Bush just thanked Rumsfeld for torturing people. Up is down & down is up. And Amerikans are mostly OK with this.
Be logical about this. Personally, I would like to know who the ICRC informed about the abuse. All I found mentioned was of "US officials". That is very broad. That could mean Senator Kennedy was informed of this long ago and refused to tell Rumsfeld. Both could have been told at the same time. Maybe, neither of them knew of the abuse until recently.
I wish people would stop making assumptions based on what the news feeds them. It would be like listening to the "evils of Linux" by Microsoft without any facts given. Wait to point fingers until after the facts are given. Until then, please be patient with finding out those responsible. Of course, the abuse should be stopped immediately.
P.S. Calling people "Amerikans" is a little on the racist side. Please stop it.
i was under the impression that the standard methodology in the unix-ish/open source-ish world was that odd sub-versions (.1,.3, etc.) were for adding features and even sub-versions (.2,.4, etc.) were for stabilizing the code, bug fixes, etc.
Hmm, so like slack, it's available in a development branch only. Hardly what I would have expected from the words "Distros that have integrated it."
That is what I call integration. By default, future NetBSD has v4.4. The BSD's do not like to pull big switches in software just before a release regardless of license issues.
I wonder if you can link to the new code dynamically just like I can link to LGPL dynamically without changing whatever license I choose.
In regards to linking, I believe the new license is only on non-library code. This from the license FAQ on their site:
"To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries."
Whereas, with the GPL, you require everyone have the freedom to use the software. You don't allow anyone to remove the freedoms, even if it does mean you would have the personal security of being able to integrate your software into a non-free system.
I would therefore have much more freedom than others with the code. Cast system?
In summary, if I give my software to you: BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them. GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
Good description. I like others to have close to the same freedom as I do.
Would the BSD license with an advertising clause telling you where to get the original source be the best of both worlds? People would get almost the same freedoms as the original author and others would always know where to get the original code.
If you are going to share, why are you so intent to limit your sharing? If some people do not pay you money or code, why be upset? You were not charging for money or code in the first place.
Actually it wouldn't upset me. My aim would be to encourage more open-source code, and, more generally, an open-source environment. It's not a question of how I feel.
This is the general belief of the BSD-license community (if there is one:)). They want open source yet are happy for anyone that can make use of the code.
Let me put it this way: If restricting others' rights is bad, then closed-sorce software is bad. If it is good, then the GPL is fine.
If the GPL is restricting others' rights, then the GPL should not claim to be giving freedom. It is restricting it.
Freedom is not property, but is rather (to a first approximation) to right to use your limbs as you wish.
This is why I use BSD-style licenses on the code I open source. If I limit how high you can raise your limbs, I am reducing your freedom for little or no gain.
Just as I am against punishing people before a crime may be committed, i.e., RIAA tax on music CD-R's., I dislike the GPL. The GPL assumes that all people are going to place more restrictions on the code, so all must have their freedom restricted.
The GPL does not stop people from using your code to program; rather, it restricts subsequent programmers' rights to make use of our courts and police to limit others' freedoms in turn, with menaces.
If you limit freedom, then the GPL does not equal "Free" as in libre. Why limit others' freedom? People are always free to get the original code and use it instead.
The goal of the GPL is not to prevent code from seeing proprietory use. That's a means, not an end.
A lot of GPL supporters have forgotten which I why I said "people use". I should have "many people use".
The goal of the GPL is to ensure that users are always free to have access to the source code of their programs.
Users can think for themselves. They can either choose an open source or close source solution without the aid of a license.
Question (that just popped into my head): if a license allowed you to edit the source of a program you bought and use the binaries from the altered source but did not allow distribution, would you consider that as suitable? The user of the software would always have access to the source of his program.
The TJ quote is really completely inapplicable.
Remember that RMS defines "Free" as in libre. Jefferson was also speaking about libre.
To use GPL'd code in code I distribute, I must grant others access to the code I have written. Am I not giving up freedom (to distribute in any form and my own code) for the security (to make changes) of others?
You may be right. I am giving up freedom, but no security is actually gained.
That's the meat of a BSD licsnse - do what you want, including renaming it, closing the source or moving licenses.
Only by "wrapping" the license can you do this. The original copyright notice which contains the license must stay.
MS Windows once had some BSD stuff included in it
Microsoft still has the BSD copyright on that code as seen by running strings on the ftp binary.
The only way to remove a license (any license) is either via consent of all copyright holders or a change in the copyright law.
this is one of the reasons that they support the BSD license, but not the GPL, which "taints" derivatives with enforced freedom.
I believe they wrote their own Kerberos code even though the license was BSD-style. If they wanted some code that was GPL'd, they would just rewrite it. The GPL only affects smaller companies and individuals.
Maybe so, but in which direction does it apply? Is it pro or anti?
People use the GPL as a means to prevent the code from seeing proprietary use. This security is acquired by a decrease in freedom for other developers.
Making the assumption that others will simply "steal" (copy) the code without giving money or code is insulting to many of your fellow open source developers.
If you are going to share, why are you so intent to limit your sharing? If some people do not pay you money or code, why be upset? You were not charging for money or code in the first place.
When the law defaults to restriction, surely this means that we should aim to subvert such laws.
If you attempt to read quite far into the quote, then yes.
There must be more to it as you cannot just remove the BSD license from the source. You may wrap the license with another license, but the original must stay on the code. If they are replacing it, they must have the approval of all the copyright holders.
I thought the book and the movie were done around the same time. I do not believe Clarke minded. The book does help to explain a lot of what happened in the movie.
These thoughts are from my memory of what was in the preface of a later release of 2001.
Jackson probably would have had the monolith fall on one of the primates to set an example.:)
When I started my company our policy was that anything we could not rapidly turn into a product we would release as open source. Software that is not used dies, we figured.
Then why worry if others can turn it into a product? You had already assumed it would die.
Since the code is ours, it's our right to license it to specific users under specific terms.
I do not disagree with this.
We've had no GPL violations, and enough commercial licensees to make it worth developing our core packages further.
Do you have people donate the copyright to code they contribute to the GPL version?
On Oct 22, he stated: Conclusion: FreeBSD 5 is faster and more scalable. If what people have been claiming is true, that FreeBSD 5 is unoptimized and has lots of debug code, we have a lot to look forward to once FreeBSD 5 becomes stable.
I think this is another bad assumption on the side of American.
The "assumption" that India will eventually become level in cost with the U.S. is based on history. Japan and Taiwan are good examples. It will happen to India. It may never be perfectly level, but it will be much closer than it is now.
That is incorrect. I would like to point out IBM HTTP Server as an example of a project that a company (IBM) participates with that has a BSD/MIT style license.
What's business friendly about a competitor taking your stuff, adding secret sauce to it, and then freezing you out of a market you may have created?
That is why it is usually one company that is heavily involved with any particular GPL project. As they hold the copyright, they can still release proprietary releases (StarOffice). Any other company that comes along would have great difficulty (usually impossible) in doing the same. "What's business friendly" about that?
Ignoring the license issue, Wind River has not exactly been kind to either the Linux (Slackware) or FreeBSD camps. It is a shame, but I would not trust them.
I'd be only a little irked at a giant freestanding cross in a public area even, and really only because it's pretentious and ugly
Ugly? It is just a shape. A lower case 't' without a curl at the bottom. You don't find the letter 't' ugly, do you? I am curious about the reason that anyone would think of it as ugly.
Personally, I have never thought of a cross (shape-wise) as ugly or beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush just thanked Rumsfeld for torturing people. Up is down & down is up. And Amerikans are mostly OK with this.
Be logical about this. Personally, I would like to know who the ICRC informed about the abuse. All I found mentioned was of "US officials". That is very broad. That could mean Senator Kennedy was informed of this long ago and refused to tell Rumsfeld. Both could have been told at the same time. Maybe, neither of them knew of the abuse until recently.
I wish people would stop making assumptions based on what the news feeds them. It would be like listening to the "evils of Linux" by Microsoft without any facts given. Wait to point fingers until after the facts are given. Until then, please be patient with finding out those responsible. Of course, the abuse should be stopped immediately.
P.S. Calling people "Amerikans" is a little on the racist side. Please stop it.
i was under the impression that the standard methodology in the unix-ish/open source-ish world was that odd sub-versions (.1, .3, etc.) were for adding features and even sub-versions (.2, .4, etc.) were for stabilizing the code, bug fixes, etc.
That is just Linux.
Hmm, so like slack, it's available in a development branch only. Hardly what I would have expected from the words "Distros that have integrated it."
That is what I call integration. By default, future NetBSD has v4.4. The BSD's do not like to pull big switches in software just before a release regardless of license issues.
I wonder if you can link to the new code dynamically just like I can link to LGPL dynamically without changing whatever license I choose.
For NetBSD: HEADS UP: XFree86 4.4.0 imported
In regards to linking, I believe the new license is only on non-library code. This from the license FAQ on their site:
"To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries."
Even with a booming economy, debt grew: Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual.
I wish both parties would stop spending the money and start paying off the debt.
Whereas, with the GPL, you require everyone have the freedom to use the software. You don't allow anyone to remove the freedoms, even if it does mean you would have the personal security of being able to integrate your software into a non-free system.
I would therefore have much more freedom than others with the code. Cast system?
I also heard that. The last version I heard was that they had their own code but had made changes to the protocol.
In summary, if I give my software to you:
BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them.
GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
Good description. I like others to have close to the same freedom as I do.
Would the BSD license with an advertising clause telling you where to get the original source be the best of both worlds? People would get almost the same freedoms as the original author and others would always know where to get the original code.
Let me put it this way: If restricting others' rights is bad, then closed-sorce software is bad. If it is good, then the GPL is fine.
If the GPL is restricting others' rights, then the GPL should not claim to be giving freedom. It is restricting it.
Freedom is not property, but is rather (to a first approximation) to right to use your limbs as you wish.
This is why I use BSD-style licenses on the code I open source. If I limit how high you can raise your limbs, I am reducing your freedom for little or no gain.
Just as I am against punishing people before a crime may be committed, i.e., RIAA tax on music CD-R's., I dislike the GPL. The GPL assumes that all people are going to place more restrictions on the code, so all must have their freedom restricted.
The GPL does not stop people from using your code to program; rather, it restricts subsequent programmers' rights to make use of our courts and police to limit others' freedoms in turn, with menaces.
If you limit freedom, then the GPL does not equal "Free" as in libre. Why limit others' freedom? People are always free to get the original code and use it instead.
The goal of the GPL is not to prevent code from seeing proprietory use. That's a means, not an end.
A lot of GPL supporters have forgotten which I why I said "people use". I should have "many people use".
The goal of the GPL is to ensure that users are always free to have access to the source code of their programs.
Users can think for themselves. They can either choose an open source or close source solution without the aid of a license.
Question (that just popped into my head): if a license allowed you to edit the source of a program you bought and use the binaries from the altered source but did not allow distribution, would you consider that as suitable? The user of the software would always have access to the source of his program.
The TJ quote is really completely inapplicable.
Remember that RMS defines "Free" as in libre. Jefferson was also speaking about libre.
To use GPL'd code in code I distribute, I must grant others access to the code I have written. Am I not giving up freedom (to distribute in any form and my own code) for the security (to make changes) of others?
You may be right. I am giving up freedom, but no security is actually gained.
That's the meat of a BSD licsnse - do what you want, including renaming it, closing the source or moving licenses.
Only by "wrapping" the license can you do this. The original copyright notice which contains the license must stay.
MS Windows once had some BSD stuff included in it
Microsoft still has the BSD copyright on that code as seen by running strings on the ftp binary.
The only way to remove a license (any license) is either via consent of all copyright holders or a change in the copyright law.
this is one of the reasons that they support the BSD license, but not the GPL, which "taints" derivatives with enforced freedom.
I believe they wrote their own Kerberos code even though the license was BSD-style. If they wanted some code that was GPL'd, they would just rewrite it. The GPL only affects smaller companies and individuals.
Maybe so, but in which direction does it apply? Is it pro or anti?
People use the GPL as a means to prevent the code from seeing proprietary use. This security is acquired by a decrease in freedom for other developers.
Making the assumption that others will simply "steal" (copy) the code without giving money or code is insulting to many of your fellow open source developers.
If you are going to share, why are you so intent to limit your sharing? If some people do not pay you money or code, why be upset? You were not charging for money or code in the first place.
When the law defaults to restriction, surely this means that we should aim to subvert such laws.
If you attempt to read quite far into the quote, then yes.
Irrelevant.
There must be more to it as you cannot just remove the BSD license from the source. You may wrap the license with another license, but the original must stay on the code. If they are replacing it, they must have the approval of all the copyright holders.
Personally, I see the following quote by Thomas Jefferson can also be applied to the use of the GPL:
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
I thought the book and the movie were done around the same time. I do not believe Clarke minded. The book does help to explain a lot of what happened in the movie.
:)
These thoughts are from my memory of what was in the preface of a later release of 2001.
Jackson probably would have had the monolith fall on one of the primates to set an example.
When I started my company our policy was that anything we could not rapidly turn into a product we would release as open source. Software that is not used dies, we figured.
Then why worry if others can turn it into a product? You had already assumed it would die.
Since the code is ours, it's our right to license it to specific users under specific terms.
I do not disagree with this.
We've had no GPL violations, and enough commercial licensees to make it worth developing our core packages further.
Do you have people donate the copyright to code they contribute to the GPL version?
On Oct 19, he stated:
- Did he disable debugging in FreeBSD 5?
- Yes.
On Oct 22, he stated:Conclusion: FreeBSD 5 is faster and more scalable. If what people have been claiming is true, that FreeBSD 5 is unoptimized and has lots of debug code, we have a lot to look forward to once FreeBSD 5 becomes stable.
Several ways. I personally use APC. Zend has a few products that speed up PHP performance.
I believe 5.x still has a lot of debugging code still enabled in the kernel. I do not recall if it was disabled for the test.
In IT, particularly after the job losses of recent years, the situation is more a buyer's market.
:)
I was thinking the same thing about CEO's.
I think this is another bad assumption on the side of American.
The "assumption" that India will eventually become level in cost with the U.S. is based on history. Japan and Taiwan are good examples. It will happen to India. It may never be perfectly level, but it will be much closer than it is now.
Plus that cigar makes Starbuck come across a little disgusting.
:)
I put some thought into that. Something about the way she held the cigar or the size of it in proportion to her body bothered me.
My thought: when she walks with it I am almost see Groucho Marx. It takes away from her character.
I think they should have used someone like Marie Marshall who played Dodger in B5. She had a much more likable attitude problem.
That is incorrect. I would like to point out IBM HTTP Server as an example of a project that a company (IBM) participates with that has a BSD/MIT style license.
What's business friendly about a competitor taking your stuff, adding secret sauce to it, and then freezing you out of a market you may have created?
That is why it is usually one company that is heavily involved with any particular GPL project. As they hold the copyright, they can still release proprietary releases (StarOffice). Any other company that comes along would have great difficulty (usually impossible) in doing the same. "What's business friendly" about that?
Ignoring the license issue, Wind River has not exactly been kind to either the Linux (Slackware) or FreeBSD camps. It is a shame, but I would not trust them.
I'd be only a little irked at a giant freestanding cross in a public area even, and really only because it's pretentious and ugly
Ugly? It is just a shape. A lower case 't' without a curl at the bottom. You don't find the letter 't' ugly, do you? I am curious about the reason that anyone would think of it as ugly.
Personally, I have never thought of a cross (shape-wise) as ugly or beautiful.