Microblog
in reply to @ 2015-301.681ZOpen source does not mean they can't ask you to pay for it. In this case, the payment is in terms of marketing.
in reply to @ 2015-301.660ZUse this to check the evidence: https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Then email sfconservancy.org" rel="nofollow">compliance@sfconservancy.org
in reply to @ 2015-301.658ZCoworker of mine installed Ubuntu on XPS13 and it "just worked"
in reply to @ 2015-301.654ZFor the purposes of an infringement suit you would have to prove you have code that forms part of their distribution. The more you have, the easier it is.
in reply to @ 2015-301.576Zgit submodules?
in reply to @ 2015-300.153ZYeah, version 2.4 is installable from https://github.com/flaviotordini/minitube/issues/20#issuecomment-145247315 and should work
in reply to @ 2015-299.924Zhttp://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17631838
Also her talk about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XDTQLa3NjE
in reply to @ 2015-299.776ZI have an encrypted folder and symlink well-known locations (such as .ssh) into it. Among other uses.
in reply to @ 2015-299.496ZThis is great! Though it is both incorrect and confusing to refer to attribution-licensed material as "Public Domain"
in reply to @ 2015-299.032ZEasiest way: ask the copyright holder. Often I ask (by email) such authors and they say "that sounds fine to me", which give you written evidence if they decide to change their mind later.
in reply to @ 2015-298.532ZWhat if I quote the bytes of the executable as a hex string, in the code, and run binary eval on it?
What if you do? That is obviously not the preferred form for modification and does not fill the source requirement of the GPL.
in reply to @ 2015-298.531ZIf you just want to know if minified JS fill the GPL souce offer requirement, the answer is definitely no. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7564654/distributing-gpl-licensed-code-code-compression-and-code-readability
in reply to @ 2015-296.619ZI would suggest not doing anything from scratch unless you have to.
Unless you want to because you're bored or whatever 😉
in reply to @ 2015-293.983ZNot even a day yet, they don't really take power under November 🙂 Doesn't change the need to hold accountable as things progress.
in reply to @ 2015-293.982ZWhat indication do you have that they aren't planning on being accountable to literally one of the tentpoles of their entire platform?
None. Except that I know politicians give priority to what they hear about. And they're going to be hearing about at lot. We need to make sure they don't stop hearing about this.
in reply to @ 2015-293.877ZYour MP is there to represent you… hence "representative"
in reply to @ 2015-293.860ZI think is better for those who vote based on their local representatives over the party system
Well, I mean, STV is still a system for voting for local representatives (no parties involved).
in reply to @ 2015-293.824ZLack of marketing.
in reply to @ 2015-293.725ZDo you want STV? Or just IR?
in reply to @ 2015-293.717ZI have done so, and will try to arrange an in-person meeting before they all go back to the hill.