Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Antiviral License (Score 1) 156 156

Yes, but that is only a requirement on what is honestly a derived work (changes made to that BSD-licensed code), as opposed to a requirement that all of the source code in the entire project be licensed under the BSD license.

It's a requirement that applies to works derived from BSD-licensed code, as GPL requirements apply to works derived from GPL-licensed code. It's up to the courts to decide what counts as derived works. e.g. If the courts decide that copying APIs is not fair use, then technically programs linked against BSD-licensed libraries must adhere to BSD terms (although they may also impose additional terms, as this isn't disallowed). On the other hand, if the courts decide copying APIs is fair use then the GPL doesn't apply to programs linked against GPL-licensed libraries (even if it would like to).

GPL 3.0 section 5 part C:
You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.

This viral component is what the Antiviral License doesn't allow.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but AFAIK, this actually means a whole lot less than you think.

Re "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License":

From a legal perspective, the adapter can only licence their modifications; unmodified parts of the work remain under the initial licence. Without a legal solution offered by the licence, the adapter cannot really "re-licence" the work as a whole.
Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences/The Creative Commons licencing scheme

If I take a large BSD-licensed work, and a large GPL3-licensed work (3 because I think 2 might actually be incompatible), and combine them with a little glue, then I must license my "new work" under the GPL3, but the license I am offering really only applies to that little bit of glue, and nothing else. Moreover, there's nothing stopping me from dual-licensing that little bit of glue under a BSD license too, in which case authors of further derived works can choose whether to use my little bit of glue under the GPL3 or the BSD.

None of this makes too much practical difference, because in any case, both the BSD requirements and the GPL requirements apply to the new work, since it contains both BSD and GPL code. The difference is essentially cosmetic. It means I must write that my "new work" is licensed under the GPL, regardless of how little that may mean.

This suggests to users that the work may be used without any conditions that aren't listed in the GPL, which I am required to ensure is true, but for a different reason. What actually requires me to ensure that no further conditions apply besides those listed in the GPL is the explicit requirement that I do precisely that--"You may not impose any further restrictions...". The only way I can do this is by checking that conditions of other licenses I use are also conditions of the GPL.

Re "This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.", (my emphasis)

I think perhaps the point here is supposed to be that, for instance, a Java program could be distributed in a single .jar archive file, or as a bunch of separate .class files, but it won't necessarily make a difference to what is considered a "work" under law. Even if you distribute a program as separate files, if the courts decide that the program together constitutes a work, then license conditions apply to the program as a whole. I'll have to admit I don't find it all that clear though.

In any case, I actually don't think it matters, because this doesn't seem to be a restriction (e.g. "You must..."), but rather a statement that tries (not particularly well) to explain an aspect of copyright law.

Of course, I am still not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, that's my understanding.

Comment: Not a squatter? (Score 3, Informative) 188 188

Here's a link to the list of over 100 domain names Jason Kneen has for sale on his website: Domains.

The one's I've checked are either inactive or pretty generic (some camera-related links at digitalfreak.co.uk, "parked by GoDaddy" at edit-anywhere.com, and a default WordPress page at foryourpocket.com), except workbetter.com, which redirects to his website. Coincidence?

Comment: Re:Antiviral License (Score 1) 156 156

I think this license is based on a flawed premise.

The only requirement of this license is that the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified. This license has no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside the code you receive under this license. Therefore you may use it alongside public domain and BSD licensed code and compile all of the code into a single program, but you may not include any GNU GPL code because the GNU GPL requires that you relicense any code which is compiled into the same program (which it considers to be a derivitive work) under the GNU GPL, which is the only thing that the Antiviral License does not give you permission to do.
The Antiviral License

AFAIK, the BSD licenses, like the GPL licenses (and copyright licenses generally) do require that derived works be bound by their terms. In the case of the 3-clause BSD license, these are: retention of the license in derived sources and binaries (1 clause each) and no use of contributors' names to promote derived works without permission.

Notable conditions of the GPL licenses are: provision of source code (in GPL2 section 3 / GPL3 section 6) and no further restrictions beyond the GPL (in GPL2 section 6 / GPL3 section 10). I expect a license could made be compatible with BSD-like licenses and incompatible with GPL-like ones by disallowing one or both of these conditions on derived works. In particular, the latter one may fit what the author was trying to achieve.

As it is, the requirement "the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified" sounds to me much like the "no further restrictions" clause of the GPL that I think the author was trying to avoid, while "no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside" seems to say the opposite. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this license may either disallow use with any other licenses, or do nothing at all.

Comment: Re:Depends of what you mean by "Use" (Score 1) 156 156

Going by a recent Slashdot story, the answer seems to be "maybe". APIs have been ruled copyrightable, at least in the USA, and linking requires using APIs, but it's not been ruled whether the use of APIs could constitute fair use.

SCOTUS Denies Google's Request To Appeal Oracle API Case

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if the use of APIs were ruled to constitute fair use, then the practical consequences would be the same as if APIs had been ruled not to be copyrightable.

Comment: Re:DailyWail (Score 2) 369 369

It seems to me the first teaser and the interview have both been edited. The teaser seems to skip a bit from the interview, and the interview seems to skip a bit from the teaser. I suspect this makes the interview sound much worse than it otherwise would have.

BBC Today 10/06/2015

01:15:45 Teaser


It's now quarter past seven.

There are three problems with having women in the laboratory, according to the Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry. That's what he told a conference of senior women scientists and journalists in South Korea, and it didn't go down terribly well.

We caught up with Sir Tim a few hours ago as he was about to board a plane back to the UK. He told us his comments had been intended as a joke, but that he stood by some of what he said.

Sir Tim (recording):

[This section seems to be clipped from the interview] I did mean the part about having... having trouble with girls. I mean it is true that people... I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it's very disruptive to the science. Um, because it's... it's terribly important that in the lab, people are, sort of, on... on a level playing field, and I found that, um, you know, these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.

[A section from the interview seems to be clipped from here]

I mean I'm really really sorry that I caused any offence, that's awful. I'm, I certainly didn't mean... I just meant to be honest actually.


Well, it's a subject we'll return to later in the programme. We'll be speaking to one of his colleagues, and to a scientist who was at that speech.

02:08:58 Teaser


The British Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt has insisted he was joking when he said that women scientists shouldn't work with men, because they fall in love with male colleagues, and cry when criticised. Sir Tim, who was awarded the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine, made the comments to a group of female scientists in South Korea, but he told this program he didn't mean to offend anyone.

Sir Tim (recording):

I came after three women, who very nicely thanked the organisers for the... for the lunch, and I said it was odd that they had asked a man to make any comments. I'm really sorry that I... I said what I said, it was a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists, and what was intended as a sort of light-hearted ironic comment, apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience.

02:21:30 Story

[Which I didn't transcribe.]

Comment: Re:Sighd (Score 1) 1066 1066

If you 'divide' something into zero pieces, it simply ceases to exist.

No, if you divide something into an infinite number of pieces, it becomes infinitesimal, which is infinitely close to ceasing to exist, but not quite there. There's no way to divide something into zero pieces. However you divide it, you're always going to have some pieces. You'd need it to already not exist before you tried dividing it into zero pieces.

But if that were the case, it would be a different story, because there's an infinite number of ways of dividing nothing into zero pieces: You can put all of it in each piece, or you can put none of it in each piece, or, in general, for any number x, you can put x of it in each piece. The problem then, is which way you ought to do it. It might be that there is a particular way you ought to do it, and you don't know which way that is, or, on the other hand, it might not matter which way you do it, so long as you do it some way.

Comment: Re:Sad commentary on publishing in research (Score 1) 301 301

Most PhD and Masters graduates are women nowadays. In many of the top research fields the majority of faculty are women.

Which raises the question, is this gender bias at work, or are men just dumb? Or, well, not exactly, but at least, can we reasonably simply assume this is the result of gender bias without considering there might be another cause? Personally, I suspect it's not the result of gender bias. Actually, in an e-mail exchange (with another male) way back, I was told in no uncertain terms that the poor educational performance of boys at school is due to gender bias, and I didn't buy it then. I suspected he just assumed that, because he couldn't accept that girls might simply outperform boys on merit. But... isn't that kind of the same situation here? The authors simply assumed gender bias. In this case I suspect they're probably right, but still, that's not how you're supposed to write papers is it?

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 1) 301 301

..and yet, there are numerous examples of women succeeding all over the world despite the supposed bias. This is the problem I have with the argument. If women are so hurt by the supposed gender bias issue that they're unable to work in those fields, how is it that so many women manage to work in those fields?

This doesn't follow. There are numerous examples of rocket launches despite gravity. This doesn't disprove gravity, it just shows that rockets can overcome gravity.

The problem with arguments like yours is that everything ceases to be examined objectively.

Well, yes, this happens, but let's not fool ourselves, not examining things objectively is the normal human condition. And the reviewer did himself no favours. It's all too easy to write him off.

Comment: Re:Error in headline (Score 1) 301 301

To put it more simply:

I'm not saying meritless popular views ought to be believed, I'm saying meritless popular views ought to be addressed. And apparently you agree, because you took the time to respond to me, despite apparently considering my views meritless.

Comment: Re:Error in headline (Score 0) 301 301

It is also possible that the flying spaghetti monster is at fault.

Come on man, without at least something more than, "hey, anything is possible" it doesn't even deserve consideration. Its that kind of uncritical acceptance of societal norms as having legitimacy that is the problem.

In a sense, I think you ought to be right. YHWH seems barely more plausible to me than the FSM, and in some sense not rightly worth the effort to address. But then, the FSM is a thought experiment to show the absurdity of belief in gods like YHWH, which is to say someone went to the effort of inventing him for the purpose of criticising societal norms. And just now, aren't you addressing something you consider shouldn't be worth addressing, simply on the basis that someone believes it, not because you perceive it to have any merit? And actually, when you think about it, doesn't that disprove your point?

Comment: Re:Error in headline (Score 1) 301 301

The difference is that the paper is on the experience of women. It's a paper on women suffering not a paper on men being advantaged [if that's not confusing]. If two guys write this paper they're not writing about how much better the male experience is by looking at it from the male perspective. That would be weird. Maleness is defaultness. The paper in on how the female experience is not the same as the male experience. It's less. Thus it makes sense to suggest an actual female researcher contribute to the effort.

Contribute, definitely, as the primary author, quite possibly, but to consider male experience as without merit doesn't seem right to me. Surely female disadvantage and male advantage are flipsides of the same coin. I don't see how it could be any more valid to consider female disadvantage without regard to male experience, than to consider male advantage without regard to female experience. Neither could exist without the other, because each is only meaningful in relation to the other.

To say that maleness is the default, I think, may be to say something like males are often unaware that they are in a position of privilege, and that female experience is different, whereas females are aware of both. This being the case, I guess it makes sense to consider male experience as the point of comparison, and male input as without merit. There may well be something in this, but can we assume it to be an absolute? Can we really discount a male perspective as having nothing to contribute to gender issues? Surely that can't be right.

I'm not saying papers on gender issues must have a male co-author. It may well be reasonable to say "A male co-author might be good, but it's not practical, we don't have an appropriately qualified male available, we think the paper makes a valid contribution, and a male perspective can be put forward in another paper." But to say "There's no merit in a male perspective."? It seems to me this is effectively what is being said. The angle is something like "Women can be authors every bit as well as men.", which in most cases I would agree with, but in relation to the difference between female and male experience, surely both perspectives have something to contribute.

Comment: Re:Error in headline (Score 1) 301 301

And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.

I agree with this statement, with the surrounding qualifications you gave it. Regardless of whether it's an unpleasant and apparently unlikely explanation that has historically been used without reasonable supporting evidence, it is at least theoretically possible, and should have been mentioned in the paper for completeness. (I'm assuming it wasn't mentioned, since the reviewer felt a need to raise it.) It's also possible that females are intellectually superior on average, but anti-female bias has a larger effect on the outcome, or of course, that gender has a negligible effect on intelligence either way. Academic papers should be thorough, though, and consider every possible explanation.

As many have pointed out, if the genders were reversed, this would be playing out in a very different way. Imagine, for example, that males submitted the paper, and the reviewer suggested they have a female co-author. Many would see it as rational, if extreme suggestion, that almost certainly would not have resulted in this outcome.

I guess the issue here is probably that, given the previous suggestion, there'd be a suspicion that the suggestion of bringing in a male co-author was motivated by the thought that "men are more intelligent". That would be a poor justification. But I agree that getting a male perspective is not a poor justification. If we accept that a female perspective may be helpful when considering gender issues, then it's reasonable to suppose that a male perspective may also be helpful (although yes, it might not always practical, and given that this is a paper, to which others can respond, not legislation to which others will be bound, it's not essential).

From the quotes I've seen, the reviewer appears to have lacked tact (or otherwise really was biased, as they have been taken to be). But regardless of whether they displayed poor judgement in their approach, or the suggestion they raised was false, or even provably false, I agree they were right that it should have been considered in the paper.

The real lesson to be learned? *This* is the real scientific process. Not too pretty. It's why you should be skeptical of all the scientific research you read.

Well, yes, but unfortunately whenever this gets said, some will take it to support the idea that something else is better. Best to always qualify this I think. Science is still "the tallest midget in the circus".

Comment: Re: hmmm... (Score 1) 39 39

As a Christian i don't consider anyone as "a-theist" because "Theos" exist with/in everyone - but even as just a Greek, and even accepting the neologism "the-ist", "a-theist" still has a problematic meaning of, not just "not believing" but "without God" (that's what happens when "-religious- atheist" define themselves... they need God even for that!).

Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't speak Greek), but doesn't "atheist" mean without gods generally, rather than just without Yahweh specifically? You wouldn't say pre-Christian Greeks who believed in the Greek pantheon were atheist?

[We] use bad software and bad machines for the wrong things. -- R.W. Hamming