Most people in America don't understand this. There is no reason for a game maker to bend over for European countries. Europe is the size of a large shopping mall. If one country bans something, or has objectionable laws, all the gamers have to do is walk, or swim, to the other end.
Microsoft made a heroic -- and costly -- effort to discredit their own proposal, and we're sincerely grateful to them.
If I see an armed mugger robbing two women, and then run away screaming, and the robber looks at me for a second, giving one of the women enough time to open a can of woop-ass, that doesn't make me a hero.
Show me where in copyright law the distinction between dynamic and static linking is written.
I don't think copyright law mentions libraries, but there is a difference between distributing someone else's software, and not. If you link statically to someone else's libraries, you are distributing someone else's code, whereas if you link dynamically to someone else's libraries, you do not have to distribute the library. I don't think you ever have obligations to a code author if you never distribute their work (Microsoft would disagree. EULA.) but in this specific case, where the library is under GPLv3, you definitely don't. The license specifically says it is a distribution license, and you do not have to agree if you do not intend to distribute.
Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.
Really? Nothing speaks louder? How about Internet Explorer? Why would Microsoft spend so much resources to create it's own inferior browser, rather than just including Firefox, if not to get people hooked on something that only works in their OS? Ever heard of MOO-XML? How about the Halloween documents?
I've seen that before. Thing is, it doesn't explain why RMS believes that copyright covers linking to libraries. RMS says a lot of things, and I agree with most of them. But just because he says something, doesn't make it true.
Some of the reasons that it is a good thing that linking to libraries is not covered by copyrights (or so I hope) are explained in the GPP.
According to the mailing list post posing as an article, openchange only links with samba. Since when did linking with a library mean that you have obligations to the developers of that library? Microsoft would love it if that were true. It would mean that you would need a license to develop software for Windows. Nintendo tried to sue Game Genie back in the 90's for doing something similar, but with hardware. It didn't go well for them. The judge beat them down. They tried again when someone made a non-licensed game boy game, and they got beat down again.
Does openchange even distribute samba libraries? If they do, they could get around this simply by distributing them separately.
On the other hand, maybe, for some reason not specified in the "article," they have other reasons for changing licenses. Maybe they feel it will be simpler in the long run. If so, that means nothing for the rest of us.
Also, according to the "article," they aren't moving to the GPLv3, but rather are thinking about moving to a GPLv2 + exception.
I'll happily support the remaining 5% rather than risk 100% of my user base's productivity on something that may collapse from internal quibbling in a few months.
Closed source companies have internal quibbling too. It is just more internal.
Also, I think you are lying when you say that you are "in a position to make buying decisions based on this sort of thing." That sounds like "you should listen to me because I am an anonymous professional." My advanced apologies if you are telling the truth.
AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service.
I dunno. The idea of someone valuing AT&T's service while at the same time complaining about it seems a bit strange to me. They wouldn't be complaining after all if they were happy with it.
A person can complain about lousy sound quality, poor customer service, frequent service interruptions or the like, and value their ability to dial 911 if they are bleeding to death.
Is the summary claiming that the iPhone is successful? Perhaps it was successful from an immediate financial standpoint, but from a tech standpoint, the iPhone is a steaming pile of turd.
In my (non expert, economically) opinion, it was unsuccessful financially too. The iPhone rode the wake of the iPod. Apple could have launched an expensive piece of crap (which they did), and people would buy it. Now, the next device that Apple launches, fanboys will only remember the iPhone, and might steer clear.
Read this now, before I get modded down by the apple fanboys.
So, you are saying because we have never had remote controlled robots capable of fighting in the past, we will never have them in the future? Keep moving forward. Who knows, the future might even have flying cars and jet packs.
Rather than just "Download file" you've got to download some random third party app to actually receive your music on MP3.
Not sure I would call flash a "random third party app." I agree that a direct link to the mp3 would be better. A thinking individual would have done both. Although, you know how labels can be.
To quote an earlier article: "If you don't like it fork it."
That just may be the dumbest idea I have ever seen on slashdot. You can't fork a project because you don't like the license. In some cases you can, if the license allows distribution and is not copyleft, but GPLv3 is copyleft.
No wonder I'm not a popular number. I'm 2^10+313, and I always figured it was the ear wax or poor hygiene.
1337 is a popular number too. Your problem is probably what you thought it was.
Although, around here, everybody talks about you. It's always Anonymous Coward this and Anonymous Coward that. Usually nothing good, but everybody here knows who you are.
I notice that at varying times during the day, certain channels are just not accessible,... for example, CNN or Comedy Central or some other channel, will just blank out completely for a couple of hours, then come back later.
I think that is just how cable is. Usually 99% reliable. When I had cable, every once in a while it would poop out. Sometimes just some channels. Sometimes a few minutes, and sometimes a few hours. I remember a few times they would skip parts of a movie, and then backtrack. It depends at least partially on where you live. Sometimes they might even mess up your favorite show. Fortunately, sci-fi shows, like Doctor Who, are easily accessible via bit torrent.
From my experience, 99% of the time when you switch the channel, that channel will be working fine.
win32-loader is a Windows program that installs debian. That has already been said. One might also wonder why a windows program that installs debian would actually be installed in debian.
Debian regularly includes debian installer packages in debian. Developers who create release CDs do so by creating a custom debian installation, with these debian installer packages (on CD). These packages are usually not useful on a regular user's primary system.
Sounds like you are trying to save face for missing a bit of info.
There is static:dhcp. And there is static:dynamic. The first comparison only applies to IP addresses. The second comparison applies to many things. Using the first comparison, your IP is either static or dhcp. The second comparison is a scale, with infinite variations between.
The truth is that you have no rights whatsoever, except those that you are able to successfully create and defend.
That depends on your definition of "right." It is not a clearly defined word. It means vastly different things to different people. To an extent, I agree with you. It's along the same lines of "you only truly own what you can carry and defend."
I think the definition I was using is more common. The problem with it, though, is that people think of it as a sense of entitlement. It makes them lazy. It turns them into drones. And it makes them angry because they know they aren't getting "what they deserve."
Whether basic human rights exist or not, it is obvious what we will get if we don't defend them. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
We could discuss this all day, but the truth is, neither of us is "right." We have opinions. Nobody can codify our rights. A person can not dictate we have the right to this, but not that. Human rights are infused with the universe. I believe that it is a human right to take a CD that I paid for and rip it into mp3s. I believe I have the right to watch DVDs on my Linux box. I believe that I have the right to watch a Major League Baseball game the day after everybody else.
Don't forget what copyright is (or was). Our forefathers wrote it with the intention of promoting arts and sciences. It is a "necessary" evil. It is unnatural to tell someone that they can't use their own resources to make copies and distribute something. Some would argue that it is a human right to share their music with someone, and that it is also a human right to archive the music someone shared with you. It could be said that copyright is (originally) a well-intentioned violation of human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people in America don't understand this. There is no reason for a game maker to bend over for European countries. Europe is the size of a large shopping mall. If one country bans something, or has objectionable laws, all the gamers have to do is walk, or swim, to the other end.
If I see an armed mugger robbing two women, and then run away screaming, and the robber looks at me for a second, giving one of the women enough time to open a can of woop-ass, that doesn't make me a hero.
I don't think copyright law mentions libraries, but there is a difference between distributing someone else's software, and not. If you link statically to someone else's libraries, you are distributing someone else's code, whereas if you link dynamically to someone else's libraries, you do not have to distribute the library. I don't think you ever have obligations to a code author if you never distribute their work (Microsoft would disagree. EULA.) but in this specific case, where the library is under GPLv3, you definitely don't. The license specifically says it is a distribution license, and you do not have to agree if you do not intend to distribute.
I've seen that before. Thing is, it doesn't explain why RMS believes that copyright covers linking to libraries. RMS says a lot of things, and I agree with most of them. But just because he says something, doesn't make it true.
Some of the reasons that it is a good thing that linking to libraries is not covered by copyrights (or so I hope) are explained in the GPP.
According to the mailing list post posing as an article, openchange only links with samba. Since when did linking with a library mean that you have obligations to the developers of that library? Microsoft would love it if that were true. It would mean that you would need a license to develop software for Windows. Nintendo tried to sue Game Genie back in the 90's for doing something similar, but with hardware. It didn't go well for them. The judge beat them down. They tried again when someone made a non-licensed game boy game, and they got beat down again.
Does openchange even distribute samba libraries? If they do, they could get around this simply by distributing them separately.
On the other hand, maybe, for some reason not specified in the "article," they have other reasons for changing licenses. Maybe they feel it will be simpler in the long run. If so, that means nothing for the rest of us.
Also, according to the "article," they aren't moving to the GPLv3, but rather are thinking about moving to a GPLv2 + exception.
Closed source companies have internal quibbling too. It is just more internal.
Also, I think you are lying when you say that you are "in a position to make buying decisions based on this sort of thing." That sounds like "you should listen to me because I am an anonymous professional." My advanced apologies if you are telling the truth.
You must be really old if you consider dickish corporate behavior to be a "new" standard. Did you ever meet Jesus?
A person can complain about lousy sound quality, poor customer service, frequent service interruptions or the like, and value their ability to dial 911 if they are bleeding to death.
Is the summary claiming that the iPhone is successful? Perhaps it was successful from an immediate financial standpoint, but from a tech standpoint, the iPhone is a steaming pile of turd.
In my (non expert, economically) opinion, it was unsuccessful financially too. The iPhone rode the wake of the iPod. Apple could have launched an expensive piece of crap (which they did), and people would buy it. Now, the next device that Apple launches, fanboys will only remember the iPhone, and might steer clear.
Read this now, before I get modded down by the apple fanboys.
So, you are saying because we have never had remote controlled robots capable of fighting in the past, we will never have them in the future? Keep moving forward. Who knows, the future might even have flying cars and jet packs.
Raise your hand if you think an admin/dev had chat sex with one of the "female" players, and then found out it was a guy.
| | | |aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaa
aaaaa
That's a hand, btw.
Not sure I would call flash a "random third party app." I agree that a direct link to the mp3 would be better. A thinking individual would have done both. Although, you know how labels can be.
That just may be the dumbest idea I have ever seen on slashdot. You can't fork a project because you don't like the license. In some cases you can, if the license allows distribution and is not copyleft, but GPLv3 is copyleft.
+1 frightfully true.
1337 is a popular number too. Your problem is probably what you thought it was.
Although, around here, everybody talks about you. It's always Anonymous Coward this and Anonymous Coward that. Usually nothing good, but everybody here knows who you are.
65535 is a popular number. It is 2^16-1. This bug was discovered as soon as QA started (the day after release.)
I think that is just how cable is. Usually 99% reliable. When I had cable, every once in a while it would poop out. Sometimes just some channels. Sometimes a few minutes, and sometimes a few hours. I remember a few times they would skip parts of a movie, and then backtrack. It depends at least partially on where you live. Sometimes they might even mess up your favorite show. Fortunately, sci-fi shows, like Doctor Who, are easily accessible via bit torrent.
From my experience, 99% of the time when you switch the channel, that channel will be working fine.
Dupe! 1 year ago: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/05/2012222
Yes. http://packages.debian.org/sid/win32-loader
win32-loader is a Windows program that installs debian. That has already been said. One might also wonder why a windows program that installs debian would actually be installed in debian.
For 1, it is not included in Lenny like the summary says:
http://packages.debian.org/win32-loader
It is only included in sid, for now.
Debian regularly includes debian installer packages in debian. Developers who create release CDs do so by creating a custom debian installation, with these debian installer packages (on CD). These packages are usually not useful on a regular user's primary system.
After we make replicators, we will have to make ARWs (Anti-Replicator Weapons).
Sounds like you are trying to save face for missing a bit of info.
There is static:dhcp. And there is static:dynamic. The first comparison only applies to IP addresses. The second comparison applies to many things. Using the first comparison, your IP is either static or dhcp. The second comparison is a scale, with infinite variations between.
That depends on your definition of "right." It is not a clearly defined word. It means vastly different things to different people. To an extent, I agree with you. It's along the same lines of "you only truly own what you can carry and defend."
I think the definition I was using is more common. The problem with it, though, is that people think of it as a sense of entitlement. It makes them lazy. It turns them into drones. And it makes them angry because they know they aren't getting "what they deserve."
Whether basic human rights exist or not, it is obvious what we will get if we don't defend them. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
We could discuss this all day, but the truth is, neither of us is "right." We have opinions. Nobody can codify our rights. A person can not dictate we have the right to this, but not that. Human rights are infused with the universe. I believe that it is a human right to take a CD that I paid for and rip it into mp3s. I believe I have the right to watch DVDs on my Linux box. I believe that I have the right to watch a Major League Baseball game the day after everybody else.
Don't forget what copyright is (or was). Our forefathers wrote it with the intention of promoting arts and sciences. It is a "necessary" evil. It is unnatural to tell someone that they can't use their own resources to make copies and distribute something. Some would argue that it is a human right to share their music with someone, and that it is also a human right to archive the music someone shared with you. It could be said that copyright is (originally) a well-intentioned violation of human rights.