The screen shot to Google's "Suggest" beta service certainly looks authentic enough. In the past, Google has limited it's rollout of new features (like the "new look" Google) based on the presence of a cookie; presumably sent out at pre-set intervals to arbitrary users. I wouldn't be surprised if they were phasing this in slowly to determine the impact of showing all those photos in every web search.
Personally, it will just annoy me, so I hope they provide a way to turn it off. If I want pictures, I click on the link that searched for pictures.
No, this hasn't changed. Since you are using FreeBSD you can look for yourself:/usr/src/crypto/openssl/LICENSE
In fact, *both* licenses contain the advertising clause, plus the OpenSSL license contains restrictions on what you're allowed to name your derivative works. I suspect that this part also goes against the GPL.
Having said all that, its possible that the government would prefer not to use a "forced-free" library when a "leniently-free" one is available. The line between "internal use" and "distribution" for an organization as large as the military is pretty blurry. Crossing over that "distribution" line is what trips the GPL into effect, and that might be problematic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, because everyone in the tech industry is just dying to say "Personally, I'm a LAMR".
--K
The screen shot to Google's "Suggest" beta service certainly looks authentic enough. In the past, Google has limited it's rollout of new features (like the "new look" Google) based on the presence of a cookie; presumably sent out at pre-set intervals to arbitrary users. I wouldn't be surprised if they were phasing this in slowly to determine the impact of showing all those photos in every web search.
Personally, it will just annoy me, so I hope they provide a way to turn it off. If I want pictures, I click on the link that searched for pictures.
--Kutulu
No, this hasn't changed. Since you are using FreeBSD you can look for yourself: /usr/src/crypto/openssl/LICENSE
In fact, *both* licenses contain the advertising clause, plus the OpenSSL license contains restrictions on what you're allowed to name your derivative works. I suspect that this part also goes against the GPL.
Having said all that, its possible that the government would prefer not to use a "forced-free" library when a "leniently-free" one is available. The line between "internal use" and "distribution" for an organization as large as the military is pretty blurry. Crossing over that "distribution" line is what trips the GPL into effect, and that might be problematic.