It was pretty foolish for the Ultracade guys to have filed for the mark since they clearly knew there was a prior user.
Yes it certainly was.
I don't know who David Foley is, but it sounds like he's been in the industry/community of working with emulators and ROMs for several years. He's obviously not stupid, but he seems to be playing stupid with this ridiculous application for a trademark.
There are two things going on here:
1) It appears that Mr. Foley is frustrated because he is a selling a commercial product that costs money while there is an open-source product that can be combined with "free" ROMs online. People do not seem to be worried about dowloading ROMs and so they seem to be choosing a free ($0) system over the one he produces. That's simple economics.
If the ROMs were unencumbered by copyright, then Mr. Foely would have no leg to stand on and nobody would listen to him. Some people might purchase his system (customer support, possibly a better product, etc...), but he wouldn't come out and bitch at us as he did today.
But many ROMs online are protected by copyright. It's just that the owners of those copyrights aren't stopping people from uploading/downloading those ROMs. The owners of the copyrights might be trying to protect their copyright -- or they might be happy to let people enjoy ancient games -- but either way, they aren't being completely successful right now.
But hold on -- IIRC, Mr. Foely doesn't own any ROMs, he just licenses them. And Mr. Foely isn't the police, is he? He's not an agent of the law who has been designated to go after people who infringe copyright, has he?
No. Mr. Foely is just a guy who is upset that people (may be) infringing copyright on something that he licensed. And I understand why he's upset. But he can't do anything because he isn't the owner of the copyright.
I think that Mr. Foely is smart enough to know that he is neither the owner nor the police, but he's just trying to use all this mumbo-jumbo to create confusion -- perhaps enough confusion to cover up his attempt to trademark the "MAME" logo...
2) The second thing that Mr. Foely is trying to do is trademark the MAME logo.
I'll be honest with you here and say that I have just given his letter, the original story, etc.. a cursory read and so I might get some facts a bit wrong. If that's the case, please correct me in a comment below.
Okay, so if I understand this correctly, a guy named David Foely is trying to get a trademark (for commercial use) on the name of a software product he didn't create, fund, or otherwise engender or support.
He is also trying to get a trademark on a logo of the same software product -- a piece of graphical artwork that is covered by copyright law[1] that he did not fund, create, etc...
Now I must concede that MAME, being an open-source project, may have put the MAME logo under some license that allows other people to use it. But even if they put that image in the public domain, they [MAME] has been using it as an icon of their project for years (?) and thus it is ridiculous for someone to come along and try to trademark it out from underneath them. Is it not?
And why, anyhow, would Mr. Foley be trademarking this name and image? He claims in his letter that the MAME developers don't want their software used for commercial purposes, and that is the reason for doing this, etc, etc.., but it sounds like he hasn't even asked them if they wanted the "help".
So to sum things up, it looks like Mr. Foely is trying to "help" other people. But from what I can tell, none of these people asked for the help. There are plenty of ways that Mr. Foley can help people, including donating to help fund MAME development or spending time volunteering in his community.
mp3 is okay (I'd prefer an open format like ogg), but can you do anything about quality of the recording? (You did say you were bored;-)
I mean, couldn't they have recorded it with a slightly higher quality? Please??
I'm sure that they could find someone (oh look... you!) to host a bigger file, and it would have really been nice to be able to concentrate on what they were saying rather than trying to screen out the fuzziness.
I also wonder how much code from the WINE project (and probably DOSBox) made it into Windows XP for backwards compatibility?;P
Imagine how lovely it would be if someone discovered that WinXP shipped with GPLed code in it somewhere. Imagine the setlement that would have to occur -- some people might not settle for any dollar sum, but if I had code in there I'm sure that I could find a dollar amount that would make me happy.
Hello, is this my Alma Mater? Thanks, I'm doing fine.
Say, about how much would I have to donate so that you'd use linux desktops for the administration, support linux on the desktop for students, give preference to open source software, and use nothing but open file formats?
Mmhmmm. Mmmhmmm. Okay.
Great. Say, could you throw in a closet or small office or something named after me?
Excellent. I'll get a check to you in a couple of weeks.
...Not only that, but the owner can change the license at any time...In short, if the original owner later decides that the work is no longer under the GPL, it is their right. Then, any derivatives that had been made are illegal, as the original copyright holder revoked their license.
I beg to differ! If copyright holders could revoke the GPL, then any company could pull a Unisys and tighten the reins on a product that they produced. If what you say is true, why couldn't software companies just change the licensing on their existing software whenever they were so inclined? (note: Microsoft has been known to give themselves this power explicitly in their EULAs... why would they spell it out in print if they could change license terms willy nilly anyhow?)
Quoting from the GPL, the 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS' section,
4. "...However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
-- I believe that's refering to compliance with the GPL.
6. "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
-- so how do you expect to revoke such a license?
...(Check the GPL, it doesn't say anything about not being revokable. Even if it did, something illegally being GPLed wouldn't be covered anyway.)...
See above. And yes, if it's illegally GPLed, I'm guessing that people already using it have very limited (if any) rights. But what rights do they have? It seems that the original person who "GPLed the code" is responsible for the whole mess and asociated fallout.
"... Microsoft employee posts the complete and total source code for Windows XP on the net... under the GPL... doesn't mean that the employee had the right to release it under the GPL. Microsoft is fully within its rights to say (two days later) "HEY! That's not right! We did not mean to release it under the GPL, anyone who has a copy does not hold a valid licence of it..."
Indeed! And as you went on to mention, it is not clear IF Nullsoft and/or the person who posted the code under the GPL had the legal authority to make such a decision.
What is coming up here as well as in the SCO situation is "how binding is the GPL?" or "when is GPLed code safe to use?". Both Nullsoft and SCO distributed code under the aegis of the GPL, but now there is a serious doubt if all of the code (or any of it, in Nullsoft's case) has been properly GPLed.
I guess that people are never EVER safe from litigation surrounding code and software. 20 or 40 years down the road someone could say that code in this program or that was written by someone under license XYZ, and then where would we be?
Is there a "time limit" for license holders to act or accept the stated license (e.g. AOL acting to remove WASTE from the Nullsoft site)? It seems all to easy for companies to let their left hand not know what the right hand is doing, and then come back a few years later and break out the lawyers to sue some people/companies for using or distributing their code.
It's stuff like this that makes me want to become a lawyer -- not so I can strut around a courtroom muttering Latin phrases and raising objections -- but so I could understand more about the legal system and what our laws and statues allow (and prohibit!).
Reading Clippy's poll (about a new line of work) I found it hilarious that he was considering a job as a lockpick... ...considering the fact that he moonlighted as a lockpick over on UserFriendly when Pitr et al. got locked out of the server room !
He didn't seem too happy about being bent out of shape, if I recall. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess...
now if only the rest of Microsoft would lighten up...
Network drives are promoted on our campus, but I think that most people don't use them because of time/ease-of-use reasons. Even though there is a 30MB cap on the storage in each drive, people prefer to email attachments to themselves.
-- yes, attachments do take up space on the mail server, and they do slow transfer times, but:
They can access that file from just about any computer on campus.
The LAN is nice and speedy
Everyone checks/uses their email multiple times per day
(there is a 10MB limit on attachments, too)
Besides, many of our clusters computers are iMacs, so the use of floppies is a moot point!!
Solution?Make the network drives very easy to access and very large (maybe 100MB per student). If the students can just log in to a shared directory and drag-and-drop, they will use the system. Even if it has reduced functionality from the current system, making it simple and secure are the top priorities.
Remember:If nobody uses it, it doesn't matter how darn cool the system is!!
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the smart cards can "lock up" if someone tries to guess the PIN #:
"When you log in to the test service.....enter your PIN 1 code...Please remember that if you enter a wrong PIN code three times, your card will lock up and can only be unlocked in a police station."
(from the sahkoinenhenkilokortti.fi website with the info. on the smart cards)
Will the card only lock up while using the test page, or is this applicable to any use?
In high school we were running an NT network (..sigh...). If you got annoyed with someone, all you had to do was lock their account by logging in 8 times with a random (i.e. wrong) password.
It was really annoying to have to get your account unlocked, but we weren't depending on that system for access to critical information or daily work.
1. Is this going to be a problem for people using these cards?
2. How is the functionality of the card reduced when it is "locked"? (e.g. If you use the card as your 'passport' for international travel can you get back to your home country if it "locks up" while you are abroad?)
I attend a private college that grants accounts to students/faculty and only a small number of (associated) people.
I have a number of friends attending large universites, and while it is true that their accounts are "secure" and reliable, there are often 'computing account codes' that apply to all users of the accounts -- including those people not directly connected to the school.
A friend of mine on the west coast was quite annoyed when he found out that one of the provisions in his university's code was a general agreement to allow access to his email account and files "...upon possibility of wrongdoing.." (something like that).
He really isn't worried about some SU reading his mail to his profs or scrutinizing his C source, but he didn't know that the university could go through his personal files willy-nilly just by finding some bullsh*t reason to suspect him of wrongdoing.
moral: if you do try to get an account from a university -- or if you are attending a university currently -- be sure that you know exactly what agreement you made by buying/accepting the account.
Regardless of what people say, colleges and universities are often driven by power and prestige; the students and faculty aren't the most important thing -- $$ is.
New -- in the box.
My father gave it to me before I went off to college. He even bought me the 16k add-on pack from eBay:)
I am considering handing in one of my coding assignments for computer science on a casette.... just to see the look on my TA's face.
Question: Does anyone know how to dump files from the sinclair 1000 to a PC? I don't have the machine here in my room (so I can't check) but I don't remember any ports other than the video-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it certainly was.
I don't know who David Foley is, but it sounds like he's been in the industry/community of working with emulators and ROMs for several years. He's obviously not stupid, but he seems to be playing stupid with this ridiculous application for a trademark.
There are two things going on here:
1) It appears that Mr. Foley is frustrated because he is a selling a commercial product that costs money while there is an open-source product that can be combined with "free" ROMs online. People do not seem to be worried about dowloading ROMs and so they seem to be choosing a free ($0) system over the one he produces. That's simple economics.
If the ROMs were unencumbered by copyright, then Mr. Foely would have no leg to stand on and nobody would listen to him. Some people might purchase his system (customer support, possibly a better product, etc...), but he wouldn't come out and bitch at us as he did today.
But many ROMs online are protected by copyright. It's just that the owners of those copyrights aren't stopping people from uploading/downloading those ROMs. The owners of the copyrights might be trying to protect their copyright -- or they might be happy to let people enjoy ancient games -- but either way, they aren't being completely successful right now.
But hold on -- IIRC, Mr. Foely doesn't own any ROMs, he just licenses them. And Mr. Foely isn't the police, is he? He's not an agent of the law who has been designated to go after people who infringe copyright, has he?
No. Mr. Foely is just a guy who is upset that people (may be) infringing copyright on something that he licensed. And I understand why he's upset. But he can't do anything because he isn't the owner of the copyright.
I think that Mr. Foely is smart enough to know that he is neither the owner nor the police, but he's just trying to use all this mumbo-jumbo to create confusion -- perhaps enough confusion to cover up his attempt to trademark the "MAME" logo...
2) The second thing that Mr. Foely is trying to do is trademark the MAME logo.
I'll be honest with you here and say that I have just given his letter, the original story, etc.. a cursory read and so I might get some facts a bit wrong. If that's the case, please correct me in a comment below.
Okay, so if I understand this correctly, a guy named David Foely is trying to get a trademark (for commercial use) on the name of a software product he didn't create, fund, or otherwise engender or support.
He is also trying to get a trademark on a logo of the same software product -- a piece of graphical artwork that is covered by copyright law[1] that he did not fund, create, etc...
Now I must concede that MAME, being an open-source project, may have put the MAME logo under some license that allows other people to use it. But even if they put that image in the public domain, they [MAME] has been using it as an icon of their project for years (?) and thus it is ridiculous for someone to come along and try to trademark it out from underneath them. Is it not?
And why, anyhow, would Mr. Foley be trademarking this name and image? He claims in his letter that the MAME developers don't want their software used for commercial purposes, and that is the reason for doing this, etc, etc.., but it sounds like he hasn't even asked them if they wanted the "help".
So to sum things up, it looks like Mr. Foely is trying to "help" other people. But from what I can tell, none of these people asked for the help. There are plenty of ways that Mr. Foley can help people, including donating to help fund MAME development or spending time volunteering in his community.
mp3 is okay (I'd prefer an open format like ogg), but can you do anything about quality of the recording? (You did say you were bored ;-)
I mean, couldn't they have recorded it with a slightly higher quality? Please??
I'm sure that they could find someone (oh look... you!) to host a bigger file, and it would have really been nice to be able to concentrate on what they were saying rather than trying to screen out the fuzziness.
Imagine how lovely it would be if someone discovered that WinXP shipped with GPLed code in it somewhere. Imagine the setlement that would have to occur -- some people might not settle for any dollar sum, but if I had code in there I'm sure that I could find a dollar amount that would make me happy.
Hello, is this my Alma Mater? Thanks, I'm doing fine.
Say, about how much would I have to donate so that you'd use linux desktops for the administration, support linux on the desktop for students, give preference to open source software, and use nothing but open file formats?
Mmhmmm. Mmmhmmm. Okay.
Great. Say, could you throw in a closet or small office or something named after me?
Excellent. I'll get a check to you in a couple of weeks.
*click*
Hi, Microsoft?
I beg to differ! If copyright holders could revoke the GPL, then any company could pull a Unisys and tighten the reins on a product that they produced. If what you say is true, why couldn't software companies just change the licensing on their existing software whenever they were so inclined? (note: Microsoft has been known to give themselves this power explicitly in their EULAs
Quoting from the GPL, the 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS' section, -- I believe that's refering to compliance with the GPL. -- so how do you expect to revoke such a license?
See above. And yes, if it's illegally GPLed, I'm guessing that people already using it have very limited (if any) rights. But what rights do they have? It seems that the original person who "GPLed the code" is responsible for the whole mess and asociated fallout.
"... Microsoft employee posts the complete and total source code for Windows XP on the net
Indeed! And as you went on to mention, it is not clear IF Nullsoft and/or the person who posted the code under the GPL had the legal authority to make such a decision.
What is coming up here as well as in the SCO situation is "how binding is the GPL?" or "when is GPLed code safe to use?". Both Nullsoft and SCO distributed code under the aegis of the GPL, but now there is a serious doubt if all of the code (or any of it, in Nullsoft's case) has been properly GPLed.
I guess that people are never EVER safe from litigation surrounding code and software. 20 or 40 years down the road someone could say that code in this program or that was written by someone under license XYZ, and then where would we be?
Is there a "time limit" for license holders to act or accept the stated license (e.g. AOL acting to remove WASTE from the Nullsoft site)? It seems all to easy for companies to let their left hand not know what the right hand is doing, and then come back a few years later and break out the lawyers to sue some people/companies for using or distributing their code.
It's stuff like this that makes me want to become a lawyer -- not so I can strut around a courtroom muttering Latin phrases and raising objections -- but so I could understand more about the legal system and what our laws and statues allow (and prohibit!).
Okay, so I've got one of those DeCSS shirts and everything, but how in the world am I supposed to get a few thousand lines of source on a T-shirt?
And another thing: people ask me about my 'got DeCSS?' shirt all the time, but who's going to talk to me if my clothing says 'got WASTE?'.
-- puzzled
exactly what I was thinking...
:)
_ ____________
of course, this time we can just get random words from the guy -- we don't need to make him say "passport" (it's not really *that* sexy...
__________________________
___________________
Reading Clippy's poll (about a new line of work) I found it hilarious that he was considering a job as a lockpick...
...considering the fact that he moonlighted as a lockpick over on UserFriendly when Pitr et al. got locked out of the server room !
He didn't seem too happy about being bent out of shape, if I recall. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess...
now if only the rest of Microsoft would lighten up...
-- yes, attachments do take up space on the mail server, and they do slow transfer times, but:
- They can access that file from just about any computer on campus.
- The LAN is nice and speedy
- Everyone checks/uses their email multiple times per day
- (there is a 10MB limit on attachments, too)
Besides, many of our clusters computers are iMacs, so the use of floppies is a moot point!!Solution?Make the network drives very easy to access and very large (maybe 100MB per student). If the students can just log in to a shared directory and drag-and-drop, they will use the system. Even if it has reduced functionality from the current system, making it simple and secure are the top priorities.
Remember:If nobody uses it, it doesn't matter how darn cool the system is!!
______________________________
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the smart cards can "lock up" if someone tries to guess the PIN #:
"When you log in to the test service.....enter your PIN 1 code...Please remember that if you enter a wrong PIN code three times, your card will lock up and can only be unlocked in a police station."
(from the sahkoinenhenkilokortti.fi website with the info. on the smart cards)
Will the card only lock up while using the test page, or is this applicable to any use?
In high school we were running an NT network (..sigh...). If you got annoyed with someone, all you had to do was lock their account by logging in 8 times with a random (i.e. wrong) password.
It was really annoying to have to get your account unlocked, but we weren't depending on that system for access to critical information or daily work.
1. Is this going to be a problem for people using these cards?
2. How is the functionality of the card reduced when it is "locked"? (e.g. If you use the card as your 'passport' for international travel can you get back to your home country if it "locks up" while you are abroad?)
_____________________________
I attend a private college that grants accounts to students/faculty and only a small number of (associated) people.
I have a number of friends attending large universites, and while it is true that their accounts are "secure" and reliable, there are often 'computing account codes' that apply to all users of the accounts -- including those people not directly connected to the school.
A friend of mine on the west coast was quite annoyed when he found out that one of the provisions in his university's code was a general agreement to allow access to his email account and files "...upon possibility of wrongdoing.." (something like that).
He really isn't worried about some SU reading his mail to his profs or scrutinizing his C source, but he didn't know that the university could go through his personal files willy-nilly just by finding some bullsh*t reason to suspect him of wrongdoing.
moral: if you do try to get an account from a university -- or if you are attending a university currently -- be sure that you know exactly what agreement you made by buying/accepting the account.
Regardless of what people say, colleges and universities are often driven by power and prestige; the students and faculty aren't the most important thing -- $$ is.
________________________________________________
New -- in the box. My father gave it to me before I went off to college. He even bought me the 16k add-on pack from eBay :)
I am considering handing in one of my coding assignments for computer science on a casette.... just to see the look on my TA's face.
Question: Does anyone know how to dump files from the sinclair 1000 to a PC? I don't have the machine here in my room (so I can't check) but I don't remember any ports other than the video-out.