jordigh

34 ms·

391.
by jordigh 7y ago
It's running mathjax to convert them. Are you perhaps blocking js?
392.
by jordigh 7y ago
The Caldera one is always "open source-code", not "open-source code". The words happen to appear together but aren't being used with the same intent. I didn't know about the NT example. It's a new one to m
393.
by jordigh 7y ago
It is different for technical terms. It's perfectly fine if I told a novice mathematician, "no, wait, that's wrong, a Riemannian manifold is..." We have a precise, technical definition of open source precisely so we can
394.
by jordigh 7y ago
The point of insisting what "open source" means is that we want to ensure the freedoms that open source guarantees. If we don't insist on this definition people will start pushing licenses that forbid commercial use and other
395.
by jordigh 7y ago
It wouldn't be such a big deal. As the current situation with VVVVV shows, we already kind of have our own little informal community-driven "trademark enforcement", and it works.
396.
by jordigh 7y ago
OSI got bad legal advice and quickly abandoned the trademark of the term "open source" itself. https://trademark.trademarkia.com/open-source-75439502.html Bruce Perens regrets this[1]. But they could have. The ter
397.
by jordigh 7y ago
Yes, OSI is responsible for the OSD, but the term has gotten somewhat "genericised". It's like saying that the Kimberly-Clark company doesn't define what "kleenex" is anymore. Whenever this debates comes up eve
398.
by jordigh 7y ago
In fact, all IP is quite different, to the point that even calling it "IP" leads to a lot of confusion thinking that it's at all similar.
399.
by jordigh 7y ago
The point is that "prior art" is a term of art, unapplicable to copyright.
400.
by jordigh 7y ago
Branching by cloning was copied from bitkeeper. It was also early git's only branching mechanism. If you listen to Linus's talk when he introduced git at Google, you'll hear him conflate "branch" with "clone&qu
401.
by jordigh 7y ago
If the problem was the logo, why change the name?
402.
by jordigh 7y ago
I like Debian's changes. I don't like it when some software thinks it should be putting runtime data in /etc or configuration in /var. Or when an executable doesn't have a manpage, not even a brief one. Debian has a
403.
by jordigh 7y ago
I don't find that very descriptive. I still don't understand why Mozilla changed its mind about how much the Debian patches changed. I think it's just about changing of the guard at Mozilla or something. I guess we'll ha
404.
by jordigh 7y ago
Debian makes slight modifications all the time to packages. It patches bugs and removes non-free components, for example. These count as "modifications" but they're usually trivial enough that people don't consider them
405.
by jordigh 7y ago
Thanks, fixed.
406.
by jordigh 7y ago
They are well-defined now , but when Leibniz and Cauchy were working with them, they were not, and used carelessly could lead to errors. Their "solution" was to just pretend those errors didn't happen ("don't do th
407.
by jordigh 7y ago
Infinitesimals have a long and complicated history (e.g. 1 = 0.999...) and their lack of a formal definition until recent years has lead to erroneous arguments such as thinking that (dx/dy) (dy/dz) (dz/dx) equals 1: https:&#
408.
by jordigh 7y ago
> I find it rather weird that mathematics is usually taught to people on a historical basis. It very much is not. If you tried to learn calculus the way Newton learned it (with fluxions, or worse, awkwardly stated in the style of Euclid’
409.
by jordigh 7y ago
The FSF did not originate the meaning of "free software". They insist upon it, but before 1998 when "open source" was coined, "free software" was just what everyone called it. Even OpenBSD, who staunchly disagr
410.
by jordigh 7y ago
Open source is meant to be a corporate-friendly synonym for "free software". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Origins This basically means that if it's not free, it's not open source either
411.
by jordigh 7y ago
Obviously I mean in the meaning of "spoil a story"; of course the precise sequence of characters of "ess, pee, oh, eye, ell, ee, are" existed before.
412.
by jordigh 7y ago
Spoiler alerts are a 20th century invention. Everyone has been taught to get angry about spoilers, but the very word "spoiler" itself is an internet invention coined in Usenet. The idea of society at large working hard to keep a f
413.
by jordigh 7y ago
> a medium designed for carefully considered thought like that. "Sorry this is so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter."
414.
by jordigh 7y ago
Agreed, this is a huge relief. I was getting quite worried that Mozilla would go to Discord, like Rust and other projects have done. I don't know anything about Matrix, but I know it's free, and if it has Mozilla's endorsemen
415.
Telnet Postcard.sfconservancy.org 2333(octodon.social)
1 points by jordigh 7y ago|0 comments
416.
by jordigh 7y ago
> Worth pointing out that PIA is openvpn compatible so you don't need their client Yeah, I was wondering about this. If you don't trust their client... don't use it? They've always been quite forthcoming on how to con
417.
by jordigh 7y ago
I'm so disappointed that this isn't a 3d remake of that classic survival horror RPG, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Home_(video_game)
418.
by jordigh 7y ago
Raw data generally does not meet the copyrightability threshold in the US (datasets are often copyrighted in the EU, though). The lack of copyrightability of data (say, phone numbers or maps) is why there are paper towns on maps, one kind o
419.
by jordigh 7y ago
The trigger can be really complicated, though, complicated enough to merit the nontriviality threshold of copyrightability. If anything, Wolfram and the Alpha user should be coauthors, but Wolfram doesn't seem to think anyone else has
420.
by jordigh 7y ago
Wolfram has been claiming copyright to the output of Alpha for a long time. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090518204959409 It's a bit weird because Wolfram is not the one solely responsible for Alpha's

More ›