Both patents and pirate downloads are driven by greed. It will not stop. A revolt won't help.
It seems to work here in Europe: after a big campaign of small IT businesses and citizens, the European Parliament rejected a proposal for introducing software patents in the EU.
Sure, the "war" is far from over, but we have won each "battle" so far. But I fear that we have a big probability of losing, unless software patents are challenged also in the rest of the world.
So, please, if you live in the USA or in Japan write to your MPs and tell them why sw patents are absurd and should never be granted, you will help yourself and us in Europe too! Don't think it's impossible: try!
The URI changed, so it's not the oldest page on the net.
Well, the content is still the original one and (surprise!) is still almost 100% valid HTML 4.01 Transitional! I kid you not: try it for yourself!
The only missing thing is the DOCTYPE declaration, but everything else is just fine: call it a tribute to the incredible backward/forward/whatever compatibility and flexibility of HTML!
We were given a gift, so let's not whine for a while.
You're right, of course, and I'm not whining at all, simply noting the details of the license choice. And I just found this bit from Sun's Jonathan Schwartz blog:
And yes, we picked GPL version 2 - version 3 isn't available, but we like where the FSF is headed.
Emphasis mine. So apparently Sun likes the proposed GNU GPLv3!
More interesting than this, IMHO, is to note that for Java they choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".
This is what the Java FAQ says about it:
Q: What about GPL v3? Have you considered using that license?
A:
While Sun has been working with the Free Software Foundation as an active participant in the development and review of the GPL v3 license, this license is not yet complete. It is Sun's strong desire to complete the open sourcing of its Java technology implementations in a timely manner, so we made the decision to use an existing, established license paradigm rather than wait for GPL v3 to be completed. Using GPL v2 does not indicate anything negative about GPL v3. Sun continues to be very actively and positively involved in this new license's development.
GPLv3 was not chosen since it is not finished yet, but when asked if Sun will move to GPLv3 an official said "at this point we don't know what the final license will be."
They choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".
This is what the FAQ says about it:
Q: What about GPL v3? Have you considered using that license?
A:
While Sun has been working with the Free Software Foundation as an active participant in the development and review of the GPL v3 license, this license is not yet complete. It is Sun's strong desire to complete the open sourcing of its Java technology implementations in a timely manner, so we made the decision to use an existing, established license paradigm rather than wait for GPL v3 to be completed. Using GPL v2 does not indicate anything negative about GPL v3. Sun continues to be very actively and positively involved in this new license's development.
May I suggest the right word (apart from all the obligatory black-box-voting indignation) that's accurate for this situation: loser! I used it to tag the article: seemed appropriate...;-)
Identical content and no problems reported on production sites for years.
I'm pretty sure that you can't show me a single example of a page that validates as both XHTML and HTML, so you are sending invalid content under at least one of the mime types. And you are discriminating against non-IE users, because all the XML parsers currently used require the full data, while HTML parsers start parsing (and displaying) the page as soon as they can. And don't tell me "no problems reported": web browsers can display almost any crap you can put together, if you use standard DOCTYPEs and/or XHTML mimetype try validating your pages first.
Yeah, technically the XHTML 1.0 spec allows to send documents with the text/html mime type, but please don't do it!
If you care about standards and want something readable by IE (which isn't always necessary), then better HTML 4 Strict than some XHTML Transitional sent as text/html (Gecko uses Standards Mode for the former and Quirks Mode for the latter).
So it's not a new pie-in-the-sky idea like XForms or XHTML2, but something much more likely to be useful to web developers that need to work in a world where IE is (still) the biggest fish.
Please mod parent up: he's right if there is a way for a voter to check their vote at home (including a self-made photo of the vote!), there can be vote buying.
The cable will probably not oscillate at all (almost) because the cars will ascend at approximatively 100 km/h, by far too slow to do anything except a very small (less than 1 degree) lean at the very bottom of the cable (remember that a lot of payloads will probably be release before reaching 10% of the total cable length).
More details on Wikipedia and googling for "Annual Space Elevator Conference" (there are several simulation for the dynamic behavior of this thing).
On the other hand running many duplicate missions in parallel or gunning for the bragging rights of having the piece of some type of equipment on Mars seems pretty futile since it does nothing to advance science.
They are not duplicate missions at all!
In fact they are petty much very complementary: if you carefully compare the list of instruments you'll find different instruments or similar instruments that complement each other. E.g.: the Sub-surface Sounding Radar of the European mission can go down to several kilometres under the surface, while the equivalent radar on the US mission can reach only one kilometre but has an higher resolution and sensitivity (BTW they are both provided by ASI, the Italian Space Agency).
The super high resolution images are complementary too, because each mission will take only pictures of a small percentage of the surface at this resolution (Mars Express will map the entire surface "only" at 10 metres/pixel).
And Mars is a whole new world, by the Gods: it can't be completely explored by a single orbiter (or ten). Even two identical missions will almost double the scientific output.
There is no reason why someone else can't use GPL'd software to do DRM. If they are using their own time and their own talents and the coder of the upstream software is OK with it - what is the problem?
The problem is that the coder of the upstream software has released its work under a license that say that's not OK. If you want to play with DRM use BSD-licensed code, or write your own. But I don't want you to modify and redistribute my GPLv3-licensed code unless you in turn provide me the freedom to modify and reuse it.
That's all the draft say. Read it. It simply say that you can't use DRM to transform GPLv3 code in de-facto-proprietary code (which is currently possible due to a "bug" in the GPLv2).
Because of this we will see a lot of projects stay on v2, with a few (and maybe an increasing number) go to v3. But why is this a problem? I think split licences are a good thing in this context, because I support freedom of choice. That's what we're here for in the first place isn't it? More choice is better.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. If I write a program and release it under GPLv2-only (which is probably a bad idea in the first place IMO, but it's what Linus did) and I use a library released under the "GPLv2 or any later version" and the new version of the library is released under the GPLv3 ("or any later version"), then I have to make a choice because the GPLv2-only is incompatible with the GPLv3:
I can stop entirely using that library (this requires writing new code);
I can continue using the old version of the library (this may requires duplicate work to fix bugs which are already fixed in the new version);
I can change my license from GPLv2-only to "GPLv2 or any later version" or "GPLv3 or any later version" (this is the most logical solution, that's why everyone want to make sure that the GPLv3 is very good or is not released at all: if it's released everyone will probably have a lot of reasons/pressure to switch).
Disclaimer: I really like the GPLv3 because it garantees (even better than the GPLv2 that had some loopholes) that my software will be Free for everyone to modify and reuse, forever.
I have to agree: I am lucky enough to be paid to develop a medium-sized program and it will almost certainly be released publicly under the "GPLv3 or (at your option) any later version", or at least a GPLv2+GPLv3 double license.
IANAL, but reading the draft of the GPLv3 (which is IMO pretty clear and easy to understand for a legal document) I think those kernel developers are wrong on at least two points:
"The additional restrictions clause will be a licensing headache for distributors and may cause splintering among the community depending on what restrictions are included."
AFAICT all different customizations of the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 will always be compatible, no matter what restrictions you choose, so I can't see how this can be a problem for distributors;
in the article they say that "defining what constitutes DRM abuse is essentially political in nature"; but the draft never uses the acronym DRM or anything else ambiguos: the draft has a section titled "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures." and I can't see how this (and the actual content of the section) can be ambigous or political.
Everything is IMVHO, of course. And different opinions on something as important as the next GPL are extremely useful: the FSF has already demonstrated to be able to listen and change their opinion (see the changes between the first and the second draft).
You got modded funny, but the thing is really hot: without an extra fan in the case, the article mentions "temperatures approaching 110 degrees Celcius (sic)" (for people not familiar with degrees Celsius, 100 degrees is the boiling point of water at normal atmospheric pressure).
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to work here in Europe: after a big campaign of small IT businesses and citizens, the European Parliament rejected a proposal for introducing software patents in the EU.
Sure, the "war" is far from over, but we have won each "battle" so far. But I fear that we have a big probability of losing, unless software patents are challenged also in the rest of the world.
So, please, if you live in the USA or in Japan write to your MPs and tell them why sw patents are absurd and should never be granted, you will help yourself and us in Europe too! Don't think it's impossible: try!
More references:
Now can we have direct-to-DVD Firefly?
Please?
Pretty please?
Well, the content is still the original one and (surprise!) is still almost 100% valid HTML 4.01 Transitional! I kid you not: try it for yourself!
The only missing thing is the DOCTYPE declaration, but everything else is just fine: call it a tribute to the incredible backward/forward/whatever compatibility and flexibility of HTML!
You're right, of course, and I'm not whining at all, simply noting the details of the license choice. And I just found this bit from Sun's Jonathan Schwartz blog:
Emphasis mine. So apparently Sun likes the proposed GNU GPLv3!
More interesting than this, IMHO, is to note that for Java they choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".
This is what the Java FAQ says about it:
And, from this InfoQ article about the GPLed Java:
They choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".
This is what the FAQ says about it:
May I suggest the right word (apart from all the obligatory black-box-voting indignation) that's accurate for this situation: loser! I used it to tag the article: seemed appropriate... ;-)
I'm pretty sure that you can't show me a single example of a page that validates as both XHTML and HTML, so you are sending invalid content under at least one of the mime types. And you are discriminating against non-IE users, because all the XML parsers currently used require the full data, while HTML parsers start parsing (and displaying) the page as soon as they can. And don't tell me "no problems reported": web browsers can display almost any crap you can put together, if you use standard DOCTYPEs and/or XHTML mimetype try validating your pages first.
Yeah, technically the XHTML 1.0 spec allows to send documents with the text/html mime type, but please don't do it!
If you care about standards and want something readable by IE (which isn't always necessary), then better HTML 4 Strict than some XHTML Transitional sent as text/html (Gecko uses Standards Mode for the former and Quirks Mode for the latter).
I believe that this is a response to the actions of the WHATWG (Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group) (X)HTML 5 and to Bjoern Hoehrmann leaving the W3C QA.
So it's not a new pie-in-the-sky idea like XForms or XHTML2, but something much more likely to be useful to web developers that need to work in a world where IE is (still) the biggest fish.
Please mod parent up: he's right if there is a way for a voter to check their vote at home (including a self-made photo of the vote!), there can be vote buying.
The GP code works fine:
Does FC6 include Firefox 2?
The cable will probably not oscillate at all (almost) because the cars will ascend at approximatively 100 km/h, by far too slow to do anything except a very small (less than 1 degree) lean at the very bottom of the cable (remember that a lot of payloads will probably be release before reaching 10% of the total cable length).
More details on Wikipedia and googling for "Annual Space Elevator Conference" (there are several simulation for the dynamic behavior of this thing).
So this is a good or bad news for the web developers (not end users) that want to create useable standards-compliant websites?
They are not duplicate missions at all!
In fact they are petty much very complementary: if you carefully compare the list of instruments you'll find different instruments or similar instruments that complement each other. E.g.: the Sub-surface Sounding Radar of the European mission can go down to several kilometres under the surface, while the equivalent radar on the US mission can reach only one kilometre but has an higher resolution and sensitivity (BTW they are both provided by ASI, the Italian Space Agency).
The super high resolution images are complementary too, because each mission will take only pictures of a small percentage of the surface at this resolution (Mars Express will map the entire surface "only" at 10 metres/pixel).
And Mars is a whole new world, by the Gods: it can't be completely explored by a single orbiter (or ten). Even two identical missions will almost double the scientific output.
The problem is that the coder of the upstream software has released its work under a license that say that's not OK. If you want to play with DRM use BSD-licensed code, or write your own. But I don't want you to modify and redistribute my GPLv3-licensed code unless you in turn provide me the freedom to modify and reuse it.
That's all the draft say. Read it. It simply say that you can't use DRM to transform GPLv3 code in de-facto-proprietary code (which is currently possible due to a "bug" in the GPLv2).
Unfortunately it's not that simple. If I write a program and release it under GPLv2-only (which is probably a bad idea in the first place IMO, but it's what Linus did) and I use a library released under the "GPLv2 or any later version" and the new version of the library is released under the GPLv3 ("or any later version"), then I have to make a choice because the GPLv2-only is incompatible with the GPLv3:
Disclaimer: I really like the GPLv3 because it garantees (even better than the GPLv2 that had some loopholes) that my software will be Free for everyone to modify and reuse, forever.
Please mod parent up: he has made very sensible and clear points.
I have to agree: I am lucky enough to be paid to develop a medium-sized program and it will almost certainly be released publicly under the "GPLv3 or (at your option) any later version", or at least a GPLv2+GPLv3 double license.
- "The additional restrictions clause will be a licensing headache for distributors and may cause splintering among the community depending on what restrictions are included."
- in the article they say that "defining what constitutes DRM abuse is essentially political in nature"; but the draft never uses the acronym DRM or anything else ambiguos: the draft has a section titled "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures." and I can't see how this (and the actual content of the section) can be ambigous or political.
Everything is IMVHO, of course. And different opinions on something as important as the next GPL are extremely useful: the FSF has already demonstrated to be able to listen and change their opinion (see the changes between the first and the second draft).AFAICT all different customizations of the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 will always be compatible, no matter what restrictions you choose, so I can't see how this can be a problem for distributors;
Mars Express contains 7 different scientific instruments and, amongs other things, it has already:
You got modded funny, but the thing is really hot: without an extra fan in the case, the article mentions "temperatures approaching 110 degrees Celcius (sic)" (for people not familiar with degrees Celsius, 100 degrees is the boiling point of water at normal atmospheric pressure).
You don't get it: it's Firefly! This alone makes it newsworthy.
DOS is still used a lot. E.g.: the operating system in my Canon PowerShot camera is a DOS-clone (yes: the processor is 8086-compatible).