All I have been able to find is a European directive that mandates two year warranties on consumer goods, but the article I read was a few years old. Have there been further developments?
Walleye-mart would be OK if it was just the name of the seafood restaurant, but if the their logo were styled closely after the Wall-mart logo, then they might run into trouble, I believe, because it would have a strong likelihood of making people think that the restaurant is associated with Wall-mart.
Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
I don't believe any patents were involved in the Sun vs. Microsoft suit. Microsoft had a contact with Sun allowing Microsoft to develop Java. The suit was over whether or not they lived up to their contract obligations.
Pretty much every network textbook in existence uses the analogy of "pipes" when describing latency and bandwidth. "Tubes" and "pipes" are essentially the same thing, so if Stevens was wrong, then so are all the major network experts who write the textbooks. And "clogged tubes" is a pretty good analogy for congestion along a route.
Others have pointed out your failure to identify what the paper was written in.
You also seem to think that no one would write a scientific paper using MS Word. That's not correct, as two of the most prestigious and respected journals, "Science" and "Nature", both recommend Word for submissions and discourage use of TeX. If you submit in TeX they will take take it--and immediately run it through a TeX to Word converter so it will fit in with their workflow.
You seriously want to try that argument? Think carefully, as that argument works equally well for, say, shoplifting. Sure, the store loses money when you shoplift, but then you have more money to spend at some other store, so "no harm done to the economy as a whole".
But I'd bet that most people who pirate games weren't going to buy them anyways.
Most would not have bought all the games their pirated if they had been unable to pirate them, but they would have bought some of them. Same for music pirates and movie pirates and book pirates.
Sure, there are some people in poor countries who pirate who could not afford even one game (and many authors have no problem with those pirates), but piracy rates are also very high in well-off countries, among people who do have plenty of disposable income. They pirate simply because that lets them use that disposable income for other luxuries, such as more trips to the theater, or eating out more often, or buying more status items like the latest fashionable clothes.
Maybe those running Linux didn't want to goto jail for knowing how to use a hacker OS with that scary black screen and gray text mode or maybe this article is full of shit.
The Linux fanboy excuses are getting more and more amusing. First it was Microsoft wouldn't let people use Linux. Then it was that stats based on the web weren't accurate because most Linux users changed their user agent to claim IE6 on XP. Then it was that people were counting sales, and since Linux is free it was undercounted.
And now, when a University actually goes out and surveys its users, the excuse is that the Linux users are lying and denying they use Linux!
The network for the city of San Francisco will now be managed forever by an outsourced company with a phalanx of lawyers. No single individual will ever accept the liability of the clusterf@&! which is San Francisco bureaucracy. The cost of this trial is minuscule to the ongoing costs which will be incurred paying for outsourced network overhead.
If I were a network engineer, I'd have no qualms about running the San Francisco network. No reasonable network engineer would have run into problems.
Read the god damned patent application itself. What they are trying to patent has nothing to do with that application.
Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.
I've released most of my open source under BSD, because I want it to be usable by as many programers as possible. BSD accomplishes this. Even GPL projects can use my code. If I had released under GPL, my code would be limited pretty much to use in other GPL projects. Even projects using non-GPL licenses that are free and copyleft according to the FSF, such as MS-PL, would not be able to use my code.
That is why I consider BSD to be more free than GPL.
I'm trying to convince my employer to release some of our software under an open source license. For that, we might pick GPL instead of BSD, because GPL is more restrictive, making it harder for our competitors to use our stuff against us.
Most of the code I've released as open source as been BSD, because I want every programmer to be able to reasonably use it. BSD accomplishes that. Even GPL projects can use my code if they wish. If I had released under GPL, then pretty much only GPL projects could use it. Even projects using licenses that the FSF says are copyleft free software licenses but that aren't GPL (such as MS-PL) would not be able to use it.
This is why I consider the BSD to be a more free license.
There are some things that I'm trying to get my employer to release as open source. It's interesting that if we do so, there is a decent change we'll pick GPL, specifically because we do not want to give our competitors as much freedom to use our stuff an ways that would compete with us as they would get under BSD.
What were you banking on no one reading your provided link? It says nothing about bankruptcy
Are you blind? "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", right there where he said it is, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 (1-based counting, paragraph 5 for C programmers)
I think this might be a win in the sense that the court recognized the GPL as being a valid license, regardless as to how well contested the case was. It also sets precedent that the GPL is valid for use in future cases.
No, the court didn't even consider the license. In a default judgement, the court assumes that all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's filings are true, and then rules based on that assumption. Plaintiff alleged that there was a license and it was not obeyed, so the court accepted that.
As far as precedent goes, district courts do not set precedent. Only appellate courts set precedent.
The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn
Correct, and I did my share of imitating other's games when I was learning. However, I didn't use the same name as the original, and I didn't take copyrighted artwork or music from the originals.
Using the same name is a clear trademark violation, and NAMCO has to tell them to stop, or they risk losing their trademark here.
As far as copyright goes, you can't copyright the idea of a "be chased around a maze while gathering prizes, and have power-ups that sometimes let you chase the monsters" game. However, there are a lot of ways to express that idea in a game, and copyright protects NAMCO's particular expression. There's plenty of room left for someone to do a similar game, but different enough that it incorporates no protected elements. From the descriptions i've read from people who played it before it was taken down, they did not stray far at all from NAMCO's particular expression.
A damned good case can be made that learning how to imitate the idea of something without copying the expression is an important skill that any professional or serious programmer should learn.
A UK citizen who used a similar backdoor (typed the default password) to get into a US computer is now being raked-over-the-coals and threatened with exportation & 20 years imprisonment by the current administration. If it wasn't okay for him to enter a privately-owned computer, why it is okay for Verizon to enter a privately-owned router?
Did Verizon leave threatening messages promising continued disruption? Did Verizon attempt to conceal their activity by deleting log files? Was Verizon attempting to gain access to the user's private data?
The answer to all of these is "no", making this totally different from the McKinnon case. (And these are just the things McKinnon admits to. He's alleged to have been much more destructive).
Also, the router is connected to Verizon's network, and was set up by Verizon for the customer. Even if the customer owns the router, it is is quite likely there is a contract between the customer and Verizon allowing them to access it for administrative purposes. Did McKinnon have a contract with the owners of the 96 or so computers he hacked? Were they on a network he owned and using a service he provided?
Why? There's nothing wrong with what they're doing
The fact that this is being discussed on Slashdot illustrates that you are wrong about this. At the very least, it prompts a lot of speculation as to what those companies want with that data. Many are going to offer theories that postulate the companies are going to use it for non-nice things. This means the companies are going to have to devote some resources to trying to minimize the damage from such speculation and rumors. All of which could be avoided if they had just had someone download it over their home internet connection and bring it in on a disk.
Slashdot Mirror
All I have been able to find is a European directive that mandates two year warranties on consumer goods, but the article I read was a few years old. Have there been further developments?
Walleye-mart would be OK if it was just the name of the seafood restaurant, but if the their logo were styled closely after the Wall-mart logo, then they might run into trouble, I believe, because it would have a strong likelihood of making people think that the restaurant is associated with Wall-mart.
Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
I don't believe any patents were involved in the Sun vs. Microsoft suit. Microsoft had a contact with Sun allowing Microsoft to develop Java. The suit was over whether or not they lived up to their contract obligations.
Pretty much every network textbook in existence uses the analogy of "pipes" when describing latency and bandwidth. "Tubes" and "pipes" are essentially the same thing, so if Stevens was wrong, then so are all the major network experts who write the textbooks. And "clogged tubes" is a pretty good analogy for congestion along a route.
Others have pointed out your failure to identify what the paper was written in.
You also seem to think that no one would write a scientific paper using MS Word. That's not correct, as two of the most prestigious and respected journals, "Science" and "Nature", both recommend Word for submissions and discourage use of TeX. If you submit in TeX they will take take it--and immediately run it through a TeX to Word converter so it will fit in with their workflow.
You seriously want to try that argument? Think carefully, as that argument works equally well for, say, shoplifting. Sure, the store loses money when you shoplift, but then you have more money to spend at some other store, so "no harm done to the economy as a whole".
But I'd bet that most people who pirate games weren't going to buy them anyways.
Most would not have bought all the games their pirated if they had been unable to pirate them, but they would have bought some of them. Same for music pirates and movie pirates and book pirates.
Sure, there are some people in poor countries who pirate who could not afford even one game (and many authors have no problem with those pirates), but piracy rates are also very high in well-off countries, among people who do have plenty of disposable income. They pirate simply because that lets them use that disposable income for other luxuries, such as more trips to the theater, or eating out more often, or buying more status items like the latest fashionable clothes.
Linux dropped to a rounding error? Really??
Maybe those running Linux didn't want to goto jail for knowing how to use a hacker OS with that scary black screen and gray text mode or maybe this article is full of shit.
The Linux fanboy excuses are getting more and more amusing. First it was Microsoft wouldn't let people use Linux. Then it was that stats based on the web weren't accurate because most Linux users changed their user agent to claim IE6 on XP. Then it was that people were counting sales, and since Linux is free it was undercounted.
And now, when a University actually goes out and surveys its users, the excuse is that the Linux users are lying and denying they use Linux!
The network for the city of San Francisco will now be managed forever by an outsourced company with a phalanx of lawyers. No single individual will ever accept the liability of the clusterf@&! which is San Francisco bureaucracy. The cost of this trial is minuscule to the ongoing costs which will be incurred paying for outsourced network overhead.
If I were a network engineer, I'd have no qualms about running the San Francisco network. No reasonable network engineer would have run into problems.
He was not fired. He was suspended for insubordination after refusing to disclose the passwords.
Read the god damned patent application itself. What they are trying to patent has nothing to do with that application.
Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.
I've released most of my open source under BSD, because I want it to be usable by as many programers as possible. BSD accomplishes this. Even GPL projects can use my code. If I had released under GPL, my code would be limited pretty much to use in other GPL projects. Even projects using non-GPL licenses that are free and copyleft according to the FSF, such as MS-PL, would not be able to use my code.
That is why I consider BSD to be more free than GPL.
I'm trying to convince my employer to release some of our software under an open source license. For that, we might pick GPL instead of BSD, because GPL is more restrictive, making it harder for our competitors to use our stuff against us.
Most of the code I've released as open source as been BSD, because I want every programmer to be able to reasonably use it. BSD accomplishes that. Even GPL projects can use my code if they wish. If I had released under GPL, then pretty much only GPL projects could use it. Even projects using licenses that the FSF says are copyleft free software licenses but that aren't GPL (such as MS-PL) would not be able to use it.
This is why I consider the BSD to be a more free license.
There are some things that I'm trying to get my employer to release as open source. It's interesting that if we do so, there is a decent change we'll pick GPL, specifically because we do not want to give our competitors as much freedom to use our stuff an ways that would compete with us as they would get under BSD.
What were you banking on no one reading your provided link? It says nothing about bankruptcy
Are you blind? "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", right there where he said it is, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 (1-based counting, paragraph 5 for C programmers)
I think this might be a win in the sense that the court recognized the GPL as being a valid license, regardless as to how well contested the case was. It also sets precedent that the GPL is valid for use in future cases.
No, the court didn't even consider the license. In a default judgement, the court assumes that all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's filings are true, and then rules based on that assumption. Plaintiff alleged that there was a license and it was not obeyed, so the court accepted that.
As far as precedent goes, district courts do not set precedent. Only appellate courts set precedent.
Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?
It isn't a test of anything in a court of law, since the defendant didn't show up. It is a default judgement.
The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn
Correct, and I did my share of imitating other's games when I was learning. However, I didn't use the same name as the original, and I didn't take copyrighted artwork or music from the originals.
Using the same name is a clear trademark violation, and NAMCO has to tell them to stop, or they risk losing their trademark here.
As far as copyright goes, you can't copyright the idea of a "be chased around a maze while gathering prizes, and have power-ups that sometimes let you chase the monsters" game. However, there are a lot of ways to express that idea in a game, and copyright protects NAMCO's particular expression. There's plenty of room left for someone to do a similar game, but different enough that it incorporates no protected elements. From the descriptions i've read from people who played it before it was taken down, they did not stray far at all from NAMCO's particular expression.
A damned good case can be made that learning how to imitate the idea of something without copying the expression is an important skill that any professional or serious programmer should learn.
OK, so you don't know what a DOS attack is, AND you are unfamiliar with the Terry Childs case. Got it.
Hint: the crux of the Childs case was a refusal to turn over passwords to the owners of the equipment. Verizon gave the owner the new password.
No, they just sent one indicating that they had already perpetrated a DOS attack
A DOS attack? Really? What service was denied? There's no indication the customer's service was interrupted at all.
A UK citizen who used a similar backdoor (typed the default password) to get into a US computer is now being raked-over-the-coals and threatened with exportation & 20 years imprisonment by the current administration. If it wasn't okay for him to enter a privately-owned computer, why it is okay for Verizon to enter a privately-owned router?
Did Verizon leave threatening messages promising continued disruption? Did Verizon attempt to conceal their activity by deleting log files? Was Verizon attempting to gain access to the user's private data?
The answer to all of these is "no", making this totally different from the McKinnon case. (And these are just the things McKinnon admits to. He's alleged to have been much more destructive).
Also, the router is connected to Verizon's network, and was set up by Verizon for the customer. Even if the customer owns the router, it is is quite likely there is a contract between the customer and Verizon allowing them to access it for administrative purposes. Did McKinnon have a contract with the owners of the 96 or so computers he hacked? Were they on a network he owned and using a service he provided?
Why? There's nothing wrong with what they're doing
The fact that this is being discussed on Slashdot illustrates that you are wrong about this. At the very least, it prompts a lot of speculation as to what those companies want with that data. Many are going to offer theories that postulate the companies are going to use it for non-nice things. This means the companies are going to have to devote some resources to trying to minimize the damage from such speculation and rumors. All of which could be avoided if they had just had someone download it over their home internet connection and bring it in on a disk.
Generally, companies frown on employees using company equipment and company time to commit illegal acts.
So by your definition, the SFLC are copyright trolls because they have sued to enforce copyright on GPL code that they didn't write.
This overuse of the word "troll" for anyone who tries to enforce IP rights is getting ridiculous.
PJ is a paralegal and has no ties to IBM whatsoever
How do you know PJ has no ties to IBM whatsoever?