Article I, Section 10 makes it clear that the States are not full sovereign nations; States cannot "enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation", issue money, set duties on imports or exports, keep a standing army, or engage in war. No state or group of states can seceed to form a new nation without being in violation of that Section.
You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment.
I'm perfectly familiar with Amendment X, but it has nothing to do with secession. The powers necessary to a fully sovereign nation are specfically reserved to the federal government in the Constitution, as described above.
Regardless, the US government was founded on the principle of self-government, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence made the States "Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do" - a status the States gave up when they adopted the Constitution to form a single nation.
Anyway, not all people in states claimed by the Confederacy were in favor of secession. So when a group of criminals in those state threated the rights of people loyal to the United States, the U.S. government acted against the rebels; in itself, that's neither hypocritical to the DoI nor tyrannical. (Which is not to say that tyrannical, unconstitutional means were not employed. I live in Baltimore (ok, in the 'burbs just outside) and I know which way the guns on Federal hill were pointed.)
I see, so by your logic, we should still be (largely) an english colony, as the founding fathers had no 'legal right' to rebel?
The question of whether something is legal is orthogonal to whether it is ethical. The Founders were criminals in rebellion against their legal government. But most people think that they were ethically in the right.
Some would argue that they could have gained independance without war, as India did much later; others would point out the genocide against the Native peoples that the new nation would go on to commit, and that slavery was ended much sooner in Britian (and without a civil war), and wonder if things would have been better under British rule. I'm not sure about either of those, but want to acknowledge them as validly debatable points.
The Confederates were criminals in rebellion against their legal government. Since they were fighting to preserve slavery, most people think that they were ethically in the wrong, except fo a vocal minority who see them as champions of state's rights.
(Note that there were abolitionists who called for the North to seceed.)
All the South wanted was to break off and form their own national government, as is their right.
We can argue about whether they had the ethical right, but they had no legal right. The United States Constitution is "the law of the land"; a succession ordinace can't trump it.
It was the Yanks who came down and invaded.
Er, no. U.S. forts and troops already existed in the area when the Confederates claimed succession. Confederates traitors opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Lincoln assraped states' rights like no other President before or since.
Fillmore did more damage when he signed the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln may have overstepped the Constituion in stopping the Confederate terrorists, but let's not forget who started the shooting.
Any individual or group is entitled to exercise their right of self-government and the Confederacy did so.
A fine philosophical stance, to be sure, but as a matter of law nonsensical - in that case any criminal need only "exercise his right of self-government".
Considering the notorious reliability of Lexuses (mine has 198,000+ miles and although I've replaced many ancillary parts [brake parts, power steering pump, starter, cv joint, little things]), I'd say that they're well-priced.
If you want the reliability w/out the price tag and fancy-shmancy brand name, just get a Toyota. Same company. My 95 Tercel is creeping up on 170k miles with no major problems. I've seen a few old Toyota vans well over 200k.
Flat out: you are an ideological fuckhead, and completely disconnect from reality. You are typical of the dumbshit wanker conspiracy nutcase crowd. Anyone dare raises a question to your PREEEEEECIOUSSSSSS point of view, oh, well, that person must just HATE liberty and apple pie and fluffy kittens!
Slow down and take a deep breath. Catch up on your meds if you need to, ok AC?
Anyone who wants cops to check people's IDs at random is not making liberty a priority. They might value other things more, and we can argue about those priorities, but it's inarguable that someone who wants armed and uniformed agents of the state to go around checking citizen's papers at random does not place a high value on personal liberty. It is simply inarguable that the parent poster does not have a great love for liberty.
The fact that some people take this position makes me sad. That's a subjective truth, also inarguable.
for once in your worthless life consider that you just might not be an all-knowing being of perfection that has all the answers. Or, even better, just drop dead.
It's exactly because I know I don't have all the answers that I support liberty, that I want everyone to be able to go to hell in their own special way and not be forced to follow my path. It's those who are convinced that they are 100% right that are willing to use force to create conformity to their ideas.
So, while I believe fully in your right to post such drivel, I also hold with my right to respond: bite me, AC.:-)
I can see a cop walking down the street asking people for their national ID card (which, on an aside, I prey will at least be difficult to counterfeit), and at least I wouldn't complain too much.
I'm sorry that you love liberty that little.
My identity, much less the information on my personal papers, is simply not a beat cop's business.
Unless he's looking for a specific person fitting my description ("I have an arrest warrant for a Richard Roe, fitting your description, please show me some ID to prove you're not him or I'll have to arrest you"), my name and information have nothing to do with whether he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
I see no reason not to believe it will help reduce, at the very least, illegal immigration.
I see no reason to beleive that it would help reduce illegal immigration. I certainly see no reason to curtail the liberties of American citizens in a half-assed attempt to pretend to reduce illegal immigration.
If this passes we might have something to replace Social Security numbers as the primary key for credit agencies that won't be treated as both identification and a password.
Um, great. I can have a new number to worry about keeping private, except not only is it tied to my taxes and SS benefits (if there are any left for me), but also with my driving record and my ability to board an airplane. No, thanks.
We cannot nor we must not ever trust a corporation for any matter large or small.
Does this include governments?
Sure. In our wonderful system, corporations and government are two faces of the same coin. Government creates corporations by issuing charters, creating with the stroke of a pen immortal legal monsters; and corporations control government by buying influence, doing all they can to suck up economic energy and resources to grow their profits.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property" except as a bad metaphor. Ideas are not the same as real estate or physical objects.
There are legal entities of copyright, trademark, and patents. Violating these may be illegal, but is not theft, it is infringement of the copyright/patent/trademark.
Stop twisting the argument to make your view sound more correct.
I'm not twisting anything - my arguement sounds correct because, well, it is correct.:-)
By your logic, it's ok to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a minor too.
Yes. Age limits on obtaining alcohol have served only to increase binge drinking amoung teens. Certainly it's insane that a 18-year-old can marry or join the military - even be convicted of capital murder - but can't legally have a beer. Many nations have lower, or no, minimum age to obtain alcohol, and are not being overrun with alcoholics. And making tobacco legally available only to adults is such a re-enforcement of the meme that "smoking makes you look grown-up" that big tobacco should be paying the government for the marketing.
Prohibition doesn't work. (Which is not to say kids drinking or smoking is a good idea - but that's something that parents need to teach, not something the state needs to enforce.)
And on the brother giving a peek... It is still a criminal act...When something is wrong, it's wrong.
"Criminal" and "wrong" are independent variables. There's nothing inherently ethically wrong about a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek at a porn mag.
if the founding fathers could see the issue of terrorism... what would they propose
It could be argued that, by the standards of their time, the Founders were terrorists. The tactics of the Colonial armies often violated the rules of war common at the time.
That depends on the definition of "terrorism". But certainly attacks on civilian populations, assassinations, bombing (Guy Fawkes plot) and the use of mass indiscriminate destruction (burning cities) were known 200 years ago. The founder's solution was the same as it was for more "conventional" threats: a population prepared and willing to defend itself.
(And if we'd stuck with that rather than standing armies, we'd have been much less likely to fall into the trap of foreign adventures in imperialism that has made us a terrorist target.)
Is there a 'right to anonymity' mentioned in the constitution?
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em. Remember that the BoR is a backup to the idea expressed in Amendment X...
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...that everything not expressly granted to the federal government is forbidden it. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity. (Only much later did it become apparent that the individual states were far from excellent guardians of liberty, and Amendment XIV was passed.)
It's illegal for a minor to purchase "Hustler" and illegal for an adult to give it to a minor. Freedom of speech is not restricted because it can still be sold to the audience that it is legally intended for.
Of course freedom of speech - more accurately, of the press - is restricted by such laws. Saying "you can't sell your publication to X", for any given X, is by definition a abridgement of the freedom of the press.
Please note I'm not saying you should give your kids Hustler. I'm saying it's not the state's business to keep Hustler away from your kids, it's your business.
And they're going to get ahold of it either way once they're old enough to care - making criminals out of them over that, or out of a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek, is just stupid.
Parents need to supervise very young children to not expose them to certain material; then as the kids get older parents must educate them so that when the eventually and inevitably are exposed to it they can put it in proper context.
Having the state point guns at people to prevent minors from being exposed to certain words or images is a piss-poor attempt at a solution.
they could do whilst still complying with the letter of the GPL (e.g. by not releasing src.rpms - just the pristine sources and any patches they apply, and maybe the %prep and %build parts of the specfiles).
No, they couldn't.
The GPL explictly states "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Sources + diffs is not the preferred form for making modifications.
C) Use a loop hole to take their work and use it as your own for free.
This is not a "loophole". This is the essence of Free Software.
Don't pity Red Hat. It's up to them to make their business model work in the Free Software world, not up to the Free Software world to un-free software just because Red Hat has touched it. (I hope they can do so, but I have doubts about their current attempt.)
some 18-year olds who have been at school all their life can't multiply fractions, not because of lack of intelligence (there would not be any point recruiting those cases for university anyway, sorry) but simply because they were never taught it.
Actually people can be highly intelligent but still unable to multiply fractions.
An ex-girlfriend of mine is a Fulbright scholar who speaks something like eight languages. She's working on her PhD in Egyptology and will probably end up department head at some prestigious university. But I once spent twenty minutes explaining to her how to figure a 20% tip by doubling the amount and moving the decimal point, and all I got was blank looks. No math sense at all. And not because she wasn't exposed to math - her dad was a EE who became a vice president at Bell Labs.
Math to her is just a blind spot, like music to the tone deaf or spelling to the dyslexic. (She also had no sense of direction - I knew her for years before we dated, we dated for six months, she would still get lost on the way to my house.)
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL talks about "forming a work based on the Program". It does not discuss linking.
The FSF has an opinion that linking, static or dynamic, creates a derived work. But their opinion is worth no more that yours or mine - I find it unconvincing that dynamic linking necessarily creates a derived work.
Drawing the line on what constitutes a derived work in software will probably left up to the courts, poor bastards.
"GNU tools" isn't a OS. GNU is an OS, which Stallman et. al. started working on in 1984. It was shy only a working kernel when Linux came along in 1991. Poeple put the Linux kernel into the OS that the GNU project had been working to create for seven years and created GNU/Linux.
Linux is a kernel. It is not an operating system.
GNU is an operating system.
First, it says "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." There were plenty of people in the rebelling states who were not in favor of secession - should the U.S. allow those loyal citizens to be overrun by a new government?
Second, the powers of a fully sovereign nation are reserved to the Federal government (Article I, Section 10). No "departure from the Union" to form a new nation can occur without violating that section.
It did have the result of ENDING SLAVERY in North America. That is a pretty large victory for human rights.
No. You don't have to obey the constitution to stay in the union; you have to obey the constitution because it's the law of the land. No circular reasoning, it's hierarchical reasoning with the Constition at the top. (I'm not a fan of hierarchical reasoning in general, but a hierarchy with a law at the top rather than a king was a pretty good step forward.)
It's exactly the word we use today to describe people who attack federal buildings.
Article I, Section 10 makes it clear that the States are not full sovereign nations; States cannot "enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation", issue money, set duties on imports or exports, keep a standing army, or engage in war. No state or group of states can seceed to form a new nation without being in violation of that Section.
I'm perfectly familiar with Amendment X, but it has nothing to do with secession. The powers necessary to a fully sovereign nation are specfically reserved to the federal government in the Constitution, as described above.
The Declaration of Independence made the States "Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do" - a status the States gave up when they adopted the Constitution to form a single nation.
Anyway, not all people in states claimed by the Confederacy were in favor of secession. So when a group of criminals in those state threated the rights of people loyal to the United States, the U.S. government acted against the rebels; in itself, that's neither hypocritical to the DoI nor tyrannical. (Which is not to say that tyrannical, unconstitutional means were not employed. I live in Baltimore (ok, in the 'burbs just outside) and I know which way the guns on Federal hill were pointed.)
Addressed there.
Except that your description in no way applies to the situation under discussion.
The question of whether something is legal is orthogonal to whether it is ethical. The Founders were criminals in rebellion against their legal government. But most people think that they were ethically in the right.
Some would argue that they could have gained independance without war, as India did much later; others would point out the genocide against the Native peoples that the new nation would go on to commit, and that slavery was ended much sooner in Britian (and without a civil war), and wonder if things would have been better under British rule. I'm not sure about either of those, but want to acknowledge them as validly debatable points.
The Confederates were criminals in rebellion against their legal government. Since they were fighting to preserve slavery, most people think that they were ethically in the wrong, except fo a vocal minority who see them as champions of state's rights.
(Note that there were abolitionists who called for the North to seceed.)
Not at all. The move from the Articles to the Constitution merely was an alteration of the Union.
No. The Constitution is the law of the land. There is no legal "layer above it".
It doesn't use that word, but it makes it clear that individual States do not have full sovreign rights (Article I, Section 10).
We can argue about whether they had the ethical right, but they had no legal right. The United States Constitution is "the law of the land"; a succession ordinace can't trump it.
Er, no. U.S. forts and troops already existed in the area when the Confederates claimed succession. Confederates traitors opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Fillmore did more damage when he signed the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln may have overstepped the Constituion in stopping the Confederate terrorists, but let's not forget who started the shooting.
A fine philosophical stance, to be sure, but as a matter of law nonsensical - in that case any criminal need only "exercise his right of self-government".
You need a continuity tester or an ohm-meter. It would be very easy to test the cables to see which (if any) had a short between hot and ground.
Hmmm, maybe they need to review their Old Testament?
(Not a Mormon or Christian, but I identify as polyamorous.
If you want the reliability w/out the price tag and fancy-shmancy brand name, just get a Toyota. Same company. My 95 Tercel is creeping up on 170k miles with no major problems. I've seen a few old Toyota vans well over 200k.
Slow down and take a deep breath. Catch up on your meds if you need to, ok AC?
Anyone who wants cops to check people's IDs at random is not making liberty a priority. They might value other things more, and we can argue about those priorities, but it's inarguable that someone who wants armed and uniformed agents of the state to go around checking citizen's papers at random does not place a high value on personal liberty. It is simply inarguable that the parent poster does not have a great love for liberty.
The fact that some people take this position makes me sad. That's a subjective truth, also inarguable.
It's exactly because I know I don't have all the answers that I support liberty, that I want everyone to be able to go to hell in their own special way and not be forced to follow my path. It's those who are convinced that they are 100% right that are willing to use force to create conformity to their ideas.
So, while I believe fully in your right to post such drivel, I also hold with my right to respond: bite me, AC. :-)
I'm sorry that you love liberty that little.
My identity, much less the information on my personal papers, is simply not a beat cop's business.
Unless he's looking for a specific person fitting my description ("I have an arrest warrant for a Richard Roe, fitting your description, please show me some ID to prove you're not him or I'll have to arrest you"), my name and information have nothing to do with whether he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
I see no reason to beleive that it would help reduce illegal immigration. I certainly see no reason to curtail the liberties of American citizens in a half-assed attempt to pretend to reduce illegal immigration.
Um, great. I can have a new number to worry about keeping private, except not only is it tied to my taxes and SS benefits (if there are any left for me), but also with my driving record and my ability to board an airplane. No, thanks.
Howsabout we put the money into actually securing airports instead?
Sure. In our wonderful system, corporations and government are two faces of the same coin. Government creates corporations by issuing charters, creating with the stroke of a pen immortal legal monsters; and corporations control government by buying influence, doing all they can to suck up economic energy and resources to grow their profits.
Distrust all concentrations of power.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property" except as a bad metaphor. Ideas are not the same as real estate or physical objects.
There are legal entities of copyright, trademark, and patents. Violating these may be illegal, but is not theft, it is infringement of the copyright/patent/trademark.
I'm not twisting anything - my arguement sounds correct because, well, it is correct. :-)
Yes. Age limits on obtaining alcohol have served only to increase binge drinking amoung teens. Certainly it's insane that a 18-year-old can marry or join the military - even be convicted of capital murder - but can't legally have a beer. Many nations have lower, or no, minimum age to obtain alcohol, and are not being overrun with alcoholics. And making tobacco legally available only to adults is such a re-enforcement of the meme that "smoking makes you look grown-up" that big tobacco should be paying the government for the marketing.
Prohibition doesn't work. (Which is not to say kids drinking or smoking is a good idea - but that's something that parents need to teach, not something the state needs to enforce.)
"Criminal" and "wrong" are independent variables. There's nothing inherently ethically wrong about a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek at a porn mag.
It could be argued that, by the standards of their time, the Founders were terrorists. The tactics of the Colonial armies often violated the rules of war common at the time.
That depends on the definition of "terrorism". But certainly attacks on civilian populations, assassinations, bombing (Guy Fawkes plot) and the use of mass indiscriminate destruction (burning cities) were known 200 years ago. The founder's solution was the same as it was for more "conventional" threats: a population prepared and willing to defend itself.
(And if we'd stuck with that rather than standing armies, we'd have been much less likely to fall into the trap of foreign adventures in imperialism that has made us a terrorist target.)
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em. Remember that the BoR is a backup to the idea expressed in Amendment X...
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...that everything not expressly granted to the federal government is forbidden it. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity. (Only much later did it become apparent that the individual states were far from excellent guardians of liberty, and Amendment XIV was passed.)
Of course freedom of speech - more accurately, of the press - is restricted by such laws. Saying "you can't sell your publication to X", for any given X, is by definition a abridgement of the freedom of the press.
Please note I'm not saying you should give your kids Hustler. I'm saying it's not the state's business to keep Hustler away from your kids, it's your business.
And they're going to get ahold of it either way once they're old enough to care - making criminals out of them over that, or out of a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek, is just stupid.
Parents need to supervise very young children to not expose them to certain material; then as the kids get older parents must educate them so that when the eventually and inevitably are exposed to it they can put it in proper context.
Having the state point guns at people to prevent minors from being exposed to certain words or images is a piss-poor attempt at a solution.
No, they couldn't.
The GPL explictly states "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Sources + diffs is not the preferred form for making modifications.
This is not a "loophole". This is the essence of Free Software.
Don't pity Red Hat. It's up to them to make their business model work in the Free Software world, not up to the Free Software world to un-free software just because Red Hat has touched it. (I hope they can do so, but I have doubts about their current attempt.)
Actually people can be highly intelligent but still unable to multiply fractions.
An ex-girlfriend of mine is a Fulbright scholar who speaks something like eight languages. She's working on her PhD in Egyptology and will probably end up department head at some prestigious university. But I once spent twenty minutes explaining to her how to figure a 20% tip by doubling the amount and moving the decimal point, and all I got was blank looks. No math sense at all. And not because she wasn't exposed to math - her dad was a EE who became a vice president at Bell Labs.
Math to her is just a blind spot, like music to the tone deaf or spelling to the dyslexic. (She also had no sense of direction - I knew her for years before we dated, we dated for six months, she would still get lost on the way to my house.)