A long time ago, a friend told me about his new telescope. He'd set it up and it would checkout the GPS satellites to figure out its location and orientation and time. Then, if he gave it something to look at, it would (if possible) turn itself to aim at that. I believe that, if he wanted to look at a satellite, it would keep the scope on the target as long as possible.
And, of course, if Hancom manages to successfully dodge the contract violation rap, they're in trouble for distributing copyrighted stuff without a license. The contract view is iffy, but the license view isn't. The GPL says that only the GPL gives you the right to redistribute, clearly meaning that if you violate it you don't have any such right.
It gets complicated. Here's a possible way to get around it.
Company A uses Linux in a lot of devices they manufacture. Whenever they sell a batch do distributors B-Z, they include a little box with the source file in GPL-compliant form. The redistributors have a lot of devices, and redistributing those devices doesn't require a copyright license. Therefore, you buy a device with GPLed software that was always in compliance, and you have no legal claim to the source. I brought this case up in the GPLv3 open comment period.
This only works if the software is not changed. If the software has to be changed in the end user's device, that constitutes distribution to the end user, who is then legally entitled to the source code (or, alternately, the authors of the GPLed part of the software are entitled to damages and injunctions). The FSF didn't seem concerned about the distribution of software in ROMs.
IANAL, but I've seen lawyers say there's a distinction here. If you use GPLed software and change it yourself, you've created a derived work which is covered under the GPL. The FSF maintains that linking to GPLed software creates a derived work, and apparently that isn't generally considered the case for copyright. From what I've read, there's uncertainty between (a) linking does not create a derived work, and so the GPL only applies to object files with GPLed code, and (b) you need to consider linking to create a derived work if you're going to distribute the GPLed stuff.
The Open Source Initiative lists all varieties of the GPL as open source licenses. The Gnu people would prefer you used "Free" instead of "Open Source", but either usage is valid and correct.
The GPL is also not "the" Free software license, as BSD-style licenses are Free. In practice, almost all Open Source licenses are Free and vice versa. There are some edge cases.
That only applies to GPLed software you've written, not the output of gcc. You don't have to make any written offer if you throw another DVD-ROM or three into the nice package, that includes the source. Your customer can then distribute it if they want, which they normally wouldn't want to because they paid for your modifications and don't have to share them. If you make a written offer, then your customer, in the unlikely event of redistribution, can distribute copies of your offer if they don't redistribute much, and then you do need to honor the copies of your written offer. It doesn't say you have to give the source code to anyone who asks.
The GPL explicitly says that you don't need a license to use the software. In the US, when you have software legally acquired, you can make copies required for use freely without further permission. You could acquire GPLed software illegally, I suppose, and then you wouldn't have those legal rights, but that would normally require extra effort just to be a jerk.
Really? I can download Free software like gcc and emacs and use it all I want without worrying about the license. Under US copyright law, if I have lawfully acquired software I can legally, without further permission, make copies as required for use. I can get a DVD-ROM, copy it to disk, and run it, which requires copying from disk, without further permissions.
With the GPL, using the software does not require accepting the license. Distributing does. A EULA can put restrictions on your use, while the GPL doesn't.
The GPLv2 cases I've heard of ended with a settlement, which presumably restored the GPL for the violator. If one ended in court, there would presumably be an injunction against the violator's use of the software without permission anyway.
The GPL is not a loaded gun. If your company uses software without verifying the license, they're either stupid or trying to get away with something. In that case, any software not under a permissive F/OS license works just the same, and that includes all proprietary licenses.
The GPL and similar copyleft licenses are not the only Open Source licenses (according to the Open Source Initiative) or Free licenses (according to the Gnu project and Free Software Foundation). I can take some BSD-licensed software, change it, and redistribute under a proprietary license, but I can't do anything to restrict the original software. You're just as free to build on the code I used as I was.
That's not something the courts can do. In a civil case, the court can award damages and issue injunctions, so if a company is distributing my GPLed code not according to the license I can at most get money from them and an order to the company to stop doing that. The GPL is a license, not a contract, and so the company would be guilty of infringing copyright, not violating the terms of a contract.
There are cases in which the violator starts conforming to the GPL, but that's voluntary, and is normally part of a settlement. Stallman would much rather have people distribute under the GPL than pay money.
The Wikipedia article treats it from a civil point of view, primarily, pointing to Tampering with evidence for criminal investigations. The examples there are that tampering with evidence that supports the prosecution is likely to lead to dismissal and mistrials, while when the defendant tampers with evidence of guilt the defendant may be charged with felony tampering with evidence, instead of assuming the worst.
Under the circumstances you postulate, the 1-10% of the population that is working would have no difficulty in supplying the needs of the rest. If they couldn't, there'd be employment for the other 90%. Since everything would be highly automated, there'd be no way to start a profitable business if you didn't have money, which presumably the 90% don't have (the ones with money are in the 10%). If production were to be expanded, it would be through additional automation, not hiring any significant number of people. Moreover, in this scenario, anything the average person could do to be productive could be done cheaper by a machine, so there's no way any significant number of average people could get a job, no matter what. There would be people of unusual intelligence, creativity, perhaps physique, or some other talent or skill, and they'd be in the 10%.
The barriers to hunting, gathering, fishing, and farming are not a matter of taxes or regulation. They're a matter of private property and scale. There isn't anywhere near enough land in the US to support 300M hunter-gatherers, and a lot of the good spots are private property. Pretty much all the good farmland is private property. There'd be no way for the 90% to support themselves. Either they obey your morality and starve to death, along with their families, or they do something you disapprove of. Guess which will be the more popular choice.
Morally, I do not place property rights above the welfare of all. Property rights are a good thing, as is a certain amount of capitalism. Free markets are good when externalities are dealt with. It's good to concentrate on increasing total wealth rather than trying to equalize wealth.
With no government, there's no difference between the guy with a gun sitting on a pile of stuff vs. a guy with a gun who don't have anything else, and all the moral superiority in the world won't stop bullets. Whoever survives will then own the pile of stuff.
That would either be futile (the most likely case) or it would cause my state to turn into a swing state, in which case I'd have to start trying to convince people to vote as they did.
Coal is dying as a power source for several reasons, many of them technological. Natural gas has been a cheaper option for some time, and renewables are at least getting there. Pretending that there's a big future for coal mining or blue collar factory work is cynical and condescending.
It's pretty consistent, so it doesn't look just like random chance. I haven't run the numbers.
In order to calculate delayed effects, it's common to attribute the performance of the first year of a president's term to a previous president. Last I checked, that seemed to improve D performance over R.
Really, given two parties, it seems reasonable that one would have better economic policies than the other. Are you just upset because your letter comes in second?
Statistically, you need a sample of fixed size to get results of the desired reliability. It doesn't scale with the size of the population. It has to be a representative sample, but if the sample isn't representative the size doesn't matter until it gets close to the population size.
There are various statistics showing unemployment and underemployment rates. They all have their uses.
It's similarly odd that the economy does better with Democrats as President than Republicans as President. There's some solid evidence that the Democrats are better at running the economy.
Obama was in office for 2922 days (if my calculations are right), Trump for about 100. If Syria used chemical weapons 29 times while Obama was in office, and once when Trump was, they're on almost exactly the same schedule. You suspect that Syria won't use them again, but that's not actually evidence of anything other than your mental state. The difference is that Trump launched an expensive and ineffectual strike against a Syrian airfield, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. There was something to be said for taking the airfield out entirely (which is not saying that's a good idea), but none for firing dozens of expensive missiles to put it out of action for a few hours. Some people say that Obama looked weak because he didn't resort to military action there, but Trump looks like he couldn't do anything if he tried.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that setting expectations and paying attention to the kid worked just fine. No need for physical punishment. YMMV.
It seems like lots of adults don't really remember being children, as opposed to smaller and perhaps happier versions of themselves.
A long time ago, a friend told me about his new telescope. He'd set it up and it would checkout the GPS satellites to figure out its location and orientation and time. Then, if he gave it something to look at, it would (if possible) turn itself to aim at that. I believe that, if he wanted to look at a satellite, it would keep the scope on the target as long as possible.
Weapons in space are illegal under treaty law. Refusing to deny illegal activities is not usually the best way to go.
And, of course, if Hancom manages to successfully dodge the contract violation rap, they're in trouble for distributing copyrighted stuff without a license. The contract view is iffy, but the license view isn't. The GPL says that only the GPL gives you the right to redistribute, clearly meaning that if you violate it you don't have any such right.
It gets complicated. Here's a possible way to get around it.
Company A uses Linux in a lot of devices they manufacture. Whenever they sell a batch do distributors B-Z, they include a little box with the source file in GPL-compliant form. The redistributors have a lot of devices, and redistributing those devices doesn't require a copyright license. Therefore, you buy a device with GPLed software that was always in compliance, and you have no legal claim to the source. I brought this case up in the GPLv3 open comment period.
This only works if the software is not changed. If the software has to be changed in the end user's device, that constitutes distribution to the end user, who is then legally entitled to the source code (or, alternately, the authors of the GPLed part of the software are entitled to damages and injunctions). The FSF didn't seem concerned about the distribution of software in ROMs.
IANAL, but I've seen lawyers say there's a distinction here. If you use GPLed software and change it yourself, you've created a derived work which is covered under the GPL. The FSF maintains that linking to GPLed software creates a derived work, and apparently that isn't generally considered the case for copyright. From what I've read, there's uncertainty between (a) linking does not create a derived work, and so the GPL only applies to object files with GPLed code, and (b) you need to consider linking to create a derived work if you're going to distribute the GPLed stuff.
The Open Source Initiative lists all varieties of the GPL as open source licenses. The Gnu people would prefer you used "Free" instead of "Open Source", but either usage is valid and correct.
The GPL is also not "the" Free software license, as BSD-style licenses are Free. In practice, almost all Open Source licenses are Free and vice versa. There are some edge cases.
That only applies to GPLed software you've written, not the output of gcc. You don't have to make any written offer if you throw another DVD-ROM or three into the nice package, that includes the source. Your customer can then distribute it if they want, which they normally wouldn't want to because they paid for your modifications and don't have to share them. If you make a written offer, then your customer, in the unlikely event of redistribution, can distribute copies of your offer if they don't redistribute much, and then you do need to honor the copies of your written offer. It doesn't say you have to give the source code to anyone who asks.
The GPL explicitly says that you don't need a license to use the software. In the US, when you have software legally acquired, you can make copies required for use freely without further permission. You could acquire GPLed software illegally, I suppose, and then you wouldn't have those legal rights, but that would normally require extra effort just to be a jerk.
Really? I can download Free software like gcc and emacs and use it all I want without worrying about the license. Under US copyright law, if I have lawfully acquired software I can legally, without further permission, make copies as required for use. I can get a DVD-ROM, copy it to disk, and run it, which requires copying from disk, without further permissions.
With the GPL, using the software does not require accepting the license. Distributing does. A EULA can put restrictions on your use, while the GPL doesn't.
The GPLv2 cases I've heard of ended with a settlement, which presumably restored the GPL for the violator. If one ended in court, there would presumably be an injunction against the violator's use of the software without permission anyway.
The GPL is not a loaded gun. If your company uses software without verifying the license, they're either stupid or trying to get away with something. In that case, any software not under a permissive F/OS license works just the same, and that includes all proprietary licenses.
The GPL and similar copyleft licenses are not the only Open Source licenses (according to the Open Source Initiative) or Free licenses (according to the Gnu project and Free Software Foundation). I can take some BSD-licensed software, change it, and redistribute under a proprietary license, but I can't do anything to restrict the original software. You're just as free to build on the code I used as I was.
That's not something the courts can do. In a civil case, the court can award damages and issue injunctions, so if a company is distributing my GPLed code not according to the license I can at most get money from them and an order to the company to stop doing that. The GPL is a license, not a contract, and so the company would be guilty of infringing copyright, not violating the terms of a contract.
There are cases in which the violator starts conforming to the GPL, but that's voluntary, and is normally part of a settlement. Stallman would much rather have people distribute under the GPL than pay money.
The Wikipedia article treats it from a civil point of view, primarily, pointing to Tampering with evidence for criminal investigations. The examples there are that tampering with evidence that supports the prosecution is likely to lead to dismissal and mistrials, while when the defendant tampers with evidence of guilt the defendant may be charged with felony tampering with evidence, instead of assuming the worst.
Under the circumstances you postulate, the 1-10% of the population that is working would have no difficulty in supplying the needs of the rest. If they couldn't, there'd be employment for the other 90%. Since everything would be highly automated, there'd be no way to start a profitable business if you didn't have money, which presumably the 90% don't have (the ones with money are in the 10%). If production were to be expanded, it would be through additional automation, not hiring any significant number of people. Moreover, in this scenario, anything the average person could do to be productive could be done cheaper by a machine, so there's no way any significant number of average people could get a job, no matter what. There would be people of unusual intelligence, creativity, perhaps physique, or some other talent or skill, and they'd be in the 10%.
The barriers to hunting, gathering, fishing, and farming are not a matter of taxes or regulation. They're a matter of private property and scale. There isn't anywhere near enough land in the US to support 300M hunter-gatherers, and a lot of the good spots are private property. Pretty much all the good farmland is private property. There'd be no way for the 90% to support themselves. Either they obey your morality and starve to death, along with their families, or they do something you disapprove of. Guess which will be the more popular choice.
Morally, I do not place property rights above the welfare of all. Property rights are a good thing, as is a certain amount of capitalism. Free markets are good when externalities are dealt with. It's good to concentrate on increasing total wealth rather than trying to equalize wealth.
With no government, there's no difference between the guy with a gun sitting on a pile of stuff vs. a guy with a gun who don't have anything else, and all the moral superiority in the world won't stop bullets. Whoever survives will then own the pile of stuff.
Not according to what I've read about hunter-gatherer culture. They also didn't seem to be too concerned about preparing for the future.
That would either be futile (the most likely case) or it would cause my state to turn into a swing state, in which case I'd have to start trying to convince people to vote as they did.
Coal is dying as a power source for several reasons, many of them technological. Natural gas has been a cheaper option for some time, and renewables are at least getting there. Pretending that there's a big future for coal mining or blue collar factory work is cynical and condescending.
It's pretty consistent, so it doesn't look just like random chance. I haven't run the numbers.
In order to calculate delayed effects, it's common to attribute the performance of the first year of a president's term to a previous president. Last I checked, that seemed to improve D performance over R.
Really, given two parties, it seems reasonable that one would have better economic policies than the other. Are you just upset because your letter comes in second?
Statistically, you need a sample of fixed size to get results of the desired reliability. It doesn't scale with the size of the population. It has to be a representative sample, but if the sample isn't representative the size doesn't matter until it gets close to the population size.
There are various statistics showing unemployment and underemployment rates. They all have their uses.
It's similarly odd that the economy does better with Democrats as President than Republicans as President. There's some solid evidence that the Democrats are better at running the economy.
I like it when the facts confirm my biases.
Obama was in office for 2922 days (if my calculations are right), Trump for about 100. If Syria used chemical weapons 29 times while Obama was in office, and once when Trump was, they're on almost exactly the same schedule. You suspect that Syria won't use them again, but that's not actually evidence of anything other than your mental state. The difference is that Trump launched an expensive and ineffectual strike against a Syrian airfield, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. There was something to be said for taking the airfield out entirely (which is not saying that's a good idea), but none for firing dozens of expensive missiles to put it out of action for a few hours. Some people say that Obama looked weak because he didn't resort to military action there, but Trump looks like he couldn't do anything if he tried.
It may be just me, but trusting someone who has silent contempt for me doesn't seem all that appealing either.
Exactly how often did Clinton use the word "deplorable"? Exactly how often did Trump insult people? Methinks there's a double standard here.