Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
>> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
>> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
>> to see the problem.
> 
> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
> incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
> provide the company with the code.

(1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd, 
unless the whole smash is to be distributed.

(2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the 
company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly 
get to providing them with the source code?? :-P


But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in 
order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the 
company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to 
redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).

Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 

Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah. That's 
more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of person who 
has a computer so you can once a month check your email and occasionally 
maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital snapshot camera, 
chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a non-networked computer 
running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably not going to upgrade until 
you change the lab equipment.

If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll 
likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
>> 3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,
>>
>> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final 
>> change (to be
>> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at 
>> which
>> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
> 
> awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.

That's actually not greek epsilon, but ordinary latin small e ("Euler's 
number").

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six 
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the 
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
> 

OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
every version I've tried including the most recent.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
> every version I've tried including the most recent.

Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data 
corruption bugs caused by MS Word.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the 
> software was *too* stable. :-)
> 
> Jim

Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
> 
>> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
>> every version I've tried including the most recent.
> 
> Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data 
> corruption bugs caused by MS Word.

But we're already aware of the statistically uncanny failure rate of MS 
Office in your vicinity.  Something about your magnetronic 
electrochemical oscillations is off.

In other words, you're giving off bad vibes, man, and Office don't like 
it! ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:32:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many
>> reasons
> 
> Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah.

Well, if you're using it as a router in the corner and can't patch the 
latest network vulnerability, the machine could be compromised.  More 
likely, though, that a box running as a router in the corner is running a 
BSD or Linux variant than Windows.  Why put a paid-for OS on such a box 
when you can license software that does the job for free?

> That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of
> person who has a computer so you can once a month check your email and
> occasionally maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital
> snapshot camera, chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a
> non-networked computer running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably
> not going to upgrade until you change the lab equipment.
> 
> If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll
> likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)

That's the use case I'm thinking of. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:53 +0100, Doctor John wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
>> software was *too* stable. :-)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
> system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
> maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
> thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch
> :-)

Yup.  Consequently, NetWare servers tended to not be noticed.  Back in 
the 3.x days when Novell added the "Novell NetWare" banner to the 
LOGIN.EXE program, it was an attempt to make the server more visible.  
Caused all sorts of headaches for system admins because batch files that 
displayed information broke.  They had to add a switch to disable the 
banner.

But the idea was good because often users didn't have any idea that they 
were using a NW box.

I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server 
2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started 
on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's.  I definitely am a geek, 
running NetWare at home. :-)

The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then 
I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home 
network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the 
vmdk file was corrupted. :-(

So now printing is handled by that host system instead.  Time to move the 
printer to the server, I think. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message