121–130 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speak for yourself. A lot of people use it as a real gender neutral.
For a different point of view see http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
Even if we were talking about 'he', your link would be out of place. Calling out the use of a gendered default as bad is not in fact another point of view on whether it is the default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad to see that things have improved to some degree. I just breifly visited one of those though (androtransfer.com) and it does have the shit I am talking about... "Please wait while we prepare your download! 10 second(s) left" ... how about "No." Proper mirroring does not give you this sort of cruft and hassle. I'll admit, the situation is improved because nobody tried to sell me a penis pump when I visited the…
They're providing a rather expensive service (Bandwidth and server costs ain't cheap) for free. The wait times are simply rate-limiting in nicest possible way. Also, it's laughable that you think "Wait X seconds" isn't "proper" mirroring, I guess you never use SourceForge? Or are they also filled with warez and penis pumps? >"Sort through this 500+ page forum thread, and find the guy who posted a 'fix' without source…
I thought it was widely understood these days that sourceforge is shit. What is this, 2002? Finding yourself on a sourceforge page is one of the highest quality indicators of "maybe I should make sure I'm trying to do this the right way" that there is, almost entirely since most active projects have run away from it. The piss-poor way it handles downloads is just scratching the surface of sourceforges issues. They do not provide quality hosting.
Picking a proper distro at random: http://www.sabayon.org/download
That is how you mirror a project. Not with shit that requires me to use a javascript enabled browser. I can wget or torrent any linux distro I can think of. Why is quality hosting unavailable to Android development? I'm guessing, but probably because they play fast and loose with legal shit. Or maybe it is because no companies or universities are interested in being associated with it... probably because they play fast and loose with legal shit...
I know all about their bugtracking systems. Their bug tracking is not my concern; the community is my concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cyanogenmod) are based on this scene, and there is nothing grey or remotely shady about it. So when Cyanogenmod was distributing the play store apps illegally there was nothing shady going on? It isn't like they suddenly decided to do the right thing, it was a C&D from Google that got them to stop. http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble...
Copyright and IP is such a mess that everything is "shady" for any entity if looked from the right (or wrong) angle or country. I don't think that there has been actual harm and malicious intent in the redistribution of the apps, just the fact that few people can afford the legal counsel fee to understand a licence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a different point of view see http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
There are two related but subtly different uses here. A word like 'he' is a default , which can lead to problematic implications. A word like 'guy', to some people, is a true neutral, implying gender no more than the word 'somebody'. Even if we were talking about 'he', your link would be out of place. Calling out the use of a gendered default as bad is not in fact another point of view on whether it is the default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights. That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no…
I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.
The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL.
Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other cir…
I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.
What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL. The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code i…
Isn't this is a general trend with Android/Cyanogenmod hackers? If you go on something like xda-developers then there's a sticky saying "please don't post GPL violations". Early Cyanogen releases were fast and loose with redistribution of Google proprietary apps, which got the author in a spot of trouble IIRC. Right now the distribution of these ROMS is IMO pretty suspect - they include whole swathes of binary blobs…
That gives away nothing as to the general philosophy of that community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
Actually, you have to accept the license as a user to be able to use it. However, you don't give up your right to keep any change for yourself if you don't distribute it in a different format (e.g. binary). Whatever you do in your house is your business. That's probably what you meant (in spirit so to speak), though law wise it is very different.
Why do you say you have to accept it?