This data structure features fast (O(log N)) insertion, removal, and retrieval of records, provided that there is a sorting relation over their keys and there are no entries with equal keys. The AVL tree is an explicit binary searching tree, where left children of each vertex are less or equal, while right children are greater or equal than the vertex itself. In addition, the tree is balanced so that the difference between the depths of the two subtrees of each vertex is at most one.
Contract facilitates the handling of documents that are processible by both humans and machines. Contracts in e-commerce are one possible application, but the programs in this package are not limited to any particular use. The package is desinged with security and resource economy in mind, because of possible embedded applications in handheld devices, smart cards, and other attractive targets for e-commerce.
ePoint HotSpot is a firmware for wireless routers based on OpenWRT with some ePointy extensions and an ePoint-branded UI theme. It is distributed as a stand-alone flashable firmware-image, as a set of extension packages for OpenWRT, pre-installed on wireless routers, and in source code. It is aimed primarily at catering businesses, Internet cafés, and medium-sized communities (e.g. residential co-ops) wishing to share their Internet connection on a fair basis. The primary target hardware is WRT54GL by Linksys.
If a license denies Freedom #0, that is the use of
the software for any purpose, no matter how
malicous by someone's standards, it is NOT A FREE
SOFTWARE LICENSE. I am aware that Open-Source is
not exactly Free Software but Open Source does not
have a consistent moral standard, as far as I
know. It is a more pragmatic approach.
However, I think that Freedom #0 is essential even
for the less zealous freedom seekers. Should anyone
question it, the question "Who decides?" arises at
once. Indeed, who shall decide what use of a piece
of software is appropriate and what is not? The
author? I don't think so.
The Open-Source development process involves
contributions from many co-authors, who usually
accept the leadership of the original author,
though not always; Remember the emacs/xemacs fork.
Did the author claim any other right than being
mentioned as the original author (which is the
ONLY RIGHTFUL AUTHOR'S RIGHT, which should be
unalienable, in my opinion, and all other IP
rights are harmful and unjust) others would not
contribute as readily as they did otherwise. What
prevents non-free software projects from attracting
a broad co-developer audinence similar to that of
the free projects? I think, it is the lack of freedom.
You inevitably alienate co-developers by imposing
restrictions on the use of your software. Freedom
is a key element in the success of our flourishing
open-source community. Take it away, and it will
collapse, no matter how noble your intentions are.
Finally, I think, you cannot prevent anything like
massacres, genocides or holocausts by software
licenses. If you delve deeper into the issue, you
find that law is mere fiction. GNU GPL has not
been tried at courts. The free
software paradigm shall endure much farther than
law-based market economies, since it does not
require laws, law enforcement and markets to
function and thrive. A restriction, however, that
you are proposing to impose, would only be
effective through law enforcement, which is
arguably flawed in many ways.
Western-style democracy and market economy is not
necessarily the last word in the evolution of our
societies. Free Software appears to be more
fundamental an achievement, in my view. Along with