If you are an individual or small team, the most important thing is to keep control over your copyright so you can make money from those people willing to pay for your work.
True. There's no guarantee, of course, that you will be able to make money off code, but it's always smart to retain that ability if you can.
If you want to open source it, use the GPL and offer a commercial license opt-out. If you use the BSD, no-one will pay.
Exactly right.
Do not accept any contributions unless people are willing to transfer (c) to you, or you cannot relicense your work.
A common misunderstanding. It's not necessary to have the copyrights assigned, all you need is a non-exclusive license to the code without restrictions. This leaves you free to use those contributions in a proprietary product alongside the GPL version, without requiring contributors to assign their copyrights. It's much less likely to be objectionable to the contributors than a copyright assignment, but gives you all the advantages of assignment nonetheless. Since, unlike assignment, it takes nothing away from the contributor, it's not a high price to pay for inclusion of contributed code into the main tree so it can be maintained as part of the project. Requiring copyright assignment, on the other hand, is onerous and likely to provoke a fork you don't want.
Do not use GPL libraries, only BSD-licensed ones, or you cannot relicense your work.
Eh, not quite true. You can use LGPL libraries too. In addition, you can put your own libraries under GPL just as you can put your main program under GPL - this is in your best interest if you're trying to make money with a proprietary product since it makes it stops competitors from leveraging your libraries for their competing product. Just like GPLing your main product, you'll need either assignment or side-license from outside contributors, of course.
If you are a team or company that does not want to make money from the software, license it under the BSD or Apache license.
Even if you don't want to retain the ability to offer a proprietary product based on the code, using the BSDL or Apache license doesn't give you any advantage over using the GPL.
One correction - you don't have to require copyright assignments to retain your ability to sell a proprietary product based on your own GPL product. All you have to require is a side-license on contributions - the contributors can still retain copyright on their own code, as long as they grant you a special license that allows you to use those contributions as you will.
Most will not mind doing this in order to get their code into the main tree and have you maintain it. It's a much less onerous requirement than a copyright assignment, but it's just as good for you.
If I said "THE correct form" then perhaps I misspoke. The singular form could also be called correct, although it wouldn't be a sign of good writing and I would not encourage it.
The plural is, however, the preferred and best choice there. Many "properly trained English editors" agree on that. Frankly only an improperly trained one would not agree. And I'm guessing you're a second language English speaker because, quite frankly, it's difficult to believe a high-function native speaker could make the mistake you are persistently arguing for here. (To be clear, the "mistake" I refer to is not claiming that none *could* be used in singular, we agree it can be, I'm referring to your absurd insistence that using it as a plural here is somehow incorrect. )
And although zero-pluralisation and other null-transforms are indeed fairly common in the worlds languages, it's still considered confusing by many second-language speakers in my experience. Even when their native languages exhibit them as well, many still find them confusing. For instance Swedish has far more zero-plurals than English, yet Swedish speakers often express confusion when dealing with the few English words that fall into that category even so.
I didn't say that the OED says it's uniformly plural - I said it could be either, which is what the OED says. So your correction there would have been correct - except it's responding to something I didn't say.
None can be singular, but it's most often plural. I can see how it would be confusing to someone who speaks English as a second language, particularly since in Modern English it's a null-transform - the plural and singular forms are identical - and the literalist may have difficulty with the idea of a null being grammatically plural, but then again if you think about it it's just as odd for it to be singular.
In this case the author could have written it either way - "none of the parties have" or "none of the parties has." There is a very subtle difference in emphasis between the two phrases, but for all practical purposes they are equivalent. Either is permissable, although as the OED also notes the better writers have generally used "not one" for the singular and "none" for the plural, a practice which is to be recommended, but not demanded.
I'm afraid that is incorrect. 'None' takes a plural verb form. "None have" is correct. None is NOT derived from "not one" as you speculate, it actually goes back far before those words reached their current forms, and comes from Auld Ænglisc contraction ne an -> nan. It is commonly plural, and better glossed as "no persons" if you need a crutch to remember how to inflect a verb to match. "No persons" or "no parties" work as substitutions in the sentence in question, therefore "none" is actually plural there, and have is the correct verb form. The OED goes into quite a bit more detail on this, to the same conclusion.
A key factor is the ability to adapt by cultural evolution. Both chimps and humans display some level of that ability, but in humans it's obviously at a much greater level. The higher the ability to adapt culturally, the less pressure there is to adapt physically. So this finding is actually not surprising in the least - it's exactly what we'd expect to find.
You're using "work" as if it were an absolute. Any system will "work" in some sense of the word. But a competitive market can certainly be predicted to work much better.
The GPL does not prohibit distribution. Copyright law prohibits distribution. The GPL grants permission to distribute subject to certain conditions. It takes nothing away. It only grants MORE than you have by law. That's the bottom line.
My translation, done quickly just now, so errors are possible:
The Norwegian Liberal Party, equivalent to the Swedish Liberal Peoples Party, today took the program of the Pirate party and made it their own.
At the ongoing national convention a pronouncement was adopted unanimously, which excepting that it has fewer details is a direct translation of the essentials of the program of the Pirate Party with regard to cultural ecology, with further wording from the subheadings of the program. Intention to "encourage all non-commercial collecting, enjoyment, processing and dissemination of culture" - also the Pirate policy. The only part of the Pirate policy the Norwegian Liberals are not adopting is the repeal of the cassette tax.
The Norwegian Liberal Party sits in the opposition in Norway with 5.9% of the 2005 vote.
the poster claimed "Neither GPL or BSD put *any* sort of restriction about what you do with the software !"
And the poster was correct. Neither the BSDL nor GPL put any sort of restrictions on what you do with the software. Period, end of story.
Both serve only to give you permission to do things that copyright law prohibit by default. You can twist and turn and torture your phrasing all you want, it's still the truth, and you're still just spreading FUD. And, to return to the actual point which was being made to begin with, it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software, the rights that copyright law recognises but the proprietary licenses under discussion purport to do away with.
1) I'm not the AC grandparent. 2) The ACs post was correct.
The GPL puts no restrictions on what you can do with the software. He's right, and you're wrong, and the sad thing here is you appear to be the native English speaker, but you still cant seem to parse.
Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely. The GPL grants exceptions to that prohibition under certain circumstances. It does not add restrictions - it functions entirely to remove them.
I'm sorry, you seem to be the one that is having trouble with reading comprehension. The restriction you mention is one on *distribution* - it's not a use restriction.
I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.
It happens now because prostitution is illegal, and it would happen under libertarian control because libertarians believe businesses should be free to do whatever the fuck they want to do.
No, actually, we don't believe that at all. You're arguing against an absurd straw man.
You're a moron WRT to the FDA and food safety.
What a wonderfully logical argument. And such good manners.
I think that line makes it pretty clear that you don't really misunderstand things as badly as you are pretending, and you're just trolling me for some reason. So I won't waste any more time on you here.
I wasn't trying to convince you of that, that's silly. I was pointing out the logical error in your analysis, and many others. You said you support it inside the current system, but somehow it would nonetheless be horrible in a more libertarian system, because some women would then be forced into it in order to support their children. Well guess what, that happens already! So how is that a criticism of a libertarian system (or your idea of one, which seems a bit distorted?) That something bad that happens in EVERY system the world has ever known, might still happen? Well duh. You appear to be demanding that libertarianism be capable of producing immediate utopia, regardless of other factors, immediately, or else you'll reject in favour of another system which cannot do that either? Can't you see how illogical that is?
And, of course, all the generic contractual limitations, like inability to sign away your right to quit your job and bankruptcy law and whatnot.
Naturally. I don't see your point in mentioning this, unless you're trying to claim that's inconsistent with libertarianism in some way. It's not.
The problem with prostitution and drugs is that we've tried to outlaw goods and services that all human beings involved which to do, aka, we've created victimless crimes. This, rather obviously doesn't work, and it pushes the entire system into illegality so it's completely uncontrolled.
Exactly! And libertarians have been saying that all along. Remember this, it's important...
But that's doesn't mean that rules for those things are magically bad ideas, which is where libertarians get everything exactly wrong.
This makes no sense at all. Libertarians aren't against rules and laws, quite the opposite. We're for a fairly minimalist ruleset that gives as little opportunity as possible for corruption and unintended consequences, yes, but to equate that with the idea that "rules are magically bad ideas" is absurd.
I don't want to have to figure out what 'independent certification agency' actually is vaguely competent at certifying the meat I buy doesn't have maggots in it and I don't want to have to figure out which company actually STD tests the prostitutions I visit, and I don't want to have to figure out while gasoline doesn't have impurities in it that will blow up my engine.
So because you don't want to figure out who to trust, you feel justified in prohibiting the very existence of certification agencies and condeming your fellow citizens to life without them?
The FDA is, at best, borderline competent at enforcing the very lowest of standards. And while the standard can be changed politically, that borderline competence at enforcing it can't be. It's the nature of the beast. The FDA, like any government agency, is a monopolistic provider, with very thick walls insulating it from customer needs, and extremely subject to the phenomena of regulatory capture. The FDA does not keep the food safe - it keeps the big food suppliers safe, and provides the consumer with a false sense of security so they keep buying from them, as long as they don't bother to research them. They've certainly killed more than they've saved.
It's even scarier when you realize they want to legalize prostitution, which, incidentally, I'm in favor for in this society, with regulations and stuff. In their hypothetical society, though...would women attempting to feed their families be forced to sell themselves into prostitution?
Newsflash, that already happens.
Decriminalising prostitution simply improves the situation for those women. At least they no longer have to worry about being arrested, and they can conduct their business more openly, reducing their vulnerability to psychos posing as customers.
You're exhibiting the most common fallacy in criticisms of libertarianism - you come up with scenarios as to how bad things could happen in (your understanding of) a libertarian world, with an unstated assumption that is somehow a devestating critique of the idea. But it isn't. No system can stop bad things from happening. The current system certainly does not, and everyone understand and accepts that.
Wake me up when Libertarians solve the basic problem of people acting like self-centred greedy fucks
Done long ago. Prohibit coërcion. That means those "self-centred greedy fucks" have to offer you something you actually want in order to get your money. Suddenly greed is a good thing, it drives greedy people to work for the common good. That's libertarianism in a nutshell.
It all goes back to the very tight coupling between parasite and host. Even tiny differences between different populations in a host species are mirrored in parasite populations. So lice populations found among hosts of European ancestry have a difficult time with African hair forms. African lice populations, however, do not. Apparently lice populations in North America are mostly of European derivation, but that is far from true in other areas.
The amount of data on these chips is not enough to carry much "biometric" information, and the implementation at the passport checks so far has not, so far as I've seen, include checking that information anyway. So it doesn't matter.
IIRC the British and US passports are using essentially the same mechanism, so as to be compatible with each others readers. The US passports added the cover-shield, which is of dubious value as you note, but other than that I think they'll have the same vulnerability. Could be wrong though.
Slashdot Mirror
True. There's no guarantee, of course, that you will be able to make money off code, but it's always smart to retain that ability if you can.
Exactly right.
A common misunderstanding. It's not necessary to have the copyrights assigned, all you need is a non-exclusive license to the code without restrictions. This leaves you free to use those contributions in a proprietary product alongside the GPL version, without requiring contributors to assign their copyrights. It's much less likely to be objectionable to the contributors than a copyright assignment, but gives you all the advantages of assignment nonetheless. Since, unlike assignment, it takes nothing away from the contributor, it's not a high price to pay for inclusion of contributed code into the main tree so it can be maintained as part of the project. Requiring copyright assignment, on the other hand, is onerous and likely to provoke a fork you don't want.
Eh, not quite true. You can use LGPL libraries too. In addition, you can put your own libraries under GPL just as you can put your main program under GPL - this is in your best interest if you're trying to make money with a proprietary product since it makes it stops competitors from leveraging your libraries for their competing product. Just like GPLing your main product, you'll need either assignment or side-license from outside contributors, of course.
Even if you don't want to retain the ability to offer a proprietary product based on the code, using the BSDL or Apache license doesn't give you any advantage over using the GPL.
One correction - you don't have to require copyright assignments to retain your ability to sell a proprietary product based on your own GPL product. All you have to require is a side-license on contributions - the contributors can still retain copyright on their own code, as long as they grant you a special license that allows you to use those contributions as you will.
Most will not mind doing this in order to get their code into the main tree and have you maintain it. It's a much less onerous requirement than a copyright assignment, but it's just as good for you.
I use User-agent switcher. Setting it to IE gets the following result:
Uhuh. Ok, temporarily enable scripting for movielink.com.
Same thing. So, yeah, I'm guessing it's Active-Xrap. I don't care what they're selling, I don't care if they're giving stuff away, it's not worth it.
If I said "THE correct form" then perhaps I misspoke. The singular form could also be called correct, although it wouldn't be a sign of good writing and I would not encourage it.
The plural is, however, the preferred and best choice there. Many "properly trained English editors" agree on that. Frankly only an improperly trained one would not agree. And I'm guessing you're a second language English speaker because, quite frankly, it's difficult to believe a high-function native speaker could make the mistake you are persistently arguing for here. (To be clear, the "mistake" I refer to is not claiming that none *could* be used in singular, we agree it can be, I'm referring to your absurd insistence that using it as a plural here is somehow incorrect. )
And although zero-pluralisation and other null-transforms are indeed fairly common in the worlds languages, it's still considered confusing by many second-language speakers in my experience. Even when their native languages exhibit them as well, many still find them confusing. For instance Swedish has far more zero-plurals than English, yet Swedish speakers often express confusion when dealing with the few English words that fall into that category even so.
I didn't say that the OED says it's uniformly plural - I said it could be either, which is what the OED says. So your correction there would have been correct - except it's responding to something I didn't say.
None can be singular, but it's most often plural. I can see how it would be confusing to someone who speaks English as a second language, particularly since in Modern English it's a null-transform - the plural and singular forms are identical - and the literalist may have difficulty with the idea of a null being grammatically plural, but then again if you think about it it's just as odd for it to be singular.
In this case the author could have written it either way - "none of the parties have" or "none of the parties has." There is a very subtle difference in emphasis between the two phrases, but for all practical purposes they are equivalent. Either is permissable, although as the OED also notes the better writers have generally used "not one" for the singular and "none" for the plural, a practice which is to be recommended, but not demanded.
I'm afraid that is incorrect. 'None' takes a plural verb form. "None have" is correct. None is NOT derived from "not one" as you speculate, it actually goes back far before those words reached their current forms, and comes from Auld Ænglisc contraction ne an -> nan. It is commonly plural, and better glossed as "no persons" if you need a crutch to remember how to inflect a verb to match. "No persons" or "no parties" work as substitutions in the sentence in question, therefore "none" is actually plural there, and have is the correct verb form. The OED goes into quite a bit more detail on this, to the same conclusion.
A key factor is the ability to adapt by cultural evolution. Both chimps and humans display some level of that ability, but in humans it's obviously at a much greater level. The higher the ability to adapt culturally, the less pressure there is to adapt physically. So this finding is actually not surprising in the least - it's exactly what we'd expect to find.
You're using "work" as if it were an absolute. Any system will "work" in some sense of the word. But a competitive market can certainly be predicted to work much better.
But you can't have access to a genuine competitive market for those services, which is the point.
The GPL does not prohibit distribution. Copyright law prohibits distribution. The GPL grants permission to distribute subject to certain conditions. It takes nothing away. It only grants MORE than you have by law. That's the bottom line.
Back under your bridge, troll.
My translation, done quickly just now, so errors are possible:
The Norwegian Liberal Party, equivalent to the Swedish Liberal Peoples Party, today took the program of the Pirate party and made it their own.
At the ongoing national convention a pronouncement was adopted unanimously, which excepting that it has fewer details is a direct translation of the essentials of the program of the Pirate Party with regard to cultural ecology, with further wording from the subheadings of the program. Intention to "encourage all non-commercial collecting, enjoyment, processing and dissemination of culture" - also the Pirate policy. The only part of the Pirate policy the Norwegian Liberals are not adopting is the repeal of the cassette tax.
The Norwegian Liberal Party sits in the opposition in Norway with 5.9% of the 2005 vote.
The Pirate Party welcomes the copying.
Would you be willing to risk your life, your mothers life, your arthritic grandfathers pain, just to ensure the profits of the big pharma companies?
Well, you're doing it now, and you have no choice.
And the poster was correct. Neither the BSDL nor GPL put any sort of restrictions on what you do with the software. Period, end of story.
Both serve only to give you permission to do things that copyright law prohibit by default. You can twist and turn and torture your phrasing all you want, it's still the truth, and you're still just spreading FUD. And, to return to the actual point which was being made to begin with, it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software, the rights that copyright law recognises but the proprietary licenses under discussion purport to do away with.
1) I'm not the AC grandparent.
2) The ACs post was correct.
The GPL puts no restrictions on what you can do with the software. He's right, and you're wrong, and the sad thing here is you appear to be the native English speaker, but you still cant seem to parse.
Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely. The GPL grants exceptions to that prohibition under certain circumstances. It does not add restrictions - it functions entirely to remove them.
I'm sorry, you seem to be the one that is having trouble with reading comprehension. The restriction you mention is one on *distribution* - it's not a use restriction.
I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.
I'll take your word for it being a good game, but that has to be the worst website I've seen in weeks.
You realise that hardware interaction is confined to the kernel for a reason, right?
No, actually, we don't believe that at all. You're arguing against an absurd straw man.
What a wonderfully logical argument. And such good manners.
I think that line makes it pretty clear that you don't really misunderstand things as badly as you are pretending, and you're just trolling me for some reason. So I won't waste any more time on you here.
I wasn't trying to convince you of that, that's silly. I was pointing out the logical error in your analysis, and many others. You said you support it inside the current system, but somehow it would nonetheless be horrible in a more libertarian system, because some women would then be forced into it in order to support their children. Well guess what, that happens already! So how is that a criticism of a libertarian system (or your idea of one, which seems a bit distorted?) That something bad that happens in EVERY system the world has ever known, might still happen? Well duh. You appear to be demanding that libertarianism be capable of producing immediate utopia, regardless of other factors, immediately, or else you'll reject in favour of another system which cannot do that either? Can't you see how illogical that is?
Naturally. I don't see your point in mentioning this, unless you're trying to claim that's inconsistent with libertarianism in some way. It's not.
Exactly! And libertarians have been saying that all along. Remember this, it's important...
This makes no sense at all. Libertarians aren't against rules and laws, quite the opposite. We're for a fairly minimalist ruleset that gives as little opportunity as possible for corruption and unintended consequences, yes, but to equate that with the idea that "rules are magically bad ideas" is absurd.
So because you don't want to figure out who to trust, you feel justified in prohibiting the very existence of certification agencies and condeming your fellow citizens to life without them?
The FDA is, at best, borderline competent at enforcing the very lowest of standards. And while the standard can be changed politically, that borderline competence at enforcing it can't be. It's the nature of the beast. The FDA, like any government agency, is a monopolistic provider, with very thick walls insulating it from customer needs, and extremely subject to the phenomena of regulatory capture. The FDA does not keep the food safe - it keeps the big food suppliers safe, and provides the consumer with a false sense of security so they keep buying from them, as long as they don't bother to research them. They've certainly killed more than they've saved.
Newsflash, that already happens.
Decriminalising prostitution simply improves the situation for those women. At least they no longer have to worry about being arrested, and they can conduct their business more openly, reducing their vulnerability to psychos posing as customers.
You're exhibiting the most common fallacy in criticisms of libertarianism - you come up with scenarios as to how bad things could happen in (your understanding of) a libertarian world, with an unstated assumption that is somehow a devestating critique of the idea. But it isn't. No system can stop bad things from happening. The current system certainly does not, and everyone understand and accepts that.
Done long ago. Prohibit coërcion. That means those "self-centred greedy fucks" have to offer you something you actually want in order to get your money. Suddenly greed is a good thing, it drives greedy people to work for the common good. That's libertarianism in a nutshell.
It all goes back to the very tight coupling between parasite and host. Even tiny differences between different populations in a host species are mirrored in parasite populations. So lice populations found among hosts of European ancestry have a difficult time with African hair forms. African lice populations, however, do not. Apparently lice populations in North America are mostly of European derivation, but that is far from true in other areas.
The amount of data on these chips is not enough to carry much "biometric" information, and the implementation at the passport checks so far has not, so far as I've seen, include checking that information anyway. So it doesn't matter.
IIRC the British and US passports are using essentially the same mechanism, so as to be compatible with each others readers. The US passports added the cover-shield, which is of dubious value as you note, but other than that I think they'll have the same vulnerability. Could be wrong though.