"Standard language is just a dialect with an army"
on
Flavor vs. Flavour
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't remember exactly who said it, but a linguiast once said that a "Standard language is just a dialect with an army."
The "flavour/flavor" variation was part of an attempt by Noah Webster to simplify and make more consistent the spelling of words in the American dialect. One can argue whether the attempt was misguided or not, but it certainly hasn't been the only one. George Bernard Shaw also tried to make spelling more consistent (see the preface of his play "Pygmalion" for more detail).
Changing standardized (or standardised) spelling to make it more consistent is just one of those pastimes that occasionally crop up amongst speakers of English. For some reason it seems to crop up amongst the Brits more than the Yanks, I suppose because the British spellings are even more inconsistent than American, but in any event it seldom takes hold.
The standardized spellings, especially the British spellings, retain the history of how they used to be pronounced. You don't see the variation as much in other languages, say French or German for instance, because both of those languages were standardized much later than English. In fact, English was never really standardized at all. But the Brothers Grimm researched fairy tales in part to come up with a standardized version of German, and that is why German spelling is much more consistent than English. The French on the other hand set up an institute to standardize French under Napoleon.
So each of those two countries went through standardization processes for their respective languages in the early 19th century.
English on the other hand just... accumulated. The "first" dictionary was by Samuel Johnson in the 18th century. From there, the standard spellings were decided culturally, with whatever dictionary that was most fashionable at the time becoming the standard. In America, this was Webster's Dictionary. The British finally, sort of, standardized on the Oxford English Dictionary, but this was compiled mostly by scholars who were interested in the history of the language rather than reformers who would have tried to make it more consistent.
There certainly are reasons why the spelling of English should be made more consistent. I, for one, would love to see the death of the letter "k". It's useless, ugly, and inefficient. Just use "c" and change all the instances where "c" makes a sibilant es sound to "s". Use "z" always for the voiced es. Change all voiced instances of "th" to "dh". Change all initial instances of "ph" to "f". Change all instances of voiced "g" to "j", and all instances where "j" represents the dipthong "ie" to "y". And so on.
Those are just some obvious suggestions for making English spelling more consistent. None of them will happen of course. Whether they should is not a debate I want to get into here. I like being able to see the history of our language in its spelling varieties. I can also understand the desire for a more consistent representation of our language.
As for "flavour" and "flavor", neither spelling is more "correct" than the other. One simply reflects its historical provenance better, and the other its pronunciation. Variety is the spice of life. Pick your flavour (or flavor).
I'm with the parent poster on this. Mitochondrial DNA points to a chimp lineage. There's also a fairly clear photograph of a cadaver accompanying the Nat'l Geogrphic article, and it just looks like a giant chimp.
Nesting is a common cultural attribute of both chimps and gorillas, and even though gorillas nest on the ground instead of in trees, I don't think it's much of an evolutionary jump for a giant chimp to decide it's too big to sleep in the trees also. And the fecal data indicates a diet more typical of chimps.
Howling during the full moon is an interesting trait, though. I wonder if they're just irritated by the nighttime brightness or if it represents a primitive religious instinct. Of course, sightings are rare so the observed howling behavior might be anomalous rather than typical.
Anyhow, if it is just a giant chimp, it'll be interesting to see how its behavior coincides with and differs from the other chimp species and humans.
Well, the whole license is pretty much a description of how programs can be modified and distirbuted, but the most important and general sections are 1,3, and 5:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
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,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)...
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
No, I'm implying that they set the contract price as the closing price on March 6th.
Let me illustrate:
SCO: We'll throw in 210,000 shares as options if you sign our contract.
Sun: At what price?
SCO: Well, remember this is all under NDA. We're filing suit against IBM on March 7th. We all know the share price is gonna spike after that. So, why don't we contract the price as whatever the closing price is on March 6th?
The quick answer is no. The distinction between the two is that the GPL is a distribution license, whereas the MS EULA is a usage license.
The GPL is definitely legally binding because it reverts to copyright law if the terms aren't respected, but its terms don't come into play unless you are distributing the software or modifications of the software. It imposes no usage requirements or obligations, and says you can do anything you want with and to the software.
The MS EULA requires registration, among other things, and forbids using the software on multiple machines or more than two processors, among other things. No one knows if it's legally binding, as it hasn't been tested in court, as far as I know. It doesn't permit distribution of the software, which is covered by standard copyright, same as the GPL when its distribution terms are violated. Since the MS EULA has no distribution terms (except for the special case of one-time transfer), you can't distribute it.
Well, speaking of conspiracy theories, I've got a new one that involves Sun.
Somewhere early in the year, around February I think, Sun entered into a licensing agreement with SCO that gave it, in addition to other things, an option for 210,000 shares of SCO at $1.83 each.
I've been wondering, ever since reading about it, where that buck-three-eighty came from as the option price. I mean, why $1.83? Why not $0.66 or that $0.0001 option price all the SCO execs have?
Turns out $1.83 was the closing share price on March 6, 2003, the day before SCO announced its suit. This raises some interesting questions, such as, did Sun know from SCO (inside information) that the suit was coming up and choose that day for option price evaluation?
This looks like a smoking gun for an insider trading charge, not to mention corroborating accusations that SCO may be running a pump and dump scheme.
It's hard to see how the GPL could be struck down in court. All it does is grant distribution rights, as long as certain terms are fulfilled, to copyrighted code.
It's like this: an author agrees to allow a publisher to distribute a book for a fee of $40,000, or a percentage of the profit. All the GPL does is say that instead of paying the fee in dollars, the fee is that you take the following actions: include the copyright, include the source code, and include this license which allows anyone else to distribute the code on the same terms.
So far the GPL is NOT being tested; it is being deployed as weapon.
Red Hat and IBM are both using the GPL to reign in SCO's actions. SCO has not tried to contest the GPL in court (yet). And if it does they will lose.
In fact, Red Hat and IBM are both using it offensively by pointing out that SCO's attempts to license its IP in the kernel violates the copyrights of everyone else who has contributed to it. The GPL comes into play because none of the other contributors to the code have granted the right of distribution under any other terms.
IBM and Red Hat are holding SCO accountable to the terms of the GPL, so this is a really not a defense of the GPL -- it's an enforcement of the its terms. That's all.
You're right that it's about the GPL, but wrong in the manner its being tested. Exclusive ownership of part of the code is actually necessary for the GPL to work; i.e., the code has to copyrighted, otherwise the grant of limited distribution (the code can only be distributed if the source and a copy of the GPL is included) is unenforcable -- because without copyright the code is in the public domain.
IBM's claim is that they have exclusive ownership of the code that SCO is contesting (RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc.), and that SCO is in violation of the GPL by:
A) distributing the code in violation of IBM's copyrights
B) requesting licensing fees in violation of the GPL, under which IBM permits distribution of its copyrighted kernel contributions
and
C) requesting licensing fees for code SCO has itself already licensed under the GPL.
Actually, it is in part about the GPL now; IBM has made the GPL part of its defense. IBM's claim is that, as a contributing developer, its copyrights in the kernel are being violated by SCO continuing to distribute it while SCO pusues licensing fees that are prohibited by the GPL.
If the claim stands up in court, then it will be a win for the GPL. Which I gues kind of proves the point of the article, even though I'm not happy about the actions SCO has taken.
A and B are implementations of a generalized algorithm by the same author
(Seems unlikely, but it will probably turn out to be the case in the NUMA and RCU code for Sequent and AIX. Paul McKenney published a generalized description of RCU and NUMA before creating the specific implementations of them for the Sequent and AIX code.)
"SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure"."
I agree. I think many of the people who have called Stallman a "visionary" have some justification for feeling vindicated by this mess.
Actually, that's exactly what IBM is doing to SCO. IBM's GPL counter-claim says that by continuing to distribute the kernel, SCO is distributing IBM's copyrighted IP contributions to the kernel. By trying to license System V IP for Linux, SCO is breaking the terms of the GPL by distributing IBM's IP without regard to the terms under which IBM permits such distribution, the GPL.
So, among IBM's counter-claims is copyright infringement. Which is kind of ironic since SCO keeps threatening to add copyright claims to the suit but hasn't done so yet. IBM beat them to the punch.
That analysis is wrong, and most likely part of the FUD routine. I believe the guy is associated with MS somehow. In any case, the GPL contains specific wording to prevent it from conflicting with any existing local laws regarding warranty and liability:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. [... snip...]
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW [... snip...]
Note that in each of those paragraphs, the wording that allows law to override the GPL's disclaimer of warranty is placed right at the beginning.
One interesting facet of the of IBM's GPL counter-claim that no one has commented on yet, is that IBM's is rooting its claim in the fact that it is a developer and contributor to the source code.
In other words, IBM is accusing SCO of distributing IBM's IP while violating the terms the agreement by which IBM allows its IP to be distributed (i.e., the GPL).
This is what is commonly known as "turning the table".
Actually, when he was on the IBM case he was representing IBM, not the government. Are you confusing that with the Microsoft case? He won that one too, but MS got the sentencing part remanded back on appeal to a different judge because of some comments the original judge made to the press.
Check out this link for good research and analysis, as well:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Groklaw has been posting almost daily updates on this story since April, and recently is posting several updates per day. It's run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal who actually *reads* the court documents, the contracts, etc. and uses her experience to point out what she would flag for a lawyer as important, worthy of more research, etc. Good read.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't remember exactly who said it, but a linguiast once said that a "Standard language is just a dialect with an army."
The "flavour/flavor" variation was part of an attempt by Noah Webster to simplify and make more consistent the spelling of words in the American dialect. One can argue whether the attempt was misguided or not, but it certainly hasn't been the only one. George Bernard Shaw also tried to make spelling more consistent (see the preface of his play "Pygmalion" for more detail).
Changing standardized (or standardised) spelling to make it more consistent is just one of those pastimes that occasionally crop up amongst speakers of English. For some reason it seems to crop up amongst the Brits more than the Yanks, I suppose because the British spellings are even more inconsistent than American, but in any event it seldom takes hold.
The standardized spellings, especially the British spellings, retain the history of how they used to be pronounced. You don't see the variation as much in other languages, say French or German for instance, because both of those languages were standardized much later than English. In fact, English was never really standardized at all. But the Brothers Grimm researched fairy tales in part to come up with a standardized version of German, and that is why German spelling is much more consistent than English. The French on the other hand set up an institute to standardize French under Napoleon.
So each of those two countries went through standardization processes for their respective languages in the early 19th century.
English on the other hand just... accumulated. The "first" dictionary was by Samuel Johnson in the 18th century. From there, the standard spellings were decided culturally, with whatever dictionary that was most fashionable at the time becoming the standard. In America, this was Webster's Dictionary. The British finally, sort of, standardized on the Oxford English Dictionary, but this was compiled mostly by scholars who were interested in the history of the language rather than reformers who would have tried to make it more consistent.
There certainly are reasons why the spelling of English should be made more consistent. I, for one, would love to see the death of the letter "k". It's useless, ugly, and inefficient. Just use "c" and change all the instances where "c" makes a sibilant es sound to "s". Use "z" always for the voiced es. Change all voiced instances of "th" to "dh". Change all initial instances of "ph" to "f". Change all instances of voiced "g" to "j", and all instances where "j" represents the dipthong "ie" to "y". And so on.
Those are just some obvious suggestions for making English spelling more consistent. None of them will happen of course. Whether they should is not a debate I want to get into here. I like being able to see the history of our language in its spelling varieties. I can also understand the desire for a more consistent representation of our language.
As for "flavour" and "flavor", neither spelling is more "correct" than the other. One simply reflects its historical provenance better, and the other its pronunciation. Variety is the spice of life. Pick your flavour (or flavor).
I'm with the parent poster on this. Mitochondrial DNA points to a chimp lineage. There's also a fairly clear photograph of a cadaver accompanying the Nat'l Geogrphic article, and it just looks like a giant chimp.
Nesting is a common cultural attribute of both chimps and gorillas, and even though gorillas nest on the ground instead of in trees, I don't think it's much of an evolutionary jump for a giant chimp to decide it's too big to sleep in the trees also. And the fecal data indicates a diet more typical of chimps.
Howling during the full moon is an interesting trait, though. I wonder if they're just irritated by the nighttime brightness or if it represents a primitive religious instinct. Of course, sightings are rare so the observed howling behavior might be anomalous rather than typical.
Anyhow, if it is just a giant chimp, it'll be interesting to see how its behavior coincides with and differs from the other chimp species and humans.
Apparently this story has been developing for a while. There's another article from April on the National Geographic site:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04
Well, the whole license is pretty much a description of how programs can be modified and distirbuted, but the most important and general sections are 1,3, and 5:
...
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
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,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Because it's pointless?
Because SCO won't tell us what the allegedly infringing code portions are?
Because SCO says that even if the code was re-written it would still be using "UNIX methods and concepts" that SCO "owns"?
Because SCO says there's so much infringing code that the kernel wouldn't work if it was all removed?
Finally, because SCO makes such broad, grandiose, and vague claims that it's pointless to even try to guess which code portions they're talking about.
In other words, it's just... pointless.
Hmm, I see your point.
"Defended" probably would have been a better word choice for the point I was trying to make.
No, I'm implying that they set the contract price as the closing price on March 6th.
Let me illustrate:
SCO: We'll throw in 210,000 shares as options if you sign our contract.
Sun: At what price?
SCO: Well, remember this is all under NDA. We're filing suit against IBM on March 7th. We all know the share price is gonna spike after that. So, why don't we contract the price as whatever the closing price is on March 6th?
Sun: Man, you are so evil. Where do I sign?
"I may be able to open-source all my employers products by slipping in a few lines of some-GPLed routine. yikes!"
If it's just a few lines of a GPL'd routine, then it would probably fall under the "fair-use" clause in copyright law. Nothing to worry about.
The quick answer is no. The distinction between the two is that the GPL is a distribution license, whereas the MS EULA is a usage license.
The GPL is definitely legally binding because it reverts to copyright law if the terms aren't respected, but its terms don't come into play unless you are distributing the software or modifications of the software. It imposes no usage requirements or obligations, and says you can do anything you want with and to the software.
The MS EULA requires registration, among other things, and forbids using the software on multiple machines or more than two processors, among other things. No one knows if it's legally binding, as it hasn't been tested in court, as far as I know. It doesn't permit distribution of the software, which is covered by standard copyright, same as the GPL when its distribution terms are violated. Since the MS EULA has no distribution terms (except for the special case of one-time transfer), you can't distribute it.
Well, speaking of conspiracy theories, I've got a new one that involves Sun.
Somewhere early in the year, around February I think, Sun entered into a licensing agreement with SCO that gave it, in addition to other things, an option for 210,000 shares of SCO at $1.83 each.
I've been wondering, ever since reading about it, where that buck-three-eighty came from as the option price. I mean, why $1.83? Why not $0.66 or that $0.0001 option price all the SCO execs have?
Turns out $1.83 was the closing share price on March 6, 2003, the day before SCO announced its suit. This raises some interesting questions, such as, did Sun know from SCO (inside information) that the suit was coming up and choose that day for option price evaluation?
This looks like a smoking gun for an insider trading charge, not to mention corroborating accusations that SCO may be running a pump and dump scheme.
I probably should have phrased that as "exclusive ownership of and rights to" the code SCO is contesting.
It's true that SCO isn't contesting the copyrights, but they are trying to assert trade secret rights and IBM is saying they don't have any.
It's hard to see how the GPL could be struck down in court. All it does is grant distribution rights, as long as certain terms are fulfilled, to copyrighted code.
It's like this: an author agrees to allow a publisher to distribute a book for a fee of $40,000, or a percentage of the profit. All the GPL does is say that instead of paying the fee in dollars, the fee is that you take the following actions: include the copyright, include the source code, and include this license which allows anyone else to distribute the code on the same terms.
So far the GPL is NOT being tested; it is being deployed as weapon.
Red Hat and IBM are both using the GPL to reign in SCO's actions. SCO has not tried to contest the GPL in court (yet). And if it does they will lose.
In fact, Red Hat and IBM are both using it offensively by pointing out that SCO's attempts to license its IP in the kernel violates the copyrights of everyone else who has contributed to it. The GPL comes into play because none of the other contributors to the code have granted the right of distribution under any other terms.
IBM and Red Hat are holding SCO accountable to the terms of the GPL, so this is a really not a defense of the GPL -- it's an enforcement of the its terms. That's all.
You're right that it's about the GPL, but wrong in the manner its being tested. Exclusive ownership of part of the code is actually necessary for the GPL to work; i.e., the code has to copyrighted, otherwise the grant of limited distribution (the code can only be distributed if the source and a copy of the GPL is included) is unenforcable -- because without copyright the code is in the public domain.
IBM's claim is that they have exclusive ownership of the code that SCO is contesting (RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc.), and that SCO is in violation of the GPL by:
A) distributing the code in violation of IBM's copyrights
B) requesting licensing fees in violation of the GPL, under which IBM permits distribution of its copyrighted kernel contributions
and
C) requesting licensing fees for code SCO has itself already licensed under the GPL.
Actually, it is in part about the GPL now; IBM has made the GPL part of its defense. IBM's claim is that, as a contributing developer, its copyrights in the kernel are being violated by SCO continuing to distribute it while SCO pusues licensing fees that are prohibited by the GPL.
If the claim stands up in court, then it will be a win for the GPL. Which I gues kind of proves the point of the article, even though I'm not happy about the actions SCO has taken.
You forgot to add:
A and B are implementations of a generalized algorithm by the same author
(Seems unlikely, but it will probably turn out to be the case in the NUMA and RCU code for Sequent and AIX. Paul McKenney published a generalized description of RCU and NUMA before creating the specific implementations of them for the Sequent and AIX code.)
C'mon, that post was signed "love & kisses, SCO". I assumed it was a sarcastic parody of SCO's arrogance.
But I suppose I could be wrong. I mean, SCO has turned into a self-parody lately.
Anyway, the better reason to assume it's a troll is simply because the guy gets modded as a troll or flamebait so often.
Dude, you don't have to thank them.
Modding you up is their way of thanking *you* for adding something interesting to the conversation.
"SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure"."
I agree. I think many of the people who have called Stallman a "visionary" have some justification for feeling vindicated by this mess.
Actually, that's exactly what IBM is doing to SCO. IBM's GPL counter-claim says that by continuing to distribute the kernel, SCO is distributing IBM's copyrighted IP contributions to the kernel. By trying to license System V IP for Linux, SCO is breaking the terms of the GPL by distributing IBM's IP without regard to the terms under which IBM permits such distribution, the GPL.
So, among IBM's counter-claims is copyright infringement. Which is kind of ironic since SCO keeps threatening to add copyright claims to the suit but hasn't done so yet. IBM beat them to the punch.
That analysis is wrong, and most likely part of the FUD routine. I believe the guy is associated with MS somehow. In any case, the GPL contains specific wording to prevent it from conflicting with any existing local laws regarding warranty and liability:
...]
...]
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. [... snip
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW [... snip
Note that in each of those paragraphs, the wording that allows law to override the GPL's disclaimer of warranty is placed right at the beginning.
Clearly making money is now considered a flawed business model.
One interesting facet of the of IBM's GPL counter-claim that no one has commented on yet, is that IBM's is rooting its claim in the fact that it is a developer and contributor to the source code.
In other words, IBM is accusing SCO of distributing IBM's IP while violating the terms the agreement by which IBM allows its IP to be distributed (i.e., the GPL).
This is what is commonly known as "turning the table".
Actually, when he was on the IBM case he was representing IBM, not the government. Are you confusing that with the Microsoft case? He won that one too, but MS got the sentencing part remanded back on appeal to a different judge because of some comments the original judge made to the press.
Check out this link for good research and analysis, as well:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Groklaw has been posting almost daily updates on this story since April, and recently is posting several updates per day. It's run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal who actually *reads* the court documents, the contracts, etc. and uses her experience to point out what she would flag for a lawyer as important, worthy of more research, etc. Good read.