As a user _I_ am interested in the license that grants me the most freedom.
That's why I prefer the BSD or public domain, which offer _more_ freedom to me in _all_ my actions.
You have a different meaning of freedom, more, shall we say, communistic.
> > > Using GPL maximizes the availability of other projects you can grab code from. > > No, it can't grab code from the old BSD license. > As you explicitly stated, we were talking about the "modern BSD", not the original one.
I stated a fact. We're talking about GPL restrictions here.
> > In terms of "the license with the most restrictive terms," > And since a license is defined as a set of terms, that is the way to look at it.
There is more than one way to look at things. As a user I am interested in the license that grants me the most freedom - public domain is the superset of all freedoms.
> Using GPL maximizes the availability of other projects you can grab code from.
Plenty of licenses can exclude the GPL. I think some MS-designed licenses do so explicitly.
This simple license may also exclude the GPL:
This source code is licensed to you at no cost, for use in any purpose, and with no further conditions except: 1. this code may never be distributed with a license that imposes tighter restrictions that this one 2. you take necessary steps to enforce this condition (for example by indicating parts of your software which come under this license).
> If your video-game is GPL, you can borrow image-processing code from The Gimp (GPL), > but a BSD or PD game couldn't do that. Some it can reuse, some it cannot. Same with any software.
RMS and Co. finally addressed the "weakness" I once wondered about in the existing GPL: how strictly does one define "linking" in this age of webservices.
He addressed it badly.
If the following software come under a future GPL3 license which has this clause, here's who may need to release internal code: - WebServices - Web servers - Email servers - B2B and EDI software - ERP software? About the last one, I'm not sure - but ERP software provides services to trading partners via B2B software, very similar to how Google provide services to external entities via TCP/IP stacks). This indirection thing is a can of worms. Ignoring it for now, here's an example:
"Moe working for midsize company X. He comments in a local paper about their company modifying something in their email server software (which happens to be GPL'd.) Random Joe1 reads this, and send Moe's company an email asking them to pony up with their modifications - he now being a "user" of their Email system by virtue of that very email.
And then there are the requests from random Joe3,Joe4,Joe5... JoeN. And Moe must make sure that any changes are correctly sent to the correct requestors.
Poor company X - it was only a biscuit company before. Now it's also in the software distribution business. I can just imagine companies lining up to take advantage of such possible GPL v3 "freedoms".
Some applications release under the current GPL licence and "any future versions released byt the FSF". Great. I hope software I use doesn't come under that category. It's good that Linus DID NOT give the FSF free license (pun intended) on the future of Linux - IIRC, Linux is restricted to some specific version of GPL Ver. 2.
The modern BSD license is no "subset" of the GPL license.
Due it's additional restrictions, the GPL can be considered a subset of licenses/conditions that provide more freedom, like the BSD license - and ultimately public domain.
Congrats! Looks like the boss sees dynamism in you - give it your best effort, but be realistic and don't be afraid to ask money to implement an effective solution.
EDI can be mind-numbing. You'll need attention to detail, clear headed thinking, very good and very tightly controlled documentation, and a well thought out and documented processes for new EDI-partner implementation and existing-partner transitions.
For software, try getting something that simplifies life as much as possible. If your company is willing to spend a fair bit consider buying an off-the-shelf solutions.
webmethods: http://www.webmethods.com/ is a good solution. I've been using it for 5 years at work. It's got a good name since lots of people have had success with implementing EDI with it. The best open-to-the-public webMethods user website is http://wmusers.com/ - even if you don't use webMethods, searching that site for terms like "X.12" and "EDIFACT" will give you a sense of how others implement EDI. Here's an article by a friend of mine: "Create Positional Flat File Templates for the WmEDI Parser" http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/2003apr_rmoser_1.shtm l Note, this article is for ver 4.6 - I understand the current version of webMethods (ver 6.5) has a different, graphical, EDI parsing engine. Other articles: http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/archives.shtml
The good thing about webMethods is it's got a visual-progamming IDE that simplifies life a great deal, and that it's really a webservices/XML-centric solution that also handles EDI - so in future, you can move forward to cXML, xCBL, ebXML, etc, which are XML-centric standards. (For the respective websites just append.org to these names). They also have support for stuff like RosettaNet and RFID, but I'm not familiar with the specifics.
The one thing webMethods does not do well is FTP file spooling for pickup - it does built-in FTP clients and an FTP server (can only submit documents to it), plus VAN and SFTP support. For FTP spooling, you'll need to run a separate FTP server.
webMethods competitors include TIBCO, Commerceone (conductor), Microsoft (with Biztalk), IBM and BEA (not sure what). There are also the old distinguished EDI translators like GenTran.
Whatever solution you choose, when you do build a solution, try making a 3-layer solution, with a middle layer of canonical data structures isolating the B2B/EDI standard from your backend-system standard. For eg: as mentioned in my article here: http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/2002jul15_schauhan_1. shtml
Also, no matter how well you implement a standard, you'll always come across situations where you need to customize a B2B/EDI implementation because your trading partner sees the standard differently than you do - try building an architecture that enables easy customizations. Also it's important to implement automated integration and system testing (most people only try and automate unit testing) - as you build functionality, keep adding tests to your test suite.
> Getting into his car certainly would have - even if the car were carbin-fiber, > the key would be metal and the distance short enough for an arc to occur.
"[...] returning to his car at the Ozone car park. There he found that a plastic bag used to protect his seat from water after surfing was badly charred beneath his feet."
No. You're wrong, as are those rulings - they are the results of judges forgetting that they are mere enforcers of laws, not makers of them. Hopefully this will change in the days to come.
It is obvious the first amendment does not apply to children - otherwise in the 2nd case, the judge wouldn't heavily qualify his ruling with "speech that is neither obscene as to youths".. etc.
> simimlar to... law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children And you oppose that. What are you, a software industry shill?
> Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend > of the restriction of First Amendment rights? No. Children don't have first amendment rights.
> How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action? Don't even try. The government is *of* the people.
Perhaps running apache on windows NT 4.0 on DEC Alpha, like this guy here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1028... with Oracle 7 binaries running via FX/32.:-P
Then your buyer did nothing intentionally wrong, but you've violated your agreement with Lexmark.
I had a read of the judgement PDF - Lexmark's 'agreement' looks like they're selling the ink, but only renting out the cartridge to the first buyer. Somewhat like a rental car rented out with a full tank of petrol. The judge probably based his judgement on whether or not the buyer should have known this condition at the point of sale.
But determining under what conditions "the buyer should have known" can a slippery slope. What happens when companies start reducing the font size of the conditions (cue the rumbles from greedy marketing types)? Customer may simply snip products out of packaging and not know they're liable for conditions. What about elderly grandpa with his poor eyesight? When is he liable for thr conditions?
With software EULAs at least, the software can presents an arbitrarily complex GUI construct on screen. For instance, this could forces a user to click a radio button for assent, and then click 'Yes'. With physical products though, most companies use el'cheapo stickers, sometimes in an very small font. I think this is not acceptable - is elderly grandpa liable when he ripped the packing open? Instead, it should be a rigid plastic box with a plastic Agree/Reject slider (preferably of standard size and braille markings) that allows the user to break the seal and unlatch the product?
Best of all is presenting the conditions at the point of sale, and requiring a signature then -- like done with rental cars -- I'd rather this be the law.
> No - they're rehosting google, with all frontpage links intact but for the domain - FUDDRUCKERS. > > These are the dangers of having an outreach program in your IT dept... webmaster on crack rocks.
> I'd say a simple solution would be to use > an ATA and a cordless phone. I recall something about a dual mode DECT + GSM phone. Aha: http://www.google.com/search?q=dect+gsm+dual
Perhaps he could use the OpenOffice API to automatically have a server-side instance of OpenOffice open submitted Word documents and save them as HTML. This should happen at the same time the user uploads the document - that way the user could preview the conversion to HTML, and if it was flawed, he could choose to publish the document as PDF.
> And no, you're not right about what you posted. > Where did you ever get the silly idea that declarative > rogramming was unnatural for the human brain?
Market Economics.
i.e. Popularity among programmers.
Other issues addressed in my replies to you below.
1. You do not fix your flaws even after OBVIOUS one are pointed out; rather you're scrambling from point to point attempting to salvaging your pride. As long as you do so, you remain a fool.
2. I have no issues with article you linked to - it's a good one. The author calls Perl a "really good tool" (you quoted him on this!) and reiterates the same different-tools-for-different-tasks point I've been telling you: "I do think that all programmers should learn as many different languages as they can, and I'm puzzled when they don't want to. It's like being a carpenter and saying that the hammer and the chisel are good enough for you, you don't need to learn to use a saw or a screwdriver."
Slashdot Mirror
They may conflict in future. Plus there are legal issues that exist with joint ownership (do domain registrars even permit such a thing?)
d =13689919
And, just restating what is obvious: DNS domain names are used for more than just websites. Like this guy:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163840&ci
I think this guy should just forget about taking control of this website and move on in life.
I thought Slashdot had a "no linking to Amazon" policy. Is this the end of it?
I repeat:
As a user _I_ am interested in the license that grants me the most freedom.
That's why I prefer the BSD or public domain, which offer _more_ freedom to me in _all_ my actions.
You have a different meaning of freedom, more, shall we say, communistic.
> > > Using GPL maximizes the availability of other projects you can grab code from.
> > No, it can't grab code from the old BSD license.
> As you explicitly stated, we were talking about the "modern BSD", not the original one.
I stated a fact. We're talking about GPL restrictions here.
> > In terms of "the license with the most restrictive terms,"
> And since a license is defined as a set of terms, that is the way to look at it.
There is more than one way to look at things. As a user I am interested in the license that grants me the most freedom - public domain is the superset of all freedoms.
> Using GPL maximizes the availability of other projects you can grab code from.
No, it can't grab code from the old BSD license. Your link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
Plenty of licenses can exclude the GPL. I think some MS-designed licenses do so explicitly.
This simple license may also exclude the GPL:
This source code is licensed to you at no cost, for use in any purpose, and with no further conditions except:
1. this code may never be distributed with a license that imposes tighter restrictions that this one
2. you take necessary steps to enforce this condition (for example by indicating parts of your software which come under this license).
> If your video-game is GPL, you can borrow image-processing code from The Gimp (GPL),
> but a BSD or PD game couldn't do that.
Some it can reuse, some it cannot. Same with any software.
OK.
In terms of "the license with the most freedom", public domain is the superset, BSD a subset, and GPL a subset of BSD.
In terms of "the license with the most restrictive terms," BSD is a subset of GPL v2, and the GPLv2 may one day be a subset of GPL v3.
RMS and Co. finally addressed the "weakness" I once wondered about in the existing GPL: how strictly does one define "linking" in this age of webservices.
He addressed it badly.
If the following software come under a future GPL3 license which has this clause, here's who may need to release internal code:
- WebServices
- Web servers
- Email servers
- B2B and EDI software
- ERP software?
About the last one, I'm not sure - but ERP software provides services to trading partners via B2B software, very similar to how Google provide services to external entities via TCP/IP stacks). This indirection thing is a can of worms. Ignoring it for now, here's an example:
"Moe working for midsize company X. He comments in a local paper about their company modifying something in their email server software (which happens to be GPL'd.) Random Joe1 reads this, and send Moe's company an email asking them to pony up with their modifications - he now being a "user" of their Email system by virtue of that very email.
And then there are the requests from random Joe3,Joe4,Joe5... JoeN. And Moe must make sure that any changes are correctly sent to the correct requestors.
Poor company X - it was only a biscuit company before. Now it's also in the software distribution business. I can just imagine companies lining up to take advantage of such possible GPL v3 "freedoms".
Some applications release under the current GPL licence and "any future versions released byt the FSF". Great. I hope software I use doesn't come under that category. It's good that Linus DID NOT give the FSF free license (pun intended) on the future of Linux - IIRC, Linux is restricted to some specific version of GPL Ver. 2.
The modern BSD license is no "subset" of the GPL license.
Due it's additional restrictions, the GPL can be considered a subset of licenses/conditions that provide more freedom, like the BSD license - and ultimately public domain.
Congrats! Looks like the boss sees dynamism in you - give it your best effort, but be realistic and don't be afraid to ask money to implement an effective solution.
m l
.org to these names). They also have support for stuff like RosettaNet and RFID, but I'm not familiar with the specifics.
t &words=edi&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0
. shtml
EDI can be mind-numbing. You'll need attention to detail, clear headed thinking, very good and very tightly controlled documentation, and a well thought out and documented processes for new EDI-partner implementation and existing-partner transitions.
For software, try getting something that simplifies life as much as possible. If your company is willing to spend a fair bit consider buying an off-the-shelf solutions.
webmethods: http://www.webmethods.com/ is a good solution. I've been using it for 5 years at work. It's got a good name since lots of people have had success with implementing EDI with it. The best open-to-the-public webMethods user website is http://wmusers.com/ - even if you don't use webMethods, searching that site for terms like "X.12" and "EDIFACT" will give you a sense of how others implement EDI. Here's an article by a friend of mine: "Create Positional Flat File Templates for the WmEDI Parser"
http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/2003apr_rmoser_1.sht
Note, this article is for ver 4.6 - I understand the current version of webMethods (ver 6.5) has a different, graphical, EDI parsing engine. Other articles:
http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/archives.shtml
The good thing about webMethods is it's got a visual-progamming IDE that simplifies life a great deal, and that it's really a webservices/XML-centric solution that also handles EDI - so in future, you can move forward to cXML, xCBL, ebXML, etc, which are XML-centric standards. (For the respective websites just append
The one thing webMethods does not do well is FTP file spooling for pickup - it does built-in FTP clients and an FTP server (can only submit documents to it), plus VAN and SFTP support. For FTP spooling, you'll need to run a separate FTP server.
webMethods competitors include TIBCO, Commerceone (conductor), Microsoft (with Biztalk), IBM and BEA (not sure what). There are also the old distinguished EDI translators like GenTran.
Google shows up a couple of open-source solutions as well:
http://edi4j.sourceforge.net/
http://mec-eagle.sourceforge.net/
Hm, maybe I should do a sourceforge search. Aha, quite a few matches:
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=sof
Don't know how good these are though. If you evaluate them, try posting back here if you can.
Whatever solution you choose, when you do build a solution, try making a 3-layer
solution, with a middle layer of canonical data structures isolating the B2B/EDI standard from your backend-system standard. For eg: as mentioned in my article here:
http://www.wmusers.com/ezine/2002jul15_schauhan_1
Also, no matter how well you implement a standard, you'll always come across situations where you need to customize a B2B/EDI implementation because your trading partner sees the standard differently than you do - try building an architecture that enables easy customizations. Also it's important to implement automated integration and system testing (most people only try and automate unit testing) - as you build functionality, keep adding tests to your test suite.
> Getting into his car certainly would have - even if the car were carbin-fiber,
2 6750111141.html
> the key would be metal and the distance short enough for an arc to occur.
From what is probably the source article:
http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2005/09/16/11
"[...] returning to his car at the Ozone car park.
There he found that a plastic bag used to protect his seat from water after surfing was badly charred beneath his feet."
Yup, I back up your assertion - I've verified his listing as well. Good work!
./ article.
Also the article in the Standard makes sense. It doesn't have the voltage/amp confusion reported by this
No, leaders are elected by commoners. By ignoring this basic fact, you just delude yourself and arrogate yourself as superior to "common" commoners.
No. You're wrong, as are those rulings - they are the results of judges forgetting that they are mere enforcers of laws, not makers of them. Hopefully this will change in the days to come.
It is obvious the first amendment does not apply to children - otherwise in the 2nd case, the judge wouldn't heavily qualify his ruling with "speech that is neither obscene as to youths".. etc.
> simimlar to... law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children
And you oppose that. What are you, a software industry shill?
> Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend
> of the restriction of First Amendment rights?
No. Children don't have first amendment rights.
> How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?
Don't even try. The government is *of* the people.
:-)
... with Oracle 7 binaries running via FX/32. :-P
Perhaps running apache on windows NT 4.0 on DEC Alpha, like this guy here:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1028
You're welcome, and thank you for the politeness. :)
Cheers.
Then your buyer did nothing intentionally wrong, but you've violated your agreement with Lexmark.
I had a read of the judgement PDF - Lexmark's 'agreement' looks like they're selling the ink, but only renting out the cartridge to the first buyer. Somewhat like a rental car rented out with a full tank of petrol. The judge probably based his judgement on whether or not the buyer should have known this condition at the point of sale.
But determining under what conditions "the buyer should have known" can a slippery slope. What happens when companies start reducing the font size of the conditions (cue the rumbles from greedy marketing types)? Customer may simply snip products out of packaging and not know they're liable for conditions. What about elderly grandpa with his poor eyesight? When is he liable for thr conditions?
With software EULAs at least, the software can presents an arbitrarily complex GUI construct on screen. For instance, this could forces a user to click a radio button for assent, and then click 'Yes'. With physical products though, most companies use el'cheapo stickers, sometimes in an very small font. I think this is not acceptable - is elderly grandpa liable when he ripped the packing open? Instead, it should be a rigid plastic box with a plastic Agree/Reject slider (preferably of standard size and braille markings) that allows the user to break the seal and unlatch the product?
Best of all is presenting the conditions at the point of sale, and requiring a signature then -- like done with rental cars -- I'd rather this be the law.
But Apple itself says PC CPUs are cooler! :-)
> No - they're rehosting google, with all frontpage links intact but for the domain - FUDDRUCKERS.
>
> These are the dangers of having an outreach program in your IT dept... webmaster on crack rocks.
This is probably a hack on their site
> I'd say a simple solution would be to use
> an ATA and a cordless phone.
I recall something about a dual mode DECT + GSM phone.
Aha:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dect+gsm+dual
All your spectators are belongs to us
Haha. Thank you
Just expanding on your suggestion...
r /Writer.StoreWriterAsPDF.snip
c .html#info
Perhaps he could use the OpenOffice API to automatically have a server-side instance of OpenOffice open submitted Word documents and save them as HTML. This should happen at the same time the user uploads the document - that way the user could preview the conversion to HTML, and if it was flawed, he could choose to publish the document as PDF.
OpenOffice API:
http://api.openoffice.org/
Code snippet shows simplicity of converting OpenOffice Writer SXW document into PDF:
http://codesnippets.services.openoffice.org/Write
Perhaps a few small changes here would get him what he wants.
Perl interface (ooolib):
http://ooolib.sourceforge.net/doc/ooolib-0.1.5-do
There are also Java code snippets. I think it would be possible to convert the OOBasic snippet above to either Java or Perl.
There are two Pascal implementations for .NET listed here:
http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
No. It's just the order I studied the languages you listed + Lisp. :)
I also learnt an expert system and assembler around the time I was learning Pascal.
> And no, you're not right about what you posted.
> Where did you ever get the silly idea that declarative
> rogramming was unnatural for the human brain?
Market Economics.
i.e. Popularity among programmers.
Other issues addressed in my replies to you below.
Because:
1. You do not fix your flaws even after OBVIOUS one are pointed out; rather you're scrambling from point to point attempting to salvaging your pride. As long as you do so, you remain a fool.
2. I have no issues with article you linked to - it's a good one. The author calls Perl a "really good tool" (you quoted him on this!) and reiterates the same different-tools-for-different-tasks point I've been telling you:
"I do think that all programmers should learn as many different languages as they can, and I'm puzzled when they don't want to. It's like being a carpenter and saying that the hammer and the chisel are good enough for you, you don't need to learn to use a saw or a screwdriver."