Send him some mail. It'd be interesting to see if he'd do it... and if he does it'd be a pretty powerful gesture to the music industry (I think we all know which gesture;) ).
Ok, sure. But when the other guy gets the source code from my site, and it only has the GPL on it, should he be expected to comply with the BSD license as well? Keep in mind that I've redistributed the source with *only* the GPL attached (as I am allowed), and so unless he does a bit of research into the origins of the code, he would have no idea that the BSD license applies to it.
It eventualy boils down to the same thing, as far as I can tell.
1) I get this driver.
2) It says I can distribute the driver under either license.
3) I choose to distribute the driver under GPL.
Any other guy can now download the driver from me, modify it, and distribute it under the GPL, because that's the license under which it was licensed to him.
What am I missing here?
In general, I've found that the German government is extremely concerned about not repeating the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, they seem to choose censorship as the way to accomplish that goal time and time again. C.f. laws making it a felony to deny the Holocaust (I don't deny it, but the cones who do still deserve their free speech).
From what I read in the article, this "Ms-PL" is just a generic copyleft license with built a built in grant of patents and no-warranty clause. Other than the fact that the license was written by Microsoft, I don't see anything possibly controversial about it.
Now, I'm not so sure that the writer of the article actually knows what Moore's Law is. It doesn't have to do with CPU speed; it has to do with how many transistors we can cram onto a silicon wafer. And as that compression increases, the same amount of CPU power gets smaller and more energy-efficient.
In other words, we aren't looking at the "end of Moore's Law"... we're looking at that progression being put to use in the way the market wants - that is, making computers cheaper and smaller, since they're already as fast as we need them to be.
The same article, in fact the same quoted paragraph states that American Checkers and British Draughts are the same, 8x8 board game. So calling this solution a solution to draughts isn't really that inaccurate.
...ever since the swelling of Chess's "opening book" began. They randomise starting back-rank positions now in some tournaments, to stave off the eventual "book death" that has already conquered checkers.
These businesses hide behind the "free market" ideal until they can get away with twisting the market rules to their OWN ends... then, it's "necessary protection".
Bah.
These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. Therefore, there is no harm to that data being publically available, to law enforcement or otherwise.
Mind you, I'm not sure I believe this, but your argument doesn't necessarily follow from the situation.
OK, you're an expert, this puts a different spin on things. AFAICT the "no cloning" principle would allow for an atom-to-atom copy of the original... would you claim that that was sufficient to be indistinguishable from a physical perspective?
Also, I don't thing the argument is "they are both weird and spooky" so much as "they are both inherently impossible to reproduce precisely (c.f. no cloning, again)". But I am not a physicist, so eh.
Slashdot Mirror
Send him some mail. It'd be interesting to see if he'd do it... and if he does it'd be a pretty powerful gesture to the music industry (I think we all know which gesture ;) ).
Ok, sure. But when the other guy gets the source code from my site, and it only has the GPL on it, should he be expected to comply with the BSD license as well? Keep in mind that I've redistributed the source with *only* the GPL attached (as I am allowed), and so unless he does a bit of research into the origins of the code, he would have no idea that the BSD license applies to it.
I still don't get it, dude.
It eventualy boils down to the same thing, as far as I can tell. 1) I get this driver. 2) It says I can distribute the driver under either license. 3) I choose to distribute the driver under GPL. Any other guy can now download the driver from me, modify it, and distribute it under the GPL, because that's the license under which it was licensed to him. What am I missing here?
Then couldn't they distribute only v2 software to voucher-holders?
Here's a lantern. Let's search for an honest man.
Not fake. Browse at -1 and you'd see the post he responded to.
In general, I've found that the German government is extremely concerned about not repeating the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, they seem to choose censorship as the way to accomplish that goal time and time again. C.f. laws making it a felony to deny the Holocaust (I don't deny it, but the cones who do still deserve their free speech).
From what I read in the article, this "Ms-PL" is just a generic copyleft license with built a built in grant of patents and no-warranty clause. Other than the fact that the license was written by Microsoft, I don't see anything possibly controversial about it.
It happens, you know... I have a friend who teaches an "A+ Computer Repair Certification" class at her local high school.
A Master Hand did it.
Now, I'm not so sure that the writer of the article actually knows what Moore's Law is. It doesn't have to do with CPU speed; it has to do with how many transistors we can cram onto a silicon wafer. And as that compression increases, the same amount of CPU power gets smaller and more energy-efficient. In other words, we aren't looking at the "end of Moore's Law"... we're looking at that progression being put to use in the way the market wants - that is, making computers cheaper and smaller, since they're already as fast as we need them to be.
Ditto
Like Bioshock, for instance.
Because it's PowerPC-based.
What about the people who got it from tainted blood transfusions, or their parents, or something equally not their fault?
Yeah, I realize that you're a cone, but there's enough cones in this comment tree that it needs to be said.
The bill hasn't been signed into law yet, it's just left committee. And people on Slashdot need to know that.
The same article, in fact the same quoted paragraph states that American Checkers and British Draughts are the same, 8x8 board game. So calling this solution a solution to draughts isn't really that inaccurate.
...ever since the swelling of Chess's "opening book" began. They randomise starting back-rank positions now in some tournaments, to stave off the eventual "book death" that has already conquered checkers.
So your view is that it's impossible to know? Or that we simply haven't made any good arguments yet?
It's hard to tell from that post, y'see.
OK, so I got this 100% wrong, apparently. And so are most other people on this page. :/
Yeah, see subject.
These businesses hide behind the "free market" ideal until they can get away with twisting the market rules to their OWN ends... then, it's "necessary protection". Bah.
These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. Therefore, there is no harm to that data being publically available, to law enforcement or otherwise. Mind you, I'm not sure I believe this, but your argument doesn't necessarily follow from the situation.
Sorry, your response must be in the form of a press release.
People don't seem to realize that the human eye precaches their posts while the brain is still processing the subject line. Mod down, please.
OK, you're an expert, this puts a different spin on things. AFAICT the "no cloning" principle would allow for an atom-to-atom copy of the original... would you claim that that was sufficient to be indistinguishable from a physical perspective? Also, I don't thing the argument is "they are both weird and spooky" so much as "they are both inherently impossible to reproduce precisely (c.f. no cloning, again)". But I am not a physicist, so eh.