No, it's part of the shell. Do "man bash" or "man sh", then search with "/\!". From man bash: "If the reserved word ! precedes a pipeline, the exit status of that pipeline is the logical negation of the exit status".
Of course; those are freedoms 0 and 1 guaranteed by the license. It seems like "use" sometimes means "include in a downstream software package and redistribute modified versions of".
Right, GPL only requires contributing forward, to the downstream users. It is only through creating a culture of working upstream and or reaching out to downstream redistributors that a project gets any contributions back, including financial contributions.
My favourite example of this is using an en dash for a relationship between two separate things, rather than the more closely-connected compound adjective of a hyphen.
Italian–American relations: foreign relations between the governments of Italy and the United States.
Italian-American relations: relatives who have moved from Italy to the United States.
I'm surprised at how much of an impact your use of the en dash here has on how I read the sentence. I found myself pausing longer between words in my inner dialogue as I read "Italian–American".
Even that part is kind of misleading. Making the software open source doesn't mean that the subscription service has to shut down; those are two different decisions.
But maybe we don't have to be too critical. I tend to read "[project you've never heard of] is going open-source" as "here's a new project you might want to check out", but even if they really mean that the project is mostly shutting down, open sourcing it is a good thing to do.
In that range, just returning x would be way better. Maybe even perfect actually - if x is less than 10^-16, then the error of x^3/6 is less than the machine precision for x.
+1 for Document Viewer. I use it to read books, it's the only FOSS reader I've found that comes close to my favorite (proprietary) app, Moon+. It checks the boxes for the features I need.
Linux is licensed under GPLv2 with an additional permission (or exception):
> NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
All the contributors license their work under this license with this additional permission. So in that sense it's not really Linus interpreting the GPL, and I don't think there's a risk of a contributor revoking this permission.
But maybe this doesn't apply to kernel modules and doesn't address the GPL_ONLY symbols thing.
(1) The text of the GPLv2 does legitimately restrict user programs as derivative works of the kernel, and therefore a license exception is needed from the licensors in order avoid violating the license or copyright law.
(2) User programs are not legitimately derivative works of the kernel, and therefore a license exception is not required, and anything said on the subject is mere commentary about the prevailing legal state of affairs.
In my opinion, the idea that user programs are - in general - derivative works of the kernel is nonsense, but for people who worry that they are or might be, the clarification or exception (whichever) is quite convenient. A court is not going to enforce a requirement on the licensees that the licensors and copyright holders explicitly deny and disavow, no matter what any third party thinks about the subject.
The situation with in kernel modules is more complicated, because there the licensor copyright holders appear to be convinced that nearly any kernel module is legitimately classified as a derivative work, so estoppel doesn't apply and whether a kernel module is actually a derivative work depends such things as how much kernel inline code was included in the compilation process, if not other apparent legal nonsense like compatibility and purpose which appears to have no basis in copyright law as something that in and of itself makes for a derivative work at all.
The amount of available space isn't the only benefit of using only one staircase. It also means the units can face outward in multiple directions and there's a more central common area.
Municipalities in USA are adopting code for residential new construction to require sprinklers. Big cost that most people won't do anything to stop it because it is only for really big houses (for now).
In fifteen years people will wonder why new housing is so expensive and every size house has sprinklers which the homeowner must hire someone to maintain. And pay for sprinkler inspection report prior to resale.
On a totally different note, I can't find any cheap or affordable new cars. Am looking for basic wheels without finicky gadgets like backup cameras and tire pressure monitors and lane departure warnings. Something simple and without high insurance costs to cover all those gadgets I don't need.
I wonder why things (house, car) seem unaffordable and contain gadgets which are difficult to fix and which increase insurance costs. What happened America?
Well for one, they have been required equipment for years - tire pressure sensors and backup cameras in general. So you’d need to go quite far back.
And the still working quite far back vehicles are pretty valuable because they have stood the test of time and don’t have all the buzzword crap, so folks don’t want to part with them.
The old cheap ones also got fed into a grinder (essentially) for cash for clunkers.
I would install fire sprinklers in my house, but there isn't a simple form based code. When I install outlets there are a few rules (were to install them, how many on a circuit, and many other details easy to look up in a wiring for dummies book), plumbing has similar rules. For fire sprinklers I need to go back go engineering and calculate all the details, not only is that a lot of work, I'm not certified to do them so the inspector won't pass my work unless I hire one of the few (and thus expensive ) engineers who are qualified.
If fire advocates really cared they would figure out the rules to follow and that would make it much cheaper for everyone.
My house had sprinklers and it was not a big deal. There was one special valve they said you should change every five years. But that’s the only maintenance anyone ever told me. No one had to check them before the sale.
For what it’s worth, I used to think the same as you regarding cars, but since many of those features are required now you can’t find a new car without them. So I had to get them, and turns out, they’re pretty useful.
