iajrz

7 ms·

31.
by iajrz 11y ago
Using GPL'd source as the basis of your work (this is, creating a derivate of a work licensed under the GPL), and then distributing that modified work, saddles the author with the responsibility of handing over the code upon user reque
32.
by iajrz 11y ago
It is if they don't redist the kernel code they're using - if it's GPL'd, and you redistribute the binaries, you acquire the responsibility to redist the source.
33.
by iajrz 11y ago
evidence that they've modified, not afaict. But refusing to give up the GPL'd code, even if stock, is a violation. And there are no sizes to license violations.
34.
by iajrz 12y ago
But do we know most young people prefer a fixed salary instead of undertaking? How do we know that?
35.
by iajrz 12y ago
Try Lisp. You'll see most modern languages -- Objective C, Ruby, Java, &c -- and not so modern languages as well, don't have much that Lisp doesn't offer. That the pomposity may not be the best way is but a matter of opin
36.
by iajrz 12y ago
Probably RCS http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/; It's a fact that it used CVS, then SVN at some point (see https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/CYGNUS/ , a branch created
37.
by iajrz 13y ago
dell workstation, HP notebook
38.
by iajrz 13y ago
http://domainhelp.tucows.com/
39.
by iajrz 13y ago
Ah, it's important to write the code for easy replacement, at least. Make it easy to kill only chunks.
40.
by iajrz 13y ago
It's not complex at all. How can it be confusing? I was confused by the author's confusion :-/