lets's say u are used with the X app to read your mail, in that articol the new beta yahoo webmail is prezented to have function more desktop-like, and it is said that the only advance that Gmail has is that it gives as more space.
This is not true it is not only that. Gmail gives us free POP3 access witch give as not "desktop-like" features but desktop-integration and about not having the option to pay for not having an ad display near our mails, again the same thing has been omited: free POP3 access this gives as no ads...
There are 2 issues:
1) Does those IP agreements state that Daimaou has to give IP rights on the portion of code and to end the rights of the previous licences?
2) Those IP agreements state Daimaou has to give IP rights on the portion of the code and nothing more.
Under those two circumstances.
(Case 1)
If there are some stipulations about ending previous contracts that Daimaou had, that Daimaou is the one first violating the GPL by signing such an IP agreament since he can not end the redistribution rights of the licences.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
(Case 2)
Daimaou employer is not stipullating that he has to end previous licences right witch means that what Daimaou previously released under the GPL will remain GPL, and the IP agreaments only force him to also transfer the IP rights of that portion of code that he wrote.
In this case his employer can do that they what with that portion of code but with that potion only.
The employer that now has the IP rights is also the one responsable legally for what Daimaou previously did with that portion of code did (releasing it under the GPL) and now the decision of using that portion of code in the non-GPL programs is theirs but mostly important they can not end the rights of their GPL licences since they are the one responsables for the Daimaou action of releasing it under the GPL and they now have to follow that license.
well if in 8 hours you can install 5 SuSE's but only 2 Gentoo's than either you are "looking at the compilation" or you are still reading the Gentoo Handbook in parallel to installing those.... in 8 hours... you can install more the 5 Gentoo's a lot more...
if the chemical composition of the comet it is unknown, how "safe" it is to force it in an explosion with cooper...?
if it is known to be "safe" for the comet to interact with cooper in that explosion, then the chemical composition of the comet it is already KNOWN and that makes NO reason for the experiment.
sounds to me that NASA is like a little 3 years child that want's to play with fire...
Slashdot Mirror
lets's say u are used with the X app to read your mail, in that articol the new beta yahoo webmail is prezented to have function more desktop-like, and it is said that the only advance that Gmail has is that it gives as more space. This is not true it is not only that. Gmail gives us free POP3 access witch give as not "desktop-like" features but desktop-integration and about not having the option to pay for not having an ad display near our mails, again the same thing has been omited: free POP3 access this gives as no ads...
been there done that but of course i has compiling it on a different computer :))
There are 2 issues:
1) Does those IP agreements state that Daimaou has to give IP rights on the portion of code and to end the rights of the previous licences?
2) Those IP agreements state Daimaou has to give IP rights on the portion of the code and nothing more.
Under those two circumstances.
(Case 1)
If there are some stipulations about ending previous contracts that Daimaou had, that Daimaou is the one first violating the GPL by signing such an IP agreament since he can not end the redistribution rights of the licences.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
(Case 2) Daimaou employer is not stipullating that he has to end previous licences right witch means that what Daimaou previously released under the GPL will remain GPL, and the IP agreaments only force him to also transfer the IP rights of that portion of code that he wrote. In this case his employer can do that they what with that portion of code but with that potion only. The employer that now has the IP rights is also the one responsable legally for what Daimaou previously did with that portion of code did (releasing it under the GPL) and now the decision of using that portion of code in the non-GPL programs is theirs but mostly important they can not end the rights of their GPL licences since they are the one responsables for the Daimaou action of releasing it under the GPL and they now have to follow that license.
well if in 8 hours you can install 5 SuSE's but only 2 Gentoo's than either you are "looking at the compilation" or you are still reading the Gentoo Handbook in parallel to installing those.... in 8 hours... you can install more the 5 Gentoo's a lot more...
well you sure are right they will not have to twak .conf but will surelly have to tweak registry keys ;))
actually as i know, it has a version (currently 1.6.6) as stated in /etc/gentoo-release (file provided by sys-apps/baselayout-1.11.6-r1)
a very good point....
it is more plausible what you have written than what NASA is telling us
this does not sound logic at all...
if the chemical composition of the comet it is unknown, how "safe" it is to force it in an explosion with cooper...?
if it is known to be "safe" for the comet to interact with cooper in that explosion, then the chemical composition of the comet it is already KNOWN and that makes NO reason for the experiment.
sounds to me that NASA is like a little 3 years child that want's to play with fire...
it is using those... NO simulation