text:
The World of Warcraft is an expansive universe. You're playing the game, you're fighting the bosses, you know the how -- but do you know the why? Each week, Matthew Rossi and Anne Stickney make sure you Know Your Lore by covering the history of the story behind World of Warcraft.
Warlords of Draenor takes place in an alternate, splinter reality in which Garrosh Hellscream has gone back in time and prevented the leaders of the old orc clans from drinking the Blood of Mannoroth. In this version of reality, several events have changed dramatically -- leading players to ask many, many questions about alternate Azeroth, how its history has been altered, and how that changes the Azeroth we know and love today. The answer is very simple: it doesn't. Not in the slightest. That alternate Azeroth, and whatever future it may hold, has no bearing on Warlords of Draenor at all. We won't be exploring that world, and our Azeroth remains unchanged.
However, people still continue to ask. So we're going to take a little trip into that alternate reality and explore what that version of Azeroth would theoretically look like without the Dark Portal. We're going to explore this alternate world, take a look at what likely never came to pass, and what happened as a result. And then we're going to quietly put all of that away, because this is all information and events that we are not going to see in Warlords of Draenor. But it'll be nice to get it out of our systems, won't it?
Today's Know Your Lore is a Tinfoil Hat edition. The following contains speculation and history based on known material. These speculations are merely theories and shouldn't be taken as fact or official lore.


text:
This unverified photo from Twitter user @stefanielaine appears to show the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash at San Francisco International Airport. Of course, we'll update you as we get more information.
just realized I have a picture of the actual crash. holy fucking shit. pic.twitter.com/5TnOX96Gsi
— stefanielaine (@stefanielaine) July 6, 2013
UPDATE: Stefanielaine, real name Stefanie Turner, said that it came in at a bad angle, "rolled multiple times," and then broke apart.
UPDATE #2: Numerous eyewitnesses are saying the tail struck first, and there was no indication of any problem before the crash:
@Ballaban tail was way too low and struck first. I can't say whether it was in trouble before. ABC hypothesizing the pilot came in short…
— stefanielaine (@stefanielaine) July 6, 2013
UPDATE #3: Two people are dead and 61 are injured out of 291 passengers on the flight, according to the San Francisco Fire Department.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Update: Samsung has responded to TechRadar, suggesting that the wheels for a sale are very much in motion. It said: "We are currently reviewing many plans, including the sale, but nothing has been confirmed yet."
Original story continues...
Samsung is reportedly looking to sell its e-ink company Liquavista to Amazon, suggesting that future Kindles could inherit a colour e-ink display.
Liquavista's "electrowetting" display provides the e-ink look while adding colour that would potentially allow for full internet browsing and video playback.
Researcher HIS predicts that E-reader shipments will drop 27 per cent this year, which is probably some of the thinking behind Samsung's decision.
Buyer's remorse
Samsung acquired the Liquavista company in 2011, however the source said that Samsung was making the sale after its acquisition of the Dutch subsidiary didn't meet expectations.
Check out Samsung's
to discover loads more about the infinite possibilities of the GALAXY Note II
But introducing a colour-enabled e-ink display could be a big win for Amazon if it introduces it into future iterations of the Kindle.
Many people find reading from LCD screens straining on the eyes, while its current e-ink devices are limited to reading books and news feeds but little else.
Via Bloomberg


text:
Having just spent a week immersed in the music of Mikel Rouse, I find that I need to readjust how I hear music. This will not permanently change the music I present here, but it may have affected my selections for this post. We are back to the traditional verse-chorus song structure, but I still hear interlocking patterns of rhythm and harmony. And the songs that appealed to me this week all have unusual instruments or combinations of instruments. Still, in a way, what Rouse does is to strip down the pop song form to its most basic elements; here are five artists who build that form back up, each in their own way.
Liam Singer (with Wendy Allen): The Brief Encounter
[listen to samples of more songs and purchase here]
The Brief Encounter has piano, hammered dulcimer, and fiddle. I believe there are also some electronically processed sounds, but if so, that is done with great subtlety. The song tells the story of a man who has an encounter with a ghost, and the song itself floats along, wrapped in beauty. The arrangement has hardly any low end, so the sense of floating described in the lyric is perfectly stated musically. But the ghost wants to show the narrator something, and suddenly the music becomes briefly dissonant. The moment is gently jarring, and the narrator floats back to himself, somewhat shaken. It's subtle but powerful, and that could also describe the rest of the music on this album. Liam Singer presents a mix of vocal and instrumental songs here. The textures vary just enough to make the album as a whole a wonderful listen. The album was produced by Scott Solter, and the female vocalist is Wendy Allen; both are from the group Boxharp. It looks like I need to know more about them as well.
F&M: I Tripped, You Smiled
F&M is the duo of Rebecca and Ryan C Anderson, plus a shifting cast of supporting players. Their last album featured subdued vocal performances which suited the meditative quality of the songs. But Sincerely, F&M is a set of more emotional songs, and so the Andersons really cut loose here in their vocal performances. I was already impressed with Rebecca's voice last time, but in this new setting, Ryan's voice is a revelation. I Tripped, You Smiled features both of their voices, with different musical settings when he sings and when she does. The song depicts an argument between lovers, and this musical device puts a distance between them that helps to put across the uncertainty and yearning of the situation. The substance of the argument is not important here, but the conflicting emotions of the situation come through perfectly.
Hilary Grist: Tall Buildings
Tall Buildings is based on a chiming figure on the piano, plus an interesting rhythm in hand claps. In the course of the song, Hilary Grist will take this basic figure, and change the arrangement in various ways, enhancing it with additional instruments. But that simple figure never quite goes away, although it sometimes exists as a mere shadow. It gives the song an insistent power. Elsewhere on this album, Grist switches up the arrangements considerably, even using a small marching band on one song. It all holds together beautifully, and shows Grist to be a wonderfully passionate and imaginative musician.
Robert Steel: Goodnight to My Childhood
Robert Steel's album The Calm Waters of Youth is probably as close to being folk as the music in this post gets, but there is still a ways to go. The title of the album is meant ironically, as the emotions here are quite turbulent. In the song Goodnight to My Childhood, the narrator finds himself in the neighborhood where he grew up. He finds his old house, and sees that all traces that he and his family ever lived there are gone. This causes him to experience a flood of memories of his lost childhood. This is rendered completely without cliché, and with a specificity that makes the song powerful indeed. The music is based around Steel's acoustic guitar, and has a tolling quality that only enhances the mood. The song is good taste of what to expect from the album as a whole. Calm Waters feels like the work of a man who is exorcising some personal demons. The musicianship is high throughout, making this one of the most emotional albums I expect to hear this year.
Bekah Kelso: Bang Bang
Bekah Kelso has the talent to go in many different musical directions. Bang Bang is a soulful folk-jazz piece that also puts me in mind of Fiona Apple. Elsewhere on this album, Kelso sings quieter ballads, and invests them with a full range of emotion. The album concludes with a spoken word piece that suggests that Kelso could also make it as a rapper if she wanted to.
Mud Blossom was Kelso's debut album two years ago. Her next one will be called Departures, and for good reason. This time, Kelso says she will be emphasizing her "hip hop/ world music flavor". That is how she described it to me. So Bang Bang doesn't give an accurate taste of what Kelso is up to now. But the song is a blast. Kelso is doing a fund drive on her own to get Departures made. She is raising the money in stages. I will have a formal post about the drive as soon as I have new music from the album to share. For now, you can get more details and donate here. As always, thank you for whatever you can do to help.


text:
Next: '#line' Syntax Details, Previous: '#line' Directive, Up: External Macro Processors [Contents][Index]
As mentioned,
makeinfo recognizes the '#line'
directives described in the previous section. However,
texinfo.tex does not and cannot. Therefore, such a line will
be incorrectly typeset verbatim if TeX sees it. The solution is to
makeinfo's macro expansion options before running
TeX. There are three approaches:
texi2dvi or its variants (see Format with
texi2dvi), you can pass -E and
will run
makeinfo first to expand macros and eliminate
makeinfo or its variants (see Generic Translator
texi2any), you can specify --no-ifinfo
--iftex -E somefile.out, and then give somefile.out to
texi2dvi in a separate command.
makeinfo will then call
texi2dvi -E.
One last caveat regarding use with TeX: since the
directives are not recognized, the line numbers emitted by the
@errormsg{} command (see Conditional Commands), or by
TeX itself, are the (incorrect) line numbers from the derived file
which TeX is reading, rather than the preprocessor-specified line
numbers. This is another example of why we recommend running
makeinfo for the best diagnostics (see
makeinfo Advantages).


text: In honor of the 20th anniversary of the debut of Deep Space Nine, I'll be publishing a few stand-alone stories taking place during the series run. This series is tentatively titled "Deep Space Nine: Phase 1A" after the unaired second Star Trek series known retrospectively as "Star Trek: Phase 2". "Calculated Risks" Doctor Bashir asks Commander Sisko to intermediate with an alien family who, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to allow a routine treatment that would save their dying child. Major Kira embarks on a rescue mission to one of Bajor's outer colonies, where channeling her inner-terrorist may prove costly. Other notes: The A and B-plots of this story are loosely based on the Babylon 5 episode "Believers". Of course, when asked if that particular episode was at all based on a DS9 novel, creator Joe Straczynski answered that the author, "likely got his notion of the sick kid and the religious parents from the same basic source we did: the headlines." Similarly, the premise of this story also draws on the overall medical ethics issue of respecting a patient's religious beliefs, as well as a recent episode of Grey's Anatomy. Takes place in 2369, DS9's first season, four months after "Emissary" and some time after "Battle Lines", as the runabout Orinoco, the Yangtzee Kiang's replacement, is featured here. Girani Semna was first referenced in the seventh season DS9 episode "Chrysalis", with numerous appearances in DS9 relaunch novels.


text:
↓ skip to content
Product search
If you are having difficulty finding the product(s) of interest please contact us.
View our brochure online or download it to view offline.
The 'Here to Help Mobility Scheme' is available from Better Mobility.
Stay up to date with our product and company news - subscribe to our email newsletters.
£15.00 exc. VAT / £18.00 inc. VAT
More details
Better Mobility Ltd
t: 0808 2959 909 • f: 01442 768 783 • e: email@example.com
Unit 1, Asheridge Business Centre, Asheridge Road, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, HP5 2PT, United Kingdom


text: A month ago we presented the latest derivatives update from the OCC, according to which the Top 5 US banks held 95.7%, or $221 trillion of the entire US derivative universe (which in turn is just a modest portion of the entire $707 trillion in global derivatives as of June 30, 2011). And while the numbers of all this credit money, because that's what it is, and the variation margin associated with all these trillions in bets is all too real, appeared impressive on paper, they did not do this story enough service. So to present, visually this time, the US derivatives problem, we go to our friends from Demonocracy, who put the $229 trillion derivative 'issue' in its proper context. For those curious what a paper equivalent of bailing out the US derivatives market would look like, now you know.


text:
Frequent Links
GNU General Public License
GNU GPLv3 Logo
|Richard Stallman
|Latest version
|Free Software Foundation
|29 June 2007
|DFSG compatible
|FSF approved
|OSI approved
|Linking from code with a different license
|No (except for software licensed under GPLv3 compatible licenses)[5]
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is the most widely used[6] free software license, which guarantees end users (individuals, organizations, companies) the freedoms to use, study, share (copy), and modify the software. Software that allows these rights is called free software and, if the software is copylefted, requires those rights to be retained. The GPL demands both. The license was originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project.
In other words, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition[7] and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved whenever the work is distributed, even when the work is changed or added to. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses and the MIT License are the standard examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use.
As of August 2007[update], the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects listed on Freecode,[8] and as of January 2006[update], about 68% of the projects listed on SourceForge.net.[9] Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source code was licensed under the GPL[10] and a 1997 survey of MetaLab, then the largest free software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the software licensed therein.[11] Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Some other free software programs (MySQL is a prominent example) are dual-licensed under multiple licenses, often with one of the licenses being the GPL.
David A. Wheeler argues that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of Linux-based systems, giving the programmers who contributed to the kernel the assurance that their work would benefit the whole world and remain free, rather than being exploited by software companies that would not have to give anything back to the community.[12]
On 29 June 2007, the third version of the license (GNU GPLv3) was released to address some perceived problems with the second version (GNU GPLv2) that were discovered during its long-time usage. To keep the license up-to-date, the GPL license includes an optional "any later version" clause, allowing users to choose between the original terms or the terms in new versions as updated by the FSF. Developers can omit it when licensing their software; for instance the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 without the "any later version" clause.[13]
- 1 History
- 2 Terms and conditions
- 3 Derivations
- 4 Linking and derived works
- 5 Legal status
- 6 Compatibility and multi-licensing
- 7 Reception
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
The GPL was written by Richard Stallman in 1989 for use with programs released as part of the GNU project. The original GPL was based on a unification of similar licenses used for early versions of GNU Emacs, the GNU Debugger and the GNU C Compiler.[14] These licenses contained similar provisions to the modern GPL, but were specific to each program, rendering them incompatible, despite being the same license.[15] Stallman's goal was to produce one license that could be used for any project, thus making it possible for many projects to share code.
The second version of the license, version 2, was released in 1991. Over the following 15 years, members of the free software community became concerned over problems in the GPLv2 license which allowed GPL-licensed software to be exploited in ways that were contrary to the intentions of the license.[16] These problems included tivoization (the inclusion of GPL-licensed software in hardware that will refuse to run modified versions of its software); incompatibility issues like with the Affero General Public License; and patent deals between Microsoft and distributors of free and open source software, which were viewed as an attempt to use patents as a weapon against the free software community.
Version 3 was developed to attempt to address these concerns and was officially released on 29 June 2007.[17]
Version 1
Version 1 of the GNU GPL,[18] released on 25 February 1989,[19] prevented what were then the two main ways that software distributors restricted the freedoms that define free software. The first problem was that distributors may publish binary files only—executable, but not readable or modifiable by humans. To prevent this, GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human-readable source code available under the same licensing terms (Sections 3a and 3b of the license).
The second problem was the distributors might add additional restrictions, either by adding restrictions to the license, or by combining the software with other software which had other restrictions on its distribution. If this was done, then the union of the two sets of restrictions would apply to the combined work, thus unacceptable restrictions could be added. To prevent this, GPLv1 said that modified versions, as a whole, had to be distributed under the terms in GPLv1 (Sections 2b and 4 of the license). Therefore, software distributed under the terms of GPLv1 could be combined with software under more permissive terms, as this would not change the terms under which the whole could be distributed, but software distributed under GPLv1 could not be combined with software distributed under a more restrictive license, as this would conflict with the requirement that the whole be distributable under the terms of GPLv1.
Version 2
According to Richard Stallman, the major change in GPLv2 was the "Liberty or Death" clause, as he calls it — Section 7.[15] This section says that if somebody has restrictions imposed that prevent him or her from distributing GPL-covered software in a way that respects other users' freedom (for example, if a legal ruling states that he or she can only distribute the software in binary form), he or she cannot distribute it at all. The hope is, that this will make it less tempting for companies to use patent threats to require a fee from the free software developers.
By 1990, it was becoming apparent that a less restrictive license would be strategically useful for the C library and for software libraries that essentially did the job of existing proprietary ones;[20] when version 2 of the GPL (GPLv2) was released in June 1991, therefore, a second license — the Library General Public License — was introduced at the same time and numbered with version 2 to show that both were complementary. The version numbers diverged in 1999 when version 2.1 of the LGPL was released, which renamed it the GNU Lesser General Public License to reflect its place in the philosophy.
Version 3
In late 2005, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) announced work on version 3 of the GPL (GPLv3). On 16 January 2006, the first "discussion draft" of GPLv3 was published, and the public consultation began. The public consultation was originally planned for nine to fifteen months but finally stretched to eighteen months with four drafts being published. The official GPLv3 was released by FSF on 29 June 2007. GPLv3 was written by Richard Stallman, with legal counsel from Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center.[21]
According to Stallman, the most important changes are in relation to software patents, free software license compatibility, the definition of "source code", and hardware restrictions on software modification ("tivoization").[21][22] Other changes relate to internationalization, how license violations are handled, and how additional permissions can be granted by the copyright holder.
It also adds a provision that "strips" DRM of its legal value, so people can break anything a court might recognize as DRM on GPL software without breaking laws like the DMCA.[23]
The public consultation process was coordinated by the Free Software Foundation with assistance from Software Freedom Law Center, Free Software Foundation Europe,[24] and other free software groups. Comments were collected from the public via the gplv3.fsf.org web portal.[25] That portal runs purpose-written software called stet.
During the public consultation process, 962 comments were submitted for the first draft.[26] By the end, a total of 2,636 comments had been submitted.[27][28][29]
The third draft was released on 28 March 2007.[30] This draft included language intended to prevent patent-related agreements like the controversial Microsoft-Novell patent agreement and restricts the anti-tivoization clauses to a legal definition of a "User" or "consumer product". It also explicitly removed the section on "Geographical Limitations", whose probable removal had been announced at the launch of the public consultation.
The fourth discussion draft,[31] which was the last, was released on 31 May 2007. It introduced Apache License compatibility, clarified the role of outside contractors, and made an exception to avoid the perceived problems of a Microsoft–Novell style agreement, saying in Section 11 paragraph 6 that
You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license [...]
This aims to make future such deals ineffective. The license is also meant to cause Microsoft to extend the patent licenses it grants to Novell customers for the use of GPLv3 software to all users of that GPLv3 software; this is possible only if Microsoft is legally a "conveyor" of the GPLv3 software.[32][33]
Also, early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like requirement which would have plugged the ASP loophole in the GPL.[34][35] As there were concerns expressed about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement, it was decided to keep the GPL and the Affero license separated.[36]
Others, notably some high-profile developers of the Linux kernel, for instance Linus Torvalds, Greg Kroah-Hartman and Andrew Morton, commented to the mass media and made public statements about their objections to parts of discussion drafts 1 and 2, referring to clauses regarding DRM/Tivoization, patents and "additional restrictions".[37][38] Linus Torvalds, who decided to not adopt the GPLv3 for the Linux kernel,[13] reiterated his criticism even years later.[39][40]
GPLv3 improves compatibility with several open source software licenses such as Apache License, version 2.0, and the GNU Affero General Public License which GPLv2 could not be combined with.[41] But on the downside, GPLv3 software can only be combined and share code with GPLv2 software if the used GPLv2 license has the optional "or later" clause and the software is upgraded to GPLv3. While the "GPLv2 or any later version" clause is considered by FSF as the most common form of licensing GPLv2 software,[42] for example Toybox developer Rob Landley described it as a lifeboat clause.[43] Software projects which are licensed with the optional "or later" clause include the GNU Project, while a prominent example without the clause is the Linux kernel.[13]
The final version of the license text was published on 29 June 2007.[44]
In August 2013, according to Black Duck Software, the website's data show that the GPL license family is used by 54% of open-source projects, with a breakdown of the individual licenses shown in the following table.[45]
|Usage percentage
In a blog post by 451 Group analyst Matthew Aslett, Aslett argued that copyleft licenses went into decline and permissive licenses increased, based on statistics from Black Duck Software.[46] However, a later study showed that software licensed under the GPL license family has increased, and that even the data from Black Duck Software have shown a total increase of software projects licensed under GPL. The study used public information gathered from repositories of the Debian Project, and the study criticized Black Duck Software for not publishing their methodology used in collecting statistics.[47] Daniel German, Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Victoria in Canada, presented a talk in 2013 about the methodological challenges in determining which are the most widely used free software licenses, and showed how he could not replicate the result from Black Duck Software.[48]
In 2011, four years after the release of the GPLv3, according to Black Duck Software data, 6.5% of all open-source license projects are GPLv3 while 42.5% are GPLv2.[49] Google open-source programs office manager Chris DiBona reported that the number of open-source projects licensed software that had moved to GPLv3 from GPLv2 was 50% in 2009, counting the projects hosted at Google Code.[50]
Terms and conditions
The terms and conditions of the GPL must be made available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use,[51] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.
The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL". This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract. Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.
The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.
The FSF does not hold the copyright for a work released under the GPL, unless an author explicitly assigns copyrights to the FSF (which seldom happens except for programs that are part of the GNU project). Only the individual copyright holders have the authority to sue when a license violation takes place.
Use of licensed software
Software under the GPL may be run for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, for example when using GPL-licensed compilers.[52] Users or companies who distribute GPL-licensed works (e.g. software), may charge a fee for copies or give them free of charge. This distinguishes the GPL from shareware software licenses that allow copying for personal use but prohibit commercial distribution, or proprietary licenses where copying is prohibited by copyright law. The FSF argues that freedom-respecting free software should also not restrict commercial use and distribution (including redistribution):[51] the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.
In purely private (or internal) use —with no sales and no distribution— the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code need to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions— in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.[53]
However, software running as an application program under a GPL-licensed operating system such as Linux is not required to be licensed under GPL or to be distributed with source-code availability—the licensing depends only on the used libraries and software components and not on the underlying platform.[54] For example if a program consists only of own original custom software, or is combined with source code from other software components,[55] then the own custom software components need not be licensed under GPL and need not make their code available; even if the underlying operating system used is licensed under the GPL, applications running on it are not considered derivative works.[54] Only if GPLed parts are used in a program (and the program is distributed), then all other source code of the program needs to be made available under the same license terms. The GNU Lesser General Public license (LGPL) was created to have a weaker copyleft than the GPL, in that it does not require own custom-developed source code (distinct from the LGPLed parts) to be made available under the same license terms.
The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
Copyleft thus uses copyright law to accomplish the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of imposing restrictions, it grants rights to other people, in a way that ensures the rights cannot subsequently be taken away. It also ensures that unlimited redistribution rights are not granted, should any legal flaw be found in the copyleft statement.[citation needed]
Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.
Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. One is allowed to make private modified versions, without any obligation to divulge the modifications as long as the modified software is not distributed to anyone else. Note that the copyleft applies only to the software and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program[56]). For example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software because its output is not a derivative.
There has been debate on whether it is a violation of the GPL to release the source code in obfuscated form, such as in cases in which the author is less willing to make the source code available. The consensus was that while unethical, it was not considered a violation. The issue was clarified when the license was altered with v2 to require that the "preferred" version of the source code be made available.[57]
License versus contract
The GPL was designed as a license, rather than a contract.[58][59] In some Common Law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between a license and a contract is an important one: contracts are enforceable by contract law, whereas licenses are enforced under copyright law. However, this distinction is not useful in the many jurisdictions where there are no differences between contracts and licenses, such as Civil Law systems.[60]
Those who do not accept the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'd program, they may still use the software within their organization however they like, and works (including programs) constructed by the use of the program are not required to be covered by this license.
Allison Randal argued that the GPLv3 as a license is unnecessarily confusing for lay readers, and could be simplified while retaining the same conditions and legal force.[61]
The text of the GPL is itself copyrighted, and the copyright is held by the Free Software Foundation.
The FSF permits people to create new licenses based on the GPL, as long as the derived licenses do not use the GPL preamble without permission. This is discouraged, however, since such a license might be incompatible with the GPL[62] and causes a perceived license proliferation.
Other licenses created by the GNU project include the GNU Lesser General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License.
The text of the GPL is not itself under the GPL. The license's copyright disallows modification of the license. Copying and distributing the license is allowed since the GPL requires recipients to get "a copy of this License along with the Program".[63] According to the GPL FAQ, anyone can make a new license using a modified version of the GPL as long as he or she uses a different name for the license, does not mention "GNU", and removes the preamble, though the preamble can be used in a modified license if permission to use it is obtained from the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
Linking and derived works
According to the FSF, "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them."[64] However if one releases a GPL-licensed entity to the public, there is an issue regarding linking: namely, if a proprietary program uses a GPL library, is the proprietary program in violation of the GPL?
This key dispute is whether or not non-GPL software can legally statically link or dynamically link to GPL libraries. Different opinions exist on this issue. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the GPL. Ambiguity arises with regards to using GPL libraries, and bundling GPL software into a larger package (perhaps mixed into a binary via static linking). This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. The following points of view exist:
Point of view: dynamic and static linking violate GPL
The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself) asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is indeed a derivative work. This does not however apply to separate programs communicating with one another.[65]
The Free Software Foundation also created the LGPL, which is nearly identical to the GPL, but with additional permissions to allow linking for the purposes of "using the library".
Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.[66]
Point of view: static linking violates GPL but unclear as of dynamic linking
Some people believe that while static linking produces derivative works, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL code should be considered a derivative work (see Weak Copyleft). Linux author Linus Torvalds agrees that dynamic linking can create derived works but disagrees over the circumstances.[67]
A Novell lawyer has written that dynamic linking not being derivative "makes sense" but is not "clear-cut", and that evidence for good-intentioned dynamic linking can be seen by the existence of proprietary Linux kernel drivers.[68]
In Galoob v. Nintendo the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined a derivative work as having "'form' or permanence" and noted that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form",[69] but there have been no clear court decisions to resolve this particular conflict.
Point of view: linking is irrelevant
According to an article in the Linux Journal, Lawrence Rosen (OSI general counsel) argues that the method of linking is mostly irrelevant to the question about whether a piece of software is a derivative work; more important is the question about whether the software was intended to interface with client software and/or libraries.[70] He states, "The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used [in a copy-paste sense], modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work,"[70] and lists numerous other points regarding intent, bundling, and linkage mechanism. He further argues on his firm's website[71] that such "market-based" factors are more important than the linking technique.
There is also the specific issue of whether a plugin or module (such as the NVidia or ATI graphics card kernel modules) must also be GPL, if it could reasonably be considered its own work. This point of view suggests that reasonably separate plugins, or plugins for software designed to use plugins, could be licensed under an arbitrary license if the work is GPLv2. Of particular interest is the GPLv2 paragraph:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
It should be noted that the GPLv3 has a different clause:
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of Section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable Section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
As a case study, some supposedly proprietary plugins and themes/skins for GPLv2 CMS software such as Drupal and WordPress have come under fire, with both sides of the argument taken.[72][73]
The FSF differentiates on how the plug-in is being invoked. If the Plug-in is invoked through dynamic linkage and it performs function calls to the GPL program then it is most likely a derivative work.[74]
Communicating and bundling with non-GPL programs
The mere act of communicating with other programs does not, by itself, require all software to be GPL; nor does distributing GPL software with non-GPL software. However, minor conditions must be followed that ensures the rights of GPL software is not restricted. The following is a quote from the gnu.org GPL FAQ, which describes to what extent software is allowed to communicate with and be-bundled-with GPL programs:
'What is the difference between an "aggregate" and other kinds of "modified versions"?
An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.
Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange, and 2) mechanism (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and that in complex situations, case law will need to decide.
Legal status
The first known violation of the GPL was in 1989 when NeXT extended the GCC compiler to support Objective-C, but did not publicly release the changes.[75] After an inquiry they created a public patch. There was no lawsuit filed for this violation.
In 2002, MySQL AB sued Progress NuSphere for copyright and trademark infringement in United States district court. NuSphere had allegedly violated MySQL's copyright by linking MySQL's GPL'ed code with NuSphere Gemini table without being in compliance with the license. After a preliminary hearing before Judge Patti Saris on 27 February 2002, the parties entered settlement talks and eventually settled.[76] After the hearing, FSF commented that "Judge Saris made clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license."[77]
In August 2003, the SCO Group stated that they believed the GPL to have no legal validity, and that they intended to pursue lawsuits over sections of code supposedly copied from SCO Unix into the Linux kernel. This was a problematic stand for them, as they had distributed Linux and other GPL'ed code in their Caldera OpenLinux distribution, and there is little evidence that they had any legal right to do so except under the terms of the GPL. For more information, see SCO-Linux controversies and SCO v. IBM.
In April 2004, the netfilter/iptables project was granted a preliminary injunction against Sitecom Germany by Munich District Court after Sitecom refused to desist from distributing Netfilter's GPL'ed software in violation of the terms of the GPL. Harald Welte, of Netfilter, was represented by ifrOSS co-founder Till Jaeger. On July 2004, the German court confirmed this injunction as a final ruling against Sitecom.[78] The court's justification was that:
- Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.
This exactly mirrored the predictions given previously by the FSF's Eben Moglen. This ruling was important because it was the first time that a court had confirmed that violating terms of the GPL could be a copyright violation and established jurisprudence as to the enforceability of the GPL version 2 under German law.[79]
In May 2005, Daniel Wallace filed suit against the Free Software Foundation in the Southern District of Indiana, contending that the GPL is an illegal attempt to fix prices (at zero). The suit was dismissed in March 2006, on the grounds that Wallace had failed to state a valid anti-trust claim; the court noted that "the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers".[80] Wallace was denied the possibility of further amending his complaint, and was ordered to pay the FSF's legal expenses.
On 8 September 2005, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the GPL was not material to a case dealing with trade secrets derived from GPL-licensed work.[81] Defendants argued that since it is impossible to maintain trade secrets while being compliant with GPL and distributing the work, they are not in breach of trade secrets. This argument was considered without ground.
On 6 September 2006, the gpl-violations.org project prevailed in court litigation against D-Link Germany GmbH regarding D-Link's copyright-infringing use of parts of the Linux Kernel in storage devices they distributed.[82] The judgment stated that the GPL is valid, legally binding, and stands in German court.[83]
In late 2007, the BusyBox developers and the Software Freedom Law Center embarked upon a program to gain GPL compliance from distributors of BusyBox in embedded systems, suing those who would not comply. These were claimed to be the first US uses of courts for enforcement of GPL obligations. See BusyBox GPL lawsuits.
On 11 December 2008, the Free Software Foundation sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for copyright violations by its Linksys division, of the FSF's GPL-licensed coreutils, readline, Parted, Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, binutils, and GNU Debugger software packages, which Linksys distributes in the Linux firmware[84] of its WRT54G wireless routers, as well as numerous other devices including DSL and Cable modems, Network Attached Storage devices, Voice-Over-IP gateways, Virtual Private Network devices and a home theater/media player device.[85]
After six years of repeated complaints to Cisco by the FSF, claims by Cisco that they would correct, or were correcting, their compliance problems (not providing complete copies of all source code and their modifications), of repeated new violations being discovered and reported with more products, and lack of action by Linksys (a process described on the FSF blog as a "five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole"[85]) the FSF took them to court.
Cisco settled the case six months later by agreeing "to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys" to ensure compliance, "to notify previous recipients of Linksys products containing FSF programs of their rights under the GPL," to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website, and to make a monetary contribution to the FSF.[86]
Compatibility and multi-licensing
Code licensed under several other licenses can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, as long as the combination of restrictions on the work as a whole does not put any additional restrictions beyond what GPL allows.[87] In addition to the regular terms of the GPL, there are additional restrictions and permissions one can apply:
- If a user wants to combine code licensed under different versions of GPL, then this is only allowed if the code with the older GPL version includes an "any later version" statement.[88] For instance, the GPLv3 licensed GNU LibreDWG library can't be used anymore by LibreCAD and FreeCAD who have GPLv2 only dependencies.[89][90]
- Code licensed under LGPL is permitted to be linked with any other code no matter what license that code has,[91] though the LGPL does add additional requirements for the combined work. LGPLv3 and GPLv2-only can thus commonly not be linked, as the combined Code work would add additional LGPLv3 requirements on top of the GPLv2-only licensed software. Code licensed under LGPLv2.x without the "any later version" statement can be relicensed if the whole combined work is licensed to GPLv2 or GPLv3.[92]
FSF maintains a list[93] of GPL-compatible free software licenses[94][95] with many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, the BSD license (in its current 3-clause form) and the Artistic License 2.0.[96]
David A. Wheeler has advocated that free/open source software developers use only GPL-compatible licenses, because doing otherwise makes it difficult for others to participate and contribute code.[97] As a specific example of license incompatibility, Sun Microsystems' ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL. Furthermore, ZFS is protected by patents, so distributing an independently developed GPL-ed implementation would still require Oracle's permission.[98]
A number of businesses use multi-licensing to distribute a GPL version and sell a proprietary license to companies wishing to combine the package with proprietary code, using dynamic linking or not. Examples of such companies include MySQL AB, Digia PLC (Qt framework, before 2011 from Nokia), Red Hat (Cygwin) and Riverbank Computing (PyQt). Other companies, like the Mozilla Foundation (products include Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Thunderbird and Mozilla Firefox), used multi-licensing to distribute versions under the GPL and some other open-source licenses.
Use for text and other media
It is possible to use the GPL for text documents instead of computer programs, or more generally for all kinds of media, if it is clear what constitutes the source code (defined as "the preferred form of the work for making changes in it").[99] For manuals and textbooks, though, the FSF recommends the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) instead, which it created for this purpose.[100] Nevertheless, the Debian developers recommended (in a resolution adopted in 2006) to license documentation for their project under the GPL, because of the incompatibility of the GFDL with the GPL (text licensed under the GFDL cannot be incorporated into GPL software).[101] Also, the FLOSS Manuals foundation, an organization devoted to creating manuals for free software, decided to eschew the GFDL in favor of the GPL for its texts in 2007.[102]
If the GPL is used for fonts, any documents or images made with such fonts might also have to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. This is not the case in countries like the US and Canada where copyright law is inapplicable to the appearance of fonts, though program code inside a font file may still be covered which can complicate font embedding (since the document could be considered 'linked' to the font). FSF provides an exception for cases where this is not desired.[103][104]
|This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as section. (January 2013)
Legal barrier to app stores
The GPL License is incompatible with many application-distribution-systems, like the Mac App Store, and certain other software distribution platforms (on smartphones as well as PCs). The problem lies in the right "To make a copy for your neighbour", as this right is violated by the integrated DRM-Systems made to prevent copying of paid software. Even if the application is free-as-in-beer in the App Store in question, it might result in a violation of that app store's terms.[105]
Note that there is a distinction between an app store which sells DRM-restricted software under proprietary licenses, and the more general concept of digital distribution via some form of online software repository: various UNIX-like distributions provide app repositories, including Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and so on. These specific app repos all contain GPL-licensed software apps, in some cases even when the core project does not permit GPL-licensed code in the base system (for instance OpenBSD[106]). In other cases, such as the Ubuntu App Store, proprietary commercial software applications and GPL-licensed applications are both available via the same system; the reason that the Mac App Store (and similar projects) is incompatible with GPL-licensed apps is not inherent in the concept of an app store, but is rather specifically due to Apple's terms-of-use requirement[105] that all apps in the store utilize Apple DRM-restrictions. Ubuntu's app store does not demand any such requirement: "These terms do not limit or restrict your rights under any applicable open source software licenses."[107]
In 2001, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer referred to Linux as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches".[108][109] In response to Microsoft's attacks on the GPL, several prominent Free Software developers and advocates released a joint statement supporting the license.[110] Microsoft has released Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX which contains GPL-licensed code. In July 2009, Microsoft itself released a body of around 20,000 lines of Linux driver code under the GPL.[111] The Hyper-V code that is part of the submitted code used open-source components licensed under the GPL and was originally statically linked to proprietary binary parts, the latter being inadmissible in GPL-licensed software.[112]
"Viral" nature
Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President has described the GPL as being "viral" in 2001.[113] Mundie argues that the GPL has a "viral" effect in that it only allows the conveyance of whole programs, which means programs that link to GPL libraries must themselves be under a GPL-compatible license, else they cannot be combined and distributed.
In the views of Richard Stallman, Mundie's metaphor of a "virus" is wrong as software under the GPL does not "attack" or "infect" other software. Stallman believes that comparing the GPL to a virus is an extremely unfriendly thing to say, and that a better metaphor for software under the GPL would be a spider plant: If one takes a piece of it and puts it somewhere else, it grows there too.[114][115][116]
Barrier to commercialization
The FreeBSD project has stated that "a less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior" and that the GPL can "present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software".[117]
Richard Stallman wrote about the practice of selling license exceptions to free software licenses as an example of ethically acceptable commercialization practice. Selling exceptions here means that the copyright holder of a given software releases it (along with the corresponding source code) to the public under a free software license, "then lets customers pay for permission to use the same code under different terms, for instance allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications". Stallman considered selling exceptions "acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software". Despite that the FSF doesn't practice selling exceptions, a comparison with the X11 license (which is a noncopyleft free software license) is proposed for suggesting that this commercialization technique should be regarded as ethically acceptable. Releasing a given program under a noncopyleft free software license would permit embedding the code in proprietary software. Stallman comments that "either we have to conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11 license—a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme—or reject this implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong. In other words, selling exceptions permits some embedding in proprietary software, and the X11 license permits even more embedding. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable".[118]
Open-source criticism
In 2005, open source software advocate Eric S. Raymond questioned the relevance of GPL at that point in time for the FOSS ecosystem, stating: "We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.".[119] Richard Stallman replied that: "GPL ensure that every user of a program gets the essential freedoms--to run it, to study and change the source code, to redistribute copies, and to publish modified versions... ESR addresses the issue in terms of different goals and values--those of "open source," which do not include defending software users' freedom to share and change software."[120]
GPLv3 separates community further
Some journalists[49][121][40] and Toybox developer Rob Landley[43] criticized that with the introduction of the GPLv3 in 2007 the split between the open source and free software community became wider than ever. As the significantly extended GPLv3 is essentially incompatible with the GPLv2,[88] compatibility between both is only given under the optional "or later" clause of the GPL, which was not taken for instance by the Linux kernel.[13] Bruce Byfield noted that before the release of the GPLv3, the GPLv2 was a unifying element between the open-source and the free software community.[49]
Lawrence Rosen, attorney and computer specialist, praised how the community using the Apache license were now able to work together with the GPL community in a compatible manner, as the problems of GPLv2 compatibility with Apache licensed software were resolved with the GPLv3. He said, "I predict that one of the biggest success stories of GPLv3 will be the realization that the entire universe of free and open source software can thus be combined into comprehensive open source solutions for customers worldwide."[122]
See also
- Anti-copyright
- Dual-licensing
- European Union Public Licence (EUPL)
- GPL font exception
- List of software licenses
- Permissive and copyleft licenses
- ^ "Debian – License information". Software in the Public Interest, Inc. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
- ^ a b "Licenses – Free Software Foundation". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
- ^ "Licenses by Name". Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
- ^ "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism – Free Software Foundation". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
- ^ "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL)". Free Software Foundation.
- ^ "Top 20 Open Source Licenses". Black Duck Software. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- ^ GPL FAQ: Does using the GPL for a program make it GNU Software?
- ^ "Freecode's statistics page".
- ^ "SourceForge.net: Software Map". Dwheeler.com. Retrieved 17 November 2008.
- ^ David A. Wheeler. "Estimating Linux's Size".
- ^ David A. Wheeler. "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else".
- ^ "Why the GPL rocketed Linux to success".
So while the BSDs have lost energy every time a company gets involved, the GPL'ed programs gain every time a company gets involved.
- ^ a b c d Torvalds, Linus. "COPYING". kernel.org. Retrieved 13 August 2013.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
- ^ "The History of the GPL". Retrieved 24 November 2011.
- ^ a b Stallman, Richard (21 April 2006). "Presentation at the second international GPLv3 conference, held in Porto Alegre".
- ^ "Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 --GPLv3". Fsf.org. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
- ^ "FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 – Free Software Foundation – working together for free software". Fsf.org. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ "GNU General Public License, version 1".
- ^ "New General Public License".
- ^ For the reasoning see The GNU project.
- ^ a b Stallman, Richard (25 February 2006). "Presentation in Brussels, Belgium—the first day of that year's FOSDEM conference.".
- ^ Interview with Richard Stallman, Free Software Magazine, 23 January 2008.
- ^ "A Quick Guide to GPLv3 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Free Software Foundation.
- ^ "GPLv3: Drafting version 3 of the GNU General Public License". Free Software Foundation Europe.
- ^ "gplv3.fsf.org comments for discussion draft 4".
- ^ "gplv3.fsf.org comments for draft 1".
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' [...] found 962
- ^ "gplv3.fsf.org comments for draft 2".
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' [...] found 727
- ^ "gplv3.fsf.org comments for draft 3".
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-3' [...] found 649
- ^ "gplv3.fsf.org comments for draft 4".
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-4' [...] found 298
- ^ "Guide to the third draft of GPLv3".
- ^ "Final Discussion Draft". Retrieved 4 June 2007.
- ^ "GPL version 3 FAQ". Retrieved 4 June 2007.
- ^ "Fourth Discussion Draft Rationale" (PDF). Retrieved 4 June 2007.
- ^ Tiemann, Michael (7 June 2007). "GNU Affero GPL version 3 and the "ASP loophole"". OSI. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
- ^ List of free-software licences on the FSF website: "We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network".
- ^ Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license? on gnu.org
- ^ James E.J. Bottomley, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Thomas Gleixner, Christoph Hellwig, Dave Jones, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Tony Luck, Andrew Morton, Trond Myklebust, David Woodhouse (15 September 2006). "Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 - The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3". LWN.net. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses [...] 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause [...] 5.3 Patents Provisions [...]since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.
- ^ Petreley, Nicholas (27 September 2006). "A fight against evil or a fight for attention?". linuxjournal.com. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
Second, the war between Linus Torvalds and other Kernel developers and the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3 is continuing, with Torvalds saying he's fed up with the FSF.
- ^ Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for Debconf 2014, Portland (accessed 11 March, 2015)
- ^ a b Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). "Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2". internetnews.com. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
"In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."
- ^ "GPL 3 Overview". Tech LawForum. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
- ^ "A Quick Guide to GPLv3 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Free Software Foundation.
- ^ a b Landley, Rob. "CELF 2013 Toybox talk - http://landley.net/talks/celf-2013.txt". landley.net. Retrieved 21 August 2013.
GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code. [...] FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when boat wasn't sinking.[...]
- ^ "GNU General Public License". Retrieved 15 June 2012.
- ^ "Top 20 licenses". Black Duck Software. 23 August 2013. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
1. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 33%, 2. Apache License 13%, 3. GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 12%
- ^ Proffitt, Brian (16 December 2011). "GPL, copyleft use declining faster than ever - Data suggests a sharper rate of decline, which raises the question: why?". IT world. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
- ^ "GPL use in Debian on the rise: study". Itwire.com. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
- ^ "Surveying open source licenses". Lwn.net. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
- ^ a b c Byfield, Bruce (22 November 2011). "7 Reasons Why Free Software Is Losing Influence: Page 2". Datamation.com. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
At the time, the decision seemed sensible in the face of a deadlock. But now, GPLv2 is used for 42.5% of free software, and GPLv3 for less than 6.5%, according to Black Duck Software.
- ^ Asay, Matt (23 July 2009). "GPLv3 hits 50 percent adoption | The Open Road - CNET News". News.cnet.com. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
- ^ a b "Selling Free Software". Free Software Foundation.
- ^ GPL FAQ: Use GPL Tools to develop non-free programs
- ^ GPL FAQ: GPL require source posted to public, Unreleased modifications, Internal Distribution
- ^ a b GPL FAQ: Port program to GNU/Linux
- ^ example: if only GNU Lesser General Public License- (LGPL-) libraries, LGPL-software-components and components with permissive free software licenses are used (thus not GPL itself), then only the source code of LGPL parts has to be made available— for the developer's own self-developed software components this is not required (even when the underlying operating system used is licensed under GPL, as is the case with Linux).
- ^ A counter example is the GPL'ed GNU Bison: the parsers it outputs do contain parts of itself and are therefore derivatives which would fall under the GPL, if it were not for a special exception granted by GNU Bison: "Conditions for Using Bison". Retrieved 11 December 2008.
- ^ "Reasoning behind the "preferred form" language in the GPL". LWN.net. 7 March 2011.
- ^ "Essay by Stallman explaining why a license is more suitable than a contract".
- ^ "Eben Moglen explaining why the GPL is a license and why it matters".
- ^ Guadamuz-Gonzalez, Andres (2004). "Viral contracts or unenforceable documents? Contractual validity of copyleft licenses". European Intellectual Property Review 26 (8): 331–339.
- ^ Allison Randal (14 May 2007). "GPLv3, Clarity and Simplicity". Archived from the original on 15 October 2008.
- ^ "GPL FAQ: Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?".
- ^ "The GNU General Public License Version 3". Free Software Foundation. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 21 July 2009.
- ^ "GPL FAQ: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?".
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". FSF. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
- ^ "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Gnu.org. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ Linus Torvalds, GPL only modules, linux-kernel mailing list (17 December 2006).
- ^ Matt Asay, The GPL: Understanding the License that Governs Linux, Novell Cool Solutions Feature (16 Jan 2004).
- ^ Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965, ¶10 (9th Cir. 21 May 1992).
- ^ a b Lawrence Rosen, Derivative Works, Linux Journal (1 January 2003).
- ^ Lawrence Rosen, Derivative Works, rosenlaw.com (25 May 2004)
- ^ "Why They're Wrong: WordPress Plugins Shouldn't Have to be GPL". Webmaster-source.com. 29 January 2009. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ "Licensing FAQ". Drupal.org. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Gnu.org. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ 12 Years of GPL Compliance: A Historical Perspective, Slide 10
- ^ See Progress Software Corporation v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002), on defendant's motion for preliminary injunction.
- ^ "Judge Saris defers GNU GPL Questions for Trial in MySQL vs. Progress Software". gnu.org. Retrieved 24 March 2011.
- ^ Harald Welte vs. Sitecom, final order, translated from German by Jens Maurer
- ^ Bird & Bird, A Review of German Case Law on the GNU General Public License, 17 December 2007, retrieved 1 March 2012
- ^ Dismissal of Wallace v. FSF. From this article on Groklaw.
- ^ Seoul Central District Court ruling (?) (in Korean)
- ^ gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link
- ^ D-Link Judgment (English translation) Invalid language code. D-Link Judgement Invalid language code.
- ^ Ewing, James (1 August 2004). "Linux on Linksys Wi-Fi Routers". Linux Journal. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
- ^ a b "Free Software Foundation Files Suit Against Cisco For GPL Violations" (Press release). Free Software Foundation. 11 December 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
- ^ "FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco" (Press release). Free Software Foundation. 20 May 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
- ^ "The GNU General Public License v3.0 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". fsf.org. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
- ^ a b "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?". gnu.org. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL "version 2 or later," that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
- ^ Larabel, Michael (24 January 2013). "FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project". Phoronix. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can't integrate them. The programs have dependencies on the popular GPLv2 license while the Free Software Foundation will only let LibreDWG be licensed for GPLv3 use, not GPLv2.
- ^ Prokoudine, Alexandre (27 December 2012). "LibreDWG drama: the end or the new beginning?". libregraphicsworld.org. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
[...]the unfortunate situation with support for DWG files in free CAD software via LibreDWG. We feel, by now it ought to be closed. We have the final answer from FSF. [...] "We are not going to change the license."
- ^ "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)". fsf.org. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – How are the various GNU licenses compatible with each other?". The official site. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
- ^ "Various licenses with comments – GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses". FSF. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – What does it mean to say that two licenses are "compatible"?". FSF. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL?"". FSF. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
- ^ "Black Duck Open Source Resource Center". blackducksoftware.com. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
- ^ "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.". David A. Wheeler. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
- ^ Linux: ZFS, Licenses and Patents | KernelTrap
- ^ Free Software Foundation: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses: Can I use the GPL for something other than software?. Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^ GNU project: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses: Why don't you use the GPL for manuals? . Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^ Debian Project: Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian. Voted February–March 2006. . Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^ FLOSS Manuals foundation: License Change 6 June 2007. . Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^ "Font Licensing".
- ^ "How does the GPL apply to fonts?".
- ^ a b "The GPL, the App Store and You"
- ^ "Copyright Policy", OpenBSD
- ^ "Ubuntu One : Terms and Conditions". One.ubuntu.com. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013.
- ^ Newbart, Dave (1 June 2001). "Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2001.(Internet archive link)
- ^ text of GPL v1 with reference to source code download site at microsoft.com
- ^ 12px Free Software Leaders Stand Together. Wikisource.
- ^ Clarke, Gavin (20 July 2009). "Microsoft embraces Linux cancer to sell Windows servers". The Register.
- ^ Clarke, Gavin (23 July 2009). "Microsoft opened Linux-driver code after 'violating' GPL". The Register.
- ^ "Speech Transcript – Craig Mundie, The New York University Stern School of Business", Prepared Text of Remarks by Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President, The Commercial Software Model The New York University Stern School of Business 3 May 2001
- ^ Poynder, Richard (21 March 2006). "The Basement Interviews: Freeing the Code". Retrieved 5 February 2010.
- ^ Chopra, Samir; Dexter, Scott (14 August 2007). Decoding liberation: the promise of free and open source software. Routledge. p. 56. ISBN 0-415-97893-9.
- ^ Williams, Sam (March 2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 0-596-00287-4.
- ^ GPL Advantages and Disadvantages, FreeBSD: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.sgml,v 1.5 2006/10/16 12:35:23 keramida Exp
- ^ Richard Stallman (2010). On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL. Free Software Foundation.
- ^ Biancuzzi, Federico (2005-06-30). "ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"". onlamp.com. Retrieved 2015-02-10.
"We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it."
- ^ "RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay". onlamp.com. 2005-09-22. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
"ESR addresses the issue in terms of different goals and values--those of "open source," which do not include defending software users' freedom to share and change software. Perhaps he thinks the GNU GPL is not needed to achieve those goals."
- ^ McDougall, Paul (2007-07-10). "Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites' As Open Source Debate Turns Nasty". informationweek.com. Archived from the original on 2008-04-13. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
[...]the latest sign of a growing schism in the open source community between business-minded developers like Torvalds and free software purists.
- ^ "Comments on GPLv3". Rosenlaw.com. 2007. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
External links
|Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Free software Licensing
- GNU General Public License (version 3)
- History of the GPL
- GNU General Public License v1.0—This version is deprecated by the FSF.
- GNU General Public License v2.0—This version is deprecated by the FSF but is still used by many software projects, including Linux and GNU packages
- The Emacs General Public License, a February 1988 version, a direct predecessor of the GNU GPL
- A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance (Covers GPLv2 and v3)—from the Software Freedom Law Center
- A paper on enforcing the GPL
- Frequently Asked Questions about the GPL
- GPL, BSD, and NetBSD – why the GPL rocketed Linux to success by David A. Wheeler
- GNU General Public License and Commentaries, edited by Robert Chassell
- List of presentation transcripts about the GPL and free software licenses
- Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else. (David A. Wheeler, 7 April 2004)—why a GPL-compatible license is important to the health of a project
- The Labyrinth of Software Freedom (BSD vs GPL and social aspects of free licensing debate), by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov


text:
Hey Everybody we are getting ready to revamp our entire testing platforms and thought we would invite you the viewer or reader to participate in our decision making process. In that light we have made a new poll to help us help you in our future reviews. We have listed four different option paths for you to choose from and really hope you will participate in this project. Like always here at Motherboards.org your vote counts and we always appreciate your time and efforts to make us better for all.Click on the link below to go and take this new survey.
Thank you
Elric Phares


text: Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums :: View topic - Hi:) Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!" FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in Hi:) Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Making Friends View previous topic :: View next topic Author Message stonedbynatureJoined: 11 Dec 2011Posts: 1 Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:27 am Post subject: Hi:) Hello It's a pleasure for me to be participated in this forum here:) The reason why I joined this platform is that I'm on the search for a penfriend in Great Britain or America ,to get used into the english/ american culture/language and other things well some information to my person: I'm 17 years, from Germany and I'm student:) So if you're interested,just write best wishes and merry christmas Back to top Thomas_USAJoined: 07 Dec 2011Posts: 7 Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:10 am Post subject: Hey Stoned Hi there Stoned, I'm Thomas from America. I'm only 14 but I have a 17 year old brother. He lives with our mother and he's out with his friends mostly. I'll write you if you want. I like music, video games, and sports. Basketball is my favorite and I can dunk a basketball... Well, I did once. Not in a game But I still like playing and I'm pretty good at it. Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Making Friends All times are GMT - 8 Hours Page 1 of 1 Jump to: Select a forum Student Forums----------------ComputersCurrent NewsCultureEnglish SchoolsFamilyFilm and CinemaFoodHealth and FitnessHelp CenterHobbiesHolidaysLearning EnglishLiteratureMaking FriendsMusicOpinionsPetsScienceSportsThe Strange and MysteriousTOEFL and Other English ExamsTravel You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave Copyright © 2018 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group


text:
This class has been cancelled.
820 E 67th StIndianapolis, IN, 46220
Do you love being in the great outdoors? Do you find yourself amazed by the colors, shapes and textures we see in nature? Then this is the camp for you! Campers will have a blast in this camp exploring natural materials and methods to create all kids of art projects inspired by the outdoors. Projects will include outdoor painting, sun prints, fiber dying and more!
All materials are provided for Youth & Teen classes.
Expect a welcome packet to arrive in the mail one week prior to the first day of camp.
Family Membership Discount
Indianapolis Art Center members receive many benefits year-round, including discounts on programs and member-only perks at exhibition openings! To purchase a membership please visit our website.
· Members enjoy a special 10% discount on classes and camps.
· Membership includes exclusive early access to course registration.
· Members receive a $5 discount on Creative Aftercare.
· Memberships are non-transferable and non-refundable.
· Membership Discount does not apply to Make It Take Its.
Refund & Transfer Policies
· 100% refunded with seven or more days notice.
· No refunds, full or partial, will be made after this time, for any reason, including illness.
· If a camper is not available for the entire week of camp, we highly recommend that the parent chooses a different week. Camps are designed to be a full week-long learning experience and projects are not designed to be completed on a day-by-day basis. We do not prorate camps.
· Transfers may be made through Guest Services with no additional fees up to seven days before the initially scheduled camps.
· Camps are designed to be a full week-long learning experience. Transfers after the camp has begun are not recommended.
· If you choose to transfer with less than seven days? notice, you will be charged the full rate of both camps.
820 East 67th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Contact us for information:
Tel. 317.255.2464


text:
You Can read My Non-Scary Non-Gory Labour and Birth Story – Part I here.
At The Hospital, The First Assessment
There was no traffic on the way to the hospital—the city was still asleep. I didn't want to be alone so I went with Feng in the parking lot and we walked from there to the obstetric unit, instead of him dropping me off, parking the car and meeting me there. The walk was slow and painful but I was grateful we were together.
The nurse on duty was the same one I had called earlier. She was very welcoming and registered me, then put me in the exam room. At this stage, I still wasn't sure whether I was in labour.
A quick exam later—blood pressure, baby's heartbeat, everything was fine—and the nurse asked me to take off my clothes and went to get the doctor.
Unfortunately, he was busy somewhere. I waited in the exam room, cold, tired and in pain. The nurse kept on apologizing and eventually decided to assess me herself.
"Yep, you are four-centimeter dilated and your waters are bursting," she announced. "You are having that baby today! I'll get you a room."
I was the first one shocked. Seriously, already four centimeters? And seriously having the baby today?
The Birth
Feng and I were brought to one of the nicest hospital room I have ever seen. It was huge and bright (bonus for the sunrise view!), with a big bathroom attached, complete with a Jacuzzi and tub. It didn't feel medical—I love it. Again, I felt grateful for the Canadian health care system and public hospitals! We had access to a small kitchen and lots of food. I helped myself to half a chicken sandwich, figuring I'd need the energy.
I needed antibiotics because I had tested positive to the GBS test. More nurses were called because apparently my veins were too small for the catheter and IV. Meanwhile, I wasn't being too helpful—I was tired and the contractions were strong.
Feng went to get the bags from the car and some breakfast was brought. I found very funny that it included maple syrup—only in Canada! Yes, in between contractions I was taking pictures. Go figure.
I was going to hop in the hot tub after my IV went through—40 minutes, I had been told—but I never had the chance. The contractions got stronger and stronger. I was cold and tired—but trust me, you can't really sleep between contractions!
The nurse and the med students I had allowed to stay were trying to make conversation and I was trying to sound normal. Meanwhile, the ob-gyn on duty and his team of interns came by, as well as a substitute nurse when mine went on her break. "I'll be your doctor if you have that baby before 4:15," the ob-gyn announced. I glance at the clock. 9 a.m. It felt unreal.
Eventually, the pain got bad, so bad that I was screaming on top of my lungs on the bed, under layers of blankets. It felt like my insides were melting and pushing out—not a pleasant thought or feeling. "Don't push" advised the nurse. "That's the baby's head you are feeling in your back, it's okay."
She had me change position on the bed: on the side, on all four, on my back… I just obeyed.
The nurse kept on checking on me. "You are five centimeters dilated… six… You will have this baby in the afternoon," she said.
I couldn't think straight. Could I stand that much pain for a few more hours? But getting an anaesthesia team for the epidural, and then waiting for it to work, seemed too much hassle.
"Come on Juliette, take the drugs," Feng begged me at one point.
"You are eight centimeters dilated," announced the nurse. When I heard that, I thought I could do it without painkillers. I told myself it was the hardest stage and that it would be fine.
More pain and more screaming. Like, screaming. No swearing though.
"Get the doctor, the baby is coming!" singsong the experienced nurse.
I felt a warm rush of liquid—my water breaking, finally. "My waters broke," I said, almost incredulous. "That's right, and the baby's head is coming!" added the nurse.
The team came, and encouraged me. "Push!"
I had energy but pushing seemed counterproductive—I was scared to do so because it was painful. It was a strange feeling: I knew I had to push but couldn't help holding in.
But I still pushed—and screamed. And at 11:04 a.m., much much earlier than I had expected, baby Mark came out. They showed it to me and I heard it was a boy while seeing it for myself.
I heard the team encouraging Feng to cut the cord—he did—the baby was cleaned up very quickly and handed to me. I was crying and laughing—easy, the pain had stopped! "We made that!" I said to Feng. "We made that kid!"
I had a second-degree tear and was stitched up by two med students—again, no pain—while the baby was weighted and taken care of under Feng's watch. Mark was 6.1 pounds and 45-centimeter tall—no a big baby, like all the doctors had said, but healthy and doing fine.
The placenta came out and I asked to see it. Yeah, I don't find that kind of things gross and I was curious. Fascinating thing actually. The baby's umbilical cord was very short, the doctor explained, unusually so. Weird. "You aren't going to bury it under a tree?" the nurse joked. "Nope," I confirmed, "no tree in the backyard."


text: Feel the Pioneer spirit With nearly 2,600 undergraduates livling on campus, you'll share an active college experience with students from every background and perspective. We have more than 115 clubs and organizations, 28 fraternities and sororities, and 13 NCAA Division III sports teams-so there's always something exciting going on. Our beautiful residence halls provide a safe and comfortable environment for studying and participating in activities, making it easy to stay connected to everything that's happening on campus. You'll build professional connections and lifelong friendships with your fellow Pioneers. Click here to enter the Pioneer Life portal. Your personalized location to get involved and learn about clubs, organizations and events on campus.


text:
This is the first post in this blog. Thanks to those of you who are reading along from the very start!
A lot of people are interested in coming to Japan. Some only want to visit, others want to come and try living here for a while. And some want to live in Japan forever. However, one big question is:
How to make it to Japan?
There are zillions of options actually. Don't listen to all the people who tell you it's impossible.
It's true that it can be difficult, but that shouldn't stop you from trying if you really want to come here!
My story: How and why I got to Japan
I'm going to tell you my story and maybe that will give you some idea and help you to get to Japan, too.
Please keep in mind that it all depends on your nationality, education, age and many other things, so there is no "How to get to Japan" recipe, unfortunately.
Ever since elementary school I've been interested in Japan. Doing karate at that time surely was one of the triggers. Later I got into anime and manga, studied some Japanese and finally decided to visit Japan for a few weeks.
Just like all of you I had my own reasons why I wanted to see the country of the rising sun.
After my short, but awesome 3-weeks vacation in Japan back in 2007 when I just had graduated from university, I decided that it was not yet enough and that I needed to go back to explore the country some more.
I looked into various options that could get me back there ASAP.
And there are a LOT of options!!
Researching options and obtaining a visa
In my case, as I had already graduated from university, I skipped all the exchange student and MA programs out there. I was very interested in attending a Japanese language school or course, but those are super expensive.
That's why I was looking for ways that would let me earn enough money. For that, I needed a proper work visa!
Luckily, there is something awesome called "working holiday visa". Depending on your nationality it lets you stay and work in Japan for a set time frame.
For me, as a German national, I was allowed to work full-time for up to a whole year with it.
The requirements are easily fulfilled by most of us. They also may vary from country to country, but apart from a start capital of around 2000$US, the flight ticket, being under 30 years and some other tiny things, it's really not hard to obtain this visa.
I know that this visa is only available for a few countries, so if you're not one of the lucky ones, don't give up just yet!
It might be harder to get into Japan, but certainly not impossible!
Finding a job in Japan
So, with that visa in my hands I was ready to go. However, I still didn't have a job or anything set up.
My original plan was to just go to Tokyo – where I also had a few Japanese friends already – and start looking for work once there. I had nothing to lose anyway. Either I'd find a job or just stay until I run out of money!
My family, however, suggested I should look for jobs BEFORE leaving. I also thought it would be safer and started looking for a job.
Quickly I noticed that there was basically only O.N.E. kind of job for foreigners who cannot speak Japanese fluently: English teacher.
(Theoretically, there are other kinds of jobs, too, but let's skip that for now.)
The good thing is that Japan really needs English teachers, so there are enough jobs out there.
The harder part is to actually get one of those jobs. If you've ever looked at some of the job ads, you might have noticed that the most basic requirements always are at least a BA/BS degree and being a native English speaker.
The reality about requirements:
Now, let me tell you that both of these requirements have more to do with obtaining a work visa and less with the ACTUAL job requirements!
In other words, if you bring your own work visa (spouse visa, working holiday visa, etc.), then your chances are much better – even if you don't fulfill the earlier mentioned requirements!
A work visa for a full-time job in Japan generally requires you to have a BS/BA degree to show you're somewhat qualified. Japan is not an immigration country! They only let highly qualified people stay here long-term (most of the time).
My luck was that I had a MA degree in an education-related field which outperformed all the English "native speakers" who "only" had a BA degree in whatever (science, economy etc.) PLUS I brought my own work visa with me (the working holiday visa). With that, I had quite good chances.
To all the non-native speakers out there, don't give up!
However, one important thing is your English ability, of course. The most essential point is your pronunciation! If you have a strong accent, then it might be really tough to get a job!
Well, that's how I got my first job despite of being a non-native speaker of English.
See? It's not impossible!
Where can I get information about my chances and visa obtainment?
Still freaking out because you have no degree at all? You don't want to become a teaching monkey? *g*
Believe me, there are MANY options out there for you, too! You just need to find them. And one thing is for sure, it's NOT gonna be a piece of cake, you have to fight for it if you really want it!
Back in the days there were many helpful forums out there. Nowadays, I'd recommend checking out GaijinPot as one of the best sources for finding a job in Japan.
Starting out as an English teacher to set foot into Japan is quite common. It doesn't mean that you'll have to stay in this job forever – unless you really love the job like me!
There are many good examples of foreigners who made it into various fields.
Good examples I (and probably most of you) know of are:
- Danny Choo ('embassador' for Japanese culture)
- Jamie (aspiring mangaka + actress)
- Jenya (voice actress)
- Anji from Salztokyo (creating her own kimono)
So, don't give up your dreams! Now you know how to make it to Japan!
Meanwhile, I hope my blog will give you inspiration and brings Japan closer to you.


text:
After much speculation, Robert Rodriguez finally announced that he would be making his Predator reboot movie, with the worrisome title Predators. And we've got our fingers crossed for a live action Rosie housekeeper bot.
In an interview with IESB director Robert Rodriguez came clean about the many movies he's been rumored to be making.
"I'm going to be able to shoot my upcoming Machete here, a sci-fi action film called Nerverackers, a re-boot of the Predator series called Predators, and a couple of smaller movies called Sin City 2 and The Jetsons."
Making both the Jetsons and a Predator reboot is a pretty brave move, seeing as die-hard Predator fans are very protective of the franchise. And The Jetsons - well, my expectation for a futuristic family is so high, I don't know how you could accomplish such a feat without green-screening the entire thing. Which we all know RR loves to do, but who knows how that will look when you use other colors, besides just black, white and red? We'll have to wait for more information on both, but I'm filled with so much simultaneous dread and excitement, it's causing me to laugh-cry.


text:
If you haven't been keeping up on the black market lately (let's be real—you RUN the black market), there's one particularly popular item that might surprise you. It's Tide detergent. A brand-name product that's lack of serial numbers makes it virtually impossible to track, Tide has recently been dubbed as "liquid gold" and is being boosted at an alarming rate. In a recent Maryland drug sting, police turned up more of the laundry detergent than they did cocaine. (Detective Jimmy McNulty is quoted as saying, "What the fuck did I do?")
If you are hoping to get in on this racket, you better act quickly. Stores are beginning to keep Tide on lockdown much like they do with Sudafed. Don't they know that only makes us want the sweet T even more?


text:
The National Corn Growers Association has updated its Ethanol Facts Web site, making it a one-stop resource for reliable information on corn ethanol in the U.S. The project was updated with support from NCGA's ethanol committee, a group of growers especially interested in biofuels policy and development.
"Given how much misinformation about corn ethanol can be found on the Internet, this update provides a timely service to consumers, policy makers and the news media," says Steve Ruh, chairman of the NCGA ethanol committee and a grower from Sugar Grove, IL. "This is a comprehensive resource that will help make sure the truth prevails in any ethanol debate."
The Web site provides information on ethanol production, blends, suitability for engines and economic and environmental impacts, as well as a glossary and links to other online resources. Among the changes to the updated site is offering printer-friendly formatting.