One of the major concerns of this thread is the linux kernel, which is bound to a specific version (2.2?). I know that all contributors have not transfered their rights--it only takes one instance to disprove.
I'll take your word for it then; however, it still isn't a big deal. The ones that disagree can have their code removed, and someone else can recode the functionality and put it under the new license. As long as it does the same thing, it doesn't matter too much how its done.
Why this would be allowed in such a large project is beyond me, it seems like it would cause more problems than its worth.
Because thats one of the most irritating thing about windows; just b/c i minimize a window for a few minutes it gets swapped out? Then when i restore it i have to wait until the damn thing is swapped back in. On a laptop with a 4k RPM drive, this really drives down performance.
You can make it so that Windows doesn't 'see' the drive (at least, there's no letter assigned to it). I think this is what the GP post was refering to to disable the warning message.
Just because you look at a woman's physical apperience doesn't mean she's just T&A.
I'm not sure why you'd be someone you're not attracted to mentally and physically. Seems like you're kidding yourself if you don't admit physical apperence is a factor.
Your wife lets you do what you want because she's likely got no self esteem and feels she has to put up with whatever you want to do and serve you.
Fair enough. Technically, if you have open standards, someone could provide you (or you could build yourself) a program to parse the xml that would run on your 1MB computer.
However there still is the paper copy you can get, or there's a good chance your local library has a computer capable of reading the file too. Ideally Mass would have dropped MS to further save costs and that library computer could have FOSS installed capable of reading a format that just about any word processor can understand (say, RTF for example).
Various languages I believe are a moot point; our laws are all written in English, and if you don't understand English then you need to learn it. There are concepts in English that don't really translate well at all into other languages (and visa versa).
Perhaps you misunderstood my original post; we SHOULD replace the cable / telco lines with one, with the government owning the lines.
I was talking about how things should be, not how they are.
The cable likely goes out because the head end doesn't have power to recieve thier satilite feeds...so it makes sense that they can't begin to get back onlne until after they get power too.
However that shouldn't affect their phone service, should they offer it.
Cox cable in RI has been offering phone service for a while (i know a friend that had it). It was no more unreliable then a regular phone line.
It's not the woman they care about (if they care at all)
I'd argue that its the parents and our idiot President and Congress and polititions of FL that don't care about the woman.
Somehow I doubt to think of themselves in her position...would they want to continue like that? Hell, she's not even aware of her own existance anymore.
Let us also not forget that when somebody finally conducted a study to figure out if there is a connection, it showed that kids who play Dungeons and Dragons are less likely to commit suicide.
I'm suprised anyone needs a study to show that. D&D is an escape from real life, which cna help make it more tolerable. I used both D&D and video games as escapes in school.
Any substantial project is going to use a mixture of libraries from different sources. It probably has multiple contributors - many of whom you have no contact with any more.
I'll address your library points below.
Usually if you are contributing to a project you transfer your copyright to the project, so the current project maintainer would decide to change the license. Any contributions you make to Moz. belong to Mozilla, not you.
1. *All* the libraries you link with must be v3 compatible.
Since we don't know what the GPL3 will say, how can you assert this?
2. *All* the users that use your software must also be prepared to jump to v3 (otherwise you lose a large part of your userbase).
The GPL only matters if you redistribute the software; the GPL means little to an end user, unless the user cares about seeing the source.
3. You must contact everyone who has ever contributed to your source code and ask their permission. If a single person objects you cannot change.
If you're working together on a project, the project owns the copyright, not the indvidual authors.
Because if I need to call 911 I don't want to have to rely on Time-Warner to get the call through. I'd have more confidence in shouting for help loudly enough to be heard over a mile away at the nearest fire station.
The lines are own by the city / state, so fine, pick another phone provider.
And that's just when a hurricane hasn't taken out the power lines, thus disabling the Time-Warner line as well, a situation in which the telephone line is often still working due to the phone company's big ol' pile of tractor batteries.
A hurricane would also likely take out the phone lines as well.
As an FYI, most (all?) cable, power and phone lines are run on the exact same polls...so if the poll goes, so do all three..
Mass. doesn't want to distribute files in a format that would force citizens to use a particular word processor to be able to read them.
Mass. said either open the standard or we're going to move away from MS office to create our documents.
Your analogy is idiotic BTW. If you really want to try an analogy, you'd be forced to give away the blueprints of your house. Which is done already; blueprints of residential houses are typically kept on file by your local govt (so they can know the layout if say its on fire and someone needs to pull people out).
Well, I could see that argument, except that, the primary purpose of an electronic document is to store something for printing.
You can represent a printed document in a completely closed format. But that format being closed does not inhibit you from reading, copying, modifying, etc the document as long the government will supply you with a printed copy.
I dont think you have any special right to an electronically modifiable copy of a given document.
And of course the whole point of offering an electronic document is not that you can print it, its to save paper from having to send a physical copy via USPS.
The gov't WANTS you to view the electronic one; it saves them paper envelops and stamps, or the need to have reams of paper that people may or may not request in some office.
While you may not have a right to an electronically modifiable copy of a document, I'd say you have a right to an electronically readable one.
The majority of the article, however, is talking about the forking of individual software projects. Some developers might prefer the new license and submit code that is only GPL v3. Some might prefer the old license and continue to use GPL v2. This is where the forking could occur.
Likely though the project team will decide as a group which license to use. True one person might be so for or against one they attempt to fork..but it seems kind of unlikely, especially since the FSF is trying to gather so much feedback. Ideally, most developers would perfer the new license anyway. The minority that won't will be just that; a minority, and its unlikely that Samba GPL2 would be able to keep up with the much larger Samba GPL3...and since the GPL3 version is more active, users of samba will likely go with that...which in the end will likely end the V2 fork.
Not using it...but if you modify and sell something, then people can get your modified code without having to 'buy' your binary. At least thast how I interprate it. But ordinary users wouldn't have this apply to them because they never distribute binaries.
Such a restriction (something like "you must offer the users of the software a copy of the source, or the same offer you got") would be constitute a "further restriction", violating section 6 of the GPLv2: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Why would you change the license on an existing version? If you do want to move to the new license, you'll do so during your next release...
Besides your example is not a restriction put on the users or developers...its forcing them to do something, not forcing them NOT to do something.
Right now Telecos are forced by regulation to share their lines that they laid down and maintain for a fee that is around cost. That gives no one a reason to upgrade the networks. And BTW they are working to upgrading to fibre not measley ADSL2+. Having full control of their own lines meand that they can make a profit sooner and have more incentive to do so. They need to compete with cable, afterall.
This is why i believe the lines themselves should be owned by the state / local goverment. Install the very best there is, and let a reasonable number of providers compete with service. Service would be cable tv, internet and phone. Some would provide only tv, some would offer all three in a package. The fees to maintain can be equally split among all providers.
Cable, on the other hand, supplies internet as well and is under no compulsion to share in either the internet of TV market. This gives them great reason to expand as they have a captive market on their lines and with a few small upgrades can drive the phone companies out of the business.
We have the technology now to merge the phone / cable lines. Why have two seperate lines when you can run all your services over one?
Cable offers TV and internet and is looking at doing phone. Telcos do phone and internet and are looking at doing TV. Why should one be forced to open up their lines and not the other for the same service? As for competition, they are already competing with each other (or the Telcos are trying but the forced line issue is incentive to not try) so why not have a level playing field to expand the competition?
Exactly...with gov't ownership of the lines we can stop this senseless fighting about open access or not and get the companies to do what we want, which is provide a reliable communications service.
I think that would totally level the playing field while not having to rely on penny pinching corportations to finally decide to lie down high speed lines.
Right...there was still a road name..but the 330F RR #1 was changed for the purposes of 911. Since so much effort was put into making 911 ubiquitos, I fail to see why vonage (who wants to replace your local telco) should be exempt from creating a working 911 hookin.
Getting firefox WILL make you more secure, because one of the larger avenue of attacks is simply gone. You can't create ActiveX controls using script in FF. True there may be other exploits, but one of the larger ones is not there be design.
Given that they purposefully left out ActiveX scripting tells me they are at least learning from MS' mistakes, which creates some trust for them in me.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the major concerns of this thread is the linux kernel, which is bound to a specific version (2.2?). I know that all contributors have not transfered their rights--it only takes one instance to disprove.
I'll take your word for it then; however, it still isn't a big deal. The ones that disagree can have their code removed, and someone else can recode the functionality and put it under the new license. As long as it does the same thing, it doesn't matter too much how its done.
Why this would be allowed in such a large project is beyond me, it seems like it would cause more problems than its worth.
Because thats one of the most irritating thing about windows; just b/c i minimize a window for a few minutes it gets swapped out? Then when i restore it i have to wait until the damn thing is swapped back in. On a laptop with a 4k RPM drive, this really drives down performance.
You can make it so that Windows doesn't 'see' the drive (at least, there's no letter assigned to it). I think this is what the GP post was refering to to disable the warning message.
Just because you look at a woman's physical apperience doesn't mean she's just T&A.
I'm not sure why you'd be someone you're not attracted to mentally and physically. Seems like you're kidding yourself if you don't admit physical apperence is a factor.
Your wife lets you do what you want because she's likely got no self esteem and feels she has to put up with whatever you want to do and serve you.
Fair enough. Technically, if you have open standards, someone could provide you (or you could build yourself) a program to parse the xml that would run on your 1MB computer.
However there still is the paper copy you can get, or there's a good chance your local library has a computer capable of reading the file too. Ideally Mass would have dropped MS to further save costs and that library computer could have FOSS installed capable of reading a format that just about any word processor can understand (say, RTF for example).
Various languages I believe are a moot point; our laws are all written in English, and if you don't understand English then you need to learn it. There are concepts in English that don't really translate well at all into other languages (and visa versa).
Perhaps you misunderstood my original post; we SHOULD replace the cable / telco lines with one, with the government owning the lines.
I was talking about how things should be, not how they are.
The cable likely goes out because the head end doesn't have power to recieve thier satilite feeds...so it makes sense that they can't begin to get back onlne until after they get power too.
However that shouldn't affect their phone service, should they offer it.
Cox cable in RI has been offering phone service for a while (i know a friend that had it). It was no more unreliable then a regular phone line.
TNG and First Contact has civilization more or less collapsing in the near future.
:)
So, you don't think thats what happening now?
are you refering to roseanne?
Ha...I thought I was the only one that remembered that show. I was disapointed it never came back, I liked it.
It's not the woman they care about (if they care at all)
I'd argue that its the parents and our idiot President and Congress and polititions of FL that don't care about the woman.
Somehow I doubt to think of themselves in her position...would they want to continue like that? Hell, she's not even aware of her own existance anymore.
Let us also not forget that when somebody finally conducted a study to figure out if there is a connection, it showed that kids who play Dungeons and Dragons are less likely to commit suicide.
I'm suprised anyone needs a study to show that. D&D is an escape from real life, which cna help make it more tolerable. I used both D&D and video games as escapes in school.
Fine, but that bypass surgery should be paid for 100% by the person needing it, since they put themselves into that situation to begin with.
Any substantial project is going to use a mixture of libraries from different sources. It probably has multiple contributors - many of whom you have no contact with any more.
I'll address your library points below.
Usually if you are contributing to a project you transfer your copyright to the project, so the current project maintainer would decide to change the license. Any contributions you make to Moz. belong to Mozilla, not you.
1. *All* the libraries you link with must be v3 compatible.
Since we don't know what the GPL3 will say, how can you assert this?
2. *All* the users that use your software must also be prepared to jump to v3 (otherwise you lose a large part of your userbase).
The GPL only matters if you redistribute the software; the GPL means little to an end user, unless the user cares about seeing the source.
3. You must contact everyone who has ever contributed to your source code and ask their permission. If a single person objects you cannot change.
If you're working together on a project, the project owns the copyright, not the indvidual authors.
Because if I need to call 911 I don't want to have to rely on Time-Warner to get the call through. I'd have more confidence in shouting for help loudly enough to be heard over a mile away at the nearest fire station.
The lines are own by the city / state, so fine, pick another phone provider.
And that's just when a hurricane hasn't taken out the power lines, thus disabling the Time-Warner line as well, a situation in which the telephone line is often still working due to the phone company's big ol' pile of tractor batteries.
A hurricane would also likely take out the phone lines as well.
As an FYI, most (all?) cable, power and phone lines are run on the exact same polls...so if the poll goes, so do all three..
Mass. doesn't want to distribute files in a format that would force citizens to use a particular word processor to be able to read them.
Mass. said either open the standard or we're going to move away from MS office to create our documents.
Your analogy is idiotic BTW. If you really want to try an analogy, you'd be forced to give away the blueprints of your house. Which is done already; blueprints of residential houses are typically kept on file by your local govt (so they can know the layout if say its on fire and someone needs to pull people out).
Explain how putting your state laws in a closed document format promotes the progress science and useful arts.
Well, I could see that argument, except that, the primary purpose of an electronic document is to store something for printing.
You can represent a printed document in a completely closed format. But that format being closed does not inhibit you from reading, copying, modifying, etc the document as long the government will supply you with a printed copy.
I dont think you have any special right to an electronically modifiable copy of a given document.
And of course the whole point of offering an electronic document is not that you can print it, its to save paper from having to send a physical copy via USPS.
The gov't WANTS you to view the electronic one; it saves them paper envelops and stamps, or the need to have reams of paper that people may or may not request in some office.
While you may not have a right to an electronically modifiable copy of a document, I'd say you have a right to an electronically readable one.
Yes, its right up there with embiggens as far as its comulence goes.
You can have xml and still be properitary. In otherwords its their schema that is propertery (they claim no one else can use that schema).
Of course given enough word docs you could probably figure out the schema...but they have a patent on it.
The majority of the article, however, is talking about the forking of individual software projects. Some developers might prefer the new license and submit code that is only GPL v3. Some might prefer the old license and continue to use GPL v2. This is where the forking could occur.
Likely though the project team will decide as a group which license to use. True one person might be so for or against one they attempt to fork..but it seems kind of unlikely, especially since the FSF is trying to gather so much feedback. Ideally, most developers would perfer the new license anyway. The minority that won't will be just that; a minority, and its unlikely that Samba GPL2 would be able to keep up with the much larger Samba GPL3...and since the GPL3 version is more active, users of samba will likely go with that...which in the end will likely end the V2 fork.
Not using it...but if you modify and sell something, then people can get your modified code without having to 'buy' your binary. At least thast how I interprate it. But ordinary users wouldn't have this apply to them because they never distribute binaries.
Such a restriction (something like "you must offer the users of the software a copy of the source, or the same offer you got") would be constitute a "further restriction", violating section 6 of the GPLv2: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Why would you change the license on an existing version? If you do want to move to the new license, you'll do so during your next release...
Besides your example is not a restriction put on the users or developers...its forcing them to do something, not forcing them NOT to do something.
Right now Telecos are forced by regulation to share their lines that they laid down and maintain for a fee that is around cost. That gives no one a reason to upgrade the networks. And BTW they are working to upgrading to fibre not measley ADSL2+. Having full control of their own lines meand that they can make a profit sooner and have more incentive to do so. They need to compete with cable, afterall.
This is why i believe the lines themselves should be owned by the state / local goverment. Install the very best there is, and let a reasonable number of providers compete with service. Service would be cable tv, internet and phone. Some would provide only tv, some would offer all three in a package. The fees to maintain can be equally split among all providers.
Cable, on the other hand, supplies internet as well and is under no compulsion to share in either the internet of TV market. This gives them great reason to expand as they have a captive market on their lines and with a few small upgrades can drive the phone companies out of the business.
We have the technology now to merge the phone / cable lines. Why have two seperate lines when you can run all your services over one?
Cable offers TV and internet and is looking at doing phone. Telcos do phone and internet and are looking at doing TV. Why should one be forced to open up their lines and not the other for the same service? As for competition, they are already competing with each other (or the Telcos are trying but the forced line issue is incentive to not try) so why not have a level playing field to expand the competition?
Exactly...with gov't ownership of the lines we can stop this senseless fighting about open access or not and get the companies to do what we want, which is provide a reliable communications service.
I think that would totally level the playing field while not having to rely on penny pinching corportations to finally decide to lie down high speed lines.
Right...there was still a road name..but the 330F RR #1 was changed for the purposes of 911. Since so much effort was put into making 911 ubiquitos, I fail to see why vonage (who wants to replace your local telco) should be exempt from creating a working 911 hookin.
Getting firefox WILL make you more secure, because one of the larger avenue of attacks is simply gone. You can't create ActiveX controls using script in FF. True there may be other exploits, but one of the larger ones is not there be design.
Given that they purposefully left out ActiveX scripting tells me they are at least learning from MS' mistakes, which creates some trust for them in me.