Last time I was in Montreal, several girls asked me if I wanted to get laid eventhough I was with my girlfriend
I'm not sure what part of the USA you're from, but up here, we call those "Prostitutes". Some of them are pretty open minded, hence, approaching a couple, instead of a single man.
Maybe these girls liked your friend, and were willing to let you join in for extra;)
If the GPL were infectious, then you would have no such choice; since you do have a choice it is clearly not infectious in this regard.
Perhaps you're taking a different definition of "infectious" than I have.
Realize that what follows is just my humble opinion; I have a great amount of respect for the open source community. However, I feel that this article didn't really clear up the concept of a "viral" GPL; the pro-GPL comments on/. haven't helped either;)
As I understand it, a product (ie: set of software components) packaged together with a single component licensed under the GPL, must therefore be a derivative work, and must be licensed under the GPL. More to the point, everything that talked to the GPL component must therefore be GPL; If I understand correctly, this can quickly propogate throughout a system / product line architecture, if something like a GPL hardware driver were to be used. Realize that certain components which do not communicate with or depend on a GPL component (or derivative) need not be released under the GPL; GPL and proprietary code can co-exist in a project, if done so carefully.
It has been suggested that removing the original GPL component suddenly makes everything fine; realize that's not the point. By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL! The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components. This could be an unexpected lose-lose scenario for an uninformed project manager.
I argue that the GPL is infectious, although relatively painless to cure (swap the components). Either way, this information should be presented / known at the outset of a project considering the use of GPL'd components.
IMHO, the article did not address a "Viral" license misconception (ie: that everything that uses or relies upon a GPL component must released under the GPL). rather, it exposed ways to avoid the concieved shortcomings of GPL:
Here's my new ball. Play with it my way, or go home; take your pick.
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL; if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project. Just common sense, but not necessarily common knowledge.
Comments and clarifications are welcome on this matter!
Although I haven't RTFA, I suspect you couldn't find anything about "throws" because of your atrocious spelling, or a dependency on language-specific keywords instead of base concepts.
C# includes a full suite of Exception-handling mechanisms. You can find various tutorials online with a simple google search.
I find it interesting that the new C# language is really streamlining the implementation of common design patterns. Use of patterns like an Iterator, Facade, Observer, etc. is simplified through language constructs like collections, interfaces, events, and more.
You'd do well to read up on a topic before resorting to criticism.
State and provincial governments should buy grid infrastructure back from the mismanaged, ailing private companies.
Hmm... Bail out the failed attempt at privatization, huh? The article pointed out this already occured, where investment companies like Citigroup bought out the facilities of "mismanaged, ailing private companies". RTFA, and don't be quick to assume that government intervention is required to correct a failed buisiness venture.
[They] could effectively plan for the long term, rather than shy away from desperately needed capital outlays simply because the managers need to show a profit in the next quarter.
This raises an interesting point... Does the current (political and/or financial) model place maintaining the health of the system in the best interests of the power producers?
"Instead he is suspected of altering the worm into a variant that did more damage than the original."
Another/. article recently exposed a variation of this virus that actually cleaned up Blaster by automatically patching the "infected" computer, yet caused more trouble than the original in terms of network traffic.
I wonder if this could be the variation they suspect the teen worked on? If so, it could turn into a slippery moral slope for the press to take a stand on either way...
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a whole 5 seconds, and there are no 6th day comments yet! Must be a busy day *sips coffee*
Last time I was in Montreal, several girls asked me if I wanted to get laid eventhough I was with my girlfriend
;)
I'm not sure what part of the USA you're from, but up here, we call those "Prostitutes". Some of them are pretty open minded, hence, approaching a couple, instead of a single man.
Maybe these girls liked your friend, and were willing to let you join in for extra
Perhaps you're taking a different definition of "infectious" than I have.
Realize that what follows is just my humble opinion; I have a great amount of respect for the open source community. However, I feel that this article didn't really clear up the concept of a "viral" GPL; the pro-GPL comments on /. haven't helped either ;)
As I understand it, a product (ie: set of software components) packaged together with a single component licensed under the GPL, must therefore be a derivative work, and must be licensed under the GPL. More to the point, everything that talked to the GPL component must therefore be GPL; If I understand correctly, this can quickly propogate throughout a system / product line architecture, if something like a GPL hardware driver were to be used. Realize that certain components which do not communicate with or depend on a GPL component (or derivative) need not be released under the GPL; GPL and proprietary code can co-exist in a project, if done so carefully.
It has been suggested that removing the original GPL component suddenly makes everything fine; realize that's not the point. By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL! The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components. This could be an unexpected lose-lose scenario for an uninformed project manager.
I argue that the GPL is infectious, although relatively painless to cure (swap the components). Either way, this information should be presented / known at the outset of a project considering the use of GPL'd components.
IMHO, the article did not address a "Viral" license misconception (ie: that everything that uses or relies upon a GPL component must released under the GPL). rather, it exposed ways to avoid the concieved shortcomings of GPL:
Here's my new ball. Play with it my way, or go home; take your pick.
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL; if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project. Just common sense, but not necessarily common knowledge. Comments and clarifications are welcome on this matter!
I find it interesting that the new C# language is really streamlining the implementation of common design patterns. Use of patterns like an Iterator, Facade, Observer, etc. is simplified through language constructs like collections, interfaces, events, and more. You'd do well to read up on a topic before resorting to criticism.
The Full News Story may answer your questions.
Working Link to the news story that spurned this post ;)
I saw him Leaving the Australian customs department with a couple of mainframes!
I wonder if this could be the variation they suspect the teen worked on? If so, it could turn into a slippery moral slope for the press to take a stand on either way...