And to be equally pedantic, there was an episode of Quincy where the driver murdered the pedestrian. Of course, Quincy didn't let him get away with it.
which must be piloted accurately to within less than a few feet at speeds humans were never designed to travel.
Which could mean either that humans were designed for different speeds, or not designed at all. Also, what verb would you use in place of "designed"? I don't believe that it is the best verb for this purpose, but I can't think of a different one.
What is the difference between “mere aggregation” and “combining two modules into one program”?
Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL—if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
Would a judge be bound by this? I don't know. But remember, we don't have to convince Raenex; Raenex has to convince a judge.
Has Oracle actually launched a suit, or are they merely considering it? Also, what are their specific claims, if such they make?
Raenex's argument is that the work "Entire Contents of Ubuntu on a CD" is technically a "work based on the Program".
What program? Can the distro as a whole be considered a single program?
Bundling non-free works on a medium that is distributed to the public makes the distribution as a whole "based on altered GPLed code" because it is technically a "work based on the Program".
How is Adobe Acrobat altered GPL code? Other parts of the distro may be altered GPL code, but they would include the source (or have it available).
Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.
bold added
For two reasons: 1. Because he might be right at first glance, working for Oracle, and planning to use this interpretation against Red Hat and Google in court. 2. Because Kufat, who also posted in the thread, asked me on EFnet #nesdev to correct Raenex.
2. makes sense if you're a human being; 1. makes sense if you're a lawyer for Red Hat or Google. Also, would an attorney characterize an organization's interpretation of its own license as bizarre? Mistaken or legally untenable perhaps, but bizarre?
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points, I'd give your sig a +1 insightful.
On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of crap that they pay Oracle and Microsoft $$$ to run that doesn't serve anyone's needs very well,
Oh, come, now, I'm sure it serves Oracle's and Microsoft's needs :-)
And what does CS have to do with IT?
Or because they don't care,
Which may have been what the OP was complaining about.
But is this because they don't know about the possibilities of computing?
The Internet is more than the Web. Does Safari have a built-in client for every port?
plus its logo looks like a vagina.
I am shocked, shocked to discover a French company having a vagina-shaped logo.
I didn't find it that vagina-shaped.
And to be equally pedantic, there was an episode of Quincy where the driver murdered the pedestrian. Of course, Quincy didn't let him get away with it.
Not quite, SuperBanana said
which must be piloted accurately to within less than a few feet at speeds humans were never designed to travel.
Which could mean either that humans were designed for different speeds, or not designed at all. Also, what verb would you use in place of "designed"? I don't believe that it is the best verb for this purpose, but I can't think of a different one.
Forth more we need NOT less we need just one
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra#Misattributed
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
awk?
What if you need more than quick fixes? As the man you so cavalierly insult in your signature would say, there is no substitute for source.
I suspect the WINE people would disagree.
But can any doofus make a window pane?
Warning: I am not a lawyer, I just spew stuff on Slashdot.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation
Would a judge be bound by this? I don't know. But remember, we don't have to convince Raenex; Raenex has to convince a judge.
Has Oracle actually launched a suit, or are they merely considering it? Also, what are their specific claims, if such they make?
You don't need the source code, any more than you need it to attack XP.
You don't need a glazier to break a window, but you need one to repair/replace it.
Raenex's argument is that the work "Entire Contents of Ubuntu on a CD" is technically a "work based on the Program".
What program? Can the distro as a whole be considered a single program?
Bundling non-free works on a medium that is distributed to the public makes the distribution as a whole "based on altered GPLed code" because it is technically a "work based on the Program".
How is Adobe Acrobat altered GPL code? Other parts of the distro may be altered GPL code, but they would include the source (or have it available).
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
bold added
For two reasons: 1. Because he might be right at first glance, working for Oracle, and planning to use this interpretation against Red Hat and Google in court. 2. Because Kufat, who also posted in the thread, asked me on EFnet #nesdev to correct Raenex.
2. makes sense if you're a human being; 1. makes sense if you're a lawyer for Red Hat or Google. Also, would an attorney characterize an organization's interpretation of its own license as bizarre? Mistaken or legally untenable perhaps, but bizarre?
Stallman?
I thought that was Microsoft lawyers.
http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Humor/borg-micro.html
3rd parties will continue to offer protection for XP well after April 2014, because it's money in their pocket, and there's nothing Microsoft can do.
How well will 3rd parties be able to protect XP without having the source code?
Episode 6: Return of the Voter
Isn't science fiction suppose to be somewhat realistic?
Or you could light such a methane fart. Should be a decent flamethrower.
Methane (with a proper odorant) isn't banned. What if the sheer explosiveness of the fart is military grade?
Nice, but if you use it to destroy the US, who's going to sue you?