From stallman.org: If you have information for me, please email it to rms at gnu dot orgy minus the y.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 8:39
I rages the all the comments that say ``guy in red''. Are they trolling me?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 9:00
>>7
Well, it is YouTube. You can't expect them to have been previously exposed to The Stallman.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 9:16
>>1
lol
where is stallman? anyway, that dude in red was cool. good find
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 11:26
Sadly, I don't think stallman will ever get to the point where he's mature and professional, because he thinks that to be a better "hacker" he has to be juvenile.
At least he's immature and nice, unlike Theo de Raadt.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 12:00
>At the end of his first year in the graduate program, Stallman suffered a knee injury that ended the main joy in his life - his participation in international folk dancing, and with it the opportunity it provided for socializing with the opposite sex.
This is always my favourite line about him in his Wikipedia entry. It basically exists only to excuse him from being a virgin.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 12:16
>>11
You know, whores require little to no socialization.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 12:24
>>11
At first I thought you are trolling but it really is on wiki. That is pathetic.
GODFUCK RAGE HOW DOES HE SEE IN THESE GLASSES FUUUUUUCK
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 13:22
He will probably die a virgin. I'm willing to bet no one on /prog/ is a virgin, but don't get casual sex either. Either that or had the chance and didn't. I know a programmer who had a girlfriend for a while and stayed over at her house regularly and never once did anything sexual because she was a complete emo. Actually, I've known quite a few nerds who have had emo girlfriends. Must be a ``weak people attract weak people'' property. But being a social retard does not mean you don't have sex, it just means you have sex with other social retards, probably.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 14:21
>>15
I doubt very much that RMS is a virgin. I have heard stories of his antics with GNU-worshipping female students. I have reason to believe that his standards are quite low.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 14:29
>>15
I have a programmer friend. If he didn't shun all girls that tried to get near him, he'd have sex every week with a different chick.
>>16
From http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch14.html :
""I hope you don't mind," he said, pulling the door open far enough so that Tracy and I could just barely hear Stallman's conversational counterpart. It was a youngish woman, mid-20s I'd say, named Sarah.
"I took the liberty of inviting somebody else to have dinner with us," Stallman said, matter-of-factly, giving me the same cat-like smile he gave me back in that Palo Alto restaurant.
To be honest, I wasn't too surprised. The news that Stallman had a new female friend had reached me a few weeks before, courtesy of Stallman's mother. "In fact, they both went to Japan last month when Richard went over to accept the Takeda Award," Lippman told me at the time."
>>28 "I took the liberty of inviting somebody else to have dinner with us," Stallman said, matter-of-factly, giving me the same cat-like smile he gave me back in that Palo Alto restaurant.
Jesus wept.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 22:10
>>30
I believe the Sussman himself shed a small tear.
>>33
He was hacking with a special exoskeleton that reads his body movements and turns it into code.
Him crankin' dat Soulja Boy was an unfortunate side effect.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 16:46
YULE!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 16:53
JAVA
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 3:00
Stallman is certainly a hack, alright. Man, taxes for creating arts? Are you kidding me? That's a grave mark upon the very meaning of artistic endeavors.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 7:33
Why not taxes for art? It would be a far simpler system than our current copyright regime.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 7:38
I'm from a country where we don't have this type of music. I don't really understand what this song is about, nor why the people are dancing to it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 8:46
>>39
I don't understand it either. Possibly a US cultural meme?
One of my essential problems with his idea is that (to my understanding) he wants to give popular artists the primary cut while less popular artists get much less of a cut. I understand where he's going with it (good art changes the world, and all that) but this necessarily regulates that all art has to be "good" . Also, what if I don't like a song (let's take soulja boi), yet it's so fucking popular with a majority that I'M PAYING FOR IT. What if it's popular, for say, 13 years. That's 13 YEARS OF MY TAX MONEY DOWN THE FUCKING DRAIN FOR A SONG THAT I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT. More so, who's to say foul play can't take it's hand upon popularity. Popular art isn't always good art.
I could go on about it... But probably the most essential point I should stress is this. Richard Stallman, a man who promotes freedom, is trying to stress a TAX (the very ideal devoid of ALL liberties because you HAVE to pay it) on artistic endeavors. Not a good fucking idea.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 20:53
>>45
Well, he is a leftist. I suppose it makes sense to him.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 21:11
>>45 FOR A SONG THAT I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT. I CAN CARE LESS
Facepalm.hs
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 21:21
>>47
I guess I AM careless. I just got caught up in my rage.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-28 5:25
I can care less about this thread.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-28 10:21
Americans and their doublespeak antics
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 2:38
>>39 I'm from a country where we don't have this type of music.
I envy you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-30 17:41
>>45
For all his talk about freedom, STALLMAN is just another fascist.
>>56
Just quoting Wikipedia does not prove that you understand what you are talking about.
The reason >>55 quoted and saged (this is not how sage is supposed to be used) "Open source" is because Stallman is not behind open source -- Stallman is behind Free software (note the capitalized O).
Mr. Stallman is not content with all the software having it's source open, what's the use of that if you can't do whatever you want with it, anyway?
Thus he preaches for a model where all software is totally Free (with the exception that you can't make it un-Free).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 6:58
>>58
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of "Open source" and "Free software." These have two very different. Since you're fond of Wikipedia, I'll let you look up the difference. But just to drive the point home, read http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html and count the number of occurances of "open"
>>57
stallman preaches for non-free open source software.
wikipedia is full of gnufaggotry.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 7:15
>>62
the gnu grossly peremptory license is a non-free open source license, as are all "copyleft" licenses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 7:27
>>64
i mean free as "public domain".
stallman is advocating a very restrictive license, which doesn't seem consistent with his criticisms of "excessive extension of copyright laws".
if the gpl had a clause saying that the code can be considered public domain after a reasonable amount of time (3 years at the most), i wouldn't have any problem with it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 7:32
>>66
the philosophy behind the gpl supports excessive extension of copyright laws.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 7:39
>>68
gpl doesn't protect anything except your right to use, modify, and distribute the code you have right now. other licenses (bsd, mit, etc.) offer the same protection, with fewer restrictions. public domain offers the same protection, with no restrictions, and doesn't contribute to [b][u]excessive extension of copyright laws[u][/b].
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 7:50
I could copy public domain code,modify it and sell it with profit.
yes, you could. you could also do the same thing with gpl-licensed code. you could also do the same thing with bsd- or mit-licensed code.
the difference is that releasing code into the public domain doesn't promote excessive extension of copyright laws, while releasing it under the gpl does.
>>72 if the gpl had a clause saying that the code can be considered public domain after a reasonable amount of time (3 years at the most), i wouldn't have any problem with it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 8:07
>>75
you would still have the code, and still have the right to use, modify, and distribute it. what are you complaining about? that some corporation might find some use for an ancient version of your code? under the gpl they can use it anyway, as long as they provide the source to anyone they sell it to. and what are the chances that the people who buy that corporation's commercial product are going to want to share it with a bunch of hippies, after they paid a significant amount of money for it?
>>80
IF IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN IT'S NOT EXACTLY STEALING NOW IS IT YOU STUPID FUCK
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 8:17
>>80
no. you still have the code. you don't have their modifications, but you wouldn't have those anyway under the gpl unless either 1) they decide to distribute it for free (probably not gonna happen) or 2) they decide to sell it and you buy it (you probably won't be able to afford it, since you're a penniless hippie).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 8:30
Wait! If your code is x86 assembly, GPL won't allow you to remain in freedom. Your software will become proprietary, and FrozenVoid! will eat your penis with a x86 assembly procedure.
>>90
Obviously, but FrozenVoid! has written another GPL, strictly more freedom-oriented than stallman's regular GPL. He called it GPLfv, where fv stands for "fucking valorisation". You may expected that fv stands for FrozenVoid!... wrong.
Unless written (obviously in x86 assembly) by FrozenVoid!.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 8:47
>>96 GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL and publicly available
You are wrong if this is your proof. 10/10 for making me fall for you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 9:02
>>98
I understand all of it. Nothing in that paragraph implies that modified GPL code is considered both under the GPL AND publically available.
>>100-103
That's four in a row. Cut that shit out.
Name:
FrozenVoid!FrOzEn2BUo2009-01-08 9:39
I'm a shaaaaaaaaaaark suck my dick
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 9:43
>>100-103
Read it again. That section does not imply that modified GPL code is considered GPL code; that section does not imply that modified GPL code is considered publically available; that does not imply that both these things are happening to modified GPL code.
Here is a hypothetical to where this quoted section applies:
1. Person X obtains the GPL3 software, Foobar.
2. Person X modifies Foobar and calls the result Bazqux
3. Person X conveys a copy of Bazqux (and associated code) to person Y
This section implies : person Y will receive the whole of Bazqux under GPL3. The section does not imply: make a modification to Foobar and therefore, your modifications are considered under the GPL. This section implies: person Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because YOU conveyed a copy to person Y. This section does not imply: make a modification to Foobar and therefore, you modifications are considered publically available.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 9:46
>>107
I got this section wrong. Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because YOU conveyed a copy to person Y
I meant to write Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because Person X conveyed a copy of it to person Y
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 9:51
>>109
You can license your modifications as you wish as long as the license for the modifications does not conflict with another part of the license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 9:54
>>110
Sorry, that didn't come out as well as I hoped. You can license your modifications to a GPL program in any way you wish as long as the licensing terms of the modification does not conflict with any part of the GPL.
Fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 10:09
>>112
You are saying: GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL
This is incorrect. The GPL really says (and I paraphrase): if you want to distribute any modifications to this licensed work, the whole of the work is licensed under the GPL. Do not confuse what you have written and what is written in the license - they are not the same thing. The requirement is (and I'm paraphrasing again):
1. The whole work must be conveyed under the GPL IF you choose to convey a copy of the work to a third party.
2. The licensing terms accompanying any modification must not conflict with anything in the GPL.
The easiest way to do this is to license the modification under the GPL.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 10:16
>>113
Disregard that, my english skills are deteriorating because of my increasingly lojbanic mind.
>>112
You are saying:
GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL
This is incorrect. The GPL really says (and I paraphrase): if you want to distribute any modifications to this licensed work together with this licensed work as a whole, the whole of the work will be available under the GPL. Do not confuse what you have written and what is written in the license - they are not the same thing. The requirement is (and I'm paraphrasing again):
1. The whole work must be conveyed under the GPL IF you choose to convey a copy of the work to a third party.
2. The licensing terms accompanying any modification must not conflict with anything in the GPL.
The easiest way to do this is to license the modification under the GPL.
>>119
There is no such thing as a GPL license, the GPL license is just a set of terms that must be followed.
Therefore I assume it would be valid to use a different license that has the exact same meaning, while it may be worded differently.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 10:43
>>121
Actually, the license includes a line that says something along the lines of "or any later version of the GPL," which is quite troublesome...
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 11:00
>>118
There is absolutely no problem for someone to USE a GPL program. The GPL3 covers the conveyance of the licensed work. The GPL3 covers the conveyance of works that are derived from the licensed work.
Think about what this means long and hard and think about what you have written. The following hypothetical is allowed:
1. Person X obtains a copy of Foobar which is licensed under GPL3
2. Person X modifies their copy of Foobar
3. Person X publishes a patchset of the modified code under the name Corge. Corge does not include any Foobar code AND is published under a GPL-incompatible license.
4. Person X conveys a copy of Bazqux (a work that resulted from combining both Corge and Foobar) to Person Y.
5. Person Y receives Bazqux as well as the associated code under GPL3.
6. Person Y receives a copy of Corge from Person X. Corge is still GPL-incompatible.
All of this is allowed, as Corge is a modification to Foobar but does not contain any of Foobar. The licensing terms of Corge does not have to be GPL nor does it have to be GPL compatible. Bazqux is GPL3 because it is a derivate of Foobar.
Please remember what you said: GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL
Name:
FrozenVoid!FrOzEn2BUo2009-01-08 11:15
I am a paedophile.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 11:21
SUPERMAN DAT HOE
Name:
FrozenVoid!FrOzEn2BUo2009-01-08 11:35
p a e d o p h i l e
Name:
FrozenVoid!FrOzEn2BUo2009-01-08 11:38
>>131
Why do I have an obsession with naked children?
>>133
The point is that there is a distinction between a modification that forms a derivative and a work that stands on its own. The modification can stand on its own without being subject to the original terms as long as it doesn't form a derivate with the original.
>>137
Patches to a GPL code base distributed on their own are GPL violations.
The entire code base must be included when distributing a modification to a GPL work.
Name:
FrozenSperm!FrOzENLOAU2009-01-08 12:15
>>138
That isn't true. You can make plugins and shared libraries under the GPL, and they don't have to be distributed with the program. There are a large number of GPL libraries that aren't even tied to any specific program.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:16
>>139
I'm talking about patches generated by diff(1).
DIFF(1) User Commands DIFF(1)
NAME
diff - compare files line by line
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:21
>>136
Did you not get the point? A statement like "all mods to GPL code are GPL'd" is false. The fact that they are modifications does not mean the modifications are subject to the GPL. Only conveyed derivative works are subject to the GPL. Unconveyed derivative works are not subject to the GPL and yet, this situation is included in your "all mods" statement. Corge, a modification for Foobar is not a derivative of Foobar and yet, this situation is included in your "all mods" statement.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:22
>>141
" A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the improved source code under the GPL.
I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with the binaries?
This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.
A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.
So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.
>>142 Corge, a modification for Foobar is not a derivative of Foobar
I will only trust this when it has been proved in a court of the highest instance.
>>145
I don't think that applies, but I haven't been able to find anything saying one thing or the other.
I have, however, heard that it is indeed the case for that as well.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:26
>>145
Ah, how about this! To be GPL-compliant (a GPL-based patch is obviously under the GPL) is must include the whole license and a written offer (or the source code).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:34
>>147
It depends on the case. A patch that includes a non-trivial quantity of GPL code must also be GPL IF it is to be distributed to third parties, after all, it is a non-trivial quantity. A patch can quite easily contain only the interfaces of the code functionality and have it's own expression of a particular solution or concept.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:47
>>150
WRONG. If copying interfaces are considered derivative works, then Blackdown would not be possible without Sun's permission because it would be an infringement of the Java interfaces. Linux would not be possibble without Novell's permission because it would be an infringement of the Unix interfaces.
A patch that modifies an interface without including the originating code does not form a derivative.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 12:50
>>151
Does that patch consist of anything on its own? No, it does not. It requires the source work, therefore it it a derivative work.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 13:06
>>152,153
Is the ReactOS system a derivate of Microsoft's Windows system? If you say yes, Microsoft wants to make you their legal counsel in charge of shutting down the Wine and ReactOS projects.
A patch that implements it's own expression of an interface is not necessarily a derivative. A patch that includes a non-trivial amount derived code will make that patch a derivative.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 13:14
I don't know what a patch is.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 13:30
>>154 Is the ReactOS system a derivate of Microsoft's Windows system? If you say yes, Microsoft wants to make you their legal counsel in charge of shutting down the Wine and ReactOS projects.
No because ReactOS is not a patch to the Windows code base.
A patch that implements it's own expression of an interface is not necessarily a derivative. A patch that includes a non-trivial amount derived code will make that patch a derivative.
A patch is based off another work (unless it's just adding new files), therefore I would think in most cases that it is a derivative work. Please provide a code example if you are going to keep talking about interfaces (what the fuck is that shit anyway).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 13:34
>>156
Do you know why the audit was commissioned? It was because of allegations of copyright infringement. The audit has been completed and the ReactOS team claim that all is well with their codebase, that there is no danger of copyright infringement. So what are the ReactOS team doing now? They are implementing their own expressions of Microsoft API's (among other things). There isn't much that Microsoft can do about that as long as the ReactOS system doesn't form a derivative of the Microsoft system.
This was my point all along: A patch that implements it's own expression of an interface is not necessarily a derivative. A patch that includes a non-trivial amount derived code will make that patch a derivative. You are telling me that all modifications to a GPL program automatically make the modifications to also be GPL. I am saying you are wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 13:55
>>158
//original function
results getTreasure(map room, char * treasureName, coord treasureLoc)
{
checkRoom(room);
//50 other statements go here
if (returnItem (room, treasureLoc) == treasureName)
return congratulations(treasureName);
else
failure();
}
//a different function but keeps the same interface
results getTreasure(map room, char * treasureName, coord treasureLoc)
{
path Path;
enterRoom (room);
path = calculatePath (treasureLoc);
if (path)
moveChar(path);
treasure = openTreasure();
if (treasure.name == treasureName)
return congratulations(treasureName);
else
return failure();
}
They both achieve the same goal but use a different means to achieve it. The interface to these functions (entry points and return points to the function) remain constant. The modified function implements it's own functions and does not call on any derived code. You can change the functionality of a program without deriving from the original.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 14:11
>>162
Thank you for your valuable contribution, we're all very impressed by your ability to look things up on Wikipedia.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 14:13
>>161
Uh, no. The interfaces and purpose of programming code under the GPL are (theoretically) well defined. One can change the functionality of a GPL program without deriving from the original GPL code.
A derivative only applies when you copy and paste derivative code into your modification. A derivative only applies when your code makes calls to the original code AND the resulting binary linked (whether statically or dynamically) together with the original program.
Implementing your own functionality that is compatible with the original's interface and does not necessarily mean it is a derivative of the code. It is completely possible to implement your own 100% compatible functions without deriving from the original.
It is absolutely unnecessary. If you had any interest in the content of this board to begin with, you would post anonymously. But it seems you're more worried about what people think about you than about discussing programming related topics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:00
Identity is not a requirement for discussion. That's what this entire site is about.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:00
-1 for this bix nood gibberish. MIT Wiggers -- what is the world coming to?
>>184
No, you're only interested in gathering attention. As you have observed, posting with name and tripcode only distracts from genuine on-topic discussion.
Did you know that sometimes problems are your fault, and not always someone else's?
Indirect communication requires a routable path to an observer, not identity.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:08
>>191
Have you read any of the messages posted on this board that occurred because `you' posted? Are you proclaiming that this is not due to your name/tripcode?
Whether or not `I' can is irrelevant (as I am not the only person here).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:10
>>192
Which is not an issue, since the identity of the poster was not relevant to begin with. Your identity proves absolutely nothing. Only references to credible sources do.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:10
>>194
You are a tripfag. I address all tripfags who do attempt to use an identity.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:12
>>194
Could you actually address what is being said for once instead of handwaving?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:13
>>197 but because the content of message was worthy of reply. No.
Would I get any replies if i only posted my name and tripcode,without any text content?
Yes.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:15
>>200
You're not explaining anything. You're just rattling on about your self-perceived righteousness which is entirely without merit.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:17
>>202
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What kind of mental retardation do you have?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:18
>>204
And? If they have a valid point to make, let them. Who says you have been talking to one person right now? Why is that important at all?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:20
>>206
Clearly you don't understand what is being said. What that means is that you would get a reply (more than likely negative) not based on the content of your post, but based on some arbitrary external factor (what you call `identity').
Which means that you are distracting from the subject of this board without any valid reason to do so.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:21
>>207
Then you can dismiss there post as you would dismiss any other posts that do not have a valid point (i.e. yours).
>>211
Anonymous is not an identity. It is the explicit lack of identity, which you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:25
>>213
Semantics. That doesn't change the fact that this so called ``collective identity'' is used explicitly to put focus on the content of posts, rather than the identity of the poster.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:30
>>215
The author is irrelevant. Now use your brain for once and stop disrupting this board('s culture).
>>217
The author is irrelevant if the poster chooses not to fill out the name field. You are putting emphasis on your identity for absolutely no reason.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:33
>>160
Okay, so you have one function there, and one other function which can replace that function (I guess).
What happens if you distribute a binary with that function, will you have to provide source code for it along with the GPL code? Yes!
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:41
>>220
This is part of the culture of anonymous bulletin boards. Try lurking more.
You are dismissing relevant criticism by many posters and handwaving the fact that your arrival has caused `distress' (for lack of a better word) by claiming we must adhere to your model of identity-as-means-of-communication.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:42
>>217
By choosing to post with a name you have developed a reputation. Anonymous has no identity therefore no reputation by which to judge other on than on the content of each individual post.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:47
>>223
They exist so posters can identify themselves where relevant (i.e. where it adds something to the discussion.) Your usage of tripcodes is not included in this.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:49
>>225
You seem to be constantly insinuating that the problem is not you. Where do you think this dissonance stems from?
The majority defines the environment in which you are partaking/attempting to partake. They may not be `right' (inasmuch as anything can be Right), but neither is disrupting it with hypocrisy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 15:58
Generally because they can overpower the discenting minority and stop them from disrutping their well established customs and views. That is clearly not the case here, though, since the mods -- who are the only ones around who can take extreme measures on behalf of the majority -- have abandoned us aeons ago.
>>237
So your justification is "Power in lack of numbers"?
You're saying minority opinion should overpower majority? (Or let me guess, just your opinion?)
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 16:02
>>237
Why do you say minority opinion shouldnt exist?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 16:04
>>237
I'm not saying I agree with it, please reread >>234 carefully.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 16:06
>>240
You have been heard. It was found to be not suiting to our culture. Why are you having such a hard time accepting that people may not wish to follow your opinion? Why must it be us that bends to your rule? This is absolutely ridiculous of you to even suggest.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-08 16:12
>>243
Its not justification, its an explanation. Please reread >>234 carefully.
>>219
It depends upon the case. If the resulting binary is considered a derivative work, then the whole work must be available under the GPL at the time that copies of that work are conveyed to third parties.
Derivative works occur when you copy and paste/#include a non-trivial amount of the original code into the modified code. Derivative works occur when you link that modified code (whether statically or dynamically does not matter) together with the original work to form a binary as a whole.
Derivative work: copy some of the GPL code into your modification's source
Derivative work: link the modification together with the GPL code to form a derived binary
If you can produce a binary object that does not include any of the original's code, you are free to licence your binary as you wish.
void intro()
{
printf("Soulja Boy Tell Em\n"
"Ya know what it is man\n"
"Turn my swag on man\n"
"Time to hit my bird walk man\n\n");
}
void chorus(int times)
{
int i=0;
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
{
printf("Watch me hit my bird walk\n");
}
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
{
printf("Watch me do it\nYuha\n\n");
}
}
void verse(int type)
{
if(type == 1)
{
printf(
"Step in side da club fresh from head to toe,\n\
Hit my bird walk and den I messin wit my merry-go,\n\
Wen im in da d-town, Dallas\n\
Wassup bro\n\
Wen im in da A-pull pally\n\
Wat happenin folk\n\
Wen im in Chicago they hollerin\n\
Now wassup joe\n\
Now im back to Mississippi they telling me\n\
Wassup mayne\n\
They telling me da same thing\n\
Wen im in new york\n\
Was good sun, just hustlin\n\n"
);
}
else if(type == 2)
{
printf(
"Aye Feelin Bezzy\n\
Wat wat they do that at\n\
Watch looking freezy\n\
Ye-yellow diomaond rain\n\
Ice grill\n\
Ice chain\n\
Ice ring\n\
Iced out\n\
If you cross S.O.D\n\
We gonna knock ur lights out\n\
Step inside the set\n\
Im to clean to get touched\n\
S.O.D. Money Gang\n\
We to mean to get mugged\n\
Hit my bird walk\n\
And got the club crunk\n\
Den I heared ur gurl tlk\n\
Now she hoppin in my trunk\n\
Now im hittin my bird walk\n\n"
);
}
else if(type == 3)
{
printf(
"S.O.U.L.J.A Bezzy\n\
Bird walked wit my dance\n\
Make it look easy\n\
My dougie, im fresh\n\
Ya im clean\n\
So krispy\n\
Throwin out money\n\
Like ur boy gotta frisbey\n\
Soulja boy tell em\n\
For da kids like Disney\n\
Chain 360\n\
Make your head dizzy\n\
Every city in da club\n\
Who rollin wit me\n\
Arab\n\
Jbar\n\
Miami\n\
Mizzy\n\n"
);
}
}
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-09 2:59
>>246
I hope you understand by now that dozens of posts deleted by moderators indeed constitute opinion being silenced.
You can't handle alternative worldviews and resort to this behavior when it would be more productive to not concentrate on my identity(which doesn't change any of posts, yet you label them as unsound just because they were posted under an identity).
>>254 copyright (C) Soulja Boy Tell Em
good job there, idiot. that's completely meaningless without a year. copyrights do expire after a certain number of years.
it may be a ridiculously high number of years, but copyright doesn't last forever.
In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic.[5] However, the lack of notice of copyright using these marks may have consequences in terms of reduced damages in an infringement lawsuit — using notices of this form may reduce the likelihood of a defense of "innocent infringement" being successful.[6]
>>260
My post is relevant because >>256 makes assumptions you need
a copyright symbol or year numbers to represent a copyright,while its automatically protected by Berne convention as described here >>259
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-09 5:08
>>261
no, your post is not relevant. >>256 was pointing out that that copyright statement is meaningless, because it doesn't tell you anything about the copyright status of the work. it was you who made (and then debunked) the claim that a copyright notice is necessary for a work to be copyrighted.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-09 5:13
>>262
Your post have implicit assumption that a copyright notice is necessary while its not required due Berne convention.