I love it. You have a strap line about science by Feynman, yet you clearly don't fit to the ideals he would identify with. You make an unsubstantiated assertion, refuse to back it up when challenged and then run away when asked to provide evidence. In other words, completely antithetical to anything Feynman would stand for.
Right, here are the FACTS:
- The word "binary" and "binaries" appear precisely 0 times in the license text. "Object code" appears 21 times.
- It defines "Program" as "...any copyrightable work licensed under this License"
- Binaries cannot be copyrighted, code can.
- It defines "Corresponding Source" as not needing to "...include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source..." In other words, since object code can be generated from the source, it does not form part of the Corresponding Source.
- So, if you're distributing "object code", you must also distribute the "Corresponding Source", but if you're distributing source code, then "The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work"
- Section 6 covers distributing object code, and the rules for including source with it.
- There is NOTHING, NOTHING about having to distributed "object code" with source code.
The license I looked at is here.
In other words, you're wrong. You've been wrong from the beginning, but have flailed around like an idiot trying to avoid the difficulty of reading the license itself. I've read it several times before, along with the BSD, MIT, earlier GPLs and the MS licenses, and Creative Commons licenses. I am often asked to advise on software licensing issues for my main client, a stock exchange, as well as having drafted licenses for my company's software products.
However, even I was not so arrogant as to assume I was right, and I went and reviewed the license terms after your first (rude) reply to me.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which is why I provide evidence to back up my assertion that your initial, and still unsubstantiated, assertion is wrong. This should not be necessary, since it is usually the person making the assertion who is required to provide the evidence to back their statements up. Of course, you refused to do this, petulantly claiming I had been rude, when in fact the rudeness came from you in your very first reply to me.
Either grow up, or shut up. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or go away.
"Dumb, but clever"; what a stupid comment
Oh, and change your signature, someone as intellectually bankrupt as you should not be associated with Feynman. Anyway, it's not even a Feynman quote, the real one goes "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”."
Now, for the last time, go away. Go play with your friends.
You're confusing "good temperature range" with arable. And, yes I did poke fun, because people who (like yourself) clearly don't understand the first thing about the effects of AGW love spouting nonsense like you have above.
No it doesn't. You can claim it does till you're blue in the face, but you're wrong.
Don't know how to make that any clearer. Provide clauses to back up your assertion or STFU.
new arable land will be created to replace what might be lost
That's a new one on me, and how exactly will this occur?
The God of the climate deniers will wave his hand and say "Let there be arable land"?
Or are you going to just redefine the expanding deserts as "arable land"?
No, no it doesn't.
1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.
You're SO RIGHT! This is it, 2013, the Year of the Linux Desktop!
People just don't UNDERSTAND how much Linux is better than Win/OsX, but I'm sure that this newfangled KDE and IceWM will make them come to their senses. I mean, they must be new right, it can't possibly be that people have seen them and been underwhelmed?