Could you please respond with the specific law that covers this? Because my European employer doing business in the US has refused to do anything about the nearly 150 spams a day I get, many of them pornographic. I was told "deal with it, everyone else does." I started forwarding the more explicit spam to IT guy in charge of the spam filter, but I was told to stop before the company sued me.
They were the first to try to make a Linux distribution that was usable by ordinary computer users.
Where you born yesterday? Is there a turnip truck somewhere that's missing part of its load? Lindows is a relative newcomer in the "distro for the common man" field. Corel LinuxOS (now Xandros) was there long before.
Nothing is in the public domain without an explicit transfer of the copyright. Public domain means that the creative work is not owned by anyone. Unowned, uncopyrighted, uncopylefted, without protections, lying in the gutter for all the piss upon. Whatever gave you the idea that a wallpaper at kde-look emblazoned with the author's name is an unowned work?
Walking over to the patent lawyer fifty feet down the corridor, I make the startling discovery that Richard M. Stallman is WRONG! OMG! I'm going to cry!
It turns out that "intellectual property" is a valid term used by everyone from Supreme Court Justices to kindergarten teachers in referring to a particular classification of rights known collectively as [gasp] "intellectual property".
Just because RMS has a problem with the English language doesn't mean you have to as well. Geez, get a life and stop licking his unwashed feet in adoration.
That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people!
You're assuming that outsourcing is the result of the free market. It is not. While the movement (and/or obsolescence) of jobs is inevitable in any economy, the free market does not explain the near religious ferver in which public corporations are shipping off all non-management jobs overseas.
First, the only companies participating in the outsourcing fad are public corporations. By definition such companies cannot exist without government grant of special privilege. Public corporations are not the free market. They are shielded from the many of the competitive pressures that private companies face.
Second, domestic government regulations and taxations have made domestic employment too expensive. According to my HR rep, it costs my employer thirty thousand dollars per year to employ me, over and above what I receive in salary and benefits. As a result of government regulation. Holy shit!
This morning's SJMN talked about how investors (you and I) were choosing not to invest in companies that outsourced. This was proclaimed as a rejection of the free market. Huh? Voluntarily choosing where to spend your money is counter to free markets? I think the SJMN needs a new dictionary. To me this inidcates the opposite. It is evidence that the free market is fixing the problem!
The frequency of the memory allocation is irrelevant, because it's the same code that doing it. The frequency of the allocation does not increase the complexity of the code. For example, a linked list with thousands of nodes is no more complex than a linked list with only two nodes.
"if a non-GC program gets sloppy about storage management, it crashes, if a non-GC program gets sloppy about storage management, it just runs slowly." What is it? Does it crash or run slowly? It can't do both!
Either I've had too much beer this evening, or your post is completely nonsensical. Given that I've had no beer this evening, I greatly suspect that latter. Unfortunately, since the moderators are on crack, I fear that your post will be moderated up.
You bring up a good point. Whenever people talk about the glories of garbage collection, I always wonder why they think memory is the only resource. And if I'm supposed to manually deal with those other resources, why am I not supposed to likewise manually deal with memory?
One could say that whipped cream fails to find much deployment in industrial settings. And one would be correct in saying so, regardless of the volume output of the twinkie factory.
Get stuffed! TurboLinux was NOT bought my SCO and your Google search is completely irrelevant. Are you stupid or do you truly believe that SCO must own TurboLinux just because they announced some services?
So why do you need to spend $20 for Windows XP when it comes with your computer. First you say you don't have to buy Windows, and then you tell me the price. WTF?
I have some new motherboards which don't work under Linux because the ATI northbridge chips in them aren't detected. This is ATIs fault as much as Linux's - but it's slowing acceptance.
Slightly off topic, but when you go send a friendly note to ATI asking for Linux support, ask for Open Source software. Proprietary drivers aren't good enough.
Your choice of operating system should not be based on what hardware you happen to have. A proliferation of binary-only drivers for Linux is going to stifle usage of other systems like FreeBSD. Do you really want Linux to "win" the same way Windows did, through hardware lock-in?
This won't come up, as any module with a GPL-compatible license would be entitled to use the "GPL" flag.
If I use the X11 license for my modules I cannot use the "GPL" option because that would be lying. Dishonesty. The Big Fib. The relevant kernel programming topic we just happen to be discussing!
I suggest you go read the relevant sections of the module.h header file. GPL compatibility has nothing to do with this license tag. You have four, and only four, license choices if you don't want your module to "taint" the kernel: GPL, GPL plus additional right, dual GPL/BSD, and dual GPL/MPL. The X11 license doesn't count. A dual GPL/X11 license doesn't count. A note from RMS saying it's okay doesn't count.
This is merely an attempt by the kernel developers to make a clean separation between those modules that should be considered derived works, and those that should not.
It's not up to the kernel developers to decide what's a derivative work or not. It's beyond their domain. That job belongs to copyright law and the judges that interpret it on case-by-case basis.
Calling private routines deep within the kernel probably consititutes derivation. But once you makes these routines public to anyone outside of your project, they're no longer private. They're public. They've become an API. If they wanted to keep these routines private, but still usable by internal Linux modules, they should have used an "internal" tag.
Bingo! If you want controls, restrictions and conditions on your software, then use a proprietary license. That's what they're for. But if you want your software to be Free, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that you can't control or restrict the user.
The GPL tries to straddle these two extremes, but utlimately it's still a Free Software license. Freedom is for everyone, not just you and your close friends. If you didn't want evil corporations exploiting your work, you should have picked a proprietary license.
I get about 150 spams a day at work. These are merely being marked as spam and sent on to the clients, because we still have not found a filter that never classifies any client email as spam. Since I get this spam in such huge volumes, I tend to notice some trends. About ten spams a day get through without being marked. Spammers learn and next week whatever trick those spams used will be used by all the spammers. Then the filters catch up. Then the spams catch up. Then the filters catch up. Then the spams catch up. Ad infinitum. Never ending.
Filtering is not getting rid of the spam! All filtering does is get rid of the stupid spammers that aren't using this week's spam technique.
It's like using a virus scanner that only detects known viruses. Oh wait...
This is more silliness. On both sides. People shouldn't be lying (or stretching the truth) about their license. But the kernel license tag is just as silly.
Let me use another kernel in an attempt to explain why. The FreeBSD kernel is licensed under the BSD license. But the ext2fs code is under the GPL since it directly derived from the GPL code in Linux. Building a FreeBSD kernel with the ext2fs option will "taint" the kernel. While this is generally known and understood, the FreeBSD kernel does not tell the user that they have been tainted. Such a move would be decried by those on the GPL side of the fence as cheap license politicking. But this is what Linux does. I call it cheap license politicking.
Some kernel developers say that this is necessary so that they can debug the kernel. Source code is necessary for debugging. Nonsense! The license tag marks all non-GPL modules as tainted. It is the license that matters, and not the availability of source code. Is a kernel developer going to tell a user "sorry, I can't fix your problem because you're using the X11 license"? That would be truly silly. Should the developer run across a binary-only module that prevents debugging, a simple message to the user saying so will suffice.
The license tag is also used to limit access to certain private kernel routines. In essence, it makes private kernel APIs public, but only for GPL modules. It's tying the license to the API, which is quite strange (and silly). Use license A and you get one API. Use license B instead and you get another. Huh? Either the API is public or it is not. This "members only" crap has to go. It's license politicking of the lowest sort.
Wrong. First, your "developers" should be changed to "kernel developers". Second, the *license* of the module is irrelevant, only the availability of the source code matters. A plain BSD or MIT license will taint the kernel, for example, yet all of the source code is available.
The license tag is only there to check for GPL-ness only. That's because anything other than the GPL (or dual GPL) will taint the kernel. You can't even release your module into the public domain without tainting the kernel!
Slashdot Mirror
Could you please respond with the specific law that covers this? Because my European employer doing business in the US has refused to do anything about the nearly 150 spams a day I get, many of them pornographic. I was told "deal with it, everyone else does." I started forwarding the more explicit spam to IT guy in charge of the spam filter, but I was told to stop before the company sued me.
Yes, its' easy. But their IT department isn't doing it. That's the whole point of the post.
They were the first to try to make a Linux distribution that was usable by ordinary computer users.
Where you born yesterday? Is there a turnip truck somewhere that's missing part of its load? Lindows is a relative newcomer in the "distro for the common man" field. Corel LinuxOS (now Xandros) was there long before.
Nothing is in the public domain without an explicit transfer of the copyright. Public domain means that the creative work is not owned by anyone. Unowned, uncopyrighted, uncopylefted, without protections, lying in the gutter for all the piss upon. Whatever gave you the idea that a wallpaper at kde-look emblazoned with the author's name is an unowned work?
Please, this isn't rocket science people!
Walking over to the patent lawyer fifty feet down the corridor, I make the startling discovery that Richard M. Stallman is WRONG! OMG! I'm going to cry!
It turns out that "intellectual property" is a valid term used by everyone from Supreme Court Justices to kindergarten teachers in referring to a particular classification of rights known collectively as [gasp] "intellectual property".
Just because RMS has a problem with the English language doesn't mean you have to as well. Geez, get a life and stop licking his unwashed feet in adoration.
In the absence of an explicit license, you CANNOT assume the right to redistribute the work. You must assume the opposite. It's as basic as that.
Are you the type of person who assumes the absence of a "no trespassing" sign means you can freely camp out in someone's backyard without permission?
That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people!
You're assuming that outsourcing is the result of the free market. It is not. While the movement (and/or obsolescence) of jobs is inevitable in any economy, the free market does not explain the near religious ferver in which public corporations are shipping off all non-management jobs overseas.
First, the only companies participating in the outsourcing fad are public corporations. By definition such companies cannot exist without government grant of special privilege. Public corporations are not the free market. They are shielded from the many of the competitive pressures that private companies face.
Second, domestic government regulations and taxations have made domestic employment too expensive. According to my HR rep, it costs my employer thirty thousand dollars per year to employ me, over and above what I receive in salary and benefits. As a result of government regulation. Holy shit!
This morning's SJMN talked about how investors (you and I) were choosing not to invest in companies that outsourced. This was proclaimed as a rejection of the free market. Huh? Voluntarily choosing where to spend your money is counter to free markets? I think the SJMN needs a new dictionary. To me this inidcates the opposite. It is evidence that the free market is fixing the problem!
The frequency of the memory allocation is irrelevant, because it's the same code that doing it. The frequency of the allocation does not increase the complexity of the code. For example, a linked list with thousands of nodes is no more complex than a linked list with only two nodes.
Very well. One example:
"if a non-GC program gets sloppy about storage management, it crashes, if a non-GC program gets sloppy about storage management, it just runs slowly." What is it? Does it crash or run slowly? It can't do both!
Either I've had too much beer this evening, or your post is completely nonsensical. Given that I've had no beer this evening, I greatly suspect that latter. Unfortunately, since the moderators are on crack, I fear that your post will be moderated up.
You bring up a good point. Whenever people talk about the glories of garbage collection, I always wonder why they think memory is the only resource. And if I'm supposed to manually deal with those other resources, why am I not supposed to likewise manually deal with memory?
One could say that whipped cream fails to find much deployment in industrial settings. And one would be correct in saying so, regardless of the volume output of the twinkie factory.
Get stuffed! TurboLinux was NOT bought my SCO and your Google search is completely irrelevant. Are you stupid or do you truly believe that SCO must own TurboLinux just because they announced some services?
So why do you need to spend $20 for Windows XP when it comes with your computer. First you say you don't have to buy Windows, and then you tell me the price. WTF?
I have some new motherboards which don't work under Linux because the ATI northbridge chips in them aren't detected. This is ATIs fault as much as Linux's - but it's slowing acceptance.
Slightly off topic, but when you go send a friendly note to ATI asking for Linux support, ask for Open Source software. Proprietary drivers aren't good enough.
Your choice of operating system should not be based on what hardware you happen to have. A proliferation of binary-only drivers for Linux is going to stifle usage of other systems like FreeBSD. Do you really want Linux to "win" the same way Windows did, through hardware lock-in?
So what kind of pressure can we apply?
Why do we need to apply pressure? Why would we want to? Why are we making the software we write the instrument for pressuring corporations?
You're also filtering on the client, which isn't doing anything to stop the bandwidth clog.
This won't come up, as any module with a GPL-compatible license would be entitled to use the "GPL" flag.
If I use the X11 license for my modules I cannot use the "GPL" option because that would be lying. Dishonesty. The Big Fib. The relevant kernel programming topic we just happen to be discussing!
I suggest you go read the relevant sections of the module.h header file. GPL compatibility has nothing to do with this license tag. You have four, and only four, license choices if you don't want your module to "taint" the kernel: GPL, GPL plus additional right, dual GPL/BSD, and dual GPL/MPL. The X11 license doesn't count. A dual GPL/X11 license doesn't count. A note from RMS saying it's okay doesn't count.
This is merely an attempt by the kernel developers to make a clean separation between those modules that should be considered derived works, and those that should not.
It's not up to the kernel developers to decide what's a derivative work or not. It's beyond their domain. That job belongs to copyright law and the judges that interpret it on case-by-case basis.
Calling private routines deep within the kernel probably consititutes derivation. But once you makes these routines public to anyone outside of your project, they're no longer private. They're public. They've become an API. If they wanted to keep these routines private, but still usable by internal Linux modules, they should have used an "internal" tag.
Heck, Linus out to be pissed too. Sun's Java Desktop System is a worked over GNOME. There's nothing "linuxy" about it.
Bingo! If you want controls, restrictions and conditions on your software, then use a proprietary license. That's what they're for. But if you want your software to be Free, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that you can't control or restrict the user.
The GPL tries to straddle these two extremes, but utlimately it's still a Free Software license. Freedom is for everyone, not just you and your close friends. If you didn't want evil corporations exploiting your work, you should have picked a proprietary license.
I get about 150 spams a day at work. These are merely being marked as spam and sent on to the clients, because we still have not found a filter that never classifies any client email as spam. Since I get this spam in such huge volumes, I tend to notice some trends. About ten spams a day get through without being marked. Spammers learn and next week whatever trick those spams used will be used by all the spammers. Then the filters catch up. Then the spams catch up. Then the filters catch up. Then the spams catch up. Ad infinitum. Never ending.
Filtering is not getting rid of the spam! All filtering does is get rid of the stupid spammers that aren't using this week's spam technique.
It's like using a virus scanner that only detects known viruses. Oh wait...
they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
IBM?
You reinstalled because you changed your motherboard. But do you do this every month? If not then this explains nothing.
This is more silliness. On both sides. People shouldn't be lying (or stretching the truth) about their license. But the kernel license tag is just as silly.
Let me use another kernel in an attempt to explain why. The FreeBSD kernel is licensed under the BSD license. But the ext2fs code is under the GPL since it directly derived from the GPL code in Linux. Building a FreeBSD kernel with the ext2fs option will "taint" the kernel. While this is generally known and understood, the FreeBSD kernel does not tell the user that they have been tainted. Such a move would be decried by those on the GPL side of the fence as cheap license politicking. But this is what Linux does. I call it cheap license politicking.
Some kernel developers say that this is necessary so that they can debug the kernel. Source code is necessary for debugging. Nonsense! The license tag marks all non-GPL modules as tainted. It is the license that matters, and not the availability of source code. Is a kernel developer going to tell a user "sorry, I can't fix your problem because you're using the X11 license"? That would be truly silly. Should the developer run across a binary-only module that prevents debugging, a simple message to the user saying so will suffice.
The license tag is also used to limit access to certain private kernel routines. In essence, it makes private kernel APIs public, but only for GPL modules. It's tying the license to the API, which is quite strange (and silly). Use license A and you get one API. Use license B instead and you get another. Huh? Either the API is public or it is not. This "members only" crap has to go. It's license politicking of the lowest sort.
Wrong. First, your "developers" should be changed to "kernel developers". Second, the *license* of the module is irrelevant, only the availability of the source code matters. A plain BSD or MIT license will taint the kernel, for example, yet all of the source code is available.
The license tag is only there to check for GPL-ness only. That's because anything other than the GPL (or dual GPL) will taint the kernel. You can't even release your module into the public domain without tainting the kernel!