Well it's not like that with quantum computing NP suddenly equals P. There's a specific class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time (factoring to primes being one of them), yes. All of them? Hardly.
What about when quantum computing will be readily available? It seems to me that the current cryptography techniques will be useless compared to this computing power. Hence, crypto-currencies will also become worthless.
Well, the debt level will never reach to equilibrium, debt needs to increase to sustain the profitability of the companies.
But despite our disagreement on this, and the shortage of actual historical arguments by Tobias Stone,
he is right.
And your solution is exactly what we want. We need to show people that they matter and that they can perform actual change.
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Why Communication Infrastructure Should Use Permissive Licenses
Great post. Sorry to raise the dead.
The Apache License is often superior to 2-4BSD and MIT for freemium/commercial open source projects, especially related to patents and intellectual "property" and it's GPL compatible on the libre-side of things. For a few examples, Android, Swift, Puppet, Cloudera/Hadoop and obviously many other Apache projects use it. BSD and MIT are simple but don't sufficiently watch out for customer concerns. Finally, nearly anything which gains even modest success in the realm of distributed infrastructure will probabilistically encounter patent trolls demanding money for bullshot claims… better have your ducks sexāgintā quattuor aligned.
Easily fixed :). Use the real compiler on windows gcc/clang with C99 suppport.
It's quite sad that VC compiler (c)2013 does not support 1999 standard.
reqshark, fortunately the licenses are not contractual, but have a basis in copyright instead, so they do not need consideration.
Yeah. When explaining the mind-bending qualities of cryptography to lay people, I often use a related example:
Can you, without any prior communication, share a fact with someone when there's another person listening to the whole conversation?
Sounds impossible, right?
Now imagine I want to check whether you speak Spanish. I'll ask you to translate several words and after 20 or so of them I am pretty sure you know Spanish.
The eavesdropper has no idea though, because he cannot be sure that we haven't agreed on the list of words in advance. All he can know is that you know 20 Spanish words.
It happened to be encrypted using OTP.
Every time I use Diffie-Hellman to establish a new, ephemeral shared secret across an insecure channel, I just shake my head in amazement.
Cryptography, and the math behind it — particularly public-key crypto in all its forms — leaves me in wonder.
In 5 years a couple of cryptographers publishes a paper which describes an attack on the cipher making it 2^56.7 times easier to break by brute force, and Russians build a cluster of computers (using the fact the computing cost got down another order of magnitude).
I admire the optimism. But which legislators, exactly, do you think will say no to the megacorporations demanding ever-more-restrictive copyright laws and enforcement?
The crisis you describe seems quite plausible to me. We're going to have to confront what to do about all those all-rights-reserved-because-no-license works.
That won't result in today's legislators saying “okay then let's repeal copyright laws“. Legislators will have laws *written for them* by the lawyers serving content hoarding corporations like Disney and Apple.
Those laws will continue to restrict everything those corporations want restricted, while making just a small enough exception for the perceived resolution of the perceived crisis.
Will it *actually* resolve the crisis? Who knows. But the legislators will be temporarily satisfied, and the content hoarders will continue to get the laws they pay for, as usual.
Until we get government who says no to those corporations, we will not see the end of copyright's inexorable increase. Get involved to make that happen, or keep waiting.
No license simply because there is no simply license-dropdown in GitHub like with the former Sourceforge and writing a readme.md AT ALL is already too much work for small forks that develop just one feature to do a merge request later.
Many things fail in a failed state, and this isn't just about programmers.
Perhaps the collapse in respect for the law is a loss of confidence that the law can stop a corporation or a wealthy individual with a million-dollar legal budget taking 'ownership' of your code - making money from your work and paying you nothing, or shutting it it away from you completely.
Use of the law is not 'respect' for the law: there are other participants here, not just the developer community; and something else is failing.
It is incorrect to state that open source licenses are gratuitous. The licensor grants the right to use the code, the licensee agrees to give credit (and in the case of GPL, to distribute source code). Each side thus provides consideration.
If a licensee were to claim that they had not provided consideration, they would simply be asserting that they had no right to use the code. To the extent that the license gives them the right to use the code, it must be enforceable.
only valid anarchistic license:
Ⓐ. All Rites reversed.
When i startet using git and github i didn't know that my projects where publicly available to everyone.
But yeah, as a private person I just don't care about licenses, but one of my projects is available under "WTFPL", because some asked.
I think we are looking at the wrong metric here, and I'm not sure the proper number is even available. Looking at the number of clones of licensed vs unlicensed repos would be much more informative. I also think your numbers are probably low. For example do they account for projects that use a comment header to declare a license?
This sounds like the opposite of anarchism.
I've tried to write about this before, albeit more abstractly/badly: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/04/09/the-legibility-tradeoff
I am not sure about other languages, but when I use an open source project I use an artifact repository like Maven Central or NPM. AFAIK Maven Central enforces licenses, with NPM I am not sure. Looking at GitHub repositories is in my opinion the wrong to draw your conclusions.