What part of "derived work" are you having trouble with? If you only think of making a shiney new program after looking at a GPLed example, it is a derived work and must be GPLed.
What part of "common sense" are you having trouble with? If you examine a GPLed program, create a spec based on its functionality, then write a complete application to that spec without referring to the original source code, then no rational engineer (even RMS!) is going to insist that you GPL the results. As long as you don't cut & paste any of the original code into your newly-created code, you're fine.
I can tell you _really_ want to have a reason to diss the GPL, but don't go making up problems where none exist.
If teachers got paid for what they are worth, educating our future generations, then tenure wouldn't really be necessary.
Hmph; if good teachers got paid what they were worth, they'd be getting 5 figure salaries (in US $s). A good education system is expensive, but it's really the only fair & sustainable way to reduce class differences in a modern society (the literal application of the "teach-a-man to fish" proverb).
Unfortunately, the US legislators are more involved in giving pork/tax breaks to their friends, or pushing ideologies, than actually serving the public, which feeds the cynicism of the general US public to the point where they'd rather lick razor blades than give the afore-mentioned legislators any more taxes then they are forced to.
Disclaimer: my mother's a teacher, and after observing the work she has to do (half of it outside of classtime), & what she has to go through (teaching learning disabled kids up to 6th grade), I go back to work and happily write code for 14 hours straight until my brains fall out & give thanks that my job is so easy.
At a teacher's typical income level, either you love the kids or can't get a job anywhere else. Whenever I hear someone whining that they think all teachers are incompetent or that their jobs are easy, it makes me want to insert large pointy objects into their various body orifices.
Oh yeah, I nearly killed myself a couple of times trying to satisfy the honor system @ Tech; it wasn't the 3 hour closed book take-home tests which got me, it was those damn unlimited-time, one session, open book (closed-neighbor), take-home tests. You could take as long as you want to do the test, as long as you did it all in one session & didn't get any help.
But because there was lots of time & you could use reference works, the profs felt free to make the problems as #$&%(@ hard as they felt like - I cringe when I remember a few 14 hour marathon testing sessions (I did allow myself bathroom breaks) because I had to figure out everything in one session and I was stonewalled on the "viewpoint"/trick that you had to use to solve some of the problems.
As are you. Or anybody else in this discussion. Instead of trying to belittle my interpretation based on my minority standpoint you should try finding actual flaws in my interpretation.
I have been. You've just been consistently ignoring anything I say, fact or opinion.
First off, note that there still isn't mention of Y's ability to change license, with or without X's permission. Of course, Y has no right to change the license since the GPL is essentially a "no" response to everybody.
That quote from the FAQ covers the reverse application of the GPL - how the GPL exerts control over the original author when somebody besides the original author contributes changes, counter to your original argument that the original author had complete control over the all derivate works. Whether Y can change the license or not is a normal "forward" application of the GPL - Y can change the license if he/she gets the permission of the other authors of the work, just like the original author X.
Secondly, X was the only person who had the option of unilaterally applying the GPL (or any other license) to the project to begin with.
What's your point? That's what the GPL is _supposed_ to do; if the original author doesn't want people to use his/her work without returning those contributions to the community, then she/he uses the GPL. If the original author doesn't really care about it, then they can use some other license.
Y had only two options: GPL or don't code.
Incorrect. 4 choices: don't code, code everything themselves & release under a license of their choice, or use the GPL code and release under the GPL, or get permission of all of the authors of the GPLed work to let the license be changed. The last choice, of course becomes more difficult as many different authors start contributing to a particular project (essentially forcing that derivative to become community property).
Its pretty clear to me that these guys filed a meritless lawsuit to cover up their pathetic earnings...look at the companies annual stock record over the last year -- it parallels the track-record of Enron and more so Global Crossing: steadily down hill, with no end in sight, except for the big ch11. Anyone who'd buy stock in this company is nuts.
You will be receiving registered mail in a few days giving you notice of the lawsuit filed against you for this statement.:-)
The only person that can dictate the terms of use and distribution of both the original GPLed work as well as any derivative work is the original author.
The only person I've talked to who uses this interpretation of the GPL is _you_; one would think that you decided to interpret it to bolster your own argument.
I doubt you'll ever admit to believing that the GPL says anything different than what you've said, but you should read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html to see what the people responsible for AUTHORING the license think it means. In particular, the section at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Consider covers the situation you've been talking about.
However, the GPL does not allow such fair uses and it essentially declares any derivative works the IP of the original's author.
Both of these points are false. Anyone is free to make archival copies of a GPLed work, or quote relevant passages of the source code for commentary purposes. The limited permissions of the GPL only apply to the distribution of the work.
Furthermore, if someone creates a derivative work from a GPLed work, then the original author can't claim the entire derivative work as their own IP. The work becomes the communal IP of ALL of the authors who have contributed something to the work.
Dunno if this is always true; it depends on whether people can remember WHY they remember the name. If they have a huge negative memory associated with the name, then they're going to vote for "anybody but that bastard".
I use Outlook as my mail program at work. I paid for it, and I expect it to be able to send and receive mail. If somebody illegally exploits that program to do malicious things, I don't blame Microsoft, I blame the person who wrote the virus.
That's fine if you get hit once. What about the 3rd time? The 12th time? 20th? Do you keep blaming just the virus writers? Or do you start to feel a tiny little bit of irritation about the way that your software was designed?
My software has a bug, the vendor issues a freely downloadable patch, and even emails me about it, which I choose to ignore and don't install it. My server is compromised and used to DoS a third party - I think I should have my ass sued clean off, don't you?
Uh huh - and the more likely scenario is, the software has a bug, the vendor puts a patch on their web site, but doesn't bother pointing it out or highlighting it to anyone because they don't like drawing attention to defects in their software. Are the users also responsible for continually polling the vendors of ALL the software they use to see if the vendor is willing to talk about any bugs which might've become widely known? What about the situation where an exploit has been widely distributed, but the vendor hasn't even acknowledged the defect for days, much less actually posted a fix? Or even worse, where the vendor actually knows about the defect, but hasn't posted a description or fix because the defect hasn't been publically described yet and the vendor wants to keep it as quite as long as they can?
I don't think this is the same thing as the beat frequency, unless the MIT web page is providing misinformation. If I remember correctly, the beat frequency effect comes out of the linear combination of two other waves.
The effect that they are describing is due to the interaction of the ultrasonics with the nonlinear behavior of the air (or whatever medium they're working on). (I'm assuming that the nonlinear behavior of air is one of those second or third-order effects which they don't bother telling people about in high-school physics.)
I got to do some systems-level programming on Tandem's so-called "fault-tolerant" machines (with 4 pairs of CPUs) for a couple years; it was the standing joke in our department that the machines HAD to be fault-tolerant, 'cause they had to tolerate a lot of faults. One of the CPUs would hang every week or so, and when it did we'd all have to cross our fingers & hope that it would reboot & restart all of the processes for that CPU before the extra load on the other CPUs caused THEM to go down like dominos.
Falls under "needs of the many outweight the needs (or desires) of the few (or one)". Not popular in an individualistic society like the US, but I wouldn't trust a government which didn't put a priority on the needs of the many.
On the other hand, there's a pretty good argument that the current form of the US government (including the state & local governments) is not putting a priority on the needs of the many, but the parts of it are instead primarily responding to noisy special interests (both left & right-wing) - which is not a good situation for those with no voice.
Don't agree; common sense says that if a few birds are capable of damaging a plane's engine, then large weather balloon + accompanying instruments will certainly pose a danger to the engine's integrity.
Unfortunately, the original responder to your story was correct: your metaphor is bullshit, as is most of your rebuttal. Your eggs can't be perfectly copied & distributed to others by the "customers" like software can, which pretty sinks the entire metaphor.
As far as your moral posturing about moral posturing, you are also mischaracterizing the motivations of many "Open Source" programmers. They are CAPITALISTS, in the true sense of the word; they prefer to be compensated for providing a service to somebody. It's only dolts like you who think that you should be paid every time somebody besides the original purchaser uses the software, even though you didn't do any additional work to deserve it. That's a lot more like Soviet-style communism than your attempt at obfuscation.
Actually, I always understood "real conservatives" to mean people who wanted to preserve the status quo. (This implies that they are the part of society which approves of the status quo.)
I think your definition of "conservative" actually falls more into the libertarian political view (minimal government interference).
Actually, I believe they are using river names from the Pacific Northwest (dunno if it's just Oregon). I'm not sure whether the counties are named for the rivers which pass through them.
Dunno - if you can't fix up the brain too, then fixing up everything else is going to have limited benefit.
I suspect that although you can't replace the whole brain, if you can squirt some stem cells into it in various places to replace anything that's shutting down or dying, you could probably keep it going. A little too many stem cells, or over too long a period of time, will probably cause you to lose old memories (as the stem cells make new connections which will interfere with the current network configuration).
On the other hand, if you can get enough stem cells to restore the flexibility of intellect that you had as a child, then you could really improve your skill set (learn languages w/o accent, ingrain martial arts skills, other stuff that you have to start young to learn completely).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, distributed caching is a good reason for these types of networks (although you wouldn't really need encryption to satisfy this need).
What part of "common sense" are you having trouble with? If you examine a GPLed program, create a spec based on its functionality, then write a complete application to that spec without referring to the original source code, then no rational engineer (even RMS!) is going to insist that you GPL the results. As long as you don't cut & paste any of the original code into your newly-created code, you're fine.
I can tell you _really_ want to have a reason to diss the GPL, but don't go making up problems where none exist.
Hmph; if good teachers got paid what they were worth, they'd be getting 5 figure salaries (in US $s). A good education system is expensive, but it's really the only fair & sustainable way to reduce class differences in a modern society (the literal application of the "teach-a-man to fish" proverb).
Unfortunately, the US legislators are more involved in giving pork/tax breaks to their friends, or pushing ideologies, than actually serving the public, which feeds the cynicism of the general US public to the point where they'd rather lick razor blades than give the afore-mentioned legislators any more taxes then they are forced to.
Disclaimer: my mother's a teacher, and after observing the work she has to do (half of it outside of classtime), & what she has to go through (teaching learning disabled kids up to 6th grade), I go back to work and happily write code for 14 hours straight until my brains fall out & give thanks that my job is so easy.
At a teacher's typical income level, either you love the kids or can't get a job anywhere else. Whenever I hear someone whining that they think all teachers are incompetent or that their jobs are easy, it makes me want to insert large pointy objects into their various body orifices.
Oh yeah, I nearly killed myself a couple of times trying to satisfy the honor system @ Tech; it wasn't the 3 hour closed book take-home tests which got me, it was those damn unlimited-time, one session, open book (closed-neighbor), take-home tests. You could take as long as you want to do the test, as long as you did it all in one session & didn't get any help.
But because there was lots of time & you could use reference works, the profs felt free to make the problems as #$&%(@ hard as they felt like - I cringe when I remember a few 14 hour marathon testing sessions (I did allow myself bathroom breaks) because I had to figure out everything in one session and I was stonewalled on the "viewpoint"/trick that you had to use to solve some of the problems.
I have been. You've just been consistently ignoring anything I say, fact or opinion.
That quote from the FAQ covers the reverse application of the GPL - how the GPL exerts control over the original author when somebody besides the original author contributes changes, counter to your original argument that the original author had complete control over the all derivate works. Whether Y can change the license or not is a normal "forward" application of the GPL - Y can change the license if he/she gets the permission of the other authors of the work, just like the original author X.
What's your point? That's what the GPL is _supposed_ to do; if the original author doesn't want people to use his/her work without returning those contributions to the community, then she/he uses the GPL. If the original author doesn't really care about it, then they can use some other license.
Incorrect. 4 choices: don't code, code everything themselves & release under a license of their choice, or use the GPL code and release under the GPL, or get permission of all of the authors of the GPLed work to let the license be changed. The last choice, of course becomes more difficult as many different authors start contributing to a particular project (essentially forcing that derivative to become community property).
You will be receiving registered mail in a few days giving you notice of the lawsuit filed against you for this statement. :-)
The only person I've talked to who uses this interpretation of the GPL is _you_; one would think that you decided to interpret it to bolster your own argument.
I doubt you'll ever admit to believing that the GPL says anything different than what you've said, but you should read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html to see what the people responsible for AUTHORING the license think it means. In particular, the section at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Consider covers the situation you've been talking about.
Incorrect. They become the communal IP of all the authors.
Both of these points are false. Anyone is free to make archival copies of a GPLed work, or quote relevant passages of the source code for commentary purposes. The limited permissions of the GPL only apply to the distribution of the work.
Furthermore, if someone creates a derivative work from a GPLed work, then the original author can't claim the entire derivative work as their own IP. The work becomes the communal IP of ALL of the authors who have contributed something to the work.
Huh? Where in his message does it say that?
That part _I_ read says that they pay for their own e-mail servers & bandwidth to send out their e-mail list.
Dunno if this is always true; it depends on whether people can remember WHY they remember the name. If they have a huge negative memory associated with the name, then they're going to vote for "anybody but that bastard".
That's fine if you get hit once. What about the 3rd time? The 12th time? 20th? Do you keep blaming just the virus writers? Or do you start to feel a tiny little bit of irritation about the way that your software was designed?
Uh huh - and the more likely scenario is, the software has a bug, the vendor puts a patch on their web site, but doesn't bother pointing it out or highlighting it to anyone because they don't like drawing attention to defects in their software. Are the users also responsible for continually polling the vendors of ALL the software they use to see if the vendor is willing to talk about any bugs which might've become widely known? What about the situation where an exploit has been widely distributed, but the vendor hasn't even acknowledged the defect for days, much less actually posted a fix? Or even worse, where the vendor actually knows about the defect, but hasn't posted a description or fix because the defect hasn't been publically described yet and the vendor wants to keep it as quite as long as they can?
I don't think this is the same thing as the beat frequency, unless the MIT web page is providing misinformation. If I remember correctly, the beat frequency effect comes out of the linear combination of two other waves.
The effect that they are describing is due to the interaction of the ultrasonics with the nonlinear behavior of the air (or whatever medium they're working on). (I'm assuming that the nonlinear behavior of air is one of those second or third-order effects which they don't bother telling people about in high-school physics.)
I got to do some systems-level programming on Tandem's so-called "fault-tolerant" machines (with 4 pairs of CPUs) for a couple years; it was the standing joke in our department that the machines HAD to be fault-tolerant, 'cause they had to tolerate a lot of faults. One of the CPUs would hang every week or so, and when it did we'd all have to cross our fingers & hope that it would reboot & restart all of the processes for that CPU before the extra load on the other CPUs caused THEM to go down like dominos.
Sounds like a Black Adder episode.
Falls under "needs of the many outweight the needs (or desires) of the few (or one)". Not popular in an individualistic society like the US, but I wouldn't trust a government which didn't put a priority on the needs of the many.
On the other hand, there's a pretty good argument that the current form of the US government (including the state & local governments) is not putting a priority on the needs of the many, but the parts of it are instead primarily responding to noisy special interests (both left & right-wing) - which is not a good situation for those with no voice.
Ummm...he was parodying a possible future 20 years from now.
Don't agree; common sense says that if a few birds are capable of damaging a plane's engine, then large weather balloon + accompanying instruments will certainly pose a danger to the engine's integrity.
Are they affordable enough so that I can get one to compete in Battlebots?
Maybe microwaving all non-electronic purchases briefly would work.
Unfortunately, the original responder to your story was correct: your metaphor is bullshit, as is most of your rebuttal. Your eggs can't be perfectly copied & distributed to others by the "customers" like software can, which pretty sinks the entire metaphor.
As far as your moral posturing about moral posturing, you are also mischaracterizing the motivations of many "Open Source" programmers. They are CAPITALISTS, in the true sense of the word; they prefer to be compensated for providing a service to somebody. It's only dolts like you who think that you should be paid every time somebody besides the original purchaser uses the software, even though you didn't do any additional work to deserve it. That's a lot more like Soviet-style communism than your attempt at obfuscation.
Actually, I always understood "real conservatives" to mean people who wanted to preserve the status quo. (This implies that they are the part of society which approves of the status quo.)
I think your definition of "conservative" actually falls more into the libertarian political view (minimal government interference).
Actually, I believe they are using river names from the Pacific Northwest (dunno if it's just Oregon). I'm not sure whether the counties are named for the rivers which pass through them.
Dunno - if you can't fix up the brain too, then fixing up everything else is going to have limited benefit.
I suspect that although you can't replace the whole brain, if you can squirt some stem cells into it in various places to replace anything that's shutting down or dying, you could probably keep it going. A little too many stem cells, or over too long a period of time, will probably cause you to lose old memories (as the stem cells make new connections which will interfere with the current network configuration).
On the other hand, if you can get enough stem cells to restore the flexibility of intellect that you had as a child, then you could really improve your skill set (learn languages w/o accent, ingrain martial arts skills, other stuff that you have to start young to learn completely).