Comment No. Don't do that. Stop. Go back. (Score 1) 2
Just what we need, another country turning into a theocracy.
Wasn't it bad enough with Iran and Saudi Arabia? Oh, no... the Texans had to go down the same path with their "new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation".
Bookmark Pine Computer Desks (computerdeskarmoire.net)
Submission + - Texas Approves Conservative Textbook Curriculum (dallasnews.com) 2
Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade.
Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country.
Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation --a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
Dallas Morning News: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sboe_22tex.ART0.State.Edition2.140f306f.html
Swedish Court Rules ISP Must Reveal OpenBitTorrent Operator's Identity 230
Comment Re:Man, the courts are going to have a time with t (Score 1) 356
If the license said "do no harm" what you are saying would probably be true, but it doesn't. Do read the explanation at http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm
The license talks about intent to cause grievous bodily harm. These are formal legal expressions with well defined legal meanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm
Comment Re:I know reading is hard but... (Score 1) 356
I agree that free software has to be free by definition. But is the meaning of the word "Free" established by FSF?
According to the open dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Free), free, when talking about software can be defined as: "with very few limitations on distribution or improvement compared to proprietary software". "few" is not the same as "no".
Comment Re:FLOSS software? (Score 1) 356
"causing grievous bodily harm" is more well defined than you think. The phrase is formal legal terminology with a clear and precise meaning, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm
Using a program licensed under the HPL for activities that are _intended_ to cause the death of animals is prohibited. A program dedicated to ordering meat can thus not be HPL. You could of course order meat with a regular web browser, but that program _can_ be HPL since it is intended to browse the web, not to cause harm.
Comment Re:FLOSS software? (Score 1) 356
It doesn't seem to absurd to think that weapons manufacturers use some FLOSS libraries. Anyone that works with software probably uses some open source or FLOSS license some time or another. And while the missile (or whatever) is probably not HPL, the kicker is that it can't use any HPL components either.
Let's say that OpenCV (image processing library) was HPL (which it is not). Then, no matter what license the missile was being developed under (probably some proprietary XXX), it could not use OpenCV for it's guidance system.
If you publish FLOSS code under the HPL, it protects you from contributing (probably without knowing about it) to creation of products that are intended to cause harm.
Comment Re:Don't use if you want to let others reuse your (Score 1) 356
Way ahead of you.
Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con [peta.org]:
"I personally consider the fact that HPL is incompatible with GPL as it's main disadvantage. Believe me, we have thought long and hard about ways to make the HPL GPL-compatible, but we have finally reached the conclusion that it is fundamentally and utterly impossible. Like most FLOSS proponents, I would like to see a widespread distribution and use of the code that I make available to the community; but I would rather take the risk of no one every using my code than letting a single person or organisation use it to cause harm. So, in conclusion, the ideological "harm-less" principle takes precedence over practical inconvenience and I side with the HPL. "
Comment Re:I know reading is hard but... (Score 1) 356
Comment Re:Long story short, it's a publicity stunt- as us (Score 1) 356
Comment Re:Thats nice... (Score 1) 356
Comment Re:It is even worse (Score 1) 356