linking to gpl open source code is fine and is most definitely not copyright infringement. that is the whole point of open source - to make the code freely and readily available...
please try harder with your misdirections in the furure.
give me a break. suse is a perfectly good, albeit idiosyncratic, distro. i have had few problems installing it on a very wide assortment of hardware. that said, it's just a distro and not a religion.
your single bad experience, for whatever reason it occurred, is hardly the basis for leaping to the conclusions you do. especially considering suse is a $$ commercial distro...
you can obtain suse pro free of charge. just do a ftp install [from suse or a local ftp server that you have downloaded the tree to]. or download the iso of the dvd and burn it to disc.
"While he may not have intended to agree to the license, he did use the software. He didn't use the CLIENT software, but he did use the server software. The license for BK states that using the software indicates acceptance of the terms."
i don't believe tridge does kernel development so are you sure of this? and how do you use the server without a client?
also, i believe osdl uses the paid version of bitkeeper which lacks the reverse engineering clause [iirc].
"You're trying to side step the issue. Whether or not you disagree with what Linus was doing, it was Linus's decision, not Tridges, to use BK. Linus was willing to accept the terms to do that. Tridge wasn't, so he should not have tried to use the software in violation of the license."
see above. also, i am pretty sure that all linux developers DO NOT use bitkeeper directly. linus doesn't get to agree the license for everyone. just because linux kernel dev is done on it doesn't contaminate every linux developer.
there have been statements to the effect that tridge did not use bitkeeper itself, except output files [think ms.doc], for his work and that this work was for interoperability with other scms. it is not like he was reverse engineering the server itself...
as i said before, there is still information to come out that will add clarity to the situation.
"This is really no different that someone choosing to use GPL'd software but not agreeing to or abiding by the terms. If you don't like the terms, DON'T USE IT. No matter how you spin it, that's the issue here."
see above and incorrect. the gpl expands your rights, but the bitkeeper license takes away your rights. this is fundamentally different.
as long as you do not distribute, you can do pretty much anything you want with gpl software. only once you become a distributor do you have to conform to the additional requirements of the gpl.
it's not spin, it's called a difference of opinion.
"Indeed, reverse engineering for interoperability is generally legal. But in this case, doing so was not generally ethical, since the software had been provided under the condition that it not be reverse engineered."
again, apparently he did not use the software and did not agree to the license. he was writing client software to allow communication with other versioning software [aka interoperability].
"It was ethically questionable given the negative impact reverse engineering would have on the entire Linux community (developers and users) through the loss of the software."
unethical? many in the community questioned the ethics of building foss software on a proprietary product and disagreed vehemently with linus on this decision. the loss that occurred is exactly what they expected from this situation and are happy to be done with it sooner rather than later.
"Finally, why even do it? The purpose is to create a tool to interoperate with BK Trees... right? But the very act of reverse engineering would make those trees go away because of the license. As you said, sum.zero. It's the Schrodinger's Cat of software development."
why? see above and add the fact that many developers were not happy with bitkeepers existing facilities in this area.
imho, if tridge is not a licensee then larry is pulling the software for a breach of a license that hasn't occurred while simultaneously attempting to threaten tridge via his employer...
reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is legal iirc.
tridge apparently was not using bitkeeper, nor had he accepted it's license. he was doing what the samba team did with smb and oo.org do with.doc. more info needs to come to light though before a definitive decision can be made.
for the parent of your post - publishing standards is done specifically to allow people to write software to those standards. how is the writing of a posix compliant os unethical? the whole point of posix was to create interoperable oses...
as i stated, the government in question is quite likely to outsource/strategic partner the endeavour. that puts the money in the pockets of business and benefits the citizens too. this is common in the united states. the economy depends on this.
the government offers many goods and services that are also offered or complemented by corporate interests. there are free clinics, but you can pay for better service at non-free ones. there is medicare, which uses the existing industry to deliver the services.
public wi-fi is non-excludable if implemented so as to be non-excludable. other public goods are only non-excludable, imho, because we decide to make them so. i won't get into access issues to non-excludable services such as voip calls to 911 getting error messages.
non-rivalrous? maybe not, but as you yourself acknowledge we do accept certain items as public goods even if they don't fit the exact criteria. why not make an exception here when many stand to gain considerable benefit, both end users and the providers, especially in light of the fact that the established business interests are not moving to fill the gap. the lack of broadband deployment to rural areas is an example of why sometimes the profit-motive system is not always the best choice for the populace.
lastly, my argument about freedom was that the proposed changes would make the people less free. many communities want this service. why should the people not be free to receive it? because it hurts the business interests? most of the established business interests have been subsidised in one form or another in order to get them to where they are today.
women are already counselled about the potential effects and nearly zero percent enter into this choice casually. "informed consent" is misdirection to insert an outside morality into the proceedings. imho, it is the height of hubrous to assume that you have some grand insight that they are missing. oh if only you just had a chance to tell them, then they'd see...
sexual orientation was added to quebec's human rights act in 1977.
sexual orientation wass deemed to be 'read in' to the charter by the supreme court in 1995.
sexual orientation was added to the federal human right's act in 1996.
your silly game is already reality in most of the country. the supreme court has oked the change of definition and found that only allowing a civil union is discriminatory.
i notice also that you chose to ignore the underlying racism i have also mentioned.
racism and homophobia are not sides in a democratic debate. please reread the charter of rights and freedoms.
name calling? i stand by my statement. when a significant portion of a party wants to take away the established right to self-determination from women, they are socially backward. especially when the numbers don't back them.
Slashdot Mirror
not so sure about that. my take is that any one, or more, criteria are sufficient based on that and. i don't think it means all must be satisfied.
sum.zero
"and" only means that you may use one or more, but are not limited to one.
"or" limits you to a single criteria.
most schools of writing dislike "and/or" as it is imprecise, but i can't comment on the specific usage in scientific writing.
sum.zero
imho, it appears they are explicitly trying to give equal value to exercises in "logic" as is given to the other criteria.
this is properly called philosophy.
sum.zero
this text is not here ;P
sum.zero
victimized by the slashdot ratio and threading =)
my apologies.
sum.zero
linking to gpl open source code is fine and is most definitely not copyright infringement. that is the whole point of open source - to make the code freely and readily available...
please try harder with your misdirections in the furure.
i don't know how you got modded 'insightful'.
sum.zero
canadians pay a substantial tariff on all media that goes directly to cria to compensate for public filesharing.
they are attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
sum.zero
this is pure advertorial by doubleclick.
sum.zero
not crack it ;P
sum.zero
suse is garbage!
give me a break. suse is a perfectly good, albeit idiosyncratic, distro. i have had few problems installing it on a very wide assortment of hardware. that said, it's just a distro and not a religion.
your single bad experience, for whatever reason it occurred, is hardly the basis for leaping to the conclusions you do. especially considering suse is a $$ commercial distro...
sum.zero
however, novell explicitly allows you to do this. try it. if you like it, then support...
sum.zero
you can obtain suse pro free of charge. just do a ftp install [from suse or a local ftp server that you have downloaded the tree to]. or download the iso of the dvd and burn it to disc.
hard to beat free...
sum.zero
and laws against municipal wifi! ;P
sum.zero
they [the advertisers] broke that "contract" long ago...
sum.zero
strange how i have never seen any police dashcam footage of the assault. somebody must have captured something...
sum.zero
new ad models!!!
i mean, who doesn't get excited when they hear about new ways to be bombarded with corporate propaganda!
sum.zero
"While he may not have intended to agree to the license, he did use the software. He didn't use the CLIENT software, but he did use the server software. The license for BK states that using the software indicates acceptance of the terms."
.doc], for his work and that this work was for interoperability with other scms. it is not like he was reverse engineering the server itself...
i don't believe tridge does kernel development so are you sure of this? and how do you use the server without a client?
also, i believe osdl uses the paid version of bitkeeper which lacks the reverse engineering clause [iirc].
"You're trying to side step the issue. Whether or not you disagree with what Linus was doing, it was Linus's decision, not Tridges, to use BK. Linus was willing to accept the terms to do that. Tridge wasn't, so he should not have tried to use the software in violation of the license."
see above. also, i am pretty sure that all linux developers DO NOT use bitkeeper directly. linus doesn't get to agree the license for everyone. just because linux kernel dev is done on it doesn't contaminate every linux developer.
there have been statements to the effect that tridge did not use bitkeeper itself, except output files [think ms
as i said before, there is still information to come out that will add clarity to the situation.
"This is really no different that someone choosing to use GPL'd software but not agreeing to or abiding by the terms. If you don't like the terms, DON'T USE IT. No matter how you spin it, that's the issue here."
see above and incorrect. the gpl expands your rights, but the bitkeeper license takes away your rights. this is fundamentally different.
as long as you do not distribute, you can do pretty much anything you want with gpl software. only once you become a distributor do you have to conform to the additional requirements of the gpl.
it's not spin, it's called a difference of opinion.
sum.zero
"Indeed, reverse engineering for interoperability is generally legal. But in this case, doing so was not generally ethical, since the software had been provided under the condition that it not be reverse engineered."
again, apparently he did not use the software and did not agree to the license. he was writing client software to allow communication with other versioning software [aka interoperability].
"It was ethically questionable given the negative impact reverse engineering would have on the entire Linux community (developers and users) through the loss of the software."
unethical? many in the community questioned the ethics of building foss software on a proprietary product and disagreed vehemently with linus on this decision. the loss that occurred is exactly what they expected from this situation and are happy to be done with it sooner rather than later.
"Finally, why even do it? The purpose is to create a tool to interoperate with BK Trees... right? But the very act of reverse engineering would make those trees go away because of the license. As you said, sum.zero. It's the Schrodinger's Cat of software development."
why? see above and add the fact that many developers were not happy with bitkeepers existing facilities in this area.
imho, if tridge is not a licensee then larry is pulling the software for a breach of a license that hasn't occurred while simultaneously attempting to threaten tridge via his employer...
not cool.
sum.zero
reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is legal iirc.
.doc. more info needs to come to light though before a definitive decision can be made.
tridge apparently was not using bitkeeper, nor had he accepted it's license. he was doing what the samba team did with smb and oo.org do with
for the parent of your post - publishing standards is done specifically to allow people to write software to those standards. how is the writing of a posix compliant os unethical? the whole point of posix was to create interoperable oses...
sum.zero
this text is not here.
sum.zero
as i stated, the government in question is quite likely to outsource/strategic partner the endeavour. that puts the money in the pockets of business and benefits the citizens too. this is common in the united states. the economy depends on this.
the government offers many goods and services that are also offered or complemented by corporate interests. there are free clinics, but you can pay for better service at non-free ones. there is medicare, which uses the existing industry to deliver the services.
public wi-fi is non-excludable if implemented so as to be non-excludable. other public goods are only non-excludable, imho, because we decide to make them so. i won't get into access issues to non-excludable services such as voip calls to 911 getting error messages.
non-rivalrous? maybe not, but as you yourself acknowledge we do accept certain items as public goods even if they don't fit the exact criteria. why not make an exception here when many stand to gain considerable benefit, both end users and the providers, especially in light of the fact that the established business interests are not moving to fill the gap. the lack of broadband deployment to rural areas is an example of why sometimes the profit-motive system is not always the best choice for the populace.
lastly, my argument about freedom was that the proposed changes would make the people less free. many communities want this service. why should the people not be free to receive it? because it hurts the business interests? most of the established business interests have been subsidised in one form or another in order to get them to where they are today.
sum.zero
bad apples in every barrel, but the ratio is the thing...
sum.zero
women are already counselled about the potential effects and nearly zero percent enter into this choice casually. "informed consent" is misdirection to insert an outside morality into the proceedings. imho, it is the height of hubrous to assume that you have some grand insight that they are missing. oh if only you just had a chance to tell them, then they'd see...
sexual orientation was added to quebec's human rights act in 1977.
sexual orientation wass deemed to be 'read in' to the charter by the supreme court in 1995.
sexual orientation was added to the federal human right's act in 1996.
your silly game is already reality in most of the country. the supreme court has oked the change of definition and found that only allowing a civil union is discriminatory.
i notice also that you chose to ignore the underlying racism i have also mentioned.
sum.zero
racism and homophobia are not sides in a democratic debate. please reread the charter of rights and freedoms.
name calling? i stand by my statement. when a significant portion of a party wants to take away the established right to self-determination from women, they are socially backward. especially when the numbers don't back them.
sum.zero
they are the most socially backward.
sum.zero