Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Reason for replacing opiates - functionality (Score 1) 214

by reve_etrange (#47798053) Attached to: States Allowing Medical Marijuana Have Fewer Painkiller Deaths
Makes sense. I made my parent comment based on the experiences of people I know, who have specifically turned down painkillers in favor of self-medication with marijuana. For most of them, I don't think they ever got far enough to find out if habituation would change their choice.

Comment: Re:What if it were Microsoft code (Score 1) 191

by reve_etrange (#47665011) Attached to: Larry Rosen: A Case Study In Understanding (and Enforcing) the GPL

You forgot the third option in this case. If Ximpleware is open to it, they could pay for a commercial license.

Right, and contra the parent, if e.g. Ximpleware already had a commercial licensing option, damages could surely be based upon the cost of that license.

Comment: Re:Specifically: problems with public domaining. (Score 1) 191

by reve_etrange (#47664945) Attached to: Larry Rosen: A Case Study In Understanding (and Enforcing) the GPL

The AC couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, source copyrights only cover the literal, copyrighted source itself (as well as comments and documentation). They do not cover functionality, API, ABI or any but the most literal and direct of language ports.

Second, as a developer, the GPL protects my rights in ways that public domain cannot. If I release a piece of code under the GPL, I remain free to grant or sell other licenses to my software as I please. At the same time, if users wish to release modifications of my software without acquiring another license, then they must also release the source for those modifications. I am then able to learn from their development efforts, and if I choose, integrate those changes into my source tree. Similarly, if users want to link my software as a library, then they must release the code for their software, too.

If I do want to allow users to be able to link my code without having to release theirs, for example because my code is intended for use as a library, then I can use the LGPL to allow that.

To all the other devs out there, do yourself a favor and spend 30 minutes reading about the commonly used licensing strategies on Wikipedia. It's not scary and you can choose the license that best suits your tastes and the intended uses of your software. You put in the hard time on that code and you have the right to restrict use or modification if that's what you want.

Comment: Re:How about thermal solar (Score 1) 409

It's important also to consider development area required for solar deployments. A key advantage of rooftop solar (which I think means flat panels and water heating) is that the area is already developed.

You see those maps of the world with filled in areas representing the solar deployments necessary to power everything, but not often are those areas compared to that of (already developed) rooftops

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...