Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
If you do not want to accept the terms under which some piece of code is distributed, you have to write your own. That is quite clear.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Oh, come on. They are not. That claim is plainly silly.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you have heard about this groups of people called `distribution makers'? You can check http://www.redhat.com/, http://www.debian.org/, http://ubuntu.com/, and so on. I hear there is a whole site dedicated to simply listing linux distros! They surely are not the developers of all the code they package, you know.
The fact that the GPL is a license on distribution is a hardly a semantic point: it is essentially the whole point of the license!
You claimed that "the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user": one can but conclude that you have not even read the license (nor the many faqs out there explaining in painstaking detail what the license says...)
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
[This time with whole sentences!]
GCC poses both architectural and legal obstacles to this kind of development for Apple right now.
I do not know about the technical side, but surely there is another approach to those legal obstacles. For example, the one Sun took with Java.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
GCC poses both architectural and legal obstacles to this kind of development for Apple right now.
I do not know about the technical side, but surely there is
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
As opposed to staying very close to whatever `side' you count yourself in, obviouslt and characteristically proud of the incisiveness of the arguments it brandishes. All Anonymous and all. Very cute!
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so what they want is more freedom for themselves. Which is quite a different thing from freedom for the user, which is what the GPL set out to protect. You said "it appears to provide a freer license": it is always necessary to be explicit about who gets the extra freedom. And the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user. Thus, a license with less restrictions, like BSD, is "more free" in any useful sense of the word.
The party bound by the license is the distributor. If you do not understand that, you really should not be making comments on the GPL...
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".
What I am saying is that a statement such as "the license is more free" does not mean anything. You have to specify who it provides that extra freedom and what that freedom allows the recipient to do. Likewise, a statement like "it is less free" does not mean anything.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's ridiculous. You are only required to use the GPL3 code if you want to make use of what those developers that opted for the GPL3 worked hard to write. Why would you be entitled to take advantage of their work without acepting their conditions?
From a CD supplied by the hardware vendor which contains all the hand-picked drivers and so on? No.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You know perfectly well that he meant freer as in less restrictive. Acting like words only have the meanings that you endorse is tiresome.
Denying that the words have more than one possible meaning is dishonest.
He meant freer as in "less restrictive for the developer". There are other ways for code to be free.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
What does this mean, exactly? That they want a compiler which they can modify, distribute and not publish the source?
Obviously that's not their primary motivation since they are, in fact, publishing the source. But I suspect they want the freedom to combine it with any other source they have in any way they deem technically advantageous without the license having anything to say about it. They probably also want the freedom to control the timing and manner of the publication of the source. And yes, they probably want the ability to not publish the source in certain circumstances when they feel that doing so would be detrimental to them.
Ok, so what they want is more freedom for themselves. Which is quite a different thing from freedom for the user, which is what the GPL set out to protect. You said "it appears to provide a freer license": it is always necessary to be explicit about who gets the extra freedom.
GPL is a great license for its own ecosystem, but don't try to pretend that it isn't more restrictive than BSD.
It is less restrictive for the developer, and more restrictive for the user. Restrictiveness is not a totally ordered value.
In this particular case, according to what you say, Apple wants to be more free so as to be able to restrict what the user can do.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
GPLv2 (without the "later version" wording).
You do understand that the usual "or a later version" clause leaves the choice of version to you (or whoever is distributing the code), right?
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You didn't see the sarcasm, either.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
and a freer license than GCC.
What does this mean, exactly? That they want a compiler which they can modify, distribute and not publish the source? You do know that gcc being GPL does not imply that code compiled with it not the resulting binaries are GPL, right?
I am not accusing you on anything. Your nationality has nothing to do with anything.
That you like good software is just as relevant as the fact that I like strawberries. Free software is not a proposal to solve a software engineering problem: it obviously proposes to a political problem. Judging it as an engineering technique leads to absurd conclusions.
You can do much, much better than that: your system is not resilient to having one of the 3 parties providing wrong information intentionally, for example.
Distributed secret algorithms is a very well studied area of cryptography.
Well, this is not a search algorithm, this is an (API giving access to an) algorithm which constructs an RDF graph from plain text data. While such a thing can be used for searching, your question is not very different from comparing apples and oranges.
This is slashdot and all, I know. But you seem not to have read even the summary: this is about someone exposing an API which lets you turn text into and RDF graph independently of the text producer. If you want, this something like someone giving you access to a tool like the one used by Google.
It is a standard. As there are others, you need to have the sending party and the receiving party to agree which one to use. That is what an encoding declaration does for you.
Try feeding a data-file into MySQL that contains both GB2312 and UTF8-formatted data sometime and let me know what DOCTYPE you'd use passing the file over a network.
There is no such thing as a format/encoding agonstic method of data transfer. Any data transfer requires an agreement between the sender and the receiver on the format and the encoding: you cannot send `data': the only thing you can send is formatted and encoded data.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do not want to accept the terms under which some piece of code is distributed, you have to write your own. That is quite clear.
Oh, come on. They are not. That claim is plainly silly.
Maybe you have heard about this groups of people called `distribution makers'? You can check http://www.redhat.com/, http://www.debian.org/, http://ubuntu.com/, and so on. I hear there is a whole site dedicated to simply listing linux distros! They surely are not the developers of all the code they package, you know.
The fact that the GPL is a license on distribution is a hardly a semantic point: it is essentially the whole point of the license!
You claimed that "the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user": one can but conclude that you have not even read the license (nor the many faqs out there explaining in painstaking detail what the license says...)
[This time with whole sentences!]
GCC poses both architectural and legal obstacles to this kind of development for Apple right now.I do not know about the technical side, but surely there is another approach to those legal obstacles. For example, the one Sun took with Java.
I do not know about the technical side, but surely there is
As opposed to staying very close to whatever `side' you count yourself in, obviouslt and characteristically proud of the incisiveness of the arguments it brandishes. All Anonymous and all. Very cute!
The party bound by the license is the distributor. If you do not understand that, you really should not be making comments on the GPL...
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".What I am saying is that a statement such as "the license is more free" does not mean anything. You have to specify who it provides that extra freedom and what that freedom allows the recipient to do. Likewise, a statement like "it is less free" does not mean anything.
That's ridiculous. You are only required to use the GPL3 code if you want to make use of what those developers that opted for the GPL3 worked hard to write. Why would you be entitled to take advantage of their work without acepting their conditions?
From a CD supplied by the hardware vendor which contains all the hand-picked drivers and so on? No.
Denying that the words have more than one possible meaning is dishonest.
He meant freer as in "less restrictive for the developer". There are other ways for code to be free.
Obviously that's not their primary motivation since they are, in fact, publishing the source. But I suspect they want the freedom to combine it with any other source they have in any way they deem technically advantageous without the license having anything to say about it. They probably also want the freedom to control the timing and manner of the publication of the source. And yes, they probably want the ability to not publish the source in certain circumstances when they feel that doing so would be detrimental to them.
Ok, so what they want is more freedom for themselves. Which is quite a different thing from freedom for the user, which is what the GPL set out to protect. You said "it appears to provide a freer license": it is always necessary to be explicit about who gets the extra freedom.
GPL is a great license for its own ecosystem, but don't try to pretend that it isn't more restrictive than BSD.It is less restrictive for the developer, and more restrictive for the user. Restrictiveness is not a totally ordered value.
In this particular case, according to what you say, Apple wants to be more free so as to be able to restrict what the user can do.
The typical user does not install the OS he uses.
You do understand that the usual "or a later version" clause leaves the choice of version to you (or whoever is distributing the code), right?
You didn't see the sarcasm, either.
What does this mean, exactly? That they want a compiler which they can modify, distribute and not publish the source? You do know that gcc being GPL does not imply that code compiled with it not the resulting binaries are GPL, right?
I am not accusing you on anything. Your nationality has nothing to do with anything.
That you like good software is just as relevant as the fact that I like strawberries. Free software is not a proposal to solve a software engineering problem: it obviously proposes to a political problem. Judging it as an engineering technique leads to absurd conclusions.
That's an absurd proposition.
It is wrong that an adult act upon those desires.
You can do much, much better than that: your system is not resilient to having one of the 3 parties providing wrong information intentionally, for example.
Distributed secret algorithms is a very well studied area of cryptography.
Well, this is not a search algorithm, this is an (API giving access to an) algorithm which constructs an RDF graph from plain text data. While such a thing can be used for searching, your question is not very different from comparing apples and oranges.
Dude, you forgot the ending `Discuss'.
Kids...
Actually, the story is about a tool which does (a part of) what you are describing.
This is slashdot and all, I know. But you seem not to have read even the summary: this is about someone exposing an API which lets you turn text into and RDF graph independently of the text producer. If you want, this something like someone giving you access to a tool like the one used by Google.
It is a standard. As there are others, you need to have the sending party and the receiving party to agree which one to use. That is what an encoding declaration does for you.
Try feeding a data-file into MySQL that contains both GB2312 and UTF8-formatted data sometime and let me know what DOCTYPE you'd use passing the file over a network.I am sorry, but I cannot make sense of this.
There is no such thing as a format/encoding agonstic method of data transfer. Any data transfer requires an agreement between the sender and the receiver on the format and the encoding: you cannot send `data': the only thing you can send is formatted and encoded data.