Who said anything about central government in particular?
While I'll grant you the authority of being a bigoted fuck who has a religious belief in your own superiority over people not just like you, it's a shame you can't remember what you just mentioned, and that you don't know what Jim Crow was.
Remember when Frederick Douglass recommended "[a] good revolver, a steady hand and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap" an escaped slave?
Black voting-rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer said (about bigotry and discrimination by whites), "Baby you just got to love 'em. Hating just makes you sick and weak." But she also said she stayed alive because "I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won’t write his mama again."
Remember when MLK Jr.'s house was firebombed, and the local authorities denied his application for a concealed carry permit because he had not shown "good cause" for needing one?
Government usually prefers to have a monopoly on effective tools of force. Gun rights mitigate that monopoly.
The Syrian rebels were not doing so badly until Russia and Iran started performing military strikes to support Assad's regime. Does the fact that countries lose wars mean to you that guns are an irrational thing to have?
For those of us who work as government contractors, that kind of bidding and spending would be gross malfeasance, and could send people to jail. Is it different for research grants?
What Linus said may be hearsay in that one could not submit it as evidence in court, but I am not trying to do that. It merely illustrates that he, the most prominent copyright holder for Linux, agrees with me that usage of EXPORT_SYMBOL() versus EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() symbols is significant when it comes to determining whether a loadable kernel module is a "derivative work" of Linux in the GPLv2's sense. That kernel developers regularly debate which of those to use for which interfaces (e.g. dma-buf) indicates that his view is very widely shared.
An alleged infringer's intent has nothing to do with those annotations. They express the copyright holders' intent about the interface, and that is the intent that is relevant to figuring out whether a work is a "derived work" under the kernel's license. Keep throwing up irrelevant claims if you want, but realize that most of us can see right through them.
What part of my argument is incorrect? EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(foo) means that, technically, the kernel will only expose "foo" to modules that declare a GPL-compatible license, and that, legally, the kernel developers think using that symbol means a kernel module is a derivative work of the kernel. EXPORT_SYMBOL(bar) means that, technically, the kernel will expose "foo" to any loadable kernel module, and that, legally, the kernel developers think it is a fairly generic interface for a Unix-like kernel. That they make the distinction, and allow modules to declare a license, implies that they expect GPL-incompatible kernel modules to exist. The distinction provides clarity and a measure of safety for distributors of such kernel modules, not discomfort.
The problem is that the SFC's position seems intentionally murky. They claim that Canonical's (planned) distribution of Linux with ZFS is a single work, and imply -- but as far as I could tell, do not specifically say or support -- that the combination is more than a "mere aggregation" (which is perfectly okay under the GPLv2). The problem for SFC is that the Ubuntu ZFS functionality is essentially the same whether zfs.ko comes in the same ISO as the Linux kernel or not: the installer could easily download zfs.ko, load it from another medium, or compile it from source, and the behavior would be the same. They don't provide a clear explanation for why it goes beyond "mere aggregation", and I don't think they can.
I'm not responsible for what someone else said in this thread, so don't expect me to defend random other people.
Which derivative work of the kernel do you think Canonical is distributing without authorization? I'm not going to spend an hour knocking down theories where you might respond "but that's not what I meant!"
The cases you linked to are cases where a GPLed work was distributed in direct violation of the GPL (e.g. without source, or purporting to only be usable for "personal, non-commercial" use). That is easily distinguished from what you are suggesting here.
No, I think the distinction expressly codifies what parts of the kernel are generic "kernel" interfaces and what parts are Linux-specific (and thus imply derivative work status). Otherwise there would be no reason to make that distinction, or to allow modules to declare non-GPL licence status.
Same kernel developers recognized that there are standard parts of how loadable modules interface to the kernel. Ardent wishes by others (like Alan Cox) do not set aside that reality.
The FSF usually talks about software freedom as the ability to modify the source code for the software you use and share it with others, with no real restrictions except that you cannot forbid others from doing the same. In that sense, how is "user compiles a binary to combine with another binary, but incompatible licenses mean the combined binary cannot be distributed" a problem for free software?
The user can modify the source code for Linux or for zfs.ko. The user can share those modifications in source form. The user cannot change the licence for either piece of software, and cannot distribute the combined binary, but the person who gave them the software did not, and could not, do those things either. I'm not seeing a software freedom problem here. (And I'm setting aside for now any licensing issues for the user-compiles-it approach: they are at most incidental to the question of software freedoms.)
When somebody says "the Geneva Convention" without specifying which one they're talking about, it's a good sign they don't know what they're talking about.
In this case, the Geneva Conventions do not address the use of unmanned aircraft, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (to which the US has not acceded) was worked out in Geneva but is not generally counted as a Geneva Convention.
It sounds like the reacting coating causes the bullet to start tumbling in the air, and the increased drag is what stops the bullet. It could come apart, or just get a groove on one side; it doesn't have to flatten out anything like tgat.
Presumably one novel part of the research involves ensuring that the coating only reacts when the bullet has been fired and is moving at high speed.
The software provider probably has costs beyond developer time: reputation, customer support, regulatory agencies, legal liability, and/or others. Escaped defects affect those, and the cost to avoid delivering buggy software should factor those savings in.
In the US, the statute of limitations is generally tolled (paused) while someone is a fugitive from justice -- see, for example, Title 18 of the US Code, Section 3290. I would imagine the same thing happens in the UK and Sweden.
So how do you "test for correct behaviour of the products, overall"? It's not that hard to spell out -- and even automate -- the cases that a person expects to occur. The problem is accurately modeling the state space of the program and then figuring out which walks through it are incorrectly permitted. Even the most sophisticated known approaches fall down for the first part of that problem due to the vast size of an interesting program's state space.
I think you're mostly agreeing with the OP. The SEI will certainly tell you that most software development is not done with enough rigor to be called engineering. In large part, that's because most software people do not know how (or do not bother) to elicit and manage requirements well -- so cheers to you for doing that. (Good verification skills and planning for traceability are the other places that typical software projects fall short, IMO.)
Today on Oprah: People butthurt that web browsers' "private mode" does not install TOR to send all your data through FBI-controlled entry and exit nodes.
You must be as bad at reading as you are at making a point. The numbers I gave earlier were from that article. Apparently I noticed, but you did not, that it kept citing the same academic to support the ridiculously low end of the range.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about central government in particular?
While I'll grant you the authority of being a bigoted fuck who has a religious belief in your own superiority over people not just like you, it's a shame you can't remember what you just mentioned, and that you don't know what Jim Crow was.
Sure, and Climate Audit just looks at the facts and statistics about climate change to deduce the truth about it.
When Bloomberg funds a university enough for them to name a school after him, we know what results he wants, and so do all the faculty and staff.
Better yet, make them more like North Dakota's -- if we're going to go by the database you linked.
Hint: Arizona has crime problems that relate to drug trade and illegal immigration much moreso than its gun laws.
Remember when Frederick Douglass recommended "[a] good revolver, a steady hand and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap" an escaped slave?
Black voting-rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer said (about bigotry and discrimination by whites), "Baby you just got to love 'em. Hating just makes you sick and weak." But she also said she stayed alive because "I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won’t write his mama again."
Remember when MLK Jr.'s house was firebombed, and the local authorities denied his application for a concealed carry permit because he had not shown "good cause" for needing one?
Government usually prefers to have a monopoly on effective tools of force. Gun rights mitigate that monopoly.
The Syrian rebels were not doing so badly until Russia and Iran started performing military strikes to support Assad's regime. Does the fact that countries lose wars mean to you that guns are an irrational thing to have?
For those of us who work as government contractors, that kind of bidding and spending would be gross malfeasance, and could send people to jail. Is it different for research grants?
Boy, you sure beat the hell out of that strawman!
What Linus said may be hearsay in that one could not submit it as evidence in court, but I am not trying to do that. It merely illustrates that he, the most prominent copyright holder for Linux, agrees with me that usage of EXPORT_SYMBOL() versus EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() symbols is significant when it comes to determining whether a loadable kernel module is a "derivative work" of Linux in the GPLv2's sense. That kernel developers regularly debate which of those to use for which interfaces (e.g. dma-buf) indicates that his view is very widely shared.
An alleged infringer's intent has nothing to do with those annotations. They express the copyright holders' intent about the interface, and that is the intent that is relevant to figuring out whether a work is a "derived work" under the kernel's license. Keep throwing up irrelevant claims if you want, but realize that most of us can see right through them.
Wow, you really know how to double down on the stupid. See "Donald Trump".
Or, if you prefer, see what Linus said about it.
What part of my argument is incorrect? EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(foo) means that, technically, the kernel will only expose "foo" to modules that declare a GPL-compatible license, and that, legally, the kernel developers think using that symbol means a kernel module is a derivative work of the kernel. EXPORT_SYMBOL(bar) means that, technically, the kernel will expose "foo" to any loadable kernel module, and that, legally, the kernel developers think it is a fairly generic interface for a Unix-like kernel. That they make the distinction, and allow modules to declare a license, implies that they expect GPL-incompatible kernel modules to exist. The distinction provides clarity and a measure of safety for distributors of such kernel modules, not discomfort.
The problem is that the SFC's position seems intentionally murky. They claim that Canonical's (planned) distribution of Linux with ZFS is a single work, and imply -- but as far as I could tell, do not specifically say or support -- that the combination is more than a "mere aggregation" (which is perfectly okay under the GPLv2). The problem for SFC is that the Ubuntu ZFS functionality is essentially the same whether zfs.ko comes in the same ISO as the Linux kernel or not: the installer could easily download zfs.ko, load it from another medium, or compile it from source, and the behavior would be the same. They don't provide a clear explanation for why it goes beyond "mere aggregation", and I don't think they can.
I'm not responsible for what someone else said in this thread, so don't expect me to defend random other people.
Which derivative work of the kernel do you think Canonical is distributing without authorization? I'm not going to spend an hour knocking down theories where you might respond "but that's not what I meant!"
The cases you linked to are cases where a GPLed work was distributed in direct violation of the GPL (e.g. without source, or purporting to only be usable for "personal, non-commercial" use). That is easily distinguished from what you are suggesting here.
No, I think the distinction expressly codifies what parts of the kernel are generic "kernel" interfaces and what parts are Linux-specific (and thus imply derivative work status). Otherwise there would be no reason to make that distinction, or to allow modules to declare non-GPL licence status.
So explain EXPORT_SYMBOL vs EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
Same kernel developers recognized that there are standard parts of how loadable modules interface to the kernel. Ardent wishes by others (like Alan Cox) do not set aside that reality.
So what if loading a kernel module makes a single binary? Nobody is distributing the combined binary.
The FSF usually talks about software freedom as the ability to modify the source code for the software you use and share it with others, with no real restrictions except that you cannot forbid others from doing the same. In that sense, how is "user compiles a binary to combine with another binary, but incompatible licenses mean the combined binary cannot be distributed" a problem for free software?
The user can modify the source code for Linux or for zfs.ko. The user can share those modifications in source form. The user cannot change the licence for either piece of software, and cannot distribute the combined binary, but the person who gave them the software did not, and could not, do those things either. I'm not seeing a software freedom problem here. (And I'm setting aside for now any licensing issues for the user-compiles-it approach: they are at most incidental to the question of software freedoms.)
Whoops, sorry, the Convention on Cluster Munitions was signed in Dublin, not Geneva.
When somebody says "the Geneva Convention" without specifying which one they're talking about, it's a good sign they don't know what they're talking about.
In this case, the Geneva Conventions do not address the use of unmanned aircraft, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (to which the US has not acceded) was worked out in Geneva but is not generally counted as a Geneva Convention.
It sounds like the reacting coating causes the bullet to start tumbling in the air, and the increased drag is what stops the bullet. It could come apart, or just get a groove on one side; it doesn't have to flatten out anything like tgat.
Presumably one novel part of the research involves ensuring that the coating only reacts when the bullet has been fired and is moving at high speed.
The software provider probably has costs beyond developer time: reputation, customer support, regulatory agencies, legal liability, and/or others. Escaped defects affect those, and the cost to avoid delivering buggy software should factor those savings in.
In the US, the statute of limitations is generally tolled (paused) while someone is a fugitive from justice -- see, for example, Title 18 of the US Code, Section 3290. I would imagine the same thing happens in the UK and Sweden.
So how do you "test for correct behaviour of the products, overall"? It's not that hard to spell out -- and even automate -- the cases that a person expects to occur. The problem is accurately modeling the state space of the program and then figuring out which walks through it are incorrectly permitted. Even the most sophisticated known approaches fall down for the first part of that problem due to the vast size of an interesting program's state space.
I think you're mostly agreeing with the OP. The SEI will certainly tell you that most software development is not done with enough rigor to be called engineering. In large part, that's because most software people do not know how (or do not bother) to elicit and manage requirements well -- so cheers to you for doing that. (Good verification skills and planning for traceability are the other places that typical software projects fall short, IMO.)
Today on Oprah: People butthurt that web browsers' "private mode" does not install TOR to send all your data through FBI-controlled entry and exit nodes.
You must be as bad at reading as you are at making a point. The numbers I gave earlier were from that article. Apparently I noticed, but you did not, that it kept citing the same academic to support the ridiculously low end of the range.