The problem is of course, that include files are GPL'ed so your program becomes GPL'd even if you don't distribute any of the GPL'd library code
Nonsense! If the include files are full of templates and similar consructs, you would be correct. But the typical include file contains only names, references and definitions. References to other works are allowed, and that's all a dynamically linked library does.
And even in the first case, if there weren't too many templates and macros, you would STILL be able to do it because it would fall under fair use. You couldn't dynamically link to a GPL STL, but you could definitely link to a GPL header that contained a few trivial inlined methods.
I talked to a few Mac users the other day. It turned out that they all used BOTH Camino and Safari, because there were sites Safari would render correctly that Camino would not. This may sound like shocking heresy to some, but this information comes straight from the users' mouths.
Until web developers start coding to realworld "LCD" standards, there will always be the need for multiple rendering engines.
And since you can trivially create a "derivate" (look mom, I added whitespace)...
A common misconception. You must make a significant change to the original before it is a derivative work. You must ADD value to it. This cannot be done trivially. Adding whitespace is insufficient. On the other hand, merely compiling the source into a binary probably is sufficient, as it counts as translation.
In any case, if all you've done is add whitespace, then all I need to do is remove that whitespace and file off your GPL, because ONLY that whitespace is under the dual license. Everything else is still under the BSD license because everything else is still original.
Cats has been playing for four billion consecutive weeks on Broadway because it has become a tourist attraction. When you return home from Las Vegas everyone wants to know if you saw Elvis impersonators, and when you return home from New York everyone wants to know if you saw Cats on Broadway.
While there are certainly some BSD types that get all upset when someone places their code under the GPL, they're not all that common. Most of us don't really care... with one exception. There have been cases where "GPL-types" have taken BSD licensed code and relicensed it under the GPL just because they didn't like the BSD license. Not only is this a violation of the BSD license, but it's quite rude.
Oh, and to correct a point. You may not "relicense" any BSD licensed software. The terms of the license do not permit it. You may not "file off" the BSD texts and replace them with the GPL. However, you may redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. So in actual practice it doesn't make that much difference.
In my case it was partly common courtesy, but mostly a misunderstanding. I don't want to make the text of that email public because it's not my place to do so, but it was very clear that the requestors thought it was legally necessary to have my code under the GPL before they could use it.
I'm not blaming these people at all. Nor am I trying to ridicule them in any way. I am merely pointing out that there is great confusion over licensing, and thus the necessity for this book.
We have to keep having this conversation as long as there are people and software and licenses.
About a month or two ago I got an interesting email. One particular project wanted to incorporate some of my code into theirs. My code was under the BSD license and theirs under the GPL. No problem, right? Not to them! Their email was to beg me to release my software under the GPL so that they could use it. Needless to say that a short paragraph and a few good links on GPL "compatibility" cleared up the confusion. But this has not been the first time I've received an email like this.
Well it's a hell of a lot better than having a bunch OSX users tell you how GNOME is different from OSX! What sort of good is that information?!?
My beef is that these Open Source usability studies do not follow any sort of rigorous research methodologies. You might as well be reading chicken entrails or consulting with Miss Cleo for all the good some of these "studies" do.
You'd have to find a dozen similarly intelligent people who had never used a computer.
Not at all! Don't let the laziness of amateur usability researchers fool you. Double blind study of user interfaces is still possible. Take ten OSX users and put five in front of KDE and five in front of WinXP. Or take ten WinXP users and put five in front of GNOME and five in front of OSX.
I work with some award winning usability engineers, and they perform some very rigorous studies. They will take the a group of experienced users and place half in front of the existing interface and the other half in front of the same interface with only one control changed. Then they use metrics to determine actual effort expended to use the interfaces. They've even recorded actual sessions and digitized the movements of the users to study interface efficiency.
nd it's going to let GW Bush get away with his lousy service record.
The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery. There is no other evidence, only accusation.
His service record is wide open for display. It has been approved for full release under the FOIA (even though Kerry's hasn't). So why hasn't any hard evidence appeared over the past three and a half years? Please show me the real documentation proving this. Please show me the objective evidence.
Anyone with half a brain could successfully campaign against Bush on the issues alone. They could do it with one arm tied behind their back. But the Democrats are so lost in their hatred of Bush that they're scrambling for chunks of mud to sling without realizing how filthy it makes themselves. This mistake may have nominally been in Dan Rather's name, but it was the Democrats who took it and tried to run with it... towards the wrong goal!
If she sues you for divorce it becomes a legal consequence. Of course, she can sue you for having the affair even if you didn't lie, but since you did lie it's going to cost you more.
First of all, progressive disclosure already exists on the KDE (and all other) desktops. That's why it doesn't have everything in one single menu, or why the interface isn't a single command entry widget. Instead we have multiple menus, context menus, sub menus, cascading menus. We have dialogs and toolbars. We have tabbed dialogs and advanced dialogs. People who complain about this aren't saying it doesn't exist, but merely that it hasn't been implemnted to the degree that they want. We can always politely discuss to what degree you want a progressive disclosure, but if you insist that it doesn't already exist, then we have nothing to talk about.
Second, please show me the progressive disclosure on my automobile's interface. As near as I can tell, every driving control is initially displayed, and remains displayed for the duration of my driving. Perhaps the concept of progressive disclosure isn't a basid human interface design. Hmmm, it doesn't exist on my microwave oven either.
I have to say this yet again, because I think it's terribly important for people to understand: studies like this are merely trivial.
While it is a worthwhile goal to create a desktop that creates an initial good impression on a newbie, it should not be the primary goal, or even a major goal. That is because the newbie will NEVER be the primary user! As heretical as it sounds, no one ever stays a newbie forever.
Usability studies need to be directed towards intermediate users. Those who have been exposed to the system for more than thirty minutes. I don't give a stack of meadow muffins how easy a system is for a newbie if it turns out to be difficult for me. I don't want to make a choice between the newbie and the expert, but if a choice had to be made, I would rather reward my long time loyal customer than someone just sniffing around for a good deal.
So here's how to do the next study. Don't base it on the anecdotal statements of a few people. Give the test subjects the destkop a week to get acclimated with the destkop. Don't ask them their feelings but observe their actual behavior (use a video camera if you have to). Try to get a control group or control desktop in place. And don't confuse the user with a usability expert
Now that Dan Rather went out on a limb and got burned, nobody else is going to go out on a limb.
And that is a Good Thing(tm)! Of course, I may not be talking about the same "limb" as you. I don't want the news media presenting fiction as fact. It doesn't matter if they're the ones lying or not, I just don't want the the label of "fact" on fiction. If this means that the media will have to check their information more carefully in the future, then that sound you hear is me standing and cheering!
Not at all. Your analysis completely ignore the artificial bubble of the later Clinton dot.com years. The market was not stable. There was severe over-speculation. Starting salaries for tech workers were more than twice the national average wage. A correction was inevitable.
The correction wasn't Bush's fault just because he happened to be holding the balloon when it burst. It happened because people realized that all their stock was in overvalued companies.
No. CNN is a craven mouthpiece of the Bush administration. We are all going to die of slow and horrible starvation and our children will be sold into slavery. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a willing pawn of the right wing cabal.
Adults take it on faith that either CNN or Fox News depending on their political leaning is "right" without looking at or for any hard facts.
I think I know why this is. I think I know why Fox viewers don't consider their station to the right, and why CNN viewers don't consider their station slightly to the liberal side. It's because most of us have been trained from earliest childhood that broadcast media is utterly objective and neutral. So we STILL beleive that today. Whatever station we have chosen for ourselves, we believe it to be objective and balanced. We believe it to the point that any other station that doesn't air an exact same level of content must be biased in our minds. Talk to someone who regularly listens to NPR and they will tell you that CNN is right wing. Talk to someone who regularly listens to World Net Daily and they will tell you that Fox is liberal.
there are no legal penalties for lying unless and until it harms someone
The problem here is that English has only one word for lying, when there are two distinct meanings. The first meaning is to knowingly utter a false statement. Obviously I think you should have the right to tell your kids about Santa Claus.
But the other definition is to willfully deceive another. This is what I don't think people have the right to do. If such an act occurs during a financial transaction, you are comitting fraud. Bu t the damage is just as real if there are no financials involved.
To take a trite example, you might feel you have the right to lie to your wife about your affair. Only a cad and scoundrel would claim that your wife is not hurt by your lying, even if the damage is not immediately apparent. The damage might only be between you and her, and no one else's business, but it is damage and it is there.
You seem to be promoting international governmental control over such things as WHOIS records.
Not at all! I fully support your right to submit "none of your freakin business" as contact information. I fully support your right to use a different database if WHOIS won't accept that. I fully support your right to create a new database in the event you can't find another that is suitable.
Yes, I understand what WHOIS is. That doesn't change the fact that I think you shouldn't be lying to them. At the same time, I do support the right of everyone to seek a different solution if WHOIS won't accept "mind your own business" as a contact.
This story isn't about criminalizing false WHOIS information, it's about taking false information into account during sentencing for a SEPARATE act. If you want to argue about the morality of extenuating circumstances and other acts accessory to a crime, you may do so. But that's a much wider topic than merely WHOIS.
Where are all the Slashdotters upset that robbery with a firearm incurs more penalty than robbery with a knife? Does this mean that firearms have been criminalized? No! It merely means that crimes committed with a firearm gets a higher penalty. In the very same way, this law means that crimes committed by falsifying WHOIS records get a higher penalty than crimes that don't.
I just stumbled across an example of currently erroneous information on Wikipedia. I have to share this because people keep insisting it doesn't exist.
Cracker (socio-demographic)...Another possible etymological origin for this term has to do with its inherent implication that Caucasions are often wealthier than people of other races in the US, and therefore either sell crack or consume it themselves.
WTF! I realize that this was only added today. But considering that it's was only my SECOND visit to Wikipedia today, that's pretty bad odds. Did the author just make this crap up? Who put this entry in? Not a random user this time, but an actual account! This account has seems to concentrate on white nationalism, Dungeons and Dragons, and the illegal drug trade. He also requests people to contribute information on Nazi theology.
Why people continue to view Wikipedia as an authoritative source continues to elude me.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is of course, that include files are GPL'ed so your program becomes GPL'd even if you don't distribute any of the GPL'd library code
Nonsense! If the include files are full of templates and similar consructs, you would be correct. But the typical include file contains only names, references and definitions. References to other works are allowed, and that's all a dynamically linked library does.
And even in the first case, if there weren't too many templates and macros, you would STILL be able to do it because it would fall under fair use. You couldn't dynamically link to a GPL STL, but you could definitely link to a GPL header that contained a few trivial inlined methods.
I talked to a few Mac users the other day. It turned out that they all used BOTH Camino and Safari, because there were sites Safari would render correctly that Camino would not. This may sound like shocking heresy to some, but this information comes straight from the users' mouths.
Until web developers start coding to realworld "LCD" standards, there will always be the need for multiple rendering engines.
Nasty horrible competition. Someone should outlaw it!
And since you can trivially create a "derivate" (look mom, I added whitespace)...
A common misconception. You must make a significant change to the original before it is a derivative work. You must ADD value to it. This cannot be done trivially. Adding whitespace is insufficient. On the other hand, merely compiling the source into a binary probably is sufficient, as it counts as translation.
In any case, if all you've done is add whitespace, then all I need to do is remove that whitespace and file off your GPL, because ONLY that whitespace is under the dual license. Everything else is still under the BSD license because everything else is still original.
Cats has been playing for four billion consecutive weeks on Broadway because it has become a tourist attraction. When you return home from Las Vegas everyone wants to know if you saw Elvis impersonators, and when you return home from New York everyone wants to know if you saw Cats on Broadway.
While there are certainly some BSD types that get all upset when someone places their code under the GPL, they're not all that common. Most of us don't really care... with one exception. There have been cases where "GPL-types" have taken BSD licensed code and relicensed it under the GPL just because they didn't like the BSD license. Not only is this a violation of the BSD license, but it's quite rude.
Oh, and to correct a point. You may not "relicense" any BSD licensed software. The terms of the license do not permit it. You may not "file off" the BSD texts and replace them with the GPL. However, you may redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. So in actual practice it doesn't make that much difference.
In my case it was partly common courtesy, but mostly a misunderstanding. I don't want to make the text of that email public because it's not my place to do so, but it was very clear that the requestors thought it was legally necessary to have my code under the GPL before they could use it.
I'm not blaming these people at all. Nor am I trying to ridicule them in any way. I am merely pointing out that there is great confusion over licensing, and thus the necessity for this book.
We have to keep having this conversation as long as there are people and software and licenses.
About a month or two ago I got an interesting email. One particular project wanted to incorporate some of my code into theirs. My code was under the BSD license and theirs under the GPL. No problem, right? Not to them! Their email was to beg me to release my software under the GPL so that they could use it. Needless to say that a short paragraph and a few good links on GPL "compatibility" cleared up the confusion. But this has not been the first time I've received an email like this.
A need for this kind of book exists.
Well it's a hell of a lot better than having a bunch OSX users tell you how GNOME is different from OSX! What sort of good is that information?!?
My beef is that these Open Source usability studies do not follow any sort of rigorous research methodologies. You might as well be reading chicken entrails or consulting with Miss Cleo for all the good some of these "studies" do.
Why is the alternate behavior even needed?
Because one out of ten users don't want the default?
You'd have to find a dozen similarly intelligent people who had never used a computer.
Not at all! Don't let the laziness of amateur usability researchers fool you. Double blind study of user interfaces is still possible. Take ten OSX users and put five in front of KDE and five in front of WinXP. Or take ten WinXP users and put five in front of GNOME and five in front of OSX.
I work with some award winning usability engineers, and they perform some very rigorous studies. They will take the a group of experienced users and place half in front of the existing interface and the other half in front of the same interface with only one control changed. Then they use metrics to determine actual effort expended to use the interfaces. They've even recorded actual sessions and digitized the movements of the users to study interface efficiency.
nd it's going to let GW Bush get away with his lousy service record.
The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery. There is no other evidence, only accusation.
His service record is wide open for display. It has been approved for full release under the FOIA (even though Kerry's hasn't). So why hasn't any hard evidence appeared over the past three and a half years? Please show me the real documentation proving this. Please show me the objective evidence.
Anyone with half a brain could successfully campaign against Bush on the issues alone. They could do it with one arm tied behind their back. But the Democrats are so lost in their hatred of Bush that they're scrambling for chunks of mud to sling without realizing how filthy it makes themselves. This mistake may have nominally been in Dan Rather's name, but it was the Democrats who took it and tried to run with it... towards the wrong goal!
If she sues you for divorce it becomes a legal consequence. Of course, she can sue you for having the affair even if you didn't lie, but since you did lie it's going to cost you more.
If it doesn't work, change it... Real people don't like options.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in this post?
First of all, progressive disclosure already exists on the KDE (and all other) desktops. That's why it doesn't have everything in one single menu, or why the interface isn't a single command entry widget. Instead we have multiple menus, context menus, sub menus, cascading menus. We have dialogs and toolbars. We have tabbed dialogs and advanced dialogs. People who complain about this aren't saying it doesn't exist, but merely that it hasn't been implemnted to the degree that they want. We can always politely discuss to what degree you want a progressive disclosure, but if you insist that it doesn't already exist, then we have nothing to talk about.
Second, please show me the progressive disclosure on my automobile's interface. As near as I can tell, every driving control is initially displayed, and remains displayed for the duration of my driving. Perhaps the concept of progressive disclosure isn't a basid human interface design. Hmmm, it doesn't exist on my microwave oven either.
I have to say this yet again, because I think it's terribly important for people to understand: studies like this are merely trivial.
While it is a worthwhile goal to create a desktop that creates an initial good impression on a newbie, it should not be the primary goal, or even a major goal. That is because the newbie will NEVER be the primary user! As heretical as it sounds, no one ever stays a newbie forever.
Usability studies need to be directed towards intermediate users. Those who have been exposed to the system for more than thirty minutes. I don't give a stack of meadow muffins how easy a system is for a newbie if it turns out to be difficult for me. I don't want to make a choice between the newbie and the expert, but if a choice had to be made, I would rather reward my long time loyal customer than someone just sniffing around for a good deal.
So here's how to do the next study. Don't base it on the anecdotal statements of a few people. Give the test subjects the destkop a week to get acclimated with the destkop. Don't ask them their feelings but observe their actual behavior (use a video camera if you have to). Try to get a control group or control desktop in place. And don't confuse the user with a usability expert
Now that Dan Rather went out on a limb and got burned, nobody else is going to go out on a limb.
And that is a Good Thing(tm)! Of course, I may not be talking about the same "limb" as you. I don't want the news media presenting fiction as fact. It doesn't matter if they're the ones lying or not, I just don't want the the label of "fact" on fiction. If this means that the media will have to check their information more carefully in the future, then that sound you hear is me standing and cheering!
Not at all. Your analysis completely ignore the artificial bubble of the later Clinton dot.com years. The market was not stable. There was severe over-speculation. Starting salaries for tech workers were more than twice the national average wage. A correction was inevitable.
The correction wasn't Bush's fault just because he happened to be holding the balloon when it burst. It happened because people realized that all their stock was in overvalued companies.
Are things finally starting to look up for us?
No. CNN is a craven mouthpiece of the Bush administration. We are all going to die of slow and horrible starvation and our children will be sold into slavery. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a willing pawn of the right wing cabal.
What's more, R comes with a spectacular collection of functions for mathematical and statistical manipulations...
I can see that this package will be quite popular with political campaign managers.
Adults take it on faith that either CNN or Fox News depending on their political leaning is "right" without looking at or for any hard facts.
I think I know why this is. I think I know why Fox viewers don't consider their station to the right, and why CNN viewers don't consider their station slightly to the liberal side. It's because most of us have been trained from earliest childhood that broadcast media is utterly objective and neutral. So we STILL beleive that today. Whatever station we have chosen for ourselves, we believe it to be objective and balanced. We believe it to the point that any other station that doesn't air an exact same level of content must be biased in our minds. Talk to someone who regularly listens to NPR and they will tell you that CNN is right wing. Talk to someone who regularly listens to World Net Daily and they will tell you that Fox is liberal.
there are no legal penalties for lying unless and until it harms someone
The problem here is that English has only one word for lying, when there are two distinct meanings. The first meaning is to knowingly utter a false statement. Obviously I think you should have the right to tell your kids about Santa Claus.
But the other definition is to willfully deceive another. This is what I don't think people have the right to do. If such an act occurs during a financial transaction, you are comitting fraud. Bu t the damage is just as real if there are no financials involved.
To take a trite example, you might feel you have the right to lie to your wife about your affair. Only a cad and scoundrel would claim that your wife is not hurt by your lying, even if the damage is not immediately apparent. The damage might only be between you and her, and no one else's business, but it is damage and it is there.
You seem to be promoting international governmental control over such things as WHOIS records.
Not at all! I fully support your right to submit "none of your freakin business" as contact information. I fully support your right to use a different database if WHOIS won't accept that. I fully support your right to create a new database in the event you can't find another that is suitable.
Yes, I understand what WHOIS is. That doesn't change the fact that I think you shouldn't be lying to them. At the same time, I do support the right of everyone to seek a different solution if WHOIS won't accept "mind your own business" as a contact.
This story isn't about criminalizing false WHOIS information, it's about taking false information into account during sentencing for a SEPARATE act. If you want to argue about the morality of extenuating circumstances and other acts accessory to a crime, you may do so. But that's a much wider topic than merely WHOIS.
Where are all the Slashdotters upset that robbery with a firearm incurs more penalty than robbery with a knife? Does this mean that firearms have been criminalized? No! It merely means that crimes committed with a firearm gets a higher penalty. In the very same way, this law means that crimes committed by falsifying WHOIS records get a higher penalty than crimes that don't.
WTF! I realize that this was only added today. But considering that it's was only my SECOND visit to Wikipedia today, that's pretty bad odds. Did the author just make this crap up?
Who put this entry in? Not a random user this time, but an actual account! This account has seems to concentrate on white nationalism, Dungeons and Dragons, and the illegal drug trade. He also requests people to contribute information on Nazi theology.
Why people continue to view Wikipedia as an authoritative source continues to elude me.