While I'm generally fond of Feynman, and having read (and enjoyed) his semi-serious autobiography, I agree with most of his opinions, I think he has it wrong with this one. Sure, science can and does advance without scientists ever worrying about the underlying philosophy, but I think many scientists would benefit from the introspection philosophy of science provides. Birds are dumb creatures, which would not benefit from reflecting on themselves or thinking about their thinking. Scientists are usually smarter than that. In fact, if it were up to me, I would make several courses in Philosophy of Science mandatory in all scientific undergraduate studies.
I'm normally affected by optical illusions just like everyone, but I don't see it here - the center squares of both discs appear equally light green to me. Any ideas? I don't think I'm colorblind...
Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs
on
The GIMP UI Redesign
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And to demonstrate just how powerful it is, the server-side of my chess diagram composer is a PHP script whose entire function is to create a single ImageMagick command that draws the chess diagram (and pass the result to your browser). Even the piece sets are (pre)rendered from TTFs using ImageMagick.
Shameless plug - chess board diagram composer
on
GWT in Action
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Just a few hours ago I finished a small, mostly-for-fun project in GWT, and now I see a GWT-related story on slashdot. Surely it's not a coincidence and therefore I must pimp my project: a chess board diagram composer.
The internet is the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from".
I didn't come up with this, but I don't know who did.
Hehe, that's what I get for posting a non-permalink. When I posted my comment, it was yesterday, aka Tuesday, and that link pointed to yesterday's daily graph. Now, of course, it points to Wednesday's daily graph.
You can see from today's AAPL chart that the average investor thinks this overblown. The dip and the quick recovery occurred when the news about this accusation came out.
Not true: mathematical theorems are true (capable of absolute proof) within their own axioms
Descartes would ask - how do you know the rules of logic are correct (obviously, I mean in the physical, not logical sense)? What if all humans share the delusion that logic is correct? Theorems are merely the selective application of the rules of logic on a set of sentences.
With the "cogito", however, I can't find a way to argue, because by arguing, I would be proving my own existance.
>No, no and even more no. Let's say my list of known primes is (3,5). 3*5+1 = 16 is not prime,
The entire proof is by contradiction, so the assumption at the point where he says this is that the set of primes is indeed finite. That is of course false, so the consequent can also be false and the statement will still be true. The truth value of "if 3 is even then so is 5" is TRUE.
It is only an existance theorem, and can not be used to find new primes.
Actually, it does give you a way to find new primes, just not a practical one. Suppose you know all the primes less than some number N and they are p1,...,pn and let P=p1*...*pn+1. Now, P, when divided by each of your known primes gives a remainder of 1, so neither of your known primes divide it. Therefore either P is a prime, or it is divisible by a prime between N and P. This gives you a finite (but huge) range of numbers to look for a new prime.
I'll post here what I've already posted on linux.com:
[Rabinovich] now points to online articles that he believes supports his position, such as Eric Schnell's and Jason Rumney's blogs.
Eric Schnell got the whole thing backwards. He thinks that Jin has an A/V module, which IChessU decided not to use and thus do not publish its source code. From his blog:
From I can make out, Jin's creator Alexander Maryanovsky's problem with IChessU is that while IChessU has utilized Jin's code, they are not distributing Jin's entire source code. An A/V module in Jin is not being used by IChessU and therefore the source code is not included.
I've tried to respond to his blog, but his captcha seems to be broken. I've emailed him but got no response so far.
"All the articles were produced only by Maryanovsky people/fans," [Rabinovich] says, "which is fine because they are published in developer's magazines/sites..
Where would Rabinovich have GPL violation related articles posted? A cooking magazine? Are Slashdot, Yediot Ahronot and Arstechnica all my fans? I didn't know I was that popular.
"He also said," Maryanovsky writes, "that they are planning to wrap Jin in a layer that would allow it to be controlled via a socket. I told [Rabinovitch] that I believe this would still, most likely, be violating the GPL." Despite this opinion, IChessU proceeded with its plan [snip]
That's wrong. As I mention on my page, they abandonded that idea and proceeded to use Jin in a straightforward manner.
Rabinovitch, however, writes [snip] The guy is hurt
Gee, I wonder why I'd be hurt? Could it be because Rabinovich stole my work?
Rabinovitch rejects the charge of bad faith negotiations because it is made without any explanation or evidence.
As I explained to him in my response, there's was no need to explain anything or bring evidence. The letter was to him - he already knows all the evidence! He was there at the negotiations!
Writing to NewsForge, Rabinovitch states that all source code was posted to the IChessU site, including that for the audio-visual module -- a claim that cannot be substantiated, since all code has now been removed from the IChessU site. He characterizes the audio/voice module as a separate program that "has nothing in common with the original Jin (it is even written in a different computer language!).".
So if the source code to the A/V module was released under the GPL, as required, why argue that it's a separate program? Not that it makes any difference, as that is exactly the point of the GPL - even unrelated code becomes "infected", as long as it's part of the same application. If I didn't want unrelated code infected, I'd release Jin under the LGPL. That is the whole difference between the GPL and the LGPL!
What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?
No, I would then claim that they cannot publish the resulting application at all, as the GPL clearly states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
As has been pointed out many times - you do not have any rights to a GPLed application except for the rights that the GPL gives you. The GPL does not give you the right to add a "Microsoft Word button" to Jin (excep
There's nothing wrong in taking advantage of open source software for your own gain. I do it every day when I use Linux. But yes, I know what you meant:-)
Yeah, but if a GPL web browser connected to it to view a web page, that would be causing Apache to be voilaitng withe GPL since it is communicating with a GPL app over a socket!
Umm, no. There is no distribution of software (especially not Apache) in the case you're describing, so the GPL is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant (in your case) for more reasons, but this is certainly the first one.
You are, of course, correct, but in my post I was already assuming that the owner of the "other" piece attempts to use the GPLed piece under the GPL, and discussing whether to do so legally would require him placing his piece under the GPL as well. If I wasn't clear in my post then I hope I am now:-)
Btw, the only GPL-compatible license (in the sense you're referring to) is the GPL, as it requires the entire application to be licensed under the GPL. Usually, though, when people say that a license "GPL-compatible" they mean that it allows relicensing under the GPL.
(according to my lawyer) all the information in a lawsuit in Israel is public knowledge - the text of any filed lawsuit is available to the public. I'm not writing here anything that isn't in the lawsuit, so I think I'm safe.
Am I right in understanding that you want 11,000 NIS (about $2250) for each screenshot of your software that appears on their site?
10,000 NIS per screenshot, not 11,000. I realize it sounds funny asking damages for screenshots, but the Israeli law only allows between 10k and 20k of damages per violation. We are also suing via a legal "fast track" (otherwise it'd take years to get a decision) where we must ask for minimum damages. So, without the screenshot damages, I could be looking at spending the same amount of money on the lawsuit as the potential damages. Plus, after a couple of weeks of futile attempts to explain to Mr. Rabinovich that he is wrong, and him basically telling me to fuck off, you could imagine I'm a bit pissed and want to nail him for everything he has.
Here we go again... GPL doesn't need to be tested in court.
I think you are right in that it doesn't need testing in that sense. But a precedent does need to be set that if you violate the GPL, the court will punish you for it. Maybe if I win this lawsuit, the next IChessU will think twice before doing something like this.
That's the initial letter Jonathan sent to them, where he informed them of the violation and offered to quickly settle for a small amount of money. The lawsuit is a different document (No. 4 on the IChessU vs. Jin page).
Pipes, temp files, sockets, none of these are covered by the GPL. The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*. If a GPL'ed piece of software could not communicate with a closed source piece of software over a socket or pipe, the Apache web server would not exist.
Umm, could you clarify what you mean? Apache is Apache-licensed, not GPL, is it?
I also don't see where the GPL refers specifically to linking. According to my reading of the GPL FAQ entry on mere aggregation, if the two pieces communicate data which is internal and specific to the GPLd piece, the other piece is also covered by the GPL. This means, for example, that you can't wrap a GPLed program in a network API (RMI and such) and extend it while keeping your extensions proprietary.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky - the author of Jin.
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
Actually, there are several violations:
IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
IChessU do not release their application under the GPL, but instead under a horrendous EULA. Read it, really.
Although they do mention Jin, they don't mention my copyright. Instead it's "Copyright (C) [2006] [unknown]", as if they don't know whose copyright Jin is.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm generally fond of Feynman, and having read (and enjoyed) his semi-serious autobiography, I agree with most of his opinions, I think he has it wrong with this one. Sure, science can and does advance without scientists ever worrying about the underlying philosophy, but I think many scientists would benefit from the introspection philosophy of science provides. Birds are dumb creatures, which would not benefit from reflecting on themselves or thinking about their thinking. Scientists are usually smarter than that. In fact, if it were up to me, I would make several courses in Philosophy of Science mandatory in all scientific undergraduate studies.
But I don't see the illusion even with either one (and, obviously, with both ;-)) of my eyes closed.
I'm normally affected by optical illusions just like everyone, but I don't see it here - the center squares of both discs appear equally light green to me. Any ideas? I don't think I'm colorblind...
And to demonstrate just how powerful it is, the server-side of my chess diagram composer is a PHP script whose entire function is to create a single ImageMagick command that draws the chess diagram (and pass the result to your browser). Even the piece sets are (pre)rendered from TTFs using ImageMagick.
Just a few hours ago I finished a small, mostly-for-fun project in GWT, and now I see a GWT-related story on slashdot. Surely it's not a coincidence and therefore I must pimp my project: a chess board diagram composer.
And yet some people have a problem understanding that.
The internet is the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from".
I didn't come up with this, but I don't know who did.
Hehe, that's what I get for posting a non-permalink. When I posted my comment, it was yesterday, aka Tuesday, and that link pointed to yesterday's daily graph. Now, of course, it points to Wednesday's daily graph.
You can see from today's AAPL chart that the average investor thinks this overblown. The dip and the quick recovery occurred when the news about this accusation came out.
TAR for compression?
Well, it'd certainly take 1st place for speed.
Descartes would ask - how do you know the rules of logic are correct (obviously, I mean in the physical, not logical sense)? What if all humans share the delusion that logic is correct? Theorems are merely the selective application of the rules of logic on a set of sentences.
With the "cogito", however, I can't find a way to argue, because by arguing, I would be proving my own existance.
>>Well then (P(1)*P(2)*...*P(n))+1 must be prime:
>No, no and even more no. Let's say my list of known primes is (3,5). 3*5+1 = 16 is not prime,
The entire proof is by contradiction, so the assumption at the point where he says this is that the set of primes is indeed finite. That is of course false, so the consequent can also be false and the statement will still be true. The truth value of "if 3 is even then so is 5" is TRUE.
It is only an existance theorem, and can not be used to find new primes.
Actually, it does give you a way to find new primes, just not a practical one. Suppose you know all the primes less than some number N and they are p1,...,pn and let P=p1*...*pn+1. Now, P, when divided by each of your known primes gives a remainder of 1, so neither of your known primes divide it. Therefore either P is a prime, or it is divisible by a prime between N and P. This gives you a finite (but huge) range of numbers to look for a new prime.
What exactly does the submitter mean by "the $39-billion largest chip maker"? Intel's market cap is $120B.
[Rabinovich] now points to online articles that he believes supports his position, such as Eric Schnell's and Jason Rumney's blogs.
Eric Schnell got the whole thing backwards. He thinks that Jin has an A/V module, which IChessU decided not to use and thus do not publish its source code. From his blog:
From I can make out, Jin's creator Alexander Maryanovsky's problem with IChessU is that while IChessU has utilized Jin's code, they are not distributing Jin's entire source code. An A/V module in Jin is not being used by IChessU and therefore the source code is not included.
I've tried to respond to his blog, but his captcha seems to be broken. I've emailed him but got no response so far.
I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's blog, even with a google search.
"All the articles were produced only by Maryanovsky people/fans," [Rabinovich] says, "which is fine because they are published in developer's magazines/sites..
Where would Rabinovich have GPL violation related articles posted? A cooking magazine? Are Slashdot, Yediot Ahronot and Arstechnica all my fans? I didn't know I was that popular.
"He also said," Maryanovsky writes, "that they are planning to wrap Jin in a layer that would allow it to be controlled via a socket. I told [Rabinovitch] that I believe this would still, most likely, be violating the GPL." Despite this opinion, IChessU proceeded with its plan [snip]
That's wrong. As I mention on my page, they abandonded that idea and proceeded to use Jin in a straightforward manner.
Rabinovitch, however, writes [snip] The guy is hurt
Gee, I wonder why I'd be hurt? Could it be because Rabinovich stole my work?
Rabinovitch rejects the charge of bad faith negotiations because it is made without any explanation or evidence.
As I explained to him in my response, there's was no need to explain anything or bring evidence. The letter was to him - he already knows all the evidence! He was there at the negotiations!
Writing to NewsForge, Rabinovitch states that all source code was posted to the IChessU site, including that for the audio-visual module -- a claim that cannot be substantiated, since all code has now been removed from the IChessU site. He characterizes the audio/voice module as a separate program that "has nothing in common with the original Jin (it is even written in a different computer language!).".
So if the source code to the A/V module was released under the GPL, as required, why argue that it's a separate program? Not that it makes any difference, as that is exactly the point of the GPL - even unrelated code becomes "infected", as long as it's part of the same application. If I didn't want unrelated code infected, I'd release Jin under the LGPL. That is the whole difference between the GPL and the LGPL!
What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?
No, I would then claim that they cannot publish the resulting application at all, as the GPL clearly states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
As has been pointed out many times - you do not have any rights to a GPLed application except for the rights that the GPL gives you. The GPL does not give you the right to add a "Microsoft Word button" to Jin (excep
As I replied to someone else, (in Israel) lawsuits are public information, and I'm not divulging anything here that isn't in the text of the lawsuit.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
There's nothing wrong in taking advantage of open source software for your own gain. I do it every day when I use Linux. But yes, I know what you meant :-)
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Yeah, but if a GPL web browser connected to it to view a web page, that would be causing Apache to be voilaitng withe GPL since it is communicating with a GPL app over a socket!
Umm, no. There is no distribution of software (especially not Apache) in the case you're describing, so the GPL is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant (in your case) for more reasons, but this is certainly the first one.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
You are, of course, correct, but in my post I was already assuming that the owner of the "other" piece attempts to use the GPLed piece under the GPL, and discussing whether to do so legally would require him placing his piece under the GPL as well. If I wasn't clear in my post then I hope I am now :-)
Btw, the only GPL-compatible license (in the sense you're referring to) is the GPL, as it requires the entire application to be licensed under the GPL. Usually, though, when people say that a license "GPL-compatible" they mean that it allows relicensing under the GPL.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
(according to my lawyer) all the information in a lawsuit in Israel is public knowledge - the text of any filed lawsuit is available to the public. I'm not writing here anything that isn't in the lawsuit, so I think I'm safe.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Am I right in understanding that you want 11,000 NIS (about $2250) for each screenshot of your software that appears on their site?
10,000 NIS per screenshot, not 11,000. I realize it sounds funny asking damages for screenshots, but the Israeli law only allows between 10k and 20k of damages per violation. We are also suing via a legal "fast track" (otherwise it'd take years to get a decision) where we must ask for minimum damages. So, without the screenshot damages, I could be looking at spending the same amount of money on the lawsuit as the potential damages. Plus, after a couple of weeks of futile attempts to explain to Mr. Rabinovich that he is wrong, and him basically telling me to fuck off, you could imagine I'm a bit pissed and want to nail him for everything he has.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Here we go again... GPL doesn't need to be tested in court.
I think you are right in that it doesn't need testing in that sense. But a precedent does need to be set that if you violate the GPL, the court will punish you for it. Maybe if I win this lawsuit, the next IChessU will think twice before doing something like this.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky
That's the initial letter Jonathan sent to them, where he informed them of the violation and offered to quickly settle for a small amount of money. The lawsuit is a different document (No. 4 on the IChessU vs. Jin page).
Pipes, temp files, sockets, none of these are covered by the GPL. The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*. If a GPL'ed piece of software could not communicate with a closed source piece of software over a socket or pipe, the Apache web server would not exist.
Umm, could you clarify what you mean? Apache is Apache-licensed, not GPL, is it?
I also don't see where the GPL refers specifically to linking. According to my reading of the GPL FAQ entry on mere aggregation, if the two pieces communicate data which is internal and specific to the GPLd piece, the other piece is also covered by the GPL. This means, for example, that you can't wrap a GPLed program in a network API (RMI and such) and extend it while keeping your extensions proprietary.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky - the author of Jin.
Umm, actually, that is false. We are asking for a total of 110,000NIS (about $25,000).
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
Actually, there are several violations:
- IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
- IChessU do not release their application under the GPL, but instead under a horrendous EULA. Read it, really.
- Although they do mention Jin, they don't mention my copyright. Instead it's "Copyright (C) [2006] [unknown]", as if they don't know whose copyright Jin is.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.