Re: Not following the spirit of the licence?
My own correction. There's the option of the licensor including a NOTICE which must be copied if it exists.
33005 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I wonder how many commentards have read the Apache licence. As far as I can make out from it, unlike the early BSD permissive licences, there's no requirement to to credit the author(s) but there is a term against applying their trademarks. That might be seen as an inhibiting crediting authors.
I might have misread it, of course, so I'm open to correction.
If that was the idea it's taken a long time for them to get round to it. It was a good while ago so I might have retained the wrong impression but AFAICR there was a lot of who-ha about Oracle not doing much with it, alienated devs and the like so the release under the Apache licence was made so that it could be forked which enabled the dissatisfied devs to do that. If that's a reasonable summary then I think it ill-behoves them to complain about the continuing existence of something that was set up for their benefit.
Stealing is taking with intent to deprive the owner of it and without the owner's permission. Basing a commercial product on a permissive licensed one in no way deprives the world of the original version. I don't know about current windows but earlier versions used, and, in keeping with the licence, acknowledged they used, the BSD networking stack. That in no way prevented the same stack being used in other OSs.
If someone contributes to a permissive project they presumably do that in full knowledge of the possibility of someone basing a commercial product with it so the commercial product has the contributors' consent. The commercial product might be feeding back changes to the product. It might even fund the entire product.
On neither basis can the accusation of stealing stick. The only difference is that the permissive project can be shared in binary without any obligation to provide source code. Even then there's only a real difference if the commercial version has made changes that aren't fed back. And what's at issue here is one project forking a permissive project and making changes that can't be fed back due to the difference in licensing terms. If you want to consider a commercial closed version as stealing from the original project then you must surely apply the same label to the fork under the more restrictive licence.
From the PoV of the original project it's just sharing, as the licence facilitates but don't you think it just a little ill-mannered, to put it no stronger, to take the freely shared code from an original project, ensure that your changes can't be shared back and then claim some sort of moral high ground over the project from which you've taken it?
This can't be done for the same reason that OO can't take the MPL contributions. The MPL contains copyleft clauses similar to GPL, i.e. projects using such source, including any forks, must also be copyleft. The Apache licence is permissive and doesn't put any such constraints on code taken from it. It may seem unfair that LO could take the OO code freely and not give back but that's the difference between the two licences. Yes, it's ironic - or something - that the copyleft principle is intended to force code sharing whilst permissive licences simply facilitate it.
"LibreOffice (presumably purposely) doesn't have a mail client."
There was an article some time ago on the LO's blog site arguing for this but the decision seems to have been to stay neutral. A problem with TBird is that the later have gone in for a tabbed interface although the SeaMonkey derivative remains classic although the underpinnings are different AFAIK. Personally I wish the two projects would get together and produce an integrated offering.
As I remember it the plan for Leave was to let Cameron deal with it because he'd foolishly said he would. Having discovered that the result actually was Leave he did the sensible thing and bailed. That left Leave scouring the woods for unicorns. Come January we'll discover whether they found any.
"until you have Irish citizenship you are still a Brit as far as the eu is concerned."
No problem for my children (born NI), my grandchildren (mother born in Ireland) and any great grandchildren (grandmother born in NI), my sister-in-law (as per my wife) and her husband (Irish mother) and at least some have their passports to prove it. It's just me who doesn't qualify.
"Actually, there's quite a good record of third-party applications picking up data provided by Network Rail"
It will necessarily need some sort of hole in the systems perimeter to get access to the API and there's a good - or bad - record of miscreants taking advantage of any possible weakness. Those holes had better be well defended.
"Force them to incorperate in each nation, then force them to declare how much money they trade and how much profit they make and tax them accordingly (with the stick in the background of a tax per trade system if they try any shifty IP purchasing stuff to try and reduce local profit)"
The present system makes it possible for a country with what might be called a natural economy to attract in a few big multinationals with low tax rates which also give local companies the same advantage. As long as the IP stuff is possible that can be used to shift the profit to such countries whether they incorporate in each country or not.
Countries trying to do impose trading taxes will simply get bullied by the US with sanctions, at least as long at the current incumbent's there. Getting multiple countries to work together would be a problem as the smaller ones trading on this would raise objections as might HMG as a means of trying curry favours from the US.
In addition trying to devise a system to hit the FAANGS wouldn't be easy - at the very least it would probably generate more hoops for Real Businesses to jump through to escape it whilst trying to handle their imports and exports. From the UK's PoV we're just about to discover how much of that sort of red tape will affect our businesses once our existing EU arrangements end; the last thing they need will be more of the same.
From item 6 of the summary in the report: "Since we last reported, the Superfast Programme has moved increasingly to gigabit-capable full-fibre solutions in
place of copper telephone wires from premises to a local cabinet."
So they've switching from an approach where the individual premises connections are handled by existing infrastructure to one where the existing infrastructure has to be replaced. Is it surprising that things have slowed?
For the more widely scattered farms it may well be that a direct fibre connection is the only effective one and if the sites suitable for FTTC have all been supplied this is reasonable and inevitable but I do wonder if this is a matter of selecting those who already have a good service and replacing it with better whilst those without hang on for longer and longer.
Until the current unpleasantness (and hopefully again once the good times roll) I produce weekly hand-outs form my wife's patchwork class. Following online notes on a laptop, even assuming there was a connection in the hall the class was held in, whilst sewing wasn't going to work too well. These days we email out a PDF which the class members will need to print, especially as they'll need to cut out the templates from it.
"if the cows break into my garden"
IME that's because a townie has followed attempted to follow a footpath into the wrong field and left a gate open because there wasn't a stile.
Actually, that's sheep. The cow problem was when the farmer used to walk a milking herd back home along the road. Fortunately dairying isn't profitable at his scale so it doesn't happen now. We did have as much of the herd as would fit, including the bull that always accompanied them, in the drive, milling round the cars. The farmer even got worried that time.
Two conflicting points of view, both excellent in their own way.
Some data is definitely hybrid. Any email from company to worker relevant to employment and copies of similar emails going the other way are both company and personal data. Depending on your relationship with your employer you may need your own copy. I'm sure it's a grey area of law. OTOH if the communication had been on paper there'd probably have been no question of the employee being forbidden to retain it.
Then there's general knowledge - all those accumulated little code snippets or scripts that an employer expects an experienced techie to have at his finger tips. Does it all have to be in the head or can some of it be preserved in some other form? And I'm sure every old-school salesman had his little black book or card index which went with him from employer to employer. In either case the employer can't expect the leaver to be brainwashed.
"Undoubtedly I could learn to be graceful and have the strength and dedication of a ballet dancer"
Good for you, I certainly couldn't. What I did do was make a few sideways changes, one out of my preferred branch of biology into another which claimed to offer a career and another out of that into IT when I decided it really didn't.
"Skilled technical specialists don't get paid more, the computer software used to decide the pay rate for a job seems to mark specialist skills down - that's not just in IT, that's across all specialisms."
Unsurprisingly nothing seems to have changed since the 1980s. Promotion from SSO to PSO depended on responsibility but that was defined as management responsibility. The fact that in my speciality there was the individual responsibility for giving evidence that might put someone away for life didn't count.
I bailed, went into IT and the money started going up and up. I think it came as a slight shock to my former employers but from what I heard, not enough to do anything useful. However, entirely coincidentally, I was offered the promotion to PSO without any of the normal procedures as soon as I handed in my notice.
This sort of thing is getting me worried these stories about a Linux kernel in Windows might be true. Worried because there's less likely to be enthusiasm for existing developers to do stuff for Microsoft, Linus gets pushed out and then Microsoft themselves start shoving dubious stuff in there. EEE accomplished.