By that user-centric logic, however technically incorrect it may be, X's names ARE reversed.
Only in computers would you see people advocate for precise technical to be defined to be defined by non-experts.
Nobody argues about what a "normal distribution" is, or what "adaptive chosen ciphertext attack" is, but if you talk about "client/server", now everyone has an opinion.
Next time try some Colloidal Silver. I had some sort of hideous flu at the begining of this month, and it wiped it out within a week.
Or pink socks. Yesterday I had a nasty headache, so I put on some pink socks. Today, the headache was gone. Bam! Lesson learned: Pink socks cure headaches.
It gets worse. In 2007, Paul Vixie wrote an article in ACM Queue basically praising the vagueness of the DNS protocol specifications:
From this overview, it is possible to conclude that DNS is a poorly specified protocol, but that would be unfair and untrue. DNS was specified loosely, on purpose. This protocol design is a fine example of what M.A. Padlipsky meant by “descriptive rather than prescriptive” in his 1984 thriller, The Elements of Networking Style (Prentice Hall). Functional interoperability and ease of implementation were the goals of the DNS protocol specification, and from the relative ease with which DNS has grown from its petri dish into a world-devouring monster, it’s clear to me that those goals were met. A stronger document set would have eliminated some of the “gotchas” that DNS implementers face, but the essential and intentional looseness of the specification has to be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
Why should the victim have to make her profile private just because of the abuser? Heck, that control is probably what the abuser wants: "If you want to avoid me, you can do it only on the condition that you avoid everybody else, too!"
It does if you're talking about crypto export rules according to the Wassenaar Arrangement, which defines "in the public domain" very differently from how US copyright law does. See this
It also doesn't say that the changes to the source need to be given in a convenient format...a printout of the original source, along with printouts of every diff pattern would be sufficient for compliance.
It says the source needs to be "machine-readable", distributed "on a medium customarily used for software interchange", and that source code is "the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it".
I have no idea how you think a printout of "git log -u" would meet those requirements. Judges are not so easily fooled.
My understanding of v2 is that just a link is not sufficient, you need to provide other means, including offer to ship a CD.
My understanding of the FSF's interpretation of GPLv2 is that you have to ship a physical medium if somebody actually asks, but if you provide an FTP site or something else that works more effectively, then nobody will ask.
I read a book called 'The Tipping Point', where an example was given where 'normal' college students were chosen for a week long experiment. Randomly, some were assigned as guards and some as prisoners. The 'gaurds' became so abusive they needed to terminate the experiment early.
The only hope I can hold out for is another "60'" where a generation rejects the views (in this case of unquestioning conformity) of their elders and start to become iconoclasts. Maybe then they'll stop being afraid of everything around them (esp. other people) and start to ask the right questions and shake us all out of this malaise.
It's happening already. Have you noticed that atheism is cool among young people? Now, let's just hope enough of them are atheists as a result of critical thinking, rather than just anti-establishmentarianism.
It's both. You invent the rules, then you discover the consequences of those rules, then you invent better ways to describe those discoveries, etc. Much like when you invent an SUV, then discover that it rolls over when the tires explode, then you invent ways to fix that, etc.
Never mind. I think we might be agreeing with each other.
I hate it when people who talk about copyright licenses as if they have inherent authority, rather than being permissions (conditionally) granted to do things that would otherwise be proscribed by law. It muddies up the discussion.
But since the library authors can't claim any sort of copyright on it,...
"Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?"
As far as I understand it, derived works start out having several copyright holders: The creator of the derivative itself, and the creators of the works that were derived from. Distributing the derivative without a license from *all* these copyright holders can lead to successful claims of copyright infringement.
i.e., if you make a derived or collective work, you need everyone's permission to distribute it.
... what gives them the ability to demand that it be licensed in a certain way?
Slashdot Mirror
By that user-centric logic, however technically incorrect it may be, X's names ARE reversed.
Only in computers would you see people advocate for precise technical to be defined to be defined by non-experts.
Nobody argues about what a "normal distribution" is, or what "adaptive chosen ciphertext attack" is, but if you talk about "client/server", now everyone has an opinion.
Next time try some Colloidal Silver. I had some sort of hideous flu at the begining of this month, and it wiped it out within a week.
Or pink socks. Yesterday I had a nasty headache, so I put on some pink socks. Today, the headache was gone. Bam! Lesson learned: Pink socks cure headaches.
Colloidal Silver: Risk Without Benefit
You'll never see a GPL license come with these machines.
IIRC, GPLv3 has some exemptions for exactly this sort of thing.
Your IRL works in theory, but not IRL.
QUANTUM ATHEISM!
From this overview, it is possible to conclude that DNS is a poorly specified protocol, but that would be unfair and untrue. DNS was specified loosely, on purpose. This protocol design is a fine example of what M.A. Padlipsky meant by “descriptive rather than prescriptive” in his 1984 thriller, The Elements of Networking Style (Prentice Hall). Functional interoperability and ease of implementation were the goals of the DNS protocol specification, and from the relative ease with which DNS has grown from its petri dish into a world-devouring monster, it’s clear to me that those goals were met. A stronger document set would have eliminated some of the “gotchas” that DNS implementers face, but the essential and intentional looseness of the specification has to be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
Why should the victim have to make her profile private just because of the abuser? Heck, that control is probably what the abuser wants: "If you want to avoid me, you can do it only on the condition that you avoid everybody else, too!"
I have been abused in every way possible — being called irrelevant, a saboteur, coward, homosexual, and even a betrayer of the community.
...
So... We have an anti-gay bigot calling people sexist?
To succeed in FOSS ... if you are a man, thick skin isn't quite as necessary.
Is that even true? It seems to me that you have to have a pretty thick skin no matter who you are.
Except it says "Under the settlement", which means the money isn't coming in specifically as attorneys' fees.
Copyright isn't about granting rights to the author, it's about removing rights from everyone else.
In legalese, there's no difference. A "right" is just an enforceable entitlement.
General Public License != Public Domain
It does if you're talking about crypto export rules according to the Wassenaar Arrangement, which defines "in the public domain" very differently from how US copyright law does. See this
It also doesn't say that the changes to the source need to be given in a convenient format...a printout of the original source, along with printouts of every diff pattern would be sufficient for compliance.
It says the source needs to be "machine-readable", distributed "on a medium customarily used for software interchange", and that source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
I have no idea how you think a printout of "git log -u" would meet those requirements. Judges are not so easily fooled.
My understanding of v2 is that just a link is not sufficient, you need to provide other means, including offer to ship a CD.
My understanding of the FSF's interpretation of GPLv2 is that you have to ship a physical medium if somebody actually asks, but if you provide an FTP site or something else that works more effectively, then nobody will ask.
...when people view copyright as a fundamental human right, rather than a limited legal right created for particular purposes.
I read a book called 'The Tipping Point', where an example was given where 'normal' college students were chosen for a week long experiment. Randomly, some were assigned as guards and some as prisoners. The 'gaurds' became so abusive they needed to terminate the experiment early.
That's the Stanford prison experiment.
Do you understand the difference between a pathological case and a common case?
The only hope I can hold out for is another "60'" where a generation rejects the views (in this case of unquestioning conformity) of their elders and start to become iconoclasts. Maybe then they'll stop being afraid of everything around them (esp. other people) and start to ask the right questions and shake us all out of this malaise.
It's happening already. Have you noticed that atheism is cool among young people? Now, let's just hope enough of them are atheists as a result of critical thinking, rather than just anti-establishmentarianism.
It's both. You invent the rules, then you discover the consequences of those rules, then you invent better ways to describe those discoveries, etc. Much like when you invent an SUV, then discover that it rolls over when the tires explode, then you invent ways to fix that, etc.
It's older than that: Bread and circuises
If you want to make science popular, you need to make the research available to the public online, i.e. open access publishing.
Oh, that'll be a fun lawsuit when somebody dies of alcohol poisoning. You know it'll happen.
What if everybody did this?
Never mind. I think we might be agreeing with each other.
I hate it when people who talk about copyright licenses as if they have inherent authority, rather than being permissions (conditionally) granted to do things that would otherwise be proscribed by law. It muddies up the discussion.
Bah, I should just stop posting to Slashdot...
But since the library authors can't claim any sort of copyright on it, ...
"Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?"
As far as I understand it, derived works start out having several copyright holders: The creator of the derivative itself, and the creators of the works that were derived from. Distributing the derivative without a license from *all* these copyright holders can lead to successful claims of copyright infringement.
i.e., if you make a derived or collective work, you need everyone's permission to distribute it.
... what gives them the ability to demand that it be licensed in a certain way?
Copyright law. See above.