I liked checking that website, until it listed the Artemis II crew for weeks after they came back. Now I have no idea how accurate it is; I don't know what other source to compare it to.
But maybe there's a more reliable method it uses for tracking the ISS astronauts, and the Artemis II needed more human input or something. For what it's worth, both websites currently list the same ten astronauts.
Yeah you're not wrong. I've updated this site by hand since 2009. There's not one data source so for a long time I was that data source. I'll be honest: I got kind of soul-crushed when Bezos and Elon started sending people up in a way that just started to feel really dirty to me. Honestly I hated updating the site, then having to update it again an hour later every time Bezos sent someone up. It's only been in the last year that I've started keeping it current.
No, it's part of the shell. Do "man bash" or "man sh", then search with "/\!". From man bash: "If the reserved word ! precedes a pipeline, the exit status of that pipeline is the logical negation of the exit status".
Of course; those are freedoms 0 and 1 guaranteed by the license. It seems like "use" sometimes means "include in a downstream software package and redistribute modified versions of".
Right, GPL only requires contributing forward, to the downstream users. It is only through creating a culture of working upstream and or reaching out to downstream redistributors that a project gets any contributions back, including financial contributions.
My favourite example of this is using an en dash for a relationship between two separate things, rather than the more closely-connected compound adjective of a hyphen.
Italian–American relations: foreign relations between the governments of Italy and the United States.
Italian-American relations: relatives who have moved from Italy to the United States.
I'm surprised at how much of an impact your use of the en dash here has on how I read the sentence. I found myself pausing longer between words in my inner dialogue as I read "Italian–American".
Even that part is kind of misleading. Making the software open source doesn't mean that the subscription service has to shut down; those are two different decisions.
But maybe we don't have to be too critical. I tend to read "[project you've never heard of] is going open-source" as "here's a new project you might want to check out", but even if they really mean that the project is mostly shutting down, open sourcing it is a good thing to do.
In that range, just returning x would be way better. Maybe even perfect actually - if x is less than 10^-16, then the error of x^3/6 is less than the machine precision for x.
+1 for Document Viewer. I use it to read books, it's the only FOSS reader I've found that comes close to my favorite (proprietary) app, Moon+. It checks the boxes for the features I need.
Linux is licensed under GPLv2 with an additional permission (or exception):
> NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
All the contributors license their work under this license with this additional permission. So in that sense it's not really Linus interpreting the GPL, and I don't think there's a risk of a contributor revoking this permission.
But maybe this doesn't apply to kernel modules and doesn't address the GPL_ONLY symbols thing.
(1) The text of the GPLv2 does legitimately restrict user programs as derivative works of the kernel, and therefore a license exception is needed from the licensors in order avoid violating the license or copyright law.
(2) User programs are not legitimately derivative works of the kernel, and therefore a license exception is not required, and anything said on the subject is mere commentary about the prevailing legal state of affairs.
In my opinion, the idea that user programs are - in general - derivative works of the kernel is nonsense, but for people who worry that they are or might be, the clarification or exception (whichever) is quite convenient. A court is not going to enforce a requirement on the licensees that the licensors and copyright holders explicitly deny and disavow, no matter what any third party thinks about the subject.
The situation with in kernel modules is more complicated, because there the licensor copyright holders appear to be convinced that nearly any kernel module is legitimately classified as a derivative work, so estoppel doesn't apply and whether a kernel module is actually a derivative work depends such things as how much kernel inline code was included in the compilation process, if not other apparent legal nonsense like compatibility and purpose which appears to have no basis in copyright law as something that in and of itself makes for a derivative work at all.
But maybe there's a more reliable method it uses for tracking the ISS astronauts, and the Artemis II needed more human input or something. For what it's worth, both websites currently list the same ten astronauts.
reply