to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
How, in Python, can I execute a string as a shell command?
Use os.system()
https://docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#process-management
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me
In article buovd0tbukn@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com,
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Barry Margolin bar...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Now, I was wondering what could be the reason behind this convention.
Why not use just straight quotes also in front of the quoted word?
It's an attempt
left and right single quotation marks
in ASCII. I don't like it.
Neither do I. The problem is that in most computer fonts, ` and ' are
not mirror images of each other. ` is angled, but ' is usually vertical.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions
NUM
JANA 1
FEBB 1
APRC
MARD 1
{ head -1 file; tail -2 file | sort +k 2; } sortedfile
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them
with
other programs when appropriate, but if there are multiple precedents
then different programmers may choose to follow different ones.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies
in combination with GNU tar's ability to write to remote servers
via rsh/ssh -- this is complicated to do using CLI pipes). I guess
there haven't been enough users running into this issue with join that
anyone felt the need to give it all of sort's capabilities.
--
Barry Margolin, bar
In article 49cc334b.f8155...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But the program to be copied is NOT open source. He wants to
reimplement it as open source, but he has to be sure that the new
version doesn't contain any vestiges of the original
In article mdkdnt1thobizvbunz2dnuvz_shin...@giganews.com,
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article 49c8c151.5c3d7...@web.de, Alexander Terekhov
terek...@web.de wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article 731831868.575...@irys.nyx.net,
anonb...@nyx3
In article 49c8c151.5c3d7...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article 731831868.575...@irys.nyx.net,
anonb...@nyx3.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote:
How might one ethically/legally re-write a suite of scripts one
of your previous code, which you don't have rights to (the
copyright belongs to the ex-employer).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
tech-savvy, so what's best for him may not be best for randoms.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
gnu
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
Did I misunderstand?
I believe that there are people who argue that even the
standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then
wrote a
completely new scheduler
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
A new version of Linux with a different scheduler serves the same
purpose: they're both operating system kernels.
But the new scheduler is not a transformed version of any other code.
Both
software, you can use the LGPL instead of the GPL. It requires that the
free library be propagated freely, while allowing the software that
links to it to be proprietary.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't
ago to allow its mainframe OS to
run on competitors' hardware?). But Apple's market share is hardly
large enough for this to apply.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read
conversational
language. Feel free to use words like Unix, Xerox, and Band-Aid when
talking casually. But if you use them in ads, documentation, marketing
collateral, etc. you must have the legal authorization.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions
-licensing agreements with each other, so
that they both come out ahead.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if there were no software patents, there'd be no more to sue over,
Software companies were protecting their wares with copyright long
before the PTO started allowing software patents.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED
clients and servers is considered loose
enough that they're not the same application.
For example, if there were a closed-source web server, do you think GPL
web browsers should not be able to access it? Should open-source SQL
clients not be able to access Oracle servers?
--
Barry Margolin
, not your
computer, it doesn't seem likely that they'll allow users to update it.
Isn't that the point of using free software -- you have the freedom to
fix or customize it.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE
) and allow the purchasers to redistribute it.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
transferring ownership
of his works in company time to the employer.
Or if it's a work for hire, i.e. writing the software is part of your
job, in which case the employer is normally the owner.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
Isn't that pattern pretty normal for high-tech startups?
Ask those poor folks who lost the money in Linux and .com IPO scam.
Lots of startups fail. In fact, probably MOST do. Some
together with GPL
programs.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
clean room procedures have been
developed -- to document clearly that the authors of the new code did so
without any chance of direct copying.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies
. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Roger Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
Free Software is open source. Free software, like free milk, is
something you aren't charged for. It's a shame they chose such an
ambiguous word.
While it may be a shame, they've been
contextual knowledge tells us that it's probably intended as
a noun.
And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that free
software refers to freedom, not price.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Al Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:18:02 -0400, Barry Margolin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it may be a shame, they've been using the phrase for about 20
years now. It's become part of the industry lexicon. Similarly, we
have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jay Belanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is not Open Source, since Open Source also means
non-free software.
By that logic
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
AlanS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about this: Free software is a subset of open source software, so
all free software is open source.
No, not all open source is free.
I never said it was, I said the exact opposite
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that free
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
begin In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
09/27/2006
at 02:27 PM, Barry Margolin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Whether they should be able to is of purely academic interest. The
fact is that they *did* do
free or not)?
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
free software you're required to make source code
available, so obviously it's open source.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
, and ignoring it will
simply lead to confusion in discussions like this.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
. There are open source licenses that
don't meet the requirements of the FSF's definition of free software.
But since free software has to make source code available, free software
is of necessity open source.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 05:50, Barry Margolin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:
How about this: Free software is a subset of open source software, so
all free software is open source.
Untrue - see
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Roger Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Richardson wrote:
freeware and Free Software are not the same thing. Free Software
refers to (mostly
I hope to get all the replies this way. No fun intended. :)
I don't understand what you're expecting.
How about this: Free software is a subset of open source software, so
all free software is open source.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions
publishers may find it more advantageous to implement copy
prevention, others may charge a bit more but allow copying.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
saying that this section of the GPL, which says he needs to do
so, is meaningless? Or are we just misinterpreting it?
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the other.
What do you mean
that the original works can be
recognized as distinct components of the result. A conference
proceedings book is a compilation. But when the originals are comingled
as I describe above, the result is a derivative work, not a compilation.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post
this License may add an
explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
excluded.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me
somewhere else.
I don't see most of it in this group for some reason, but it's *really*
bad in gnu.emacs.bugs. I finally gave up and unsubscribed tonight.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me
48 matches
Mail list logo
