Lord of Destruction didn't feel like an expansion to me. Granted, I played all of Diablo 2 (including LoD) together, but still, the story didn't feel complete at the end of Diablo 2. Baal was still out there.... Totally awesome, that's what I thought of it. From start to end, I loved LoD. And Diablo 2, even if I hated Duriel (act two boss), and the way I couldn't beat it with my amazon.
His point is obvious. It's vox populi here. And I agree with it. He simply chose a very bad example, and I made fun of that. It's perhaps something not so obvious, but even when you have the best insight, if you don't present it well, it won't be so effective.
So, following your example, if you saw an active terroristic threat, the thing you'd do to alert others would be to post it on a blog and wait for search engines to catch up, and then the unexploded lucky ones could read about it on the intertubes?
Makes sense. I was thinking more of calling the police first on a phone, but I must be getting something wrong.
I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding, and someone will likely correct me if I'm wrong. Disclaimer: I am not a kernel dev nor a lawyer, just an amateur coder.
It is possible to dual-license a piece of code. In the case of this kind of stuff, the BSD license is much more permissive than the GPL as to what you can do with the code, so one could arguably take the piece of software under the BSD license and "close" it, developing proprietary software on top of it.
As the new code is a derivative work, and the new modifications are under GPL v2 (something which is possible as long as you maintain the original caveats along with the original code), those aren't easily appropriated, and become "viral". If one sought to extend that piece of software, he would have to do it under the GPL terms, or find the original code in OpenBSD and fork from that.
Luis R. Rodriguez in the LKML seems to imply (this is the part I'm not certain about) that for all practical purposes, dual-licensing in this case -and all other similar cases inside the kernel- means "GPL v2 licensing", since the GPL is by far more restrictive on what you can do with the code. This interpretation would be important if the linux kernel code evolved further than the OpenBSD code, since one would rather use the former than the latter, and thus the issue would arise. Otherwise, it would be much safer just to use the BSD-licensed code.
I know. It was exactly my point: you get a result you understand _precisely_ because you had to choose first or you could see the default, in my calculator a D, R or G (and usually, the default setting was degrees, not radiants). None of that "units don't matter" bullshit.
You can obtain each result I cited, and they will be an error or not in your calculations according to what unit you were thinking of. "cos 45" is a valid expression in both radiants and degrees, but only one of them is the right result in a problem.
A little experiment for you: Take a scientific calculator input the expression "cos (2*PI)" (or the nearest equivalent syntax). Now press Exe, or =, or the equivalent. Which result did you get, 0.99399 or 1?
Now, let's try again. This time, try "sin (PI/2)": is the result 0.0274 or 1?
Now, having ascertained that dimensionless units, derived from something else or not, can indeed vary, and that your affirmations were meaningless, you can take your arrogance and shove it.
This is pure speculation, but I can't help relating the election of the Christ Redeemer (as others have pointed, a beautiful monument, but not a wonder of the world) to the kind of Brazilian presence I noticed at Orkut, on PicasaWeb and other social sites. They love to make their presence known, they are big fans (torcedores), in a way.
I also remember how the "best book" election we had a few years ago went to The Lord of the Rings: While I love the book, I'm fairly certain the election had more to do with the fact that internet geeks love it than with its quality.
Tell you what: when you actually build a city with big blocks of stone 2430 metres (7970 ft.) up a mountain, using only manual labor, come back and tell us.
It is possible to respond to a joke with another. I'm sure you'd have gotten the humor, disclaimer or not. But in this age, I prefer to make myself extremely clear that I'm joking and not in fact advocating murder. You never know which dumbass is going to trawl google or/. for controversy.
Wounding people would mean that you (or other taxpayers) would pay for their recovery while in hospital. Plus, the expenses for jailing them afterwards are always a concern. Plus, there's always that famous case in which the judge filed in favor of the burglar who'd hurt himself while robbing a house. Do you really want that? Either don't do it at all or do the job correctly and put the thieves out of their misery. (yes, it's a joke)
It seems wrong: commercial distros include in their paid offerings closed source software, most of it patented somehow (e.g. Adobe Reader), and those pose no problem. I don't see how or why Novell would be barred from distributing GPL v3 software. A distro is not a software package or program in the GPL sense. If the v3 license really says that, then I'm seriously against it. Not because of a love of patents, but because it's too intrusive.
If other distros really want the MS code, I guess they'll have to speak to MS and cut their own deals.
Doesn't that assume that the code _can_ be passed downwards? If MS gives access but not GPLed code, distros can't take it, and I doubt they'd touch it then, to avoid any possible tainting.
The GPL is not a magic wand against patents: the provisions on v3 said, last time I checked, something to the tune of "you can't use this code in patent wars", but it can't affect the situation of original code that another company states is infringing on some patent. In this case, the code has to be redone, or the suit won, GPL or not.
That assumes: -that patent laws apply -that the trial is actually done: apart from SCO, I don't see other companies doing this.
Even if they do business with MS, I doubt Linspire or Novell actually want to start patent trials against other parts of the Open Source / Free Software community.
> "The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion > of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to > justify turning their back on principle."
Considering they are already competing for another fraction, and that the remaining fraction is mostly devoid of Internet access, I'd say China is pretty important to them.
I also posit that you haven't really imagined how many people are 1.3 billion.
He could easily sell his boxes while providing code: the markets for the boxes and the code just need to be separated enough. An example: digital picture frames could be running GPL code: the buyers of those don't quite intersect with the people who want the code, and even in that case, they normally wouldn't be interested in the hassle of reproducing the product.
This assumes two things: 1) The complete package is worth more than the code. 2) You don't sell it exclusively to potential competitors.
In these cases, it should be possible to make a living out of it.
No, I meant this: "One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
> "I want to start (very small) software/hardware business. The code in question > will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources.
Maybe not in your own code, but if you distribute linux boxes, you are using GPL code.
> It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell > embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code.
This is possible. TiVO do something like it.
> I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a little bit of Linux licensing, and > also of Linux fanboy-ism: I personally got a 'go to hell with your @#$ closed code' slur on Slashdot.
You will get some of those here, just read on for the advice, and check it before acting upon it.
> I am not a GPL guru
Check with a lawyer. This would be my advice even if you said you were a GPL guru.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
You can do it today, but I think GPL3 is going to be against it. Still, until the license is released, and packages are relicensed, some time will pass.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Not sure about this: if you are using GPL libraries, then I think it's not only "your code", but also someone else's. Check the GPL or other comments about this.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code, do what you want with it. You can also obfuscate the kernel code and the rest of the code you distribute, but it will be useless: you have to provide the code for that.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
You will be forced to publish all open source code you distribute. Even if it is useless outside the device (and I think the GPL3 is going to do something about that).
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
True, I don't think you have to worry about it under the BSD license, only proper attribution is required.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, it's hard to be doing worse than SCO is doing these days, isn't it? Even with a turd of a distro, they might have done something better.
Lord of Destruction didn't feel like an expansion to me. Granted, I played all of Diablo 2 (including LoD) together, but still, the story didn't feel complete at the end of Diablo 2. Baal was still out there. ... Totally awesome, that's what I thought of it. From start to end, I loved LoD. And Diablo 2, even if I hated Duriel (act two boss), and the way I couldn't beat it with my amazon.
Tycho probably knows already, and I'm not gonna write Bill.
His point is obvious. It's vox populi here. And I agree with it. He simply chose a very bad example, and I made fun of that. It's perhaps something not so obvious, but even when you have the best insight, if you don't present it well, it won't be so effective.
So, following your example, if you saw an active terroristic threat, the thing you'd do to alert others would be to post it on a blog and wait for search engines to catch up, and then the unexploded lucky ones could read about it on the intertubes?
Makes sense. I was thinking more of calling the police first on a phone, but I must be getting something wrong.
> 'The same thing can be said about any piece of software. At some point you have to take the risk that your machine might be exposed.'
> Or... you could just use open source software.
That's not necessarily true.
I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding, and someone will likely correct me if I'm wrong. Disclaimer: I am not a kernel dev nor a lawyer, just an amateur coder.
It is possible to dual-license a piece of code. In the case of this kind of stuff, the BSD license is much more permissive than the GPL as to what you can do with the code, so one could arguably take the piece of software under the BSD license and "close" it, developing proprietary software on top of it.
As the new code is a derivative work, and the new modifications are under GPL v2 (something which is possible as long as you maintain the original caveats along with the original code), those aren't easily appropriated, and become "viral". If one sought to extend that piece of software, he would have to do it under the GPL terms, or find the original code in OpenBSD and fork from that.
Luis R. Rodriguez in the LKML seems to imply (this is the part I'm not certain about) that for all practical purposes, dual-licensing in this case -and all other similar cases inside the kernel- means "GPL v2 licensing", since the GPL is by far more restrictive on what you can do with the code. This interpretation would be important if the linux kernel code evolved further than the OpenBSD code, since one would rather use the former than the latter, and thus the issue would arise. Otherwise, it would be much safer just to use the BSD-licensed code.
The response from the person involved is at least much more responsible and reasonable than in the earlier incident: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69
Just make do with greek 1337: AΕ|BA
Nah. The introduction of big new shinies also usually means that the lower end ones get discounted. Big opportunity there.
I know. It was exactly my point: you get a result you understand _precisely_ because you had to choose first or you could see the default, in my calculator a D, R or G (and usually, the default setting was degrees, not radiants). None of that "units don't matter" bullshit.
You can obtain each result I cited, and they will be an error or not in your calculations according to what unit you were thinking of. "cos 45" is a valid expression in both radiants and degrees, but only one of them is the right result in a problem.
A little experiment for you:
Take a scientific calculator
input the expression "cos (2*PI)" (or the nearest equivalent syntax). Now press Exe, or =, or the equivalent. Which result did you get, 0.99399 or 1?
Now, let's try again. This time, try "sin (PI/2)": is the result 0.0274 or 1?
Now, having ascertained that dimensionless units, derived from something else or not, can indeed vary, and that your affirmations were meaningless, you can take your arrogance and shove it.
"KEYBOARD NOT FOUND. PRESS F1 TO CONTINUE"
The lameness filter lacks humor.
This is pure speculation, but I can't help relating the election of the Christ Redeemer (as others have pointed, a beautiful monument, but not a wonder of the world) to the kind of Brazilian presence I noticed at Orkut, on PicasaWeb and other social sites. They love to make their presence known, they are big fans (torcedores), in a way.
I also remember how the "best book" election we had a few years ago went to The Lord of the Rings: While I love the book, I'm fairly certain the election had more to do with the fact that internet geeks love it than with its quality.
Tell you what: when you actually build a city with big blocks of stone 2430 metres (7970 ft.) up a mountain, using only manual labor, come back and tell us.
It is possible to respond to a joke with another. /. for controversy.
I'm sure you'd have gotten the humor, disclaimer or not. But in this age, I prefer to make myself extremely clear that I'm joking and not in fact advocating murder. You never know which dumbass is going to trawl google or
Wounding people would mean that you (or other taxpayers) would pay for their recovery while in hospital. Plus, the expenses for jailing them afterwards are always a concern.
Plus, there's always that famous case in which the judge filed in favor of the burglar who'd hurt himself while robbing a house. Do you really want that?
Either don't do it at all or do the job correctly and put the thieves out of their misery. (yes, it's a joke)
It seems wrong: commercial distros include in their paid offerings closed source software, most of it patented somehow (e.g. Adobe Reader), and those pose no problem. I don't see how or why Novell would be barred from distributing GPL v3 software. A distro is not a software package or program in the GPL sense. If the v3 license really says that, then I'm seriously against it. Not because of a love of patents, but because it's too intrusive.
If other distros really want the MS code, I guess they'll have to speak to MS and cut their own deals.
Doesn't that assume that the code _can_ be passed downwards? If MS gives access but not GPLed code, distros can't take it, and I doubt they'd touch it then, to avoid any possible tainting.
The GPL is not a magic wand against patents: the provisions on v3 said, last time I checked, something to the tune of "you can't use this code in patent wars", but it can't affect the situation of original code that another company states is infringing on some patent. In this case, the code has to be redone, or the suit won, GPL or not.
That assumes:
-that patent laws apply
-that the trial is actually done: apart from SCO, I don't see other companies doing this.
Even if they do business with MS, I doubt Linspire or Novell actually want to start patent trials against other parts of the Open Source / Free Software community.
You seem to have a bad understanding of the difference between the meanings of copyright and license.
Hint: all the contributors to, say, the linux kernel, keep the copyright to their code, but agree to license it under the GPL v2.
> "The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion
> of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to
> justify turning their back on principle."
Considering they are already competing for another fraction, and that the remaining fraction is mostly devoid of Internet access, I'd say China is pretty important to them.
I also posit that you haven't really imagined how many people are 1.3 billion.
He could easily sell his boxes while providing code: the markets for the boxes and the code just need to be separated enough. An example: digital picture frames could be running GPL code: the buyers of those don't quite intersect with the people who want the code, and even in that case, they normally wouldn't be interested in the hassle of reproducing the product.
This assumes two things:
1) The complete package is worth more than the code.
2) You don't sell it exclusively to potential competitors.
In these cases, it should be possible to make a living out of it.
No, I meant this:
"One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
From http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
> "I want to start (very small) software/hardware business. The code in question
> will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources.
Maybe not in your own code, but if you distribute linux boxes, you are using GPL code.
> It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell
> embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code.
This is possible. TiVO do something like it.
> I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a little bit of Linux licensing, and
> also of Linux fanboy-ism: I personally got a 'go to hell with your @#$ closed code' slur on Slashdot.
You will get some of those here, just read on for the advice, and check it before acting upon it.
> I am not a GPL guru
Check with a lawyer. This would be my advice even if you said you were a GPL guru.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
You can do it today, but I think GPL3 is going to be against it. Still, until the license is released, and packages are relicensed, some time will pass.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Not sure about this: if you are using GPL libraries, then I think it's not only "your code", but also someone else's. Check the GPL or other comments about this.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code, do what you want with it. You can also obfuscate the kernel code and the rest of the code you distribute, but it will be useless: you have to provide the code for that.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
You will be forced to publish all open source code you distribute. Even if it is useless outside the device (and I think the GPL3 is going to do something about that).
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
True, I don't think you have to worry about it under the BSD license, only proper attribution is required.