There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.
Section 4 is that very clause. If you "copy, modify, sublicense or
distribute the Program except as expressly provided under" the GPLv2,
your rights are "automatically terminate[d]." There is no mechanism to
regain a license under the GPLv2. And if you think that you regain
such a license under GPLv2 section 6, the end of section 4 takes care
of that: "parties who have received [..] rights [..] from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long [as they]
remain in full compliance.
If this wasn't the case, the GPLv2 itself would have no force,
because any past violation could be pasted over by merely being
granted a new license from some other sublicensor. GPLv3 fixes this
problem by adding reinstatement language to section 8.
To use a car example, it's like a car with high torque and excellent gas mileage, but ugly to look at and the instruments are labelled differently and in the back seat.
No, it's more like a car whose steering wheel looks like an F1 steering wheel
and a dash panel which looks like a
747 flight engineer's station.
Difficult for someone used to driving a normal car or flying a piper cub to master, but capable of generating incredible performance for those who understand its function.
Oh, you mean the stuff inside that laptop you're posting with?
And in just about any piece of electronic equipment, yes. Its commonality doesn't make it any less toxic or undermine the point that even alternative energy sources produce waste and problems which should be considered when determining whether they are economically and environmentally feasible.
Thankfully, those of us who use emacs just run M-x calc to get back to an RPN calculator which actually calculates numbers. (It's pretty much the main reason why my 48gx sits on my shelf waiting to be used.)
Now perhaps your argument is that that required thought, but what else is the point of doing algebra problems without thinking about what precisely is being done?
Or maybe the fact that one of his parents was born overseas, and his parents lived overseas a fairly substantial amount of time before he was born?
Stanley Ann Dunham lived in Kansas, and then moved to Hawaii. She had never been overseas at all, let alone for a fairly substantial amount of time.
Since she was clearly a citizen, and by jus sanguinis, Obama was a citizen at birth (natural born), it's totally irrelevant where Obama was born, just as it is irrelevant where McCain was born. See 301(g) or 309(c) of the INA for details.
Please don't act like everything was so much better in the glory days of DVDs. You're getting "better than they were before" confused with "better than they are now"
Sure, but then the alternative was trying to get my computer to play VHS, Betamax or my LaserDiscs. Though honestly, my VCDs just worked fine.
DVDs were better than the alternatives then, and still has advantages over Bluray today.
R makes great graphs functionally speaking, but without mucking about with the options and some post-processing they are not the most attractive.
Base graphics aren't that nice looking, but that's why ggplot and lattice exist. You can fairly easily produce publication quality graphs with them without spending much time dealing with additional options. There are also packages which produce many of the plots which Tufte promulgates.
Just from examining the few preview pages on amazon.com, this book appears to be far too basic for anyone who has actually done any serious work with R. I personally would forgo this entire book, and spend the time wandering through the R Graph Gallery which has far more examples with source code and underlying data. It's also rather odd that this book doesn't cover ggplot, grid graphics, lattice, or any of the more commonly used tools in advanced R graphics.
Perhaps this book could be useful as your first foray into graphing with R... but I'm unconvinced it even covers that well.
What does this even mean? It's either a copyright violation or fraud. There's no such thing as legal plagiarism in any US state I'm familiar with.
You say that in the face of the story, which is a counterexample disproving your assertion.
The story is an example of a newspaper possibly passing of factual statements as having come from research of their own. That could very well be plagiarism, but it's certainly not a copyright violation (since facts cannot be copyrighted), and doesn't seem to be fraud. Thus it doesn't seem to be illegal.
How does the story in any way act as a counterexample to disprove my assertion that plagiarism itself isn't against the law? Furthermore, even if it did, a random article isn't particularly convincing. Cite the code.
For a large project one could create an organization that would hold the copyright of the entire project.
Yes. The issue is that now you are putting faith in an organization to "do the right thing", an organization which has far more power to alter licensing terms than the FSF does. (After all, the FSF is unable to take away rights granted by a previous version of the GPL, whereas the copyright holder can.)
Want to use GPL 3, go ahead, but you would be wise to delete any "version 3 or any future version" type of language. Wait to see what that future version actually contains and make sure its goals are in line with your goals.
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But then again, some consider that to be a feature.
IANAL, but that's not true in the USofA (Australia, too, IIRC). Although the facts themselves are not copyrightable, specific aggregates of those facts are.
That's incorrect. See FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO for a case which deals with precisely this issue (and is widely quoted when someone brings this up.)
We all know what it means, and most of us don't use it.
That's perfectly fine, but your preference is entirely orthogonal to Debian's usage.
It's just Stallman trying to ride a successful brand name.
RMS doesn't have any authority over how Debian labels its distributions. You may disagree with his pressure on other people to acknowledge the work that the GNU project has done in making a Free Software operating system a possibility, but that argument is irrelevant to Debian's distribution naming policy.
GNU is the userland, Linux is the kernel. We distribute versions of Debian which do not use the Linux kernel, but use GNU userland, like GNU/kfreebsd. They're all Debian, though.
Repeaters are REALLY simple to follow with a simple signal strength meter.
The repeater itself may be (it can of course use any of the other techniques that a fixed transceiver can use), but it makes the actual individual transmitting to the receiver difficult to find, and finding it can alert the individuals using the repeater that someone is looking for them. (As well as being used to target the individuals doing the searching, eliminating people who are capable of operating the equipment for the search.)
It doesn't take determination, just a little thought into inherent weaknesses of each method and exploiting them.
Determination is just a convenient stand-in for the cost in time, equipment, and personnel required to locate the transceiver and the individual(s) operating behind it. Just like your searches for eclipsing binary stars have a cost in time, equipment and expertise, searching for transmitters has a cost. And your stars aren't actively trying to evade detection, either.
And all Atheists, every single one of them believes in [big bang/evolution] 100%.
Hardly. Lots of us who are atheists don't believe in belief. Beliefs are difficult to give up when confronted with evidence that contradicts them. I have no qualms with positing a Big Bang, or one particular version of an evolutionary theory, but the moment that evidence contradicts those specific theories, I modify them or drop them, and continue on.
They just see something that atheists have, but something all atheists deny: Faith.
Perhaps we deny it because we don't actually have it? Or at least, we try very hard not to have it?
In general, the only thing that I personally believe in is that this isn't a solipstic exercise, and that rules (deterministic or not) underly fundamental processes. Everything else is can be refuted, and perhaps even those two "beliefs".
Evolution isn't a fact (or even an observable). It is a theory supported by vast amounts of evidence (observables), which we constantly test every day. Claiming that something is a fact and therefore shouldn't be debated or discussed is antithical to science. Everything in science is debateable. We debate it by doing experiments.
School explains the fact same as school explains gravity. You have to be educated that gravity exists, just how it actually works.
A proper school would discuss gravity by showing the observables, working out how to derive simple laws of gravitation, then working up to how to deal with two body problems and other methods of measuring big G. Finally culminating in the currently open problems in gravity (gravitons, gravitational waves, etc.)
The very move to supress dissent and discussion leads to ruining the very skeptical, curious nature which makes for the best scientists. Schools which do this are squandering their children's future.
There are tons of ways, from repeaters to directional antennas to frequency hopping to intermittent transmitting to various spread spectrum techniques to highly mobile transmitters to variable power output transmitters. It becomes even easier if you are willing to produce harmful interference on bands that are not supposed to be used for amateur communications and intersperse your communications in pre-existing radio frequencies.
It still may be possible for a determined adversary to track down an individual doing this, but it becomes very difficult (and also makes it much easier for the individual broadcasting to know that they are being tracked down.)
That's exceptionally foolish, as it muddies the water between a pure license - with copyright as a remedy - and a contract.
The language used in GPLv3 to describe what type of agreement is being entered into is puprosefully vague, because it must apply in many different jurisdictions while avoiding incuring the liabilities of a particular legal framework in one jurisdiction which may be strengths in another jurisdiction. Furthermore, it isn't like this license was written only by Eben Moglen. Hundreds of people (including myself), many of them lawyers in different legal systems (not including myself), read the license and made suggestions. Most everything which is written in the license is well reasoned and there for a specific purpose; there are almost certainly bugs, but great effort was expended to avoid as many of them as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Section 4 is that very clause. If you "copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under" the GPLv2, your rights are "automatically terminate[d]." There is no mechanism to regain a license under the GPLv2. And if you think that you regain such a license under GPLv2 section 6, the end of section 4 takes care of that: "parties who have received [..] rights [..] from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long [as they] remain in full compliance.
If this wasn't the case, the GPLv2 itself would have no force, because any past violation could be pasted over by merely being granted a new license from some other sublicensor. GPLv3 fixes this problem by adding reinstatement language to section 8.
No, it's more like a car whose steering wheel looks like an F1 steering wheel and a dash panel which looks like a 747 flight engineer's station. Difficult for someone used to driving a normal car or flying a piper cub to master, but capable of generating incredible performance for those who understand its function.
Most everyone who uses vimperator has their browser configured to not use an URL bar. I personally don't miss it at all.
And in just about any piece of electronic equipment, yes. Its commonality doesn't make it any less toxic or undermine the point that even alternative energy sources produce waste and problems which should be considered when determining whether they are economically and environmentally feasible.
cadmium, copper-indium, gallium arsenide, polyvinyl fluoride, etc.
Thankfully, those of us who use emacs just run M-x calc to get back to an RPN calculator which actually calculates numbers. (It's pretty much the main reason why my 48gx sits on my shelf waiting to be used.)
It's simple to solve for x using RPN:
Now perhaps your argument is that that required thought, but what else is the point of doing algebra problems without thinking about what precisely is being done?
Stanley Ann Dunham lived in Kansas, and then moved to Hawaii. She had never been overseas at all, let alone for a fairly substantial amount of time.
Since she was clearly a citizen, and by jus sanguinis, Obama was a citizen at birth (natural born), it's totally irrelevant where Obama was born, just as it is irrelevant where McCain was born. See 301(g) or 309(c) of the INA for details.
Almost all systems of weights and measures used in trade are imposed and regulated by governments. Certainly the ones in the United States are.
We have. Half a circle is pi radians.
On a related note, why doesn't slashcode support UTF-8 properly? (Or at least things like ϖ?) That is all.
Sure, but then the alternative was trying to get my computer to play VHS, Betamax or my LaserDiscs. Though honestly, my VCDs just worked fine.
DVDs were better than the alternatives then, and still has advantages over Bluray today.
Base graphics aren't that nice looking, but that's why ggplot and lattice exist. You can fairly easily produce publication quality graphs with them without spending much time dealing with additional options. There are also packages which produce many of the plots which Tufte promulgates.
Just from examining the few preview pages on amazon.com, this book appears to be far too basic for anyone who has actually done any serious work with R. I personally would forgo this entire book, and spend the time wandering through the R Graph Gallery which has far more examples with source code and underlying data. It's also rather odd that this book doesn't cover ggplot, grid graphics, lattice, or any of the more commonly used tools in advanced R graphics.
Perhaps this book could be useful as your first foray into graphing with R... but I'm unconvinced it even covers that well.
The story is an example of a newspaper possibly passing of factual statements as having come from research of their own. That could very well be plagiarism, but it's certainly not a copyright violation (since facts cannot be copyrighted), and doesn't seem to be fraud. Thus it doesn't seem to be illegal.
How does the story in any way act as a counterexample to disprove my assertion that plagiarism itself isn't against the law? Furthermore, even if it did, a random article isn't particularly convincing. Cite the code.
What does this even mean? It's either a copyright violation or fraud. There's no such thing as legal plagiarism in any US state I'm familiar with.
Now if your point is that its unethical or immoral, that's fine, but that is orthogonal to whether laws were broken.
Yes. The issue is that now you are putting faith in an organization to "do the right thing", an organization which has far more power to alter licensing terms than the FSF does. (After all, the FSF is unable to take away rights granted by a previous version of the GPL, whereas the copyright holder can.)
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But then again, some consider that to be a feature.
That's incorrect. See FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO for a case which deals with precisely this issue (and is widely quoted when someone brings this up.)
That's perfectly fine, but your preference is entirely orthogonal to Debian's usage.
RMS doesn't have any authority over how Debian labels its distributions. You may disagree with his pressure on other people to acknowledge the work that the GNU project has done in making a Free Software operating system a possibility, but that argument is irrelevant to Debian's distribution naming policy.
GNU is the userland, Linux is the kernel. We distribute versions of Debian which do not use the Linux kernel, but use GNU userland, like GNU/kfreebsd. They're all Debian, though.
The repeater itself may be (it can of course use any of the other techniques that a fixed transceiver can use), but it makes the actual individual transmitting to the receiver difficult to find, and finding it can alert the individuals using the repeater that someone is looking for them. (As well as being used to target the individuals doing the searching, eliminating people who are capable of operating the equipment for the search.)
Determination is just a convenient stand-in for the cost in time, equipment, and personnel required to locate the transceiver and the individual(s) operating behind it. Just like your searches for eclipsing binary stars have a cost in time, equipment and expertise, searching for transmitters has a cost. And your stars aren't actively trying to evade detection, either.
Hardly. Lots of us who are atheists don't believe in belief. Beliefs are difficult to give up when confronted with evidence that contradicts them. I have no qualms with positing a Big Bang, or one particular version of an evolutionary theory, but the moment that evidence contradicts those specific theories, I modify them or drop them, and continue on.
Perhaps we deny it because we don't actually have it? Or at least, we try very hard not to have it?
In general, the only thing that I personally believe in is that this isn't a solipstic exercise, and that rules (deterministic or not) underly fundamental processes. Everything else is can be refuted, and perhaps even those two "beliefs".
Evolution isn't a fact (or even an observable). It is a theory supported by vast amounts of evidence (observables), which we constantly test every day. Claiming that something is a fact and therefore shouldn't be debated or discussed is antithical to science. Everything in science is debateable. We debate it by doing experiments.
A proper school would discuss gravity by showing the observables, working out how to derive simple laws of gravitation, then working up to how to deal with two body problems and other methods of measuring big G. Finally culminating in the currently open problems in gravity (gravitons, gravitational waves, etc.)
The very move to supress dissent and discussion leads to ruining the very skeptical, curious nature which makes for the best scientists. Schools which do this are squandering their children's future.
There are tons of ways, from repeaters to directional antennas to frequency hopping to intermittent transmitting to various spread spectrum techniques to highly mobile transmitters to variable power output transmitters. It becomes even easier if you are willing to produce harmful interference on bands that are not supposed to be used for amateur communications and intersperse your communications in pre-existing radio frequencies.
It still may be possible for a determined adversary to track down an individual doing this, but it becomes very difficult (and also makes it much easier for the individual broadcasting to know that they are being tracked down.)
The language used in GPLv3 to describe what type of agreement is being entered into is puprosefully vague, because it must apply in many different jurisdictions while avoiding incuring the liabilities of a particular legal framework in one jurisdiction which may be strengths in another jurisdiction. Furthermore, it isn't like this license was written only by Eben Moglen. Hundreds of people (including myself), many of them lawyers in different legal systems (not including myself), read the license and made suggestions. Most everything which is written in the license is well reasoned and there for a specific purpose; there are almost certainly bugs, but great effort was expended to avoid as many of them as possible.