The way that I see it there are 4 types of licenses, and within each type there are all kinds of variations.
** Truely Free - Incorporate the code into open or closed projects:
- BSD style licenses
** Forced Open - You can only incorporate the code into projects where both the new and old code is also Forced Open:
- GPL
** Kept Open - You can incorporate the code as long as you keep the the original code and modifications to it open as well, but code not related to the original code can be licensed as desired:
- LGPL
** Dual licensed ( commercial/open) - You can incorporate the code as per one of the open licenses or you can pay to use the product under some other license.
So, I think the first thing is to identify the different classifications of licenses and then for each class identify compatible and incompatable terms of the different licenses. Then they can start working on generic class licenses.
I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL. I would love to see the compatablity extended to allow compatability with other licenses which force the resulting code to be also be open. This would allow mixing of GPL code with Sun's CDDL where the the resulting code would not be under a single license but all open and usable for future development.
Since you make ( or continue) the connection to other language usage like English...
Do you list Written and Spoken English Separately..
Sometimes... and sometimes C and C++ are very different but for a large number of purposes C and C++ are as close to each other as written English is to Spoken English. They both use a large number of common words, though there are some words that are only spoken and/or rarely written or commonly written and seldom spoken, and it can sometimes be really anoying to read something that was written in the manner of spoken English or listen to so formal document being read.
I support both C and C++ compilers... so I look at both type of code... I actually use the C++ compiler for most of the C code because it works 99% of the time and when it doesn't work I can always test the C compiler and/or manually look at what's going on.
an very real attept to keep C++ "compatable" with C...theer is valid C code which isn't valid C++ code as well was valid C code which is valid C++ code but means and works differently in C versus C++
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
****
Note that it's only required that you do one of the following, not all of them.... so you do NOT need to make the source available to EVERYONE.... section 2 deals with the license of the modified version not it's distribution which is covered by section 3.
Section 2 states that the person who received the 'work' via section 3 from receives it under the same license as you, etc... So you can't prevent them from distributing the code
It would be completely legal for Person A to take some GPL code and compile it and create binary distributions which they sold for 1 billion dollars to Person B so long as they also followed the restrictions under section 3 by including the source code with that binary distribution. If some person C came around and wanted a copy of the source code from person A, they could be told that their only distribution is 1 Billion dollars and includes both the source and a binary distribution . Person A could NOT prevent person B from making a copy of the source and giving it for Free to Person C, but Person A would have no obligation to provide the source code to anyone who they didn't distribute the 'work'
In practice, Person A would need to have made major modifications and still wouldn't be charging a billion dollars but what they are selling isn't the source code it's the work they did in modifing and building and supporting their modified work. But it happens that most companies find it easier to just make the source code publicly available for the good will it buys.
Not everything is copyrightable and there still is fair use which allows limited copying without license so there is a question not as to what you stated but as to weither you need any license ( including GPL ) to do what you mentioned.
As has been mentioned you can't, or shouldn't reuse ONE TIME pads. My idea has always been to use musical CD's as the pads.
In theory all CDs of the same album should have the same data, so if my friend and I both have access to the same album then all we need to do is somehow transmit which CD. Smaller messages might only require a certain song.
Car and Gun makers get sued because of their products, people get sued because they didn't take action that could have prevented some 'harm'
So, how long before their are law suits against the patent holders because they are "reckless endangering" people because of how they are treating the patents?
If a patient dies because they can't be given a certain treatment because of patents, I know that I would considering sueing. And I am not one of those that would considering sueing because I ordered hot coffee and got burned because I spilled it on myself.
my complaint is that you tune out the music while you're waiting and you catch the break....and only perk up to find out that you have to continue to hold.
The trial is to find your guilty, it doesn't try to prove you innocent. That's a whole different thing.
It's the difference between they can't prove I did it and I was locked up on the other side of the world and under strict watch ( or something else that could be conclusivly prove that you didn't do it)
my assumption was someone, possibly the government was supplying the code and someone was thinking about it being added to some GPL product and thus becoming GPLed and.....
in this case, the original remains under it's original license.
There is only a difference between passing a reference to an object and passing the value of the reference to an object when there is a way to access an object without using a reference which there isn't in Java. So, in Java there is NO difference.
In C++ where you can access an object directly, though a pointer, or by a reference there is a difference.
Therefore, you are incorrect to state that the original poster was incorrect, thougth as you say... you just rehashed the view of the original.
You might want to think again, what's the difference beween giving someone your P.O. Box number and giving them a copy of your P.O. Box number.
I think it's truely misleading to say that Java passes objects by value, and you try to cloud the water by saying that Java passes everything by value and therefore Java is passing the value of a reference rather than passing a reference.
Even in, C/C++ functions arguments are really all pass by value. You just pass the value of the pointer or the value of the reference when you write it as pass by reference. You aren't really passing a reference or a pointer. The system copies the values onto the call stack and passes control, so everything is pass by value if you want to go to the details. But why do you want to make things so confusing?
Re: Re: Learn about pass by reference vs. pass by value. In Java Objects are always passed by reference, primitive types by value. In C++ you have much more control. Specifically objects are passed by value by default leading to sometimes unnecessary copies.
Re: You are incorrect about Java. In Java, everything is passed by value. You never pass objects by reference, you pass references to objects by value.
You are incorrect, well, not really as you just said the same thing as the original poster did but in a less clear way.
Java has two types of variables, primatives and reference variables. So you can either pass a primative or you can pass a reference. If you pass a primative, you are passing it's value. If you are passing a reference, well, you are passing the reference to an object (or null). Yes, you are passing a reference and yes you are passing the value of the reference, really you are just passing a pointer to the object but they lie to you about Java not having pointers so they have to call it something else.
Ask them to either get you a company cell phone ( if you call into work on off hours when things go boom ) or a pager ( if you just need to know when things go boom ).
Ask them to provide you with the tools you need. You shouldn't be spending your money for those things, besides what are you or they going to do when you leave and you're personal phone is the only thing getting notifications.
Technical Support (and Customer Support ) have a huge turn over. It's a burnout job if you let it get to you, and if you're helpless it WILL get to you faster.
Doing Technical Support when you get new interesting, one of a kind of problems is fun and chalanging.
Doing Technical Support where you hold the customer's hand while you walk the customer though something that you have just done for the previous dozen callers, sucks.
Doing Technical/Customer support where you can only tell the customer that you're sorry will just tear you apart.
Darwinism is a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct and nothing has proven it wrong. Creationism is also a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct (yet) and nothing has proven it wrong either. I say yet for creationism, because unlike Darwinish there's a chance that God may yet speak up and claim his wayward creations.
What I can't get over is why none of the Darwin advocates can accept that there's a chance that the wood cabin in the middle of the woods just happen and insist that someone had to have built it.
Depending on how big of a change you want to make and what the form looks like you may be able to just scan the original, make a change and reprint it without it looking obviously different (unless someone actually reads it )
Obviously if someone else has already signed it then you need to worry about more than if it's one of those one sided agreements. Also, if someone does detect the change then, you're chances of keeping your job are small, but especially for those small companies that use it more as a catch call, it may be an option since the only time they would check the agreement would be when you really didn't care if you kept the job so long as they don't get to keep some work you created.
You would only need to update the registry if you wanted to change the owners of the domain, the contacts of the domain or the name servers of the domain.
Changing anything else doesn't require changing the domain entry, only the Name Service records.
Are you talking mean, median or mode... there are all averages.
The mean
would allow for well over 50% to be under the average, probably could get slightly over 99% under the average is a very small group was Extreemly over paid.
The Median
would require 50% to be AT or Lower, and 50% to be AT or Higher. Well, plus or minus 1 person depending on the total numbers.
The mode
would be the most interesting because since it allows for multiple averages it technically could have easily have OVER 50% both above and below the average.
97.6% of all statistics are made up, 5% of the remaining are just wrong.
Science is the study of something... finding a cure is Science... There are many things that science can't explain yet. that doesn't mean that they will never be explained.
There was no Science of flight until someone/thing flew, there was no jet science until someone made a jet.
The 'eastern' medicine will continue to be treated as voodoo till it becomes main stream and studied more and becomes a science.
The difference between "Science" and "Voodoo" is who believes it.
Slashdot Mirror
The way that I see it there are 4 types of licenses, and within each type there are all kinds of variations.
** Truely Free - Incorporate the code into open or closed projects:
- BSD style licenses
** Forced Open - You can only incorporate the code into projects where both the new and old code is also Forced Open:
- GPL
** Kept Open - You can incorporate the code as long as you keep the the original code and modifications to it open as well, but code not related to the original code can be licensed as desired:
- LGPL
** Dual licensed ( commercial/open) - You can incorporate the code as per one of the open licenses or you can pay to use the product under some other license.
So, I think the first thing is to identify the different classifications of licenses and then for each class identify compatible and incompatable terms of the different licenses. Then they can start working on generic class licenses.
I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL. I would love to see the compatablity extended to allow compatability with other licenses which force the resulting code to be also be open. This would allow mixing of GPL code with Sun's CDDL where the the resulting code would not be under a single license but all open and usable for future development.
Since you make ( or continue) the connection to other language usage like English...
Do you list Written and Spoken English Separately..
Sometimes... and sometimes C and C++ are very different but for a large number of purposes C and C++ are as close to each other as written English is to Spoken English. They both use a large number of common words, though there are some words that are only spoken and/or rarely written or commonly written and seldom spoken, and it can sometimes be really anoying to read something that was written in the manner of spoken English or listen to so formal document being read.
I support both C and C++ compilers... so I look at both type of code... I actually use the C++ compiler for most of the C code because it works 99% of the time and when it doesn't work I can always test the C compiler and/or manually look at what's going on.
an very real attept to keep C++ "compatable" with C...theer is valid C code which isn't valid C++ code as well was valid C code which is valid C++ code but means and works differently in C versus C++
See section 3...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
****
Note that it's only required that you do one of the following, not all of them.... so you do NOT need to make the source available to EVERYONE.... section 2 deals with the license of the modified version not it's distribution which is covered by section 3.
Section 2 states that the person who received the 'work' via section 3 from receives it under the same license as you, etc... So you can't prevent them from distributing the code
It would be completely legal for Person A to take some GPL code and compile it and create binary distributions which they sold for 1 billion dollars to Person B so long as they also followed the restrictions under section 3 by including the source code with that binary distribution. If some person C came around and wanted a copy of the source code from person A, they could be told that their only distribution is 1 Billion dollars and includes both the source and a binary distribution . Person A could NOT prevent person B from making a copy of the source and giving it for Free to Person C, but Person A would have no obligation to provide the source code to anyone who they didn't distribute the 'work'
In practice, Person A would need to have made major modifications and still wouldn't be charging a billion dollars but what they are selling isn't the source code it's the work they did in modifing and building and supporting their modified work. But it happens that most companies find it easier to just make the source code publicly available for the good will it buys.
Not everything is copyrightable and there still is fair use which allows limited copying without license so there is a question not as to what you stated but as to weither you need any license ( including GPL ) to do what you mentioned.
-Robert
As has been mentioned you can't, or shouldn't reuse ONE TIME pads. My idea has always been to use musical CD's as the pads.
In theory all CDs of the same album should have the same data, so if my friend and I both have access to the same album then all we need to do is somehow transmit which CD. Smaller messages might only require a certain song.
Car and Gun makers get sued because of their products, people get sued because they didn't take action that could have prevented some 'harm'
So, how long before their are law suits against the patent holders because they are "reckless endangering" people because of how they are treating the patents?
If a patient dies because they can't be given a certain treatment because of patents, I know that I would considering sueing. And I am not one of those that would considering sueing because I ordered hot coffee and got burned because I spilled it on myself.
This is where I think it will get interesting
my complaint is that you tune out the music while you're waiting and you catch the break....and only perk up to find out that you have to continue to hold.
Proved Innocent -> suspect -> Found Guilty
The trial is to find your guilty, it doesn't try to prove you innocent. That's a whole different thing.
It's the difference between they can't prove I did it and
I was locked up on the other side of the world and under strict watch ( or something else that could be conclusivly prove that you didn't do it)
Actually, why would anyone want to work on Linux anymore.
If Solaris was to be released under the GPL, wouldn't it make more sence to just use Solaris and improve Solaris?
You could even add the better parts of Linux to Solaris.
Didn't michael jackson do just this....
Have his own camera crew follow the reporter's camera crew around....
True, if the project started as GPL.
.....
my assumption was someone, possibly the government was supplying the code and someone was thinking about it being added to some GPL product and thus becoming GPLed and
in this case, the original remains under it's original license.
Nikon N70 I think.... Nikon's answer to the digital rebel but so much better for a couple more bills
Easy, duel license.....
Originally released under BSD license
some re-releasingit under thge GPL doesn't stop it from still being distributed under the BSD license.
Lots of things are duel licenses, sometimes even at the same time...
I don't know why people think that just because something is available under the GPL that is can't also be available under some other license?
Perl is opensource and mostly crossplatform...
Perl 6 will be even more cross platform
I dont' think Java should be opened under the GPL but maybe an OVML { open Virtual Machine License }
Open source but includes a compatability test... you can look touch but change but only call it X if it passed the X compatability test...
Doesn't Suffer the linking/subclassing problem that the GPL suffers from.
There is only a difference between passing a reference to an object and passing the value of the reference to an object when there is a way to access an object without using a reference which there isn't in Java. So, in Java there is NO difference.
In C++ where you can access an object directly, though a pointer, or by a reference there is a difference.
Therefore, you are incorrect to state that the original poster was incorrect, thougth as you say... you just rehashed the view of the original.
You might want to think again, what's the difference beween giving someone your P.O. Box number and giving them a copy of your P.O. Box number.
I think it's truely misleading to say that Java passes objects by value, and you try to cloud the water by saying that Java passes everything by value and therefore Java is passing the value of a reference rather than passing a reference.
Even in, C/C++ functions arguments are really all pass by value. You just pass the value of the pointer or the value of the reference when you write it as pass by reference. You aren't really passing a reference or a pointer. The system copies the values onto the call stack and passes control, so everything is pass by value if you want to go to the details. But why do you want to make things so confusing?
Re: Re: Learn about pass by reference vs. pass by value. In Java Objects are always passed by reference, primitive types by value. In C++ you have much more control. Specifically objects are passed by value by default leading to sometimes unnecessary copies.
Re: You are incorrect about Java.
In Java, everything is passed by value. You never pass objects by reference, you pass references to objects by value.
You are incorrect, well, not really as you just said the same thing as the original poster did but in a less clear way.
Java has two types of variables, primatives and reference variables. So you can either pass a primative or you can pass a reference. If you pass a primative, you are passing it's value. If you are passing a reference, well, you are passing the reference to an object (or null). Yes, you are passing a reference and yes you are passing the value of the reference, really you are just passing a pointer to the object but they lie to you about Java not having pointers so they have to call it something else.
C++ does gives you so much more choices
No....
Ask them to either get you a company cell phone ( if you call into work on off hours when things go boom ) or a pager ( if you just need to know when things go boom ).
Ask them to provide you with the tools you need. You shouldn't be spending your money for those things, besides what are you or they going to do when you leave and you're personal phone is the only thing getting notifications.
Technical Support (and Customer Support ) have a huge turn over. It's a burnout job if you let it get to you, and if you're helpless it WILL get to you faster.
Doing Technical Support when you get new interesting, one of a kind of problems is fun and chalanging.
Doing Technical Support where you hold the customer's hand while you walk the customer though something that you have just done for the previous dozen callers, sucks.
Doing Technical/Customer support where you can only tell the customer that you're sorry will just tear you apart.
maybe we can merge Y-windows with Fresco
http://www.fresco.org/
Darwinism is a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct and nothing has proven it wrong.
Creationism is also a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct (yet) and nothing has proven it wrong either. I say yet for creationism, because unlike Darwinish there's a chance that God may yet speak up and claim his wayward creations.
What I can't get over is why none of the Darwin advocates can accept that there's a chance that the wood cabin in the middle of the woods just happen and insist that someone had to have built it.
Depending on how big of a change you want to make and what the form looks like you may be able to just scan the original, make a change and reprint it without it looking obviously different (unless someone actually reads it )
Obviously if someone else has already signed it then you need to worry about more than if it's one of those one sided agreements. Also, if someone does detect the change then, you're chances of keeping your job are small, but especially for those small companies that use it more as a catch call, it may be an option since the only time they would check the agreement would be when you really didn't care if you kept the job so long as they don't get to keep some work you created.
ahh,
You would only need to update the registry if you wanted to change the owners of the domain, the contacts of the domain or the name servers of the domain.
Changing anything else doesn't require changing the domain entry, only the Name Service records.
Are you talking mean, median or mode... there are all averages.
The mean
would allow for well over 50% to be under the average, probably could get slightly over 99% under the average is a very small group was Extreemly over paid.
The Median
would require 50% to be AT or Lower, and 50% to be AT or Higher. Well, plus or minus 1 person depending on the total numbers.
The mode
would be the most interesting because since it allows for multiple averages it technically could have easily have OVER 50% both above and below the average.
97.6% of all statistics are made up, 5% of the remaining are just wrong.
Science is the study of something... finding a cure is Science... There are many things that science can't explain yet. that doesn't mean that they will never be explained.
There was no Science of flight until someone/thing flew, there was no jet science until someone made a jet.
The 'eastern' medicine will continue to be treated as voodoo till it becomes main stream and studied more and becomes a science.
The difference between "Science" and "Voodoo" is who believes it.