Assume that highly-skilled programmers work efficiently without a need for rules like these, but morons do not.
If you find that you *need* a "language standardization" policy, then you're already at a disadvantage, because talented people often tend to avoid working in places where there is a large number of people whom they perceive to be morons. As a result, skilled people are less likely work at your company than they would be otherwise.
Now, if you create policy that explicitly *hinders* skilled programmers, well...
I'm sure many of us would *love* to scoop up the talented people that might otherwise choose to work at your company!
Exactly. That's the point. If you can reasonably expect that a person will be able to run their own modified code on the platform, then you don't need to provide any special access codes. Otherwise, you do (or you won't be allowed to distribute modified GPLv3 code).
These provisions, like the provisions in GPLv2, are designed to protect the "four freedoms" that the FSF espouses, namely:
The freedom to run the program.
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
The freedom to redistribute copies.
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
Since anti-owner access controls (DRM) restrict at least one or more of these freedoms, they are disallowed.
The computer industry has already standardized on one language: and that language is C. Naturally, "pure C" isn't very efficient for some tasks so people come up with other languages. And what language are the compilers (and interpreters) for the new languages implemented in? You guessed it: C.
Beyond that, if you push to "standardize" languages across a company, be prepared to write code in your least-favourite language. Personally, I'd recommend that your company give you a choice between FORTRAN, COBOL, LISP, dc, and PHP.
RTFGPLv3D. This is the section that people are complaining about:
The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Complete Corresponding Source Code.
I interpret that to mean that the "authorization code" for the source code is a note in the documentation that says how to run "apt-key add $HOME/mykey.pgp". Everything else (such as root access to the machine) is something that the recipient of the source code would already have.
But are all contributions to the kernel "GPL v.2 only?"
Nope, they aren't. In fact, many parts of the kernel are "v2 or later" or even BSD-licenced. In fact, Linux 2.0 never even *mentioned* a particular version in the README, so if it weren't for the individual file copyrights, it could be distributed under any version *ever* published by the FSF (see GPLv2 section 9). Linus apparently doesn't agree with that position now, but he's also not a lawyer.
People already made investments in research and were commercially compensated for it before patents.
The original and valid purpose of a patent is to force them to reveal their research to the public in order to gain government protection of it.
You know, I've been complaining about software patents for years, but I don't think I ever totally understood the argument until now. Somebody (I think it was either RMS or Bruce Schneier) said that even patents like RSA shouldn't have been granted, but I never quite understood it. Now, it's obvious to me. Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman would have developed and published their algorithm anyway, so in that case, the patent system did nothing but screw over the public for 20 years. (Of course, U.S. export restrictions on cryptography screwed them over, but that's beside the point.)
Thank you. (Wow, I actually learned something useful on Slashdot...)
if they did the research and the investments, they should be able to profit from their efforts.
More precisely, we want to establish a system whereby people will put the effort and money into the research and development in the first place. This doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive control, but you want the thought to be in people's heads that there is good money to be made in developing a cure for AIDS. Exclusive control (a.k.a "intellectual property") is probably the easiest way to do this (from an administrative/policy perspective) but it is certainly not the only way.
Sometimes, exclusive control turns out to have a significantly negative impact (cf. software patents, and this discussion). Other times, it turns out to be beneficial. You really have to look at the particulars of the situation to determine what's "right" in any given case.
Well, it depends on their policy. If the same "no spam allowed" terms of service apply to all users, regardless of whether or not they paid for this service, then people who spam using this service will be much easier to track down (and rubber-hose cryptanalyze) since there will be a money trail.
On the other hand, spammers might just start using more stolen credit card information...
Slashdot Mirror
Company? Wasn't it a taxpayer-funded workplace?
Or what? Seriously, what would you do? Sadly, I think you overestimate your ability to protect yourself.
... as the Time Cube!
Assume that highly-skilled programmers work efficiently without a need for rules like these, but morons do not.
If you find that you *need* a "language standardization" policy, then you're already at a disadvantage, because talented people often tend to avoid working in places where there is a large number of people whom they perceive to be morons. As a result, skilled people are less likely work at your company than they would be otherwise.
Now, if you create policy that explicitly *hinders* skilled programmers, well...
I'm sure many of us would *love* to scoop up the talented people that might otherwise choose to work at your company!
These provisions, like the provisions in GPLv2, are designed to protect the "four freedoms" that the FSF espouses, namely:
Since anti-owner access controls (DRM) restrict at least one or more of these freedoms, they are disallowed.
Specifically, PHP 4? (PHP 5 is still rather new.)
Do you think it would be reasonable to standardize on PHP for web applications?
Beyond that, if you push to "standardize" languages across a company, be prepared to write code in your least-favourite language. Personally, I'd recommend that your company give you a choice between FORTRAN, COBOL, LISP, dc, and PHP.
I interpret that to mean that the "authorization code" for the source code is a note in the documentation that says how to run "apt-key add $HOME/mykey.pgp". Everything else (such as root access to the machine) is something that the recipient of the source code would already have.
Nope, they aren't. In fact, many parts of the kernel are "v2 or later" or even BSD-licenced. In fact, Linux 2.0 never even *mentioned* a particular version in the README, so if it weren't for the individual file copyrights, it could be distributed under any version *ever* published by the FSF (see GPLv2 section 9). Linus apparently doesn't agree with that position now, but he's also not a lawyer.
Except I think it predates the FSF's "GNU/Linux" position...
It's probably because Opera's UI isn't driven by XML and JavaScript.
The original and valid purpose of a patent is to force them to reveal their research to the public in order to gain government protection of it.
You know, I've been complaining about software patents for years, but I don't think I ever totally understood the argument until now. Somebody (I think it was either RMS or Bruce Schneier) said that even patents like RSA shouldn't have been granted, but I never quite understood it. Now, it's obvious to me. Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman would have developed and published their algorithm anyway, so in that case, the patent system did nothing but screw over the public for 20 years. (Of course, U.S. export restrictions on cryptography screwed them over, but that's beside the point.)
Thank you. (Wow, I actually learned something useful on Slashdot...)
More precisely, we want to establish a system whereby people will put the effort and money into the research and development in the first place. This doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive control, but you want the thought to be in people's heads that there is good money to be made in developing a cure for AIDS. Exclusive control (a.k.a "intellectual property") is probably the easiest way to do this (from an administrative/policy perspective) but it is certainly not the only way.
Sometimes, exclusive control turns out to have a significantly negative impact (cf. software patents, and this discussion). Other times, it turns out to be beneficial. You really have to look at the particulars of the situation to determine what's "right" in any given case.
On the other hand, spammers might just start using more stolen credit card information...
He hasn't actually finished it yet. He'll do it when he gets around to it.
Only if you trust the kernel to not give you malicious data in /proc.
IIRC, the GIMP is lacking a lot of things because of software patents.
That helps, but it doesn't solve everything.
Sometimes redundancy helps improve comprehension.
It makes perfect sense. PowerBooks are PowerPC-based; MacBook Pro are Pentium Pro-based. ;-)
It won't. It'll help them *notice* and *recognize* things they wouldn't in 2D.
Yeah, because anyone who thinks that email is supposed to be read is obviously a retard...
ENOUGH with the ethnic slurs already!
WTF are "fluor ions"?