You know, Google, the web already had this feature • Hacker News Board

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#441

Post by solistice » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 8:02 PM UTC

moogleii wrote: post #395

solistice wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will have to rethink my life plans of outfitting a Tesla Sports car with functioning Tesla Coils. Noone outside of me will care about it, and if it's not external respect, it ain't no respect at all. Having some fun (with dangerously high voltages)? Don't make me laugh. I mean yes, if you don't enjoy the smell of coronal discharge and smoldering tank capacitors (They're both toxic smells by the way), and you just b…

>and if it's not external respect, it ain't no respect at all. To be clear, that's your claim, not mine. Ultimately, people do what they like to do. >Noone outside of me will care about it This I could agree with, but sure, there'll be like-minded folks that will be interested. However, that's different from being smug and superior about your hobby.

>and if it's not external respect, it ain't no respect at all.

Yeah, but it was also sarcastic. I used to add //sarcasm tags, but they make you sound conceited.

>However, that's different from being smug and superior about your hobby.

I will be as smug and superior about my hobby as I want to //sarcasm.

But no, in all seriousness, having to act smug and superior about your hobby means you are trying to use it to garner social recognition/a feeling of superiority which you think will make you happy, which means your hobby doesn't allready intrinsically do that for you. An exception to that are hobbies intrinsically made for showing off, like golf or trophy wives.

///Last sentence is humorous and therfore not to be consumed straight out of the bottle. Dilute with 5cl literary figure appreciation for each cl, and consume within 3 days of opening.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#442

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 8:02 PM UTC

moogleii wrote: post #395

solistice wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will have to rethink my life plans of outfitting a Tesla Sports car with functioning Tesla Coils. Noone outside of me will care about it, and if it's not external respect, it ain't no respect at all. Having some fun (with dangerously high voltages)? Don't make me laugh. I mean yes, if you don't enjoy the smell of coronal discharge and smoldering tank capacitors (They're both toxic smells by the way), and you just b…

>and if it's not external respect, it ain't no respect at all. To be clear, that's your claim, not mine. Ultimately, people do what they like to do. >Noone outside of me will care about it This I could agree with, but sure, there'll be like-minded folks that will be interested. However, that's different from being smug and superior about your hobby.

[deleted]

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#443

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 10:54 AM UTC

sciurus wrote: post #360

Intermernet wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not CUPS. From http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/license.html "CUPSTM is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit." I wonder why the OpenSSL toolkit needs an exemption.

OpenSSL's license imposes additional restrictions which are not compatible with the GPL. Thus, if you release code under the GPL but want to allow people to link it with OpenSSL, you need to provide an exception. There's an article covering the topic with much more nuance at https://lwn.net/Articles/428111/

Thanks, I had originally thought it may have been some residual effect of the export embargo on crypto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...;

I'm going to have to do some more reading on this. I was particularly interested in the quote "the problem here is actually a former OpenSSL hacker who has no interest (and, in fact, a positive interest against) in changing the OpenSSL licensing". Sounds intriguing!

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#444

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 11:02 AM UTC

reidrac wrote: post #362

Intermernet wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not CUPS. From http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/license.html "CUPSTM is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit." I wonder why the OpenSSL toolkit needs an exemption.

CUPS is developed by Apple and released as open source using the GPL (in fact, to contribute code you must sign a contributor agreement with Apple: http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L186+T+Q ). I'm not sure if I understand your comment.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS#History

"Michael Sweet, who owned Easy Software Products, started developing CUPS in 1997. The first public betas appeared in 1999.[3] The original design of CUPS used the LPD protocol, but due to limitations in LPD and vendor incompatibilities, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) was chosen instead. CUPS was quickly adopted as the default printing system for several Linux distributions, including Red Hat Linux.[citation needed] In March 2002, Apple Inc. adopted CUPS as the printing system for Mac OS X 10.2.[4] In February 2007, Apple Inc. hired chief developer Michael Sweet and purchased the CUPS source code"

CUPS is currently chiefly developed by Apple but, unlike many other commercially "owned" open-source projects, it has a license clause that exempts them from the license that applies to you and I.

I'm sure there are many other examples of this, I was originally pointing out that the licensing terms for WebKit and CUPS are not really that similar from Apple's perspective. From our perspective, yes, both GPL (well LGPL for WebKit)