dbtx

Right. Don't replace systemd, compete with it. Don't remind everyone that your competitor exists.

(van Gogh)

Surely you know that gravitational force is indistinguishable from acceleration and the idea of 'down' sensed by any mass inside the plane is the vector sum of both.

I guess everyone means UVC here. A UVA flashlight is cheaper than lunch ;) edit: my facts were scrambled. C is the nasty one... maybe my favorite (unsafe) language will help me remember that from now on.

The people "you" elected and the people they appointed are all doing their jobs and everything is going to be Oh Kay™

...ever since I was too young to vote. Now I'm a little unhappy about the Hanford Site and about tetraethyl lead, for example. I know that has nothing to do with satellites.

Maybe they're like me and they really only really hate being lied to.

Alt+SysRq+k

(read linux/Documentation/admin-guide/sysrq.rst before you try this)

> it's less rewarding than Javascript.

This varies with goals, attitudes, background, bias, etc. Besides, if you know a little C, you can livecode over at glslsandbox or shadertoy and be immediately rewarded.

> It isn't the kind of thing you tackle because you need hirable job skills by the end of the month.

No, not really. This also roughly says "JS doesn't necessarily require lots of experience" which is not much of a plus, as someone already pointed out.

> This is just the way licensing works today.

I remain unconvinced.

> If Oracle wins you are the copyright holder of that code, including the API.

I said "what if I'm NOT", as in, "how will this ruin everything for me in the most common case, that of being only a user?"

But I am planning a library and it is meant to be free-as-in-sunlight if it ever gets there. I'm not worried, I just find it easier to agree with those who are saying the opposite. They seem to think Oracle winning will be precedent for an incredible amount of control to be exercised by software publishers, especially regarding operating systems... this would basically throw a bucket of sand into the proverbial gearbox, for everyone, down to the last user.

Not everyone wants more control. On the flip side, not everyone wants more users just for the sake of proving they made a more useful thing.

IIUC Google winning means I have to be mentally prepared for someone to someday take advantage of my work, which is what I wanted from the very beginning. Whether or not that feels "fair" depends entirely on my definition of "fair", not the court's. Anyone who decides to do that will have paid me a compliment, unless of course someone reuses my work to do something specific that I happen to really dislike. But people are very different from me, so that's almost inevitable, and I might not even learn about any of it, and anyway I accept the possibility.

> You Seem to Assume that the language in question and the API’s must have identical license requirements.

Maybe. I seem to be saying that with both languages and APIs, licensing-related restrictions are worse than useless. Anyone can go write a compiler that translates a pre-existing language into object code, right? If you can insist on being the only one who can compile your language, good luck getting people to write in it.

> But If I invent a different language and publish it in a book, why should I lose the rights to it simply because of what the language is or how people would use it.

Which rights? Isn't that the original question, the one of what rights are implied as 'granted' when you publish a thing, such as 'the right to read and understand it'? (No I didn't purchase your book, I found it at a library.) You don't "lose the rights" to it, that sounds a bit like false dichotomy. You merely would not have had all the rights you had hoped, from the beginning.

---

I can almost see it Oracle's way: they own all the results of a great deal of work that Sun('s employees) did, and later on Google managed to avoid a chunk of that work and so help their own bottom line. Google also takes advantage of the industry's pre-existing familiarity with it. I still think Oracle is on the wrong side of common sense because Google was also helping Oracle's thing stay popular by increasing the motivation for anyone to gain familiarity with it, and I would call it a fair trade. But that's me, and my business sense is rather like a phantom limb.

> if Google wins, you just won't have a choice in the matter.

> Google winning will allow any large company to replace open source software with proprietary software with no ability for devs to protect themselves.

Can you back this up? What should I be reading if I wanted to convince myself that this is true? What if I'm not releasing a FOSS library (and necessarily publishing the API) which I hope people will use if only to justify the time I spent designing and implementing it?

You can also avoid using the file:

  wget $(...) -O - | display -