nybble41 @ nybble41 @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

63

Joined

2 yr. ago

Technically it can be statically linked, but then you would need to provide artifacts (for example, object files for the non-LGPL modules) enabling the end user to "recombine or relink" the program with a modified version of the LGPL code.

Dynamic linking is usually simpler, though. And the DRM issues apply either way.

Section 6 of the GPLv3, which the LGPLv3 includes by reference as one of the required distribution terms in paragraph 4.d.0:

Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.

(emphasis added) There is the alternative of following 4.d.1 instead, but that's only if the application links against a shared library already present on the user's computer system—it couldn't be distributed with the program.

GPLv3 section six offers five alternative methods of satisfying the obligation to provide source code. The first (6.a) applies only to physical distribution and must include source code with the physical media. The second (6.b) also requires physical distribution plus a written offer to provide the source code to anyone possessing the object code. The third (6.c) is the one I mentioned that applies only "occasionally and noncommercially" for those who received a written offer themselves under the previous clause. The fourth option (6.d) allows for the source to be provided through a network server:

If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

The fifth and final alternative (6.e) pertains to object code provided through P2P distribution, with the same requirements as the fourth method for the source code.

The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn't have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider.

This is incorrect. The distributor of derivative works in binary form is responsible for providing the source code. They can refer to a server operated by a third party, but if that third party stops providing the source code the distributor remains obligated to ensure that it is still available. The only exception is for binaries which were originally received with a written offer of source code, where the offer can be passed on as-is, but that only applies for "occasional and non-commercial" distribution which wouldn't work here.

The mother had a claim because the house was literally given to her, which was the right of it's previous owner.

This person has no claim.

If the previous owners wanted it to remain with the family line they should have formalized that by placing the house in a trust.

These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn't going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.

If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you're seeing an opinion piece, not news.

Sure, they don't rule the world. They only have the power to ban you (either the company per se or its individual owners, officers, and/or employees) from ever again doing any business in the EU. Which naturally includes business with any individuals or companies either based in the EU (as a seller or a buyer) or wanting to do business in the EU. Or from traveling to the EU, whether for business or personal reasons. Little things like that. Nothing too inconvenient. (/s)

They haven't taken things quite that far—yet. But they could. It's dangerous to assume that you can ignore them without consequences just because your company doesn't currently depend on revenue from EU customers. The world is more interconnected than that, and the consequences may not be limited to your company.

Geoblocking in such cases would not be sufficient. For one thing your geo-IP database will never be perfectly accurate, even without considering that "data subjects who are in the Union" can connect to your site via proxies or VPNs with non-EU IP addresses. For another you still need to respond to GDPR requests e.g. to remove data collected on a data subject currently residing in the EU, even if the data was collected while they were outside the EU, and you can't do that if you're blocking their access to the site. For a newspaper in particular the same would apply to any EU data subject they happened to report on, whether they had previously visited the site or not.

They never should have made opt-in an option in the first place. All the legitimate reasons to store data are already permitted without asking permission (required for the site to function, or storing data the user specifically asked the site to store such as settings). All that's left is things no one would reasonably choose to consent to if they fully understood the question, so they should have just legislated that the answer is always "no". That plus a bit more skepticism about what sites really "need" to perform their function properly. (As that function is understood by the user—advertising is not a primary function of most sites, or desired by their users, so "needed for advertising to work" does not make a cookie "functional" in nature. Likewise for "we need this ad revenue to offer the site for free"; you could use that line to justify any kind of monetization of private user data.)

CVS and ETrade both refused to accept my fairly standard user@mydomain.info address during initial registration, but had no issue changing to that address once the account was created. It would be nice if their internal teams communicated a bit better.

The fact that you've made it impossible to roll an 8 by replacing 2d4 with 1d6+1 might impact the game just a bit. Also with 2d4 a 5 is 4x as likely (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) as a 2 (1+1) or 8 (4+4); with 1d6+1 all outcomes from 2 to 7 are equally likely, so you're far more likely to get a critical hit or critical miss (if the game has that sort of thing, and you adjust it for the reduced range).

Cx File Explorer supports SMB, FTP, SFTP, and WebDAV remotes out of the box. There is an option to browse the local network.

I believe the point was that it didn't fit the setting for the main characters of a typical fantasy plot—not being well-suited to traveling significant distances in rough terrain, among other things—not that they wouldn't have the basic tech. You don't see many active-duty soldiers or mercenaries fighting in wheelchairs and it seems likely the same considerations would apply to adventurers. You can come up with settings where it isn't totally implausible, but it will require some careful thought and ingenuity.

Look up the legal principle of estoppel. In general you can't turn around and sue someone for doing something after informing them (in writing no less) that you're okay with it, even if you would otherwise have had a valid basis to sue.

Cx File Explorer has a similar feature, along with a built-in FTP client. Another option would be to run an SSH server like SimpleSSHD on the device you want to share files from so you can access them via SFTP, which Cx File Explorer also supports. This permits more secure public key-based authentication rather than just a password.

Your intake of sugar participation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.

It's not as if there's some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else's health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don't like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.

Nothing says that the owner/buyer of a car has to be the one who drives it. You could buy a car and have someone else drive you around. Or just buy one for someone else to use—for example a parent who doesn't drive could buy a car for their child who has a license. Or vice-versa. Either way there is no reason for the buyer to need a license.

They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.

Except it's not even that indirect. The government of Texas invented this novel class of private liability, and their courts are the ones enforcing it. That's the same as banning it themselves, and blatantly unconstitutional.

I'm a bit surprised they didn't implement this as a tax. That would be just as bad, but the federal government has a long history of imposing punitive taxes on things they aren't allowed to ban; it would have been harder to fight it that way without forcing an overhaul of the entire tax system… and politicians are so very fond of special-purpose taxes and credits.

If you can read emails sent to a given address, and send replies from that address, it basically is your email address for all practical purposes no matter who was meant to be using the account. This is not necessarily a good thing and better end-to-end security would be nice but it is what it is. Odds are the app itself would let anyone change the password and log in provided they can read the emails, unless it's using some form of 2FA.

So you're not remapping the source ports to be unique? There's no mechanism to avoid collisions when multiple clients use the same source port? Full Cone NAT implies that you have to remember the mapping (potentially indefinitely—if you ever reassign a given external IP:port combination to a different internal IP or port after it's been used you're not implementing Full Cone NAT), but not that the internal and external ports need to be identical. It would generally only be used when you have a large enough pool of external IP addresses available to assign a unique external IP:port for every internal IP:port. Which usually implies a unique external IP for each internal IP, as you can't restrict the number of unique ports used by each client. This is why most routers only implement Symmetric NAT.

(If you do have sufficient external IPs the Linux kernel can do Full Cone NAT by translating only the IP addresses and not the ports, via SNAT/DNAT prefix mapping. The part it lacks, for very practical reasons, is support for attempting to create permanent unique mappings from a larger number of unconstrained internal IP:port combinations to a smaller number of external ones.)