These devices were due to be rolled out to supermarkets nationwide. Motors, gears, rollers etc push the per-unit price up and aren't necessary in a PoS environment.
Testing credit-card software a few years ago the test design was all done for us in the form of standard test packs that were aimed at requirement validation. The poor tester we got to do the work had about 4 days straight of:
Put card in machine. Press this button. Take card out of machine. Put it back in. Press this button to program card for next test. Take card out of machine. Goto beginning.
Either way, I'd recommend (if you think you're a hot-shot) going to a smaller place where you can play fast and loose with hierarchy and roles for a while, the rigid structure of the big players is not, IMHO, a good way to get ahead fast.
I've heard of graduate software folks at big blue not being allowed to touch code for years also. I'd recommend starting out in a smaller company without so many rules and procedures, then later finding more money at a large corp (if you're not going to start your own venture), when you've proven yourself.
The issue is whether your work is derivative. If it is then it doesn't matter whether you distribute the libraries you link to or not YOUR WORK IS NOW GPL. Suck it up.
If it is not then you can distribute them together as much as you like, your only obligation is to give out the source to GPL'd protions.
Your idea that you're only affected if you put them on the same media is retarded.
I find your attitude equally offensive. 1. Good luck with all your assertions on linking. As I said many times, these have yet to be tested in court, it's not as clear cut as you like to think though, and if you're distributing stuff that dynamically links to GPL libraries I'd watch your ass in case someone comes after you.
2. If I want to write code that forces people who use it to open their code too, that's my prerogative, not yours. Why is it inherently wrong to want to give only to those that contribute back? You sound all butthurt that you can't use the fruits of someone else's labour without reciprocating. Boohoo, if you don't like it go and write your own.
Stalker behaviour! Figure people out on your own like a big boy. Asking about and then looking up retired engineers is creepy and weird. Besides which, different people find different things difficult to deal with. Those retired engineers might be social misfits and you might not. Or vice versa.
"If read as a copyright license, and you're not distributing copyrighted code, then it holds no bearing at all."
Copyright also governs derivative works. Your work can fall foul of copyright law if it is judged to be derivative. What I'm trying to get through to you is that by distributing even only your own, new portions of work, you are still distributing something that could be considered derivative. Even if you don't distribute the libraries that you have dynamically linked to, what YOU have written is now covered by copyright law as a derivative work, and therefore you don't have the right to distribute it at all outside of the terms of the GPL.
If you're still not convinced at this point I'm just going to have to say I respectfully disagree, and that further argument would just be repeating myself.
But here's a thought - why do think that corporate lawyers at the big commercial vendors make sure their engineering departments don't, ever, link to GPL libraries?
And your video app comes under the GPL the moment it is deemed to be a derivative work. If you then distribute it, it comes under the GPL. Doesn't matter what you distribute it with, it comes under the GPL itself because it's a derivative work.
All ideology aside, that's the legal issue. If you want to argue that dynamic linking releases you from your code being considered derivative of GPL code, more power to you, that legal argument is still unsettled.
But it's totally immaterial how you then distribute it.
If it can be argued that your program is a derivative work of GPL components it doesn't matter that you now don't ship the other GPL components because you have created a derivative work and the application you have created is now covered by the GPL whether you like it or not.
It doesn't matter who brings them together or where they do it. As soon as you create a derivative work your work is covered by it. If you give away binaries you have to make source available to the same people you gave binaries to.
For (theoretical) example - you build a video playing application and it links to GPL'd video codec libraries. It uses another GPL library to handle it's video buffer. Your program is useless without these. It's pretty easy to say that it's then a derivative work of GPL code and a judge may support that. Your code is then subject to the GPL, or you need to stop distributing it.
It's not that you're having legal trouble distributing your own thing that links to GPL code any more, it's that your code is now covered by the GPL, like it or not, because it's a derivative work.
It still applies only to distribution, you can use it in house for what you like, but if you give or sell anyone that app, you need to make source available to them under the GPL.
And a LOT of GPL library developers would say that their intent in using the GPL would be to prevent you doing exactly what you describe, otherwise they would have gone for the LGPL.
It's perfectly possible that your app that links in to the GPL library could be considered a derivative work under law and that you ARE distributing GPL there, in the form of the your application.
The message from the GPL is clear - you don't get to use their stuff if you don't open yours in the same way. How far this would hold up in court is, as I say, a grey area. Any companies thinking of going this way would be best to steer well clear of using any GPL components.
You cannot use GPL'd libraries from your non-GPL app, regardless of the linking style, end of story.
That's why we have the LGPL with its linking exceptions. You *might* be able to do some tricks like build a small, GPL'd socket layer around a GPL library and call functions in an RPC style way, but at that point you are deliberately working around the spirit of the license and are entering a legal minefield.
Where do people get this "if I use dynamic links I'm ok!" thing from?
OpenMoko was a good effort, but the way the company handled things was abysmal. They seemed to make a new distribution and 'desktop' environment every 6 months, complete with new sets of applications. I wanted that phone so that I could maybe play with the OS a little bit, but mostly write custom apps and stuff. Central to this idea was having a working telephone.
What I got was something that needed reflashing every few days because the platform was horrifically unstable, phonecalls barely worked, buzz and echo made them unbearable when they did work, and the battery lasted less than a day.
I too am looking at the N900, because it seems to be what I wanted with the freerunner.
(Android on FR looked pretty good last time I investigated, so maybe there is hope, but at this point the whole thing is so hopelessly out of date...)
It's not a linux limitation but a general limitation, most laptops just can't run three display, and if they're doing 2 then usually one of them MUST be the builtin.
Right, so you've never worked on a project that has performance guarantees, works to industrial, federal or military specifications, includes penalties for late or non-delivery, or defects? Any of that?
I know it's not just a matter of "registering", I have some experience with chemical engineers.
The standards and exams are in progress at the IEEE, and I fully intend to become an accredited engineer as soon as the process is clear. Until then I will call myself one as what I do is on a par with the other engineering disciplines.
Maybe what *you* do isn't, but I don't write web pages for a living.
Slashdot Mirror
Until recently when some wise-ass startup figured out a way to make them general purpose again!
Does z/VM do *all* the virtualisation stuff?
I was under the impression that there was some sort of low-level LPAR type partitioning scheme available to?
You hope it's predictable. That's the idea :)
When the unpredictable happens then, usually, you have a bug.
These devices were due to be rolled out to supermarkets nationwide. Motors, gears, rollers etc push the per-unit price up and aren't necessary in a PoS environment.
Depends on the work.
Testing credit-card software a few years ago the test design was all done for us in the form of standard test packs that were aimed at requirement validation. The poor tester we got to do the work had about 4 days straight of:
Put card in machine. Press this button. Take card out of machine. Put it back in. Press this button to program card for next test. Take card out of machine. Goto beginning.
Maybe we've heard from the same group? Who knows.
Either way, I'd recommend (if you think you're a hot-shot) going to a smaller place where you can play fast and loose with hierarchy and roles for a while, the rigid structure of the big players is not, IMHO, a good way to get ahead fast.
Have you tried plugging a USB keyboard and a mouse into the Xbox?
I'm not saying it'll definitely work in-game, but I've had them working on the dashboard before.
I've heard of graduate software folks at big blue not being allowed to touch code for years also. I'd recommend starting out in a smaller company without so many rules and procedures, then later finding more money at a large corp (if you're not going to start your own venture), when you've proven yourself.
You have it totally, utterly backwards.
The issue is whether your work is derivative. If it is then it doesn't matter whether you distribute the libraries you link to or not YOUR WORK IS NOW GPL. Suck it up.
If it is not then you can distribute them together as much as you like, your only obligation is to give out the source to GPL'd protions.
Your idea that you're only affected if you put them on the same media is retarded.
I find your attitude equally offensive.
1. Good luck with all your assertions on linking. As I said many times, these have yet to be tested in court, it's not as clear cut as you like to think though, and if you're distributing stuff that dynamically links to GPL libraries I'd watch your ass in case someone comes after you.
2. If I want to write code that forces people who use it to open their code too, that's my prerogative, not yours. Why is it inherently wrong to want to give only to those that contribute back? You sound all butthurt that you can't use the fruits of someone else's labour without reciprocating. Boohoo, if you don't like it go and write your own.
WTF?
Stalker behaviour! Figure people out on your own like a big boy. Asking about and then looking up retired engineers is creepy and weird. Besides which, different people find different things difficult to deal with. Those retired engineers might be social misfits and you might not. Or vice versa.
"If read as a copyright license, and you're not distributing copyrighted code, then it holds no bearing at all."
Copyright also governs derivative works. Your work can fall foul of copyright law if it is judged to be derivative. What I'm trying to get through to you is that by distributing even only your own, new portions of work, you are still distributing something that could be considered derivative. Even if you don't distribute the libraries that you have dynamically linked to, what YOU have written is now covered by copyright law as a derivative work, and therefore you don't have the right to distribute it at all outside of the terms of the GPL.
If you're still not convinced at this point I'm just going to have to say I respectfully disagree, and that further argument would just be repeating myself.
But here's a thought - why do think that corporate lawyers at the big commercial vendors make sure their engineering departments don't, ever, link to GPL libraries?
And your video app comes under the GPL the moment it is deemed to be a derivative work. If you then distribute it, it comes under the GPL. Doesn't matter what you distribute it with, it comes under the GPL itself because it's a derivative work.
All ideology aside, that's the legal issue. If you want to argue that dynamic linking releases you from your code being considered derivative of GPL code, more power to you, that legal argument is still unsettled.
But it's totally immaterial how you then distribute it.
But if you make a derivative work you are distributing GPL code!
If it can be argued that your program is a derivative work of GPL components it doesn't matter that you now don't ship the other GPL components because you have created a derivative work and the application you have created is now covered by the GPL whether you like it or not.
It doesn't matter who brings them together or where they do it. As soon as you create a derivative work your work is covered by it. If you give away binaries you have to make source available to the same people you gave binaries to.
No, it wouldn't, it would be very very easy.
For (theoretical) example - you build a video playing application and it links to GPL'd video codec libraries. It uses another GPL library to handle it's video buffer. Your program is useless without these. It's pretty easy to say that it's then a derivative work of GPL code and a judge may support that. Your code is then subject to the GPL, or you need to stop distributing it.
It's not that you're having legal trouble distributing your own thing that links to GPL code any more, it's that your code is now covered by the GPL, like it or not, because it's a derivative work.
It still applies only to distribution, you can use it in house for what you like, but if you give or sell anyone that app, you need to make source available to them under the GPL.
That's very much up for debate
And a LOT of GPL library developers would say that their intent in using the GPL would be to prevent you doing exactly what you describe, otherwise they would have gone for the LGPL.
It's perfectly possible that your app that links in to the GPL library could be considered a derivative work under law and that you ARE distributing GPL there, in the form of the your application.
The message from the GPL is clear - you don't get to use their stuff if you don't open yours in the same way. How far this would hold up in court is, as I say, a grey area. Any companies thinking of going this way would be best to steer well clear of using any GPL components.
Which is of course why my OpenMoko was never allowed on any network!
Oh wait, FAIL. The only closed part of that was the GSM firmware, which is arguably not even part of the software stack.
Eh they do. That's how the GPL works.
You cannot use GPL'd libraries from your non-GPL app, regardless of the linking style, end of story.
That's why we have the LGPL with its linking exceptions. You *might* be able to do some tricks like build a small, GPL'd socket layer around a GPL library and call functions in an RPC style way, but at that point you are deliberately working around the spirit of the license and are entering a legal minefield.
Where do people get this "if I use dynamic links I'm ok!" thing from?
Oh sure, there are all sorts of addons available to do all sorts of stuff, I was just talking about your default ports on a laptop.
Same story.
OpenMoko was a good effort, but the way the company handled things was abysmal. They seemed to make a new distribution and 'desktop' environment every 6 months, complete with new sets of applications. I wanted that phone so that I could maybe play with the OS a little bit, but mostly write custom apps and stuff. Central to this idea was having a working telephone.
What I got was something that needed reflashing every few days because the platform was horrifically unstable, phonecalls barely worked, buzz and echo made them unbearable when they did work, and the battery lasted less than a day.
I too am looking at the N900, because it seems to be what I wanted with the freerunner.
(Android on FR looked pretty good last time I investigated, so maybe there is hope, but at this point the whole thing is so hopelessly out of date...)
Don't bet on it.
It's not a linux limitation but a general limitation, most laptops just can't run three display, and if they're doing 2 then usually one of them MUST be the builtin.
Maybe it's that I'm on my second beer, but your post just made me laugh like a loon.
+1, would read again.
Right, so you've never worked on a project that has performance guarantees, works to industrial, federal or military specifications, includes penalties for late or non-delivery, or defects? Any of that?
I repeat, I'm an engineer.
I know it's not just a matter of "registering", I have some experience with chemical engineers.
The standards and exams are in progress at the IEEE, and I fully intend to become an accredited engineer as soon as the process is clear. Until then I will call myself one as what I do is on a par with the other engineering disciplines.
Maybe what *you* do isn't, but I don't write web pages for a living.