Maybe give slackware a try. Good old bsd-style init and probably more suitable for an old-timer than most distros. I realise this probably isn't really a solution, but it is worth trying if you have the time.
I can't imagine they wouldn't have read the BSD license, the modified version is all of about 5 lines. I have read both, and tried to install openbsd a few times, and I don't actually claim that linux is better because I don't think it is, 2.6 is horrible, and if the netbsd (or any of them) kernel was a drop-in replacement I'd switch in a flash. I will say, however, that my current gentoo system is the best operating system I've used.
But it's illegal to sell alcohol to those who are under age. If it had been a responsible adult doing this, there would be no case, but it's a kid. Last I knew GTA was 18-rated. If some kid had drunk a bottle of his parents' whiskey and gone out and shot a cop, would you complain when the victim's lawyer blamed it on the drink?
They don't even need to do that. Just add a big notice at the start saying "This license is very similar to the {GPL|LGPL|BSD} license (linked to that license's page). Please consider using that instead, as it is more compatiable with other projects from the community.
Huh? The only difference it makes is someone can create a derivative work and *add* significant license restrictions on that derivative work. There are restrictions on derivatives of GPL work, but they're not significant unless you planned on adding more restrictions.
It matters to me because I want the improved version. Often I write a program that doesn't quite do what I want, but I can't see how to write the last bit, or don't have time to. Maybe I'm just a bad programmer, but for example: I've written an audioscrobbler plugin that can't do musicbrainz IDs. The reason it doesn't is because the media player I use doesn't read them, so I would have to write my own musicbrainz reader to have it work. I don't have the time at the moment, nor I fear the ability, to write a musicbrainz reader. But I would like my plugin to have one. So if someone adds mbid reading to their copy, I want an open copy which does that.
Just on the first thing, even if you maintain all the conditions you still get incompatiability. Make a copy of the GPL, call it the JoeBuck Public License, change all occurrences of GPL to JPL etc, and FSF to JoeBuck. Voilla, without changing any of the actual conditions, you have yourself a GPL-incompatiable license.
1 and 2 are iirc not free. I do think we need a "patches only" license that is recognised as a major OSS license, is (just) free, and could be used for things like qmail and java. For 3, is there anyone who really feels they need the advertising clause? AIUI it's viewed by pretty much everyone as an unnecessary encumberance. 5 I'll agree with you on, making 4 licenses. 6 I'm not really sure what you mean by, and 7 wouldn't be free.
I think something like the Design Science License is adequate for everything, prolly equivalent to CC sharealike. BSD reworded a little would be equivalent to CC allowing all derivs. If you didn't want attribution, public domain does not need a license. CC noderivs is not really free.
I don't think that's the meaning. You can still charge to sell it. It is just the license that has to be given for free. Their license is no use if they don't have the actual program
The FDL falls into the category of licenses we want to get rid of. Other than the FSF themselves, no-one believes in the FDL, because it's not a free license.
I would volunteer to do that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. You can fit a person and enough consumables to last them to Mars on a short trajectory in pretty much any medium-lift rocket, at a pinch a Falcon 5 would do. Anyone with the cost of that want to send me to mars?
I'm about 10. And not one of them has been direct from mozilla. They've all been from my distro's mirrors.
Re:How about using MD5 and SHA-1 togeher
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
A little bit. But not as much as just using a double-length SHA variant (SHA-256 or something)
Re:SHA-2 would be good, but...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
MDx and SHA-0 and 1 are broken in quick succession by the same team. To my mind this indicates we should move away from that whole family. I'm switching to ripemd.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe give slackware a try. Good old bsd-style init and probably more suitable for an old-timer than most distros. I realise this probably isn't really a solution, but it is worth trying if you have the time.
I can't imagine they wouldn't have read the BSD license, the modified version is all of about 5 lines. I have read both, and tried to install openbsd a few times, and I don't actually claim that linux is better because I don't think it is, 2.6 is horrible, and if the netbsd (or any of them) kernel was a drop-in replacement I'd switch in a flash. I will say, however, that my current gentoo system is the best operating system I've used.
I find it cathartic, personally. If I'm angry with my boss, or something, better I take it out pretending to kill people than shouting at my family.
But it's illegal to sell alcohol to those who are under age. If it had been a responsible adult doing this, there would be no case, but it's a kid. Last I knew GTA was 18-rated. If some kid had drunk a bottle of his parents' whiskey and gone out and shot a cop, would you complain when the victim's lawyer blamed it on the drink?
I'm sick of that argument. If you ban guns, the only people who have guns will be criminals - and can be arrested before they kill people.
They don't even need to do that. Just add a big notice at the start saying "This license is very similar to the {GPL|LGPL|BSD} license (linked to that license's page). Please consider using that instead, as it is more compatiable with other projects from the community.
It's only really a hair's breadth from public domain, to my mind the single restriction isn't really worth bothering with.
If you don't require credit, you don't need a license, just place the source in the public domain.
Huh? The only difference it makes is someone can create a derivative work and *add* significant license restrictions on that derivative work. There are restrictions on derivatives of GPL work, but they're not significant unless you planned on adding more restrictions.
That's what the lgpl is for.
It matters to me because I want the improved version. Often I write a program that doesn't quite do what I want, but I can't see how to write the last bit, or don't have time to. Maybe I'm just a bad programmer, but for example: I've written an audioscrobbler plugin that can't do musicbrainz IDs. The reason it doesn't is because the media player I use doesn't read them, so I would have to write my own musicbrainz reader to have it work. I don't have the time at the moment, nor I fear the ability, to write a musicbrainz reader. But I would like my plugin to have one. So if someone adds mbid reading to their copy, I want an open copy which does that.
Just on the first thing, even if you maintain all the conditions you still get incompatiability. Make a copy of the GPL, call it the JoeBuck Public License, change all occurrences of GPL to JPL etc, and FSF to JoeBuck. Voilla, without changing any of the actual conditions, you have yourself a GPL-incompatiable license.
1 and 2 are iirc not free. I do think we need a "patches only" license that is recognised as a major OSS license, is (just) free, and could be used for things like qmail and java. For 3, is there anyone who really feels they need the advertising clause? AIUI it's viewed by pretty much everyone as an unnecessary encumberance. 5 I'll agree with you on, making 4 licenses. 6 I'm not really sure what you mean by, and 7 wouldn't be free.
I think something like the Design Science License is adequate for everything, prolly equivalent to CC sharealike. BSD reworded a little would be equivalent to CC allowing all derivs. If you didn't want attribution, public domain does not need a license. CC noderivs is not really free.
I don't think that's the meaning. You can still charge to sell it. It is just the license that has to be given for free. Their license is no use if they don't have the actual program
The FDL falls into the category of licenses we want to get rid of. Other than the FSF themselves, no-one believes in the FDL, because it's not a free license.
Updates to office. Or any other MS program.
I didn't agree to any EULA. I installed windows with 98lite and then various MS applications using an installshield extractor thingy off sourceforge.
I would volunteer to do that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. You can fit a person and enough consumables to last them to Mars on a short trajectory in pretty much any medium-lift rocket, at a pinch a Falcon 5 would do. Anyone with the cost of that want to send me to mars?
We found life on the moon iirc 2 years after the probe carrying it had landed. Don't underestimate the durability of life.
There are various gecko-based browsers around you could try. K-Melon was featured recently, you could see if you preferred that.
You must be new here. We *like* killing servers.
I'm about 10. And not one of them has been direct from mozilla. They've all been from my distro's mirrors.
A little bit. But not as much as just using a double-length SHA variant (SHA-256 or something)
MDx and SHA-0 and 1 are broken in quick succession by the same team. To my mind this indicates we should move away from that whole family. I'm switching to ripemd.