You save nothing. If you don't check any bags then you pay exactly the same amount you're paying now. You can pay more to get your bags sooner. Neither paying more for a service you are already getting nor paying the same and not getting the service results in cheaper prices.
Perhaps you have internalized Orwell's dictum: less is more.
Ah, the light dawns over Marblehead. Thanks for the clarification.
One reason that interpretation didn't occur to me was the Novell Microsoft patent deal. I applaud and cheer on Novell in their battle with SCO but I abhor their attempt to poison the FOSS pool with the Microsoft deal. IMO that deal bumped them to near the very bottom of the list for Linux stewards. I guess that's why I jumped to the conclusion that the original poster was referring to the SysV copyrights.
Again, thanks for the correction. Your interpretation makes much more sense than mine.
You must have missed the very public SCO v. IBM lawsuit. This is where SCO demanded (and got) all the source code for all the versions of IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems in their search for a link connecting the ancient SysV code with code in Linux. They came up with zilch, nada, zero.
SCO repeatedly claimed that there were millions of infringing lines in Linux. But unfortunately for SCO in addition to the delusion that they owned the SysV copyrights, they also suffered from the delusion that they somehow had control over IBM's own home-grown code.
Linux is clean regardless of who owns the SysV copyrights.
So, does this mean Novell owns them? No.
on
Novell to SCO - Pay Up
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Not yet. The Sun and Microsoft "license" royalties are worth $25 million on face value and $37 million with interest. But first the trial in Utah must be unstayed so Judge Kimball can decide exactly how much of that money is actually Novell's. Before the bankruptcy, if that was a substantial sum then it would have been game over for SCO. But now with the bankruptcy, after Judge Kimball decides the amount in Utah, the action swings back to Delaware where it will be up to Judge Gross to decide whether to give Novell the constructive trust or not.
Novell has already asked Judge Gross for a constructive trust but he refused (which was very reasonable IMO) saying that there might be other creditors on the same footing as Novell that he has not heard from yet. In other words, if it is discovered that SCO stole money from other people in addition to Novell then the victims of those thefts get to join Novell at the front of the line of creditors.
The first thing that has to happen though is the November 6th hearing in Delaware where Judge Gross gets to decide whether to lift the stay or not.
That was last week and there were about 5 submissions in the firehose about it. The Slashdot editors in their infinite wisdom chose to ignore this when it was new and instead waited a week and
then published a summary with no link to the original SFLC article and no mention at all of the guide.
... but a MMORG with a subscription service is probably a bit too ambitious an undertaking for a solo hobbyist. I was thinking more in terms of little shareware type utility programs that are pretty ubiquitous in the Mac and Windows world but are nearly non-existent on Linux.
But if he likes free-as-in-beer software, what is wrong with Linux as a platform? You're not forced to use the GPL. But if you develop proprietary software for Linux, you might find it hard to sell.
I am certainly not claiming there is mass infringement going on. If there was infringement, I think it was an honest mistake because someone thought it was okay to re-license someone else's code. Then Theo being Theo thought it was part of a vast Linux anti-BSD conspiracy. The fact that it was an honest mistake is
why I'm willing to have these debates on Slashdot. I think it is important that we are all clear on what is legal and what is not.
Here are
some
links
to a clarifying discussion by some people from the FSF.
I became aware of this issue (and the correct answer) during some heated debates about the GPLv3 over on Groklaw. The anti-GPL people were making the argument that the GPL was bad because it forced/allowed you to re-license BSD code without the author's consent. The pro-GPL forces made the same arguments as in the links above, saying that you are never allowed to re-license someone else's code without their permission.
The license doesn't explicitly say you can't modify it because it goes without saying that you are not allowed to modify it. If the default was for licenses to be freely modifyable by recipients then they would all be worthless. Also, it would be asinine for the default to be that you can freely modify the license because then every single license would have to have a standard clause that says you can't modify it.
The same rule applies to copyright notices. You are not allowed to modify the copyright notice on a work even though it doesn't explicitly say such modifications are forbidden. The BSD license reminds recipients that they have to keep the copyright intact, but this is done as a courtesy and is not required.
As for your Wikipedia quote, I already gave a detailed explanation of how BSD licensed code can be distributed along with code that has a more restrictive license because this might be what has caused the widespread misunderstanding that you are still suffering from.
The rule is trivially simple: unless you are given explicit permission from the original author, you can't change the license or copyright notice on someone else's work. Period.
If you use modified-BSD code, then you are free to do just about anything with it but change the license. Adding the restrictions of the GPL to BSD code is the same thing as relicensing it. You are free to redistribute the BSD code and obey the GPL restrictions yourself (just like you are free to not redistribute it at all). But if you do redistribute the BSD code then you can't change the copyright notice on it or change the BSD license. So anyone who gets the BSD code from you is not held to the terms of the GPL only the terms of the BSD license.
Likewise, you are free to charge people for the BSD code, but again, if you redistribute the source then the people that get it from you are free to redistribute it under the terms of the BSD license.
In other words, you are free to restrict your own distribution as much as you want but you can't add any restrictions that others must obey. If you include BSD code with GPL code then recipients of the whole most obey the most restrictive license. But they are always free to take the pure BSD code and treat it as BSD code. The GPL license does not leak over just due to intimate contact.
You can't re-license the code even without the advertising clause. It is never legal to re-license someone else's code without their approval. The advertising clause prevents you from including BSD code in a GPL product. You can include modified-BSD code (no advertising clause) in a GPL product but the BSD code has to retain the BSD license.
I'll be working in the unsteady case as I have reservations about transforming to the Helmholtz equation, not least of which is the necessity of taking the fourier transform of the source signal. I'm trying to get as exact a solution as
possible.
Taking the fourier transform and working in frequency space is a standard technique. If you fear it will make the solution less "exact" then perhaps you are in the wrong field.
It surprised me that something so nigh universal as the wave equation did not seem to have a reliable standard technique after over half a century of numerical
analysis.
The problem is that there are many different standard solutions. This is because the underlying "general" problem has 3 + 1 dimensions and is thus still hard despite many decades of Moore's Law. We have many different standard solutions because there are many different ways of making approximations (assumptions) that simplify the problem.
One thing I seriously lack at the moment is a good wave simulation that I can simply play around with to get a feel for both wave mechanics itself and for the equations and techniques of the field.
In order to get a feel for it I encourage you to back away from the full 3+1 dimensional problem and instead work at 2+1 first. You may also want to relax the requirement that the terrain and the sound speed are both highly variable.
I also need a method of simulating emitted sonar and radar pulses, their interaction with "obstacles" or features they encounter, and the returned or scattered signals from this interaction.
If you can simplify the problem enough so you can ignore back-scatter from the propagation medium then one standard technique is to use the "one-way wave equation" (also known as the parabolic equation). You will need to use fourier synthesis to construct a time domain solution, but this is the least of your worries.
Which is exactly why I don't want to use those methods, or any method that requires me to nurse or otherwise "prep" the method before use. I intend to throw multiple simulated terrains at the method and I'd like it to perform well across all ranges. I was hoping that in this day and age such a solution existed, but I'm aware I may be asking for the impossible.
You are. General purpose simulations in 3+1 dimensions are still hard. You will have much better luck if you take the exact opposite of the "one solution fits all" approach and instead find solutions that can take advantage of any possible simplifications your problems offer.
You say you want an approximate solution but you give us no clue as to the part of the problem you want to approximate. For variable wave speed, I've used both normal modes and the parabolic equation approximation.
The question you have posed is so unspecific, it would be impossible to fully answer it without writing a text book. There are many good ones, for example, Waves in Layered Media by L. M. Brekhovskikh.
If that was his intent then he should have forked the code himself and released two different versions, a BSD version and a GPL version, similar to what Trolltech did when they released two different versions of their QT code, one with a proprietary license and the other with the GPL.
Did you paste in the wrong link? The page you linked to deals with issues of proprietary code not dual BSD + GPL licensing. Since the BSD license is GPL-compatible, the code we have been discussing can be included with GPL'ed code regardless of the outcome of the dual license issue.
If you released code under a dual license such that the part that was GPL before is now dual licensed, you have violated the license on the GPL code...
What part of "I gave this home-grown code the dual BSD+GPL license." did you not understand?
answer me this. What's the significance of the dual license, then, if they can't be "alternatively" split?
I think the point you keep stumbling over is that if an author
releases their code under a dual license, like the case Theo talks about, the license for that code includes the text of the BSD license and the text of the GPL license and the text that says you may distribute under the terms of either.
You are free to distribute under the terms of the BSD or the terms of the GPL but you are not free to replace the author's license with one of your own choosing (such as just the GPL or just the BSD license).
AFAIK, from a totally pragmatic point of view, a dual GPL + BSD license is mostly cosmetic. Since BSD code can be included in GPL code but not visa versa, the dual licensed code is effectively licensed under the BSD. But this apparent pointlessness does not magically give you the right to rewrite the license.
Seems as if just as some in SCO didn't understand what they bought, so some here may not have understood what the license gave away.
It is a little ironic that you use the ad hominem attack of associating those with whom you disagree with SCO. I had your erroneous view of this license situation until I learned better at Groklaw.
It appears you are not joking. You are trying to apply the terms of the GPL to the license instead of the code. If you think the GPL allows you to butcher someone else's license then what prevents yet another person from using your logic to excise onerous passages from the GPL?
When you release code under the GPL, you are confident that the entire GPL applies to the code and the GPL cannot be modified willy-nilly by the recipients even though the code can. This is because there is a common-sense rule that is so obvious (to most folks) that it does not need to be explicitly stated. That rule is that recipients are not allowed to modify the license. The use of the words "alternatively" or "at your option" in the license itself don't nullify this simple rule.
For example, if I release code under a "GPLv2 or latter version" license, no one (expect me) is allowed to strip out the GPLv2 and replace it with the GPLv3. Nor can the remove the words "or latter version".
The GPL itself contains options and alternatives. As a recipient of GPL'ed code, I am free to choose amongst these options and alternatives but that doesn't allow me to go in and re-write the GPL (as a recipient) according to my choices. But this seems to be exactly what you think you can do with some else's dual license.
At best, your logic presents a case that it is impossible to dual license GPL code. Please don't be offended if I take the FSF's advice on that subject over your opinion.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me that "you must also distribute it under the terms of the BSD license" would constitute an additional restriction.
You are correct, that would be a violation. But that's not how a dual license works. The dual license says you may (at your choice) distribute this code under the BSD license, which is not a restriction.
Think of the GPLv2 "or latter" clause. This is also a dual license. The recipient gets to choose which license to use. But the recipient can not go back and remove the words "or latter".
You are free to distribute the code under the terms of either license but you are not free to re-write the author's license which includes the word "alternatively".
Slashdot Mirror
You save nothing. If you don't check any bags then you pay exactly the same amount you're paying now. You can pay more to get your bags sooner. Neither paying more for a service you are already getting nor paying the same and not getting the service results in cheaper prices.
Perhaps you have internalized Orwell's dictum: less is more.
Ah, the light dawns over Marblehead. Thanks for the clarification.
One reason that interpretation didn't occur to me was the Novell Microsoft patent deal. I applaud and cheer on Novell in their battle with SCO but I abhor their attempt to poison the FOSS pool with the Microsoft deal. IMO that deal bumped them to near the very bottom of the list for Linux stewards. I guess that's why I jumped to the conclusion that the original poster was referring to the SysV copyrights.
Again, thanks for the correction. Your interpretation makes much more sense than mine.
You must have missed the very public SCO v. IBM lawsuit. This is where SCO demanded (and got) all the source code for all the versions of IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems in their search for a link connecting the ancient SysV code with code in Linux. They came up with zilch, nada, zero.
SCO repeatedly claimed that there were millions of infringing lines in Linux. But unfortunately for SCO in addition to the delusion that they owned the SysV copyrights, they also suffered from the delusion that they somehow had control over IBM's own home-grown code.
Linux is clean regardless of who owns the SysV copyrights.
Not yet. The Sun and Microsoft "license" royalties are worth $25 million on face value and $37 million with interest. But first the trial in Utah must be unstayed so Judge Kimball can decide exactly how much of that money is actually Novell's. Before the bankruptcy, if that was a substantial sum then it would have been game over for SCO. But now with the bankruptcy, after Judge Kimball decides the amount in Utah, the action swings back to Delaware where it will be up to Judge Gross to decide whether to give Novell the constructive trust or not.
Novell has already asked Judge Gross for a constructive trust but he refused (which was very reasonable IMO) saying that there might be other creditors on the same footing as Novell that he has not heard from yet. In other words, if it is discovered that SCO stole money from other people in addition to Novell then the victims of those thefts get to join Novell at the front of the line of creditors.
The first thing that has to happen though is the November 6th hearing in Delaware where Judge Gross gets to decide whether to lift the stay or not.
You can distribute BSD code inside of a GPL project. When the SFLC published the results of its efforts in the wireless driver dispute, they simultaneous published a guide for using BSD code in GPL projects.
That was last week and there were about 5 submissions in the firehose about it. The Slashdot editors in their infinite wisdom chose to ignore this when it was new and instead waited a week and then published a summary with no link to the original SFLC article and no mention at all of the guide.
You got me again. Touche and my apologies. Linux started out as a hobby. Best of luck with your MMORG.
... but a MMORG with a subscription service is probably a bit too ambitious an undertaking for a solo hobbyist. I was thinking more in terms of little shareware type utility programs that are pretty ubiquitous in the Mac and Windows world but are nearly non-existent on Linux.
That's as good a guess as any. My guess would have been "clueless Microsoft shill wannabe" but maybe a simple "clueless" would suffice.
But if he likes free-as-in-beer software, what is wrong with Linux as a platform? You're not forced to use the GPL. But if you develop proprietary software for Linux, you might find it hard to sell.
Coming next to Slashdot: up is down and black is white.
Cybercrime passes, or even surpasses drug trade but I don't know why you think cybercrime "goes around" drug trade.
Forgive me for being an English Nazi but jeez Louise, have they now outsourced Slashdot editing to people who don't speak English?
I am certainly not claiming there is mass infringement going on. If there was infringement, I think it was an honest mistake because someone thought it was okay to re-license someone else's code. Then Theo being Theo thought it was part of a vast Linux anti-BSD conspiracy. The fact that it was an honest mistake is why I'm willing to have these debates on Slashdot. I think it is important that we are all clear on what is legal and what is not.
Here are some links to a clarifying discussion by some people from the FSF.
I became aware of this issue (and the correct answer) during some heated debates about the GPLv3 over on Groklaw. The anti-GPL people were making the argument that the GPL was bad because it forced/allowed you to re-license BSD code without the author's consent. The pro-GPL forces made the same arguments as in the links above, saying that you are never allowed to re-license someone else's code without their permission.
The license doesn't explicitly say you can't modify it because it goes without saying that you are not allowed to modify it. If the default was for licenses to be freely modifyable by recipients then they would all be worthless. Also, it would be asinine for the default to be that you can freely modify the license because then every single license would have to have a standard clause that says you can't modify it.
The same rule applies to copyright notices. You are not allowed to modify the copyright notice on a work even though it doesn't explicitly say such modifications are forbidden. The BSD license reminds recipients that they have to keep the copyright intact, but this is done as a courtesy and is not required.
As for your Wikipedia quote, I already gave a detailed explanation of how BSD licensed code can be distributed along with code that has a more restrictive license because this might be what has caused the widespread misunderstanding that you are still suffering from.
The rule is trivially simple: unless you are given explicit permission from the original author, you can't change the license or copyright notice on someone else's work. Period.
Nope. Wrong. But thanks for playing.
Adding more restrictions == changing the license
If you use modified-BSD code, then you are free to do just about anything with it but change the license. Adding the restrictions of the GPL to BSD code is the same thing as relicensing it. You are free to redistribute the BSD code and obey the GPL restrictions yourself (just like you are free to not redistribute it at all). But if you do redistribute the BSD code then you can't change the copyright notice on it or change the BSD license. So anyone who gets the BSD code from you is not held to the terms of the GPL only the terms of the BSD license.
Likewise, you are free to charge people for the BSD code, but again, if you redistribute the source then the people that get it from you are free to redistribute it under the terms of the BSD license.
In other words, you are free to restrict your own distribution as much as you want but you can't add any restrictions that others must obey. If you include BSD code with GPL code then recipients of the whole most obey the most restrictive license. But they are always free to take the pure BSD code and treat it as BSD code. The GPL license does not leak over just due to intimate contact.
You can't re-license the code even without the advertising clause. It is never legal to re-license someone else's code without their approval. The advertising clause prevents you from including BSD code in a GPL product. You can include modified-BSD code (no advertising clause) in a GPL product but the BSD code has to retain the BSD license.
You say you want an approximate solution but you give us no clue as to the part of the problem you want to approximate. For variable wave speed, I've used both normal modes and the parabolic equation approximation.
The question you have posed is so unspecific, it would be impossible to fully answer it without writing a text book. There are many good ones, for example, Waves in Layered Media by L. M. Brekhovskikh.
If that was his intent then he should have forked the code himself and released two different versions, a BSD version and a GPL version, similar to what Trolltech did when they released two different versions of their QT code, one with a proprietary license and the other with the GPL.
Did you paste in the wrong link? The page you linked to deals with issues of proprietary code not dual BSD + GPL licensing. Since the BSD license is GPL-compatible, the code we have been discussing can be included with GPL'ed code regardless of the outcome of the dual license issue.
You are free to distribute under the terms of the BSD or the terms of the GPL but you are not free to replace the author's license with one of your own choosing (such as just the GPL or just the BSD license).
AFAIK, from a totally pragmatic point of view, a dual GPL + BSD license is mostly cosmetic. Since BSD code can be included in GPL code but not visa versa, the dual licensed code is effectively licensed under the BSD. But this apparent pointlessness does not magically give you the right to rewrite the license. It is a little ironic that you use the ad hominem attack of associating those with whom you disagree with SCO. I had your erroneous view of this license situation until I learned better at Groklaw.
It appears you are not joking. You are trying to apply the terms of the GPL to the license instead of the code. If you think the GPL allows you to butcher someone else's license then what prevents yet another person from using your logic to excise onerous passages from the GPL?
When you release code under the GPL, you are confident that the entire GPL applies to the code and the GPL cannot be modified willy-nilly by the recipients even though the code can. This is because there is a common-sense rule that is so obvious (to most folks) that it does not need to be explicitly stated. That rule is that recipients are not allowed to modify the license. The use of the words "alternatively" or "at your option" in the license itself don't nullify this simple rule.
For example, if I release code under a "GPLv2 or latter version" license, no one (expect me) is allowed to strip out the GPLv2 and replace it with the GPLv3. Nor can the remove the words "or latter version".
The GPL itself contains options and alternatives. As a recipient of GPL'ed code, I am free to choose amongst these options and alternatives but that doesn't allow me to go in and re-write the GPL (as a recipient) according to my choices. But this seems to be exactly what you think you can do with some else's dual license.
At best, your logic presents a case that it is impossible to dual license GPL code. Please don't be offended if I take the FSF's advice on that subject over your opinion.
Think of the GPLv2 "or latter" clause. This is also a dual license. The recipient gets to choose which license to use. But the recipient can not go back and remove the words "or latter".
You are free to distribute the code under the terms of either license but you are not free to re-write the author's license which includes the word "alternatively".