I truly don't understand what you are talking about. When I was in primary school, and perhaps in no small part due to some prosopagnosia, I was unable to determine the gender of my peers reliably. This occasionally resulted in violence as I misgendered peers.

Do you live in a part of the world where you can use whatever pronouns you want on people?

If no, what exactly are we disagreeing about?

> standing for

Can you explain what, exactly, it is that you're standing for?

> There's nothing to feel, these people are neither male or female and would indeed deserve a specific pronoun, but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people

That's why they generally choose one or the other? Occasionally, someone will prefer a "non-standard" pronoun but I have never faced someone that didn't accept "they" (which, by the way, was my coping strategy in my childhood - when in doubt, use "they"! This was in pre-internet era of regional Queensland, Australia, where we barely had dictionaries, let alone knew what a pronoun even was)

You've obviously put a lot of energy and thought into this issue but I'm not exactly sure what the issue /is/

That pronouns are somehow an exercise of power that must be submitted to, and not just a common courtesy because we're not all sensitive snowflakes

And that this is in any way remotely comparable to being tortured and killed for religious beliefs

I wonder how you feel about the nearly 1.7% of people born intersex that you meet and definitely work with, that have been newborns treated by your own GP... occupying possibly the "wrong" pronoun according to whatever this week's definition of Definitely Binary means

I'm sure people getting tortured and killed for religious beliefs will definitely relate to this discussion

The actually interesting claim is that somebody has found a practical use for Interaction Combinators as a computing model for putting GPUs to work.

However, Python (1991) is only 2 yrs older than R (1993)

In the end, the world is much bigger than the tech we build & consume.

Edit: I mean, this is the company that gave us the 8 Fallacies of distributed computing, as they were 20yrs ago

Obviously, we want solutions that will remediate existing code unmodified, and I guess enabling taint mode isn't in that category.

I wonder what bugs taint checking wouldn't catch, that this would.

An old radar technician asked me to take a look... apparently "boiling" waveguides are a thing when it comes to high-power RF.

Encrypted meaningless noise on the air would be a "selfish" waste of spectrum incompatible with the neighbourly spirit espoused by most amateur radio organizations and hams themselves, not to mention damaging to the self-policing they're supposed to do.

I alsl expect it wouldn't be "allowed" to persist as a hobby in its current form in many parts of the world if you added the threat of casual encrypted communications, beyond the reach of CALEA-type intercept capabilities into the mix.

Thank you for your patience.

It sounds as if you don't think there should be discussion at all. "These licenses are incompatible but screw it, ship it anyway" is shitty behavior we expect from noname WiFi router OEMs.

> Apart from idealistic purity, what has that effort actually done? Has it given us access to source code we don't already have?

If we wanted a Linux that could be used like this, it'd be LGPL. That is exactly what the LGPL is for. Really. It's that simple.

I absolutely think people should think twice before blindly depending on or mashing up GPL software - at the moment they don't, and that's how we get these messes.

It's an important landmark in the history of the GPL and I find it completely weird that anyone would expect the conservancy to remain silent on it. In terms of their long-time resourcing problem, that's got nothing to do with this case and everything to do with VMWare pulling out all the stops to get their existing support pulled.

I rather suspect if the conservancy cared about their long-term survival and keeping everybody happy that much they simply wouldn't have pursued the VMWare case.

Edit: It's "without also providing source code under the terms of the GPL " - this is a nuance of the GPL's attempt at re-defining a term of art - "derived work". And yes, it deviates from Copyright law norms. Whether a court will consider only the meaning as understood traditionally, or whether they will simply treat the confusingly implied broader definition as a mere additional term of the license which must be enforced, I have no idea.

> Would you prefer them to spend their resources chasing down the violations where the offender provides no source code, or the violations that can be sidestepped by typing 'make' into a terminal?

Who says they're expending resources on Canonical? They've left NVidia alone, because they don't ship GPL'd software. They're spending on VMWare, because they ship a hacked Linux distro with proprietary blobs bolted on.

In the case of Canonical, they're letting them know they're trying to do LGPL things with a Linux that is actually GPL.

Edit2: GPLv2 says:

> Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;

So distributing CDDL'd source and asking the user to do "make zfs.ko" is fine.

> rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

This, among other places in GPLv2 is where they have problems with binaries.

That's literally what the GPL says. Look, I'm not a GPL zealot. The only thing even vaguely worth releasing, I've released 2-clause BSD.

But we can't just pick which bits of a license we feel good about and ignore the bits we don't - that doesn't exactly make a strong case for potential GPL violators to give a shit about copyright.

It's crappy behaviour from Canonical. I think there's another strategic motive here, they know they're stretching things a lot here but perhaps they see this as a catalyst to finally see some movement on ZFS licensing by various parties (or maybe they're acting on VMWare's behalf by sucking energy away from SC's VMWare case)

Indeed, "derivative work" is a well-understood term of art in Copyright law. So the courts will have to decide if that's truly what they will interpret, or will they take the redistribution & usage restrictions of the GPL as a separable matter.

This is entirely unlike VMWare, who really did make and ship their own butchered linux distro with big binary blobs planted right in the middle.