For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If you take out a Microsoft patent license, then you make copies of a Fedora CD to install throughout your organization, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Microsoft knows this.
(If you argue that making copies of Fedora CDs in violation of the GPL isn't actually copyright infringement, then neither is making copies of Windows 2000 CDs. I doubt that's Microsoft's position.)
RTFGPL, dude. GPL is NOT an EULA. It's a distribution license.
A license that you need to make 100 copies of GPL-covered software, for each of your servers. That, or it's legal to make 100 copies of Windows, for each of your servers. Either way, Microsoft loses.
Cool! It's not every day that you get to witness the creation of a new DoS attack vector.
This technology will be toast as soon as somebody defaces Yahoo or some other popular home page---by adding a dozen or so IFRAMES to random http://hostport/ URLs---thus causing anyone "protected" by this system to drop off the Internet.
Jahn points the finger at detractors as well: "If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will."
Where can we, the readers, find all these results?
"We submitted our data for review to very good journals," Ms. Dunne said, "but no one would review it. We have been very open with our data. But how do you get peer review when you don't have peers?"
I dunno. You have this big global network of documents called the "World Wide Web". Certainly, you couldn't publish there.
Honestly, I want to see their "results" published to the web, so we can demolish their methodology and their conclusions. Webloggers can always use interesting material to write about.
Several expert panels examined PEAR's methods over the years, looking for irregularities, but did not find sufficient reasons to interrupt the work.
Which expert panels? What, exactly, were their comments? What constitutes reason to interrupt work? (If your methodology is flawed, then I'd expect that you don't want to interrupt your work, you want to continue it so you can do the experiments again, properly.)
Nobody would accept such vague arguments if this was a new cryptographic algorithm. Why should we be any less skeptical here?
"Companies" don't really do things at all, except as a legal fiction. It's not "Warner" that's being dumb here, it's the execs behind Warner. Once either they (or Warner shareholders) start getting a clue---or are replaced---"Warner" suddenly will be a whole lot less stupid.
Is a bunch of guys kicking a ball around really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys driving cars really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys skating (whether quickly, gracefully, or into the boards) really a spectator sport?
Is a couple of guys hitting each other with pillows tied to their fists really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys sitting around a table playing cards really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys playing video games really a spectator sport?
If people watch, then it's a "spectator sport" in the colloquial sense (the definition of "sport' notwithstanding).
The fact that they feel the need to try suggests zeal, which is always a sign of incompetence. It's a classic case of thinking "I am in charge" rather than "what can I do to help?"
The problem with an editor system is that it will discourage the creation of stub pages containing limited information, resulting in fewer contributions and fewer contributors. The only place where I could see that an editor system would be useful is for pages that are already well-established. On the other hand, Wikipedia's article locking mechanism already serves this function, so I'm a little skeptical that Citizendium will be better enough to generate a critical mass of interest.
Why do you think these are successful free software projects? Many users?
No, I define it as "not complete garbage, and has a big enough user base that I won't be completely on my own if I use it."
For example, in your list is Linux and BSD. Both might have millions of users. But both are operating systems so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Linux user is a loss for BSD and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore. In relation to that, isn't a program with a small user base, let's say 50 users, much more successful, when it can claim 100% of its possible user base?
How is it useful to define success in that way? The grandparent was talking about looking at Sourceforge to avoid sifting through a bunch of hobby projects that aren't going anywhere.
You might as well have said this:
For example, in your list is Coke and Pepsi. Both might have millions of users. But both are soft drinks so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Coke user is a loss for Pepsi and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore.
You sound like someone who could benefit from this article.
After Microsoft's grueling battle against ODF in Massachusetts, bluest of blue states, it must be galling to face te same fight in the reddest of the red.
Here's a thought: Maybe it's possible that not every issue can be polarized along the lines of "left-wing moonbats" and "right-wing rednecks".
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a summary of his argument:
"DRM IS NOT BAD ... if you redefine "DRM" to include stuff like Creative Commons licensing and xpdf's implementation of the PDF permissions system."
Didn't Opera have something like this?
If my arguments are sound, my motivations are irrelevant.
Contributory copyright infringement.
Quoting GPLv2 section 7:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.If you take out a Microsoft patent license, then you make copies of a Fedora CD to install throughout your organization, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Microsoft knows this.
(If you argue that making copies of Fedora CDs in violation of the GPL isn't actually copyright infringement, then neither is making copies of Windows 2000 CDs. I doubt that's Microsoft's position.)
A license that you need to make 100 copies of GPL-covered software, for each of your servers. That, or it's legal to make 100 copies of Windows, for each of your servers. Either way, Microsoft loses.
Nice troll. Well done!
How does that invalidate my criticism of the blatantly biased NYT article?
Linux is a kernel. Linspire, on the other hand, used to be called "Lindows". I think it fits the bill.
Cool! It's not every day that you get to witness the creation of a new DoS attack vector.
This technology will be toast as soon as somebody defaces Yahoo or some other popular home page---by adding a dozen or so IFRAMES to random http://hostport/ URLs---thus causing anyone "protected" by this system to drop off the Internet.
If they need more funding, I suppose they could always get the money from the JREF.
Where can we, the readers, find all these results?
"We submitted our data for review to very good journals," Ms. Dunne said, "but no one would review it. We have been very open with our data. But how do you get peer review when you don't have peers?"I dunno. You have this big global network of documents called the "World Wide Web". Certainly, you couldn't publish there.
Honestly, I want to see their "results" published to the web, so we can demolish their methodology and their conclusions. Webloggers can always use interesting material to write about.
Several expert panels examined PEAR's methods over the years, looking for irregularities, but did not find sufficient reasons to interrupt the work.Which expert panels? What, exactly, were their comments? What constitutes reason to interrupt work? (If your methodology is flawed, then I'd expect that you don't want to interrupt your work, you want to continue it so you can do the experiments again, properly.)
Nobody would accept such vague arguments if this was a new cryptographic algorithm. Why should we be any less skeptical here?
You've obviously never heard of kHTTPd.
Only if you've never heard of Signal 11, you young whippersnapper!
"Companies" don't really do things at all, except as a legal fiction. It's not "Warner" that's being dumb here, it's the execs behind Warner. Once either they (or Warner shareholders) start getting a clue---or are replaced---"Warner" suddenly will be a whole lot less stupid.
Is a bunch of guys kicking a ball around really a spectator sport? Is a bunch of guys driving cars really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys skating (whether quickly, gracefully, or into the boards) really a spectator sport?
Is a couple of guys hitting each other with pillows tied to their fists really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys sitting around a table playing cards really a spectator sport?
Is a bunch of guys playing video games really a spectator sport?
If people watch, then it's a "spectator sport" in the colloquial sense (the definition of "sport' notwithstanding).
That sounds FUCK great!
Oops. s/always//
The fact that they feel the need to try suggests zeal, which is always a sign of incompetence. It's a classic case of thinking "I am in charge" rather than "what can I do to help?"
What is it about university IT departments that attracts such incompetent people?
Hint: If you're pouncing on people as often as a small frisky dog does, you're the problem.
Not if they sent you the unprotected files over SSL.
Looks like someone has figured out that maintaining a distro is expensive.
Last I checked, using software is not forbidden by statute, so I already have "permission" to use the software.
The problem with an editor system is that it will discourage the creation of stub pages containing limited information, resulting in fewer contributions and fewer contributors. The only place where I could see that an editor system would be useful is for pages that are already well-established. On the other hand, Wikipedia's article locking mechanism already serves this function, so I'm a little skeptical that Citizendium will be better enough to generate a critical mass of interest.
No, I define it as "not complete garbage, and has a big enough user base that I won't be completely on my own if I use it."
For example, in your list is Linux and BSD. Both might have millions of users. But both are operating systems so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Linux user is a loss for BSD and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore. In relation to that, isn't a program with a small user base, let's say 50 users, much more successful, when it can claim 100% of its possible user base?How is it useful to define success in that way? The grandparent was talking about looking at Sourceforge to avoid sifting through a bunch of hobby projects that aren't going anywhere.
You might as well have said this:
For example, in your list is Coke and Pepsi. Both might have millions of users. But both are soft drinks so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Coke user is a loss for Pepsi and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore.
You sound like someone who could benefit from this article.
Here's a thought: Maybe it's possible that not every issue can be polarized along the lines of "left-wing moonbats" and "right-wing rednecks".
You people are idiots.