Well seeing as you can lay down a junction on a silicon die that can produce that microwave burst just as easily as you can lay down a transistor the basic principle that you can do quantum computing with silicon is still being demonstrated.
Ummm no. If I receive a binary to a GPL'd program I can distribute it without source simply by telling the person I distribute it to where I got the source from. The person I got the source from is responsible for supplying the source to the third party, not me.
Ummm no. In no way does the GPL state that you have to release the tools that you used to make a binary from the corresponding source code. If you did you'd have to release your compiler, your linker, your OS, your hex editor. Hell, even your text editor. Tagging the code is a total non-GPL issue.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
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; or,
Yes, you can choose to distribute using an ftp server, but how exactly does one go about recovering their distribution costs that way? By putting it on a CD and charging for snail mail at least you can break even on your distribution costs. Of course, why they don't just put the CD in the box with the router is beyond me.
That's reasonably valid. Perhaps the GPL better embodies community. You may use a community park for whatever you wish, as long as you are not excluding others from that park. It's certainly not free, but if it were then pretty soon there would be no park.
Have a look at the book Intelligent Image Processing. It describes how to make an EyeTap which is definitely what you want. To date these devices are not available for purchase:(
Oh please, let the paranoid raving begin! I'd love to be able to search for every picture with my favourite star in it. Or my own face. Or an ipod. Or my girlfriend's face. Or my brother's.
For anyone actually thinking of playing Ferion, I suggest you don't bother. It's a pyramid scheme for geeks. You can play the game "for free" but half way through a game all the nonpaying players are dropped and only paying players can continue in the arena. Of course, you can "pay" by recruiting other people who pay instead of you, which is why the above poster is advertising on Slashdot.
I don't understand. You can't even get the simplest metrics out of your software using VS. Quick! What's the 10 biggest functions in your project? What functions call this function? What functions does this function call? Not to mention the vast amount of screen real estate the VS steals for toolbars you'll use maybe twice a year. And the fact that Intellisense often and inexplicitly stops working.
Product activation doesn't prevent you from making backups. It simply prevents you from installing the same piece of software on multiple machines (usually greater than 10).
bullet-proof anti-piracy techniques would greatly improve the Open/Free Software Community.
Although I see your point and I agree with you in the long term, in the short term this will not be the case. If great product activation was installed on every software product available today within, say, the next 2 years, the Free Software community would be swamped with freeloaders damanding top quality software and giving nothing back. Sure, maybe we'll end up with more developers, more bug reports, etc., but we'll also end up with more annoying whiny people complaining about some undeveloped piece of software. Some people really don't understand the concept of communal development, constructive criticism, and equal contribution, and unfortunately most of those people are kind of people who download their software from russian warez sites.
We use a Condorcet voting method. We call it "Preferential Voting" even though it really isn't. It's really simple. All you have to do is rank the candidates. Put a 1 in the box of the candidate you want to win. Put an 8 (or whatever) in the box the candidate you don't want to win. Fill in the middle by preference. Of course, we have the same problem as every country in the world, way too few independants and ultra-conservative political parties. But unlike the rest of the world, every Australian is required to vote, so the inadequacy of our government is every Australian's fault.
I don't mean to flame, but it's people like you ("My idea is worth money!") that are the fundimental problem with copyright and patents. It's a freakin' idea. It's not worth a damn thing. What's more, it's not your idea, it come from the public environment in which you live.
It would seem that when netizens disconnect from the Internet they don't take notes. Live coverage is pathetic on the net. For example, the live coverage of the SpaceShipOne 100km space shot consisted of a webcast of the Space Show where the onsite reporter was using a cell phone to relay back what was happening. No pictures. No video. Not to mention the fact that all the feeds were swamped because the Space Show has never had that many listeners before and as such you were listening to static for half the time (but webcasted static!).
Re:Do not screw with private property
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I thought it was pretty clear that he was defacing public property, that's why it was the council complaining, not McDonalds.
I thought that was blatantly obvious! Corporations actually care about being sued for patent infringement. Therefore they require that anyone contributing code to one of their open source projects must give licenses to use anything of which they have contributed that is patented. The next version of the GPL will probably have the exact same provision.
I'm sorry, if they're going to release their code under an Open Source license then there is nothing they can do about it if you use it in your own project.
Why would you not want to be "tainted" by Microsoft's code if they released it Open Source? The license would have to specifically allow you to use the code in your own project otherwise it wouldn't be Open Source?
Slashdot Mirror
Well seeing as you can lay down a junction on a silicon die that can produce that microwave burst just as easily as you can lay down a transistor the basic principle that you can do quantum computing with silicon is still being demonstrated.
Ummm no. If I receive a binary to a GPL'd program I can distribute it without source simply by telling the person I distribute it to where I got the source from. The person I got the source from is responsible for supplying the source to the third party, not me.
Ummm no. In no way does the GPL state that you have to release the tools that you used to make a binary from the corresponding source code. If you did you'd have to release your compiler, your linker, your OS, your hex editor. Hell, even your text editor. Tagging the code is a total non-GPL issue.
That's pretty cool, I'll have to remember that one.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Yes, you can choose to distribute using an ftp server, but how exactly does one go about recovering their distribution costs that way? By putting it on a CD and charging for snail mail at least you can break even on your distribution costs. Of course, why they don't just put the CD in the box with the router is beyond me.
That's reasonably valid. Perhaps the GPL better embodies community. You may use a community park for whatever you wish, as long as you are not excluding others from that park. It's certainly not free, but if it were then pretty soon there would be no park.
No you need to READ THE BOOK.
Have a look at the book
Intelligent Image Processing. It describes how to make an EyeTap which is definitely what you want. To date these devices are not available for purchase
Oh please, let the paranoid raving begin! I'd love to be able to search for every picture with my favourite star in it. Or my own face. Or an ipod. Or my girlfriend's face. Or my brother's.
It's the Amway style recruiting of others that worries me.
Take out the pyramid scheme shit and state UP FRONT that you treat non-paying players as second class citizens and I won't have any "FUD" to spread.
For anyone actually thinking of playing Ferion, I suggest you don't bother. It's a pyramid scheme for geeks. You can play the game "for free" but half way through a game all the nonpaying players are dropped and only paying players can continue in the arena. Of course, you can "pay" by recruiting other people who pay instead of you, which is why the above poster is advertising on Slashdot.
Ahh, it's the fact that they're on by default that says volumes about the losers who write VS. Usability, it's 50% of development.
I don't understand. You can't even get the simplest metrics out of your software using VS. Quick! What's the 10 biggest functions in your project? What functions call this function? What functions does this function call? Not to mention the vast amount of screen real estate the VS steals for toolbars you'll use maybe twice a year. And the fact that Intellisense often and inexplicitly stops working.
Product activation doesn't prevent you from making backups. It simply prevents you from installing the same piece of software on multiple machines (usually greater than 10).
Although I see your point and I agree with you in the long term, in the short term this will not be the case. If great product activation was installed on every software product available today within, say, the next 2 years, the Free Software community would be swamped with freeloaders damanding top quality software and giving nothing back. Sure, maybe we'll end up with more developers, more bug reports, etc., but we'll also end up with more annoying whiny people complaining about some undeveloped piece of software. Some people really don't understand the concept of communal development, constructive criticism, and equal contribution, and unfortunately most of those people are kind of people who download their software from russian warez sites.
Uhh, then you need to actually try some more. One more should do it.
We use a Condorcet voting method. We call it "Preferential Voting" even though it really isn't. It's really simple. All you have to do is rank the candidates. Put a 1 in the box of the candidate you want to win. Put an 8 (or whatever) in the box the candidate you don't want to win. Fill in the middle by preference. Of course, we have the same problem as every country in the world, way too few independants and ultra-conservative political parties. But unlike the rest of the world, every Australian is required to vote, so the inadequacy of our government is every Australian's fault.
I don't mean to flame, but it's people like you ("My idea is worth money!") that are the fundimental problem with copyright and patents. It's a freakin' idea. It's not worth a damn thing. What's more, it's not your idea, it come from the public environment in which you live.
It would seem that when netizens disconnect from the Internet they don't take notes. Live coverage is pathetic on the net. For example, the live coverage of the SpaceShipOne 100km space shot consisted of a webcast of the Space Show where the onsite reporter was using a cell phone to relay back what was happening. No pictures. No video. Not to mention the fact that all the feeds were swamped because the Space Show has never had that many listeners before and as such you were listening to static for half the time (but webcasted static!).
I thought it was pretty clear that he was defacing public property, that's why it was the council complaining, not McDonalds.
I thought that was blatantly obvious! Corporations actually care about being sued for patent infringement. Therefore they require that anyone contributing code to one of their open source projects must give licenses to use anything of which they have contributed that is patented. The next version of the GPL will probably have the exact same provision.
I'm sorry, if they're going to release their code under an Open Source license then there is nothing they can do about it if you use it in your own project.
Why would you not want to be "tainted" by Microsoft's code if they released it Open Source? The license would have to specifically allow you to use the code in your own project otherwise it wouldn't be Open Source?
wow, must be weird living in your bazzaro world. Then again I suppose Windows is user friendly if you compare it to shaving with a cheese grater.