or A discovers that its sending so little traffic to B in comparison to the amount B is sending to A that its not worth the continued cost.
Hmmm... I'm sending much less data to my provider than the reverse (e.g. I'm sending small HTTP request headers, and getting big web pages in return). Therefore I conclude that not I should pay the ISP, but the ISP should pay me!:-)
Why would you want a new car every two to four years? And even if you do, wouldn't you prefer a car which you could then sell at a good price after 2 to 4 years (so it can pay a good part of the next car)?
I already guessed you were thinking of some high-energy particles (I'm physicist, therefore I know in which fields high eV units are used). However, I like to put things into perspective. Yes, 10^19 eV sounds enourmous, but you just have to rewrite it in other units to change that. Now, as energy of a single particle, it's of course incredibly high, but the point is, you really have to look at the system, not at the value in isolation.
An elementary particle which has the same energy as a 1 kg mass at about 1.79 m/s is of course impressive. But the energy by itself isn't.
What about 910^16 J? Is that a very high energy? Depends. If it's the rest energy of an everyday body, it's not much: Again, it's just one kg. As soon as you convert it e.g. to radiation energy by matter-antimatter reaction, it truly is enourmous. Of course if it were the rest energy of an elementary particle, it also would be enourmous, because a particle with a mass of 1 kg would be really mind-boggling. OTOH as mass of an astronomic object, it's negligible.
Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.
So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?
So Redmond has started to send patches to Linus?
Note that if Redmond was sending worthwhile Linux patches, I'd expect the Linux community to very carefully check them, and making sure that there's an official statement from Redmond that those patches are indeed properly licensed to be inserted into Linux under the GPL (and maybe let a lawyer check possible other pitfalls), make sure that all this is perfectly well documented, and then, if all those checks show no possible harm, accept those patches.
The upgrade clause is not part of the GPL2, but has to be stated explicitly in the copyright statement (the typical phrase "or, at your option, any later version..."). If the code is not "upgradably licensed" (which e.g. the Linux kernel is AFAIK not), then the only way to change the license to GPL3 is if all copyright owners agree (which is easy on projects where copyright is assigned to some project holder, like the FSF for GNU project software [but then, GNU software has the "upgrade clause" anyway] or for software where there are few contributors [for self-written small software, possibly just one], but for others it's a hard thing to do, although not necessarily impossible, as the Mozilla license change shows).
I guess the best way to do it would be to create two different licenses, a WGPL which states that you must allow source code download whenever you use the code or code derived from it on the net, and a GPL3 which doesn't have this restriction, but explicitly allows to change the license of derived works to WGPL (but not the other way round). This would completely resolve the above scenario, and also avoid the general confusion which can derive from different GPL3 codes coming with different rights.
It would also allow software authors more freedom, since one might decide to put a source download option into the program without having the intention to force that option to every derived work. Indeed, with the same-license-but-different-rights approach someone unaware to those details could change the effective licensing terms of the software without even being aware of it.
But wouldn't that be a loophole around that rule? 1. Move code from GPL3 web app with download feature to GPL3 non-web ab. No DL feature required. 2. Move code from GPL3 non-web app to other GPL3 web app. Since the code is taken from an application without DL feature, the other GPL3 web app doesn't have the restriction.
And what if I want to incorporate some code from a GPL3ed web application with download mechanism into a non-web application? Would I have to include a web server into that application to comply?
Also I strongly doubt that you can read it in the lighting situation "star light at new moon night, no other light source available". Note that unlike the nearby nuke explosion, this is a situation you might face several times in your life.
I'm just waiting for the first DRMed virus which will be well protected against reverse engeneering, but of course allows copying freely, as long as the destination system is "trusted" as well.
You forgot: Every time you write or type something yourself, a secretary who could have typed it for you loses money. Therefore production of any text which is not typed by a secretary should be charged a "secretary tax" to support those poor secretaries who lose money due to the self-writing of text.
Ah, and of course there should be a public transportation tax on private cars, because owners of private cars won't use public transportation as often as non-owners. The possible results can be seen on horse-carriages. Due to all those car-owners the horse-carriage business basically broke down. Now imagine there would have been a transportation tax payed to the horse-carriage makers for every car sold, and likewise a tax on petrol payed to the coachmen, to compensate them for the loss they made due to people driving cars, imagine where the horse-carriage industry would be now. Not to mention DRM measures you could have put into cars to save the railway industry. For example a regulation that you have to buy licenses from the railway companies to drive your cars, and the cars would have mechanisms which switch off the motor if you try to drive more miles than you have payed for.
Unlike C++, C has implicit conversions not only from any data pointer type to void*, but also the other way round. Therefore indeed in C you don't need that cast. So gcc is not wrong in accepting that assignment, but would be wrong if it rejected it in C code. Now if it's good style to omit this cast in C is another question, but it's clearly legal C.
Slashdot Mirror
End their is all so know sign that you did cheque it's spelling. If you us a spelling chequer, such miss takes can knot happen, off cores.
Do you mean that the blogger is annoying, or that the court favours annoying him?
That's AFAIK not guaranteed. Pages can be moved, and if e.g. the page "Slashdot" got moved to "Slashdot Web Site", AFAIK your link would break.
Why would I want a networked fly? :-)
OpenOffice.org is Java-based? The same OOo where there was a big uproar for just having a Java-dependent component in?
Hmmm
Repeat after me:
All-caps shouting is evil!
All-caps shouting is evil!
All-caps shouting is evil!
Why would you want a new car every two to four years?
And even if you do, wouldn't you prefer a car which you could then sell at a good price after 2 to 4 years (so it can pay a good part of the next car)?
I already guessed you were thinking of some high-energy particles (I'm physicist, therefore I know in which fields high eV units are used). However, I like to put things into perspective. Yes, 10^19 eV sounds enourmous, but you just have to rewrite it in other units to change that. Now, as energy of a single particle, it's of course incredibly high, but the point is, you really have to look at the system, not at the value in isolation.
An elementary particle which has the same energy as a 1 kg mass at about 1.79 m/s is of course impressive. But the energy by itself isn't.
What about 910^16 J? Is that a very high energy? Depends. If it's the rest energy of an everyday body, it's not much: Again, it's just one kg. As soon as you convert it e.g. to radiation energy by matter-antimatter reaction, it truly is enourmous. Of course if it were the rest energy of an elementary particle, it also would be enourmous, because a particle with a mass of 1 kg would be really mind-boggling. OTOH as mass of an astronomic object, it's negligible.
Easy. 10^19 eV are about 1.6 J. That's the kinetic energy of a 1 kg mass at a speed of about 1.79 m/s.
I'm just waiting for Google Wormhole.
SCO!
So Redmond has started to send patches to Linus?
Note that if Redmond was sending worthwhile Linux patches, I'd expect the Linux community to very carefully check them, and making sure that there's an official statement from Redmond that those patches are indeed properly licensed to be inserted into Linux under the GPL (and maybe let a lawyer check possible other pitfalls), make sure that all this is perfectly well documented, and then, if all those checks show no possible harm, accept those patches.
The upgrade clause is not part of the GPL2, but has to be stated explicitly in the copyright statement (the typical phrase "or, at your option, any later version ..."). If the code is not "upgradably licensed" (which e.g. the Linux kernel is AFAIK not), then the only way to change the license to GPL3 is if all copyright owners agree (which is easy on projects where copyright is assigned to some project holder, like the FSF for GNU project software [but then, GNU software has the "upgrade clause" anyway] or for software where there are few contributors [for self-written small software, possibly just one], but for others it's a hard thing to do, although not necessarily impossible, as the Mozilla license change shows).
I guess the best way to do it would be to create two different licenses, a WGPL which states that you must allow source code download whenever you use the code or code derived from it on the net, and a GPL3 which doesn't have this restriction, but explicitly allows to change the license of derived works to WGPL (but not the other way round). This would completely resolve the above scenario, and also avoid the general confusion which can derive from different GPL3 codes coming with different rights.
It would also allow software authors more freedom, since one might decide to put a source download option into the program without having the intention to force that option to every derived work. Indeed, with the same-license-but-different-rights approach someone unaware to those details could change the effective licensing terms of the software without even being aware of it.
But wouldn't that be a loophole around that rule?
1. Move code from GPL3 web app with download feature to GPL3 non-web ab. No DL feature required.
2. Move code from GPL3 non-web app to other GPL3 web app. Since the code is taken from an application without DL feature, the other GPL3 web app doesn't have the restriction.
And what if I want to incorporate some code from a GPL3ed web application with download mechanism into a non-web application? Would I have to include a web server into that application to comply?
In other words, if you want to prevent Linux marketshare from dropping to below 1%, make it as unusable as possible.
I don't quite understand why this should work, but hey, I've got some great ideas on how to decrease the usability of Linux!
Also I strongly doubt that you can read it in the lighting situation "star light at new moon night, no other light source available". Note that unlike the nearby nuke explosion, this is a situation you might face several times in your life.
I'm just waiting for the first DRMed virus which will be well protected against reverse engeneering, but of course allows copying freely, as long as the destination system is "trusted" as well.
But wouldn't cancelling the account in this case damage the credibility of Google's "don't do evil"?
You forgot: Every time you write or type something yourself, a secretary who could have typed it for you loses money. Therefore production of any text which is not typed by a secretary should be charged a "secretary tax" to support those poor secretaries who lose money due to the self-writing of text.
Ah, and of course there should be a public transportation tax on private cars, because owners of private cars won't use public transportation as often as non-owners. The possible results can be seen on horse-carriages. Due to all those car-owners the horse-carriage business basically broke down. Now imagine there would have been a transportation tax payed to the horse-carriage makers for every car sold, and likewise a tax on petrol payed to the coachmen, to compensate them for the loss they made due to people driving cars, imagine where the horse-carriage industry would be now. Not to mention DRM measures you could have put into cars to save the railway industry. For example a regulation that you have to buy licenses from the railway companies to drive your cars, and the cars would have mechanisms which switch off the motor if you try to drive more miles than you have payed for.
Unlike C++, C has implicit conversions not only from any data pointer type to void*, but also the other way round. Therefore indeed in C you don't need that cast. So gcc is not wrong in accepting that assignment, but would be wrong if it rejected it in C code. Now if it's good style to omit this cast in C is another question, but it's clearly legal C.
Probably they also want to watch details of the impact.
The problem of course is that the local females really don't like it if you send robotic probes to explore them :-)