It means you jumped on his ass, called him a fanatic and proceeded to righteously refute something he didn't say. Kind of like...
Pretty much any time LLVM or LLVM subprojects come up, a bunch of GPL'ers start with, "it's a nice little project, too bad it doesn't have a copyleft license."
So, you are disputing the claim that "Apple has been using it internally for years as a way to create CPU vs GPU agnostic graphics code that can run on the best available hardware, and probably wouldn't want to have had to release that aspect of their work under GPL rules." ?? That apple really has released every part of their internal LLVM project? That they have no proprietary-only parts?
Or, are you just knee-jerking because you can't quite grasp the discussion that the adults are having?
I can count the number of non-scientists excited about those projects on 1 hand. Does that count? If NASA continues only to accept projects that do not interest the general public they are going to completely lose funding within a few decades.
Fine by me. That will just remove all the political ill-will that's been focused on holding back commercial space development.
Back that truck up. Do you see the part in the original post that said, "I would hope that that doesn't happen; but the potential exists?" Good thing we weren't talking about absolutes.
Thus, for every case where GPLv3 discouraged corporate privatization of the code, it discouraged a hundred companies from using the code in a way that would not compete with and potentially harm the open source project....
Which is, of course, irrelevant to the goals of the GPL. Those being the freedom of the end user.
Fair enough, but a contributor knows the terms of the license going in. If they have a moral issue with this possibility, then they shouldn't contribute in the first place.
Which was fuzzyfuzzyfungus's point in the first place. Your castigation of him was misdirected at strawmen.
Yeah, I've though of that, one more plugin. Considering all the other crap firefox sends when you do a google search, like browser client and release versions, there ought to be an about:config option somewhere to specify all that other crap. I just want to add &safe=off to the list of what's automatically appended to google search URL.
I didn't quite understand that. Who stops contributing? The creators of the private fork or some third party that's duplicating the functionality on the main branch?
Neither. The people who had previously been contributing to the main branch and then realized that a private fork was standing on their shoulders and being used to compete against them. See how CodeWeavers wasn't happy about Transgaming making a proprietary fork of Wine and then competing with them by selling what was in some ways a CodeWeavers++ product. By moving to LGPL, Transgaming could not take any more of CodeWeavers work and use it to undercut CodeWeavers in the market.
Does anyone on/. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.
Depends on your definition of 'juicy' - this kind of information is a treasure-trove for historians. Not Nicholas Cage "National Treasure" 'historians' but the real guys who record the fundamentals of who/what/where/when/how and sometimes the why of our government operations. The motivation to over-classify is particularly strong - no one ever got sent to prison for not releasing a document. But keeping this stuff hidden has all kinds of long-term bad effects, such as an inability to learn from previous mistakes, duplication of effort and a bunch more stuff that isn't about malfeasance but is extremely important to healthy governance.
MS hasn't used any significant BSD code for at least a decade probably much longer. They still might have some in their telnet and ftp clients but that's about it.
But as soon as you click on "images" it does default to safe. If you've embedded the "&safe=off" in the text search, clicking images preserves that argument in the new search.
In that sense its a proprietary apple project for which they've opened up the parts that they think won't give anyone else a competitive advantage against them. Kind of like the way they handled the OSX kernel.
I must be the only person on the whole internet who didn't really care about this. Why bother visiting the Google homepage anyway? I just search from Firefox's search box.
Anyone know if there is a way to make the search box default to "safe search off" without resorting to cookies? I know you can manually stuff a "&safe=off" in the URL - but can you make the firefox search box do it automatically for you?
Ah, a staple argument from GPL fanatics. No, your scenario is not realistic. Even if somebody makes a proprietary branch, that doesn't deprive anybody of the mainstream branch.
Nope, but if those proprietary forks compete against anyone doing work on the main branch those people now have a strong incentive to stop contributing because their own work would be used against their own financial interest. At which point the entire project starts to stagnate.
Unlike GCC, outsiders can successfully provide patches and bug reports to LLVM. The process isn't so incredibly oppressive that people just don't bother.
Which has nothing to do with the GPL. LLVM could just as easily become insular and slowed by inertia - look at XFree86 with their licensing being practically the same as BSD and how that all worked out.
Anyway, other major BSD-like projects don't suffer from private forks, and there's no reason to think LLVM will either.
WINE did, proprietary forks are precisely why they went to the LGPL.
That's nice. "Didn't want him to drive off" is not the same as detaining him or telling him not to drive off. YOU claimed he was under orders not to leave. YOU are wrong. YOU made it up.
Man you are ridiculous.
The cop didn't want him to drive off. The cop told him not to in clear vernacular.
The simple fact is, if he'd gotten in his car and driven off, the cop would not have any probable cause to stop him, not even "disobeying an officer". If the officer intended to detain him, he could have, and would have used appropriate language to convey that fact.
Right, because nobody ever gets arrested for 'disrespecting an officer' -- here's what would have happened if the guy had driven off: the officer's report would have said that he gave the guy a direct and lawful order to stay put because he had reasonable belief that the man was either robbing the house or was casing it in preparation to commit robbery and was doing his lawful duty by investigating further. If nothing else escalated he would have made bail after spending a night in jail and the charges would have been dropped in a few weeks. If there was even the most minor of escalations then its immediately to resisting arrest and he's looking at a couple of thousand dollars minimum to get past it.
I've already mentioned that my uncle is a retired cop in a another post under this story. Just to humor your foolish naivete I ran the original text by him, and he said, "Yep, that officer thought the guy was up to something and didn't want him to drive off."
On the other hand, the absolute best, by far, 9/11 joke is the opening scene of Boll's Postal movie. The rest isn't so bad either - it's got a 4.1 on IMDB, but my impression is that a lot of people gave it a crappy rating without even seeing it, because just about everything else he's done really has deserved a score of 1.0.
That the creation of easily reproducable art (I use that word loosly here) has to become a non profit activity, where you could only generate profit by selling things that are not in limitless supply,
Labor is not in limitless supply. We'd be a lot better served by some sort of commission-based model than an ancilliary market model because the later leads directly to advertiser supported models which don't give a damn about quality or artistic integrity whereas a commission system lets the people most interested in the creations have a direct say in their creation. Its still not advertiser-immune, you can get advertisers commissioning the creation of works loaded with product-placement and such - but those advertisers would at least be competing against the direct audience for the privilege of hiring the artist/production-company/etc.
Since the guy knew his plate was clear, and he wasn't going to have to be chased down, there is no way he should have interpreted the statement as "do not leave". In fact, he didn't interpret it that way. You made it up.
Yeah, he didn't interpret it that way, that's why he did not leave.
One can only hope he is comfortable with trading his freedom or even his life for disclosing what he did, because it was a federal felony, a violation of the UCMJ and likely will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It's too bad the military chain of command isn't so committed. The Abu Graib prosecutions being a perfect example of the people making the decisions escaping accountability. As you said - if their beliefs were strong enough to authorize what happened in that prison, then they ought to bear the full consequences for their decisions. Not too disagree with you, just to point out that what's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what that means.
It means you jumped on his ass, called him a fanatic and proceeded to righteously refute something he didn't say.
Kind of like...
Pretty much any time LLVM or LLVM subprojects come up, a bunch of GPL'ers start with, "it's a nice little project, too bad it doesn't have a copyleft license."
So, you are disputing the claim that "Apple has been using it internally for years as a way to create CPU vs GPU agnostic graphics code that can run on the best available hardware, and probably wouldn't want to have had to release that aspect of their work under GPL rules." ?? That apple really has released every part of their internal LLVM project? That they have no proprietary-only parts?
Or, are you just knee-jerking because you can't quite grasp the discussion that the adults are having?
I can count the number of non-scientists excited about those projects on 1 hand. Does that count? If NASA continues only to accept projects that do not interest the general public they are going to completely lose funding within a few decades.
Fine by me. That will just remove all the political ill-will that's been focused on holding back commercial space development.
Stop right there.
Back that truck up. Do you see the part in the original post that said, "I would hope that that doesn't happen; but the potential exists?" Good thing we weren't talking about absolutes.
Thus, for every case where GPLv3 discouraged corporate privatization of the code, it discouraged a hundred companies from using the code in a way that would not compete with and potentially harm the open source project....
Which is, of course, irrelevant to the goals of the GPL. Those being the freedom of the end user.
nother hypothetical. I especially like how you bring up an imaginary "financial interest" from people doing volunteer work on a free project.
Hardly a hypothetical. I even cited the example of Wine in the very same post you responded to.
Do you really think all the engineers working on LLVM are doing it for free?
Fair enough, but a contributor knows the terms of the license going in. If they have a moral issue with this possibility, then they shouldn't contribute in the first place.
Which was fuzzyfuzzyfungus's point in the first place. Your castigation of him was misdirected at strawmen.
Thanks man, worked like a charm!
Yeah, I've though of that, one more plugin. Considering all the other crap firefox sends when you do a google search, like browser client and release versions, there ought to be an about:config option somewhere to specify all that other crap. I just want to add &safe=off to the list of what's automatically appended to google search URL.
I didn't quite understand that. Who stops contributing? The creators of the private fork or some third party that's duplicating the functionality on the main branch?
Neither. The people who had previously been contributing to the main branch and then realized that a private fork was standing on their shoulders and being used to compete against them. See how CodeWeavers wasn't happy about Transgaming making a proprietary fork of Wine and then competing with them by selling what was in some ways a CodeWeavers++ product. By moving to LGPL, Transgaming could not take any more of CodeWeavers work and use it to undercut CodeWeavers in the market.
Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.
Depends on your definition of 'juicy' - this kind of information is a treasure-trove for historians. Not Nicholas Cage "National Treasure" 'historians' but the real guys who record the fundamentals of who/what/where/when/how and sometimes the why of our government operations. The motivation to over-classify is particularly strong - no one ever got sent to prison for not releasing a document. But keeping this stuff hidden has all kinds of long-term bad effects, such as an inability to learn from previous mistakes, duplication of effort and a bunch more stuff that isn't about malfeasance but is extremely important to healthy governance.
MS hasn't used any significant BSD code for at least a decade probably much longer.
They still might have some in their telnet and ftp clients but that's about it.
But as soon as you click on "images" it does default to safe.
If you've embedded the "&safe=off" in the text search, clicking images preserves that argument in the new search.
In that sense its a proprietary apple project for which they've opened up the parts that they think won't give anyone else a competitive advantage against them. Kind of like the way they handled the OSX kernel.
When you are at the border you are no longer "in" the US. You are "between" countries. You have no rights.
Its like a little mini-gitmo for everyone coming to america!
I must be the only person on the whole internet who didn't really care about this. Why bother visiting the Google homepage anyway? I just search from Firefox's search box.
Anyone know if there is a way to make the search box default to "safe search off" without resorting to cookies?
I know you can manually stuff a "&safe=off" in the URL - but can you make the firefox search box do it automatically for you?
Ah, a staple argument from GPL fanatics. No, your scenario is not realistic. Even if somebody makes a proprietary branch, that doesn't deprive anybody of the mainstream branch.
Nope, but if those proprietary forks compete against anyone doing work on the main branch those people now have a strong incentive to stop contributing because their own work would be used against their own financial interest. At which point the entire project starts to stagnate.
Unlike GCC, outsiders can successfully provide patches and bug reports to LLVM. The process isn't so incredibly oppressive that people just don't bother.
Which has nothing to do with the GPL. LLVM could just as easily become insular and slowed by inertia - look at XFree86 with their licensing being practically the same as BSD and how that all worked out.
Anyway, other major BSD-like projects don't suffer from private forks, and there's no reason to think LLVM will either.
WINE did, proprietary forks are precisely why they went to the LGPL.
It is not disrespecting an officer to not obey a demand that wasn't made.
Tell you what - you find yourself in a similar situation you just go ahead and prove me wrong.
Your trivialization of the entire incident as the cop merely saying, "hi, how are you" shows just how out of touch you are.
That's nice. "Didn't want him to drive off" is not the same as detaining him or telling him not to drive off. YOU claimed he was under orders not to leave. YOU are wrong. YOU made it up.
Man you are ridiculous.
The cop didn't want him to drive off. The cop told him not to in clear vernacular.
The simple fact is, if he'd gotten in his car and driven off, the cop would not have any probable cause to stop him, not even "disobeying an officer". If the officer intended to detain him, he could have, and would have used appropriate language to convey that fact.
Right, because nobody ever gets arrested for 'disrespecting an officer' -- here's what would have happened if the guy had driven off: the officer's report would have said that he gave the guy a direct and lawful order to stay put because he had reasonable belief that the man was either robbing the house or was casing it in preparation to commit robbery and was doing his lawful duty by investigating further. If nothing else escalated he would have made bail after spending a night in jail and the charges would have been dropped in a few weeks. If there was even the most minor of escalations then its immediately to resisting arrest and he's looking at a couple of thousand dollars minimum to get past it.
I've already mentioned that my uncle is a retired cop in a another post under this story. Just to humor your foolish naivete I ran the original text by him, and he said, "Yep, that officer thought the guy was up to something and didn't want him to drive off."
What an amazing fantasy world you live in.
Uwe Boll.
On the other hand, the absolute best, by far, 9/11 joke is the opening scene of Boll's Postal movie. The rest isn't so bad either - it's got a 4.1 on IMDB, but my impression is that a lot of people gave it a crappy rating without even seeing it, because just about everything else he's done really has deserved a score of 1.0.
That the creation of easily reproducable art (I use that word loosly here) has to become a non profit activity, where you could only generate profit by selling things that are not in limitless supply,
Labor is not in limitless supply. We'd be a lot better served by some sort of commission-based model than an ancilliary market model because the later leads directly to advertiser supported models which don't give a damn about quality or artistic integrity whereas a commission system lets the people most interested in the creations have a direct say in their creation. Its still not advertiser-immune, you can get advertisers commissioning the creation of works loaded with product-placement and such - but those advertisers would at least be competing against the direct audience for the privilege of hiring the artist/production-company/etc.
Since the guy knew his plate was clear, and he wasn't going to have to be chased down, there is no way he should have interpreted the statement as "do not leave". In fact, he didn't interpret it that way. You made it up.
Yeah, he didn't interpret it that way, that's why he did not leave.
No. Definitely not named Christian.
One can only hope he is comfortable with trading his freedom or even his life for disclosing what he did, because it was a federal felony, a violation of the UCMJ and likely will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It's too bad the military chain of command isn't so committed. The Abu Graib prosecutions being a perfect example of the people making the decisions escaping accountability. As you said - if their beliefs were strong enough to authorize what happened in that prison, then they ought to bear the full consequences for their decisions. Not too disagree with you, just to point out that what's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander...