Agreed. Very strong. Very flexible. The core developers are very nice. It's a bit of a moving target though -- packages get unofficially deprecated all the time.
Bullshit. I had a Genesis as a kid. In retrospect, I realize I would have prefered a SNES. When I ran into a used one for $5, I bought it and have played through several games. Chrono Trigger was great. But I had no nostalgia about it before a few weeks ago. Earthbound was great. But I had no nostalgia about it before a week ago. The Mario games are all great. Fine, I had some nostalgia over the NES Mario games, but I had never touched Super Mario World or Super Mario RPG before a few weeks ago.
If you get bored playing Super Mario Bros., you're either not pressing the run button enough, or have memorized the right acrobatics to use completely.
Random Play Matching I love the idea that random play isn't about stats or ranking. This makes it easier to get into a game just for fun. However, one large problem I see with it right now is uneven matches. Without a ranking system, you could walk into a match and either have your ass handed to you very quickly, or get a complete newbie and have no challenge what so ever (some will delight in this, I don't find it that useful).
If I were Nintendo, I'd have a dozen or two people playing in the same (special, largish) arena at the same time. Joining a match would joining a fight already in progress. Sure, a couple of great players could dominate the scores, but it's not like the noobs wouldn't be able to kill each other off.
As temcat explained, the dual license is the "meta-license" you describe. The licensor offers a choice between two licenses. You choose one. You are not bound by the terms of the other.
For instance, think of MySQL AB. They dual license MySQL for GPL use and proprietary use. If you distribute a GPL licensed version, you're bound by the terms of the GPL. If you distribute under the proprietary license, you are not bound by the terms of the GPL. In particular, that means that the vendor can (and probably should) drop the GPL licensing text if they decide to ship code to, say, a client.
Hypothetical: you go to a car dealership. The salesman shows you two different contracts, and that if you want to lease the car you're interested in, you have to choose between them. Call them Contract A and Contract B.
Say you pick Contract A. THE TERMS OF CONTRACT B DO NOT APPLY SINCE YOU DID NOT AGREE TO IT. You agreed to Contract A. In virtue of Contract A, you can use the car in any way spelled out by Contract A, even if Contract B prohibits some of those things.
Computer logic and legal logic are not the same thing.
If code is released dual-licensed, and one license says the text establishing the dual license cannot be modified, removing reference to either license is just not legal.
Sorry, that's wrong.
Here's an analogy. You go into a car dealership, and the salesman shows you two different contracts. He says that if you want a car, you'll have to choose between them. You choose one. YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OTHER ONE. It doesn't matter what the other one says. It could say "The purchaser is contractually obligated to choose this contract" and the buyer would still not be compelled.
Simple principle. You accept the terms of one contract. You reject the terms of another. The dealer gave you that option.
Same principle. You accept the terms of one license. You reject the terms of another. The licensor gave you that option.
Yes, it does. But, and this is the important part that the Linux people keep on conveniently forgetting: IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL LICENSE!
It doesn't have to. If a product is dual licensed, and you choose License A over License B, you are not bound to the terms of License B. License B has no legal bearing on the relationship between the licensor and licensee. It is effectively nothing but "plain text", modifiable under the terms of License A, if License A permits modification. After all, if License A is accepted, it becomes the de facto copyright notice.
The BSD license is good compared to the GPL because you aren't required to assign copyright to the FSF (read the GPL preamble).
Reading the preamble is a good idea in your case. GPL doesn't require you to assign copyright to the FSF either. The FSF is mentioned once in the preamble, and that is only to say that they use the GPL for most of their projects internally.
Slashdot Mirror
Easily detectable by whom? The average grandma will _not_ be able to detect it.
By grandma's malware detector.
Security, fundamentally, isn't one single thing. It is many. A process. A methodology. A result. Objective. Subjective. Actual. Perceived. False.
Until you understand how it can be all those things at once, please don't comment on what security "fundamentally" is.
Obviously, a unit of mass times information.
No. ...
am i doin it rite?
You are right.
Does... not... compute...
Which doesn't contradict the GP. XML is an easy to parse and validate fragment of SGML. It is also slightly easier for a human to read.
Indeed, I just rephrased your quotation.
I've not used an Apple machine in years... Is it possible to buy a Mac without an O/S? Would there be a market for this?
Yes, it is possible. You need to call them though. There was a market when Apple used PowerPC.
fuel cells
Agreed. Very strong. Very flexible. The core developers are very nice. It's a bit of a moving target though -- packages get unofficially deprecated all the time.
Bullshit. I had a Genesis as a kid. In retrospect, I realize I would have prefered a SNES. When I ran into a used one for $5, I bought it and have played through several games. Chrono Trigger was great. But I had no nostalgia about it before a few weeks ago. Earthbound was great. But I had no nostalgia about it before a week ago. The Mario games are all great. Fine, I had some nostalgia over the NES Mario games, but I had never touched Super Mario World or Super Mario RPG before a few weeks ago.
If you get bored playing Super Mario Bros., you're either not pressing the run button enough, or have memorized the right acrobatics to use completely.
I think he means what does 'n' vary over... which is a good question.
Did he quit from the TSA or get fired?
Random Play Matching
I love the idea that random play isn't about stats or ranking. This makes it easier to get into a game just for fun. However, one large problem I see with it right now is uneven matches. Without a ranking system, you could walk into a match and either have your ass handed to you very quickly, or get a complete newbie and have no challenge what so ever (some will delight in this, I don't find it that useful).
If I were Nintendo, I'd have a dozen or two people playing in the same (special, largish) arena at the same time. Joining a match would joining a fight already in progress. Sure, a couple of great players could dominate the scores, but it's not like the noobs wouldn't be able to kill each other off.
As temcat explained, the dual license is the "meta-license" you describe. The licensor offers a choice between two licenses. You choose one. You are not bound by the terms of the other.
For instance, think of MySQL AB. They dual license MySQL for GPL use and proprietary use. If you distribute a GPL licensed version, you're bound by the terms of the GPL. If you distribute under the proprietary license, you are not bound by the terms of the GPL. In particular, that means that the vendor can (and probably should) drop the GPL licensing text if they decide to ship code to, say, a client.
Hypothetical: you go to a car dealership. The salesman shows you two different contracts, and that if you want to lease the car you're interested in, you have to choose between them. Call them Contract A and Contract B.
Say you pick Contract A. THE TERMS OF CONTRACT B DO NOT APPLY SINCE YOU DID NOT AGREE TO IT. You agreed to Contract A. In virtue of Contract A, you can use the car in any way spelled out by Contract A, even if Contract B prohibits some of those things.
Computer logic and legal logic are not the same thing.
If code is released dual-licensed, and one license says the text establishing the dual license cannot be modified, removing reference to either license is just not legal.
Sorry, that's wrong.
Here's an analogy. You go into a car dealership, and the salesman shows you two different contracts. He says that if you want a car, you'll have to choose between them. You choose one. YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OTHER ONE. It doesn't matter what the other one says. It could say "The purchaser is contractually obligated to choose this contract" and the buyer would still not be compelled.
Simple principle. You accept the terms of one contract. You reject the terms of another. The dealer gave you that option.
Same principle. You accept the terms of one license. You reject the terms of another. The licensor gave you that option.
Sanctimony.
He could pull a "Band Formerly Known as NiN" like Prince did.
The company with a gun at their head has had a gun pointed at the heads of all its competitors for the last 20 years.
Wars have been declared over less money than you're talking about.
Regarding the BSD license:
Yes, it does. But, and this is the important part that the Linux people keep on conveniently forgetting: IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL LICENSE!
It doesn't have to. If a product is dual licensed, and you choose License A over License B, you are not bound to the terms of License B . License B has no legal bearing on the relationship between the licensor and licensee. It is effectively nothing but "plain text", modifiable under the terms of License A, if License A permits modification. After all, if License A is accepted, it becomes the de facto copyright notice.
The BSD license is good compared to the GPL because you aren't required to assign copyright to the FSF (read the GPL preamble).
Reading the preamble is a good idea in your case. GPL doesn't require you to assign copyright to the FSF either. The FSF is mentioned once in the preamble, and that is only to say that they use the GPL for most of their projects internally.
I laughed. On the other hand, your complaint really did add nothing.
A significant portion of that was over ice, not on the sea.