There no `unfortunately' to it: that is the whole point!
What good is there in for me or for anyone else but you and your patent-licensees if I write some code, GPL it and release it, then you take it, extend it in a way that adds something for which you have a patent? If you want to use my code, I want to be able to use and see your extensions of it. I do not care if you hide your extensions under some patent. Or rather, I am of the idea that if you do want to hide it under a patent, you write the base code yourself, leaving my code alone.
This is the WHOLE point. I'd add `fortunately', even.
Something that is a derivative work of something under the GPLv3 has to be under the GPLv3 (that's the whole point!) so your first addendum to my statement does not add anything. Your second addendum, minus the exemptions for aggregates, does not add anything because what's not covered by the exemptions are "combinations with GPLv3 code such as to form a larger program", which is basically what "derived work means"
My having met or not Stallman is quite irrelevant---and, no, I haven't; that he be or not insane is also irrelevant.
The only thing relevant is that the GPLv3 does not say anything remotely similar to "if you distributing this code every one gets to distribute all your other code as open source".
Notice that, in your example, MS cannot change the license on the code it did not write. The very worst that can happen is that people who want to use and/or distribute the code MS added, need to respect the Evil GPLv4 license MS stamped on its own code. Well, that's 100% independent of the GPL and even if the GPL did not exist, people would still have to accept whatever license MS wants to impose if they want to use and/or distribute code that MS wrote.
...that tax laws don't apply to me. Oh, and those pesky laws about parking and speeding, too.
The part of the GPLv3 that they are repudiating here is the part which might allow someone to claim that they can redistribute Microsoft code as open source by relying on the GPLv3.
The GPLv3 does not, anywhere, say anything remotely similar to "if you distributing this code every one gets to distribute all your other code as open source". No one, ever, has sanely argued that it does.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
To repeat something that is in the standard GPL license blurb prominently included in 95% of all GPLed code: the option to choose which license is given to the one that accepts the license. If EvelCompany buys the FSF next month and rewrites the GPL, no one will be affected.
I'm always surprised at how people read that phrase wrongly. The standard GPL blurb which says "GPLv2 or later" puts gives choice to the person accepting the license, not to the copyright holder. If in the future the GPL got rewritten into an Evil License, then no one using "GPLv3 or later"-code would care at all.
Also, The license applies only to redistribution of the works: use of the works is not covered at all by the GPL (it says so itself in the first few paragraphs). So there is no problem to anyone ever who uses GPLed code.
Well, since---as you say---covert ops do nor do cover shoots for Vanity Fair, one way of hiding her appearance, throwing out misinformation and disguising her face would have been... ta da!... doing cover shoots for Vanity Fair.
This is the first time after the first couple of days since the Iraq invasion began that I've seen or heard anyone refer to Iraq as potential unqualified success.
Had he done that I would agree with you. I would also argue that Nancy Pelosy also comited treason by criticizing the US Government while within the borders of a state sponsor of terrorism.
So you consider criticizing the US government treason? Ah, no. You object to her being outside of one of the designated free-speech zones when doing so?
I would really not describe the matter as a teeny dispute: the authors are complaining that the conditions under which they put the code at people's availability are being breached, not in some legalistic, insignificant way but in a way that clearly, obviously and blatantly goes against their conditions. They did some work and chose to trade it for the acceptance of some restrictions in the way it is redistributed. In a way, the acceptance and obedience of those restrictions is all they want in return for their work. They are not getting it in this case, apparently.
Well, clearly you did not write any of the code in question... And, of course, you are free to ignore all the breaches you want to ignore on the conditions you impose on distribution (and use... you may be even using EULAs on your code) on your code.
Well, for all you know, the owners of the copyright might want to sell the code under another license which does not carry the restrictions imposed by the GPL---while at the same time distributing it under the GPL: that's perfectly legal and not exactly a new idea... So, you see, they may very well be being hurt financially.
This is not abstract: there is ample precedent for this kind of practice.
What you call `the edge cases between QM and GR' is basically the fact that the two models are not compatible with each other. That incompatibility may be 100% devoid of experimental consequences (I don't know, really) but it is certainly a major glitch on our description of the physical world.
From listening to what non-stringy theoretical physicists are doing to deal with the QM-GR interface, sometimes I have the feeling that they are building a new theory of epicycles. I've had the pleasure of browsing an age old copy of Ptolemy's Almagest, and that has not much to envy to the complexities of QM+GR; indeed, after a couple of centuries, when observations had forced complication upon complication, the model became basically a testament to the amazing ingenuity of which man is capable! Now, of course, Witten may not be our next Kepler and strings may not be our next ellipses... But IIRC Copernicus's at the time cool (and heretic!) new theory could be described as pretty much equivalent to the Ptolemaic one, and it used the same tools even (he used epicycles, too, and I don't remember any more, but he used close as many as his predecessors): he basically `just' moved the center.
Now, your point on the `great deal of funding' that goes into ST: is that really so? around here, stringy people are pretty much on par with other subcultures in physics departments and are, not uncommonly, outnumbered and less (or at least equally badly) financed.
The reply to your question is yes. But notice that also it is true that if being a serial killer results in a person being a better member of society, then it is a good thing to be a serial killer.
In any case, we will never know how he would have turned out, as he stopped believing in Thor a week or so later. And, IMO, he's become a great member of society since.
It is not a requirement accepted by pretty much no one that a theory, to be scientific, need predict something different from what preexisting theories predict, or that it predict something not predicted by preexisting theories. You may argue about the usefulness of such a theoretical construct, but it is pretty much a characteristic feature of modern scientific epistemiology that equivalent, different models of the universe are acceptable.
Even if string theory is shown to be 100% equivalent to QM+GR (one should note, actually, that QM and GR are not compatible with each other... this is precisely what string theory is intended to fix), it may be found preferable to QM+GR. For example, if the basis model is simpler, more elegant, whatever (being consistent would not hurt!), than QM+GR, even though it may end up being horribly more complex to deal with, it may end up being picked as a better candidate for the theoretical foundation, while, say, QM+GR could be better adapted for actual computation.
Indeed, there was even debate within the Catholic Church at one point (and one can never be sure what old ideas the current pope can bring back from the idea graveyad, so it might come back...) that praying could be in fact heretic, because it is an attempt to change god's plan.
100% correct. (There's a nice booklet by Jacques Bouveresse (not yet translated to English, I think) which deals with the abuses of Gödel and the like)
It is quite interesting, in any case, to know that Gödel has a paper (published in a journal devoted to logic) about proving the non existence of God with a formal system. I don't have the reference at hand, but it's in his collected works, so a nice math library should have it. It a very, very, very interesting read.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. of course. Planes filled with armed people is the solution.
There no `unfortunately' to it: that is the whole point!
What good is there in for me or for anyone else but you and your patent-licensees if I write some code, GPL it and release it, then you take it, extend it in a way that adds something for which you have a patent? If you want to use my code, I want to be able to use and see your extensions of it. I do not care if you hide your extensions under some patent. Or rather, I am of the idea that if you do want to hide it under a patent, you write the base code yourself, leaving my code alone.
This is the WHOLE point. I'd add `fortunately', even.
Maybe you should tell about that replacing to all the people out there still using word 97...
Something that is a derivative work of something under the GPLv3 has to be under the GPLv3 (that's the whole point!) so your first addendum to my statement does not add anything. Your second addendum, minus the exemptions for aggregates, does not add anything because what's not covered by the exemptions are "combinations with GPLv3 code such as to form a larger program", which is basically what "derived work means"
My having met or not Stallman is quite irrelevant---and, no, I haven't; that he be or not insane is also irrelevant.
The only thing relevant is that the GPLv3 does not say anything remotely similar to "if you distributing this code every one gets to distribute all your other code as open source".
Notice that, in your example, MS cannot change the license on the code it did not write. The very worst that can happen is that people who want to use and/or distribute the code MS added, need to respect the Evil GPLv4 license MS stamped on its own code. Well, that's 100% independent of the GPL and even if the GPL did not exist, people would still have to accept whatever license MS wants to impose if they want to use and/or distribute code that MS wrote.
The part of the GPLv3 that they are repudiating here is the part which might allow someone to claim that they can redistribute Microsoft code as open source by relying on the GPLv3.
The GPLv3 does not, anywhere, say anything remotely similar to "if you distributing this code every one gets to distribute all your other code as open source". No one, ever, has sanely argued that it does.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
To repeat something that is in the standard GPL license blurb prominently included in 95% of all GPLed code: the option to choose which license is given to the one that accepts the license. If EvelCompany buys the FSF next month and rewrites the GPL, no one will be affected.
I'm always surprised at how people read that phrase wrongly. The standard GPL blurb which says "GPLv2 or later" puts gives choice to the person accepting the license, not to the copyright holder. If in the future the GPL got rewritten into an Evil License, then no one using "GPLv3 or later"-code would care at all.
Also, The license applies only to redistribution of the works: use of the works is not covered at all by the GPL (it says so itself in the first few paragraphs). So there is no problem to anyone ever who uses GPLed code.
It is not that hard...
Actually, fascism is neither of those things. You may be thinking of communism instead, but---again---communism is neither of those things, either.
Well, since---as you say---covert ops do nor do cover shoots for Vanity Fair, one way of hiding her appearance, throwing out misinformation and disguising her face would have been... ta da!... doing cover shoots for Vanity Fair.
This is the first time after the first couple of days since the Iraq invasion began that I've seen or heard anyone refer to Iraq as potential unqualified success.
Your optimism, E++99, is awe inspiring!
Wow. That CNN can be described as `communist' with a straight face is just amazing.
Had he done that I would agree with you. I would also argue that Nancy Pelosy also comited treason by criticizing the US Government while within the borders of a state sponsor of terrorism.
So you consider criticizing the US government treason? Ah, no. You object to her being outside of one of the designated free-speech zones when doing so?
I would really not describe the matter as a teeny dispute: the authors are complaining that the conditions under which they put the code at people's availability are being breached, not in some legalistic, insignificant way but in a way that clearly, obviously and blatantly goes against their conditions. They did some work and chose to trade it for the acceptance of some restrictions in the way it is redistributed. In a way, the acceptance and obedience of those restrictions is all they want in return for their work. They are not getting it in this case, apparently.
Well, clearly you did not write any of the code in question... And, of course, you are free to ignore all the breaches you want to ignore on the conditions you impose on distribution (and use... you may be even using EULAs on your code) on your code.
Not physically, we can all agree on that.
Not monetarily, they give it all away anyway.
So how are they being hurt? Seriously.
Well, for all you know, the owners of the copyright might want to sell the code under another license which does not carry the restrictions imposed by the GPL---while at the same time distributing it under the GPL: that's perfectly legal and not exactly a new idea... So, you see, they may very well be being hurt financially.
This is not abstract: there is ample precedent for this kind of practice.
While this is true in the sense that no one is getting beaten, the people that wrote whatever wine code it is that they are using are being hurt.
What you call `the edge cases between QM and GR' is basically the fact that the two models are not compatible with each other. That incompatibility may be 100% devoid of experimental consequences (I don't know, really) but it is certainly a major glitch on our description of the physical world.
From listening to what non-stringy theoretical physicists are doing to deal with the QM-GR interface, sometimes I have the feeling that they are building a new theory of epicycles. I've had the pleasure of browsing an age old copy of Ptolemy's Almagest, and that has not much to envy to the complexities of QM+GR; indeed, after a couple of centuries, when observations had forced complication upon complication, the model became basically a testament to the amazing ingenuity of which man is capable! Now, of course, Witten may not be our next Kepler and strings may not be our next ellipses... But IIRC Copernicus's at the time cool (and heretic!) new theory could be described as pretty much equivalent to the Ptolemaic one, and it used the same tools even (he used epicycles, too, and I don't remember any more, but he used close as many as his predecessors): he basically `just' moved the center.
Now, your point on the `great deal of funding' that goes into ST: is that really so? around here, stringy people are pretty much on par with other subcultures in physics departments and are, not uncommonly, outnumbered and less (or at least equally badly) financed.
(No one called you daft, btw)
The reply to your question is yes. But notice that also it is true that if being a serial killer results in a person being a better member of society, then it is a good thing to be a serial killer.
In any case, we will never know how he would have turned out, as he stopped believing in Thor a week or so later. And, IMO, he's become a great member of society since.
Ah, asking the elusive `missing link'. Great way to retort!
It usually comes right after the `evolution is just a theory' part...
It is not a requirement accepted by pretty much no one that a theory, to be scientific, need predict something different from what preexisting theories predict, or that it predict something not predicted by preexisting theories. You may argue about the usefulness of such a theoretical construct, but it is pretty much a characteristic feature of modern scientific epistemiology that equivalent, different models of the universe are acceptable.
Even if string theory is shown to be 100% equivalent to QM+GR (one should note, actually, that QM and GR are not compatible with each other... this is precisely what string theory is intended to fix), it may be found preferable to QM+GR. For example, if the basis model is simpler, more elegant, whatever (being consistent would not hurt!), than QM+GR, even though it may end up being horribly more complex to deal with, it may end up being picked as a better candidate for the theoretical foundation, while, say, QM+GR could be better adapted for actual computation.
Indeed, there was even debate within the Catholic Church at one point (and one can never be sure what old ideas the current pope can bring back from the idea graveyad, so it might come back...) that praying could be in fact heretic, because it is an attempt to change god's plan.
Your understanding of the incompleteness result is indeed incomplete and wrong.
100% correct. (There's a nice booklet by Jacques Bouveresse (not yet translated to English, I think) which deals with the abuses of Gödel and the like)
It is quite interesting, in any case, to know that Gödel has a paper (published in a journal devoted to logic) about proving the non existence of God with a formal system. I don't have the reference at hand, but it's in his collected works, so a nice math library should have it. It a very, very, very interesting read.
Nice posts.