I'm taking that as 60% of BSD and 40% of Slackware. Those have to be rough figures, as 3 characters (BSD) can be split into 0%, 33.3%, 66.7%, or 100% while 9 (Slackware) can split into 0%, 11.1%, 22.2%, 33.3% 44.4% 55.6%, 66.7%, 77.8%, 88.9%, or 100%.
The result would be the first 66.7% of BSD and the last 44.4$ of Slackware... so... BSware.
There is a difference between glorification and journalistic reporting, and the latter should be protected under all circumstances. If a video of a beheading is posted to YouTube with a description along the lines of "Look at these infidels DIE!", that is glorification of an illegal act; the same video posted with a description of "Horrific beheading of prisoners by jihadists" would fall under the category of journalistic reporting and should be protected.
That's not to say that YouTube shouldn't be allowed to remove it; after all, their website is their publication and, being a private medium, they're well within their rights to police it as they see fit; they simply shouldn't be made to take it down against their will.
Depictions of illegal acts are verboten, and for good reason; I was certainly not implying that they should be allowed in all cases. Journalistic reporting, however, is a necessary exception which should be upheld in every case.
I swear I read something to that effect in the GPL FAQ as recently as last night. Looking at it again today, I must have been tripping pretty hard last night, though I don't know what I'd've been tripping on.
there are legal arguments to use the GPL definitions.
(I'd go so far as to say there is a legal requirement, as the definitions exist within the license itself) and
If you run GPLed software and proprietary in separate processes, and use normal inter-process communications, then they are separate programs according to everybody.
However, dynamic vs static linking is version-dependent. To clarify, if you don't use a GPL-compatible license for your project, LGPL and GPLv1 allow linking, GPLv2 allows dynamic linking, GPLv3 allows no linking whatsoever. It's pretty explicit in the license and better explained in the GPL FAQ; I'd provide you a link, but it's probably better (for you) if you break yourself of your laziness and look it up for yourself.
I don't personally follow any "community leaders", nor do many people I know. That's not su much the issue; there is a line, between following and accepting as status quo, which is so fine as to be invisible to anyone not looking closely. In other words, by allowing these "leaders" to continue in their roles by giving them the publicity they desire, we all appear to be following them, whether we are or not. This makes us all look bad.
Well, if he's becoming nothing more than a reckless ape who can't tie his own shoe (referenced from a post I made elsewhere in the discussion), perhaps it is time we remove him from his role as a community leader?
I think oreaq asks the right question. If not NBS, then who should be allowed? It's not like you're going to be able to build a centrifuge to refine your fission material or obtain already-refined materials without drawing attention to yourself, anyway, so what's the harm? That you might dump millions of dollars into the economy before being caught?
I mean, without the attention-getting parts of the process, the worst you could build is a dirty bomb that, while it would certainly terrify a large number of people, would provide a dose of radiation to anyone nearby that would be roughly equivalent to eating several bananas. There's still the explosive portion of the weapon, which might kill or maim a few people, but how to build that is more or less common knowledge already.
In short, hell yes NBC should air those plans. If more people knew what was involved in building nuclear weapons, fewer people would be afraid of your average terrorist doing so.
Sincerely,
Someone who knows how to design and build a nuclear weapon
Take a moment to track down my other posts in this discussion and you'll see that we are in agreement on this point. I wasn't saying that any single provider should have left the video up, only that they should not be forced to take the video down.
I had typed up a much more in-depth reply, but apparently forgot to click "Submit". Since it's late, I'll summarize:
You realize that the GPL allows releasing your derivative work under any GPL-compatible license, right? So release your wrapper, which dynamically links the GPLv3 library you wish to use, under LGPL and link it statically in your application, which the LGPL allows. Changing the requirement to only allow releasing derivative works under the same or newer version of the GPL would certainly close that loophole. At best, few or no developers would use that version of the GPL; at worst, it would kill the GPL entirely. I'm sure Stallman knows this, so this is all much ado about nothing.
Having someone take your hard work for their own profit and not return the favor with a few bugfixes they might implement is also a pain in the ass. That's what the BSD license enables. I'm not saying one is better than the other in all cases; you may not care about having access to fixes and performance enhancements, in which case go ahead and use the BSD license for your project, it's probably the better choice for you; but if those things matter, then GPL is the clear winner between the two.
They're two different licenses with two separate sets of goals, both equally valid and both having ideal use-cases. The sooner we can get both sides to stop spreading FUD about each other, the sooner the FOSS community can stop looking like a bunch of reckless apes that can't tie their own shoes. Then, we can begin making some real progress.
Here's the thing: I don't have kids. I was one, I know how I was raised, and I've discussed with my parents how I was raised and why I was raised that way. I am aware of my own self image and of how other view me, so I know whether or not my parents did a good job raising me and I can say that they did. And that is how I know how to properly raise a child, despite not having any of my own. I don't purport to know what a royal pain in the ass raising a child actually is, or even that I'm qualified to do so, but I certainly know how.
Even people who don't have children of their own *can* be qualified to comment on the subject, it's just that many don't take the necessary steps to earn that qualification. Incidentally, even having children of their own won't qualify those people to comment.
If you've taught them right and wrong, as the AC in this discussion claims to have, they'll come out fine regardless of what they might find on the interwebz. I've come across some pretty disturbing shit online, as well as in real life, been exposed to it all since my early teens, and yet I'm not out raping and murdering. This is certainly no because all of the content I've ever been exposed to was censored "for my protection"; no, it's because my parents taught me right.
Consider that the text of a publication is the publication's speech, not the commenter's. Well, it's both, but since the publication is the one publishing it, making them effectively liable for it, it's more the publication's speech, and the publication has the freedom to limit their own speech, should they so choose. First Amendment Freedom of Speech only protects you from government censorship in public. Derp.
The four comments above mine don't get one simple fact: Every word on Reddit is published by Reddit, making it Reddit's speech, and Reddit is free to determine the content of Reddit's own speech. That's how freedom of speech works.
It hasn't been a secret for a while now. There's been a "do my bitchwork, do someone else's bitchwork, or starve" mentality amongst the majority of US employers for at least the past 20 years.
If you can't change the channel on your TV or cable box, then I suggest you're far less qualified to offer an opinion on this matter than you're trying to suggest.
+1 to this. The great thing about America is that I have the freedom to speak my mind and you have the freedom to ignore me. That should extend everywhere; if NBC wants to air porn, graphic depictions of murders, and terrorist propaganda all day, they should be allowed to, so long as you are allowed to change the channel, or simply not tune in if you don't want to see it. What I don't understand, and never will, is peoples' propensity toward an "I don't want it for myself, so you shouldn't be allowed to have it, either" mindset. Is it a jealousy issue? Do they not want other people to have things they don't have, so they want things they don't want banned on the grounds that they, themselves, will never have them? We are a narcissistic enough population, on the whole, that this is, sadly, a possible explanation for the behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm taking that as 60% of BSD and 40% of Slackware. Those have to be rough figures, as 3 characters (BSD) can be split into 0%, 33.3%, 66.7%, or 100% while 9 (Slackware) can split into 0%, 11.1%, 22.2%, 33.3% 44.4% 55.6%, 66.7%, 77.8%, 88.9%, or 100%.
The result would be the first 66.7% of BSD and the last 44.4$ of Slackware... so... BSware.
Finally! Someone else that feels the same way! I wish you hadn't posted anonymously...
Are you... the rake-ist?
There is a difference between glorification and journalistic reporting, and the latter should be protected under all circumstances. If a video of a beheading is posted to YouTube with a description along the lines of "Look at these infidels DIE!", that is glorification of an illegal act; the same video posted with a description of "Horrific beheading of prisoners by jihadists" would fall under the category of journalistic reporting and should be protected.
That's not to say that YouTube shouldn't be allowed to remove it; after all, their website is their publication and, being a private medium, they're well within their rights to police it as they see fit; they simply shouldn't be made to take it down against their will.
Depictions of illegal acts are verboten, and for good reason; I was certainly not implying that they should be allowed in all cases. Journalistic reporting, however, is a necessary exception which should be upheld in every case.
I swear I read something to that effect in the GPL FAQ as recently as last night. Looking at it again today, I must have been tripping pretty hard last night, though I don't know what I'd've been tripping on.
Nah, just cemented my position on said list. I'm cool with it, at the worst they'll get a chuckle out of my day-to-day.
Yes, if you limit yourself to LGPL. That is not the only GPL license.
there are legal arguments to use the GPL definitions.
(I'd go so far as to say there is a legal requirement, as the definitions exist within the license itself) and
If you run GPLed software and proprietary in separate processes, and use normal inter-process communications, then they are separate programs according to everybody.
However, dynamic vs static linking is version-dependent. To clarify, if you don't use a GPL-compatible license for your project, LGPL and GPLv1 allow linking, GPLv2 allows dynamic linking, GPLv3 allows no linking whatsoever. It's pretty explicit in the license and better explained in the GPL FAQ; I'd provide you a link, but it's probably better (for you) if you break yourself of your laziness and look it up for yourself.
I don't personally follow any "community leaders", nor do many people I know. That's not su much the issue; there is a line, between following and accepting as status quo, which is so fine as to be invisible to anyone not looking closely. In other words, by allowing these "leaders" to continue in their roles by giving them the publicity they desire, we all appear to be following them, whether we are or not. This makes us all look bad.
I would end up on *SO MANY* watch lists pressing the button and screaming things like "BOMB BOMB JIHAD!" for kicks.
Well, if he's becoming nothing more than a reckless ape who can't tie his own shoe (referenced from a post I made elsewhere in the discussion), perhaps it is time we remove him from his role as a community leader?
Thanks for that. I understand well enough the principle by which it works, but I was unsure of the frequency and too lazy to look it up.
I think oreaq asks the right question. If not NBS, then who should be allowed? It's not like you're going to be able to build a centrifuge to refine your fission material or obtain already-refined materials without drawing attention to yourself, anyway, so what's the harm? That you might dump millions of dollars into the economy before being caught?
I mean, without the attention-getting parts of the process, the worst you could build is a dirty bomb that, while it would certainly terrify a large number of people, would provide a dose of radiation to anyone nearby that would be roughly equivalent to eating several bananas. There's still the explosive portion of the weapon, which might kill or maim a few people, but how to build that is more or less common knowledge already.
In short, hell yes NBC should air those plans. If more people knew what was involved in building nuclear weapons, fewer people would be afraid of your average terrorist doing so.
Sincerely,
Someone who knows how to design and build a nuclear weapon
Given the tone of the rest of your post, I think you meant to say "I think they should".
Take a moment to track down my other posts in this discussion and you'll see that we are in agreement on this point. I wasn't saying that any single provider should have left the video up, only that they should not be forced to take the video down.
I had typed up a much more in-depth reply, but apparently forgot to click "Submit". Since it's late, I'll summarize:
You realize that the GPL allows releasing your derivative work under any GPL-compatible license, right? So release your wrapper, which dynamically links the GPLv3 library you wish to use, under LGPL and link it statically in your application, which the LGPL allows. Changing the requirement to only allow releasing derivative works under the same or newer version of the GPL would certainly close that loophole. At best, few or no developers would use that version of the GPL; at worst, it would kill the GPL entirely. I'm sure Stallman knows this, so this is all much ado about nothing.
Having someone take your hard work for their own profit and not return the favor with a few bugfixes they might implement is also a pain in the ass. That's what the BSD license enables. I'm not saying one is better than the other in all cases; you may not care about having access to fixes and performance enhancements, in which case go ahead and use the BSD license for your project, it's probably the better choice for you; but if those things matter, then GPL is the clear winner between the two.
They're two different licenses with two separate sets of goals, both equally valid and both having ideal use-cases. The sooner we can get both sides to stop spreading FUD about each other, the sooner the FOSS community can stop looking like a bunch of reckless apes that can't tie their own shoes. Then, we can begin making some real progress.
Follow?
Here's the thing: I don't have kids. I was one, I know how I was raised, and I've discussed with my parents how I was raised and why I was raised that way. I am aware of my own self image and of how other view me, so I know whether or not my parents did a good job raising me and I can say that they did. And that is how I know how to properly raise a child, despite not having any of my own. I don't purport to know what a royal pain in the ass raising a child actually is, or even that I'm qualified to do so, but I certainly know how.
Even people who don't have children of their own *can* be qualified to comment on the subject, it's just that many don't take the necessary steps to earn that qualification. Incidentally, even having children of their own won't qualify those people to comment.
If you've taught them right and wrong, as the AC in this discussion claims to have, they'll come out fine regardless of what they might find on the interwebz. I've come across some pretty disturbing shit online, as well as in real life, been exposed to it all since my early teens, and yet I'm not out raping and murdering. This is certainly no because all of the content I've ever been exposed to was censored "for my protection"; no, it's because my parents taught me right.
Consider that the text of a publication is the publication's speech, not the commenter's. Well, it's both, but since the publication is the one publishing it, making them effectively liable for it, it's more the publication's speech, and the publication has the freedom to limit their own speech, should they so choose. First Amendment Freedom of Speech only protects you from government censorship in public. Derp.
I take that back; I actually agree with something BarbaraHudson said for once. WTF?
The four comments above mine don't get one simple fact: Every word on Reddit is published by Reddit, making it Reddit's speech, and Reddit is free to determine the content of Reddit's own speech. That's how freedom of speech works.
It hasn't been a secret for a while now. There's been a "do my bitchwork, do someone else's bitchwork, or starve" mentality amongst the majority of US employers for at least the past 20 years.
If you can't change the channel on your TV or cable box, then I suggest you're far less qualified to offer an opinion on this matter than you're trying to suggest.
+1 to this. The great thing about America is that I have the freedom to speak my mind and you have the freedom to ignore me. That should extend everywhere; if NBC wants to air porn, graphic depictions of murders, and terrorist propaganda all day, they should be allowed to, so long as you are allowed to change the channel, or simply not tune in if you don't want to see it. What I don't understand, and never will, is peoples' propensity toward an "I don't want it for myself, so you shouldn't be allowed to have it, either" mindset. Is it a jealousy issue? Do they not want other people to have things they don't have, so they want things they don't want banned on the grounds that they, themselves, will never have them? We are a narcissistic enough population, on the whole, that this is, sadly, a possible explanation for the behavior.