gnufreex

Google CEO told trump that Google works for USA military. Trump bragged about it on Twitter. Other US companies are on PRISM project as well.

Which lappy? Where did you get it? I want one too.

Thanks. I will do so. Upwork finally responded to me and said this

Hello Mihajlo,

Maintaining the integrity of our site is of utmost importance to our team and to our community of users. Considering the violations that have occurred. Due to the security of processes, I am unable to provide additional details.

I understand this decision is a difficult one for you, but I am comfortable with my team’s choice to close your account. The decision is final.

I wish you the best in any future business endeavors, even though our working relationship is now effectively ended.

Best,

Cheryl

So basically some rule that I dont know about but they wont tell me.

I got that call in 2016. I passed that. This was maybe second or third time they have a call with me, and this one was the shortest. Maybe 3 minutes top.

That is my first gig for VOIP company for 5$ a day that I described at the start. Just to show how I had to start. And after all that climbing, they do this.

They can't give me one star if I did not start contract with them. I need to accept contract to be able to affect JSS

Well I was never warned over 3 years. I never accepted payment away from Upwork, i maybe couple of times got off site communication on client request, but nobody gave me infraction for that. I think that should come before the ban.

I figure there is two possible reasons they banned me. Facial recognition software decided that my profile pic (when I was younger and clean shaven) is not sufficiently similar to my pic taken during video call.

Other reason might be that they think my services are not being needed, as I had interviews without hire... except those were ones where I did not want to be hired, it was not like client rejected me. I simply wanted to pick best jobs, while still having time to concentrate on my long running contract with full time employer. In a hindsight, I probably should have set my profile to private in order not to get any invites. And go public only when I want side-job. I did not know they count that metric.

This is nonsense, they did not cry against PRISM like that. Ohwait, they did not know at all, until Snowden told everyone. So STFU Googlers, precentant has been set already.

Well no, but no law needed here. You see, this is part of the deal with Jim Whitehurst and rest of Red Hat management, otherwise, Jim would not pitch this to shareholders as a good deal. It would be a hostile takeover, which can fail, or lead at the end of IBM buying just a shell of the company.

So to back up their intentions, IBM probably had to give golden parachutes to Jim, Paul, and rest of Red Hat top execs, and probably huge golden parachutes ones at that. Jim is becoming part of IBM uper management and keeps leading the Red Hat business unit. If Gini starts some crazy moves to endanger Red Hat's well being as an entity inside IBM (as in IBM-fying the company), she will get at odds with Jim and RH upper management. So she can fire them all and pay up bilions in golden parachutes, at which point they will probably found a Green Hat company and hire away all Red Hat employees... or Gini can keep her word in the deal and leave Red Hat a separate business unit within IBM, one that grows revenues and profits, unlike most IBM business units. And IBM is a meritocracy, if Red Hat continues good performance, expect Red Hat execs taking top position, including next CEO role. In other words, I expect IBM to be Redhatized, and not other way around.

Stallman doesn't force anyone to attribute him. If he wanted to force, he would put that in GPL.

Read last few questions in GNU/Linux naming FAQ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#force

Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot and nutter/troll. Person that is "psyched" (see http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-... )about Nokia going Wp7 can't give unbiased opinion about anything connected to Micorosft, especially anything that he is actively pushing... and he pushes .NET more than Mono these days.

So? What if I visit techrights regularly? If you asked me I would tell you that. I go there because it is good site with well researched information, and if you were less pro-mono biased you would recognize that.

I don't know who "gnosis" is, first saw that nick.

Anyways, if you need to attack people and make this kind of nonsense, it means you have no arguments whatsoever, so you just do what rabid Mono pushers always do: character assassination and libeling of every critic, with heavy use of all kind of fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

C ya

>1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft.

And that is only thing that is remotely safe. All other is murky. But unfortunately, even that can be unsafe if Microsoft sell patents to CPTN (like they did with Novell patents) and let them sue even for ECMA parts.

Moreover, ECMA parts are unusable on their own. Eevery single mono app also depends on non-ECMA parts and Mono is always shipped with non-ECMA parts: http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/on-mono-packaging/

As for Estoppel, they didn't promise anything for non-ECMA. It doesn't work the way you think it works. In fact, they even promised to sue:

"If someone implemented a product that conforms to the specification, we believe we have a patent or one pending that’s essential to implementing the specification."

or

"The .NET framework contains the latest developer platform for the future, and it must be licensed like Windows. Subsets have gone about as far as they should go in the standards bodies, but we need a compact subset for phones and TVs. It was noted that we have to be careful because once the horses are out, they are out forever. At the right royalty, we can have discussions around technology beyond this."

He loses all credibility because he don't like you religio.. I mean language? Strange metrics of credibility. I disagree with you, therefore you have no credibility.

Mono pushers keep repeating estoppel meme but nobody ever explained how estoppel would apply to Mono. Microsoft never promised anything more than ECMA spec. They made clear they are not giving anything more. Yet, we know that even basic bits of Mono overstep ECMA http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-m...

So please stop repeating estoppel meme, it is nonsense. Also, attacking all people who show the world truth about Mono shows you have no arguments. Reddit was spammed by Mono pushers who were impersonating other people.

And if their stuff doesn't work as expected? "Sorry, you are not paying customer, so buzz off" or "sorry, but not enough paying customers want that fixed. You are minority, your money is worthless, so buzz off". While with Free Software you can have your people fix it, or hire consultant. I don't believe in that Bill Gates' ( http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html ) "Microsoft code has no bugs" religious gospel. All software has bugs, except Free one can get fixed.

They also fumbled with MkLinux and BeOS, IIRC.

What EU said is irrelevant, because GPLv2's implied patent grant works different in different countries. _That_ was fixed by GPLv3, it is now hard-coded and works same across the globe. In US, it works similar but not 100% the same. Oracle filled suit in US, and they couldn't do it in EU anyway because there are no swpats in (most of) EU.

"If SUN would have chosen the Apache License or GPL ver 3 (which was already available at that time) this wouldn't have been an issue."

If Oracle changes OpenJDK license to GPLv3 today, that would make zero difference to Google Vs Orale case. Dalvik is ASL, not GPLv3. When you release something to GPLv3, you don't give patent grant to everyone and their mother. Only to licensees of your code, that is people that "convey" it (GPLv3 word for "distribute"), develop it, or use it in changed or unchanged form. Basically, patent license is granted under GPLv3 in a similar way copyright license is granted. Everything you can are allowed to do with GPLv3 code is covered. And that is pretty much same intent as GPLv2's, just that in some countries GPLv2 patent grant is not sufficient, due to law that requires license to be explicit. Some EU countries are like that, but not US, since there is practice of estoppel in US.

And since google avoided GPLv2 OpenJDK and made ASL'd dalvik, I am pretty sure they would do the same if license was GPL. So how would GPLv3 help google?

Now, Apache license has similar patent grant, except that Apache license allows proprietary forks. So it is still patent grant for those who use code and not whole world. It doesn't protect GPLv3 programs unless you incorporate code from ASL'd project in question. Except that everybody can take that code and take it proprietary, extend it, and patent extensions. Somehow, I think that is not that Sun wanted. I remember Jonathan Schwartz in 2005 (or so) saying that they don't want to opensource Java because of their previous experience with Microsoft. James Gosling said something similar recently, as the reason why they didn't go open sooner. So Java under ASL is something that Sun really didn't want to see, whether it be their Java, or reimplemented by Apache or Google. So I am really not all that surprised by this lawsuit. And I don't think OpenJDK is any less Free because of this. What is problem with OpenJDK are not patents, but control by Oracle. And Oracle's intentions are way harder to predict than Sun's, so I won't even try. I only can see that they have no plans of releasing Java under ASL or even letting anyone implement it under that license.

Please don't interpret this as support for Oracle suing Google or anything similar. I am just saying that OpenJDK is not legally problematic to use by anyone right now, which can't be said for Mono.

Mono has no patent protection other than small ECMA parts, and wording of Community promise is very explicit that nothing beyond those parts is covered. So it is very hard to pull estoppel defence for something that Microsoft never shown intent to license. And knowing Microsoft, they prefer extortion and intimidation, so they don't really need to go to court to seriously damage competitors.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed (by the Debian Mono packager) that even basic bits of Mono use non-ECMA namespaces, pretty much depend on them, and can't be separated to non-ecma without "serious surgery" (and Mono team don't plan on doing it). http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/on-mono-packaging/#comment...

It is also been proven that most popular Mono applications written use those non-ECMA parts extensively.

http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/mono-unsafe-at-any-speed/#...

So basically that means that Mono is not safe as it stands and it goes even further into uncharted territory as it develops. Despite proponents saying otherwise. And it is not better choice than OpenJDK.

Sorry for long post, and thank you for reading :-)

About Apple killing classic MacOS, it was really kill or be killed. They did it years too late, IMHO.

OpenJDK is real deal. It doesn't track "Oracle Java", it is other way around. You can get TCK under acceptable terms, Red Hat got it for IcedTea. You only can't release you source of your implementation under other license than OpenJDK (GPLv2) but that is fine for anybody except Apache. That was same with Sun, they also didn't want Java under BSD license (or ASL) and Oracle didn't change anything. They just sued Google, which Sun also wanted to do.

If Java was really not free, and if patent grant in GPLv2 really don't work, why then Oracle doesn't sue Red Hat over IcedTea? Jboss is killing WebLogic.

It is laughable to say that Microsoft giving estoppel support to Mono by not yet killing it, while Oracle actually distributing OpenJDK under GPL is not enough support for you. Java is not a problem at all, just don't use stuff like Harmony or Dalvik.

Also, Apache license don't really have strong patent grant (or at least not stronger than GPLv2). It doesn't apply to future patents, and it doesn't apply to things that are developed by some other contributor that is not patent holder.

What MS is doing is not opensourcing, they just dump code under ASL. That means their continued development is closed, and they file for patent affter they dumped the code. Any feature they add to their proprietary version might also be patented. So when someone else reimplement that feature and adds it to free version, Microsoft can still sue them. But if you patent something and release it under ASL, you give patent grant to proprietary forks too. So there is nothing stopping anyone for taking it proprietary, extending it, and then patenting extensions to exclude you.

GPL patent grant only applies to derivative works which obviously must be GPL too. So it is more fair. Problem with Apache is that they don't want GPL, but that is only ancient GPL vs BSD debate. OpenJDK is free as it gets, and .NET specification is solely controlled by Microsoft (and they only put some parts in ECMA but only "as is" with no other parties having a say), while Java at least have some kind of pretence of standard body, JCP.

Java is lot better choice than .NET and Mono. That said, I reduced the usage of Java (long before Oracle-Google case) and do mostly things like Ruby on Rails and pure C.

Apache != open source

Apache wants Java under ASL, Oracle/sun don't want competitors forking their code and making proprietary. That's why Sun chose GPL. No fine-print, just GPL. You can make 3rd party implementation based on OpenJDK and get TCK. Red Hat did it with Iced Tea.

One word: Enron.