> After all, it is user’s machine, and, hence, it is his/her/its right to allow any drivers that he/she/it wants to run on the machine regardless of MSFT’s “opinion” on a driver writer…
The gender neutral term is ‘their’ and ‘them’ - e.g. ‘…it is their right…’.
What about the companies who sign drivers with their certificates for anyone who is willing to pay around 10$ for this"service"??? BTW, we had a discussion about this few years ago - http://www.osronline.com/showThread.cfm?link=173161
Question(Bassov)
Answer(PGV)
As you can see, the legal ramifications do not seem to be that serious, and the very question about the the possible liability brings in associations with Stalin et al…
It might be a PIA for authors (us), but code signing is hardly a stupid idea
Well, as we can see, you suffer this pain for no reason whatsoever…
Why do you think that pre-compiling drivers to the intermediate bytecode would not achieve EXACTLY the same results as far as a situation with driver writer going out of business is concerned???
A world where interfaces and behaviors are stable is terrific. But it can make real innovation difficult.
Personally I like the approach taken by FreeBSD: the kernel ABI must remain stable for the entirety of a major release - so you know that for the lifetime of 9.x it won’t change and drivers will continue to work. But the developers are free to make breaking changes for the next major version, and the release plan is published so everyone knows when to expect it.
> The gender neutral term is ‘their’ and ‘them’ - e.g. ‘…it is their right…’.
Which is a plural form, while I want to use a singular one??
?They? and ?their? are generally accepted in singular context, especially when the reference is non-gendered, because English doesn?t have non-gendered singular pronouns. ?Somebody left their phone on the bus."
> Which is a plural form, while I want to use a singular one?? ?They? and ?their? are generally
accepted in singular context, especially when the reference is non-gendered, because English
doesn?t have non-gendered singular pronouns.
Don’t you realize that by using “he/she/it” I am just taking the piss out of the political correctness,
particularly by considering the latter “possibility”, i.e. the one if “it”???
> Which is a plural form, while I want to use a singular one?? ?They? and ?their? are generally
> accepted in singular context, especially when the reference is non-gendered, because English
> doesn?t have non-gendered singular pronouns.
Don’t you realize that by using “he/she/it” I am just taking the piss out of the political correctness,
particularly by considering the latter “possibility”, i.e. the one if “it”???
When I was in college, this kind of political overcorrecting was rampant
in academia. I had an English professor who attended a faculty meeting
where they were debating how to de-sexualize their pronouns. He got
more and more annoyed at the discussion, and eventually suggested that
they simply settle on “it” for everything. Then, if they HAD to specify
gender, they could use “he-it” and “she-it”, with the latter being
carefully pronounced to produce annoyance.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
I’ve always found it - spooky, I guess - how the GPL seems to intermingle software development with politics. I worked at a company that forked their code from a GPL based project… When you try to go and make money with it, you end up in this world of lawyers where there are no certain answers to anything. It felt like that world was meant to be fuzzy almost on purpose - because it employs the law and puts them in charge in a constant battle where you have to pay to play. In terms of being a person who likes to create and build things, it seems the opposite of “freedom”, which is odd because their war cry is all about “open” and “free”.
My observation is that as soon as something becomes free, it is devalued and turns into crap. Look at music for a great example.
This is totally off topic, but for the most part GPL is at this point the
worst open source license out there. There are lots of good alternatives,
MIT, BSD etc. and many projects are moving or have already moved to these
licenses.
Mark Roddy
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, wrote:
> I’ve always found it - spooky, I guess - how the GPL seems to intermingle > software development with politics. I worked at a company that forked > their code from a GPL based project… When you try to go and make money > with it, you end up in this world of lawyers where there are no certain > answers to anything. It felt like that world was meant to be fuzzy almost > on purpose - because it employs the law and puts them in charge in a > constant battle where you have to pay to play. In terms of being a person > who likes to create and build things, it seems the opposite of “freedom”, > which is odd because their war cry is all about “open” and “free”. > > My observation is that as soon as something becomes free, it is devalued > and turns into crap. Look at music for a great example. > > — > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR > > Visit the list at: http://www.osronline.com/showlists.cfm?list=ntdev > > OSR is HIRING!! See http://www.osr.com/careers > > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: > http://www.osr.com/seminars > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer >
This is totally off topic, but for the most part GPL is at this point
the worst open source license out there.
That is yet another assertion that depends entirely on your point of
view. GPL serves the purposes of its creators remarkably well.
Whatever you think of their positions, Stallman, Gnu and the FSF have
done enormously good things for the computing world, but they are
zealots who cling single-mindedly to their particular vision of
computing. GPL is essentially the missionary army for that particular
religion. If you believe in the religion, then GPL is a great license,
and it works.
There are lots of good alternatives, MIT, BSD etc. and many projects
are moving or have already moved to these licenses.
I agree that all of those alternatives provide much more freedom, but
that’s not the complete aim of the GPL.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> I worked at a company that forked their code from a GPL based project… When you try to go and
make money with it, you end up in this world of lawyers where there are no certain answers to anything.
Are you saying that things work differently if your code has not been derived from GPLed one, i.e. you will never need any lawyers to protect you against unfounded claims as long as you don’t go anywhere close to GPL???
It felt like that world was meant to be fuzzy almost on purpose - because it employs the law and
puts them in charge in a constant battle where you have to pay to play.
Again, the same question - does it apply strictly to GPLed code???
In terms of being a person who likes to create and build things, it seems the opposite of “freedom”,
which is odd because their war cry is all about “open” and “free”.
Sorry, but this is what shyster-dominated world is all about - all IP-related laws seem to serve the purpose
that is exactly the opposite of the original one. For example, patent-related laws are THEORETICALLY
meant to encourage innovation. However, the only thing they do in practice is stifling it.Just look at
“non-producing entities” like Acacia et al…
> Don’t you realize that by using “he/she/it” I am just taking the piss out of the political correctness,
> particularly by considering the latter “possibility”, i.e. the one if “it”???
Sci-fi author Lois Bujold wrote a book where there is a gender-less genetically modified race they were really called “it”.
Well. How about using #hashtags in post subject (or even in body) to
sort it automatically to nttalk? Can majordomo do this?
they were really called “it”.