For example, "the car needs washed." Whatever this is, it's not English. The two correct options, of course, are "the car needs washing" (gerund) or "the car needs to be washed". Again, I'm almost embarrased myself.
I'm not saying this is right, but this isn't as recent a trend as you'd think. This construction has been part of the western PA dialect for a decent amount of time. Source: I'm from NJ and work with a lot of Pennsylvanians.
Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor.
If you don't find the code useful, that's your business. But if Microsoft's view was that Open Source is a cancer that MS should be trying to kill, they wouldn't have contributed anything to the Linux kernel.
Also, I don't see how:
There's also a distinction between Free Software principles and Free Software tactics. rms is in principle in favor of all Free software, but would much rather that the main stuff was GPLed, and considers llvm and clang to be a loss to the movement.
is different from
Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL. That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.
The actual BSD licenses being GPL compatible is a red herring. The reason they are GPL-compatible is because you can take that code and release it under a different license with different terms... such as the GPL. Contributions to the GPL version of the project then can't be licensed back into the original project. (Later BSD-style licenses have protections against this.)
One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
So you know, there's a very good reason that the Constitution codifies that the government may not make laws "establishing an official religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Those two rights are much broader than "freedom to worship."
You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.
Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source
Um... Mono is released under an MIT license, which is less restrictive than the Microsoft Public License. But here, take a look what Microsoft's Open Source license says in terms of them licensing you their patents on their code:
2. Grant of Rights (A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
I'm not going to reproduce Section 3, but the restrictions are: You don't get a trademark license or a warranty, you're not allowed to sue other licensees over your patents, you have to retain copyright notices that appear in source code, and you can't re-license MSPL code under viral licenses (e.g. the GPL).
If you want to see the full license, check out the OSI's site on the MS-PL
Now they seem to promise cross platform development again, but for how long? It wouldn't be the first time Microsoft changes strategy.
Well, Mono has been around for almost a decade now, and they AREN'T Microsoft. Microsoft submitted
In the same way, Microsoft has contributed some code to the Linux kernel. It's not a majority of the code, so they can't argue that you should call it MS/Linux or something dumb like that, and they didn't change the license on the kernel, so they can't show up and shake you down or anything.
Their contribution to Mono was of a similar size and licensing scope. Microsoft isn't going to show up demanding money for this if you use it.
The disticton is that Free Software licenses force developers of derivative works to license under a Free Software license. Open Source licenses do not.
I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not going to link you to Stallman's essay on the difference, but some rudimentary Googling will find it if you don't think I'm treating the FSF's position fairly.
Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL.That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.
People who want cross-platform on iOS and Android have had it since day 1. Write your logic in C or C++. Its how cross-platform has been done for decades. Then write a wrapper in whatever language the platform uses for the UI.
Are we allowed to use someone else's wrapper? Because that's all* Xamarin is.
*There are more differences between alternate platforms than just the UI. (For example, the sensors you have available are different on iOS and on Android. You also get access to an SD card on Android sometimes.) Xamarin abstracts this stuff too, by the way.
It's never an issue. Those for gun control don't think they need to change the Constitution, and those against never offer it up as a gauge of public opinion on the matter.
I'm not sure what the bolded part means. You mean it's never an issue on Slashdot right? Gun control comes up as an issue on Slashdot fairly often. When it's related to the article, it's usually in the context of a gun authentication technology that gun owners oppose being introduced to the market because some misguided states have laws on the books that mandate all guns implement authentication technology as soon as such a scheme is commercially available. (This law is on the books in my state (NJ) now.)
I'm not sure what "offer it up as a gauge of public opinion" means. Do you mean my list of problems with the Republican party, like how they won't reform the farm bill? Because for all their failings, they're pretty good on gun right.
Secondly, I assume that nobody trusts what ANY politician says while they're running for office. Regardless of what he said while he was running, Obama has governed from the left (TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE, which was my original point.) McCain and Romney, on the other hand, are well known for being on the Republican Party's LEFT. Romney's healthcare plan as governor was a state level version of Obamacare. You can't really think that most of the Republicans are to the left of the guy who implemented state level Obamacare, can you?
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
