Reinventing the wheel takes time, effort, and money. Microsoft decided against it
*cough*IE7*cough*
Someone tell me why IE7 couldn't have been based on Firefox, KHTML, or Opera, rather than Microsoft's own broken codebase? "Backwards compatibility" isn't it, that's for sure.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
In the case of the Linux kernel, it started out from the beginning as GPLV2 only.
No.
Linux 0.01 was distributed under the following license:
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
(C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
costs.
The Linux 0.12 release notes said:
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make
it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not
distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the
copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of
the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no
problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming
the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft
takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist
of the GNU copyright - read it.
The Linux 0.95 release notes said:
Linux-0.95 is NOT public domain software, but is copyrighted by me. The
copyright conditions are the same as those imposed by the GNU copyleft:
get a copy of the GNU copyleft at any major ftp-site (if it carries
linux, it probably carries a lot of GNU software anyway, and they all
contain the copyright).
The copyleft is pretty detailed, but it mostly just means that you may
freely copy linux for your own use, and redistribute all/parts of it, as
long as you make source available (not necessarily in the same
distribution, but you make it clear how people can get it for nothing
more than copying costs). Any changes you make that you distribute will
also automatically fall under the GNU copyleft.
NOTE! The linux unistd library-functions (the low-level interface to
linux: system calls etc) are excempt from the copyright - you may use
them as you wish, and using those in your binary files won't mean that
your files are automatically under the GNU copyleft. This concerns/only/ the unistd-library and those (few) other library functions I have
written: most of the rest of the library has it's own copyrights (or is
public domain). See the library sources for details of those.
Linux 0.99.2 was the first version that actually included the GPLv2 COPYING file.
Until Linux 2.4.0-test8 was released, no particular version of the GPL was actually specified for the kernel as a whole*, although it was clear that GPLv2 applied. Section 9 of GPLv2 states:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
The copyright status of Linux is a little more complex than most people would like (and than some people would like to believe.)
Footnote: * This isn't true for individual files. To this day, some files in Linux are explicitly 'v2 or later', some are 'v2 only', some are BSD-licensed, etc. The only common thing is that (except for some disputed firmware files) they are all GPLv2-compatible.
I'm more inclined to believe the people who have actually done a diff between the COPYING file in the linux source tree and the GPL as shipped by the FSF which shows that Linus hasn't modified anything other than a clarification at the top to remind people that he didn't add the optional "or later version from the FSF" wording when he applied the licence change to GPL way back when and doesn't intend it either.
So your theory is that Linus didn't "intend" that Section 9 of his own COPYING file apply? Perhaps he didn't "intend" that Sections 1, 2, or 3 apply either? Heck, why bother with a written licence document at all when we can just ask people what they "intended"?
The intent that Linus expressed was to license Linux under GPLv2 in its entirety. That includes Section 9. If that's not what he wanted, then he should have accompanied the license with an appropriate notice that prescribes exactly what it was that he did want. He's done that in later versions of Linux, but he can't---under the guise of "clarification"---revoke the GPL terms he used for previous versions of Linux in order to establish more restrictive terms.
You don't need to believe Groklaw to understand that.
Linus decided. He wrote specific terms into the modified version of the GPL he uses with Linux.
Retroactively, AND claiming to cover code for which he is not the copyright holder. The notice at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source code more-or-less amounts to his opinion---and if you do a little research (read: Groklaw), you'll find that Linus clearly isn't a lawyer and doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to legal matters.
"Linus said so" is just not a valid argument about a legal matter, unless you're trying to defend yourself against a copyright infringement claim that he's making about code he holds the copyrights for.
Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.
Do you have any numbers to back that up?
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other.
If you build a more precise machine, you get a more precise measurement.
Also, in a few hundred years (or a few hundred-thousand years), people won't have to redo precise (expensive) measurements that were made during the last 100 years, because the information recorded now will have the same meaning over time. Otherwise, people will have to try to guess what the mass of a "2007 kilogram" is compared to what they will be using in the future.
I don't know where this oxide damage nonsense comes from, but...
It comes from New Zealand. Specifically, from Peter Gutmann. It's briefly covered in section 7 ("Methods of Recovery for Data stored in Random-Access Memory") of this paper, and elaborated on in a paper called Data Remanence in Semiconductor Devices.
Seriously, you don't know everything there is to know about physics.
Because the guy is making up bullshit. It is obvious to anyone who knows anything about electronics or computers. DRAM is made up of capacitors which do store charge, but it leaks away in a matter of seconds or minutes based on the quality and size of capacitor. SRAM is made up of transisters and loses all its state as soon as power is lost.Neither one of these would retain any data whatsoever without power after even a small amount of time, say 15 minutes.
Debian etch doesn't even come with hard disk driver modules compiled in anymore. Instead, it generates a small ramdisk image containing the modules your particular machine needs to mount the root filesystem. The bootloader then loads that ramdisk, and a script on the ramdisk loads the modules, mounts the root filesystem, and then starts init. My understanding is that other distros do something similar.
The nice thing about this approach is that it makes it fairly easy to do very weird stuff like mounting your root filesystem from an encrypted LVM volume group that you access over an OpenVPN tunnel connected to a USB ethernet interface.
So let's say we encountered some similar situation in reality, but we had determined that having differently colored eyes (as an example) is undesirable. It's entirely possible that by eliminating that trait we also wiped out the few people who would have survived the next big plague.
Okay. Now let's say that, in your example, people with the differently-coloured eyes become excellent carriers for that plague. If we had wiped out those undesirable genes, the plague would never have taken hold in the first place.
More importantly, genetic engineering/selection might ultimately end up being necessary. As various microbes evolve into more drug-resistant forms, we're going to need something to ensure our own survival. Nanotechnology also shows promise, but we still don't really know enough about it to know what its limitations are.
If abortion hadn't gotten tied into religion, then everyone with a high school education would accept that on simple biological grounds a fetus is a human life.
A fetus is excluded from the meaning of the legal term "person", because that's easier to do and results in more consistent application of the law than would amending every single law to replace "person" with "person other than a fetus". For similar reasons, corporations are considered legal "persons".
The "fetuses aren't people" argument is a red herring, anyway. Yes, a fetus is a human life, and a chimpanzee is almost a human life. However, in our society, we benefit from offering only very limited protection to either one. In both cases, we are (arguably) conserving our resources for individuals who are more likely to become contributing members of our society. Some might say that it's cruel, but ultimately our species benefits as a result.
Eugenics could be justified on similar grounds. Frankly, I'd be interested in hearing any sound arguments (beyond "It's just so wrong") that eugenics is bad for the species.
Slashdot Mirror
*cough*IE7*cough*
Someone tell me why IE7 couldn't have been based on Firefox, KHTML, or Opera, rather than Microsoft's own broken codebase? "Backwards compatibility" isn't it, that's for sure.
Read GPLv2, which states:
0. . . . Each licensee is addressed as "you".
. . .
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
No.
Linux 0.01 was distributed under the following license:
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs.
The Linux 0.12 release notes said:
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.The Linux 0.95 release notes said:
Linux-0.95 is NOT public domain software, but is copyrighted by me. The copyright conditions are the same as those imposed by the GNU copyleft: get a copy of the GNU copyleft at any major ftp-site (if it carries linux, it probably carries a lot of GNU software anyway, and they all contain the copyright).
The copyleft is pretty detailed, but it mostly just means that you may freely copy linux for your own use, and redistribute all/parts of it, as long as you make source available (not necessarily in the same distribution, but you make it clear how people can get it for nothing more than copying costs). Any changes you make that you distribute will also automatically fall under the GNU copyleft.
NOTE! The linux unistd library-functions (the low-level interface to linux: system calls etc) are excempt from the copyright - you may use them as you wish, and using those in your binary files won't mean that your files are automatically under the GNU copyleft. This concerns /only/ the unistd-library and those (few) other library functions I have
written: most of the rest of the library has it's own copyrights (or is
public domain). See the library sources for details of those.
Linux 0.99.2 was the first version that actually included the GPLv2 COPYING file.
Until Linux 2.4.0-test8 was released, no particular version of the GPL was actually specified for the kernel as a whole*, although it was clear that GPLv2 applied. Section 9 of GPLv2 states:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The copyright status of Linux is a little more complex than most people would like (and than some people would like to believe.)
Footnote:
* This isn't true for individual files. To this day, some files in Linux are explicitly 'v2 or later', some are 'v2 only', some are BSD-licensed, etc. The only common thing is that (except for some disputed firmware files) they are all GPLv2-compatible.
"Do the Lin---ls rock!"
See this blast from the past.
Felony indictment now.
Who would pay for non-GPL'd MySQL if GPL'd MySQL didn't exist to get developer mindshare, or if MySQL was BSD-licenced?
iPhone release? Probably not. GPL3? Quite possibly, though if you were around for GPL2, that would probably be better.
So your theory is that Linus didn't "intend" that Section 9 of his own COPYING file apply? Perhaps he didn't "intend" that Sections 1, 2, or 3 apply either? Heck, why bother with a written licence document at all when we can just ask people what they "intended"?
The intent that Linus expressed was to license Linux under GPLv2 in its entirety. That includes Section 9. If that's not what he wanted, then he should have accompanied the license with an appropriate notice that prescribes exactly what it was that he did want. He's done that in later versions of Linux, but he can't---under the guise of "clarification"---revoke the GPL terms he used for previous versions of Linux in order to establish more restrictive terms.
You don't need to believe Groklaw to understand that.
Oh really? According to you, when was the clause added to the kernel? What kernel version? (Hint: It wasn't 0.1.)
Retroactively, AND claiming to cover code for which he is not the copyright holder. The notice at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source code more-or-less amounts to his opinion---and if you do a little research (read: Groklaw), you'll find that Linus clearly isn't a lawyer and doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to legal matters.
"Linus said so" is just not a valid argument about a legal matter, unless you're trying to defend yourself against a copyright infringement claim that he's making about code he holds the copyrights for.
That's irrelevant to the rest of your comment.
Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.Do you have any numbers to back that up?
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other.On what data do you base that opinion?
Also, in a few hundred years (or a few hundred-thousand years), people won't have to redo precise (expensive) measurements that were made during the last 100 years, because the information recorded now will have the same meaning over time. Otherwise, people will have to try to guess what the mass of a "2007 kilogram" is compared to what they will be using in the future.
El Cabri, meet the slug
It comes from New Zealand. Specifically, from Peter Gutmann. It's briefly covered in section 7 ("Methods of Recovery for Data stored in Random-Access Memory") of this paper, and elaborated on in a paper called Data Remanence in Semiconductor Devices.
Seriously, you don't know everything there is to know about physics.
Apparently pretty pictures of electromigration constitute "making up bullshit"...
Commander Keen?
What "IBM exception clause"?
Yes.
The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code.No profit? What are you smoking?
Apply the abstraction, filtration, and comparison test.
When was that?
Debian etch doesn't even come with hard disk driver modules compiled in anymore. Instead, it generates a small ramdisk image containing the modules your particular machine needs to mount the root filesystem. The bootloader then loads that ramdisk, and a script on the ramdisk loads the modules, mounts the root filesystem, and then starts init. My understanding is that other distros do something similar.
The nice thing about this approach is that it makes it fairly easy to do very weird stuff like mounting your root filesystem from an encrypted LVM volume group that you access over an OpenVPN tunnel connected to a USB ethernet interface.
... or to remove IPv6.
Okay. Now let's say that, in your example, people with the differently-coloured eyes become excellent carriers for that plague. If we had wiped out those undesirable genes, the plague would never have taken hold in the first place.
More importantly, genetic engineering/selection might ultimately end up being necessary. As various microbes evolve into more drug-resistant forms, we're going to need something to ensure our own survival. Nanotechnology also shows promise, but we still don't really know enough about it to know what its limitations are.
You mean, encourage companies _who do not want to share back_ to reinvent the wheel.
More importantly, it gives a competitive advantage to companies who do share back.
What, have you done a poll? How many people did you survey, and what's your confidence interval?
A fetus is excluded from the meaning of the legal term "person", because that's easier to do and results in more consistent application of the law than would amending every single law to replace "person" with "person other than a fetus". For similar reasons, corporations are considered legal "persons".
The "fetuses aren't people" argument is a red herring, anyway. Yes, a fetus is a human life, and a chimpanzee is almost a human life. However, in our society, we benefit from offering only very limited protection to either one. In both cases, we are (arguably) conserving our resources for individuals who are more likely to become contributing members of our society. Some might say that it's cruel, but ultimately our species benefits as a result.
Eugenics could be justified on similar grounds. Frankly, I'd be interested in hearing any sound arguments (beyond "It's just so wrong") that eugenics is bad for the species.
What, so scientific research is redundant because philosophers have already come up with everything?
Here's a clue: Philosophers suggest lots of things. Scientists are the ones who actually bother finding out which of those suggestions are reliable.