Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of drafts written, just none that RMS and company are ready to share. It seems like I've seen thesearticles pop up every 6 to 9 months over the past couple years. (Take a look at the dates on those links.)
I mean, I know some FSF projects move slowly, but at least they make some progress. (Of course, from Hurd's announcement to "It boots!" was 3 years, so they must be rather, uhm, methodical?)
As for this comment: "So if they keep to the same formula, patents and DRM may deprive you of the rights to distribute GPL3 software, but probably not to use it." Maybe, but maybe not. If nothing else, it's not 100% clear to me who the licence affects when it's based on copyright. Namely, does it apply to the person offering the copy, or the person receiving it? If GPL v3 takes aim at DRM and patents, it may restrict you from receiving a copy. (Seems unlikely though... I'm pretty sure copyright focuses on the person offering the copy.)
One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.
Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.
Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.
The number is meaningless by itself, but meaningful relative to other measurements of the same quantity. If you RTFA, they do also give absolutes, in terms of number of classified and declassified documents.
This ratio is just an attempt at a "single figure of merit," that, like so many other benchmark numbers, is not meaningful relative to anything other than other computed values of that metric.
Huh? Aggregation means nothing. You can say "The stuff in src/libfoo is LGPL and the stuff in src/appbar is GPL" just fine. I mean, just look at any Linux distribution, with its combination of GPL, LGPL, BSD, public domain, and proprietary software, all within the same CD(s).
Swinging back on topic, GPL would be a fine license for submitter's app. GPL covers redistribution. If the plugins are distributed separately of the application, then there's no issue. If you need special header files or whatever Java uses to expose the interface, then make those public domain and separate.
No, entrapment would be if a school employed lab aide went around saying casually, "I hear you can skip the menu if you know what to do..."
Just like leaving an unlocked police car running in a parking lot isn't entrapment if some kid goes joyriding in the car, neither was this. But it's pushing the boundary.
Yeah, I got banned from the Business Dept's computers for "hacking" at my high school because I shelled out of Word Perfect. Didn't touch anything, but because I seemed to know more than the teachers, they didn't trust me. This was back around 1990.
Expelled? No. Felony charges pressed? No. Loss of computer rights for a fraction of the computers at the high school? Yes. Whoop-de-freakin'-do. I preferred the Apple ][e and Apple ][gs to those PS/2s anyway.
Erm... actually, I imagine the flights will all still take off and land at the same times GMT, and the local times will need to be shifted around. So, if you booked the 9AM EST flight, it's now a 10AM EDT flight.
Right, but in those winter months, most people already get up in the dark. So, now you're using an additional hour of electricity in the morning instead of the evening! And, you might be using more energy for heat as well, since you'll start heating office buildings and homes to "awake" temperatures an hour earlier as well. And guess what? It's usually colder at sunrise than at sunset.
Really, the reason business pushes for extended DST is to increase business. People are more likely to shop during daylight than dark, so the story goes. And people are more likely to shop after work than before.
I say just abolish "standard time" and stick to DST all year round. The energy argument's nearly a wash to slightly negative in the winter and may be slightly favorable in the summer. I just want more daylight during the hours I'm most awake.
Well, for what it's worth, the same microarchitecture actually runs multiple ISAs. At least as of the G4 generation, the microarchitecture actually runs 5 ISAs on one: POWER4 64-bit, POWER4 32-bit, PowerPC 64-bit, PowerPC 32-bit, and a fifth one, Amazon 64-bit. You might find this article rather enlightening. It appears the plan for the current generation was to do the same, and add Symmetric Multithreading.
What I'm wondering is if the PPC chips inside the Apples have a hidden SMT capability and/or a second core that's undisclosed?
Mainly, Mars' lower gravity combined with the lack of a significant protective magnetosphere has allowed the solar wind to strip Mars of most of its atmosphere. What remains is what little Mars can hold onto. Some fun reading if you're up for it.
Pounds, on the other hand, is a unit of force not mass - even though it's often confused as one.
Of course, leave it to the nutty civil and mechanical engineers to have it both ways. They have two units: lbm and lbf. Pound mass and pound force, respectively. 1 lbm = 1 lbf * 32.2 ft/sec/sec. UGH! (We rounded the 32.16 up to 32.2 for our computations. Kinda like rounding to 9.8m/sec^2 in metric.)
When I took Statics and Dynamics, I can't tell you how frustrated I got with pound mass vs. pound force, and how often I'd have an extra or missing 32.2 pop into our out of somewhere. More than once I'd convert everything into metric for a problem to verify my answer.
In that same course, the prof was very particular about whether you used lb*ft or ft*lb as your units for an answer--one was for torque and the other was for work. It gets nuttier: Inside the cover of our textbook, in the conversion table, there was an entry for "1 lb*ft = 1 ft*lb." I kid you not.
--Joe (A nutty EE.)
PS. Am I the only one that finds it frustrating that Slashdot won't let you use most HTML entities? Math posts are so ugly as a result. I tried using · and ² in the above and it didn't work. Fortunately & works...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of drafts written, just none that RMS and company are ready to share. It seems like I've seen these articles pop up every 6 to 9 months over the past couple years. (Take a look at the dates on those links.)
I mean, I know some FSF projects move slowly, but at least they make some progress. (Of course, from Hurd's announcement to "It boots!" was 3 years, so they must be rather, uhm, methodical?)
As for this comment: "So if they keep to the same formula, patents and DRM may deprive you of the rights to distribute GPL3 software, but probably not to use it." Maybe, but maybe not. If nothing else, it's not 100% clear to me who the licence affects when it's based on copyright. Namely, does it apply to the person offering the copy, or the person receiving it? If GPL v3 takes aim at DRM and patents, it may restrict you from receiving a copy. (Seems unlikely though... I'm pretty sure copyright focuses on the person offering the copy.)
--JoeOne bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:
So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.
Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.
Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.
--JoeThe number is meaningless by itself, but meaningful relative to other measurements of the same quantity. If you RTFA, they do also give absolutes, in terms of number of classified and declassified documents.
This ratio is just an attempt at a "single figure of merit," that, like so many other benchmark numbers, is not meaningful relative to anything other than other computed values of that metric.
--JoeYou're joke looses all its humor when you explain it. Try explaining grammer instead. Their more likely too get that then this.
Huh? Aggregation means nothing. You can say "The stuff in src/libfoo is LGPL and the stuff in src/appbar is GPL" just fine. I mean, just look at any Linux distribution, with its combination of GPL, LGPL, BSD, public domain, and proprietary software, all within the same CD(s).
Swinging back on topic, GPL would be a fine license for submitter's app. GPL covers redistribution. If the plugins are distributed separately of the application, then there's no issue. If you need special header files or whatever Java uses to expose the interface, then make those public domain and separate.
--Joe
No, entrapment would be if a school employed lab aide went around saying casually, "I hear you can skip the menu if you know what to do..."
Just like leaving an unlocked police car running in a parking lot isn't entrapment if some kid goes joyriding in the car, neither was this. But it's pushing the boundary.
I think he was referring to the "Let's see who Ctrl-C's out so we can expel them." That's just this side of entrapment.
Well, that, and taping the password to the machine and then getting upset when the students use it... that's pretty lame too.
Yeah, I got banned from the Business Dept's computers for "hacking" at my high school because I shelled out of Word Perfect. Didn't touch anything, but because I seemed to know more than the teachers, they didn't trust me. This was back around 1990.
Expelled? No. Felony charges pressed? No. Loss of computer rights for a fraction of the computers at the high school? Yes. Whoop-de-freakin'-do. I preferred the Apple ][e and Apple ][gs to those PS/2s anyway.
Given Arizona is neither EST or EDT... I'd guess the folks in Phoenix will be PST. If you catch my drift.
Log in GMT, then. Just set your TZ variable in your .bashrc or whatever and you're golden. Is it really that hard?
Erm... actually, I imagine the flights will all still take off and land at the same times GMT, and the local times will need to be shifted around. So, if you booked the 9AM EST flight, it's now a 10AM EDT flight.
That's not nice. Us four-digit ID folks shouldn't pick on the six digit guys like that. They're gullible, I tell you. Gullible!
There's a reason they call him "Smoky Joe" around here.. (I live in the D/FW area. Yippie.)
Right, but in those winter months, most people already get up in the dark. So, now you're using an additional hour of electricity in the morning instead of the evening! And, you might be using more energy for heat as well, since you'll start heating office buildings and homes to "awake" temperatures an hour earlier as well. And guess what? It's usually colder at sunrise than at sunset.
Really, the reason business pushes for extended DST is to increase business. People are more likely to shop during daylight than dark, so the story goes. And people are more likely to shop after work than before.
I say just abolish "standard time" and stick to DST all year round. The energy argument's nearly a wash to slightly negative in the winter and may be slightly favorable in the summer. I just want more daylight during the hours I'm most awake.
--JoeWho says you put new batteries in each time? You just need to exchange them with another working pair.
I'd also suggest "MaxStartups 2" to prevent them from opening a bunch of connections in parallel.
Of course, though, knowing that it's "no longer than x" stops you from searching that much larger space of passwords longer than x.
re: your sig... check out today's Medium Large...
Technically, "lol" used in that manner is an interjection, professor.
Thank you for playing.
Well, for what it's worth, the same microarchitecture actually runs multiple ISAs. At least as of the G4 generation, the microarchitecture actually runs 5 ISAs on one: POWER4 64-bit, POWER4 32-bit, PowerPC 64-bit, PowerPC 32-bit, and a fifth one, Amazon 64-bit. You might find this article rather enlightening. It appears the plan for the current generation was to do the same, and add Symmetric Multithreading.
What I'm wondering is if the PPC chips inside the Apples have a hidden SMT capability and/or a second core that's undisclosed?
--JoeThey couldn't wait until November? ;-)
Mars' atmospheric pressure is MUCH lower than Earth's though. This is due to a couple intertwined factors.
Mainly, Mars' lower gravity combined with the lack of a significant protective magnetosphere has allowed the solar wind to strip Mars of most of its atmosphere. What remains is what little Mars can hold onto. Some fun reading if you're up for it.
That show was baaaaaad. Space: 1999!
Of course, leave it to the nutty civil and mechanical engineers to have it both ways. They have two units: lbm and lbf. Pound mass and pound force, respectively. 1 lbm = 1 lbf * 32.2 ft/sec/sec. UGH! (We rounded the 32.16 up to 32.2 for our computations. Kinda like rounding to 9.8m/sec^2 in metric.)
When I took Statics and Dynamics, I can't tell you how frustrated I got with pound mass vs. pound force, and how often I'd have an extra or missing 32.2 pop into our out of somewhere. More than once I'd convert everything into metric for a problem to verify my answer.
In that same course, the prof was very particular about whether you used lb*ft or ft*lb as your units for an answer--one was for torque and the other was for work. It gets nuttier: Inside the cover of our textbook, in the conversion table, there was an entry for "1 lb*ft = 1 ft*lb." I kid you not.
--Joe (A nutty EE.)
PS. Am I the only one that finds it frustrating that Slashdot won't let you use most HTML entities? Math posts are so ugly as a result. I tried using · and ² in the above and it didn't work. Fortunately & works...
Perhaps it's a difference between NTFS and FAT? Or perhaps some other application had "updated" one of the DLLs AutoCAD links?