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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment It is an option I avoid as well (Score 1) 103

My post may have been a bit unclear. "Or any later version" is indeed an option used by many GPL programs, but certainly not all. GNU recommends including that. I don't in my software, because a) I object to the patent terms of GPLv3, as actually written and b) I no longer trust GNU to avoid adding objectionable clauses in future versions.

Comment Re:Wonder why (Score 1) 206

"experiencing a rural lifestyle"

If you're experiencing a rural lifestyle, that's not the suburbs. I'm talking about the vast suburban wastelands where every house has ugly vinyl siding, the HOAs freak out if your grass isn't within a .1 inch tolerance of accepted standards, and the kids spend their nights hanging out in the 7-11 parking lot huffing paint because there's nothing else to do.

Comment Information wants to be free (Score 5, Insightful) 49

Well, your information, not ours.

FTFA (and a major WTF)

All of the documents would have been uploaded by their owners, but they may not have realized that each document could be made public, which is's default uploading setting, compared to files created or edited with Word and Excel Online, which are private until set otherwise.

Comment Can allow specific license changes (any version of (Score 1) 103

There are many ways to allow for the possibility that the license may need to be changed in the future, without allowing just anyone to pick any license they choose.

The standard GPL license has a clause allowing the code to be distributed under the current license *or any future version* of the GPL license.

One could ask permission to distribute it under any OSI-approved license. I've received that permission before, the author granted me permission to use "any open source license", and the OSI list is reasonable, third-party definition of which licenses qualify as "any open source license".

One could say that the license may be changed be unanimous agreement of the foundation board of directors, by 2/3rds vote of recent contributors, or some other planned method.

Comment Estoppel by acquiescence and laches (Score 4, Informative) 103

> I'm pretty sure both common law and civil law jurisdictions would side with a contributor who objects after the fact, even if they did get the notice.

If they got the notice, estoppel by acquiescence may apply. "Estoppel by acquiescence" means one may not sue later if you were given a clear opportunity to object and chose to not object in any way. Georgia v. South Carolina is a well-known case. Georgia had legal claim to certain land based on a treaty. For many years, South Carolina treated it as part of South Carolina, levying taxes in the area, etc.Georgia did not object during these many years. Later Georgia attempted to assert their claim to the area. The court ruled that Georgia's failure to object for many years barred the action - their silence was basically implied permission.

A related concept is laches. Laches means you have to assert your rights in a reasonable time frame, or not at all - an author who files suit regarding the license change ten years from now will probably be barred by laches.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno