The previous post said "in certain peer groups" (or something close to that:). With that qualification, it's true. Whitey can't go around calling people nigger without being remarkably offensive, but within certain groups of (especially) black people, the phrase "my nigger" can be used in a positive way, like "my boy," (ie, "Yeah, I got your back, you're my nigger!"). I can only speak for the west coast on this, however.
The same goes for other ethnic slurs, to varying degrees: guinea and wop come to mind. (Don't think those can count as nasty words any more? If not, $10 says you're not Italian-American)
The e-mail/news and dialup points are well taken. However, what's wrong with an embeddable web browser? You'd make the main product by embeding the browser in it; it's just a cool code-reuse tool. HTML-to-PS translation is also known as "printing".
Like I said, I'm sure one can easily do this; the only problem is that that would effectively block the entire group if the offender were a frequent poster. That would result in effectively punishing the victim.
All he has to do is ignore him (either mentally or with software assistance). This would be no different from excluding the offensive poster legally, as the victim would no longer have to see posts from the offender. This effectively ends with the same result (from the victim's perspective) as a restraining order
The only problem with your assertion is this. If someone were trying to do this to you, I would have just ruined it with this. And people quote a *lot* in usenet. Sure, it would probably be possible to even block out 98% of messages that quote the offending person, but if the person were a frequent poster to the group that could effectively block the entire group. Which brings us back to punishing the victim:(
Not according to the letter Stallman wrote to Linuxworld -- in it he states that you can't be forced to release all of the resulting code under the GPL -- only the part that is actually GPL'd.
You need to re-read that section; one is not forced to release one's code under the GPL, UNLESS one incorperates GPL'ed code into one's own. This includes linking against it. If one wishes to release one's code under a different license, one my do so by removing all GPL'ed code (and probably rewriting those sections).
And anyway, doesn't the GNU library license specifically allow that linking to GPLL'd libraries does not constitute a 'derived work'? As I recall that was a major impediment to commericial use of GCC, resulting in the library license.
The Lesser GPL (LGPL -- used to be Library GPL) allows one to link against a library without one's code being considered a derivative work. glibc, for example, is LGPL'ed; the GNU readline library, on the other hand, like the CygWin library, is GPL'ed. If one links against a GPL'ed library, the resulting code is considered a derived work and one is required to GPL it (or, of course, not use the library). Not all libraries are, or should be, LGPL'ed, which is why they changed the name. The GNU web page has a good discussion of these issues.
This license is neither weird nor confusing. When one compiles using the cygwin compiler, one may either link to the CygWin unix-emulation library or to one of the microsoft libraries that exist on all win32 systems. The CygWin library is GPL'ed, so if one links to it, the resulting code must be GPL'ed. If this is not acceptable, one may either use the -mno-cygnus option to link to the MS libraries or pay Cygnus for a commercial license to the CygWin library.
Does anyone know if APM is compiled into the default kernel with this release? It was for 6.0, which made it very difficult to update my desktop machine which uses a non-standard APM that causes an APM kernel to crash; a lot of desktops do, actually, so I thought it was a poor default choice.
Slashdot Mirror
The same goes for other ethnic slurs, to varying degrees: guinea and wop come to mind. (Don't think those can count as nasty words any more? If not, $10 says you're not Italian-American)
The e-mail/news and dialup points are well taken. However, what's wrong with an embeddable web browser? You'd make the main product by embeding the browser in it; it's just a cool code-reuse tool. HTML-to-PS translation is also known as "printing".
Like I said, I'm sure one can easily do this; the only problem is that that would effectively block the entire group if the offender were a frequent poster. That would result in effectively punishing the victim.
The only problem with your assertion is this. If someone were trying to do this to you, I would have just ruined it with this. And people quote a *lot* in usenet. Sure, it would probably be possible to even block out 98% of messages that quote the offending person, but if the person were a frequent poster to the group that could effectively block the entire group. Which brings us back to punishing the victim :(
You need to re-read that section; one is not forced to release one's code under the GPL, UNLESS one incorperates GPL'ed code into one's own. This includes linking against it. If one wishes to release one's code under a different license, one my do so by removing all GPL'ed code (and probably rewriting those sections).
The Lesser GPL (LGPL -- used to be Library GPL) allows one to link against a library without one's code being considered a derivative work. glibc, for example, is LGPL'ed; the GNU readline library, on the other hand, like the CygWin library, is GPL'ed. If one links against a GPL'ed library, the resulting code is considered a derived work and one is required to GPL it (or, of course, not use the library). Not all libraries are, or should be, LGPL'ed, which is why they changed the name. The GNU web page has a good discussion of these issues.
This license is neither weird nor confusing. When one compiles using the cygwin compiler, one may either link to the CygWin unix-emulation library or to one of the microsoft libraries that exist on all win32 systems. The CygWin library is GPL'ed, so if one links to it, the resulting code must be GPL'ed. If this is not acceptable, one may either use the -mno-cygnus option to link to the MS libraries or pay Cygnus for a commercial license to the CygWin library.
Does anyone know if APM is compiled into the default kernel with this release? It was for 6.0, which made it very difficult to update my desktop machine which uses a non-standard APM that causes an APM kernel to crash; a lot of desktops do, actually, so I thought it was a poor default choice.