Oh please it isn't that hard. Mildly annoying maybe but you can't possibly be that "handicapped" by it. If you're using all that crap and "fought the clipboard unification battle" then you're a bigger geek than 95% of programmers and never had to ask the question "should I learn vim?"
I don't feel the need to use vim exclusively. I like IDEs too, but will probably continue using vim in some capacity so long as it's useful.
You don't need to master vim as some other commenters seem to think. I've been using vim for 10+ years, but have relatively little of the manual committed to memory. You can learn enough to be productive in a day. The muscle memory comes quickly especially if you align your other tools with it. For example I run my shell's line editor in vi mode, have my window manager configured for keyboard-driven operation with a vi-like navigation scheme, `:set -g mode-keys vi` in tmux, and use one of the vimperator clones in my browser. So I never go very long without using the same patterns.
There are numerous rights and exceptions. Which exceptions apply vary by country and I can't speak for all countries, but virtually nothing in copyright law is strictly without exception. Unsurprisingly there's no shortage of people eager to convince you otherwise.
As an aside it is very strange that so many people derive their understanding of copyright law from various international treaties. These very rarely come into play in actual U.S. copyright cases and have little influence over the way courts interpret the law.
Yes a standard agreement such as that is expected and customary, and they have it for good reasons. However it is not strictly required in order to make use of user-submitted content.
Also as I have pointed out in other comments, this is a contract, and as such there are quite a few reasons that a contract like this might not be binding. One major weakness is its semblance to a "click through agreement". An agreement hidden in the footer of a website or in the fine print on a registration page is even more subtle than that and it's entirely possible build a case against implicit agreements that automatically kick in through mere use of a web service. There is considerable case law devoted to this and it's gone both ways - depending on the specific facts of the case, who makes the better argument, and the disposition of the judge.
That is a contract, not a license. Or more accurately it's a contract with a copyright license embedded within its terms. This is an agreement with github to grant it an explicit license. Implied license is an implicit license. It may exist irrespective to any such agreements. Its implicit creation is an affirmative defense determined entirely by other factors and context.
The bar for this as a defense can be quite high, as it requires a clear intention to license the work as determined by a judge or jury.
Independent to the implied license doctrine there exists doctrine which governs mirroring, caching, and transferring of that content by 3rd parties and intermediaries. The combination of these is largely what makes sharing anything on the internet in lieu of licenses possible.
"user agreements" or "terms of use" are contracts that are essentially a redundant measure that gives parties like github much stronger protection, so that it doesn't have to rely upon any risky affirmative defense tactics that require meeting high legal thresholds.
> No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it.
Please explain how you are viewing this unlicensed reply without downloading it.
> You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program.
Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser.
Funny they specifically point to Gentoo. Gentoo, organizations hosting mirrors, and users are probably least likely of all to be affected by such a situation (binhosts aside) as gentoo only distributes the verbatim source for which the uploader (assuming same as copyright holder) has granted an implied license by way of publishing their work to github. It would be very difficult to claw back their intent to offer the code for public use given the context of a forum principally devoted to collaborative development of open-source works.
Also no clue why the author believes static linking or any technical means of linkage of the compiled binaries would be in any way relevant to distribution of the unlicensed source code. No doubt all of this work is unregistered too. Have fun arguing for actual damages caused by a clearly deliberate publishing and distribution of an unregistered work.
Boss would have to have really stepped way over the line to cross the "ignore" threshold. If I were not in a position to do anything about it I'd ideally be looking for another job before reaching that point.
If you're someone's boss then my expectations of your ability to conduct yourself professionally in everyday email correspondence is higher not lower.
There do exist certain technologies and practices that do in effect impose draconian power over the sender. What I do is not one of them, and if I were to become aware of anything I do to inadvertently impose on others then I would take extraordinary steps to avoid it.
Sure I have no qualms about disregarding common practice in certain domains, but it doesn't matter. I don't invent rules that impose unreasonable expectations on others. My expectations are extremely minimal, in contrast with the rest of the planet, evidently.
I didn't say that a sizable percentage of people do that, nor do I expect it. (I do get a sizable percentage of PGP and S/MIME messages, for reasons that don't matter, and I would not expect that to be a norm outside certain contexts). People are reading too deeply into that.
It might have something to do with the high fidelity voice calling having a reasonably large bandwidth that you could theoretically use as a data channel - many times larger than an old v.92 modem. Maybe that's not so relevant these days with more people having unlimited data plans.
I'm speaking specifically to and from the perspective of what I expect to be the majority of HN readership - those deeply involved with matters concerning the technology space. So no, what I said isn't applicable to the wider readership of this blogger, that would be mere "best practice". But I think most readers here don't need to be clued in about what constitutes protip-ness.
Yes. Email on the internet is still best-effort delivery after all. If someone suspects an email somehow didn't get delivered that's a whole different situation.
Whether or not a response is expected depends on whether the respondee made their expectation clear, if it isn't implicitly clear given context. Otherwise response is at the discretion of the responder.
Like duh right? I'm remarking for the benefit of those that haven't yet had much exposure to discourse particularly among computing professionals on the internet. Expect for people to vary in their expectations, but this attitude of entitlement, expecting others to "earn" their attention is completely back-to-front. That burns people every time, and they're usually oblivious to it happening.
As I understand it the actual low-level database interface may be a shared library mechanism in either case. At least, for a local database I'm pretty sure that's a function of the connection type. You're still dlopen()-ing an ODBC library and the underlying glue between that and the rest of the userspace DB engine parts can be implemented in many ways. If there's a socket involved it would probably be AF_UNIX