Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com
Tim Ronning
tim.ronning at start.no
Fri Nov 7 11:39:08 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Nov 7 11:39:08 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication
- Next message (by thread): Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
På Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:11:37 GMT, skrev Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it>: > Paul Boddie wrote: > ... >>> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL >>> version and the normal commercial version. >> >> Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems >> with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the >> source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know > > *blink* surely the source has to be given only if the binaries are? > Can't stop others from redistributing that, but "demand the source > code w/o buying anything" doesn't seem something the GPL mandates. > > >>> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore >>> you would need to take out a support subscription. >>> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use. >> >> You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL >> was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last >> sentence? > > Presumably in the "obvious way", yes:-). > > >> Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just >> downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is >> allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a >> ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to >> mention that you are allowed to get wet as well". > > No, your analogy is misplaced: the "aren't allowed" would be > overtly false in your "it's like". > > A correct analogy would be: "I never strangle somebody with the > initials PB on a Friday". This statement _is_ perfectly true: I > never strangle anybody at all, and therefore, in particular, not > people with the initials PB, and even more specifically, not > on a Friday, > > However, it's _misleading_ because, although Aristotelian logic > has nothing to say in the matter, people "naturally expect" that > a qualification restricting a statement is there for SOME reason: > typically because, without the restriction, the statement would > not hold. But that's just a heuristical inference based on "if > the restriction wasn't necessary he wouldn't bother stating it" -- > there's nothing either dishonest or contradictory in putting on > a statement _more_ qualifications than strictly necessary (it's > the difference between "precondition" and "WEAKEST precondition"). > > E.g., a similarly misleading statement would be "In Euclidean > geometry, there is one and only one perpendicular to a given > line through a given external point". The qualification "In > Euclidean geometry" is way stronger than necessary, since > existence and uniqueness of the perpendicular follow from the > first _four_ axioms of Euclid only, _not_ needing the fifth > one which is not valid in non-Euclidean geometries such as > Riemann's and Lobachevsky's. > > And yet, unless I have specifically undertaken to tutor > somebody in a field including non-Euclidean geometries, I > might well make such a statement and consider it defensible. > Indeed, I have seen _proofs_ of this very statement, based > on other results which _do_ hold in Euclidean geometry only... > Presumably, depending on context, the responsibility for > learning about NON-Euclidean geometries may be held to belong > to the reader of my statements, without any duty on my part > to instruct said reader in this subject. > > Similarly, the asserters of the above statement (falsely > claimed to be contradictory, though truly claimable as being > misleading) might contend that the responsibility for learning > about the GPL belong to their customers, without any duty on > their part to instruct said customers. I'm gonna stay neutral > on the specifics, but I've always been fascinated by the issues > of NON-weakest preconditions and qualification in many fields > (natural language, programming, and logic) so I couldn't resist...:-) > > > Alex > Puuuhhh! And I just ordered your Nutshell book. God thing it was COD! Joke aside, I'm sure it's fine, I just coldn't resist either......:-) Rgds Tim R. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
- Previous message (by thread): Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication
- Next message (by thread): Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list