>>"In other words, isnt' the GPL a restriction on the use of the SOURCE
>> and not the resulting compiled binaries?"
>The binaries are a derivative of the source and are therefore bound by the GPL.
>If you distribute binaries, you are required by GPL to offer full source code
>to those binaries. That means if you use unaltered GPLed source files along
>with some of your own, the full source code (including yours) must be offered
>under the GPL to people whom you give the binary.
Understood, and on second reading, I totally get that it came off in the sense you interpreted, but that is not what I intended with my remarks. I was attempting to make the point that distributing your wholly self-contained binaries with someone else's GPL wholly self-contained binaries is not sufficient to force you to release your source under the GPL. That restriction only comes into play if the source code from the two apps touches somewhere.
It does, however, seem to be good citizenship - if not an outright GPL requirement - that you offer the original GPL app source code for download from your site, even if you didn't use it. (...or perhaps linking to the GPL app's web site would be sufficient?)
>> "but doesn't the "Compiler Boundry Rule" serve as a rule-of-thumb..."
> Almost. It's the "Linker Boundary Rule".
I'm an ass, and I should trust my instincts -- I actually called it the "Linker Boundry Rule" when I typed the first 80% of my original comment, then changed it because I figured that precompiled linked (nondynamic) libraries still required a compiler to #include the headers. (Not a programmer, but I used to play one on TV.)
Check me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the "Compiler Boundry Rule" serve as a rule-of-thumb to determine when you have to GPL your response to another GPL product? I.e., "If you don't have to use a compiler to make the original GPL product work with yours, then you almost certainly don't have to GPL your code to satisfy the terms of their GPL license." In other words, isnt' the GPL a restriction on the use of the SOURCE and not the resulting compiled binaries?
So as an example, you could build a product based on a GPL database server, but still sell your own software under a closed-source (or other non-GPL) license even though you are including that GPL database server on your distribution CD because no source code from the dbs package was recompiled to make your project work.
I bet ordinary (meaning non-us-type people) Apple OSX users fail to understand LUA principals at least as much as Windows users. The difference is that Apple sets up your user account to run with least priviges by default and prompts you for the root password when you try to overstep your bounds.
Why doesn't Windows do it that way? Microsoft made a choice.
Example:
Kent State University in Kent, Ohio held several patents related to the original Liquid Crystal Displays, which were invented there. Every time some geek bought one of them newfangled LCD watches, KSU's Liquid Crystal Institude got a big fat royalty check.
Ugh. Frustrating. Why aren't these pork-barrel bills ever named for what they really do. I'd love to see "The Anti-Consumer WillOfThePeople-Circumvention and Privacy Disposal Act" someday.
*NONE* of this would happen if we limited the length of individual bills, acts and actions to maximum of 1,000 words on 10 printed letter-size pages in a single-spaced 12point courier font.
Computer security experts consider a "trusted" computer to be the worst case scenario - it's a computer that you have no control over, so you are forced to "trust" that whoever *does* control it is really instructing it to do what they say it's doing.
Trust in **REAL** **SCIENCE** is almost exactly the same ideal. That scientists should be considered trustworthy or untrustworthy is entirely beside the point because science is concerned with what **NATURE** is doing, not the scientists. If their description of the phenomenon is *really* the correct one (or at least, close to correct), then some other independent person should be able to see that same result as well. Otherwise, there was something going on in researcher #1's lab that had nothing to do with the phenomenon in question. The whole idea behind duplicating experiments is to confirm that we got it right, that we really are describing what nature is actually doing.
Science isn't like marketing or business or history or law or sociology or literature or music or psychology -- you get ZERO points for *impressing* your audience with what you did and how you did it. Relativity isn't great because of Einstein, Einstein is great because he figured how to describe nature using relativity.
If I may interject a follow to your point; from the article:
"A student asked if a worm had a brain. So I was able to do a quick Google search that had a diagram of an earthworm," said Bang, who often uses the internet to teach her students.
But she said the real virtue of the interactive whiteboard is in showing students how to use the computer.
I think that about says it all. We now send out kids to school to "learn" how to use Google (as if they haven't already figgered that out on their own) with the implication being that search engines are the source of their education, so school isn't really necessary.
I'm still with Cliff Stoll on this. Tech in the classroom is, at best, a distraction. Learning is hard and often not much fun - it requires discipline and you just don't learn *that* when you are constantly distracted by flashy multimedia and powerpoint presentations.... and Google.
I have a secret hope that Google would realize this and start serving special pages that contain "Surgeon General warnings" about "the internet being harmful to your education" when requested from IP blocks allocated to schools.
C'mon, people! The freakin' source for BASH is **FREE**! These guys took IE from crap throwaway to #1 in FOUR VERSIONS faster than that! What are they spending their time on? Poker tournaments?!?!
I actually think watching the Star Wars movies in order -- 1,2,3,4,5,6 -- is a big mistake.
The correct order for the best story is:
4,
5,
1,2,3 - as a "flashback" to explain the origins of DV and the fall of the Jedi after Luke finds out DV is his father.
6 - to wrap eveything up and reconcile DV and the Jedi.
When I last used Matlab, we used it just for the matrix calculator and, IIRC, it was free. When did it become a commercial product? Did I miss something or was just not paying attention back then?
Two, regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution? This is like saying that a particular statue could not have possibly been carved by ancient man, because it is clear that it was in fact carved with a stone tool. Can't the ID folks consider the possibility that evolution is the tool God used to create us? Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Indeed, well stated. I like the using a 'book' analogy: If you understood everything there was to know about printing, binding and reproducing books, that knowledge and understanding still wouldn't tell you anything about how to write a good one.
This has bothered me since I first ran across it in a colloquium when I was in grad school (in math) in the early '90s. It's more a matter of symantics than anything else, but it still bugs me becuase, like the difference between the words "secure" and "vulnerable", it leads to a lot of confusion.
Let's say I ask you if any old sequence of numbers (like this one) is random or not:
1,0,1,0,1,0,....
The correct answer is that you can't tell me unless I also tell you HOW the sequence was generated: Did I use a really poorly designed algorithmic pseudorandom generator? Did I flip a coin? Did I draw numbered balls from a hat? The method decides if it is random, not the outcome.
If the trials that generate each element in the sequence are random, than such sequences as 1,0,1,0,... or 314159... must be possible because the definition of randomness requires that each trial be independently as capable of generating your favorite digit as any of the others. Indeed, looking at it from the other side, any generator that is *not* *capable* of generating such sequences cannot be classified as "random" because these sequences have been, by design or fiat, disallowed.
I just think that the word 'random' is the wrong word to describe what they are studying here because it contradicts the standard definition given to every math student in Prob&Stats 401. They would be better off calling it something else.
Slashdot Mirror
RTA - The ads they're talking about are to be displayed in ONLINE games -- you're already connected and being tracked as a part of the game.
After working on this project on and off for over 2 years I'm quite happy and that I finally finished it
Especially since - in those two years - the cost of rack systems has fallen into your price range.
Ouch. Nicely played, good sir.
>>"In other words, isnt' the GPL a restriction on the use of the SOURCE
>> and not the resulting compiled binaries?"
>The binaries are a derivative of the source and are therefore bound by the GPL.
>If you distribute binaries, you are required by GPL to offer full source code
>to those binaries. That means if you use unaltered GPLed source files along
>with some of your own, the full source code (including yours) must be offered
>under the GPL to people whom you give the binary.
Understood, and on second reading, I totally get that it came off in the sense you interpreted, but that is not what I intended with my remarks. I was attempting to make the point that distributing your wholly self-contained binaries with someone else's GPL wholly self-contained binaries is not sufficient to force you to release your source under the GPL. That restriction only comes into play if the source code from the two apps touches somewhere.
It does, however, seem to be good citizenship - if not an outright GPL requirement - that you offer the original GPL app source code for download from your site, even if you didn't use it. (...or perhaps linking to the GPL app's web site would be sufficient?)
>> "but doesn't the "Compiler Boundry Rule" serve as a rule-of-thumb..."
> Almost. It's the "Linker Boundary Rule".
I'm an ass, and I should trust my instincts -- I actually called it the "Linker Boundry Rule" when I typed the first 80% of my original comment, then changed it because I figured that precompiled linked (nondynamic) libraries still required a compiler to #include the headers. (Not a programmer, but I used to play one on TV.)
Yeah. Blue was always Microsoft. *RED* was Novell, dunno about SUSE -- what do you get when mix green and red? Burnt umber, maybe?
Not to mention the leaking acid....
Check me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the "Compiler Boundry Rule" serve as a rule-of-thumb to determine when you have to GPL your response to another GPL product? I.e., "If you don't have to use a compiler to make the original GPL product work with yours, then you almost certainly don't have to GPL your code to satisfy the terms of their GPL license." In other words, isnt' the GPL a restriction on the use of the SOURCE and not the resulting compiled binaries?
So as an example, you could build a product based on a GPL database server, but still sell your own software under a closed-source (or other non-GPL) license even though you are including that GPL database server on your distribution CD because no source code from the dbs package was recompiled to make your project work.
Am I close?
No, wait... not that one... I'm right-handed.
Well, do I win?
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(...had to do it!
I bet ordinary (meaning non-us-type people) Apple OSX users fail to understand LUA principals at least as much as Windows users. The difference is that Apple sets up your user account to run with least priviges by default and prompts you for the root password when you try to overstep your bounds.
Why doesn't Windows do it that way? Microsoft made a choice.
Example:
Kent State University in Kent, Ohio held several patents related to the original Liquid Crystal Displays, which were invented there. Every time some geek bought one of them newfangled LCD watches, KSU's Liquid Crystal Institude got a big fat royalty check.
Here's a link with some history.
They still have a ton of patents related to LCDs and KSU is one of the top places in the world for LCD work.
All that was fine with me - many students received outstanding educations as a result.
I don't feel the same way about software, though.
I don't suppose there's a hack to turn your Aibo into a lawsuit generator?
Ugh. Frustrating. Why aren't these pork-barrel bills ever named for what they really do. I'd love to see "The Anti-Consumer WillOfThePeople-Circumvention and Privacy Disposal Act" someday.
*NONE* of this would happen if we limited the length of individual bills, acts and actions to maximum of 1,000 words on 10 printed letter-size pages in a single-spaced 12point courier font.
Wow.
Computer security experts consider a "trusted" computer to be the worst case scenario - it's a computer that you have no control over, so you are forced to "trust" that whoever *does* control it is really instructing it to do what they say it's doing.
Trust in **REAL** **SCIENCE** is almost exactly the same ideal. That scientists should be considered trustworthy or untrustworthy is entirely beside the point because science is concerned with what **NATURE** is doing, not the scientists. If their description of the phenomenon is *really* the correct one (or at least, close to correct), then some other independent person should be able to see that same result as well. Otherwise, there was something going on in researcher #1's lab that had nothing to do with the phenomenon in question. The whole idea behind duplicating experiments is to confirm that we got it right, that we really are describing what nature is actually doing.
Science isn't like marketing or business or history or law or sociology or literature or music or psychology -- you get ZERO points for *impressing* your audience with what you did and how you did it. Relativity isn't great because of Einstein, Einstein is great because he figured how to describe nature using relativity.
Oh, and here's some light reading from Feynman in case you are still confused about why this is important.
If I may interject a follow to your point; from the article: I think that about says it all. We now send out kids to school to "learn" how to use Google (as if they haven't already figgered that out on their own) with the implication being that search engines are the source of their education, so school isn't really necessary.
I'm still with Cliff Stoll on this. Tech in the classroom is, at best, a distraction. Learning is hard and often not much fun - it requires discipline and you just don't learn *that* when you are constantly distracted by flashy multimedia and powerpoint presentations.... and Google.
I have a secret hope that Google would realize this and start serving special pages that contain "Surgeon General warnings" about "the internet being harmful to your education" when requested from IP blocks allocated to schools.
C'mon, people! The freakin' source for BASH is **FREE**! These guys took IE from crap throwaway to #1 in FOUR VERSIONS faster than that! What are they spending their time on? Poker tournaments?!?!
I actually think watching the Star Wars movies in order -- 1,2,3,4,5,6 -- is a big mistake.
The correct order for the best story is:
4,
5,
1,2,3 - as a "flashback" to explain the origins of DV and the fall of the Jedi after Luke finds out DV is his father.
6 - to wrap eveything up and reconcile DV and the Jedi.
I still think it might be possible to defeat this with an emulator.
What if he was using a Windows-encrypted disk volume to store data?
I *knew* you were going to say that. Good thing I don't have a 5.25" drive anymore.
When I last used Matlab, we used it just for the matrix calculator and, IIRC, it was free. When did it become a commercial product? Did I miss something or was just not paying attention back then?
Perhaps UnixWare doesn't support DVD drives?
Two, regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution? This is like saying that a particular statue could not have possibly been carved by ancient man, because it is clear that it was in fact carved with a stone tool. Can't the ID folks consider the possibility that evolution is the tool God used to create us? Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Indeed, well stated. I like the using a 'book' analogy: If you understood everything there was to know about printing, binding and reproducing books, that knowledge and understanding still wouldn't tell you anything about how to write a good one.
This has bothered me since I first ran across it in a colloquium when I was in grad school (in math) in the early '90s. It's more a matter of symantics than anything else, but it still bugs me becuase, like the difference between the words "secure" and "vulnerable", it leads to a lot of confusion.
Let's say I ask you if any old sequence of numbers (like this one) is random or not:
1,0,1,0,1,0,....
The correct answer is that you can't tell me unless I also tell you HOW the sequence was generated: Did I use a really poorly designed algorithmic pseudorandom generator? Did I flip a coin? Did I draw numbered balls from a hat? The method decides if it is random, not the outcome.
If the trials that generate each element in the sequence are random, than such sequences as 1,0,1,0,... or 314159... must be possible because the definition of randomness requires that each trial be independently as capable of generating your favorite digit as any of the others. Indeed, looking at it from the other side, any generator that is *not* *capable* of generating such sequences cannot be classified as "random" because these sequences have been, by design or fiat, disallowed.
I just think that the word 'random' is the wrong word to describe what they are studying here because it contradicts the standard definition given to every math student in Prob&Stats 401. They would be better off calling it something else.