 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> What about Wine?
There's a reason they named it what they did.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:34:40 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Just how many machines and/or users have you got on your system? The
> word overkill comes to mind ;-) Seems a little like using Maxima to
> balance your cheque book to me :-) I stand in awe but ... *Walks away
> shaking head, but still impressed*
Three users (the cats can't use computers - yet). But I work in the
networking industry, and prior to my current role, much of what I have
here was set up as a lab.
Technically, there are other users, but not who use the printer - I host
a photo repository for an online community as well.
Here at my desk (in my home office), I have 5 computers, including one
laptop. My wife and stepson each have a laptop, and my stepson has a
gaming PC as well. I also have a laptop sitting on a desk in my office
in Provo (which I use remotely from time to time). :-)
Yeah, perhaps a little overkill, but I enjoy keeping my hand in the
technical side of things. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:45:18 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the
>> base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL
>> to provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a
>> binary copy of the program is distribution.
>>
>> If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays
>> with the employer either way. You can't quit the job and take "your"
>> code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them
>> as an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.
>
> So that basically boils down to what I was saying earlier:
>
> If I as a contractor am not hired to /provide/ them with a /modified/
> work, but to /perform/ modifications to /their/ copy of the work, then I
> see the role as equal to that of the employee - and yes, I'm probably
> only allowed to carry out such modifications to the GPL'ed code if my
> contract with the company states that the changes are theirs.
>
> Still, I do /not/ distribute code nor binaries, and therefore am /not/
> obliged to GPL those changes myself. It's up to the company to decide
> whether they want to do that or not.
>
> I must confess that this distinction is apparently moot in practice, but
> still - *I DO NOT GPL IT, DAMN!* :-P
Potato, potato, in other words. (Damn, that sounds better than it reads
<g>)
>> See above. Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)
>
> Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)
Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
are required to distribute the code.... :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:56:06 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>
> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
GPL!*" :-)
It's a matter of pride :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
>>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
>
>> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
>> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
>> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
>
> What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> GPL!*" :-)
>
> It's a matter of pride :-)
But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
(Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
here. ;-) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson schrieb:
> >>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
> >>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
> >>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> >
> >> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> >> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
> >> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
> >
> > What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> > the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> > to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> > GPL!*" :-)
> >
> > It's a matter of pride :-)
>
> But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
>
> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
> here. ;-) )
I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
it... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
>> here. ;-) )
>
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
> it... ;)
Hey, what are *you* doing in our thread? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:11:12 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka
>> up" here. ;-) )
>
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's
> ok with it... ;)
Heheheehhe
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
