Yes, because they're some kind of email terrorists that are trying to shut down the legitimate communication because it is the work of satan. Think before you type.
The only way you can consider the BSD license "viral" is in that someone else, if they take my (open source licensed) project, and build off of it, must still include the copyright notices in source and binary, as long as parts of Foo are still being used.
Yes! They must include the terms of the BSD license in the some part of the code of their product, and more importantly, in the binaries they distribute. In particular, they must include a notice saying that "redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" so yes, technically I can redistribute MacOS as much as I want, which is why Darwin is an open source project (that and Apple gets lots of free development). Aqua isn't freely redistributable because it is significantly divorced from the darwin code that it can be distributed seperately.
with their (proprietory) disassembler IDA they watermark the binaries and anyone who gives away their copy of the binary they punish by refusing to give them the next version. The offender is free to continue using their old version but they wont get the new features (which in the case of IDA are always quite significant).
It clearly says you have to maintain the conditions, cant you read? The conditions _are_ the license. It also says you have to maintain the disclaimer, so even if you want to supply a warranty with your software (imagine that!) you cant if any part of it is covered under the BSD license. This usually isn't a problem simply because most people who are basing a commercial product on something that is BSD licensed will contact the author for approval.
I sort of have the opinion that before anyone takes on m$ft and bets the farm on their OS they might want just a little bit of security in their investment, namely that they can keep competitors from cloning their product, something the LGPL is not good for as anyone who has bought a copy of their m$ft compatible OS can demand the source code. You have to walk before you can run. Wine should keep their code free (truely free) until there are proprietory forks and then they should convince me (the consumer, who copyright actually exists to benefit) that the open source version is better.
I'll include it for you below, the BSD license is just as viral as the GPL. In particular, the first condition clearly says that any code which is based on BSD licensed code has to be licensed under the BSD license. Sure, the GPL goes into detail which explicitly states the basis of copyright law but it is not that which makes the sentiment between the two licenses different. The difference is that the FSF uses the GPL and they will track you down if you change the license or distribute binaries without source (a restriction that the BSD license doesn't have) whereas someone who licenses their code under a BSD license wont bother (although they legally can). Check it out:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the organisation nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
+ the standard disclaimer of liability here. So if you want to talk about how restrictive both are some how restrictive, and both are "viral."
How will changing to the LGPL help wine? How will it help the industry? Isn't the idea that someone might "make it proprietory" exactly what the wine project set out to acheive? Wouldn't it be great if a large number of companies were to figure out what wine is and how they can use it and finally put up some competition for Microsoft?
I once sat through the famous free laser printer story with a room full of law students and confused academics. At the end of the talk a number of particularly amusing students asked if RMS thought, just occassionally, in his deepest darkests moments, he ever considered that Emacs might be just a little bit bloated. Everyone in the room burst out laughing but RMS quietly explained how no, Emacs isn't bloated, every feature is necessary and really the question isn't on topic anyways.
I'm reading about DNA repair systems now. I tell ya, god sure can hack. Anyone who says that life is too perfect to be a result of evolution has
never looked at DNA synthesis (or RNA transcription for that matter). There's also the argument that if some superbeing had put this all into place he wouldn't have fucked up so much and left a 10**5 chance of mutation. After all, he'd have to see his original creation as perfect right? Pitiful creationists, hate em.
On the other hand, I think a lot of evolutionists are neodarwinistic, they have this idea that everything happened via random mutations and natural selection, which is contrary to all the other processes of life. Where's the tight feedback loops? Where's the error correction? This is something truely worth criticising and the Gaia people do a good job claiming that co-operation and retro-viruses pay a much bigger part than most evolutionists make out.
I'm sorry, but it needs to be said, what is the story with these stack based virtual machines? Isn't a stack based virtual machine a dipology of good sense? I mean really, who actually sat down and thought "yes, you know, it's a good idea to binary translate from a language that is significantly different (stack based) from the target language (register based), and, to do it at run time". What's the sense here? Exactly, what is it? As I sit through my 20 minute install of random piece of java software I have to wonder, couldn't it be compiling those bytecodes to something native right now? Like, even if it still did the groovy runtime optimisations, it could save itself a whole shitload of trouble it was to precompile it. As for the whole signed/unsigned duality, yes, I hit that in a major way as I tried to write my JVM backend for GCC. Try compiling any normal C program without unsigned types, go on. Then there's the lack of unstructured memory, object store, etc, etc. I'd like to see a C compiler for.NET that doesn't suck ass -- I hereby claim it cant be done. When you embrace.NET (or for that matter Java) you are killing native code compilation and, more importantly, you are killing C. Some people might like that but I happen to love the C language (well, not the C99 extensions, but hey).
The GNOME project had the opportunity to go with a better toolkit than Gtk+ and they blew it. Everyone said writing a GUI in C with #defines to pretend you have object support was a lame attempt at a good C++ gui library. There are plenty of alternatives to Qt now and Qt is available under the GPL anyways, so if you dont like writing GUI applications in C and you're not fond of basing your future on a brand spanking new language and a completely unstarted class library toolkit, then there's plenty of space on the other team.
it doesn't say "per person", michael just added that himself, either way you look at it the quote is stupid. If they are saying 1400 per day for the entire internet then surely they are saying that spam is going to be almost stamped out by 2006. If they are saying 1400 per day per person then email simply will not be a viable communication mechanism by 2006. If Stefanie Olsen (the C-Net staff writer responsible for this) was to learn how to use a url we could have some idea where the hell she got this mythical number from. Alternatively someone over at C-Net could proof read her articles and tell her she is smoking crack.
Portability portability portability. Try to fix gcc's speed woes and your patch will be ignored. Post to the gcc mailing list and you will not get a single response from a core developer. This is the state of gcc development. It takes a significant investment to get your head into the gcc source tree and generating good code is something you're not likely to have a lot of fun with. Stuff like vectorization instructions is just not easy to hack onto the lisp like internal syntax of gcc.
Legal action has largely been considered the only way to use force on the Internet. To do this you need to know who someone is and it is very costly. If you know who they get their Internet connection through there are laws in effect that you can use to shut them down. I think this is the latest proof that non-legal force is a reality on the Internet and it is directed towards the weak link in the legal chain. ISPs have to co-operate with law enforcement or legal copyright bullies to shut down attackers like this and they are likely to be attacked in this way. Let it be known: There's a new sheriff in town and he can force you off the net.
Sometimes I really wish ESR would stop being so damn amusing. I like the guy, I really do, he's got finese. Unfortunately he went on this little crusade a while back to convince everyone to say "cracker" instead of "hacker" cause apparently the "crackers" stole the word "hacker" from his dad (never mind the fact that there's a whole bunch of people out there who crack copy protection -- you'll be employing their services a lot in the near future -- who proudly call themselves "crackers" and ESR would have us do the same to them as "crackers" apparently did to his dad). So I find it really ironic when I catch him saying:
We're proud of our mad programming skillz and our ability to wrestle with arcana.
Which is on the bottom of the Aunt Tilly link. If you want people to stop confusing the two groups ESR you could at least try to make them appear somewhat seperated by, say, not talking like them. Maybe ESR can hook me up with some "leet private sploits" too.
Personally I think autoconfig is a great idea, especially if it can detect my video card (which only happens to be the most popular video card on earth btw, an nVidia GeForce II).
woo hoo. bring it on. White hat hacking has been dead since every last one of them sold out to the "security industry". Bugtraq serves the sole purpose of distributing exploits to kiddies to keep the "hacker threat" in the media. Down with bugtraq. Down with bugtraq. Down with bugtraq.
Obviously all these mp3s I have on my harddrive and listen to every day must have got onto my harddrive using some other file sharing program. Maybe I actually purchased all this music but supressed the memories for fear that I was supporting the music industry. This could explain why I'm so broke! The fact that I type in the name of any song that happens to cross my mind during the long fits of programming (usually accompanied by everything from rap music to beethoven) and it inevitably gives me a list of results in the hundreds is proof enough that the network "scales". When I look at my network stats and see that the small number of files I am sharing (about 150) each have hits in the hundreds of thousands, even though I restart my server at least twice a week, shows that I'm definitely contributing to the network. Surely this article is just a case of sour grapes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because they're some kind of email terrorists that are trying to shut down the legitimate communication because it is the work of satan. Think before you type.
how would ya be, inheriting the copyright for ping, you could shut down the web!
They asked permission, look it up.
The only way you can consider the BSD license "viral" is in that someone else, if they take my (open source licensed) project, and build off of it, must still include the copyright notices in source and binary, as long as parts of Foo are still being used.
Yes! They must include the terms of the BSD license in the some part of the code of their product, and more importantly, in the binaries they distribute. In particular, they must include a notice saying that "redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" so yes, technically I can redistribute MacOS as much as I want, which is why Darwin is an open source project (that and Apple gets lots of free development). Aqua isn't freely redistributable because it is significantly divorced from the darwin code that it can be distributed seperately.
with their (proprietory) disassembler IDA they watermark the binaries and anyone who gives away their copy of the binary they punish by refusing to give them the next version. The offender is free to continue using their old version but they wont get the new features (which in the case of IDA are always quite significant).
It clearly says you have to maintain the conditions, cant you read? The conditions _are_ the license. It also says you have to maintain the disclaimer, so even if you want to supply a warranty with your software (imagine that!) you cant if any part of it is covered under the BSD license. This usually isn't a problem simply because most people who are basing a commercial product on something that is BSD licensed will contact the author for approval.
I sort of have the opinion that before anyone takes on m$ft and bets the farm on their OS they might want just a little bit of security in their investment, namely that they can keep competitors from cloning their product, something the LGPL is not good for as anyone who has bought a copy of their m$ft compatible OS can demand the source code. You have to walk before you can run. Wine should keep their code free (truely free) until there are proprietory forks and then they should convince me (the consumer, who copyright actually exists to benefit) that the open source version is better.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+ the standard disclaimer of liability here. So if you want to talk about how restrictive both are some how restrictive, and both are "viral."
How will changing to the LGPL help wine? How will it help the industry? Isn't the idea that someone might "make it proprietory" exactly what the wine project set out to acheive? Wouldn't it be great if a large number of companies were to figure out what wine is and how they can use it and finally put up some competition for Microsoft?
I once sat through the famous free laser printer story with a room full of law students and confused academics. At the end of the talk a number of particularly amusing students asked if RMS thought, just occassionally, in his deepest darkests moments, he ever considered that Emacs might be just a little bit bloated. Everyone in the room burst out laughing but RMS quietly explained how no, Emacs isn't bloated, every feature is necessary and really the question isn't on topic anyways.
shit man, the source is there, if it pisses you off *that much* then fix it.
never looked at DNA synthesis (or RNA transcription for that matter). There's also the argument that if some superbeing had put this all into place he wouldn't have fucked up so much and left a 10**5 chance of mutation. After all, he'd have to see his original creation as perfect right? Pitiful creationists, hate em.
On the other hand, I think a lot of evolutionists are neodarwinistic, they have this idea that everything happened via random mutations and natural selection, which is contrary to all the other processes of life. Where's the tight feedback loops? Where's the error correction? This is something truely worth criticising and the Gaia people do a good job claiming that co-operation and retro-viruses pay a much bigger part than most evolutionists make out.
Remember this?
I'm sorry, but it needs to be said, what is the story with these stack based virtual machines? Isn't a stack based virtual machine a dipology of good sense? I mean really, who actually sat down and thought "yes, you know, it's a good idea to binary translate from a language that is significantly different (stack based) from the target language (register based), and, to do it at run time". What's the sense here? Exactly, what is it? As I sit through my 20 minute install of random piece of java software I have to wonder, couldn't it be compiling those bytecodes to something native right now? Like, even if it still did the groovy runtime optimisations, it could save itself a whole shitload of trouble it was to precompile it. As for the whole signed/unsigned duality, yes, I hit that in a major way as I tried to write my JVM backend for GCC. Try compiling any normal C program without unsigned types, go on. Then there's the lack of unstructured memory, object store, etc, etc. I'd like to see a C compiler for .NET that doesn't suck ass -- I hereby claim it cant be done. When you embrace .NET (or for that matter Java) you are killing native code compilation and, more importantly, you are killing C. Some people might like that but I happen to love the C language (well, not the C99 extensions, but hey).
Linux uses pine! Look at the selm tag!
Pine.LNX.4.31.0202051928330.2375-100000
The GNOME project had the opportunity to go with a better toolkit than Gtk+ and they blew it. Everyone said writing a GUI in C with #defines to pretend you have object support was a lame attempt at a good C++ gui library. There are plenty of alternatives to Qt now and Qt is available under the GPL anyways, so if you dont like writing GUI applications in C and you're not fond of basing your future on a brand spanking new language and a completely unstarted class library toolkit, then there's plenty of space on the other team.
it doesn't say "per person", michael just added that himself, either way you look at it the quote is stupid. If they are saying 1400 per day for the entire internet then surely they are saying that spam is going to be almost stamped out by 2006. If they are saying 1400 per day per person then email simply will not be a viable communication mechanism by 2006. If Stefanie Olsen (the C-Net staff writer responsible for this) was to learn how to use a url we could have some idea where the hell she got this mythical number from. Alternatively someone over at C-Net could proof read her articles and tell her she is smoking crack.
pfft, these days people are demanding a terabyte of RAM.
After all, that's what you get with a monolithic kernel and it is only going to get worse. The writing is on the wall and the solution is over here.
Portability portability portability. Try to fix gcc's speed woes and your patch will be ignored. Post to the gcc mailing list and you will not get a single response from a core developer. This is the state of gcc development. It takes a significant investment to get your head into the gcc source tree and generating good code is something you're not likely to have a lot of fun with. Stuff like vectorization instructions is just not easy to hack onto the lisp like internal syntax of gcc.
"allow applications to communicate and share data over the Internet, regardless of operating system, device, or programming language,"
Sounds like Antitrust.
Legal action has largely been considered the only way to use force on the Internet. To do this you need to know who someone is and it is very costly. If you know who they get their Internet connection through there are laws in effect that you can use to shut them down. I think this is the latest proof that non-legal force is a reality on the Internet and it is directed towards the weak link in the legal chain. ISPs have to co-operate with law enforcement or legal copyright bullies to shut down attackers like this and they are likely to be attacked in this way. Let it be known: There's a new sheriff in town and he can force you off the net.
We're proud of our mad programming skillz and our ability to wrestle with arcana.
Which is on the bottom of the Aunt Tilly link. If you want people to stop confusing the two groups ESR you could at least try to make them appear somewhat seperated by, say, not talking like them. Maybe ESR can hook me up with some "leet private sploits" too.
Personally I think autoconfig is a great idea, especially if it can detect my video card (which only happens to be the most popular video card on earth btw, an nVidia GeForce II).
woo hoo. bring it on. White hat hacking has been dead since every last one of them sold out to the "security industry". Bugtraq serves the sole purpose of distributing exploits to kiddies to keep the "hacker threat" in the media. Down with bugtraq. Down with bugtraq. Down with bugtraq.
Obviously all these mp3s I have on my harddrive and listen to every day must have got onto my harddrive using some other file sharing program. Maybe I actually purchased all this music but supressed the memories for fear that I was supporting the music industry. This could explain why I'm so broke! The fact that I type in the name of any song that happens to cross my mind during the long fits of programming (usually accompanied by everything from rap music to beethoven) and it inevitably gives me a list of results in the hundreds is proof enough that the network "scales". When I look at my network stats and see that the small number of files I am sharing (about 150) each have hits in the hundreds of thousands, even though I restart my server at least twice a week, shows that I'm definitely contributing to the network. Surely this article is just a case of sour grapes.