That leaves the supplier with the responsibility to exactly specify to which portions that sentence apply. If not, it would apply to the whole package.
It's the "with or without modification" that still leaves me puzzled. It could be argued that the whole license applies to the whole work, with modifications.
Consider the following scenario:
You write a piece of software, using portions of a BSD-licensed work. You intent to distribute only in binary form, with your own license, to refrain other parties of distributing your work. Since you used the BSD license, you MUST put the conditions mentioned in the original license in, our accompanying with, your license.
The question is: do you have to put the following sentence in there too? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met
If so, any of your customers is free to redistribute all the work you provided.
What if a third party had access to your source code, for instance for stress-testing or to prevent Zero-Day exploits. They signed and NDA, but then they receive the final product, with the BSD-license. The new question is: are they permitted to make deriative works or binary distributions of your work, since with the BSD-license they are "free" to do what they want with the accompanying source code?
All in all, it stands or falls IMHO with the question if you have to put the mentioned sentence in or not. If yes: your customers are as free to do what they want with their copy of your work as you are free to do what you want with the original software. If no: you have total control over your software, provided that you provide the list of conditions.
portions are LGPL, other portions BSD. WebKit is derived from KHTML and KJS, which contain (AFAIK) no GPL-ed code, and even if it does, Apple will have replaced it.
As long as they didn't modify the LGPL-bit while designing it for this phone, they wouldn't have to release it again. They already did:)
In my native Finland a moderate 8-pinter night, of course meant that you had 4L of beer and probably are in need of about 400mg of Ibuprophen in the morning with your coffee.
Actually, here in the Netherlands, that's not uncommon to ask.
Fluitje (whistle): 25 cl
Amsterdammertje (little Amsterdammer): 33 cl
Halve liter (half litre): 50 cl
It might strike you as odd, but that's the way we drink here. Except in "Irish pubs", where the boards read: "Pint (1/2 l)".
Nope. Nor do I measure my alcohol intake in pints. Some of us aren't raised that way. You know, not even everyone is raised with English as their mother tongue!
We continental Europeans measure our dicks in cm, and our beers in glasses (25 cl) or bottles (33 cl) (which makes it rather easy to measure your complete intake of one evening in liters).
There are a lot of good KDE/QT-styles out there. Once I showed my wife, she instantly changed everything on her desktop into something *I* find hideous. She is perfectly happy with it.
There is no way to say that a toolkit is ugly, it's the themes that use the toolkit that are ugly.
I develop some pretty interesting apps with ECMA-script and CSS, and my practise is this:
Write a piece of code with standards in the back of your head, and test it with Firefox. Then retest in Konqueror (I'm an avid KDE-user).
Code the whole app this way
Boot into Windows, test with IE7. Not much changes needed, 99% works.
Fire up IE6. Cry, and regain temper.
Adjust so that IE6 works, without breaking the original functionality. Don't use browser-checks. They'll bite your ass later.
Test in Opera. Most just works when it already does in FF and IE6, so no harm there.
Retest everything cautiously in all five mentioned browsers and adjust as needed. IE7 might pose a problem due to the fixes for IE6.
All in all, the basic coding still is the major part of programming for me. The adjusting for the different browsers is not that much of a hassle.
Standards are nice, but when it works with Gecko, IE6, IE7, KHTML and Opera, it's good enough. For basic webpages, Lynx is also a testbed for me (with regard to spiders).
And who is the devil I know? Some scriptkiddie who cracked Vista and is making fun with his malware infested crack? I know the OSS community a lot better, since they inspect eachother. If some major Linux distro incorporates a malicious rootkit in its ISO's, it'll be all over the web in no-time.
There is one big difference, and that is the current price for both OSses. Since Linux is Open Source, most folks who deploy it have downloaded an original copy, not some obscure malware infested "crack". For Vista, lot's of wannabee scriptkiddies will go searching for a "free" version of the OS, ending up with this crap.
Don't forget that those same kiddies will install said "crack" on every computer they can get their hands on (like their Grandma's).
The custom Linux images you mention won't stand a chance, since the original is free enough. It even doesn't matter that the current audience of both OSses is so extremely different.
A scientific theory is, as opposed to laws of nature, a hypothesis backed up with facts, but likely subject to change in the future, as more facts and laws become apparent. Therefore, a theory contains the possible thruth on a matter, with regard for the possibilities that future knowledge renders the theory to null and void and replaces it with another theory or a new law of nature.
With my earlier statement I meant the way things are told or explained. It's quite easy to imagine the sun standing still, for us as well as for 1000 BC jews. Point one touches two issues which are out of that scope: translation (indeed not everyone understands Hebrew) and "supernatural" things, like described in Revelations. The first is a matter of insight in an old language and old cultures. The latter has been a matter of debate for ages and will remain so until "the end of times", if you follow me.
I have a hard time translating my thoughts on this in Dutch, let alone English. Bear with me:)
In my opinion, each part of the Bible can be interpretated as metaphoric or literal juding on two points:
1. Context
Oftentimes it is obvious if something is meant as a metaphore. For some pasages, the context and the wording should be judged in its original language. Sometimes it simply cannot be done.
2. Time
You have to remember the time in which the Bible was written. Science as we know it now was virtually nonexistant back then. When there is a mention that "the sun stood still" it is obvious with current knowledge that if anything stood still, it was the earth.
I totally agree that it always is a thin line. You can spent a lifetime with judging texts like these, but it helps a lot that we know more of the world nowadays (for instance that it's round) than folks did back then.
This discussion came at the right time for me. I'm just started reading "the language of God" by Francis L. Collins from the Human Genome project. Judging from the first three chapters, I can recommend it to anyone who is interested in this dillema. Those chapters and this topic forced me to think about it thoroughly and strenghtened my faith enormously (in both God and science).
Care to elaborate? Remember that "Specific God That Created Everything Sixthousand Years Ago In Six Days" is a scientific interpretation of religious-based wishfull thinking. The Bible is written so that people from all ages could understand it, and it should be read as such.
That being said, I can't see a problem with [$SpecificGodAsDescribedInSpecificBook=true] and scientific understanding, as long as one keeps in mind that one cannot approach science from a religious PoV, and vice-versa.
I strongly disagree. For me both science and religion contains the Truth. In my personal opinion, one doesn't rule out the other. Science cannot rule out the existence of a God, simply because that is out of the scope of natural laws as we know it. Religion cannot rule out the existence of natural laws (like gravity, or quantummechanics, or genetics), simply that is beyond the scope of spirituality.
The fact that I believe God created everything does not mean that I oppose the findings like we discuss in this very topic. It simply means that I believe that there is more meaning in life than mere chemics. But the bottomline remains: science and religion simply don't mix up, so they shouldn't be mixed up.
Your allegory doesn't make sense. Science might say 1+1=2, but religion doesn't contradict that by saying 1+1=3. I really can combine [1+1=2] and [$God=true]. That is the allegory that is made when combining science with religion.
You know, I worked at an organization that had it's building withing a 500 meter range of a river. Therefore it was forced by the government to take an insurance against crashes with ships. The fact that there was an altitude difference of about 30 meters didn't count at all.
Now replace government with customers and you have a Novell-Microsoft deal.
Minimo is the mobile mozilla. WinCE/Mobile only. Besides that, I don't want to be the guy having the task of getting a decent Java VM running on a 486 to run Opera.
Old argument. Could He create a stone He couldn't lift?
I heard answers like: sure He could, after that He could improve His might so He could lift it (or eat the burrito).
Funny as hell.
Thruth is: if there is a God, He is definitely not omnipotent. Most people talk about a Almighty God, which, in strict sense, means "One with all might". That doesn't mean He "can do everything", it means He can do anything every other being can, and perhaps a lot more (like creating a universe with an embedded existance, which I personally believe to be bogus).
Back to the "creation" thing: I'm christian. I believe God created the Universe, the earth and all living and non-living beings. That doesn't mean he created the world in six literal days, nor does it mean that "it just happened" as he wished. He could have initiated everything and guided it since then.
Bottomline is: when you mix up science and religion, you degrade the value of both. The question of the scientific origin of "us" shouldn't be hampered with religious prejudice, nor should the question of religious origin be hampered with scientific prejudice. In the end, it's up to the individual to combine both beliefs into one.
What both ends always should realize: everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory. At this point in time, macro-evolution seems the more likely theory. For others, Intelligent Design could seem the most likely. But these questions should always be regarded as a theory, not as facts, and should be considered from a scientific point of view, instead of a religious one. It's apparent that most creationists forget that rule, but to me it's also apparent that a bunch of evolutionists forget it: it almost is a sport to degrade monotheists with scientific theories.
Slashdot Mirror
JavaScript is almost always usefull (menus, outlining, XMLHttpRequest). Flash is almost always redundant.
That leaves the supplier with the responsibility to exactly specify to which portions that sentence apply. If not, it would apply to the whole package.
It's the "with or without modification" that still leaves me puzzled. It could be argued that the whole license applies to the whole work, with modifications.
Consider the following scenario:
You write a piece of software, using portions of a BSD-licensed work. You intent to distribute only in binary form, with your own license, to refrain other parties of distributing your work. Since you used the BSD license, you MUST put the conditions mentioned in the original license in, our accompanying with, your license.
The question is: do you have to put the following sentence in there too?
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met
If so, any of your customers is free to redistribute all the work you provided.
What if a third party had access to your source code, for instance for stress-testing or to prevent Zero-Day exploits. They signed and NDA, but then they receive the final product, with the BSD-license. The new question is: are they permitted to make deriative works or binary distributions of your work, since with the BSD-license they are "free" to do what they want with the accompanying source code?
All in all, it stands or falls IMHO with the question if you have to put the mentioned sentence in or not. If yes: your customers are as free to do what they want with their copy of your work as you are free to do what you want with the original software. If no: you have total control over your software, provided that you provide the list of conditions.
portions are LGPL, other portions BSD. WebKit is derived from KHTML and KJS, which contain (AFAIK) no GPL-ed code, and even if it does, Apple will have replaced it.
:)
As long as they didn't modify the LGPL-bit while designing it for this phone, they wouldn't have to release it again. They already did
Why mod this funny? It is a perfect counterpoint to the points made in the summary...
if($alcohol_l > 3) { $ibuprofen_mg = 50 * $alcohol_l; }
Actually, here in the Netherlands, that's not uncommon to ask.
Fluitje (whistle): 25 cl
Amsterdammertje (little Amsterdammer): 33 cl
Halve liter (half litre): 50 cl
It might strike you as odd, but that's the way we drink here. Except in "Irish pubs", where the boards read: "Pint (1/2 l)".
Nope. Nor do I measure my alcohol intake in pints. Some of us aren't raised that way. You know, not even everyone is raised with English as their mother tongue!
We continental Europeans measure our dicks in cm, and our beers in glasses (25 cl) or bottles (33 cl) (which makes it rather easy to measure your complete intake of one evening in liters).
There, fixed a typo for you.
There are a lot of good KDE/QT-styles out there. Once I showed my wife, she instantly changed everything on her desktop into something *I* find hideous. She is perfectly happy with it.
There is no way to say that a toolkit is ugly, it's the themes that use the toolkit that are ugly.
No charge, no wonder.
I develop some pretty interesting apps with ECMA-script and CSS, and my practise is this:
- Write a piece of code with standards in the back of your head, and test it with Firefox. Then retest in Konqueror (I'm an avid KDE-user).
- Code the whole app this way
- Boot into Windows, test with IE7. Not much changes needed, 99% works.
- Fire up IE6. Cry, and regain temper.
- Adjust so that IE6 works, without breaking the original functionality. Don't use browser-checks. They'll bite your ass later.
- Test in Opera. Most just works when it already does in FF and IE6, so no harm there.
- Retest everything cautiously in all five mentioned browsers and adjust as needed. IE7 might pose a problem due to the fixes for IE6.
All in all, the basic coding still is the major part of programming for me. The adjusting for the different browsers is not that much of a hassle.Standards are nice, but when it works with Gecko, IE6, IE7, KHTML and Opera, it's good enough. For basic webpages, Lynx is also a testbed for me (with regard to spiders).
And who is the devil I know? Some scriptkiddie who cracked Vista and is making fun with his malware infested crack? I know the OSS community a lot better, since they inspect eachother. If some major Linux distro incorporates a malicious rootkit in its ISO's, it'll be all over the web in no-time.
Obscurity is always a bad signal when downloading. But that was outside the scope of the point I tried to make.
Point was: there are a lot of trusted free downloadable Linux-ISO's around. No "free" Vista ISO is trustable.
There is one big difference, and that is the current price for both OSses. Since Linux is Open Source, most folks who deploy it have downloaded an original copy, not some obscure malware infested "crack". For Vista, lot's of wannabee scriptkiddies will go searching for a "free" version of the OS, ending up with this crap.
Don't forget that those same kiddies will install said "crack" on every computer they can get their hands on (like their Grandma's).
The custom Linux images you mention won't stand a chance, since the original is free enough. It even doesn't matter that the current audience of both OSses is so extremely different.
OK, let me phrase a possible definition:
A scientific theory is, as opposed to laws of nature, a hypothesis backed up with facts, but likely subject to change in the future, as more facts and laws become apparent. Therefore, a theory contains the possible thruth on a matter, with regard for the possibilities that future knowledge renders the theory to null and void and replaces it with another theory or a new law of nature.
Might that be because not all personalities of every person you know suffering from MPS are on MySpace?
You had me thinking there...
:)
With my earlier statement I meant the way things are told or explained. It's quite easy to imagine the sun standing still, for us as well as for 1000 BC jews. Point one touches two issues which are out of that scope: translation (indeed not everyone understands Hebrew) and "supernatural" things, like described in Revelations. The first is a matter of insight in an old language and old cultures. The latter has been a matter of debate for ages and will remain so until "the end of times", if you follow me.
I have a hard time translating my thoughts on this in Dutch, let alone English. Bear with me
In my opinion, each part of the Bible can be interpretated as metaphoric or literal juding on two points:
1. Context
Oftentimes it is obvious if something is meant as a metaphore. For some pasages, the context and the wording should be judged in its original language. Sometimes it simply cannot be done.
2. Time
You have to remember the time in which the Bible was written. Science as we know it now was virtually nonexistant back then. When there is a mention that "the sun stood still" it is obvious with current knowledge that if anything stood still, it was the earth.
I totally agree that it always is a thin line. You can spent a lifetime with judging texts like these, but it helps a lot that we know more of the world nowadays (for instance that it's round) than folks did back then.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
This discussion came at the right time for me. I'm just started reading "the language of God" by Francis L. Collins from the Human Genome project. Judging from the first three chapters, I can recommend it to anyone who is interested in this dillema. Those chapters and this topic forced me to think about it thoroughly and strenghtened my faith enormously (in both God and science).
Care to elaborate? Remember that "Specific God That Created Everything Sixthousand Years Ago In Six Days" is a scientific interpretation of religious-based wishfull thinking. The Bible is written so that people from all ages could understand it, and it should be read as such.
That being said, I can't see a problem with [$SpecificGodAsDescribedInSpecificBook=true] and scientific understanding, as long as one keeps in mind that one cannot approach science from a religious PoV, and vice-versa.
I strongly disagree. For me both science and religion contains the Truth. In my personal opinion, one doesn't rule out the other. Science cannot rule out the existence of a God, simply because that is out of the scope of natural laws as we know it. Religion cannot rule out the existence of natural laws (like gravity, or quantummechanics, or genetics), simply that is beyond the scope of spirituality.
The fact that I believe God created everything does not mean that I oppose the findings like we discuss in this very topic. It simply means that I believe that there is more meaning in life than mere chemics. But the bottomline remains: science and religion simply don't mix up, so they shouldn't be mixed up.
Your allegory doesn't make sense. Science might say 1+1=2, but religion doesn't contradict that by saying 1+1=3. I really can combine [1+1=2] and [$God=true]. That is the allegory that is made when combining science with religion.
You know, I worked at an organization that had it's building withing a 500 meter range of a river. Therefore it was forced by the government to take an insurance against crashes with ships. The fact that there was an altitude difference of about 30 meters didn't count at all.
Now replace government with customers and you have a Novell-Microsoft deal.
Minimo is the mobile mozilla. WinCE/Mobile only. Besides that, I don't want to be the guy having the task of getting a decent Java VM running on a 486 to run Opera.
Old argument. Could He create a stone He couldn't lift?
I heard answers like: sure He could, after that He could improve His might so He could lift it (or eat the burrito).
Funny as hell.
Thruth is: if there is a God, He is definitely not omnipotent. Most people talk about a Almighty God, which, in strict sense, means "One with all might". That doesn't mean He "can do everything", it means He can do anything every other being can, and perhaps a lot more (like creating a universe with an embedded existance, which I personally believe to be bogus).
Back to the "creation" thing: I'm christian. I believe God created the Universe, the earth and all living and non-living beings. That doesn't mean he created the world in six literal days, nor does it mean that "it just happened" as he wished. He could have initiated everything and guided it since then.
Bottomline is: when you mix up science and religion, you degrade the value of both. The question of the scientific origin of "us" shouldn't be hampered with religious prejudice, nor should the question of religious origin be hampered with scientific prejudice. In the end, it's up to the individual to combine both beliefs into one.
What both ends always should realize: everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory. At this point in time, macro-evolution seems the more likely theory. For others, Intelligent Design could seem the most likely. But these questions should always be regarded as a theory, not as facts, and should be considered from a scientific point of view, instead of a religious one. It's apparent that most creationists forget that rule, but to me it's also apparent that a bunch of evolutionists forget it: it almost is a sport to degrade monotheists with scientific theories.