Did you ever think if the tube is merely a near vacuum that the passage of the sled itself might compress the remaining air enough for breathing and pressurization purposes? Sort of a self-adjusting system - too much air pressure and the sled slows down as well. It's self-regulating. BTW, you can already experience this on high speed trains like the TGV when it runs through tunnels.
Most sites people use work conceptually just fine without JS. Some force you to have JS for no real reason other than they want to track everything you do.
The SGIs as we had them configured were fine for at least 8 years, and ahead of anything desktop wise. They ran MIPS 4400s, and had more than 1GB RAM, IIRC.
The HDDs were Seagate 1GB SCSI-2 7200s enterprise drives dropped into 486 desktops with 64MB of RAM, and were not exceeded in performance for quite a few years by anything in the desktop arena. In 2000, I was still using similar 10-50 GB drives for my system drives, and only later adding ATA drives as mass store when they finally started exceeding 100GB on a cost competitive basis. At the time, there was just no comparison in performance between SCSI2+ and anything else available. The memory RAM size wasn't commonly exceeded until 97, IIRC, although I got a Pentium Pro for my personal system with what eventually was 512 MB of RAM by 96. That lasted until about 2001.
I don't think so, they didn't notice a supposed outlook word document download hogging the entire system resources for 10 minutes, why would they notice a mere 200s group hug?
Without copyright law, I don't have to worry about being forced to distribute any additions I might do to such code either, because the code wouldn't be protected any more than MIT, BSD, or Apache, and actually less.
Ah, but the GPL can take from you if you're not careful. It's very wise to know exactly what the GPL costs you, because it can cost you.
The entire point was that the GPL forces you to relinquish control of your work. It's implied that only happens if you use GPL'd code, which is why I normally don't touch anything with GPL on it.
I understand the licenses much better than you, apparently. I also understand my and my employers needs. So far there has only been 1 case where GPL software was acceptable.
That's a valid attitude. Lambasting the GPL for being something you don't want is less so. The GPL protects freedom, just not in a way that's useful to you and the way you operate.
It doesn't protect "freedom" at all under any standard definition. It does a great job of restricting freedom, however.
> Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
Irrelevant how much you write or how you interface, according to FSF - what matters is whether the combined code makes a "single program."
Exactly, why risk someone *stealing* your code because you mistakenly or erroneously somehow linked to a single API call? Which is why we avoid GPL code like the plague it is. And yes, someone taking something from you because you linked to a library that links to a library that links to a library that calls a piece of GPL code is why you should always fully audit your entire library dependency tree and strictly control it. It's also why the maven repo system sucks more than a little bit, because it doesn't really help you with this situation much at all. Gradle is no better in this regard, btw.
And people like me will never see nor use your software, and be at a competitive advantage by writing only what we need, and not the kitchen sink approach you likely used.
> But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source.
YES. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THE GPL.
Translation: I don't have a leg to stand on but I'm really angry and you should just accept my assertion, because it's profane and CAPITALIZED!!!!
> So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
1. "IP" aka "Intellectual Property" is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term.
How about I keep my work mine and sell it based on my terms. Would that work for you, since you seem to have trouble with the semantics of the GPL and IP as it translates to work?
2. Again, that's the fucking point of the GPL. If you're not willing to abide by the terms, you don't get to fucking benefit from the code.
Translation: Here I fail again to understand your post, but I'm still angry, and profanity always adds extra weight to my points.
Write your own fucking code from scratch, or buy it, or do whatever the fuck you want that doesn't involve you parasitising other people's work, other people's contribution to the common good, for your own private fucking profit.
Once your frothing stage has subsided and you've actually comprehended what was written in the GP, you'll note that's exactly what I said, and that your apparent psychotic OCD need to vomit verbal diarrhea against anything perceived as negatively impacting the GPL only reiterates exactly what I posted.
> Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
right, you're just another libertarian psychopath. why am i not surprised.
The only one showing psychopathic tendencies is you. This analogy was merely to clarify that if I did the work, I shouldn't be forced to give it away. Now, should I choose to haul a second bucket and pass it around, great, and I very well might (and in reality I have).
I've contributed back to several projects so that's untrue. Just not the core IP of my work. I have no issue contributing fixes, I do have issues with my core work being legally opened up to the world because I use 1 API call in a library under that wondrous entity known as the GPL v3, especially that one clause that can be added that slips my mind at the moment.
The ONLY (alleged) "freedom" that the GPL restricts is the "freedom" to fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors.
Only psychopaths, wannabe-psychopaths, and psychopath-sympathisers think that that's a "freedom" worth supporting.
Chip on your shoulder much? I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private. I can extend it and use it internally, so a services based function is perfectly fine. But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source. So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
I'd call it relinquishing control of your software. We don't touch GPL source or libraries anywhere I have worked precisely because of this show-stopping feature of GPL.
The problem with using the Founder's Copyright is that Public Domain is not more free for the aggregate of all people than the GPL would be. It's just an invitation to integrate the public code into private works without returning anything, while the GPL promotes that more code is shared.
Well, that depends upon whether you want freedom or a set of rules. I respect your opinion on most things, but in this case you cannot make the case that GPL is about freedom, because its not. It's about controlling those who use it while giving them great latitude in one way, but constraining them greatly in others. The closest thing to freedom regarding copyright and code are licenses such as MIT, BSD, and the Apache 2 licenses, and even those have clauses constraining use. They're just a lot less restraining than the GPL (2 or 3).
I'd also like you to address the case of "Happy Birthday" which, by all rights, should have been in the public domain possibly as far back as 1900, but certainly no later than 1924 given that the music appears to have existed prior to 1875 and the lyrics were certainly in existence no later than 1893 and were published as a unit no later than 1911. Shouldn't Warner Bros (the recently removed claimant) be punished for the decades of false ownership claims?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ever think if the tube is merely a near vacuum that the passage of the sled itself might compress the remaining air enough for breathing and pressurization purposes? Sort of a self-adjusting system - too much air pressure and the sled slows down as well. It's self-regulating. BTW, you can already experience this on high speed trains like the TGV when it runs through tunnels.
Have you ever decompiled a sizable project and tried to do anything with it? I have.
Most sites people use work conceptually just fine without JS. Some force you to have JS for no real reason other than they want to track everything you do.
The SGIs as we had them configured were fine for at least 8 years, and ahead of anything desktop wise. They ran MIPS 4400s, and had more than 1GB RAM, IIRC.
The HDDs were Seagate 1GB SCSI-2 7200s enterprise drives dropped into 486 desktops with 64MB of RAM, and were not exceeded in performance for quite a few years by anything in the desktop arena. In 2000, I was still using similar 10-50 GB drives for my system drives, and only later adding ATA drives as mass store when they finally started exceeding 100GB on a cost competitive basis. At the time, there was just no comparison in performance between SCSI2+ and anything else available. The memory RAM size wasn't commonly exceeded until 97, IIRC, although I got a Pentium Pro for my personal system with what eventually was 512 MB of RAM by 96. That lasted until about 2001.
64MB of RAM and 2 1GB hard disks in 1992. Of course IIRC the 512MB RAM GPUs were $25K.... That was an SGI GPU though.
I don't think so, they didn't notice a supposed outlook word document download hogging the entire system resources for 10 minutes, why would they notice a mere 200s group hug?
Without copyright law, I don't have to worry about being forced to distribute any additions I might do to such code either, because the code wouldn't be protected any more than MIT, BSD, or Apache, and actually less.
The GPL is nothing without copyright law.
Ah, but the GPL can take from you if you're not careful. It's very wise to know exactly what the GPL costs you, because it can cost you.
The entire point was that the GPL forces you to relinquish control of your work. It's implied that only happens if you use GPL'd code, which is why I normally don't touch anything with GPL on it.
Maybe that library's author didn't want you to be able to make that call without paying him or opening your code.
Maybe he did, but maybe someone a couple of dependencies up didn't, and also didn't properly legally vette their code.
I understand the licenses much better than you, apparently. I also understand my and my employers needs. So far there has only been 1 case where GPL software was acceptable.
Riddle me this, oh wise AC - why does the Linux kernel not use GPL v3?
That's a valid attitude. Lambasting the GPL for being something you don't want is less so. The GPL protects freedom, just not in a way that's useful to you and the way you operate.
It doesn't protect "freedom" at all under any standard definition. It does a great job of restricting freedom, however.
> Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
Irrelevant how much you write or how you interface, according to FSF - what matters is whether the combined code makes a "single program."
Exactly, why risk someone *stealing* your code because you mistakenly or erroneously somehow linked to a single API call? Which is why we avoid GPL code like the plague it is. And yes, someone taking something from you because you linked to a library that links to a library that links to a library that calls a piece of GPL code is why you should always fully audit your entire library dependency tree and strictly control it. It's also why the maven repo system sucks more than a little bit, because it doesn't really help you with this situation much at all. Gradle is no better in this regard, btw.
And people like me will never see nor use your software, and be at a competitive advantage by writing only what we need, and not the kitchen sink approach you likely used.
What *I* write is absolutely *my* software. I like to keep it that way for certain things I write, so I avoid anything GPL'd.
Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
> But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source.
YES. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THE GPL.
Translation: I don't have a leg to stand on but I'm really angry and you should just accept my assertion, because it's profane and CAPITALIZED!!!!
> So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
1. "IP" aka "Intellectual Property" is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term.
How about I keep my work mine and sell it based on my terms. Would that work for you, since you seem to have trouble with the semantics of the GPL and IP as it translates to work?
2. Again, that's the fucking point of the GPL. If you're not willing to abide by the terms, you don't get to fucking benefit from the code.
Translation: Here I fail again to understand your post, but I'm still angry, and profanity always adds extra weight to my points.
Write your own fucking code from scratch, or buy it, or do whatever the fuck you want that doesn't involve you parasitising other people's work, other people's contribution to the common good, for your own private fucking profit.
Once your frothing stage has subsided and you've actually comprehended what was written in the GP, you'll note that's exactly what I said, and that your apparent psychotic OCD need to vomit verbal diarrhea against anything perceived as negatively impacting the GPL only reiterates exactly what I posted.
> Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
right, you're just another libertarian psychopath. why am i not surprised.
The only one showing psychopathic tendencies is you. This analogy was merely to clarify that if I did the work, I shouldn't be forced to give it away. Now, should I choose to haul a second bucket and pass it around, great, and I very well might (and in reality I have).
> I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private.
Just another way of saying "fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors."
You'll note that avoid this, because I respect the legal aspects of the GPL:
I've contributed back to several projects so that's untrue. Just not the core IP of my work. I have no issue contributing fixes, I do have issues with my core work being legally opened up to the world because I use 1 API call in a library under that wondrous entity known as the GPL v3, especially that one clause that can be added that slips my mind at the moment.
I'm so sick of seeing this bullshit.
The ONLY (alleged) "freedom" that the GPL restricts is the "freedom" to fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors.
Only psychopaths, wannabe-psychopaths, and psychopath-sympathisers think that that's a "freedom" worth supporting.
Chip on your shoulder much? I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private. I can extend it and use it internally, so a services based function is perfectly fine. But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source. So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
I'd call it relinquishing control of your software. We don't touch GPL source or libraries anywhere I have worked precisely because of this show-stopping feature of GPL.
The problem with using the Founder's Copyright is that Public Domain is not more free for the aggregate of all people than the GPL would be. It's just an invitation to integrate the public code into private works without returning anything, while the GPL promotes that more code is shared.
Well, that depends upon whether you want freedom or a set of rules. I respect your opinion on most things, but in this case you cannot make the case that GPL is about freedom, because its not. It's about controlling those who use it while giving them great latitude in one way, but constraining them greatly in others. The closest thing to freedom regarding copyright and code are licenses such as MIT, BSD, and the Apache 2 licenses, and even those have clauses constraining use. They're just a lot less restraining than the GPL (2 or 3).
Beat me to it... I smell a unicorn like...
I'd also like you to address the case of "Happy Birthday" which, by all rights, should have been in the public domain possibly as far back as 1900, but certainly no later than 1924 given that the music appears to have existed prior to 1875 and the lyrics were certainly in existence no later than 1893 and were published as a unit no later than 1911. Shouldn't Warner Bros (the recently removed claimant) be punished for the decades of false ownership claims?