If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.
As I understand it, that is not quite right. If you want to call your distro "Swaziland Linux" _AND_ you want to register "Swaziland Linux" as a trademark itself, then you have to licence the "Linux" part.
If you don't care about trademark protection then you don't have to pay.
At least, thats what Torvalds seems to be saying about the Linux trademark here
If you have a problem with software, the beta stage is _EXACTLY_ the time to complain it. And no, it doesn't just have to be directly to Microsoft - discussion within the community helps too.
Waiting for the final release and then saying "this feature sucks" will, quite rightly, be met with the response, "Why didn't you try out the betas and tell us about it at that time?"
Managed code is the answer for the majority of applications, but right now it has drawbacks for certain scenarios that make it a problem.
The non-deterministic behaviour of current garbage collectors mean is just can't handle some types real time high fidelity audio processing for example.
Also, the code manager (i.e. the vm) has to run somewhere so the whole OS cannot be managed right down to the hardware level. (unless you implement the VM in hardware, but that's another discussion)
I just don't get why everyone's so worked up over this
For me it is exactly the same as if the government said they were going to force each citizen to pay 100 quid towards having their house painted white in order to raise educational standards.
My point is the card costs money but nobody has yet adequately explained what problem it actually solves and how.
I don't care whether costs are kept low or not. Is it good value is the real question and that requires knowing what it is actually supposed to do.
Also, google around a bit and see how mandatory id systems have been abused in the past.
exactly like when we were young, and you made digitally exact copies of the music you liked and shared it with thousands of people
If the artist is condoning or even engouraging it then it's not a problem whether two copies or two thousand copies are made. The market will decide whether it was a good move on their part or not.
The reality is that some artists have woken up and smelled the coffee. They are using the internet to their advantage (i.e., using it to replace the outdated industry distribution model) instead of fighting it.
It really depends what you mean by an Al Qaeda group.
This is a previously unheard of group who happen to have the words "Al Qaeda" in their name. They are not a part of the group called "Al Qaeda"
Remember that literally "Al Qaeda" simply translates as "The Base." I understand that it is common for Islamist organisations of various type to use the work "base" in their name in a similar way to how we use the word "foundation"
Imagine there was an English speaking terrorist group called "The Foundation" There would be worry amongst non-English speakers whenever you mentioned any "The Foundation for......." type names.
Got any examples of actual substantive licences which do more than, essentially, "Retain copyright, credits please" which are GPL compatible?
No. For any licence (licence A) to be compatible with My Favorite License (licence B) then license A cannot include any restrictions that are not also included in licence B. (unless I have missed something obvious)
In the GPL example that means no compatible license can have greater restrictions. That is quite hard to find since the GPL hardly has any restrictions to start with.
Incidentally, AFAIK "retain copyright, credits please" would be GPL compatible because "credits please" is a restriction that the GPL requires not to be imposed.
Ah. I understand your point now and I agree with you.
That would be the definition of compatible for just about any license though, wouldn't it?
Personally, I don't see it as a big problem that the GNU GPL uses "compatible" to mean "can be relicensed as GPL"
When you have various bits of code under various different licenses then either you can't mix the code because of license conflicts or it ends up being licensed under the most restrictive one. In this case the most restrictive is the GPL because it restricts the right to remove other peoples freedom. That's not too much of a problem for a license designed to protect freedom.
In Ireland at least, the warning that piracy (of films in particular) supports terrorism, is quite true.
Not really. It is the combination of three things that supports terrorism:
1) Our current copyright laws. 2) The way in which the industry licenses their work under those laws. 3) The public ignoring those laws.
Any one of the three could change and the market for selling pirated movies disappears.
All we are seeing is a black market that has sprung up as a result of monopolies and cartels. It's nothing new but I personally thing that when a legal environment allows monopolies and cartels to form then it is the laws that are wrong. It's no good blaming the consumers for trying to avoid the cartels.
It is funny that you mention cigarettes, diesel etc. These are all things that the government tightly controls. How much terrorism is funded by the sale of things that goverments haven't heavily taxed or otherwise intervened in?
What would be good is if there was a greasemonkey script for these sites that rewrote the broken javascript into something standards compliant, then firefox users need not worry.... or would that be a bad thing because the site owners would no longer have as much incentive to fix their sites properly?
No one wants to live in a world where we have to lock our doors
When a burglar arrives at a house they have usually already decided they are going to burgle it and are equipped to do so. If the door is unlocked it saves them breaking some glass or something, but you get burgled either way.
Burglars don't generally go around walking up and down every drive way trying all the door handles. If they did that then it would take too long (since most people _do_ lock their doors) and they would stand a high chance of being seen.
This is however unlike hacking. The hacking equivalent of trying doorhandles is portscanning and running nessus. And guess what? Most victims are hacked that way.
Having said that, if most people didn't lock their doors then burglars would adapt and start trying doors randomly. So its no so important that YOU lock your door, just that MOST people do.
The fact that random port scanning works as a way of hacking means that the chance of finding a hackable host in a reasonable time is sufficiently high. Unfortunately it takes very little time to scan a host, so in order to make it not worth while the average security of hosts on the internet needs to go up drastically.
You can't give away huge quantities of something that has intrinsic value
The value of software is not intrinsic. It only has value as a product when you intruduce artificial constraints to the market such as various forms of intellectual property law. (Note that I am neither condoning nor condemning said laws, merely pointing out what they do)
It seems that the trend for software is that product value is falling while service value is not.
In software the term "patch" really means something closer to "change" It typically removes something and replaces it with something else. (but sometimes only removes and sometimes only adds)
It is not like a patch you apply to your trousers when they have a hole in them.
When you buy a new lamp for your home or throw away a worn out rug, think of it as patching your house.
We are still using a lot of win98 machines. Upgrading them to winxp is unlikely since there appears to be no driver support on XP for all those older devices. Linux on the other hand seems to support it all fine.
Slashdot Mirror
If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.
As I understand it, that is not quite right. If you want to call your distro "Swaziland Linux" _AND_ you want to register "Swaziland Linux" as a trademark itself, then you have to licence the "Linux" part.
If you don't care about trademark protection then you don't have to pay.
At least, thats what Torvalds seems to be saying about the Linux trademark here
True, but this is still an interesting event in the history of Dixons because they started out as a camera shop.
Dixons are always striving to present an image as being cutting edge. They don't want to be seen as catering for outdated or niche markets.
This is probably why they did much the same with VCRs a couple of years ago as they are doing with film based cameras now.
Ah, yes.
My general inability to read and think strikes again.
Seventy-five percent feel discriminated against because of their age
43% say their bosses think they are too young, and 32% feel too old.
Anyone else see hypocrisy there? The age of your boss is irrelevant so long as (s)he is competent.
If you have a problem with software, the beta stage is _EXACTLY_ the time to complain it. And no, it doesn't just have to be directly to Microsoft - discussion within the community helps too.
Waiting for the final release and then saying "this feature sucks" will, quite rightly, be met with the response, "Why didn't you try out the betas and tell us about it at that time?"
Managed code is the answer for the majority of applications, but right now it has drawbacks for certain scenarios that make it a problem.
The non-deterministic behaviour of current garbage collectors mean is just can't handle some types real time high fidelity audio processing for example.
Also, the code manager (i.e. the vm) has to run somewhere so the whole OS cannot be managed right down to the hardware level. (unless you implement the VM in hardware, but that's another discussion)
I just don't get why everyone's so worked up over this
For me it is exactly the same as if the government said they were going to force each citizen to pay 100 quid towards having their house painted white in order to raise educational standards.
My point is the card costs money but nobody has yet adequately explained what problem it actually solves and how.
I don't care whether costs are kept low or not. Is it good value is the real question and that requires knowing what it is actually supposed to do.
Also, google around a bit and see how mandatory id systems have been abused in the past.
exactly like when we were young, and you made digitally exact copies of the music you liked and shared it with thousands of people
If the artist is condoning or even engouraging it then it's not a problem whether two copies or two thousand copies are made. The market will decide whether it was a good move on their part or not.
The reality is that some artists have woken up and smelled the coffee. They are using the internet to their advantage (i.e., using it to replace the outdated industry distribution model) instead of fighting it.
It really depends what you mean by an Al Qaeda group.
......." type names.
This is a previously unheard of group who happen to have the words "Al Qaeda" in their name. They are not a part of the group called "Al Qaeda"
Remember that literally "Al Qaeda" simply translates as "The Base." I understand that it is common for Islamist organisations of various type to use the work "base" in their name in a similar way to how we use the word "foundation"
Imagine there was an English speaking terrorist group called "The Foundation" There would be worry amongst non-English speakers whenever you mentioned any "The Foundation for
the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.
No, but they are bored of that now anyway. It's the war on civil liberties they will try this time around.
"QUICK! Arrest some people and hold them without charge! Then introduce national ID cards."
If those measures don't eliminate the existance of bombs and make everyone happy then I don't know what will.
Got any examples of actual substantive licences which do more than, essentially, "Retain copyright, credits please" which are GPL compatible?
No. For any licence (licence A) to be compatible with My Favorite License (licence B) then license A cannot include any restrictions that are not also included in licence B. (unless I have missed something obvious)
In the GPL example that means no compatible license can have greater restrictions. That is quite hard to find since the GPL hardly has any restrictions to start with.
Incidentally, AFAIK "retain copyright, credits please" would be GPL compatible because "credits please" is a restriction that the GPL requires not to be imposed.
Ah. I understand your point now and I agree with you.
That would be the definition of compatible for just about any license though, wouldn't it?
Personally, I don't see it as a big problem that the GNU GPL uses "compatible" to mean "can be relicensed as GPL"
When you have various bits of code under various different licenses then either you can't mix the code because of license conflicts or it ends up being licensed under the most restrictive one. In this case the most restrictive is the GPL because it restricts the right to remove other peoples freedom. That's not too much of a problem for a license designed to protect freedom.
Show me one single license that IS compatible with the GPL
GPL Compatible licences:
GNU GPL
GNU LGPL
X11 License
W3C Software Notice and License
Berkeley Database License
Clarified Artistic License
Intel Open Source License
Modified BSD license
MIT License
There are many others also.
I wish I could boycott them as well. The trouble is I already don't eat there on account of the shit food.
In Ireland at least, the warning that piracy (of films in particular) supports terrorism, is quite true.
Not really. It is the combination of three things that supports terrorism:
1) Our current copyright laws.
2) The way in which the industry licenses their work under those laws.
3) The public ignoring those laws.
Any one of the three could change and the market for selling pirated movies disappears.
All we are seeing is a black market that has sprung up as a result of monopolies and cartels. It's nothing new but I personally thing that when a legal environment allows monopolies and cartels to form then it is the laws that are wrong. It's no good blaming the consumers for trying to avoid the cartels.
It is funny that you mention cigarettes, diesel etc. These are all things that the government tightly controls. How much terrorism is funded by the sale of things that goverments haven't heavily taxed or otherwise intervened in?
I have another 50 to add to that. I am garton att gmail doott com.
apologies for replying to myself. I just noticed there are some.
a d-49b3c2b6e238f0b8656eed10bc8f782230a75eb4
here is one that fixed the jobcentreplus site:
http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts#he
What would be good is if there was a greasemonkey script for these sites that rewrote the broken javascript into something standards compliant, then firefox users need not worry. ... or would that be a bad thing because the site owners would no longer have as much incentive to fix their sites properly?
No one wants to live in a world where we have to lock our doors
When a burglar arrives at a house they have usually already decided they are going to burgle it and are equipped to do so. If the door is unlocked it saves them breaking some glass or something, but you get burgled either way.
Burglars don't generally go around walking up and down every drive way trying all the door handles. If they did that then it would take too long (since most people _do_ lock their doors) and they would stand a high chance of being seen.
This is however unlike hacking. The hacking equivalent of trying doorhandles is portscanning and running nessus. And guess what? Most victims are hacked that way.
Having said that, if most people didn't lock their doors then burglars would adapt and start trying doors randomly. So its no so important that YOU lock your door, just that MOST people do.
The fact that random port scanning works as a way of hacking means that the chance of finding a hackable host in a reasonable time is sufficiently high. Unfortunately it takes very little time to scan a host, so in order to make it not worth while the average security of hosts on the internet needs to go up drastically.
You can't give away huge quantities of something that has intrinsic value
The value of software is not intrinsic. It only has value as a product when you intruduce artificial constraints to the market such as various forms of intellectual property law. (Note that I am neither condoning nor condemning said laws, merely pointing out what they do)
It seems that the trend for software is that product value is falling while service value is not.
In software the term "patch" really means something closer to "change" It typically removes something and replaces it with something else. (but sometimes only removes and sometimes only adds)
It is not like a patch you apply to your trousers when they have a hole in them.
When you buy a new lamp for your home or throw away a worn out rug, think of it as patching your house.
We are still using a lot of win98 machines. Upgrading them to winxp is unlikely since there appears to be no driver support on XP for all those older devices. Linux on the other hand seems to support it all fine.
Yes, it is ironic.
And congratulations, you are the second person ever on slashdot to use the term "ironic" correctly.
Who has been smart enough to keep their enemies so close though, MS or Robbins?