|
dandy72 wrote: Are you suggesting...
No, just pointing out a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to add much to the soap-boxiness of the topic at hand. Just want to remark that adding nationalism to a socialist leader yields a national-socialist country.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with dictators is that you also get the other kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go back to that options page and click the 'Choose' button next to the text 'Choose which websites are allowed to send you notifications', then remove all websites, and when you go back to the sites that do this make sure to deny notification access.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and - I don't see notifications in Chrome, so I assume that doesn't do them...or I don't visit the same sites you do...hem, hem.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
swampwiz wrote: I'd love for there to be an Add-on that would stop the video from starting.
In Firfox, go to about:config, search for media.autoplay.enabled, and set it to false.
Chrome has chrome://flags/#autoplay-policy, which should do something similar. And things should get better from January:
Google Chrome will block auto-play video starting January 2018 | Ars Technica UK[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
How is §5.e of the CPOL: Code Project Open License[^] to be interpreted for the intent to use some "CPOL-code" as part of a (substantially larger) commercial closed source application? Does it apply at all?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
If you fail the passage, you fail the license. The CPOL does always apply, everywhere.
Serious, the passage says "link back to the license text, and agree to the other points mentioned". What is the problem with that?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Serious, the passage says "link back to the license text, and agree to the other points mentioned".
No - it does say way more than that:
Quote: (5.e) You may distribute the Executable Files and Source Code only under the terms of this License [..]
So let me put it this way:
Quote: (1.d) "Executable Files" refer to the executables, binary files, configuration and any required data files included in the Work.
When including CPOL-code in a larger application, does the term "the Executable Files" still apply to the executable files of that application? Or do I have to use the tiniest CPOL-code snippet in form of its own assembly so that 5.e only applies to that assembly and not to the larger application?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: No - it does say way more than that:
No, it doesn't; it simply says if you choose that license, to adhere to it. Something rather logical if you choose the license, as there is no reason for you to break the license that you chose.
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: When including CPOL-code in a larger application, does the term "the Executable Files" still apply to the executable files of that application? Or do I have to use the tiniest CPOL-code snippet in form of its own assembly so that 5.e only applies to that assembly and not to the larger application?
Ehr, if you post a snippet, you did not distribute an executable file, but source code.
That does not mean that a single snippet from a code-base means you're violating copy-right terms; the snippet in itself is merely an example, not a defining element of the assembly that is protected under copyright. This should be the analogue of showing a quotation.
Also does not mean that you're no longer allowed to use the snippet; as said, it is an example to show a concept. Some concepts are too basic to fall under copyright, which is why Dalek Dave does not own the statement "D++;". It is allowed to use that snippet in any application, because it described a generic concept. If your snippet happens to be a part of a copyrighted application (including closed source) you are possibly in violation.
As you can see, a very clear subject 
--edit
I don't think the CPOL license is actively enforced, it is more a nice thing for "us" to be able to share code, even for commercial use, with the idea that you backlink to CodeProject. I'm not guaranteeing that they don't send the hamsters after you, but I think it may not be their main focus.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: I have the impression we're talking past each other 
You're right, my apologies, I was not reading right.
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: Yeah, I think that's probably the way most CP-users see it but I like to make sure before selling a product on which my future daily bread will depend 
Reacting from the perspective of my own articles; I accepted a license that gives you the freedom to reuse the code (and parts) with only a reference to CodeProject, and not to me personally. I do retain copyright, limited by the license. You may not publish parts of the article as if the article or code is yours, but that nonsense you already read.
That is why I love the CodeProject license; it says "reuse my code, link back here". From experience, most companies do not link back and simply breach the license. Even if I made a big deal of it, no one would want to sue, and no one would win. It would still be very nice if you mentioned CodeProject somewhere.
It does not limit (commercial) reuse, it merely asks to mention CodeProject. That is not enforced, and your company will loose little from it. Still, you can choose to present it as your own work, there aren't many people busy comparing random code.
Simply send the author a mail. If you start with "you won't believe what I did with your code" you can get explicit permission, with regards that they will need to be within the previously accepted CP-license. Me, personally, I'd be just happy to exist as a comment in CVS.
You did not contribute to infect others with a GPL-like license, did ya? We just want to piss our name on our work out of pride. Does the application have a splash-screen or an about-box? How about a little footnote? How would you feel, as an author, if you saw your name on an application written by others? 
What did you say, you want a more elegant solution[^]?
--edit
Fixed tupo's.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Eddy!
Eddy Vluggen wrote: What did you say, you want a more elegant solution[^]?
I've already seen that but then forgotten. I like it. I'll copy it right now into my "this and that"-library and apply the attribute to itself
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
My pleasure; if I said something wrong I'm sure that Chris will post another message.
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: I'll copy it right now into my "this and that"-library and apply the attribute to itself
Thanks
It is a satisfaction that Picasso can not feel; one does not only sign their work, one also shares and sees their name on the result of anything that builds on it. It costs nothing, yet many companies omit it, as it may damage their "brand".
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I'm not guaranteeing that they don't send the hamsters after you, but I think it may not be their main focus.
They do much worse; they send Sean (in his mankini)!  
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Just spotted this in the logs:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Cray Linux Environment;) Gecko/20100101 SUSE/3.12.43-52.6.1 Firefox/53.0
In my old job I used to love using our pet Cray as my plaything.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I can imagine. Doesn't a current gaming console have about the same amount of computing power as the earlier generations of Crays?
I used to be really into fractals and I would have calculations run overnight that take about one second on a good machine now. That was before this site was started. 
|
|
|
|
|
Please remove any Dutch entries in your log that make no sense 
..and no, wasn't me. Not that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Which one is it, Ronnie or Reggie?
|
|
|
|
|
Which is another spelling but funny anyway. Where I am crays are lobsters.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Here too, but there is a difference between a cray fish and a Cray with a knife at your throat!
|
|
|
|
|
I had assumed Robert Cray.
|
|
|
|
|
Suddenly I'm feeling the urge to play around with my user agent string...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
