The problem is that the employer almost certainly owns copyright on the change. That's a separate issue to the licence: even if Apache was GPL, the employee still couldn't offer that change for distribution without his employer's consent.
I know. This is relevant to the discussion how, exactly?
And it's why you can't contribute to GCC, binutils, etc. without legally disclaiming all copyright interest in your changes and assigning copyright to the FSF, and without a note from your employeer legal disclaiming their interest in your changes.
The Apache Software Foundation holds the copyright on Apache, not the FSF, so why would anybody assign their copyright to the FSF? The FSF has nothing to do with this scenario. Regardless, to contribute to a GPL'd project, you merely have to GPL your contribution -- you can still hold the copyright. There is no reason to reassign it to anybody.
In this case, the company could license their change under the GPL and keep their copyright. This is exactly what Tivo does with their changes to the Linux kernel.
You're still not getting it. If an employee download the free version of Apache from the web site, makes a change, and does not distribute that change, then that version is now a non-free version because they can't post their change back to the 'net.
EVERYTHING in that series was tied back to society and how many of the people in charge were directly tied to the people running The Village.
And what effect did this have on the average man on the street? Answer: none. The few episodes where they did film outside of the Village, e.g., in London, showed then contemporary London, not some Orwellian society. Those in charge operated very much in the shadows. Hence, I stand by my original statement that The Prisoner had no broad implications on how science and technology affected society. A cold-war-era spy/political/psychological series, yes; science/technology/sci-fi, no.
I didn't like B5 either because, despite being on board a space station populated by aliens, the story lines were pretty much the same old, tired human sqabbles. It was basically the United Nations in space.
Science fiction isn't just about starships, time-travel and parallel universes.
I never said it was.
The Prisoner deals with more psychological sci-fi (things like mind transfers, mental programming, controlled/simulated realities, etc.).
I guess I still don't consider than sci-fi because it makes no broad implications on how science and technology affect society. The Twilight Zone is far more sci-fi than The Prisoner.
He said they were using a nonfree modified version of Apache, which means they received it under a proprietary licence [sic]
All he says is "... using nonfree..." He doesn't say how they came to possess said versions, so you're speculating. They could modify Apache themselves and keep said modifications propriatery at which point their version of Apache would now be the nonfree version.
Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals.
What little science and technology there was in The Prisoner wasn't really imagined: it was mostly contemporary actual science. No. 2, et al, pretty much tried to drug, brainwash, and generally mind-f*ck No. 6 into saying why he resigned. What "imagined science and technology" was there? The automatic, sliding doors?
Additionally, the scope of No. 2, et al, was also limited (pretty much) to the Village and had little effect on society at large.
Also, oddly they say it ran from 1963 to 1989... Hmmm, you know... I could swear I saw something on BBC 1 called Dr. something a short while back.. I wonder what it could be.
Doctor Who was resurrected in 2005; 2006 is in production, and has been green-lighted through 2007.
We often hear that some 70 percent of web servers use Apache; what we don't hear is that a large fraction of those servers are using a nonfree modified version of Apache, as permitted by the Apache license.
Those servers could equally well use modified versions of Apache even if Apache were under the GPL. The GPL comes into play only if you distribute your modified versions of Apache. If you keep your changes in-house, the whole issue is moot.
The comment was made in reply to the 'what advantages does firefox have over [insert browser here]'? question, and this is one.
Except what I meant was that its features, UI, and overall usability -- not its extensibility due to its open-source-ness -- is what really matters to most people.
But even if you or I as individuals don't write or pay someone to write mouse-gestures, a business (eg, a web design co, library, etc) that could streamline its work by implementing specific behaviours without writing a new browser might significantly benefit from this.
I use a piece of software because it does what I need it to do in an efficient way, not because it may foster somebody else's business. I think your trying too hard to justify Firefox.
Due to its 'open' nature, [Firefox is] easy to extend it a thousand different ways. And if mouse gestures don't work *exactly* like you want them to, you can... write one yourself or pay someone more talented to write the trivial code for you.
And how often have you done that?
I'm as big a fan of open-source as anybody (I'm an open-source developer myself), but the above argument is a white elephant since most people will never take advantage of it. (Most people don't even mail in mail-in rebates to get some of their own money back and you expect them to write their own mouse-gesture code or contract somebody else to?)
Ever use Firefox on Mac OS X or FreeBSD? It sucks, badly.
I agree. Safari has its weaknesses, but it's way better than the OS X port of Firefox.
I really don't "get it" when it comes to all the hullabaloo over Firefox other than weening people off IE. If you ignore the IE factor and consider Firefox on its own merits, there's nothing special about it: it's just another browser (at least for OS X).
Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View.
As I happen to live in Mountain View, it's kinda cool to see your town mentioned.:-)
We don't just retain heat, we generate heat. Otherwise the earth's core would have solidified a long time ago, and we'd be very irradiated.
Can you explain how the heat is generated? I always assumed that the Earth's core (and mantle) are hot because it takes a really long time for all that molten rock to cool off. All the rocks that collided together 4.5 billion years ago to form the Earth generated (past tense) a lot of heat from collisions, but there's no internal heat generator.
I'd like to see
this
happen sooner.
Even if there is life on Mars, it's probably only at the microbial level.
However, on Europa, there could be bigger things swimming around in the ocean under the ice.
I personally think a good contender for life would be in caves on Mars. There must be plenty of caves in/around either Olympus Mons or in Valles Marineris.
Why caves? Two reasons:
Here on Earth, there's some pretty "alien" forms of
life in caves that exists in very different and harsh conditions.
On Mars, an ecosystem in a cave would be sheltered from the harsh solar radiation that bakes/sterilizes the surface since there's no protective ozone later.
Even though Mars is smaller than Earth, the land area is about the same as Earth, so it will take a long time to explore Mars fully.
I agree that continuing to explore the surface won't lead to much, but there's probably lots of interesting stuff in caves.
Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, but that does not preclude human free will.
So? I don't see how that answers my question. What does free will have to do with whether God has taken a special interest in whether the OP should have another child? This is about what God preumeably does, not what humans do.
Human free-will comes with no restrictions, even to the point of the freedom to do bad things to other people or to put ourselves and loved ones at risk (child getting sick from unknown conditions)
Again, I'm not talking about what humans do to others. If somebody has a child, does everything right, and puts that child at risk of nothing, and yet that child becomes afflicted with a fatal-if-untreated disease (whether the reason is known or unknown is irrelevant), and nobody's bad free will acted upon that child to cause the disease, then the only reason left, extrapolating from the OP's belief, is that God must want that child to die.
... acting on that free-will is a good thing. It is actually according to God's plan, not against it. This trivially includes studying the world and learning to cure sickness with modern medicine.
How do you know that? Can you prove that God does not want the child to die? If, according to the OP, God took a special interest in him and doesn't want him to have another child, then why can't God want somebody's child to die?
My problem with most religious folk is that their God conveniently wants what they've worked out to be rational and good.
This reminds me of the line that goes something like: If something good in nature happens, it must be part of God's plan; if something bad in nature happens, e.g., an earthquake, flood, tornado, hurricane, etc., it's just Mother Nature.
I guess assuming and inferring is good for the goose and not the gander?
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I neither assumed nor inferred that the OP himself believed in my extrapolation of his reasoning. All I'm saying is what my extrapolation is.
Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?
I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen...
This will probably get modded as flame-bait by the religious, but...
This kind of thinking always dumbfounds me. Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?
What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, the company could license their change under the GPL and keep their copyright. This is exactly what Tivo does with their changes to the Linux kernel.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You're still not getting it. If an employee download the free version of Apache from the web site, makes a change, and does not distribute that change, then that version is now a non-free version because they can't post their change back to the 'net.
No, if it were free, then any employee could post the source code of their changes to the 'net.
Additionally, the scope of No. 2, et al, was also limited (pretty much) to the Village and had little effect on society at large.
The Prisoner (despite Netflix's incorrect synopsis) isn't science fiction. It's a cold-war-era spy story.
I'm as big a fan of open-source as anybody (I'm an open-source developer myself), but the above argument is a white elephant since most people will never take advantage of it. (Most people don't even mail in mail-in rebates to get some of their own money back and you expect them to write their own mouse-gesture code or contract somebody else to?)
But it's not that often the towns are mentioned by name.
So correct me.
I'd like to see this happen sooner. Even if there is life on Mars, it's probably only at the microbial level. However, on Europa, there could be bigger things swimming around in the ocean under the ice.
Why caves? Two reasons:
- Here on Earth, there's some pretty "alien" forms of
life in caves that exists in very different and harsh conditions.
- On Mars, an ecosystem in a cave would be sheltered from the harsh solar radiation that bakes/sterilizes the surface since there's no protective ozone later.
Even though Mars is smaller than Earth, the land area is about the same as Earth, so it will take a long time to explore Mars fully.I agree that continuing to explore the surface won't lead to much, but there's probably lots of interesting stuff in caves.
My problem with most religious folk is that their God conveniently wants what they've worked out to be rational and good.
This reminds me of the line that goes something like: If something good in nature happens, it must be part of God's plan; if something bad in nature happens, e.g., an earthquake, flood, tornado, hurricane, etc., it's just Mother Nature.
Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?
This kind of thinking always dumbfounds me. Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?
What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)
Warp speed's too slow. They need to achieve ludicrous speed!