Reputation
3,165
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 16 31
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~184k people reached

2d
comment Why avoid Java Inheritance “Extends”
(Implementation) inheritance is not essential for creating OO structures. You can have an OO language without it.
Feb
10
comment Why did BASIC use line numbers?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the answer is already on stackoverflow.
Jan
26
comment Why is Python 3.4 still developed after the release of 3.5?
@MichaelT Yes, good call. Go ahead!
Jan
26
comment Why is Python 3.4 still developed after the release of 3.5?
@TZHX That should be an answer, not a comment. "There are breaking changes from 3.4 to 3.5, such as $CHANGE, therefore continuing support is needed for the 3.4 branch for those who can't or do not want to deal with said breaking changes". I'd upvote such an answer :)
Jan
26
comment Why is Python 3.4 still developed after the release of 3.5?
After the rewording this is no long opinion-based. Voting to reopen. (I removed one sentence from the question in order to make it unarguably non-opinion-based. Hint: "why would anyone do X?" is not a good question for P.SE).
Jan
25
comment Trying to understand P vs NP vs NP Complete vs NP Hard
This answer is probably not useful for the level of understanding of the asker. Read the other answers and see what Nanako is struggling with. Do you think this answer will help him/her?
Jan
24
comment How to do Test Driven Development
@Jules Well... I strongly disagree. I think Jeffries made a fool of himself. "Playing around"... there's no playing around unless it's making stuff that works in some useful or at least interesting way. Jeffries' overvaluing of abstract principles over working software is the antithesis of good design. In the end, he learned nothing about the domain; his "solution" and design are so bad they actually solve nothing. I read his Sudoku articles and they are rambling and boring, and nothing useful can be gleaned from them. Then he realizes it's going nowhere and abruptly stops. Embarrassing.
Jan
10
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@dmagree Well, the FSF considers proprietary software unethical; or at least, RMS does. But I agree with you that's not the issue here. What is the issue, in my opinion, is that in this case the ethical thing to do is to contact the authors of the paper. That is, if you care about doing what's right. The GPL itself is a red herring; it's an artifact of copyright law. If there were no copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary, as admitted by its proponents.
Jan
10
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@ChrisBeck I don't disagree with what you've said except the last part. The OP him/herself suspects this, as evidenced in their second comment (the "frowned upon" comment). No idea why you've brought RMS into this, because he definitely thinks closed-source software is unethical by definition. But that's neither here nor there. Bottom line: ask the paper's authors; don't ask here. Especially if -- as I've been saying -- this isn't really a question about the GPL. Not sure what you're disagreeing with here...
Jan
10
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@ChrisBeck Asking questions about the GPL is fine. But look at the OP's second comment: "I'm guessing what I propose would be frowned upon by the GPL community". They know what they are asking is morally dubious. This is an ethical question disguised as a technical/legal question about the GPL. Asking how you can take something free and make it nonfree (or "closed") should be frowned upon. It seems to me this is a question asked in semi-bad faith. When in doubt about a specific paper, ask the authors. This IS the default good-faith course of action. It's not too much to ask this.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@ChrisBeck It's the same regarding "tivoization", by the way. Whenever there is a doubt about how you can use a piece of Free software -- something that's not spelled out in the GPL but you suspect might be against its spirit -- you should ask the author(s) first instead of trying to find a loophole. It's the Right Thing To Do (tm).
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@ChrisBeck Yes, not everyone understands the GPL the same way, and yes, I indeed want freeloaders to feel bad. The evidence that this isn't truly about the GPL but about ethics is pretty clear to me: after all, if someone cared about the spirit of the law, why would they ask about this instead of emailing the paper's authors? ("Hey, I read your paper. Would it be ok if I reimplemented your algorithm in my closed-source program?"). The only reason to ask this question here instead is if you're dimly aware the authors might not be ok with this, but people might help you find a loophole.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@DavidArno Taking the effort of others and trying to close it to other people is almost the definition of freeloading. This is what the Free Software community fights against. If the shoe fits...
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@dmagree The GPL protects a piece of software, not the paper and not ideas. The paper is a different issue. What I find telling is that you want to take something openly given to you, in the spirit of sharing, and make it closed, i.e. find ways to prevent other people of freely sharing it. I find this the wrong attitude.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@DavidArno No, the issue is trying to take something open and make it closed. Look at the wording. It's not "I have this which is GPL and it may be incompatible with this other license, how can I make this work?", it's "how can I make it closed"?
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@ChrisBeck No, I meant ethical. It's entirely possible there are legal ways, but what I meant to say is that there aren't ethical ways of bypassing the GPL. It's about the spirit of Free software, not about the legality.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@dmagree That's better :) Trying to stick to the spirit of sharing Free software is way better than attempting to find loopholes of dubious moral integrity.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
I do mind. Taking something open and trying to find a loophole to make it closed... I definitely frown upon that :/ Whether it's the GPL or other Free Software license doesn't matter to me. The intent matters, and the intent in this case is wrong.
Jan
9
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
@DavidArno I disagree the GPL itself is the issue (that'd be the legal aspect, which I'm uninterested in). Look at the wording of the question: "make it closed-source". This is unethical. Why would I help a freeloader with advice on how to bypass the ethical implications of taking something open and trying to make it closed?
Jan
8
comment Can I make a closed-source implementation from scratch of a GPL-licensed library?
Regardless of whether this is legally feasible, why would you want to do this???