The method described in the parent sounds reasonable, but I use bogofilter slightly differently. I don't create a temp file and I don't use the -u option. I just run bogofilter directly and check the exit status. I keep pretty much all the mail I receive, so to keep things up-to-date I just rebuild my word lists from scratch every so often.
Also, I suggest that you add a "stop processing" action after moving the email to your spam folder. Otherwise, if you have filters for mailing lists after the spam filter then spam that comes through a mailing list will appear in the spam folder and the mailing list folder.
Sure my kind saint took pity on me,
And I blessed them unaware.
Dammit. I knew some of those stanzas should've had six lines. Still, I'm pretty chuffed that I did as well as I did.:)
Once upon a time, I could recite the entire first part from memory. But, unexercised, that skill lasted only a fortnight or so before I started forgetting bits.
Anyway, I think this has strayed a little off-topic. But having spent the last few months coding in Java, I can say that Coleridge's poetry is a far more pleasant thing to be thinking about.
/. editors: please improve your literary references.
The albatross doesn't need killing -- it's already dead. The albatross was hanging from the mariners neck because he had killed it, and by doing so had brought bad luck upon his ship.
Quoting from memory here, because I can't be bothered to go find my copy of the poem:
"God save thee, ancient mariner,
from the fiends that plague thee thus.
Why lookst thou so?" "With my crossbow
I shot the albatross!"
...
Ah well-a-day, what evil looks
had I from old and young.
Instead of the cross, the albatross
about my neck was hung.
...
Oh happy living things! No tongue
their beauty might declare.
A spring of love gushed from my heart
and I blessed them unaware.
That self-same moment I could pray
and from my neck so free
the albatross fell off and sank
like lead into the sea.
As I said, that's from memory, so there are probably plenty of mistakes in there, but I'm sure a little googling will turn up a proper copy of the poem.
Re:Obligatory Anti-Pattern Viewpoint
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
I heard that they wouldn't release the specs because they hadn't got licenses for patented techniques, or at least they were fearful that they might be using patented techniques unknowingly, and if they did release their specs then someone would come out of the woodwork claiming patent infringement.
Take that with a pinch of salt. I make no claims as to the truth of it.
There's a post on the WWW-Talk mailing list in which Marc proposes the <IMG> tag in pretty much exactly the form in which it exists today, and asks for suggestions on how it might be done better. Some suggestions are made and Marc then ignores all of them and goes ahead with his original proposal.
The <IMG> tag is one of the worst parts of HTML. The alt attribute is an unpleasant hack to compensate for its poor design. If Marc had given it a little more thought then we would've had something like the <OBJECT> tag from the start, and we'd have probably never needed frames.
So yes, Marc was largely responsible for the <IMG> tag. And he completely cocked it up.
If you read the metacity source code, at least on earlier releases, Havoc had written things like "I won't implement idea X, because it is crackrock. Tough luck." Things like making metacity play nicely with XMMS. Of course, this was when it was his pet project and not being considered by Sun/Wipro. One wonders if there will be a Sun fork of the project, or if Havoc will turn over development or make compromises that Sun will inevitably require.
Actually it's rather more likely that Sun are adopting Metacity *because* of Havoc's "no crackrock" approach. I don't know about the particulars of the XMMS case (though I do know that its refusal to cooperate with Sawfish is a pain in the arse), but I'll bet that 99% of the things that Havoc terms "crackrock" are things which would make Metacity more difficult for most of GNOME's users to use (including those of us who are programmers).
I don't think Sun are going to require compromises with Havoc's approach. If anything they would have had to make compromises with Sawfish. I really can't imagine Sun being too pleased about Sawfish's immensely complex config dialog.
--colin (who has taken to posting on/. about GNOME rather than doing anything to improve it)
Am I wrong to be trying to do procedural programming with XSL?
Yes.
I get the impression that you're not familiar with the functional programming style. Functional programming is a style in which the entire program is defined as a function. There are a number of languages which support functional programming. (Lisp and Haskell are probably the most famous, but XSLT is a functional language as well.) I'm not going to explain the entire theory behind functional programming at this stage. I'll just say that if you wan to be able to use XSLT as anything more than a glorified template system, you'll have to learn about functional programming.
You ask where looping is in XSLT. Well, functional languages tend not to do looping. You have to do it all using recursion.
If all you've done is procedural programming then it will seem very weird for a while. It takes some time to get good at it. I experienced a period of frustration when I first started with XSLT, but once you realise that it's functional, it suddenly becomes quite a powerful language.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
You could read this as applying to music as much as to software -- so for electronic music it might be, for example, the midi files and samples used to make the music.
It's not obvious, but I belive that you could use the GPL for music in this way. However, I personally would be inclined to use a more general-purpose free media license.
The first thing is that there are a number of these licenses, some specific to particular media, some more general-purpose. I count nine so far (and I'm always looking for more). As a musician, I use the CzrPL which I wrote myself.
</self-promotion>
In some ways I suppose you could argue that this is insufficient. If your work gets incorporated into another person's work (as it should do under copyleft) but the derivative work is placed in an encrypted format then breaking the encryption is illegal under the DMCA regardless of the user's rights as a recipient of a copylefted work.
I believe that the GNU FDL specifies some conditions about open formats to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Ban anyone from making money off CWPL'd works, without the author's permission.
You could do this, but as you say, it doesn't really match the GPL. In fact, I think it conflicts with the open-source definition.
For my own music I made sure that it was possible for people to make money from my work without me getting any, and I did this entirely selfishly. I wanted to give people an incentive to redistribute my work and minimise the complications that would arise if I required money from it. Requiring payment would add too much overhead for my purposes.
3. Require that any subsequent or derivitive use also be automatically under the CWPL. (This also doesn't go with the GPL, and I'm not even user if this is a good idea.)
Actually this is rather close to the GPL. Any derivative works of GPLed software must also be GPLed.
Anyway, I'd really advise you not to continue until you take a look at the other licenses that are around. I'm sorry to plug my own website again, but it really is the only place I know of that has this information... I've compiled a list of free media licenses. Please take a look at these before you embark on making your own.
There are essentially two types of software license: those which are "shrink-wrap" or "click-wrap" licenses, and those which are a set of exceptions to standard copyright protections.
Shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses specify a set of conditions and use an action such as opening the packaging or pressing a button as an indicator that you agree to those conditions. There is some disagreement about the legal standing of such a license, though I think they have been upheld in some courts. These licenses can specify conditions that wouldn't otherwise be available under copyright law, such as restricting what the software is used for, for example.
Most open-source licenses are not shrink- or click-wrap. Instead, they specify that by following a set of conditions, the user gains an exempion from certain provisions of copyright law. For example, under the GPL, the user may be exempted from copyright's restrictions on redistribution as long as they follow the condition of providing the source (under the GPL) to whoever they redistribute to.
(I remember reading a while ago that RMS disapproved of a license simply because it required a click-wrap mechanism to give it powers that were not available under copyright law. He was opposed to click-wrap on principle, regardless of the conditions that the license was attempting to add.)
So, to answer your question, I'm quite certain that it is just as possible to apply either type of license to non-software content as it is to software. The mechanisms by which the licenses gain their power have nothing to do with the nature of the content. Software just happens to have a tradition of licensing in addition to copyright.
Suppose you publish a CD w/ an RIAA member, but license it with a copyleft.
Um, that's a tad unlikely. I think the chances of getting any record company interested in selling copylefted music are minimal to say the least.
But assuming it could happen...
First, does the copyleft explicitly grant freedom of reproduction in addition to freedom to modify?
If we're talking about GPL-style licensing, which is what I mean by copyleft, then yes, you are free to reproduce, redistribute, etc.
Second, did the RIAA force you to include a clause prohibiting subsequent commercial use?
If they did that then it would no longer be copyleft.
So, the issue of pirating would never come up, since it would be perfectly legal for anyone to sell copies. And of course, since anyone could sell copies, no RIAA company would touch it.
As it happens there are quite a number of copyleft licenses for music and other non-software content. I maintain a list of them and I'm always on the lookout for more.
Exactly how helpful all this will be against the music industry I don't know...
Slashdot Mirror
The method described in the parent sounds reasonable, but I use bogofilter slightly differently. I don't create a temp file and I don't use the -u option. I just run bogofilter directly and check the exit status. I keep pretty much all the mail I receive, so to keep things up-to-date I just rebuild my word lists from scratch every so often.
Also, I suggest that you add a "stop processing" action after moving the email to your spam folder. Otherwise, if you have filters for mailing lists after the spam filter then spam that comes through a mailing list will appear in the spam folder and the mailing list folder.
Dammit. I knew some of those stanzas should've had six lines. Still, I'm pretty chuffed that I did as well as I did. :)
Once upon a time, I could recite the entire first part from memory. But, unexercised, that skill lasted only a fortnight or so before I started forgetting bits.
Anyway, I think this has strayed a little off-topic. But having spent the last few months coding in Java, I can say that Coleridge's poetry is a far more pleasant thing to be thinking about.
Ick.
The albatross doesn't need killing -- it's already dead. The albatross was hanging from the mariners neck because he had killed it, and by doing so had brought bad luck upon his ship.
Quoting from memory here, because I can't be bothered to go find my copy of the poem:
As I said, that's from memory, so there are probably plenty of mistakes in there, but I'm sure a little googling will turn up a proper copy of the poem.
It's "CODASYL".
I heard that they wouldn't release the specs because they hadn't got licenses for patented techniques, or at least they were fearful that they might be using patented techniques unknowingly, and if they did release their specs then someone would come out of the woodwork claiming patent infringement.
Take that with a pinch of salt. I make no claims as to the truth of it.
I think your definitions are a bit off. I'd call HTML markup "code". It's markup code rather than programming code, but it's still code.
I'd agree that HTML isn't programming though.
</pedantry>There's a post on the WWW-Talk mailing list in which Marc proposes the <IMG> tag in pretty much exactly the form in which it exists today, and asks for suggestions on how it might be done better. Some suggestions are made and Marc then ignores all of them and goes ahead with his original proposal.
The <IMG> tag is one of the worst parts of HTML. The alt attribute is an unpleasant hack to compensate for its poor design. If Marc had given it a little more thought then we would've had something like the <OBJECT> tag from the start, and we'd have probably never needed frames.
So yes, Marc was largely responsible for the <IMG> tag. And he completely cocked it up.
Actually it's rather more likely that Sun are adopting Metacity *because* of Havoc's "no crackrock" approach. I don't know about the particulars of the XMMS case (though I do know that its refusal to cooperate with Sawfish is a pain in the arse), but I'll bet that 99% of the things that Havoc terms "crackrock" are things which would make Metacity more difficult for most of GNOME's users to use (including those of us who are programmers).
I don't think Sun are going to require compromises with Havoc's approach. If anything they would have had to make compromises with Sawfish. I really can't imagine Sun being too pleased about Sawfish's immensely complex config dialog.
--colin (who has taken to posting on /. about GNOME rather than doing anything to improve it)
Yes.
I get the impression that you're not familiar with the functional programming style. Functional programming is a style in which the entire program is defined as a function. There are a number of languages which support functional programming. (Lisp and Haskell are probably the most famous, but XSLT is a functional language as well.) I'm not going to explain the entire theory behind functional programming at this stage. I'll just say that if you wan to be able to use XSLT as anything more than a glorified template system, you'll have to learn about functional programming.
You ask where looping is in XSLT. Well, functional languages tend not to do looping. You have to do it all using recursion.
If all you've done is procedural programming then it will seem very weird for a while. It takes some time to get good at it. I experienced a period of frustration when I first started with XSLT, but once you realise that it's functional, it suddenly becomes quite a powerful language.
From the GPL:
You could read this as applying to music as much as to software -- so for electronic music it might be, for example, the midi files and samples used to make the music.
It's not obvious, but I belive that you could use the GPL for music in this way. However, I personally would be inclined to use a more general-purpose free media license.
The first thing is that there are a number of these licenses, some specific to particular media, some more general-purpose. I count nine so far (and I'm always looking for more). As a musician, I use the CzrPL which I wrote myself.
</self-promotion>
In some ways I suppose you could argue that this is insufficient. If your work gets incorporated into another person's work (as it should do under copyleft) but the derivative work is placed in an encrypted format then breaking the encryption is illegal under the DMCA regardless of the user's rights as a recipient of a copylefted work.
I believe that the GNU FDL specifies some conditions about open formats to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
You could do this, but as you say, it doesn't really match the GPL. In fact, I think it conflicts with the open-source definition.
For my own music I made sure that it was possible for people to make money from my work without me getting any, and I did this entirely selfishly. I wanted to give people an incentive to redistribute my work and minimise the complications that would arise if I required money from it. Requiring payment would add too much overhead for my purposes.
Actually this is rather close to the GPL. Any derivative works of GPLed software must also be GPLed.
Anyway, I'd really advise you not to continue until you take a look at the other licenses that are around. I'm sorry to plug my own website again, but it really is the only place I know of that has this information... I've compiled a list of free media licenses. Please take a look at these before you embark on making your own.
Some thoughts on the application of licenses:
There are essentially two types of software license: those which are "shrink-wrap" or "click-wrap" licenses, and those which are a set of exceptions to standard copyright protections.
Shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses specify a set of conditions and use an action such as opening the packaging or pressing a button as an indicator that you agree to those conditions. There is some disagreement about the legal standing of such a license, though I think they have been upheld in some courts. These licenses can specify conditions that wouldn't otherwise be available under copyright law, such as restricting what the software is used for, for example.
Most open-source licenses are not shrink- or click-wrap. Instead, they specify that by following a set of conditions, the user gains an exempion from certain provisions of copyright law. For example, under the GPL, the user may be exempted from copyright's restrictions on redistribution as long as they follow the condition of providing the source (under the GPL) to whoever they redistribute to.
(I remember reading a while ago that RMS disapproved of a license simply because it required a click-wrap mechanism to give it powers that were not available under copyright law. He was opposed to click-wrap on principle, regardless of the conditions that the license was attempting to add.)
So, to answer your question, I'm quite certain that it is just as possible to apply either type of license to non-software content as it is to software. The mechanisms by which the licenses gain their power have nothing to do with the nature of the content. Software just happens to have a tradition of licensing in addition to copyright.
Um, that's a tad unlikely. I think the chances of getting any record company interested in selling copylefted music are minimal to say the least.
But assuming it could happen...
If we're talking about GPL-style licensing, which is what I mean by copyleft, then yes, you are free to reproduce, redistribute, etc.
If they did that then it would no longer be copyleft.
So, the issue of pirating would never come up, since it would be perfectly legal for anyone to sell copies. And of course, since anyone could sell copies, no RIAA company would touch it.
Actually there's a fair amount of this around. I release all my music under a GPL-style license.
As it happens there are quite a number of copyleft licenses for music and other non-software content. I maintain a list of them and I'm always on the lookout for more.
Exactly how helpful all this will be against the music industry I don't know...