Apart from the verbiage, could they not give a formal schema in XML Schema and/or RelaxNG or at the very least provide XML Schema Datatypes for things like "date" or "number"?
Could they not give a formal description of mapping from the general schema to a "simple" subset in which there are no defaults?
Do they have to use ad hoc paraphrases like "the name of the property (without any namespace)" instead of the standard XML Namespaces"local part" (or at least be precise in that they want the name of the element, without the prefix, as it could never have the namespace in it because namespaces are URIs)?
What does a <cf:group> with a label attribute but no element attribute group by and/or what does it allow one to filter by?
Do people at MS not provide references?
&c.
"This specification is designed to be as simple as possible."
Windows is now less bloated than the average Linux distro.
Except, of course, that with a Windows install you can... hmmm... you can... there's gotta be something... ah, yes: you can use wordpad and play solitaire. Yes. But, yes, you are right.
The problem is that in order to compute derivatives and what not,you nou need a definition of the sin function for each real number. If you define sin of alpha as the ratio of two sides of a triangle which is some how related to the angle, well,you need to set upthings so that all those terms make sense, definitions are ok, and so on.
As I said before, the geometrical "definition" of the sin function depends on geometry, and that is a big thing to depend on... Defining angle in highly non trivial!
A similar thing tends to happen with the exponential function. Most calculus courses do not give a sound definition of the exponential function. It is not hard to do (on the integers it is clear how to define it, from there to rationals you have not a lot of trouble, and then you show, for example, that there is exactly one continuous function which on the rationals is given by that) But, in the end, things like 2^pi are left undefined in calculus courses, and handled "intuitively".
As for the argument at hand, "closed form" is a relative term. There is no point arguing whether the sine function is in closed form or not: "closed form" usually means "finitely expressable in terms of a given set of primitives" (where the chosen set of primitives depends on the context; for example, elliptic integrals are considered not to be integrable to closed form in a calculus course, but in any function theory course elliptic functions are part ofthe standard set od trascendentals, so elliptic integrals are trivially integrable to closed form in that context) That is why I did not even mention that "argument at hand".
While that "definition" you mention for the basic trigonometric functions certainly captures the intent, they really do not work, or, at least, do not work with considerable more work involved, if you want to be able to soundly make use of the function in calculus. Basically, you need to set up a big part of plane geometry, and then build calculus all the way up to rectification of curves to begin to be able to talk about attaching real numbers to angles.
More efficient ways are: (1) define the functions from their Taylor series, (or equivalent, define it from the extension of the exponential function to the complex domain) and from that prove the relation to angles, &c, and (2) consider the function f(x)=1/Sqrt(1-x^2), consider a primitive F to f, show F has an inverse function, and define sin = F^{-1}. The first option is quite expeditive though slightly too ad hoc; the second option is really the good one in many ways, and generalized to elliptic functions and other trascendentals; indeed, Carl Jacobi, impressed by the success this technique has in dealing with elliptic functions, chose "You must always invert" as a little advice to success in mathematics.
What's funny is the stuff he did is only coming into vogue in many circles - left untouched.
While it certainly took some years to be acknowledged, Galois' work is very well-understood by now, and has been for a long time, and is incorporated deeptly into math. Galois's work has been "in vogue", as you say, for what seems like an age now.
I'm quite sure if someone does something unblessed by the GPL on code you modified and distributed deriving from work which I wrote, GPL'd and distributed, I can sue him without your consent/participation. (Btw, this kind of issues is the reason for the legalese, and this kind of detail cannot be dealt with in any other language that legalese.) At least, I believe that is the intent of the letter---though who knows if that'd hold in court.
Those long chains of contributors you mention are in fact a reassurance. It sort of reminds me of PGP/GPG's trust model. Yet it is not the length of the chain but the number of contributors which constitutes a reassurance.
I take the GPL code and I create a wrapper around it which takes the various major functions of that code and processes data that it is passed as an argument when it is run on the console. I now have a simple GPL program which I can call through system() from a piece of proprietary code. When I distribute, I include the source to that simple GPL program and the binaries, but the proprietary stuff I leave closed. Have I just violated the GPL, or did I just find a loophole?
That is what's essentially being done by proprietary binary drivers right now. Were it a violation, we'd have heard.
[...] Haven't I just violated the GPL by effectively permitting usages (i.e. closed-source redistribution) of my program that violate the GPL? So on whose head does it fall on to enforce the GPL? The original author? Me? It doesn't seem clear to me, but maybe it would be clear to a lawyer.
Again, there is not requirement that anyone enforce the GPL. When you distribute software you derived from GPL'd code, you are only required to do provide sources &c. Those are the only requirements. In no way are you obliged to defend your rights---those given to you by the copyright owner.
IANAL and all, but I'd imagine no right comes with a legal obligation to defend it (I can imagine cases in which the moral obligation might be arguable...)
Ideally (well my ideal at least) everything is just public domain and everyone does with it what they want. This state would not suffer from the fear of being taken advantage of because there would be no legal pressures that could be applied to you to prevent you from remodifying code.
The thing is, some people will want not to tell others what they modified while at the same time distributing the code; if they are allowed to do whatever they want with it, this is fine. That is one thing the GPL does not want to allow. As the GPL reads right now, unless you want to distribute the code, you can do anything with the code: the GPL prevents in absolutely no way your remodifying anything in the code and/or using it and derived works in any possible you you may think of.
But it is covert, in the sense that it is obscured by legalisms. Perhaps not so much as the various EULAs out there. The fact that 50% of the time when someone posts something about the GPL they've misunderstood its implications in a legal sense means that the requirements of the licensee are obfuscated in such a way that they may easily catch a new developer unaware.
Legalisms are the language in which such things are written. This is a in a way a sad situation, because legalese is not understood by common mortals. But carefully crafted legalese is the only way to function in this context.
I object to the use of "virus" or "covert" because those words imply the wrong intent.
Any good specification out there is obscured by the technical analogue of legalisms, yet you would not call,say, XML Schema Part 1 a "covert" spec---and you will agreee, upon inspection of that spec, that common mortals cannot understand that thing.
For instance, I still can't figure out whether, if I were to use a piece of GPL code in the creation of a public domain program, what would the legality and my responsibilities under the law be? Would I be prevented from placing _any_ section of my code into the public domain? Or just the stuff that directly interacts with the GPL part? Or just the GPL part?
That depends on whether the program you intend to release to the public domain is a derived work or not. Of course, this prompts the question "what is a derived work?"---well, that one is a hard one, and its difficulty is completely unrelated to the GPL.
If I did such a thing, could I be required by law to go after someone who violated the license that I have given them to use my sections of the code? For instance, I take program X, crop out a function, stick it in my code and inform the reader that that particular function falls under GPL even if the rest of the code is public domain. Then, if someone uses my entire program in a way that isn't permitted by the GPL, am I required to sue them, or does it fall to the original author of that GPL segment?
The GPL requires no one to sue no one. It is a grant of distribution rights from the copyright owner to the licensee.
The real problem with the GPL is that basically it is a construct of legalisms, not a construct of technology. The plethora of licenses out there and the requirement of programmers to evaluate licenses means that a programmer must have an exceptional understanding of the law to even safely consider using ANY of this code thats out there. Legally, there is no problem with that - you can put any license on your stuff that you want within the broad limitations of copyright law.
It cannot be anything but a construct of legalisms, since it deals with the economic issue of rights of distribution. While sometimes one may wish technical solutions would solve socioeconomic issues, that is never, ever the case.
But the real question we have to ask is - does this go against the original intent of the GPL?
This may not be historically accurate, but the way I see it, the idea was to get people writing source code and exchanging it for eachother's use, with its ultimate ideal being 'all code is out there in some form or another and we can all learn from eachother's work'. The GPL was created as something which would spread by applying a certain avenue of force (copyright law) and create large groups of people where the code was shared.
I am quote convinced theoriginal intent of the GPL was not perverted. We should ask the original drafters, though. The provisions that have been termed "viral" are instrumental to that sharing of code: they ensure that no one can take advantage of the others, thus eliminating the fear of being taken advantage of.
The problem as I see it however is that the GPL can neve
The problem with the world viral is that it implies (at least in the eyes of most) that this is done covertly and/or underhandedly. That is most certainly not true.
Well, copyright law allows them to control mostly every aspect of how you distribute their copyrighted work. That is its entire point. I do not see where the irony might be.
Well, copyright law allows them to control mostly every aspect of how you deal with their copyrighted work. That is its entire point. I do not see where the irony might be.
On a side note: there is no such thing as a "GPL virality", as the use of (L)GPL'd is 100% certifiably voluntary. Yes, the licence is designed so that it spreads unto derived work, but there is not need to go looking for "motives" and the idea behind this aspect of the licences is pretty much clear, well-known, and widely discussed in the relevant comunities. You may not want your work to fall under the rules of the GPL: that is very, very, very easy to do: you just do not use GPL'd code in your code, and you do not release your code under the GPL licence. Nothing---absolutely nothing---and no one's---absolutely no one's---work gets under the realm of the GPL unless this is the wish of its rightful copyright owners.
The use of the word "virus" in this context is completely inappropriate, and was a really good return for all the investment certain companies have done in PR.
Well, considering the LGPL, as any other licence, essentially means "stay away unless you agree to the conditions", your wish has already been granted, essentially.
See, bin Laden is hardly a great standard against which to judge one's behaviour.
How the current baddest-person-on-earth treats anyone is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether due process is reserved for citizens or aplies to everyone, even the minions of that baddest-person-on-earth.
As for your last paragraph... I can but "wow" at it: there is basically no non-propaganda-induced content in it, and attempting to address its points would be like arguing against a Coke commercial. I do wonder how it is that you measure relevance, though...
Recent events related to a certain invading/liberating of a certain country called Iraq show that come believing will take place in the absence of evidence, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. The server is gone. There is always the Google cache, though...
Yup. Great. Sigh.
Except, of course, that with a Windows install you can... hmmm... you can... there's gotta be something... ah, yes: you can use wordpad and play solitaire. Yes. But, yes, you are right.
Hmm. You did not tell us what the solution is, then...
The problem is that in order to compute derivatives and what not,you nou need a definition of the sin function for each real number. If you define sin of alpha as the ratio of two sides of a triangle which is some how related to the angle, well,you need to set upthings so that all those terms make sense, definitions are ok, and so on.
As I said before, the geometrical "definition" of the sin function depends on geometry, and that is a big thing to depend on... Defining angle in highly non trivial!
A similar thing tends to happen with the exponential function. Most calculus courses do not give a sound definition of the exponential function. It is not hard to do (on the integers it is clear how to define it, from there to rationals you have not a lot of trouble, and then you show, for example, that there is exactly one continuous function which on the rationals is given by that) But, in the end, things like 2^pi are left undefined in calculus courses, and handled "intuitively".
As for the argument at hand, "closed form" is a relative term. There is no point arguing whether the sine function is in closed form or not: "closed form" usually means "finitely expressable in terms of a given set of primitives" (where the chosen set of primitives depends on the context; for example, elliptic integrals are considered not to be integrable to closed form in a calculus course, but in any function theory course elliptic functions are part ofthe standard set od trascendentals, so elliptic integrals are trivially integrable to closed form in that context) That is why I did not even mention that "argument at hand".
While that "definition" you mention for the basic trigonometric functions certainly captures the intent, they really do not work, or, at least, do not work with considerable more work involved, if you want to be able to soundly make use of the function in calculus. Basically, you need to set up a big part of plane geometry, and then build calculus all the way up to rectification of curves to begin to be able to talk about attaching real numbers to angles.
More efficient ways are: (1) define the functions from their Taylor series, (or equivalent, define it from the extension of the exponential function to the complex domain) and from that prove the relation to angles, &c, and (2) consider the function f(x)=1/Sqrt(1-x^2), consider a primitive F to f, show F has an inverse function, and define sin = F^{-1}. The first option is quite expeditive though slightly too ad hoc; the second option is really the good one in many ways, and generalized to elliptic functions and other trascendentals; indeed, Carl Jacobi, impressed by the success this technique has in dealing with elliptic functions, chose "You must always invert" as a little advice to success in mathematics.
Most probably, he means that the word "mathematics" is written in plural form.
While it certainly took some years to be acknowledged, Galois' work is very well-understood by now, and has been for a long time, and is incorporated deeptly into math. Galois's work has been "in vogue", as you say, for what seems like an age now.
And, of course, will someone please think of the children?
Yet it was quite uncommon that the result of their writing down helped shape Mathematics for a couple of centuries...
One good thing about the Star Wars scripts is that the younglings would not miss much in a text-message rendition...
Joyce mastered the English language, and chose to subvert it: it was a conscientious, delibarate choice. IMO, we should provide kids choices...
I'm quite sure if someone does something unblessed by the GPL on code you modified and distributed deriving from work which I wrote, GPL'd and distributed, I can sue him without your consent/participation. (Btw, this kind of issues is the reason for the legalese, and this kind of detail cannot be dealt with in any other language that legalese.) At least, I believe that is the intent of the letter---though who knows if that'd hold in court.
Those long chains of contributors you mention are in fact a reassurance. It sort of reminds me of PGP/GPG's trust model. Yet it is not the length of the chain but the number of contributors which constitutes a reassurance.
That is what's essentially being done by proprietary binary drivers right now. Were it a violation, we'd have heard.
Again, there is not requirement that anyone enforce the GPL. When you distribute software you derived from GPL'd code, you are only required to do provide sources &c. Those are the only requirements. In no way are you obliged to defend your rights---those given to you by the copyright owner.
IANAL and all, but I'd imagine no right comes with a legal obligation to defend it (I can imagine cases in which the moral obligation might be arguable...)
The thing is, some people will want not to tell others what they modified while at the same time distributing the code; if they are allowed to do whatever they want with it, this is fine. That is one thing the GPL does not want to allow. As the GPL reads right now, unless you want to distribute the code, you can do anything with the code: the GPL prevents in absolutely no way your remodifying anything in the code and/or using it and derived works in any possible you you may think of.
Legalisms are the language in which such things are written. This is a in a way a sad situation, because legalese is not understood by common mortals. But carefully crafted legalese is the only way to function in this context.
I object to the use of "virus" or "covert" because those words imply the wrong intent. Any good specification out there is obscured by the technical analogue of legalisms, yet you would not call,say, XML Schema Part 1 a "covert" spec---and you will agreee, upon inspection of that spec, that common mortals cannot understand that thing.
That depends on whether the program you intend to release to the public domain is a derived work or not. Of course, this prompts the question "what is a derived work?"---well, that one is a hard one, and its difficulty is completely unrelated to the GPL.
The GPL requires no one to sue no one. It is a grant of distribution rights from the copyright owner to the licensee.
It cannot be anything but a construct of legalisms, since it deals with the economic issue of rights of distribution. While sometimes one may wish technical solutions would solve socioeconomic issues, that is never, ever the case.
I am quote convinced theoriginal intent of the GPL was not perverted. We should ask the original drafters, though. The provisions that have been termed "viral" are instrumental to that sharing of code: they ensure that no one can take advantage of the others, thus eliminating the fear of being taken advantage of.
The problem with the world viral is that it implies (at least in the eyes of most) that this is done covertly and/or underhandedly. That is most certainly not true.
Hmm. My first paragraph should actually read:
Well, copyright law allows them to control mostly every aspect of how you deal with their copyrighted work. That is its entire point. I do not see where the irony might be.
On a side note: there is no such thing as a "GPL virality", as the use of (L)GPL'd is 100% certifiably voluntary. Yes, the licence is designed so that it spreads unto derived work, but there is not need to go looking for "motives" and the idea behind this aspect of the licences is pretty much clear, well-known, and widely discussed in the relevant comunities. You may not want your work to fall under the rules of the GPL: that is very, very, very easy to do: you just do not use GPL'd code in your code, and you do not release your code under the GPL licence. Nothing---absolutely nothing---and no one's---absolutely no one's---work gets under the realm of the GPL unless this is the wish of its rightful copyright owners.
The use of the word "virus" in this context is completely inappropriate, and was a really good return for all the investment certain companies have done in PR.
Let's please stop using the word.
Well, considering the LGPL, as any other licence, essentially means "stay away unless you agree to the conditions", your wish has already been granted, essentially.
See, bin Laden is hardly a great standard against which to judge one's behaviour.
How the current baddest-person-on-earth treats anyone is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether due process is reserved for citizens or aplies to everyone, even the minions of that baddest-person-on-earth.
As for your last paragraph... I can but "wow" at it: there is basically no non-propaganda-induced content in it, and attempting to address its points would be like arguing against a Coke commercial. I do wonder how it is that you measure relevance, though...
I have never thought of this Gitmo thing as an issue involving citizens: I honestly think of those people as humans first of all.
Paraphrasing someone: I would not want to be a member of a club which does not think shooting non-members acceptable...
Yup: that's a great line of thinking.
Recent events related to a certain invading/liberating of a certain country called Iraq show that come believing will take place in the absence of evidence, though.
Cool sig.
That, and he used arabic numbers to write his telephone number...