Once you have IPV6, with no (supposed) need for firewalls

Um... you'll still need a firewall. You just won't need a NAT gateway.

Quite a few writers do 'stream-of-consciousness' writing and then go back and edit it... If we're lucky. :p

But even them I doubt really are planning to go to school to learn stenography.

More than that though, my typing speed isn't a bottleneck. The bottleneck is envisioning the idea and subsequently debugging the resulting code.

Sounds about right.

Is anyone really being held back from writing the next great american novel because they only type at 90 wpm?

Doubtful, these modern hipster authors are bragging that they pecked it out on a smartphone keyboard; and we're lucky if we don't have to read it in typical texting shorthand.

By my interpretation that means that once violated you don't have a license, and complying with GPL terms after the fact has no effect.

It has no effect on the previous copyright infringement, but it does mean you can move forward with distribution.

I'm pretty sure bringing yourself into compliance won't change the fact that the license was revoked.

The license revocation is on the copy of the software that wasn't distributed in compliance with the license. That *copy* was not distributed under license. That *copy* is now in violation of copyright law.

But most vendors might be willing to extend a new GPL license to you

A vendor cannot refuse to license GPL code. The license offer is in the code itself. The only thing anyone can do is pursue infringers for copyright infringment damages.

[...] just as a way to end the case.

Right, the infringer might offer to bring his code into compliance with the GPL (as opposed to ceasing to use the GPL library in his product) as part of his settlement offer. Many GPL rights holders would be inclined to accept that as part of a settlement, since that is really what they want all along.

But we are in agreement, the GPL in no way mandates that outcome, and it would be absurd to imagine it did.

The GPL does state that if you cannot meet the terms of the license by distributing the source code for the entire program (DLLs and all) then you aren't allowed to distribute it.

The GPL at that point is just re-stating copyright law.

This was a smart move on Ximpleware's part, as it does have the impact of essentially "infecting" Versata's entire codebase unless they are granted a commercial license (the hammer to the commercial license carrot).

The word 'infect' is simply inaccurate FUD. Suppose a guy with a serious virus gets on a plane and infects the rest of the passengers. THAT is an infection. They can't solve the problem by simply removing the original carrier.

The GPL library doesn't 'infect' anything, they can simply remove the dependency. Problem for the rest of the code solved. They are still on the hook for copyright infringement/license violation for any copies they distributed up to that point, but the 'code' itself isn't infected in any meaningful way.

This addon is a life-safer, for lost text input: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

Life-saver ... giant security hole... bit of both.

The copyright part of the GPLv2 doesn't allow that remedy, but the GPL isn't just a statement of copyright, but is also a license, and the license part of the GPLv2, which you agree to if you use GPL code, does specify what must happen if GPLv2 code is incorporated.

So if they used a non-gpl library from microsoft in their code, or paid for a 3rd party license what then? The court is going to force them to GPL and distribute those as well? That's just asinine. It would NEVER happen. It doesn't even make sense that a court would ever order that.

If you are in violation of the GPL then you lose the right to distribute the code. That's it. For copies of the program you already distributed you will be on the hook for damages. That's it.

And if software companies are suddenly saying licenses aren't enforceable, then wow, we've entered a brand new age.

The license doesn't specify that you must release the code as a REMEDY for violation of the license. It says you must release the code not to be in violation of the license. Sure in theory any company could offer to voluntarily release the code as a settlement and correct the license violation situation, but the GPL doesn't require it.

Odds are high that the remedy will simply be to cease distribution and fix the problem. Perhaps some court costs and settlement money.

The odds the court would require them to release the source for everything under the GPL is almost laughably absurd.

For starters that would almost invariably trigger a bunch of OTHER license violations for other libraries and packages they used. No court is going to enforce the GPL by demanding the company violate all its other suppliers licenses. Its just ridiculous on its face.

Its just FUD and full on stupidity.

At least that's how I interpret GP.

Perhaps for 2k vs 60k... but what about 30k vs 60k.

You get into a very good flute long before you reach the top of what you can spend. And flutes are fundamentally pretty simple. What do you think they are really holding back on a 30,000 dollar flute?

"They're more the "hold pointless hearings to make it seem like you're doing something and then go out on recess" kind of folks. "

aka -- goofing off :)

nstruments on the other hand all sound different. The price is really not point. [...] More expensive does not automatically sound better.

So they what IS the point? They sound "different" but the difference would not be recognized as better. Why pay $40,000 for something that is not better?

If a professional musician took a 30k flute and played it, and then played a 60k flute and 2 different 20k flutes, all for other professional musicians -- you are asserting they could tell they were different instruments.

But could they tell by blind listening which was 60k and which was 20k and which was 30k? Or would they simply know that there were 4 different flutes?

One of the more classic ones was a double-blind test for violins

Yes, I cited that test in my original post.

but they were able to pick of which the test subjects they were playing

Not even that.

http://blogs.discovermagazine....

Congress will goof off for 3 months, then rush to pretend like they were investigating it.

Even at wage/cost parity

Re-read my post -- I never said parity. I want the H1B employees to come at a premium.

Look at the situation in Canada with TFW

The Canadian TFW program has depressed wages; and one of its signature features was the ability to import 'low cost labor". It doesn't really exemplify your point.

That aside, I concede the hold employers have over TFW employees itself creates its own problems. But if they were paying a significant premium for TFW employees; it wouldn't be much different than "over paying locals" in terms of motivating them to "toe the line".*

  (Its "toe" not "tow" by the way, as in metaphorically to stand with their toes against a hypothetical line -- a symbol of conformity to rules / authority)

Double blind is simple. It is quite easy for a good ear to be able to reliably tell different quality instruments apart.

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what audiophiles say too. Hence the desire to see it properly validated by a double blind. I'm not saying muscians couldn't tell quality instruments apart, but just where the threshold is... that's an open question.

Can they tell a 1k flute from a 5k flute? 5k from a 15k one? What about a 15k flute vs a 30k flute? 30k flute from a 60k flute? How much can you pay for a flute? How many musicians will say can tell it from a 25k one? How many can actually tell Double blind?

She received a degree in flute performance with that $2k flute, but as she put it, a lot of her time was spent "fighting the instrument" to make things sound right; with the professional flute she could spend more time on other things like listening to the rest of the orchestra or reading ahead to be a better sightreader.

So what would a 60k flute do for her?

I don't dispute there are tiers; and I agree that 2k is fairly entry level for a *decent* instrument. But what's the difference between a 10k, 25k, and 50k flute? Would a pro still have no trouble telling them apart? I'm skeptical.

I guess I am used to the world of electronic music where even a top-of-the-line keyboard would probably only cost $2-3k tops and a fairly good one from a name like Yamaha or Roland could probably be picked up for around $1k or so.

The person your replying to was just being a snob; a cheap but perfectly adequate beginners/student/school band grade trombone is readily available for a few hundred bucks, and a respectable quality instrument can be had for a couple thousand bucks at retail. There's definitely a different quality, longevity, and craftsmanship between entry level student stuff and higher quality instruments, but the difference between a $2000 flute and a $60000 flute? I'd love to see a double blind.

Musical instruments get to be like audiophile gear; someone will always charge a ridiculous amount, because someone else will pay it and then claim its better.

http://blogs.discovermagazine....

The Stradivarious is still more valuable for its historical significance, and the collectibility / prestige aspect -- but in terms of actual acoustic quality? Didn't stand up to a double blind test.

PS, on the flip side, the MSRP for a Roland V-Piano Grand is around 25,000. So your top end for an electronic keyboard was a bit low.