Nonsense. They can't come after the users because most of the users are Microsoft customers as well. Suing RedHat or Ubuntu or anyone else would be suicide. There is an organization that exists solely to hold defensive patents that protect open source software. That of course ignores the fact that IBM the largest patent holder of all has an extremely vested interest in shutting down any attempt by Microsoft to sue a Linux distributor.
All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.
or should be of, of course. Does anyone else find it annoying that you can't edit your comments on Slashdot? Restrict how large of a modification it can be or something. If someone really wants to go back and edit a +5 insightful post to a Goatse link 12 characters at a time, I say more power to em.
Upon rereading section 6 you are correct. It does say that the license is automatically granted under the same terms AND conditions before it goes on to say that you can't impose additional restrictions on the rights granted under those terms.
'I have a feeling this is going to cause problems once the GPLv3 is out and third parties get confused about improperly marked derived code.'
I doubt it will cause that much trouble. I think it is reasonably safe to assume that a GPLv2 or later project consists of GPLv2 or later code only in practice. Here is why:
1. There is very little GPLv2 only code in the first place. 2. You are acting in good faith with the license you have received. 3. Nobody in the community is about to sue someone over this petty nonsense. 4. If you are contacted by someone in the community, it will probably just be to give you permission to continue using the code. 5. A year after GPLv3 is released nobody will be using GPLv2 anyway.
'Just turning on climate control for the hell of it is environmentally irresponsible.'
hmm, well I honestly couldn't give a fig about the environment. But I do care about my electric bill, maintaining a reasonable constant temperature uses less energy than letting the temp get to an extreme and then trying to reign it in.
'Of course, if you are in some sort of apartment with a central boiler, you might have a radiator on all the time. But most people aren't.'
News to me. Once when I was a kid I lived in an apartment with separate units in the bedrooms. That was in government provided housing. Cost a fortune to run them as I recall. Outside of that, I haven't seen anything but central air and heat in apartments and houses. Maybe its a geographical thing? You are using C so I take it you aren't in the states...
'Right now it is 11C in my house, 7C outside. It is nearly 1pm. If it drops below 10C inside, I might turn the heater on, or I might put some gloves on.'
My god. I would never consider letting my home get so warm or cold that I had to wear outside clothing like gloves or a jacket.
It's really far away and it would take a long time to get there. We don't need to save humans, if the humans on earth die then who cares about anyone else. It would cost Earth a lot of money and wouldn't bring back a return on the investment soon.
Basically, he has an Earth centric view that outright dismisses the survival or our species and places money before the advancement of man in the bigger picture.
'You seem to suggest I can grab GPLv2 code, mix it with my own code, and releasing the final product as GPLv2 or later'
Where do I suggest that? The question was being asked of GPLv2 libraries and I specifically said this would allow you to let others deal with the libraries.
That said, I really don't see why not. GPLv2 technically doesn't require you to redistribute under GPLv2, it requires you to allow those you distribute to all the same freedoms they would have under GPLv2. IANAL but as far as I can tell, you couldn't redistribute 'GPLv2 or later' under 'GPLv2 only' but there is nothing to stop you from dropping restrictions.
This is a very good thing of course. I imagine there are quite a few GPL projects who are using GPLv2 code with the assumption that it is okay for their GPLv2 project.
I don't know about GPLv3 but technically GPLv2 only requires that you provide the same flexibility and rights to those you distribute to. I could certainly be wrong it has been awhile since I read it so double check. But assuming my memory serves you could always take GPL'd code and redistribute it under a less restrictive license.
If that is true of GPLv3, you might be able to go backwards since GPLv3 doesn't grant additional rights and only imposes additional restrictions.
Variations in C seem to be too large to me. Using F standard gets a weather variation of anywhere from -40 to 104, using your -40 to 40, I'd put a real world range of -20 to 120, that gives standard 144 degrees of precision without resorting to fractions and metric only 80. Since real people don't say its 70.345 degrees out that gives standard greater precision in practice.
When you adjust a thermostat, one degree F is a fairly large temperature adjustment. Adjusting my AC from 77 to 78 degrees reduced my electric bill by about $5/month and made a comfort difference that required a couple weeks of adjustment. How would you adjust 25C to 25.5555556C on your thermostat? Do metric thermostats show partial fractions of variation?
'Firstly, not everyone who reads this site is American'
And we welcome our guests. Just the same, this is an american site for americans. If I start reading a german blog I'm not going to complain if they have the nerve write the articles in german despite having some americans in the audience.
It says that using air from the atmosphere as fuel is basically what makes a scramjet a scramjet, then claims this is the first scramjet ignited within the atmosphere. How the hell did they ignite the other ones without the atmosphere they use as fuel? Further it goes on to say that they sent it into space. Last I checked there isn't much air to use as fuel in space either.
Remember that almost all GPL'd software permits using the terms of future versions of the GPL. Unless they have chosen to omitt this part of the license you can use GPLv3 without issue. If that won't work, then you should license GPLv2 WITH the option of using the future terms. That way you are compliant with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 and let people work out the library licensing on their own.
I'd be a lil more comfortable if Safari weren't a forked version of that rendering engine or there was something preventing Apple from adding proprietary extensions.
They also have auto pilot and are either all talking ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING or tune out the chatter. They don't actively engage in conversation while participating in an activity that precludes sparing enough time to generate complete thoughts.
'Just because some people aren't able to deal with distractions and prioritize driving doesn't mean that others can't do it perfectly safely.'
Just because you think you can deal with distractions doesn't mean you can. Just like driving after a couple of beers, everyone thinks they can. Even when they do in an accident they will probably blame something else.
'putting the phone down and ignoring the conversation when driving demands your attention'
You can't accurately assess whether driving demands your full attention unless you are giving it your full attention in the first place.
'Once you become skilled at driving, there are certainly some spare fractions of seconds that can be used for other tasks, as long as driving is the highest priority.'
For every driver who can ACTUALLY do this, there are hundreds who think they can. People are overconfident and frankly, most are stupid. I am all for personal freedom and preferences, right up to the point when we are talking about something that kills thousands of people every year.
Licensed, mature, responsible adults have already proven they can't drive safely. Just look at the current automotive death tolls. I guarantee that if you subtract the number due to natural conditions like ice, the number won't be appreciably smaller. Those deaths are caused by the elderly, shaving/putting on makeup on the way to work, blow drying hair on the way to work, eating while driving, talking to passengers while driving, cellphones, drinking, maybe a small fraction from prescription medications and other drugs. Although my experiences of youth are that the last either don't impair motor function as badly as drinking (read smoking pot) or impair it to the point where starting a vehicle isn't a possibility in the first place.
You can argue all day long that cellphone use is safe if done responsibly but when put to the test at 3 or 4 atypical people were astonished to find that driving drunk was safer. When I say atypical of course we are talking about the mythbusters team and frankly they are definitely brighter and more capable than your average adult. They are also easily old enough to qualify for the experienced and skilled driver mark.
'Also, it should be illegal to get exercise because exercise can cause injury.'
To yourself.
'Plus, being fat makes you less likely to hurt yourself if you do fall (we'll ignore the increasingly likelihood of falling because of severe fatness.)'
Why are we ignoring that again? In any case, that all impacts yourself.
'Bad speech can piss people off and others can get offended.'
Last I checked bad speech IS banned in public. In private where others have the option of leaving (or you can ask them to leave) it is not. Again, its about harming yourself vs others.
'Browsing the Internet'
Neither harmful to yourself or others.
'There's bad stuff there and directions for making boms (spelled wrong because I'm paranoid).'
Yup, and if you use it to harm yourself or others you will be punished rather quickly.
'Everything that can do anything bad should be illegal!!!'
How about we keep it to the stupid shit that selfish people do for their convenience that kills thousands of OTHER people each year? You know like drunk driving and cellphone driving?
'Driving should be illegal, you fucktard. Duh.'
Actually driving is pretty dangerous. Driving kills ALOT of people. Anything we can do to reduce the number of people it kills we should do.
'you are partially correct, firefox has a huge marketing engine the Get Firefox campaign, the ad in the NY times... etc... however'
Firefox has a marketing engine, I wouldn't exactly call it huge. I don't think you could compare even a daily full page NY times ad to even one national television commercial. More importantly, Apple has itunes/quicktime. When safari is installed by default with itunes (and based on Apple's past history it will be) every teen in the US is going to install Safari on their computer. Usually that computer is also mom and dad's computer.
It may not be quite as good as being default on the desktop but it sure beats banner ads and newspaper articles. It will also penetrate the clueless user market. They probably won't even know anything changed.
Anyone remember the mythbusters where they tested and determined that driving proficiency was greater when drunk than while talking on a cellphone? Cellphone use while driving should be illegal. Hell, people talking to the driver should be illegal.
'Safari is no competition for Internet Explorer, since noone who is able and willing to download and install another browser is still using IE.'
My prediction is that when Safari is available on windows (right now it is just an unstable beta) it will be as simple as not unchecking the box when installing ITunes. Every house with a teenager will have Safari installed.
Yes but safari has something the other options don't; a marketing engine. Once they learn that there are other programs (an overrated response, most will download this when a popup comes into itunes and never realize they are using a different program) they will be more likely to use one of the other alternatives.
The bigger change is open standards. But if too many users move to a single alternative browser run by a corporation we might be right back in the same boat we are with IE.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't you just use free pc to pc voice services like skype?
Novell did it for $300,000,000.
Nonsense. They can't come after the users because most of the users are Microsoft customers as well. Suing RedHat or Ubuntu or anyone else would be suicide. There is an organization that exists solely to hold defensive patents that protect open source software. That of course ignores the fact that IBM the largest patent holder of all has an extremely vested interest in shutting down any attempt by Microsoft to sue a Linux distributor.
All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.
I find it highly unlikely that a condition or event won't occur long before the 5 billion year mark.
or should be of, of course. Does anyone else find it annoying that you can't edit your comments on Slashdot? Restrict how large of a modification it can be or something. If someone really wants to go back and edit a +5 insightful post to a Goatse link 12 characters at a time, I say more power to em.
Upon rereading section 6 you are correct. It does say that the license is automatically granted under the same terms AND conditions before it goes on to say that you can't impose additional restrictions on the rights granted under those terms.
'I have a feeling this is going to cause problems once the GPLv3 is out and third parties get confused about improperly marked derived code.'
I doubt it will cause that much trouble. I think it is reasonably safe to assume that a GPLv2 or later project consists of GPLv2 or later code only in practice. Here is why:
1. There is very little GPLv2 only code in the first place.
2. You are acting in good faith with the license you have received.
3. Nobody in the community is about to sue someone over this petty nonsense.
4. If you are contacted by someone in the community, it will probably just be to give you permission to continue using the code.
5. A year after GPLv3 is released nobody will be using GPLv2 anyway.
'Just turning on climate control for the hell of it is environmentally irresponsible.'
hmm, well I honestly couldn't give a fig about the environment. But I do care about my electric bill, maintaining a reasonable constant temperature uses less energy than letting the temp get to an extreme and then trying to reign it in.
'Of course, if you are in some sort of apartment with a central boiler, you might have a radiator on all the time. But most people aren't.'
News to me. Once when I was a kid I lived in an apartment with separate units in the bedrooms. That was in government provided housing. Cost a fortune to run them as I recall. Outside of that, I haven't seen anything but central air and heat in apartments and houses. Maybe its a geographical thing? You are using C so I take it you aren't in the states...
'Right now it is 11C in my house, 7C outside. It is nearly 1pm. If it drops below 10C inside, I might turn the heater on, or I might put some gloves on.'
My god. I would never consider letting my home get so warm or cold that I had to wear outside clothing like gloves or a jacket.
His argument in a nut shell.
It's really far away and it would take a long time to get there.
We don't need to save humans, if the humans on earth die then who cares about anyone else.
It would cost Earth a lot of money and wouldn't bring back a return on the investment soon.
Basically, he has an Earth centric view that outright dismisses the survival or our species and places money before the advancement of man in the bigger picture.
Again, today. Apple could choose to be less gracious tomorrow and has carefully made sure they have that option across the board.
'You seem to suggest I can grab GPLv2 code, mix it with my own code, and releasing the final product as GPLv2 or later'
Where do I suggest that? The question was being asked of GPLv2 libraries and I specifically said this would allow you to let others deal with the libraries.
That said, I really don't see why not. GPLv2 technically doesn't require you to redistribute under GPLv2, it requires you to allow those you distribute to all the same freedoms they would have under GPLv2. IANAL but as far as I can tell, you couldn't redistribute 'GPLv2 or later' under 'GPLv2 only' but there is nothing to stop you from dropping restrictions.
This is a very good thing of course. I imagine there are quite a few GPL projects who are using GPLv2 code with the assumption that it is okay for their GPLv2 project.
I don't know about GPLv3 but technically GPLv2 only requires that you provide the same flexibility and rights to those you distribute to. I could certainly be wrong it has been awhile since I read it so double check. But assuming my memory serves you could always take GPL'd code and redistribute it under a less restrictive license.
If that is true of GPLv3, you might be able to go backwards since GPLv3 doesn't grant additional rights and only imposes additional restrictions.
Variations in C seem to be too large to me. Using F standard gets a weather variation of anywhere from -40 to 104, using your -40 to 40, I'd put a real world range of -20 to 120, that gives standard 144 degrees of precision without resorting to fractions and metric only 80. Since real people don't say its 70.345 degrees out that gives standard greater precision in practice.
When you adjust a thermostat, one degree F is a fairly large temperature adjustment. Adjusting my AC from 77 to 78 degrees reduced my electric bill by about $5/month and made a comfort difference that required a couple weeks of adjustment. How would you adjust 25C to 25.5555556C on your thermostat? Do metric thermostats show partial fractions of variation?
'Firstly, not everyone who reads this site is American'
And we welcome our guests. Just the same, this is an american site for americans. If I start reading a german blog I'm not going to complain if they have the nerve write the articles in german despite having some americans in the audience.
It says that using air from the atmosphere as fuel is basically what makes a scramjet a scramjet, then claims this is the first scramjet ignited within the atmosphere. How the hell did they ignite the other ones without the atmosphere they use as fuel? Further it goes on to say that they sent it into space. Last I checked there isn't much air to use as fuel in space either.
Anyone care to explain? Preferably in English.
Remember that almost all GPL'd software permits using the terms of future versions of the GPL. Unless they have chosen to omitt this part of the license you can use GPLv3 without issue. If that won't work, then you should license GPLv2 WITH the option of using the future terms. That way you are compliant with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 and let people work out the library licensing on their own.
I'd be a lil more comfortable if Safari weren't a forked version of that rendering engine or there was something preventing Apple from adding proprietary extensions.
I propose that driving is unsafe in its current form, thus we should be removing distractions, not adding them.
They also have auto pilot and are either all talking ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING or tune out the chatter. They don't actively engage in conversation while participating in an activity that precludes sparing enough time to generate complete thoughts.
'Just because some people aren't able to deal with distractions and prioritize driving doesn't mean that others can't do it perfectly safely.'
Just because you think you can deal with distractions doesn't mean you can. Just like driving after a couple of beers, everyone thinks they can. Even when they do in an accident they will probably blame something else.
'putting the phone down and ignoring the conversation when driving demands your attention'
You can't accurately assess whether driving demands your full attention unless you are giving it your full attention in the first place.
'Once you become skilled at driving, there are certainly some spare fractions of seconds that can be used for other tasks, as long as driving is the highest priority.'
For every driver who can ACTUALLY do this, there are hundreds who think they can. People are overconfident and frankly, most are stupid. I am all for personal freedom and preferences, right up to the point when we are talking about something that kills thousands of people every year.
Licensed, mature, responsible adults have already proven they can't drive safely. Just look at the current automotive death tolls. I guarantee that if you subtract the number due to natural conditions like ice, the number won't be appreciably smaller. Those deaths are caused by the elderly, shaving/putting on makeup on the way to work, blow drying hair on the way to work, eating while driving, talking to passengers while driving, cellphones, drinking, maybe a small fraction from prescription medications and other drugs. Although my experiences of youth are that the last either don't impair motor function as badly as drinking (read smoking pot) or impair it to the point where starting a vehicle isn't a possibility in the first place.
You can argue all day long that cellphone use is safe if done responsibly but when put to the test at 3 or 4 atypical people were astonished to find that driving drunk was safer. When I say atypical of course we are talking about the mythbusters team and frankly they are definitely brighter and more capable than your average adult. They are also easily old enough to qualify for the experienced and skilled driver mark.
'Also, it should be illegal to get exercise because exercise can cause injury.'
To yourself.
'Plus, being fat makes you less likely to hurt yourself if you do fall (we'll ignore the increasingly likelihood of falling because of severe fatness.)'
Why are we ignoring that again? In any case, that all impacts yourself.
'Bad speech can piss people off and others can get offended.'
Last I checked bad speech IS banned in public. In private where others have the option of leaving (or you can ask them to leave) it is not. Again, its about harming yourself vs others.
'Browsing the Internet'
Neither harmful to yourself or others.
'There's bad stuff there and directions for making boms (spelled wrong because I'm paranoid).'
Yup, and if you use it to harm yourself or others you will be punished rather quickly.
'Everything that can do anything bad should be illegal!!!'
How about we keep it to the stupid shit that selfish people do for their convenience that kills thousands of OTHER people each year? You know like drunk driving and cellphone driving?
'Driving should be illegal, you fucktard. Duh.'
Actually driving is pretty dangerous. Driving kills ALOT of people. Anything we can do to reduce the number of people it kills we should do.
'you are partially correct, firefox has a huge marketing engine the Get Firefox campaign, the ad in the NY times... etc... however'
Firefox has a marketing engine, I wouldn't exactly call it huge. I don't think you could compare even a daily full page NY times ad to even one national television commercial. More importantly, Apple has itunes/quicktime. When safari is installed by default with itunes (and based on Apple's past history it will be) every teen in the US is going to install Safari on their computer. Usually that computer is also mom and dad's computer.
It may not be quite as good as being default on the desktop but it sure beats banner ads and newspaper articles. It will also penetrate the clueless user market. They probably won't even know anything changed.
Anyone remember the mythbusters where they tested and determined that driving proficiency was greater when drunk than while talking on a cellphone? Cellphone use while driving should be illegal. Hell, people talking to the driver should be illegal.
'Safari is no competition for Internet Explorer, since noone who is able and willing to download and install another browser is still using IE.'
My prediction is that when Safari is available on windows (right now it is just an unstable beta) it will be as simple as not unchecking the box when installing ITunes. Every house with a teenager will have Safari installed.
Yes but safari has something the other options don't; a marketing engine. Once they learn that there are other programs (an overrated response, most will download this when a popup comes into itunes and never realize they are using a different program) they will be more likely to use one of the other alternatives.
The bigger change is open standards. But if too many users move to a single alternative browser run by a corporation we might be right back in the same boat we are with IE.