What Are You Doing Right Now
-
TYPING a letter on this:
http://www.atticpaper.com/prodimages/050909/underwood_3down.jpg
The Serial number leads me to it's date of manufacture to be about 1923 - $3 then would be be quite a bit then... and after nearly 100 years, still works nicely.
Sorting out the layout of a battery unit,.. a single 4s (4 batteries in series) moved to a 4s4p (4 series/4 parallel) and without a BMS (battery monitoring system). Parts list for the build is growing, hoping the layout helps prevent missing a part or two.
-
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
-
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
The question to me comes down to - what are you paying for? As has been discussed here before, the typical claim for cost is the distribution expense, not the software on the media.
As for claiming the work as your own, I didn't read it, so i don't know if that's allowable or not. It might boil down to a wording game.
-
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
Of course you can. The GPL has, from day one, guaranteed that you can distribute the work and charge for it. That was explicitly built into the license as a requirement.
It's not an ethical problem in the slightest. It's not disallowed... it's a protected right. The entire GPL ecosystem is built on this.
You cannot CALL It your own, however. You must maintain the licensing and acknowledgements of the original. You cannot lie about it.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
As for claiming the work as your own, I didn't read it, so i don't know if that's allowable or not. It might boil down to a wording game.
You can't claim the work as your own. But you can claim the packaging as your own. RHEL is made by Red Hat, but they can't claim to have made the Linux kernel.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
The question to me comes down to - what are you paying for? As has been discussed here before, the typical claim for cost is the distribution expense, not the software on the media.
Doesn't matter. They can charge for whatever piece that they want, the GPL protects that right.
-
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Had to go put our older dog to sleep this morning. So today is a sucky Monday
Sorry, just saw this
-
Pumpkin carving time
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
Of course you can. The GPL has, from day one, guaranteed that you can distribute the work and charge for it. That was explicitly built into the license as a requirement.
It's not an ethical problem in the slightest. It's not disallowed... it's a protected right. The entire GPL ecosystem is built on this.
You cannot CALL It your own, however. You must maintain the licensing and acknowledgements of the original. You cannot lie about it.
But you can fork a project and call that fork your own. AFAIK you just need to reference the original project. Or is such a reference just good practice?
-
Thought I would start with this job:-
Sort out backups from our RN3220 to and NAS in another buildingWhile i'm cloning a PC for bagging.
-
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
Of course you can. The GPL has, from day one, guaranteed that you can distribute the work and charge for it. That was explicitly built into the license as a requirement.
It's not an ethical problem in the slightest. It's not disallowed... it's a protected right. The entire GPL ecosystem is built on this.
You cannot CALL It your own, however. You must maintain the licensing and acknowledgements of the original. You cannot lie about it.
But you can fork a project and call that fork your own. AFAIK you just need to reference the original project. Or is such a reference just good practice?
It's not just good practice it is required under the GPL licensing.
-
Just replaced a print in a Epson T88V receipt printer.
We normally send them off and it costs £100 parts and labour, just cost me 10 minutes and £37
-
Nothing says "good morning" like a message from someone telling me that I've won $150k from a non-existent 6 initial government agency.
-
Good morning Mangoes.
-
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr That's what I figured.
The second and third paragraphs of this article highlight what I thought was strange: https://blog.nexcess.net/2016/08/03/how-can-developers-make-a-living-from-gpl-plugins/
The idea that under the GPL it seems like it's allowed to take someone's work and distribute it as your own (either for free or for a fee). While that's clearly an ethical problem, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.
Of course you can. The GPL has, from day one, guaranteed that you can distribute the work and charge for it. That was explicitly built into the license as a requirement.
It's not an ethical problem in the slightest. It's not disallowed... it's a protected right. The entire GPL ecosystem is built on this.
You cannot CALL It your own, however. You must maintain the licensing and acknowledgements of the original. You cannot lie about it.
But you can fork a project and call that fork your own. AFAIK you just need to reference the original project. Or is such a reference just good practice?
Or course, all critical components of the GPL. That's what makes it so powerful. Like how NextCloud was able to protect the ownCloud code by forking it.
-
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But you can fork a project and call that fork your own. AFAIK you just need to reference the original project. Or is such a reference just good practice?
You have to maintain the license, nothing else.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But you can fork a project and call that fork your own. AFAIK you just need to reference the original project. Or is such a reference just good practice?
You have to maintain the license, nothing else.
Yeah, was pretty sure about this. You can do anything, as long as you keep (and respect) the license.
-
Ah,.. using something that is otherwise useless... Yes,.. I know. No reliability,... it's a dead horse. But it's something to toy with.
I've installed
- Fail2Ban
- X2go
On the 'defunct' Cloud@Cost box and am sending mail back and forth to myself.
Gives me just one more place to work on learning how to access Linux and do things....
-
Listening to Naruto opening songs and checking daily event viewer stuff.
-
Just got called at lunch, apparently our phones are only working intermittently. AT&T network outage, not my problem, but I still get to explain to users what that means...
