I think this goes to show that far to much power has been allowed to fall into private hands. Visa has essentially become a currency, and it should be run by a non profit organization.
While that would be true, it would be a general effect. There's no reason to believe doctors would diagnose autism more often in patients with access to cable tv.
Since authors are allowed to continue their profession, why not programmers? I wasn't suggesting the government provide him a laptop, but if he wants to buy one, I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it in.
You can read code. You don't want to learn how. That's fine, but don't play the martyr card.
It will almost always be more expensive to hire someone to build you something than it would be to buy something already built. The prepackaged solution has already been paid for, and the developer is hoping that enough people will want to buy in to make them a profit. This is a good model for problems multiple people have. It doesn't work very well for individual issues.
A contractor doesn't care about how many people need a solution, only whether they're willing to pay for it or not. If you hang out lowball offers, most contractors will simply ignore you. You might get a few bites from hungry, desperate contractors, but they're probably desperate for a reason.
People certainly write books while in prison, so why not code? I suppose he'd have to be given access to hardware and possibly internet access, but it certainly seems reasonable.
Yes, ye unwashed hordes of pro PLO slashdot kids, the terrorists. Islamic terrorists. Doesn't make s damned bit of difference if they are 'Palestinian' Islamic terrorists from either Fatah or Hamas, Lebanese Hezbolah Islamic terrorists, straight up Iranian Islamic terrorists, AlQaeda Islamic terrorists, etc. Those who use terror against civilian populations must be hunted down and exterminated, period full stop. And since the end of IRA[1] terrorism, just about all terrorism these days is Islamic terrorism.
Agreed. So when you've offed the last member of the American and Israeli armed forces, then you can go after the few poorly armed Islamic terrorists.
Where does it say that e360insight is a spammer? I think that Spamhaus should have to present proof that e360insight is an illegitimate spamming business. I think that's important. If e360insight is a spammer, I'm siding with Spamhaus. Since they have taken the roll of deciding who is spamming and who isn't, I think they could use more accountability than what I find indicated on their website.
Why? If I think you're an asshole, should I have to prove it in a court before I bar you from my home and recommend my friends do the same?
I did dislexic up my comment, but no, you don't have to provide source to people you didn't provide binaries to. The people who supplied those binaries inherit that obligation.
The GPL requires you to give source to anyone you give a binary to. You can modify GPL software for internal use and not release the source, but if you release the source, you are required to release the binaries.
No, if you link to GPL libraries (such as QT), you must release the source. Most libraries are released under the LGPL, which allows linked non-GPL binaries.
Which is why almost all proprietary X software uses GTK.
I'm really sorry to break it to you, but you aren't as smart as you think you are.
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
This means if you write a function and integrate it into a GPL project, you can then turn around and integrate it into a non GPL project. You still have to release the source with the modified GPL project. They're not exempt.
I'm not going to go over the rest of it. If you want a more detailed explanation, hire a lawyer.
You should take your own advice. You're just wrong about this. Reading the LGPL would also be productive. Being a "complete work" does not in any way exclude being derivative.
A non GPL postscript interpreter can use the ghostscript libraries because they're released under the LGPL. Most such libraries are, but some aren't. Such as QT.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this goes to show that far to much power has been allowed to fall into private hands. Visa has essentially become a currency, and it should be run by a non profit organization.
And the next day, it will eat your eyes with a rusty spoon.
So long as we're spouting bullshit.
While that would be true, it would be a general effect. There's no reason to believe doctors would diagnose autism more often in patients with access to cable tv.
It's doubtfull there would be a correlation between autism recognition in doctors and cable TV availability.
I suspect the answer will illustrate why a white hat wouldn't be doing this sort of thing.
Since authors are allowed to continue their profession, why not programmers? I wasn't suggesting the government provide him a laptop, but if he wants to buy one, I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it in.
You're comparing a machine shop to a laptop?
RTFA.
Thats a lot of talk from someone who presumably isn't rolling up their sleeves to help.
It seems reasonable in that people are allowed to do similar things, like write books.
You can read code. You don't want to learn how. That's fine, but don't play the martyr card.
It will almost always be more expensive to hire someone to build you something than it would be to buy something already built. The prepackaged solution has already been paid for, and the developer is hoping that enough people will want to buy in to make them a profit. This is a good model for problems multiple people have. It doesn't work very well for individual issues.
A contractor doesn't care about how many people need a solution, only whether they're willing to pay for it or not. If you hang out lowball offers, most contractors will simply ignore you. You might get a few bites from hungry, desperate contractors, but they're probably desperate for a reason.
Your right to kill your wife. Um, online.
Wait, I better get a patent before I post this.
People certainly write books while in prison, so why not code? I suppose he'd have to be given access to hardware and possibly internet access, but it certainly seems reasonable.
Yes, ye unwashed hordes of pro PLO slashdot kids, the terrorists. Islamic terrorists. Doesn't make s damned bit of difference if they are 'Palestinian' Islamic terrorists from either Fatah or Hamas, Lebanese Hezbolah Islamic terrorists, straight up Iranian Islamic terrorists, AlQaeda Islamic terrorists, etc. Those who use terror against civilian populations must be hunted down and exterminated, period full stop. And since the end of IRA[1] terrorism, just about all terrorism these days is Islamic terrorism.
Agreed. So when you've offed the last member of the American and Israeli armed forces, then you can go after the few poorly armed Islamic terrorists.
Where does it say that e360insight is a spammer? I think that Spamhaus should have to present proof that e360insight is an illegitimate spamming business. I think that's important. If e360insight is a spammer, I'm siding with Spamhaus. Since they have taken the roll of deciding who is spamming and who isn't, I think they could use more accountability than what I find indicated on their website.
Why? If I think you're an asshole, should I have to prove it in a court before I bar you from my home and recommend my friends do the same?
So that's a bit of a contradiction.
But yes, the point stands.
I did dislexic up my comment, but no, you don't have to provide source to people you didn't provide binaries to. The people who supplied those binaries inherit that obligation.
Yes, exactly. You can buy a restrictive, absurdly priced license for QT, otherwise you have to release your source.
The GPL requires you to give source to anyone you give a binary to. You can modify GPL software for internal use and not release the source, but if you release the source, you are required to release the binaries.
No, if you link to GPL libraries (such as QT), you must release the source. Most libraries are released under the LGPL, which allows linked non-GPL binaries.
Which is why almost all proprietary X software uses GTK.
Is there a way to bump starcraft up past 640x480 that I don't know about, or do they just bleed from the eyes?
Products, right? Well, they need people writing viruses and spyware :P
I'm really sorry to break it to you, but you aren't as smart as you think you are.
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works."
This means if you write a function and integrate it into a GPL project, you can then turn around and integrate it into a non GPL project. You still have to release the source with the modified GPL project. They're not exempt.
I'm not going to go over the rest of it. If you want a more detailed explanation, hire a lawyer.
You should take your own advice. You're just wrong about this. Reading the LGPL would also be productive. Being a "complete work" does not in any way exclude being derivative.
A non GPL postscript interpreter can use the ghostscript libraries because they're released under the LGPL. Most such libraries are, but some aren't. Such as QT.
Link or it didn't happen.
The GPL would be meaningless if it didn't apply to linked code. People would just segregate all the GPL stuff into a library.