In which cse you've d/led nothing illegal, heh. No you're honor, I've only downloaded these RIAA approved tracks, that they themselves decided to share.
and that source's availability was conditioned on the publication of modifications
I don't think a situation like that is possible. It's unlikely, from a legal standpoint, that a license can be created to require that. And it would be exceptionally difficult to enforce.
Unfortunately, the company is well withing it's rights to do that. Though, assuming your NDA doesn't prohibit it, and I'll bet it doesn't, you should be legally allowed to tell the maintainer that the person taking credit is not the person who actually wrote it. It wouldn't accomplish anything though.
That's an interesting point. Are you at that point really safe from having to release the sources. I haven't read the GPL in a while. What's the definition of distributing, what constitutes a party involved in a distribution transaction?
Obviously it's silly to think that distributing a modified OSS package to an employee entitles them to all the rights granted under the GPL, but it may be a loophole.
Actually no I wasn't. Didn't score too well on reading comprehension did you? A single employee, given the authority to work with company ip can make a mistake with his responsibilities, or can intentionally sabotage the company. At wchich point the company has fucked up in giving that individual that power.
No because at no point was I arguing that the programmer owned the code. So your entire statement has absolutely no bearing on the thread. Feel silly now?
Don't have to believe it. That is the case. The company is made up of individuals. Those individuals actions constitute the actions of the company, case closed. If one of those employees makes a mistake that hurts the company financially they have little to no recourse outstide of the company. They can fire him or penalize him in any legally allowable way.
I don't have to worry about my future employment, I've stayed employed because I don't make mistakes like that. It has nothing to do with attitude.
Therefore, it couldn't be produced under the GPL unless AOL said so. Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer (in this case, AOL/Time Warner)
This is nonsense last time it was said and it's nonsense this time. Who is AOL? Who has to approve? Who fucking cares. An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.
Doubt it. I'm allowed to take notes, I'm allowed to write down what they say word for word. Copyright doesn't apply to speech. I'd say it's a pretty grey area.
Errr, it can't. We're not talking about formats here. You have the same exact problem when dealing with records. The information stored on those in a particular format as well. The problem is the medium, not the message.
Given that, if you're looking for duration, then store your music in whatever format you choose on something more durable than records, but more accessible than cd's. Something like a cartridge with pins. At that point regardless of whether technology moves on or not, you'll always be able to dump the data as long as you know what the pins are.
About recording a class on tape: make sure you always get permission. I always allow this, but I like to be told. I've seen a professor pull a tape out of a student's cassette before, because the student was recording without obtaining consent. Needless to say, that's not a good way to make a first impression in college.
I wonder what the legal aspects of this are. Personally I feel that if I'm paying to hear it once I am well within my rights to record it to review it later. Thankfully technology is such today that even if a professor tries to stop you from recording a lecture you can still do it without their knowlege.
** Disclaimer ** I'm not talking about politeness here. Of course it's better to inform the professor about what you're doing and you'd be rude not to.
Sorry, just because the MPAA and DVD Consiortium think they can tell me on what device I can watch my legitimate purchase doesn't mean that they actually can. I paid for the DVD, nothing else. The copy protection argument is nonsense. I paid for the right to view this media and dammit I will in whatever form I choose. If I cross the line and copy it for distribution, then you can complain, but until that time they can bite me.
I could always be wrong, but I remember reading an article that explained why we weren't on the moon anymore. Because we can't. Not that pouring some money into the mix wouldn't get us back there, but that does take public approval. Maybe I'll get off my ass and try and dig up the article tonight. I believe it was in Scientific American a year or two ago.
The technology to do this is now more than 30 years old, not very hard to replicate
Untrue. Getting to the moon is difficult to replicate. There's a reason why we haven't been back, it's because we likely can't anymore. I'd dig up the article from NASA but I'm lazy.
Why? Because I already bought these games. Back when I had a NES. Just because Nintendo expires their hardware and re-releases games for the newest system doesn't mean I have to buy into it. I consider playing a rom through an emulator for a game I own fair use because it is.
I doubt Nintendo is going to go out of business, but if they're relying on re-releasing old games to keep them profitable, good riddance.
Yes, it was called Die By the Sword. I remember being impressed the first time I saw it. Then I bought it years later and realized the gameplay wasn't so hot. I can see why it wasn't popular, but it would have been nice to see it go through a couple of iterations of improvement.
Ah but that game sucks. It's mildy entertaining for ten minutes or so, but unfortunately falls short of being a good game. Useful for playing on the can though.
Slashdot Mirror
In which cse you've d/led nothing illegal, heh. No you're honor, I've only downloaded these RIAA approved tracks, that they themselves decided to share.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Who said anything about bringing a suit against yourself?
and that source's availability was conditioned on the publication of modifications
I don't think a situation like that is possible. It's unlikely, from a legal standpoint, that a license can be created to require that. And it would be exceptionally difficult to enforce.
Unfortunately, the company is well withing it's rights to do that. Though, assuming your NDA doesn't prohibit it, and I'll bet it doesn't, you should be legally allowed to tell the maintainer that the person taking credit is not the person who actually wrote it. It wouldn't accomplish anything though.
Obviously it's silly to think that distributing a modified OSS package to an employee entitles them to all the rights granted under the GPL, but it may be a loophole.
Actually no I wasn't. Didn't score too well on reading comprehension did you? A single employee, given the authority to work with company ip can make a mistake with his responsibilities, or can intentionally sabotage the company. At wchich point the company has fucked up in giving that individual that power.
No because at no point was I arguing that the programmer owned the code. So your entire statement has absolutely no bearing on the thread. Feel silly now?
Heh, marching bands, helping ugly people get laid in high school since 1903.
I don't have to worry about my future employment, I've stayed employed because I don't make mistakes like that. It has nothing to do with attitude.
Therefore, it couldn't be produced under the GPL unless AOL said so. Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer (in this case, AOL/Time Warner)
This is nonsense last time it was said and it's nonsense this time. Who is AOL? Who has to approve? Who fucking cares. An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.
Doubt it. I'm allowed to take notes, I'm allowed to write down what they say word for word. Copyright doesn't apply to speech. I'd say it's a pretty grey area.
hope the same doesnt happen to MP3
Errr, it can't. We're not talking about formats here. You have the same exact problem when dealing with records. The information stored on those in a particular format as well. The problem is the medium, not the message.
Given that, if you're looking for duration, then store your music in whatever format you choose on something more durable than records, but more accessible than cd's. Something like a cartridge with pins. At that point regardless of whether technology moves on or not, you'll always be able to dump the data as long as you know what the pins are.
About recording a class on tape: make sure you always get permission. I always allow this, but I like to be told. I've seen a professor pull a tape out of a student's cassette before, because the student was recording without obtaining consent. Needless to say, that's not a good way to make a first impression in college.
I wonder what the legal aspects of this are. Personally I feel that if I'm paying to hear it once I am well within my rights to record it to review it later. Thankfully technology is such today that even if a professor tries to stop you from recording a lecture you can still do it without their knowlege.
** Disclaimer ** I'm not talking about politeness here. Of course it's better to inform the professor about what you're doing and you'd be rude not to.
I always prefer a coment to mod points ;) I was thinking along the same specifics. Or even something else byond space.
Sorry, just because the MPAA and DVD Consiortium think they can tell me on what device I can watch my legitimate purchase doesn't mean that they actually can. I paid for the DVD, nothing else. The copy protection argument is nonsense. I paid for the right to view this media and dammit I will in whatever form I choose. If I cross the line and copy it for distribution, then you can complain, but until that time they can bite me.
I'll step forward myself. It's good that humans got to the moon sure. But as an American I also consider it an American achievement, because it was.
I could always be wrong, but I remember reading an article that explained why we weren't on the moon anymore. Because we can't. Not that pouring some money into the mix wouldn't get us back there, but that does take public approval. Maybe I'll get off my ass and try and dig up the article tonight. I believe it was in Scientific American a year or two ago.
Sorry won't work. I doubt there will be cats on the mood, thus no restaraunt.
but Space really is the final frontier
No problems with the rant. But Space isn't really the final frontier. It's the next frontier, or possibly the final frontier that we know about
I always considered the moon landing an achievement for the entire human race.
That's likely because you're not American.
The technology to do this is now more than 30 years old, not very hard to replicate
Untrue. Getting to the moon is difficult to replicate. There's a reason why we haven't been back, it's because we likely can't anymore. I'd dig up the article from NASA but I'm lazy.
I doubt Nintendo is going to go out of business, but if they're relying on re-releasing old games to keep them profitable, good riddance.
Yes, it was called Die By the Sword. I remember being impressed the first time I saw it. Then I bought it years later and realized the gameplay wasn't so hot. I can see why it wasn't popular, but it would have been nice to see it go through a couple of iterations of improvement.
Allready is a video game. But like most GW based games it turned out to be not so good. I still own it, it's floating around somewhere.
Ah but that game sucks. It's mildy entertaining for ten minutes or so, but unfortunately falls short of being a good game. Useful for playing on the can though.