I quess, I am the only one, but I don't really understand how someone can "own" a fucking font. To me, this is even more bizarre than the case with mindless patents - even the Amazon.com one. But a font, it's ridiculous. Where does this originate from - history anyone? To me this has been for around 15 years one of the biggest mysteries in computing.
Hey, I am too much a coward not to admit at this point, that the previous comment by me was crafted just as provocation to get good reasons why we need this certificate. Now, we got plenty of them:) Thanks!:)))
a system, may it be whatever, needs certifications only when it becomes bloated and looses focus. Soon, we will have these certifications in 42 main classes, and 42 subclasses of each, each with different meaning.
I believe that the user's free choice is the best standard-making-body it does not matter if you got a certificate or not if your distribution is crap.
...why is it that only nerds come up with good things. Why don't everyone start chalking, when there's some good resource to steal...erm... use. Like, we could chalk the neighbour's wifes excellent pizza, another neighbour's apples, that lady who is always ready, local tobacco shop which sells marijuana as well. The list could go on and on! We could also invent a fancy name for it, though "war" is cool already:)
selling products under own costs is not any good for the consumer in the long run. They are not lowering the prices to do common good. Instead they do it to kill the other one and make bigger profits later by raising prices.
I did this sometime ago, Unique Spam Invoicing System, USIS aka "Spammer Nailer". And am really planning to bill the spammers. The idea: spammers collects email by harvesters: this page contains an unique address and a service agreement, which says that by sending an e-mail to the address, you agree to the terms of service, which you can read at the url. And as the address is unique and I got the weblogs, there is atleast even some chance of nailing the spammer.
Well, you misunderstood most parts of the parody. It must be because of my bad english. I am too lazy to explain now, and it's not probably even worth it.
> I don't like to be told what to do. I will not look at your "real racer." Instead, I will mix physical reality, virtual world, and interaction by taking powerful hallucinogens
Why don't you have a look at my Real Racer's insanity as well. Remore (as in REMOTE) controlled cars. Here's an introduction.
Do you think we have reached the climax of reality in gaming? Well, you were wrong so read on.
This article contains cooking intructions for games that mix physical reality, virtual world and interaction using techniques and devices available of-the-shelf.
I also still believe that:
" I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product....and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid."
as everyone knows, it all depends on what software there was in the system. If the starting-point was a program, which contained instructions for trying to move the "wings", and seeing which instruction caused most lift, and tuning the algorithm based on that, I don't think theres anything fancy in it. If this is the case, this could have been done at the same time when the moonlander game was first done:) I mean, it all depends on how dedicated for this exact "learning purpose" the SW in that robot was - or was it just an self-optimizing algorithm. Is there any more details on the software inside somewhere?
actually, I might be totally lost in what I am trying to say. I mean, as openoffice is licensed under LGPL, why do they need this agreement at all. Yeah, I am lost. Sorry for causing confusion, I previously thought that main difference between LGPL and GPL is that LGPL allows linking to non-free-modules, but I quess there's something that I don't see in this case.
Could someone now please clarify to me and everyone else what the use of LGPL in this case exactly means in practise??
> You can't go from LGPL to GPL generally without all the involved parties permission. So I don't see your point
Maybe I should not have used GPL as an example. My point is that the wording in the agreement may make it look to the developer like they could do anything what they want with the contributed code. Bun in fact, if I understood the agreement correctly, the developer can only use the contribution him/herself. I believe that in many cases the developer does not have anything other use for the code (because he does not have the right to publish it anywhere else because of this license), but particapted only in the project because he thougth it was open source. So, in that sense this new agreement does not change anything.
Is there any point in this? Maybe not, maybe it is completely ok, but it still does not seem fair to me.
It is good that crackers get nailed, but it should happen using means that are not criminal themselves. In otherwords, if FBI has the right to nail the system cracker by cracking, everyone should have the right to do that as well. And that does not work, does it? I know it is frustrating to deal through "formal channels" when hunting someone who stole some data from someone, been in that hunter's role myself, but still if we start doing this, that really means war.
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
sources from outer space just informed me that the project to rebuild Ira from the ashes is almost complete. Martians have only one problem left, the DNA sample sample captured from the ashes is missing cooking instructions for the skull and face and they had to slip in a little bit of martian DNA. Now they are afraid to send Ira back to Earth, not to reveal the true origins of martian codenamed "Mr. Bill Gates."
My personal vote: Netscape 7.6.
Mozilla will live long and prosper but I believe Netscape will not. There may be some(many) tuned (business, embedded, etc.) versions of Mozilla available under different names in future, but Netscape - at the moment does not seem to have much extra to offer. Or if it does, could someone say it out loud? What do you vote?:)
the vision-gadget should be enchanced so that it detects when you are going to see something you do not like. For example, all chicks should be photoshopped, if you know what i mean, all cars should be ferraris (well, for my neighbour, let's choose Lada), and all drinks should be Pepsi.:)
It was a nice presentation on their website, here. The thing does not have anything special, and it is not sold now. Most main cell/pda makers will publish similar things within 6 months, I believe. Danger, I quess, just has to go public sooner.
Or was there anything else fancy, than the market speech, that I missed?
How exactly are they campaigning against open source? To me it says rather - if not very - neutrally that what they want is that open source, semi open source, and closed source and their licensing methods should co-exist. Also, I share their opinion that it would be very stupid to make organisations choose from only what is available under open source.
I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product.
...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe :) This defnitely seems like the best way of squeezing insightful comments out from /. readers :) I promise, I wont do it anymore :)
I quess, I am the only one, but I don't really understand how someone can "own" a fucking font. To me, this is even more bizarre than the case with mindless patents - even the Amazon.com one. But a font, it's ridiculous. Where does this originate from - history anyone? To me this has been for around 15 years one of the biggest mysteries in computing.
Hey, I am too much a coward not to admit at this point, that the previous comment by me was crafted just as provocation to get good reasons why we need this certificate. Now, we got plenty of them :) Thanks! :)))
I believe that the user's free choice is the best standard-making-body it does not matter if you got a certificate or not if your distribution is crap.
...why is it that only nerds come up with good things. Why don't everyone start chalking, when there's some good resource to steal...erm... use. Like, we could chalk the neighbour's wifes excellent pizza, another neighbour's apples, that lady who is always ready, local tobacco shop which sells marijuana as well. The list could go on and on! We could also invent a fancy name for it, though "war" is cool already :)
selling products under own costs is not any good for the consumer in the long run. They are not lowering the prices to do common good. Instead they do it to kill the other one and make bigger profits later by raising prices.
I did this sometime ago, Unique Spam Invoicing System, USIS aka "Spammer Nailer". And am really planning to bill the spammers. The idea: spammers collects email by harvesters: this page contains an unique address and a service agreement, which says that by sending an e-mail to the address, you agree to the terms of service, which you can read at the url. And as the address is unique and I got the weblogs, there is atleast even some chance of nailing the spammer.
Well, you misunderstood most parts of the parody. It must be because of my bad english. I am too lazy to explain now, and it's not probably even worth it.
...or paper copies atleast, I mean seriously, those are amazing!
Isn't it great to live in a free country ;)
Do you think we have reached the climax of reality in gaming? Well, you were wrong so read on. This article contains cooking intructions for games that mix physical reality, virtual world and interaction using techniques and devices available of-the-shelf.
I also still believe that: " I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product. ...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid."
Palladium, Pd46, Heat of vaporization 357.0 kJ/mol. I quess kJ/mol means, KiloJournalists / Microsoft's Obfuscated Literature?
I found this myself, Krister Wolff was the other guy mentioned in the Reuter's article, here's his homepage. It contains some interesting publications, like the one on Sensing and Direction in Locomotion Learning with a Random Morphology Robot. Worth reading!!
as everyone knows, it all depends on what software there was in the system. If the starting-point was a program, which contained instructions for trying to move the "wings", and seeing which instruction caused most lift, and tuning the algorithm based on that, I don't think theres anything fancy in it. If this is the case, this could have been done at the same time when the moonlander game was first done :) I mean, it all depends on how dedicated for this exact "learning purpose" the SW in that robot was - or was it just an self-optimizing algorithm. Is there any more details on the software inside somewhere?
Could someone now please clarify to me and everyone else what the use of LGPL in this case exactly means in practise??
Maybe I should not have used GPL as an example. My point is that the wording in the agreement may make it look to the developer like they could do anything what they want with the contributed code. Bun in fact, if I understood the agreement correctly, the developer can only use the contribution him/herself. I believe that in many cases the developer does not have anything other use for the code (because he does not have the right to publish it anywhere else because of this license), but particapted only in the project because he thougth it was open source. So, in that sense this new agreement does not change anything.
Is there any point in this? Maybe not, maybe it is completely ok, but it still does not seem fair to me.
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
Does it smell? Can for example releasing the same Contribution under GPL be considered as Contributor's own purpose? I doubt it.
sources from outer space just informed me that the project to rebuild Ira from the ashes is almost complete. Martians have only one problem left, the DNA sample sample captured from the ashes is missing cooking instructions for the skull and face and they had to slip in a little bit of martian DNA. Now they are afraid to send Ira back to Earth, not to reveal the true origins of martian codenamed "Mr. Bill Gates."
My personal vote: Netscape 7.6. Mozilla will live long and prosper but I believe Netscape will not. There may be some(many) tuned (business, embedded, etc.) versions of Mozilla available under different names in future, but Netscape - at the moment does not seem to have much extra to offer. Or if it does, could someone say it out loud? What do you vote? :)
the vision-gadget should be enchanced so that it detects when you are going to see something you do not like. For example, all chicks should be photoshopped, if you know what i mean, all cars should be ferraris (well, for my neighbour, let's choose Lada), and all drinks should be Pepsi. :)
Or was there anything else fancy, than the market speech, that I missed?
Danger's Sidekick PDA: Why it's worth the wait - you meant this, right?
I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product.