If that's the case, then they should reduce my monthly bill after the 2-year contract expires.
"Should"? This is capitalism. They "should" make as much money off of consumers as they can, and those who don't get a new contract when their current one expires, because they don't notice that they're still making payments on their handset are just the type of perfectly exploitable "suckers".
If that's the case, then they should reduce my monthly bill after the 2-year contract expires. Right now they have me paying for the subsidy forever, meaning they're getting more money than if they had charged me up-front for the phone, on top of trapping me in a 2-year contract.
The wireless companies are willing to trade you a significant discount off of the retail price of a phone in exchange for a two-year contract. They are willing to do this because the cost of the phone discount is recuperated over the life of the contract.
Regular monthly fees are based on this assumption. If your contract is up, and you do not plan on canceling your contract in the next two years, you have two options: (1) exchange your two-year loyalty for a phone discount (to use or sell on eBay), or (2) pay the same price anyway, and keep using your old phone. Only an fool would choose option 2, because option 1 costs the same amount of money, and it comes with a free phone (or a discount on an expensive phone).
Then they should update the protocol to account for text messaging. That's a silly way to implement a small asynchronous data packet transfer.
With unlimited data, there's no reason not to send any text messages that I would send through e-mail or a Safari widget designed for just such a purpose.
Why couldn't this be implemented in the kernel and have the patches to that kernel be hosted in a country which doesn't care too much about licensing?
Why hide? Nothing in the CCDL or GPL licenses prevents you from publishing a CCDL patch to a GPL kernel. Publishing the patched kernel source or binary might run you into some problems, but I don't see anything preventing you from publishing the patch itself.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with Sun's license. The problem is the GPL, which does not allow CDDL code to to link to it; so the Linux foundation would be the one sending C&D letters to that project, since it would violate the kernel's GPL.
Only if you distribute binaries.
There is nothing that stops me from developing and distributing a version of Sun's ZFS such that it works with a Linux kernel. I can do anything I want with GPL code while I have it, including link it with my CCDL patch (and publish said CCDL code under the CCDL license), as long as when I distribute GPL source or binaries, I abide by the terms of that license.
Oh sweet fancy moses, I'm having headaches just thinking about the Gentoo "slot" system. Mind you, my shiny new MacBook has a similar feature through Ports, so I'm not entirely rid of it. Personally I just want to apt-get php and go on my merry way.
No one ever said you had to think about it. It's yet another portage feature that "just works" when you install something that depends on an incompatible version of a dependency from the one required by a different package already on your system. Off hand, I couldn't tell you how many versions of PHP I have installed on my Gentoo system, because I don't particularly care as long as everything that I have installed works.
That's the beauty of portage: it pulls in what you need, and gets rid of what you don't need. Under normal circumstances, you don't really need to know what's going on under the covers with your dependencies.
If you just want something analogous to your "apt-get php" on Gentoo, "emerge php" will do the exact same thing.
Apple would prefer you to think of all of their computers as appliances, not computers. That's what the Apple TV is: and appliance that is designed to replace the Mac Mini market segment.
Apple likes to sell you a "solution", which is generally well-designed to address the forseen use-cases, but lacks the flexibility to deal with or support revolutionary changes that come from a more organic marketplace.
The person I was replying to was talking about his own code, not code belonging to a large software corporation or foundation. Even in those cases, though, the foundations usually ask for copyright assignment.
If they don't ask for this, or if an individual person doesn't ask it of his contributors, then those contributors are the copyright holders on their contributions to the code, and their names would need to appear on the license associated specifically with their code.
As I was saying, the BSD license specifically requires that "this notice", including the identification of the copyright holder, be included whenever the code is distributed. Those are the terms of the license. If someone BSD licenses their modifications to your code back to you, this does not absolve you of your responsibility to adhere to that license: you are required to list them as the copyright holder for their contribution, because that's what the license says.
If you don't want to do that, you need to ask for copyright assignment, which is what it sounded like this guy was wanting and thinking that the BSD license gave him.
The copyright holder is identified in three places:
1) The copyright notice on the first line 2) On the first line of the capitalized section 3) On the fourth line of the capitalized section
Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page that I linked to in my post:
* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the * names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products * derived from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY * DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND * ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
This is partly why I've tried to convert my projects to BSD licenses. I have a substantial amount of code that I've written GPL, and after working with people on these projects for several years, its hard to remember who wrote what.
If you can't remember who wrote what, then you'd better not license anything under a BSD license, because one of the few requirements of the BSD license is that it contain a notice, which mentions the name of the copyright holder three times.
It isn't the license that requires you to keep track of who wrote what, it's copyright law that demands that you not represent other people's works as your own.
What you want is copyright assignment, in which other people who contribute to your code assign the copyrights of their modifications and enhancements to you, who can in turn license it however you want. But wouldn't it be simpler, if the code will all remain under the same OS license, to simply add author credits within the comments in the source files themselves? That's a sufficient method of keeping track of authors, and it gives credit/blame where it is due.
Slavery. Yes, twitter, this is a battle of LIFE AND DEATH!!1
Um... slavery isn't a matter of life and death, it's a matter of freedom.
I wouldn't say slavery and choice of suppliers for office suites are on the same level, but they're certainly on the same spectrum. Matters of life and death are not.
Ever hear of a RAM-based virtual disk? I use them on my Linux server for/tmp and anything else that doesn't need to persist through a reboot. They're in RAM, but the OS treats them as drives. Any Live (CD or DVD-based) distro will load the main OS onto RAM disks (if there's room) and run from there, only accessing the optical drive for large data files.
It works fine.
None of those claims are actually in the Bible, except for the woman part of #3, which has NOT been disproven. If you think science has disproven it, then you don't understand the nature of science.
In this case, the "users" would be "Google, Amazon, et al," not their customers. Amazon's customers aren't using Linux when they buy from the site; they're using a website. Websites can also be served from Windows-based systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to bet that's just Jobs dissing a feature that he didn't include so that everyone will "understand" why they're stuck with EDGE?
The wireless companies are willing to trade you a significant discount off of the retail price of a phone in exchange for a two-year contract. They are willing to do this because the cost of the phone discount is recuperated over the life of the contract.
Regular monthly fees are based on this assumption. If your contract is up, and you do not plan on canceling your contract in the next two years, you have two options: (1) exchange your two-year loyalty for a phone discount (to use or sell on eBay), or (2) pay the same price anyway, and keep using your old phone. Only an fool would choose option 2, because option 1 costs the same amount of money, and it comes with a free phone (or a discount on an expensive phone).
Clearly, then, you are not the target market for a Bentley. It would not be "better" for you to get one.
Then they should update the protocol to account for text messaging. That's a silly way to implement a small asynchronous data packet transfer. With unlimited data, there's no reason not to send any text messages that I would send through e-mail or a Safari widget designed for just such a purpose.
Exactly how hard would it be to write one of those Safari "Applications" to send text messages for you via e-mail/AJAX?
Found it: http://www.apple.com/iphone/easysetup/rateplans.ht ml
I must be blind. To which web site, specifically, do you refer? I would find this information useful, as I already have a Cingular family plan.
They are derived from exactly the same word, they just took different routes to get to English.
Why hide? Nothing in the CCDL or GPL licenses prevents you from publishing a CCDL patch to a GPL kernel. Publishing the patched kernel source or binary might run you into some problems, but I don't see anything preventing you from publishing the patch itself.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Only if you distribute binaries.
There is nothing that stops me from developing and distributing a version of Sun's ZFS such that it works with a Linux kernel. I can do anything I want with GPL code while I have it, including link it with my CCDL patch (and publish said CCDL code under the CCDL license), as long as when I distribute GPL source or binaries, I abide by the terms of that license.
No one ever said you had to think about it. It's yet another portage feature that "just works" when you install something that depends on an incompatible version of a dependency from the one required by a different package already on your system. Off hand, I couldn't tell you how many versions of PHP I have installed on my Gentoo system, because I don't particularly care as long as everything that I have installed works.
That's the beauty of portage: it pulls in what you need, and gets rid of what you don't need. Under normal circumstances, you don't really need to know what's going on under the covers with your dependencies.
If you just want something analogous to your "apt-get php" on Gentoo, "emerge php" will do the exact same thing.
I was going to post this exact reply.
Apple would prefer you to think of all of their computers as appliances, not computers. That's what the Apple TV is: and appliance that is designed to replace the Mac Mini market segment.
Apple likes to sell you a "solution", which is generally well-designed to address the forseen use-cases, but lacks the flexibility to deal with or support revolutionary changes that come from a more organic marketplace.
The person I was replying to was talking about his own code, not code belonging to a large software corporation or foundation. Even in those cases, though, the foundations usually ask for copyright assignment. If they don't ask for this, or if an individual person doesn't ask it of his contributors, then those contributors are the copyright holders on their contributions to the code, and their names would need to appear on the license associated specifically with their code. As I was saying, the BSD license specifically requires that "this notice", including the identification of the copyright holder, be included whenever the code is distributed. Those are the terms of the license. If someone BSD licenses their modifications to your code back to you, this does not absolve you of your responsibility to adhere to that license: you are required to list them as the copyright holder for their contribution, because that's what the license says. If you don't want to do that, you need to ask for copyright assignment, which is what it sounded like this guy was wanting and thinking that the BSD license gave him.
The copyright holder is identified in three places:
1) The copyright notice on the first line
2) On the first line of the capitalized section
3) On the fourth line of the capitalized section
Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page that I linked to in my post:
* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
If you can't remember who wrote what, then you'd better not license anything under a BSD license, because one of the few requirements of the BSD license is that it contain a notice, which mentions the name of the copyright holder three times.
It isn't the license that requires you to keep track of who wrote what, it's copyright law that demands that you not represent other people's works as your own.
What you want is copyright assignment, in which other people who contribute to your code assign the copyrights of their modifications and enhancements to you, who can in turn license it however you want. But wouldn't it be simpler, if the code will all remain under the same OS license, to simply add author credits within the comments in the source files themselves? That's a sufficient method of keeping track of authors, and it gives credit/blame where it is due.
Which, as a user of Gentoo, is just fine with me.
Once you get it working, could you send me your patches?
Um... slavery isn't a matter of life and death, it's a matter of freedom.
I wouldn't say slavery and choice of suppliers for office suites are on the same level, but they're certainly on the same spectrum. Matters of life and death are not.
I believe the word is, "disingenuous".
Shouldn't that be, "GINFA Is Not Fucking AIM"
I think he was referring to their hobbit-like smallness.
Ever hear of a RAM-based virtual disk? I use them on my Linux server for /tmp and anything else that doesn't need to persist through a reboot. They're in RAM, but the OS treats them as drives. Any Live (CD or DVD-based) distro will load the main OS onto RAM disks (if there's room) and run from there, only accessing the optical drive for large data files.
It works fine.
Yes, I see that tongue bulging out your cheek.
None of those claims are actually in the Bible, except for the woman part of #3, which has NOT been disproven. If you think science has disproven it, then you don't understand the nature of science.
In this case, the "users" would be "Google, Amazon, et al," not their customers. Amazon's customers aren't using Linux when they buy from the site; they're using a website. Websites can also be served from Windows-based systems.