Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 2) 165

BSD licensing does not imply that people think less of their code

Actually, it only directly implies that people who use BSD licensing think less about derivative works from their code than people who use the GPL. This is perfectly fine, but since derivative works would typically contain substantial portions of the original code, by extension, the lack of care about derivative works of their ccde thereby reduces to a lack of care about their own code, from that perspective.

Comment Re:I like GPLv2 too, but there's just one thing (Score 1) 165

If they make changes to your copyrighted content, then while the new product isn't entirely your code anymore, it is still considered a derivative work of your code. One needs permission from the copyright holder to make derivative works of copyrighted content, and the GPL simply states what terms a person has to agree to in order to receive such permission, saving the recipient who may be interested in creating such a derivative work from having to hunt down the copyright holder and seek express written permission that they would otherwise have to obtain to legally have any ability to create and publish such derivative works.

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 5, Insightful) 165

I never understood why the GPL busy bodies were so concerned with what i did with the code i write. :)

They aren't. They are concerned about derivative works of THEIR OWN code, concerns that they are legally entitled to have by virtue of having the copyright on the code that they wrote. The fact that a derivative work might have your own code in it is entirely superfluous, if it is a derivative work then you still need the original copyright holder's permission to do something with it. The GPL outlines the terms necessary to receive such permission. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 1) 165

I wrote the code, so what right does Torvalds have in telling me what to do with my code?

If you actually wrote it entirely yourself, none. If it's a derivative work, however, Torvalds has the same rights as any copyright holder would over derivative works from their stuff... you need the original copyright holder's permission first. The GPL really only outlines what the requirements are to *get* such permission so that no other explicit written permission is necessary, which is what would typically be otherwise required to independently create a derivative work of somone else's copyrighted stuff.

Comment Re: It's research... (Score 1) 133

Tee hee! Back in the day, one of the points I made to the old farts was that I had passed the 20 WPM exam and had my K6BP call to show for it, but refused to use the code on the air until the requirement was gone. Nobody spat at me or punched me out, the worst that ever happened was a poor behaving slim using my call and a postcard from the ARRL observer who thouht it was me.

Comment Re:It's research... (Score 2) 133

WSPR tells you when communication paths are open between two points at a specific frequency and S/N ratio. This is useful but does not span the extent of research that HAARP is directed to. One of the most interesting things about HAARP is that it can incite the formation of radio-reflective regions in the ionosphere. That takes a lot of power.

Comment Re:WTF are they proposing to improve exactly? (Score 1) 92

Customer is not necessarily the same as end-user.

End users are *consumers* of a product, not providers of it. Advertisers are not at the actual receiving end of the product consumption chain, they are either entirely at the top or else somewhere in the middle. By definition, end users cannot be the advertisers, they are the people that are advertised *to*.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've got a bad feeling about this.