Sigh. That section doesn't apply because *you can't do that with C++* which is what Qt is written in. Maybe if the Qt coders bothered to do proper exporting of classes (export an "extern C" constructor function and make all methods virtual) then you could kinda make the argument that you've included nothing from the source library.. but they don't do that. Anything defined in the header file will be included in the calling binary.. replacing the dll won't work, which is why the LGPL requires you to give permission to reverse engineer and modify the calling binary if necessary.
I love the way people say this stuff about the LGPL.. have you ever actually read it? This is the bit you're probably referring to:
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
The newer version 3 of the license has more clear wording, which are actually more restrictive.. permitting modification of only the library not the combined work.
In either case, every time you say "you can link to LGPL licensed libraries without having to do anything!!" you're inviting people to violate the author of that library's license.. I'm sure they appreciate it.
The problem is not that computers are somehow different to papers.. if you were carrying papers across the border they'd be searched too. The problem is that, for some stupid reason, there's an exception to the 4th amendment around borders.. and that got extended into airports as being "effectively borders".. even when you're not flying international..
And what did people expect to happen? You exempt the government from honoring the 4th amendment in some "special" places that most people regularly visit.. you didn't expect them to apply common sense and decency did you?
There's a 4th amendment exception around airports and borders.. they can search you for *no reason*. If you don't think that is fair, you're not the only one.
Work in law enforcement, national security, or for a politician? Want someone you want searched but can't get the probable cause for a warrant? No worries, wait for them to fly, search 'em at the border and find something suspicious.. now you can search the rest of their property.
I don't know why they wouldn't have: TSA regulations at the time said anyone was allowed to.
"The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001." - Wikipedia
Yeah.. that's it. Not that the TSA has an exception to the 4th amendment which is regularly exploited by law enforcement (which the TSA is not) who can't get those pesky search warrants because they don't have probable cause of a crime having been committed.
1. you don't need an xbox 360 2. trying to use two will interfere with each other..
See, the way it works is, the unit projects an pattern in the infrared and a camera creates images which are processed to infer depth. That camera is calibrated with the standard color camera so you get full RGB-depth. So if you had two projecting the pattern you wouldn't get good images in the infrared.
One way to defeat this may be to add a shutter to the projector and synchronize them so one is projecting when the other isn't.. you'd have to synchronize the frame dropping too. Another idea is to add a difference filter over each projector/camera pair.
There's also the 100% software solution of actually modeling what you see automatically.. so you start with half a human, the human turns around and you get the other half, etc. It'll be mostly accurate.
With the calibration the accuracy of Kinect is much improved.. and ROS has algorithms that can do this automatically for anyone lucky enough to have a manipulator - speaking of which, when is Microsoft coming out with a $150 robotic arm?:)
1) stand at the TSA line and hand out leaflets explaining why the TSA is sucks. 2) get interrogated by TSA officers and removed from the airport. 3) try to fly and find they're on the no-fly list. 4) sue.
What? It just shows what we already knew: any idiot can sue for copyright infringement and win.. the law is totally stacked in favor of the copyright holder.
Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.
My opinion stands.. you're a copyright troll. If it wasn't for copyright law, no-one would ever give you a dime. That's the definition of non-fair trade to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Recognize the make and model of various cars and put in appropriate models please.
Google Grand Theft Auto Earth here we come.
Oh, LGPL, never mind.
http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing
Option 3.. gee, that was hard to find..
Sigh. That section doesn't apply because *you can't do that with C++* which is what Qt is written in. Maybe if the Qt coders bothered to do proper exporting of classes (export an "extern C" constructor function and make all methods virtual) then you could kinda make the argument that you've included nothing from the source library.. but they don't do that. Anything defined in the header file will be included in the calling binary.. replacing the dll won't work, which is why the LGPL requires you to give permission to reverse engineer and modify the calling binary if necessary.
It's called "official cover".. those are the spies you send to tell the spies in the other country that you have spies there.
I love the way people say this stuff about the LGPL.. have you ever actually read it? This is the bit you're probably referring to:
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
The newer version 3 of the license has more clear wording, which are actually more restrictive.. permitting modification of only the library not the combined work.
In either case, every time you say "you can link to LGPL licensed libraries without having to do anything!!" you're inviting people to violate the author of that library's license.. I'm sure they appreciate it.
Yes, they're called "hipsters", we get it.
Ya kidding right? Do you think there's a factory in Wyoming that makes UAVs or something?
Don't you Americans think now would be a perfect time to get that silly 4th amendment exception around borders and airports ruled unconstitutional?
The problem is not that computers are somehow different to papers.. if you were carrying papers across the border they'd be searched too. The problem is that, for some stupid reason, there's an exception to the 4th amendment around borders.. and that got extended into airports as being "effectively borders".. even when you're not flying international..
And what did people expect to happen? You exempt the government from honoring the 4th amendment in some "special" places that most people regularly visit.. you didn't expect them to apply common sense and decency did you?
There's a 4th amendment exception around airports and borders.. they can search you for *no reason*. If you don't think that is fair, you're not the only one.
Work in law enforcement, national security, or for a politician? Want someone you want searched but can't get the probable cause for a warrant? No worries, wait for them to fly, search 'em at the border and find something suspicious.. now you can search the rest of their property.
Wild speculation about the motives of terrorists is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Cause back then we had this thing called "freedom".. and I'd be happy to have it back.
I don't know why they wouldn't have: TSA regulations at the time said anyone was allowed to.
"The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001." - Wikipedia
Wow, that took seconds to refute.
Yeah.. that's it. Not that the TSA has an exception to the 4th amendment which is regularly exploited by law enforcement (which the TSA is not) who can't get those pesky search warrants because they don't have probable cause of a crime having been committed.
I don't wanna feel safer.. I want to be free.
1. you don't need an xbox 360
2. trying to use two will interfere with each other..
See, the way it works is, the unit projects an pattern in the infrared and a camera creates images which are processed to infer depth. That camera is calibrated with the standard color camera so you get full RGB-depth. So if you had two projecting the pattern you wouldn't get good images in the infrared.
One way to defeat this may be to add a shutter to the projector and synchronize them so one is projecting when the other isn't.. you'd have to synchronize the frame dropping too. Another idea is to add a difference filter over each projector/camera pair.
There's also the 100% software solution of actually modeling what you see automatically.. so you start with half a human, the human turns around and you get the other half, etc. It'll be mostly accurate.
For it to be of value for that you'd need to give one to everyone (woohoo!) and forbid them from turning it off (doh!).
http://www.ros.org/wiki/kinect_node
With the calibration the accuracy of Kinect is much improved.. and ROS has algorithms that can do this automatically for anyone lucky enough to have a manipulator - speaking of which, when is Microsoft coming out with a $150 robotic arm? :)
Did ya see this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM
Oh yeah, "A capitalist will sell you the rope you will hang him with if he can make profit on it" Lenin
We need volunteers to:
1) stand at the TSA line and hand out leaflets explaining why the TSA is sucks.
2) get interrogated by TSA officers and removed from the airport.
3) try to fly and find they're on the no-fly list.
4) sue.
And people to fund this effort.
What? It just shows what we already knew: any idiot can sue for copyright infringement and win.. the law is totally stacked in favor of the copyright holder.
Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.
My opinion stands.. you're a copyright troll. If it wasn't for copyright law, no-one would ever give you a dime. That's the definition of non-fair trade to me.
http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg