I do Java Swing GUIs and I tend to agree with you. The eclipse visual editor plugin makes GUI creation very easy, but it has it's limits. Almost every time I have used it, I have hit some point at which I wanted to do something that the visual editor did not understand. When I hit that point, I have to get in and code it by hand. Since I learned how to do it from code when I started, this is not too much of a problem. So it does help to know what the code means.
If they are distributing code that is subject to patent, it would only be a violation of the GPL if that code was part of a derivative work of GPL code. They can easily include libraries and applications in their releases without ever linking it to GPL code such as the kernel. If I remember correctly, this is how they got away with keeping Yast closed source for so long. So I am not sure if this addresses what you are after, but I thought I would put in my two cents. The real question is, what code is subject to these patents?
The problem is not linking to copyright content, it is the upload of copyright content. For example, somebody really likes band X, so they create a MySpace page either claiming to be band X, or as a fan forum. The account they create is a musician/band account which lets them upload music to MySpace. This music is hosted by MySpace and served up through their Flash music player. So if that content is being distributed against copyright, it is possible that MySpace could be at fault. Hosting an HTML page with a link to another site hosting illegal content is not infringing on copyright(unless they stuck that in some deep corner of the DMCA). Basically, MySpace, like YouTube, is trying to cover their own butt by taking, or at least claiming to take, every action possible to satisfy due diligence in prohibiting illegal distribution of copyright content via MySpace.
I am not trying to challenge your statements and I am not a Mac owner, but I find your omission of 10.0 and 10.1 to be rather convenient. If my memory is correct, most new applications for OS X usually put the requirement of 10.2 or greater, right? So it would seem that there is a bit of incompatibility between 10.x releases. What changed in 10.2 to leave 10.0 and 10.1 owners out in the cold?
Intellectual property is what keeps capitalism going. If a small research firm invented a new drug that many people wanted they should be able to patent the idea and sell it to other large companies for production. In the same sense, if Intel wanted to use what Transmeta invented, then they should have to get it from Transmeta. Without protection for intellectual property, large companies would control everything and those small companies(who tend to do most of the innovation in this world) would have no chance to compete and therefore no motivation to create new products.
Transmeta wanted to do something new. They did serious research to develop a different kind of product, but they were never able to find enough business. The market was not ready for what they were selling and they did not have the power to make it into something amazing. What they are left with is patents on research that they funded. Just because they do not have the ability to compete in the market right now does not mean they should have to give up all of their work. If you invented something, but didn't have the capital or even motivation to sell it, would you be okay with everyone else being able to make money from your invention? I have not investigated Transmeta's claims, but low-power chips were their whole business and that seems to be what Intel is killing for now. This leads me to believe that they might actually have a case. On the surface, this seems like a completely appropriate use of the patent system.
Since it is easier for everybody to find bugs and vulnerabilities, it is now easier to fix them. Relying on the fact that your source code hides in some corner of a CVS repository where nobody really wants to casually go is just a lesser form of security by obfuscation. Would you rather have truly secure software or software that only seems to be secure?
I like the idea of implementing iterators in Perl, but you may be short-changing their usefulness. Look at the following script:
open FILE, ";
When an iterator(filehandle in this case) is evaluated in list context, in this case the context is "print LIST", it will iterate until exhausted and return a list. So this should print out the entire file whose name is passed in as the first argument. So, as you can see, an iterable object can be passed easily as a list. I hope that points you in the right direction. Context sensitivity is complicated, but it is what makes Perl especially powerful.
Actually, if the developers write a bug fix, they can withhold security patches from you. The BSD license gives them the power to distribute patched software in any way they please. This means they could fix a bug and decide to relicense the fixed release in whatever way they see fit, even as closed source proprietary binary blob. In general the BSD license lets people do with the software whatever they please. In the case of GNU/Linux, if any group distributed a patch to any of the GPL software included then they would be forced to release their code under the GPL(because it would be considered a derivative work) and therefore have no real control over distribution. I am not familiar with what the OpenBSD people do, although it seems they have a firm commitment to open source software, but I did want to point out what the BSD license actually gives you the right to do. Some people see BSD style licenses as more open source than the GPL because it allows more freedom, but, because it allows almost complete freedom, many people don't like it because that means nobody is obligated to give anything back.
The key part of that definition that you are glossing over is the "visitors" part. Sure, you can have some restrictions on just anybody coming in and editing, but the Citizendium idea sounds like there is a clear separation between visitors and content creators. That is what, in my opinion, makes it not a wiki.
I am thinking about the same question. If you ask most computer users(Windows and Mac users), they will probably tell you that they expect a computer with a CD/DVD burner to be able to burn CD's/DVD's. Wouldn't that mean that it if Microsoft doesn't address that functionality then they are not being competitive? The same goes for anti-(virus|(mal|spy)ware) software, it seems that it too will soon be an expected feature. Should Microsoft be allowed to bundle software that people expect on a computer? It seems to me the answer is yes. ISVs should not expect to be able to make money off of filling in the same OS gap forever. Instead they should be competing for the higher level functionality of computers. People don't expect their computers to come with Photoshop or Cubase. Their is a difference between limiting a business' anti-competitive behavior and forcing a business to limit their competitive behavior. If we do not allow business' to remain competitive then incentive decreases, development decreases, and everyone suffers.
What the parent was refering to was Qt's dual licensing scheme. Anybody can use Qt as a GPL library, but if you want to distribute a closed source app then you need to pay Trolltech(makers of Qt) for a commercial license. So, as the parent was saying, if you really want to sell a piece of Qt software you might need to kick back some money to Trolltech.
Linspire's goal seems to be a preload alternative to Windows. If they can score a few more contracts with consumer PC makers then they stand to make some good money.
So they made this movie under a Creative Commons license that states "Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Does this mean that without written consent from the makers, this movie could not be sold in stores or rented? They themselves sell the DVD.
My thoughts exactly. I have never purchased one of these games, but my only concern is that customers know they are only purchasing "Part 1" of the game and are not under the impression that they are buying a full game.
Can somebody please explain this dual licensing scheme. Why do they even have the GPL in there? If you can obtain the source code under the MIT license, can't you do whatever you want with it, including dropping it in a GPL project?
I recently wrote a small app based on "Filter Builder" by ActiveState. It's called Pattern Sandbox and has helped me rapidly prototype regexes for both Java and Perl (because the Java dialect is very similar to Perl's). I made Pattern Sandbox because it was so annoying to write a regex, compile, get to that part of the code/interface, and then finally try it just to find that it does not work correctly so I have to repeat this process until I get it right. If you are using Java regexes on a regular basis, Pattern Sandbox or similar tools are indispensable. Try it out and feel free to give me some feedback. I hope this is not too much of a plug, but I thought it to be very appropriate.
I am not a javascript guy, but this code does seem to be obfuscated. The truncated names seem to be only part of it. It seems as if they have filtered their code in such a way that almost every line has been turned into a function. Here is an example of a completely useless function: function C(a,b,c){a.setAttribute(b,c)}
There is no reason the above code should be encapsulated into a function. Knowing that, the meaningless function names seem to be for both obfuscation and bandwidth saving. If they wanted only to save bandwidth they would not have these types of functions because every time a function is a added they need to add the text "function" and the parameter list. Her is another prime example of why I think this is obfuscation: function v(a,b,c,d){return mb(a,b,Q(c,d))}
Go back to the code and follow some of these functions around. I think you will see that 1. this code was run through some form of filter and 2. while bandwidth is a concern, this filter serves to obfuscate human readable code. That is just my take on it.
I think Microsoft's "Start Anything" ad campaign was good. It just does not get as much hype as the new "Hi, I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" ads because they don't try to be put people down. Apple has a superiority complex. When was the last time you saw a Microsoft ad that was like that? I can't remember any. It seems to me that Microsoft marketing concentrates on the good points and possibilities of its products. Apple on the other hand seems to concentrate on how it is different, because different better and different is cool.
It seems as if all they did was wrote a basic clock program and then ran it through an obfuscator or two. You can get a few obfuscation modules on CPAN. Anybody can run a program through obfuscators. Ever tried to look at the google maps javascript?
Okay, I almost started laughing when you said " a "heavy editor" vs... emacs". I view emacs as quite a heavy editor, especially vs something like vi/vim. It has features for mail and news for crying out loud. Hell, I used to use Emacs, but have switched to vim. I switched partly because it was much lighter, even the gui. You really start to see it if you run it remotely using X.
Slashdot Mirror
I do Java Swing GUIs and I tend to agree with you. The eclipse visual editor plugin makes GUI creation very easy, but it has it's limits. Almost every time I have used it, I have hit some point at which I wanted to do something that the visual editor did not understand. When I hit that point, I have to get in and code it by hand. Since I learned how to do it from code when I started, this is not too much of a problem. So it does help to know what the code means.
If they are distributing code that is subject to patent, it would only be a violation of the GPL if that code was part of a derivative work of GPL code. They can easily include libraries and applications in their releases without ever linking it to GPL code such as the kernel. If I remember correctly, this is how they got away with keeping Yast closed source for so long. So I am not sure if this addresses what you are after, but I thought I would put in my two cents. The real question is, what code is subject to these patents?
Thanks for the link. I have always wondered where that claim came from.
The problem is not linking to copyright content, it is the upload of copyright content. For example, somebody really likes band X, so they create a MySpace page either claiming to be band X, or as a fan forum. The account they create is a musician/band account which lets them upload music to MySpace. This music is hosted by MySpace and served up through their Flash music player. So if that content is being distributed against copyright, it is possible that MySpace could be at fault. Hosting an HTML page with a link to another site hosting illegal content is not infringing on copyright(unless they stuck that in some deep corner of the DMCA). Basically, MySpace, like YouTube, is trying to cover their own butt by taking, or at least claiming to take, every action possible to satisfy due diligence in prohibiting illegal distribution of copyright content via MySpace.
I am not trying to challenge your statements and I am not a Mac owner, but I find your omission of 10.0 and 10.1 to be rather convenient. If my memory is correct, most new applications for OS X usually put the requirement of 10.2 or greater, right? So it would seem that there is a bit of incompatibility between 10.x releases. What changed in 10.2 to leave 10.0 and 10.1 owners out in the cold?
Intellectual property is what keeps capitalism going. If a small research firm invented a new drug that many people wanted they should be able to patent the idea and sell it to other large companies for production. In the same sense, if Intel wanted to use what Transmeta invented, then they should have to get it from Transmeta. Without protection for intellectual property, large companies would control everything and those small companies(who tend to do most of the innovation in this world) would have no chance to compete and therefore no motivation to create new products.
Transmeta wanted to do something new. They did serious research to develop a different kind of product, but they were never able to find enough business. The market was not ready for what they were selling and they did not have the power to make it into something amazing. What they are left with is patents on research that they funded. Just because they do not have the ability to compete in the market right now does not mean they should have to give up all of their work. If you invented something, but didn't have the capital or even motivation to sell it, would you be okay with everyone else being able to make money from your invention? I have not investigated Transmeta's claims, but low-power chips were their whole business and that seems to be what Intel is killing for now. This leads me to believe that they might actually have a case. On the surface, this seems like a completely appropriate use of the patent system.
Since it is easier for everybody to find bugs and vulnerabilities, it is now easier to fix them. Relying on the fact that your source code hides in some corner of a CVS repository where nobody really wants to casually go is just a lesser form of security by obfuscation. Would you rather have truly secure software or software that only seems to be secure?
Okay, it looks like /. strips stuff out of plain old text. Let's try this again using (LT) and (GT) instead of the less than and greater than markups:
open FILE, "(LT)$ARGV[0]";
print (LT)FILE(GT);
I like the idea of implementing iterators in Perl, but you may be short-changing their usefulness. Look at the following script:
open FILE, ";
When an iterator(filehandle in this case) is evaluated in list context, in this case the context is "print LIST", it will iterate until exhausted and return a list. So this should print out the entire file whose name is passed in as the first argument. So, as you can see, an iterable object can be passed easily as a list. I hope that points you in the right direction. Context sensitivity is complicated, but it is what makes Perl especially powerful.
Actually, if the developers write a bug fix, they can withhold security patches from you. The BSD license gives them the power to distribute patched software in any way they please. This means they could fix a bug and decide to relicense the fixed release in whatever way they see fit, even as closed source proprietary binary blob. In general the BSD license lets people do with the software whatever they please. In the case of GNU/Linux, if any group distributed a patch to any of the GPL software included then they would be forced to release their code under the GPL(because it would be considered a derivative work) and therefore have no real control over distribution. I am not familiar with what the OpenBSD people do, although it seems they have a firm commitment to open source software, but I did want to point out what the BSD license actually gives you the right to do. Some people see BSD style licenses as more open source than the GPL because it allows more freedom, but, because it allows almost complete freedom, many people don't like it because that means nobody is obligated to give anything back.
The key part of that definition that you are glossing over is the "visitors" part. Sure, you can have some restrictions on just anybody coming in and editing, but the Citizendium idea sounds like there is a clear separation between visitors and content creators. That is what, in my opinion, makes it not a wiki.
I am thinking about the same question. If you ask most computer users(Windows and Mac users), they will probably tell you that they expect a computer with a CD/DVD burner to be able to burn CD's/DVD's. Wouldn't that mean that it if Microsoft doesn't address that functionality then they are not being competitive? The same goes for anti-(virus|(mal|spy)ware) software, it seems that it too will soon be an expected feature. Should Microsoft be allowed to bundle software that people expect on a computer? It seems to me the answer is yes. ISVs should not expect to be able to make money off of filling in the same OS gap forever. Instead they should be competing for the higher level functionality of computers. People don't expect their computers to come with Photoshop or Cubase. Their is a difference between limiting a business' anti-competitive behavior and forcing a business to limit their competitive behavior. If we do not allow business' to remain competitive then incentive decreases, development decreases, and everyone suffers.
What the parent was refering to was Qt's dual licensing scheme. Anybody can use Qt as a GPL library, but if you want to distribute a closed source app then you need to pay Trolltech(makers of Qt) for a commercial license. So, as the parent was saying, if you really want to sell a piece of Qt software you might need to kick back some money to Trolltech.
What is the "wrong place" for a documentary?
Linspire's goal seems to be a preload alternative to Windows. If they can score a few more contracts with consumer PC makers then they stand to make some good money.
So they made this movie under a Creative Commons license that states "Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Does this mean that without written consent from the makers, this movie could not be sold in stores or rented? They themselves sell the DVD.
My thoughts exactly. I have never purchased one of these games, but my only concern is that customers know they are only purchasing "Part 1" of the game and are not under the impression that they are buying a full game.
Can somebody please explain this dual licensing scheme. Why do they even have the GPL in there? If you can obtain the source code under the MIT license, can't you do whatever you want with it, including dropping it in a GPL project?
I recently wrote a small app based on "Filter Builder" by ActiveState. It's called Pattern Sandbox and has helped me rapidly prototype regexes for both Java and Perl (because the Java dialect is very similar to Perl's). I made Pattern Sandbox because it was so annoying to write a regex, compile, get to that part of the code/interface, and then finally try it just to find that it does not work correctly so I have to repeat this process until I get it right. If you are using Java regexes on a regular basis, Pattern Sandbox or similar tools are indispensable. Try it out and feel free to give me some feedback. I hope this is not too much of a plug, but I thought it to be very appropriate.
I would like to point out Dungeon Man 3. If you are a fan of old-school adventure games, this will provide some good laughs.
I am not a javascript guy, but this code does seem to be obfuscated. The truncated names seem to be only part of it. It seems as if they have filtered their code in such a way that almost every line has been turned into a function. Here is an example of a completely useless function:
function C(a,b,c){a.setAttribute(b,c)}
There is no reason the above code should be encapsulated into a function. Knowing that, the meaningless function names seem to be for both obfuscation and bandwidth saving. If they wanted only to save bandwidth they would not have these types of functions because every time a function is a added they need to add the text "function" and the parameter list. Her is another prime example of why I think this is obfuscation:
function v(a,b,c,d){return mb(a,b,Q(c,d))}
Go back to the code and follow some of these functions around. I think you will see that 1. this code was run through some form of filter and 2. while bandwidth is a concern, this filter serves to obfuscate human readable code. That is just my take on it.
I think Microsoft's "Start Anything" ad campaign was good. It just does not get as much hype as the new "Hi, I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" ads because they don't try to be put people down. Apple has a superiority complex. When was the last time you saw a Microsoft ad that was like that? I can't remember any. It seems to me that Microsoft marketing concentrates on the good points and possibilities of its products. Apple on the other hand seems to concentrate on how it is different, because different better and different is cool.
It seems as if all they did was wrote a basic clock program and then ran it through an obfuscator or two. You can get a few obfuscation modules on CPAN. Anybody can run a program through obfuscators. Ever tried to look at the google maps javascript?
Okay, I almost started laughing when you said " a "heavy editor" vs ... emacs". I view emacs as quite a heavy editor, especially vs something like vi/vim. It has features for mail and news for crying out loud. Hell, I used to use Emacs, but have switched to vim. I switched partly because it was much lighter, even the gui. You really start to see it if you run it remotely using X.