10·
1 天前The opposite, you have a right to privacy even after being sentenced. Such a registry sounds like it would drastically increase recidivism rates by making you unemployable and unable to form a social life.
Hi!
My previous/alt account is yetAnotherUser@feddit.de which will be abandoned soon.
- 1 Post
- 287 Comments
Joined 2 年前
Cake day: 2024年6月1日
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Even though this isn’t C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):
An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate
“new Random().nextInt()” might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.
But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.
Infinite loops are often weird though. They could be seen as undefined behavior and the compiler may do whatever it feels like.
Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.
13·8 天前The products are largely illegal to sell in the EU. They regularly fail health standards and safety standards because those are expensive.
That’s why the customer is the importer instead for these apps. You’re allowed to import stuff that is illegal to sell to consumers after all.
Oh, I didn’t consider the “any other” aspect.
Welp, I can still register several distinct legal entities in different EU countries, can’t I? Maybe one could be a “Taking every EUPL work on the internet and relicensing it under LGPL as a service” company. That’s bound to make some money from SaaS companies if it would be this easy to purge the EUPL terms.
Though the “ideology” quote is a bit awful, I’ll give you that. The matrix itself does look fairly neutral though, especially with this part under “Discussion of Linking”:
We made the assumption that, by selecting a Gnu license, licensors follow the FSF position and want to consider that most cases of static linking create a derivative.
I’d also argue the 27 legal systems might not be too relevant since copyright law is generally equal in the different member states. The remaining legal issues (e.g. warranty) are irrelevant for interoperabilith between licenses. Also, most importantly, there are only 24 languages in the EU.
If the official guidelines are recognized by courts as legally binding then I think the EUPL is superior to even the AGPL. Sadly that remains to be seen due to the lack of EUPL projects out there (and the lack of corresponding lawsuits).
A lot of the discussion seems to be US centric though, such as this quote:
Courts have a strong tendency to read licences on their faces, that is to say, they look only to the text of the licence to determine rights and obligations. In some cases, courts have explicitly refused [link to https://creativecommons.org/2017/07/06/cc-amicus-brief/] amicus briefs from the authors of the licences who wished to clarify the intended interpretation of their text.
Since this links to a US court decision, I believe the first part also refers to the US. As little as I know about EU law, what I do know is that it is often intentionally vague to ensure the spirit of the law cannot be violated. That seems to be the same for the EUPL where vagueness is preferred over concrete definitions which may hold up even worse in (EU) court due to the limitations on copyright law.
The weaker licenses don’t even mention SaaS so they aren’t in conflict with the EUPL there. As such, the EUPL’s copyleft protections should still remain for code published under it, even when used in an MPL project.
I’m imagining it as a pseudo-dual license permission and the EUPL as some sort of Affero-LGPL.
Though SaaS vendors would probably comply maliciously and only send EUPL code snippets back when requesting source code, if they are used in a differently licensed project.
I am not an expert in copyright law, which is what these licenses are based upon and cannot analyze the text.
Still, couldn’t you make it even more straightforward by forking twice yourself?
- Take the original EUPL code and fork it under the LGPL
- Take the LGPL code and fork it under the LGPL
- This second fork has all EUPL conditions removed
I’d by surprised if the license authors did not consider this. Lawyers wrote this with consideration of EU law after all, not some laypeople.
If I had to guess: Any inclusion of EUPL code in another project would have to be marked as being under the EUPL. This is solely to inform anyone who wants to fork this section and distribute the code in form of SaaS to abide by source code requests.
It’s like an EU variant of the AGPL whose many conditions about linking apparently don’t hold up in EU court. The GPL’s are all primarily considering US copyright law after all.
I can only answer the first question:
The great thing about the EUPL is: Its terms prevail if the other license does not have conflicting provisions. Any code licensed under EUPL will keep the SaaS restrictions:
However, according to the EUPL, the compatible licence that is applied to a derivative work will prevail “in case of conflict” with the EUPL. For example, when the EUPL licensor has its seat in Germany, the applicable law is German and the court is Berlin, but if the code is reused in a French project distributed under CeCILL, the French law will be applicable and the competent court will be Paris. But on the strongest open source EUPL provisions, like the coverage of SaaS and the obligation to publish and share the derivative source code, none of the listed compatible licences enters in conflict with the EUPL: for example, they may not “impose” code distribution in case of SaaS distribution, but they do not prohibit it. Therefore the EUPL obligations are persistent.
That’s wrong. The EUPL’s strictest provisions remain in effect even when used in other licenses:
However, according to the EUPL, the compatible licence that is applied to a derivative work will prevail “in case of conflict” with the EUPL. For example, when the EUPL licensor has its seat in Germany, the applicable law is German and the court is Berlin, but if the code is reused in a French project distributed under CeCILL, the French law will be applicable and the competent court will be Paris. But on the strongest open source EUPL provisions, like the coverage of SaaS and the obligation to publish and share the derivative source code, none of the listed compatible licences enters in conflict with the EUPL: for example, they may not “impose” code distribution in case of SaaS distribution, but they do not prohibit it. Therefore the EUPL obligations are persistent.
The EUPL 1.2 also allows directly relicensing to GPLv3, I don’t know where they got the idea you cannot do so.
Large parts of the GPLs are also void (e.g. providing “zero warranty/liability” and provisions regarding dynamic linking) according to EU case law.
The EUPL is effectively a interoperable strong copyleft license. It tries to prevent license incompatibilities due to “virality”.
I strongly recommend reading these two articles, they are much more accurate than the FSF’s:
“Not feeling well? I’ll give you something to not feel well!”
9·21 天前Mostly because Apple’s update policy is superior to A LOT of Android companies. OEMs are really slow when patching known vulnerabilities.
Quick study I found when trying to find evidence:
Example from that study:
Compared to the top three OEMs we examined so far, Google is the one with the most stable support behavior. All of the Pixel devices receive monthly security updates without any delay or missed SPLs [Security Patch Levels]
It’s utterly insane this is noteworthy. Not delaying security updates for KNOWN vulnerabilities should not be exemplary.
It’s literally free fame.
Would you have ever heard of this local African politician if he didn’t have this name?
Yeah, I don’t mind it too much. Especially because tax evasion is a far bigger harm to social welfare systems.
As long as he actually needed that money and wasn’t some already well-off fucker that wanted to hoard even more money that is.
Yeah no, that’s not how a pension system can be sustainable.
Some people must get less than they paid so that others don’t have to starve to death because they live to the age of 100.
And that’s honestly OK. The same way someone who never gets sick in their life has to pay for all the chronically ill.
You misunderstand, the project aims to have them eradicated by 2050, not starting to eradicate them in 2050. The project isn’t called Predator Free 2050 for no reason.
limits the harm
Harm reduction isn’t really sufficient when every single feral cat kills presumably hundreds of criticially endangered birds per year, is it?
Stores would have to accept them as they’re legal tender even in Finland. Maybe I’ll go annoy your retailers and bring a bag of 1c and 2c pieces if I ever visit and pay some portion of the price with them.
Hell, I’m already somewhat prepared. Just you wait!