Heard about Genetic Programming ? Generate a few thousands simulated bacteries, each with a given DNA; test these in software against a particular problem
I don't think you can do this the way you want. One can apply genetic algorithms to programs to get the best solution because the environment you use to evolve the programs is the same as their natural habitat. So your evaluation means something. You don't have to simulate anything.
Your idea is to use a computer to evolve real-life DNA sequences. But DNA sequences do not have the precisely defined semantics of a computer language-- they work by virtue of their interactions with each other and with their environment. "Simulating" this inside a computer (for the purposes of weeding out weak sequences) would require simulation of the organism's environment, right down to the last atom and molecule.
In other words, you can't cross-compile with Genetic Algorithms.
>>>BSD wants their tools to be 100% redistributable, to anyone, anywhere, including commercial and proprietary uses. >>>>>>>>
GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting. You can even package unmodified GNU tools on the same disc as a proprietary package: the restrictions apply to linking and code modification, not simple "aggregation".
Both GPL and BSD licensed software are 100 percent "distributable." The restriction means that it must stay redistributable, while BSD makes no such guarantee. Without one or two strings attached, the guy with the best lawyers wins.
By freely choosing to use GPL'ed software, I respect the author(s) of the software whose work I benefit every time I use GNU grep. I am willing to respect his/her wishes in exchange for free software; especially when it only means that I can't make changes without also redistributing them for free. I can accept this with a clear conscience. This does not make me a communist, utopianist, or libertarian (tho I am a libertarian.)
If I don't want this, I can use BSD software. In any case, nobody is forcing me to do anything.
Which brings me to my final point. This talk about communism has got to stop. It's a smear and nothing more. Under communism, the government decides who you are and what you do, and then they take your money and redistribute it to everyone else. Communist systems have absolutely nothing to do with any software license in existence, and the use of the term achieves absolutely nothing.
Remember, communism only works when you cannot opt out. It's your only choice. Not so with GNU. I don't think it's very productive to smear GNU, since without the long development of GNU tools that preceded Linux, Linux would be nothing but a kernel. Calling GNU a communist system is simply ignorant; that word tends to come out of the bag whenever ignorant people see something that isn't expressly designed to make money.
If you view GPL's restrictions as the "price to be paid" for free software, it's worth it. If, like me, you don't even view it as a restriction, then that's fine too.
>>>How 'free' is software licensed such that you have to accept a particular political belief?
Very free, in that by accepting the GPL you cannot ever make the software un-free. The "inheritance" clause ensures that all GPL-derivative works are also freely-distributed under the GPL. Say what you like about the "political belief" embodied therein, but GPL prohibits making proprietary anything based on or derived from GPL software.
GPL makes explicit the "free" part of free software. You can't improve GREP with your own extensions and then close the source and make it proprietary, selling it as if you wrote the whole thing. You can be sure that whatever happens to Grep in the future, you can check it out without charge.
Nobody makes you use GPL. Write your own free software from scratch, and you win... you can do anything you like.
The GPL, essentially, means that you honor the free-software wishes of the author whose code you are using and benefiting from.
In the end, it's whether you come at computer science from the academic viewpoint, or the business viewpoint.
I offer the following quote from the Microsoft website: ********************************* No Future Releases of Microsoft Products on 32-bit or 64-bit Alpha Platform There will be no future releases of Microsoft products for the 32-bit or 64-bit Alpha platform. This means there will not be 32-bit Alpha versions of Windows 2000, beginning with Release Candidate 2, nor will there be new 32-bit Alpha releases of SQL Server, Exchange, or other 32-bit Alpha BackOffice products. There will also be no 64-bit version of Windows or BackOffice developed for the Alpha platform. *************************************
This is available at http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/co mpaq.asp
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you can do this the way you want. One can apply genetic algorithms to programs to get the best solution because the environment you use to evolve the programs is the same as their natural habitat. So your evaluation means something. You don't have to simulate anything.
Your idea is to use a computer to evolve real-life DNA sequences. But DNA sequences do not have the precisely defined semantics of a computer language-- they work by virtue of their interactions with each other and with their environment. "Simulating" this inside a computer (for the purposes of weeding out weak sequences) would require simulation of the organism's environment, right down to the last atom and molecule.
In other words, you can't cross-compile with Genetic Algorithms.
>>>>>By the way, I didn't mention communism at all in my post. Where did you get this?
:-)
:-)
Others have been saying it in the forum here. I should have said this wasn't directed specifically at you.
Sorry
>>>>>>>In this case then, there are many proprietary licenses that count as freely redistributable as well
Which ones? Do you get the source?
>>>>>>>>
GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting. You can even package unmodified GNU tools on the same disc as a proprietary package: the restrictions apply to linking and code modification, not simple "aggregation".
Both GPL and BSD licensed software are 100 percent "distributable." The restriction means that it must stay redistributable, while BSD makes no such guarantee. Without one or two strings attached, the guy with the best lawyers wins.
By freely choosing to use GPL'ed software, I respect the author(s) of the software whose work I benefit every time I use GNU grep. I am willing to respect his/her wishes in exchange for free software; especially when it only means that I can't make changes without also redistributing them for free. I can accept this with a clear conscience. This does not make me a communist, utopianist, or libertarian (tho I am a libertarian.)
If I don't want this, I can use BSD software. In any case, nobody is forcing me to do anything.
Which brings me to my final point. This talk about communism has got to stop. It's a smear and nothing more. Under communism, the government decides who you are and what you do, and then they take your money and redistribute it to everyone else. Communist systems have absolutely nothing to do with any software license in existence, and the use of the term achieves absolutely nothing.
Remember, communism only works when you cannot opt out. It's your only choice. Not so with GNU. I don't think it's very productive to smear GNU, since without the long development of GNU tools that preceded Linux, Linux would be nothing but a kernel. Calling GNU a communist system is simply ignorant; that word tends to come out of the bag whenever ignorant people see something that isn't expressly designed to make money.
If you view GPL's restrictions as the "price to be paid" for free software, it's worth it. If, like me, you don't even view it as a restriction, then that's fine too.
Very free, in that by accepting the GPL you cannot ever make the software un-free. The "inheritance" clause ensures that all GPL-derivative works are also freely-distributed under the GPL. Say what you like about the "political belief" embodied therein, but GPL prohibits making proprietary anything based on or derived from GPL software.
GPL makes explicit the "free" part of free software. You can't improve GREP with your own extensions and then close the source and make it proprietary, selling it as if you wrote the whole thing. You can be sure that whatever happens to Grep in the future, you can check it out without charge.
Nobody makes you use GPL. Write your own free software from scratch, and you win... you can do anything you like.
The GPL, essentially, means that you honor the free-software wishes of the author whose code you are using and benefiting from.
In the end, it's whether you come at computer science from the academic viewpoint, or the business viewpoint.
I offer the following quote from the Microsoft website:
o mpaq.asp
*********************************
No Future Releases of Microsoft Products on 32-bit or 64-bit Alpha Platform
There will be no future releases of Microsoft products for the 32-bit or 64-bit Alpha platform. This means there will not be
32-bit Alpha versions of Windows 2000, beginning with Release Candidate 2, nor will there be new 32-bit Alpha releases of
SQL Server, Exchange, or other 32-bit Alpha BackOffice products. There will also be no 64-bit version of Windows or
BackOffice developed for the Alpha platform.
*************************************
This is available at http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/c