I AM NOT A LAWYER, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, THIS IS THE OPINION OF SOMEBODY WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE LAW, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, DON'T YOU DARE SUE ME!
Might I suggest a new license with revised clauses be issued that makes it explicit that it can be GPLed? You can do that without a revision clause and without the permission of everybody who ever submitted a patch because of another flaw in the license.
Specifically, Clause IV has a bad definititon in it -- it states:
IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the authors of the Software.
Now, since people can charge a fee for redistributing GPLed software, the definition of "not freely redistributable software" in Clause IV include both the GPL and any license that can dual-license to the GPL. So Clause IV allows the authors as defined in clause XI to issue any license that allows software to be charged for.
So, my suggestion is that you release the software under the current license with the following replacement clauses, to make things more explicit and better defined:
II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other freely redistributable software (by which we mean software released under a license that has recieved the OSI Certified mark) without requiring permission from the authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the Software that are used remain under this licence.
IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other software under licenses that have not recieved the OSI Certified mark from the Open Source Foundation, as long as permission is granted from the authors of the Software. The authors reserve the right to grant this permission only for a fee, which may at our option take the form of royalty payments. The authors also reserve the right to refuse to grant permission if they deem it necessary. For further information about who exactly the authors are, see clause XI below.
X. In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software may be distributed under the GNU General Public Licence, as published by the Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA, USA; version 2, or, at your option, any later version; incorporated herein by reference.
XIII. Sending patches to the authors for the purpose of inclusion in the official release version includes implicit permission to distribute those patches under the license of the authors' choice, the authors being the persons defined in clause XI of this License.
Actually, I don't think the posters are all that much worse, either. There's a somewhat higher percentage of idiots, but moderation's made it easier to filter them out, too.
Similarly, I think Katz is an idiot, but the addition of the user preferences to keep me from ever seeing his [rant deleted] column again fixed that.
No, it doesn't, unless you count eight milestones ago as "running".
The attempt to bring it up to date that began in June has slammed headlong into an add-on limitation in the BeOS kernel. Be chokes on code written as a small executable that loads lots and lots of modules, instead of as a monolithic megaprogram -- and the modularity is a major Mozilla feature.
A workaround has been proposed which will hopefully work, since correcting the problem would require either a total rewrite of Mozilla or a massive rewrite of the Be kernel.
MacOS, Windows, OS/2, OpenVMS, and 7 Unicies/Unix clones can handle it, however, and M17 is available for them.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:A GPL Windows/QT could fork from the free codeb
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 1
Have you ever tried to maintain a port where you can only distribute patch files to a base source file?
While the QPL gave the legal right to create a fork, its patch clause made it a practical impossibility. Steven E. Ehrbar
The only thing I'm worried about is that infrastructure/backbone-level software might break.
Because:
1) I can't read a Japanese-language site whether or not I can get to it.
2) If I could read it, I'd use software that let me input it.
3) A rational web designer will register a non-accented Roman/ASCII character name if they intend to reach an audience that may include people who can't input other characters. The irrational deserve to have their sites fail anyway.
Numbers. 417 million people speak Spanish, 191 million speak Portuguese, 128 million each speak French and German, and no other Latin-alphabet European language has as many as 100 million speakers. It isn't that NSI prefers Spaniards, it's that it prefers larger markets over smaller ones.
CJK has a similar "numbers" vibe. Since the CJK character sets are generally handled by a single solution in software (esp. since written forms of Japanese and Korean include both native syllabic/alphabetic [respectively] scripts and Chinese idographic script), you get Japan, Korea, and Greater China in one fell swoop. (Greater China here not only including the PRC and Taiwan, but the Chinese-speaking groups in Maylasia, Singapore, and Indonesia.)
So why not Devanagari too? Because 1) there are a lot more CJK and Spanish language customers than Hindi/Bengali customers due to internet penetration and financial factors, and 2) the people who would buy the domains in India generally are of the educated classes that speak English. So there's less demand for Devanagari.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a state can only require the retailer to collect sales taxes if both the retailer and the seller are physically located in the same state.
To get around this, many brick-and-mortar stores started up online subsidiaries with their sole offices in one state. They then claimed this subsidiary, since it didn't have locations in (say) California, could not be required to collect sales tax from California residents.
The proposed California legislation would say that this isn't a legal way to get around the requirement.
IANAL, but based on my understanding of the case, the online retailers still could make an argument that the California attempt is unconstitutional, while the state would argue that mere hoop-jumping doesn't make the retailers immune.
I'll bet the result will be that the subsidiaries will simply be transformed into not-quite-wholly-owned organizations, on the premise that the subsidiares will then have a substantive separation from the parent corp, and thus regain tax collection immunity.
It has some very VERY cool concepts in it . . . and novel ideas.
Rather, it has some very old ideas in it. The "many worlds" hypothesis for quantum mechanics has been around about forty years. Science fiction involving visiting those other timelines worlds is almost as old; there was even an original series Star Trek episode based on the concept. And even using the term "jumping" to refer to such trips predates Timeline's publication by at least ten years.
You see, PayPal is not credit card dependent. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from setting up an account without a credit card. If you want to transfer money into an account without a credit card, you can do an electronic funds transfer from a bank account or with a personal check.
Tom of Tom's Hardware writes a critical review of the 1.13 gigahertz Pentium III, and posters claim that there's no problem ("no other reviewers detected it") and slam Tom for anti-Intel bias. Tom is then proven right with an Intel recall, and Tom gets slammed with a "he might have been right, but he's biased anyway".
George Lucas is denounced for cutting Kenny Baker out of Episode 2, and a whole series of posts come out denouncing Lucas. Then it is announced that Lucas isn't doing that, and it is touted as proof that Lucas is as evil as the previous denunciations said.
Now, I'm not saying Tom isn't biased, or that Lucas isn't evil. But it does seem that there are people who are awfully eager to denounce others at the drop of a hat, and who don't have enough courage to admit that they were wrong...
it means the computer exceeded its parameters. It developed new, effective naval doctrine capable of defeating humans a significant part of the time. While I wouldn't go as far a blowing up my own ships, perhaps I'd leave them in port...
Is the U.S. going to invade tomorrow? Of course not -- not until we have a working misssile defense.
Therefore, the strategically responsible thing is to use this money to help their economy, so that in a decade they'll be able to spend much more on their Navy.
I'm not asking for Russia to trust the U.S. I just think that if Russia made a rational analysis of the balance of power, they would come up with a different view of what they have to do to secure themselves.
Okay, arguing that the U.S. is a potential threat makes sense, which is why my original post said "Maybe now Russia will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade". I know the Russians are worried about us, I just think that they're being unrealistic.
Especially since we already proved we can vastly outspend them. It's in their national interest to spend the money on their economy, because that's the only way they'll ever have enough to keep up with us.
And the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, even if it doubled in size tonight, would still be easy for the current Russian Navy to handle.
I am certainly not arguing that the U.S. Navy is superfluous. I'm not even arguing that the Russian Navy is superfluous.
I am saying that the only navies that Russia is likely to combat are currently much, much weaker than the current Russsian navy, and that furthermore, they will be that way for a while.
Accordingly, Russia should spend some of that R&D money they're using to develop these new torpedoes on economic restructuring, and the rest on maintaining that Navy they already have.
There's a difference between beating swords into plowshares and spending money on newer and bigger swords that may or may not work.
Especially since there are no naval threats to Russia. China's military power is entirely land-based. If this were an air- or ground- weapon system, that would be one thing. But whose navy is Russia afraid of?
will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade and nobody else has a navy that even equals what the currently have, so they can stop developing dangerous and costly new weapons.
If the US were to disappear off the net, it would be noticed everywhere, yes.. but the global internet would persist.
It would, but it would be crippled. The highest bandwith connections between most countries (like Japan and South Korea, or Britain and France) actually go through the U.S. South Africa and Australia would essentially be isolated.
Instead of people admitting that Tom was right in his previous review, the same people that claimed the supposed instability was just a product of Tom's bias now are attacking him for bias again.
Well, Intel has recalled the chips. Could it be then that the sites that did not discover the instability have a pro-Intel bias, instead, and that Tom was just calling it as it was?
Oh, sure, Tom has a bias. Guess what -- so do a lot of people criticizing MS software. A bias doesn't mean you're not telling the truth.
Intel's chips had flaws serious enough for Intel to recall them. Tom was right, and those who accused him of distorting the truth owe him an apology.
Slashdot Mirror
Might I suggest a new license with revised clauses be issued that makes it explicit that it can be GPLed? You can do that without a revision clause and without the permission of everybody who ever submitted a patch because of another flaw in the license.
Specifically, Clause IV has a bad definititon in it -- it states:
Now, since people can charge a fee for redistributing GPLed software, the definition of "not freely redistributable software" in Clause IV include both the GPL and any license that can dual-license to the GPL. So Clause IV allows the authors as defined in clause XI to issue any license that allows software to be charged for.
So, my suggestion is that you release the software under the current license with the following replacement clauses, to make things more explicit and better defined:
Steven E. Ehrbar
Actually, I don't think the posters are all that much worse, either. There's a somewhat higher percentage of idiots, but moderation's made it easier to filter them out, too.
Similarly, I think Katz is an idiot, but the addition of the user preferences to keep me from ever seeing his [rant deleted] column again fixed that.
Steven E. Ehrbar
No, it doesn't, unless you count eight milestones ago as "running".
The attempt to bring it up to date that began in June has slammed headlong into an add-on limitation in the BeOS kernel. Be chokes on code written as a small executable that loads lots and lots of modules, instead of as a monolithic megaprogram -- and the modularity is a major Mozilla feature.
A workaround has been proposed which will hopefully work, since correcting the problem would require either a total rewrite of Mozilla or a massive rewrite of the Be kernel.
MacOS, Windows, OS/2, OpenVMS, and 7 Unicies/Unix clones can handle it, however, and M17 is available for them.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Have you ever tried to maintain a port where you can only distribute patch files to a base source file?
While the QPL gave the legal right to create a fork, its patch clause made it a practical impossibility.
Steven E. Ehrbar
The only thing I'm worried about is that infrastructure/backbone-level software might break.
Because:
1) I can't read a Japanese-language site whether or not I can get to it.
2) If I could read it, I'd use software that let me input it.
3) A rational web designer will register a non-accented Roman/ASCII character name if they intend to reach an audience that may include people who can't input other characters. The irrational deserve to have their sites fail anyway.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Numbers. 417 million people speak Spanish, 191 million speak Portuguese, 128 million each speak French and German, and no other Latin-alphabet European language has as many as 100 million speakers. It isn't that NSI prefers Spaniards, it's that it prefers larger markets over smaller ones.
CJK has a similar "numbers" vibe. Since the CJK character sets are generally handled by a single solution in software (esp. since written forms of Japanese and Korean include both native syllabic/alphabetic [respectively] scripts and Chinese idographic script), you get Japan, Korea, and Greater China in one fell swoop. (Greater China here not only including the PRC and Taiwan, but the Chinese-speaking groups in Maylasia, Singapore, and Indonesia.)
So why not Devanagari too? Because 1) there are a lot more CJK and Spanish language customers than Hindi/Bengali customers due to internet penetration and financial factors, and 2) the people who would buy the domains in India generally are of the educated classes that speak English. So there's less demand for Devanagari.
Steven E. Ehrbar
The Supreme Court has ruled that a state can only require the retailer to collect sales taxes if both the retailer and the seller are physically located in the same state.
To get around this, many brick-and-mortar stores started up online subsidiaries with their sole offices in one state. They then claimed this subsidiary, since it didn't have locations in (say) California, could not be required to collect sales tax from California residents.
The proposed California legislation would say that this isn't a legal way to get around the requirement.
IANAL, but based on my understanding of the case, the online retailers still could make an argument that the California attempt is unconstitutional, while the state would argue that mere hoop-jumping doesn't make the retailers immune.
I'll bet the result will be that the subsidiaries will simply be transformed into not-quite-wholly-owned organizations, on the premise that the subsidiares will then have a substantive separation from the parent corp, and thus regain tax collection immunity.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Read again. Mainsoft, the people doing the porting under contract, is based in Israel.
Steven E. Ehrbar
It has some very VERY cool concepts in it . . . and novel ideas.
Rather, it has some very old ideas in it. The "many worlds" hypothesis for quantum mechanics has been around about forty years. Science fiction involving visiting those other timelines worlds is almost as old; there was even an original series Star Trek episode based on the concept. And even using the term "jumping" to refer to such trips predates Timeline's publication by at least ten years.
Steven E. Ehrbar
It was an award of $1, and federal law requires triple damages in antitrust cases, so the USFL got $3
Steven E. Ehrbar
Mainsoft, which is doing the app porting, is based in Israel.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Only one area.
You see, PayPal is not credit card dependent. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from setting up an account without a credit card. If you want to transfer money into an account without a credit card, you can do an electronic funds transfer from a bank account or with a personal check.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Tom of Tom's Hardware writes a critical review of the 1.13 gigahertz Pentium III, and posters claim that there's no problem ("no other reviewers detected it") and slam Tom for anti-Intel bias. Tom is then proven right with an Intel recall, and Tom gets slammed with a "he might have been right, but he's biased anyway".
George Lucas is denounced for cutting Kenny Baker out of Episode 2, and a whole series of posts come out denouncing Lucas. Then it is announced that Lucas isn't doing that, and it is touted as proof that Lucas is as evil as the previous denunciations said.
Now, I'm not saying Tom isn't biased, or that Lucas isn't evil. But it does seem that there are people who are awfully eager to denounce others at the drop of a hat, and who don't have enough courage to admit that they were wrong...
Steven E. Ehrbar
Assuming this is true...
it means the computer exceeded its parameters. It developed new, effective naval doctrine capable of defeating humans a significant part of the time. While I wouldn't go as far a blowing up my own ships, perhaps I'd leave them in port...
Steven E. Ehrbar
Is the U.S. going to invade tomorrow? Of course not -- not until we have a working misssile defense.
Therefore, the strategically responsible thing is to use this money to help their economy, so that in a decade they'll be able to spend much more on their Navy.
I'm not asking for Russia to trust the U.S. I just think that if Russia made a rational analysis of the balance of power, they would come up with a different view of what they have to do to secure themselves.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Okay, arguing that the U.S. is a potential threat makes sense, which is why my original post said "Maybe now Russia will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade". I know the Russians are worried about us, I just think that they're being unrealistic.
Especially since we already proved we can vastly outspend them. It's in their national interest to spend the money on their economy, because that's the only way they'll ever have enough to keep up with us.
And the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, even if it doubled in size tonight, would still be easy for the current Russian Navy to handle.
Steven E. Ehrbar
I am certainly not arguing that the U.S. Navy is superfluous. I'm not even arguing that the Russian Navy is superfluous.
I am saying that the only navies that Russia is likely to combat are currently much, much weaker than the current Russsian navy, and that furthermore, they will be that way for a while.
Accordingly, Russia should spend some of that R&D money they're using to develop these new torpedoes on economic restructuring, and the rest on maintaining that Navy they already have.
Steven E. Ehrbar
There's a difference between beating swords into plowshares and spending money on newer and bigger swords that may or may not work.
Especially since there are no naval threats to Russia. China's military power is entirely land-based. If this were an air- or ground- weapon system, that would be one thing. But whose navy is Russia afraid of?
Steven E. Ehrbar
And that neighbor has a navy that couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Steven E. Ehrbar
will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade and nobody else has a navy that even equals what the currently have, so they can stop developing dangerous and costly new weapons.
Steven E. Ehrbar
With ill-considered technology patents. If the one-click patent hadn't been granted until 2066...
Steven E. Ehrbar
It was poorly-designed from the get-go, it's way too expensive, and it's virtually impossible to upgrade efficiently.
Burn it and let'ss move on.
Steven E. Ehrbar
If the US were to disappear off the net, it would be noticed everywhere, yes.. but the global internet would persist.
It would, but it would be crippled. The highest bandwith connections between most countries (like Japan and South Korea, or Britain and France) actually go through the U.S. South Africa and Australia would essentially be isolated.
Steven E. Ehrbar
And it will be interesting to see if any of those that said any percieved instability was just a result of Tom's bias ever apologize.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Instead of people admitting that Tom was right in his previous review, the same people that claimed the supposed instability was just a product of Tom's bias now are attacking him for bias again.
Well, Intel has recalled the chips. Could it be then that the sites that did not discover the instability have a pro-Intel bias, instead, and that Tom was just calling it as it was?
Oh, sure, Tom has a bias. Guess what -- so do a lot of people criticizing MS software. A bias doesn't mean you're not telling the truth.
Intel's chips had flaws serious enough for Intel to recall them. Tom was right, and those who accused him of distorting the truth owe him an apology.
Steven E. Ehrbar