Not at all. If I make an image in the GIMP or have something plotted in gnuplot I get copyright on the output unless the software liscence says otherwise, because they are not derivitive works. I normally would have full copyright on the output of programs I run.
In this case, Bison was producing a derivitive work of itself (by including some of its code in the output) so the Bison writers would normally have some right to the output. I think the point was that the writers say in their liscence that even though the output of their program is a derivitive work, the user of the program gets full copyright to the work.
The problem here is that it opens them up to abuse, as I could change the source to print itself out, and then I get full copyright on the produced text.
So what if I modify the Bison source so it prints out a full copy of itself (let's do it the easy way; file IO). Then I could get a copy of Bison with no liscensing restrictions that I could make proprietary modifications to. This sounds like a Bad Thing.
If the change that made his Webcam useless was the 2.4->2.6 or the 2.2->2.4, you're right. The problem is, the driver was being distributed binary only, so it might only work with a specific minor version (2.4.18 or something). In that case there are problems.
they should be paid nothing (or maybe just minimum wage) for politicking, so they're forced to go home (to the state they represent) and have real jobs also, just like everybody else
That won't help. These people have to finance campaigns, and decreasing the salary would only increase the percentage of very wealthy people in office. Is that really a blow for the average guy?
I'm not sure if it still has any gnome dependencies or not.
fullyautomatix root # emerge -p gnumeric | grep gnome [ebuild N ] gnome-extra/libgsf-1.9.0 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libglade-2.4.0 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libgnomeprint-2.6.2 [ebuild N ] x11-themes/gnome-icon-theme-1.2.3 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libgnomecanvas-2.6.1.1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libgnomeprintui-2.6.2 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/orbit-2.10.3 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libbonobo-2.6.2 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gconf-2.6.2 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gnome-mime-data-2.4.1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gnome-vfs-2.6.1.1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libgnome-2.6.1.1-r1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libbonoboui-2.6.1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gnome-keyring-0.2.1 [ebuild N ] gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.6.1.1 [ebuild N ] x11-themes/gnome-themes-2.6.2
So it doesn't have the major gnome dependencies, but it has a few.
Those are probably not that contraversial among Wikipedia users. Wikipedia is in the Open camp, and so DRM will be strongly dispised, Windows somewhat despised, and open Unicies popular. These aren't really controversial topics within geekdom, but between geekdom and the rest of the world. An article on emacs or vi might be more contraversial.
When we say "flat" we are imagining a graph. And these graphs are usually drawn as profit vs time. So flat would mean constant profit, not an increase. For flat to be "relative to past performance" we'd need to be graphing profit/time vs time. Then "flat" would mean "profits are increasing at the rate they have been increasing". But that is not how people draw these graphs. It comes down to the distinction between the first and second derivitives.
Regulating p2p software won't work because it is impractical. The software itself is not very complex to write, and there are lots of projects with the source-code to their applications available (giFT, shareaza, dctc, bitTorrent and others). Control of these is impractical because they are not made by companies, but by individuals working in their spare time.
Control of these is also undesireable because legitimate uses of file-sharing technology are becomming more common. Linux cd-images are regularly distibuted by bitTorrent. Artists who release their work under Creative Commons liscenses use these systems to get their work out and known. Copyright law already provides recourse for copyright holders, and regulating p2p software would hurt legitimate users as well as copyright violators.
There seems to be some confusion here so I would like to make a few brief
comments and will likely not add much to this thread other than these few
things:
1) Digium *does* license Asterisk (as we distribute it, no additional
features) outside of GPL and we *do* have commercial licensees already.
2) Digium appreciates the community keeping a watchful eye on other
products in the marketplace which may be in violation of Asterisk's
licensing terms. Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any
concerns or questions.
3) I do not wish to comment specifically about Sysmaster's relationship
with Digium at this time other than to say we are in contact with them.
Thank you again for all of your support in the community.
So do you think this is a bad thing? If so, what should be done? You mention Marx predicting this. Would you then be in favor of implementing his ideals as policies?
I don't see how voluntary birth-restriction would work, so would you favor a China-style one family one child?
Ask youself: is your solution really going to be better than the present?
Digital vs analog isn't the real issue here. Imagine I have a magnetic cassette tape with a some songs on it. It may decay, or the whole thing may be wiped out by an errant magnet. Now imagine the data is on that tape in a digital framed format with multiple redundancy. Now when any redundant section become corrupt, a new copy can be made. And something that wipes out all redundant copies of a frame wipes only that frame. So that's for decay. As for the magnet, they're both completely unrecoverable.
Depends on what you're doing with it, and where you're coming from. I don't know TeX myself, but from what I've heard, it makes programmers very happy, and frustrates hell out of everyone else.
TeX and LaTeX are nice to programmers, in the same way they HTML is nice to programmers, but when you get used to it, is there really much of a difference between typing "\emph{this is important}" or "(i)this is important(/i)" and typing "CTRL+I this is important CTRL+I"? [1] The main difference is how it shows up on the screem as you write it.
WP's keyboard controls are grouped by function, and you only really need to know the root function -- the prompts will guide you beyond that.
The problem with a prompt-based approach is that it's a lot slower. For the people we're considering, initial time to learn a function is ignored, and we compare the typing of the command (no break in flow from the rest of the text) to the time it takes to go through steps in a prompt (a different focus and slower in general).
Speaking of math, WP5.1 catered to math types too -- it had a really good equation editor (it was used to typeset several advanced math textbooks). And remember it has those extended character sets, too (about 1200 special characters available).
Math and equation editing? LaTex is excelent at these. LaTeX is what the American Mathematics Society uses to typeset their journal. And equations are very simple and very fast to type once you read a little documentation.
Disclaimer rebuttal: emacs is an invention of the devil.;)
But that's the neat part. With the TeX system, you can use any editor you want and it doesn't matter, even if it's notepad. But what do you prefer to Emacs, then?
[1] : I know HTML uses angle brackets, but stupid slashcode (stupid me?) doesn't seem to have a way to enter them.
I would think that the crowd that would want to learn keyboard shortcuts for everything and would like to be able to do real typesetting jobs would be more interested in an editor + TeX combination. And TeX is platform independent and open source.
Disclamer: I use emacs + elatex to write/typeset all my papers (plain english, linguistics (excelent trees) and math (excelent formulas))
Over a year? Pretty unlikely. Windows 95 crashes after no more than 49.7 days. See this . But a cdrom over dial-up is reasonable; I dowloaded all 7 disks of debian woody that way.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, Bison was producing a derivitive work of itself (by including some of its code in the output) so the Bison writers would normally have some right to the output. I think the point was that the writers say in their liscence that even though the output of their program is a derivitive work, the user of the program gets full copyright to the work.
The problem here is that it opens them up to abuse, as I could change the source to print itself out, and then I get full copyright on the produced text.
So what if I modify the Bison source so it prints out a full copy of itself (let's do it the easy way; file IO). Then I could get a copy of Bison with no liscensing restrictions that I could make proprietary modifications to. This sounds like a Bad Thing.
If the change that made his Webcam useless was the 2.4->2.6 or the 2.2->2.4, you're right. The problem is, the driver was being distributed binary only, so it might only work with a specific minor version (2.4.18 or something). In that case there are problems.
ouch
But what about when the next kernel exploit surfaces? Should he be expected to backport the fix himself?
That won't help. These people have to finance campaigns, and decreasing the salary would only increase the percentage of very wealthy people in office. Is that really a blow for the average guy?
The point is, the designers of C were leftist commies, so it makes sense that they would have included said rant by defualt.
I think it's more like:
#Include <Obligatory_anti-bush_rant.h>
I'm generally a cautious person, and the bargain-basement price clenched the deal.
You're right, that would have been better, except that the box I ran it on is a mail server and doesn't have any gnome packages installed (or even X)
So it doesn't have the major gnome dependencies, but it has a few.
Except that most people sometimes think they know what they're talking about when they don't
Those are probably not that contraversial among Wikipedia users. Wikipedia is in the Open camp, and so DRM will be strongly dispised, Windows somewhat despised, and open Unicies popular. These aren't really controversial topics within geekdom, but between geekdom and the rest of the world. An article on emacs or vi might be more contraversial.
When we say "flat" we are imagining a graph. And these graphs are usually drawn as profit vs time. So flat would mean constant profit, not an increase. For flat to be "relative to past performance" we'd need to be graphing profit/time vs time. Then "flat" would mean "profits are increasing at the rate they have been increasing". But that is not how people draw these graphs. It comes down to the distinction between the first and second derivitives.
Control of these is also undesireable because legitimate uses of file-sharing technology are becomming more common. Linux cd-images are regularly distibuted by bitTorrent. Artists who release their work under Creative Commons liscenses use these systems to get their work out and known. Copyright law already provides recourse for copyright holders, and regulating p2p software would hurt legitimate users as well as copyright violators.
The submission form is located here
1) Digium *does* license Asterisk (as we distribute it, no additional features) outside of GPL and we *do* have commercial licensees already.
2) Digium appreciates the community keeping a watchful eye on other products in the marketplace which may be in violation of Asterisk's licensing terms. Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any concerns or questions.
3) I do not wish to comment specifically about Sysmaster's relationship with Digium at this time other than to say we are in contact with them.
Thank you again for all of your support in the community.
Mark
I don't see how voluntary birth-restriction would work, so would you favor a China-style one family one child?
Ask youself: is your solution really going to be better than the present?
Digital vs analog isn't the real issue here. Imagine I have a magnetic cassette tape with a some songs on it. It may decay, or the whole thing may be wiped out by an errant magnet. Now imagine the data is on that tape in a digital framed format with multiple redundancy. Now when any redundant section become corrupt, a new copy can be made. And something that wipes out all redundant copies of a frame wipes only that frame. So that's for decay. As for the magnet, they're both completely unrecoverable.
TeX and LaTeX are nice to programmers, in the same way they HTML is nice to programmers, but when you get used to it, is there really much of a difference between typing "\emph{this is important}" or "(i)this is important(/i)" and typing "CTRL+I this is important CTRL+I"? [1] The main difference is how it shows up on the screem as you write it.
WP's keyboard controls are grouped by function, and you only really need to know the root function -- the prompts will guide you beyond that.
The problem with a prompt-based approach is that it's a lot slower. For the people we're considering, initial time to learn a function is ignored, and we compare the typing of the command (no break in flow from the rest of the text) to the time it takes to go through steps in a prompt (a different focus and slower in general).
Speaking of math, WP5.1 catered to math types too -- it had a really good equation editor (it was used to typeset several advanced math textbooks). And remember it has those extended character sets, too (about 1200 special characters available).
Math and equation editing? LaTex is excelent at these. LaTeX is what the American Mathematics Society uses to typeset their journal. And equations are very simple and very fast to type once you read a little documentation.
Disclaimer rebuttal: emacs is an invention of the devil. ;)
But that's the neat part. With the TeX system, you can use any editor you want and it doesn't matter, even if it's notepad. But what do you prefer to Emacs, then?
[1] : I know HTML uses angle brackets, but stupid slashcode (stupid me?) doesn't seem to have a way to enter them.
I would think that the crowd that would want to learn keyboard shortcuts for everything and would like to be able to do real typesetting jobs would be more interested in an editor + TeX combination. And TeX is platform independent and open source.
Disclamer: I use emacs + elatex to write/typeset all my papers (plain english, linguistics (excelent trees) and math (excelent formulas))
What's wrong with conscientious sigs?
Over a year? Pretty unlikely. Windows 95 crashes after no more than 49.7 days. See this . But a cdrom over dial-up is reasonable; I dowloaded all 7 disks of debian woody that way.
I'm pretty sure they removed deltree from winXP.
(cons element list)