Remember, if there's one line of proprietary code in the linux kernel, Microsoft can cry foul.
The Linux kernel does contain proprietary code in it in the form of firmware blobs. And Microsoft couldn't say shit unless it could be proven to be their own code and they didn't allow redistribution and use of said code.
If you read the customer specs for any of the larger capacity platter drives, you really notice the failure rates: failures at the 3-6 month mark should be one in 100,000, not a one in 100 (or less).
And where are you getting statistics that are showing that one in 100 hard drives are failing with in 3-6 months? Oh wait, you're extrapolating based off a biased sample.
Perhaps they can combine it and make even more money: for each time you frag her, she has to remove one piece of clothing..../ME runs to patent the idea;-)
Until you realize that the "girl" you are playing with is actually a dude or if it really is female she's a jabba the hutt look-a-like?
Most countries have laws which state pretty clearly that goods and services must be fit for the purpose for which they are sold. In the UK you'd have the Sale of Goods Act, not sure what you'd have elsewhere.
Apparently you haven't actually read such act. In fact the act has specific terms on which you can disclaim warranty to a product.
So sure, you could fix the open source parts yourself, but how could you fix flaws in their proprietary code?
Patching the binary file. Duh. There are numerous patches that people have created to proprietary software to fix bugs and security flaws without even a single line of the original source code. Do you somehow think that game crackers have the game's source code when cracking the games or creating key gens? Are you really that ignorant?
So that's a no on having any relevant statutory or case law to back up the claim that they could be successfully sued for extortion? Yeah, I thought so.
And what specific law(s) are these disclaimers of warranty violating? If such warranty disclaimers are invalid it would be quite interesting that the lawyers for the FSF and UC Berkeley were unaware of them when drafting their licenses.
And I'm sure you have relevant case law to cite that shows that the universal disclaimer of warranty with regards to software (both proprietary and open source software) is not valid in some states or countries? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
You mean except for the fact that they disclaim all warranties and liabilities in the license? Exactly what basis would you bring up this lawsuit when you agreed to their licensing terms?
How is this shareware? Shareware was giving away free trial versions of a software that you then had to pay to upgrade to the full version. This is selling people a beta version of a game to demo.
Why would id sue Illfonic when Illfonic obtained a license to the Quake1 engine?
Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL.
No, that's why they also got a license to the Quake1 engine:
Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL.
Re:These techniques are horrid for maintainability
on
Metaprogramming Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Yes, because it's much more maintainable to keep repeating the same code everywhere and having it scattered throughout the source than to use some metaprogramming to make a useful (and efficient) macro.
Then extract the repeated code into another method. Much more maintainable than a macro.
Because everyone is a programmer, right? And everyone is intimately familiar with everyone else's code bases and every library, UI toolkit etc that are also used, right? Yeah, except for these quite high barriers to entry, yes everyone can go about fixing other people's code.
I always knew the reason Internet Explorer won the 1990s browser war was because it was the default install. NOT because it was superior (it wasn't - IE was shit compared to Netscape), but because newbies equated IE to internet without realizing alternatives like Mozilla or Netscape or Opera existed.
Yeah, except for the fact that Netscape 6 was a buggy piece of shit and almost universally panned. It's not at all amazing that it was at around it's release that IE surpassed it. So basically you're making up bullshit and reinventing history.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, if there's one line of proprietary code in the linux kernel, Microsoft can cry foul.
The Linux kernel does contain proprietary code in it in the form of firmware blobs. And Microsoft couldn't say shit unless it could be proven to be their own code and they didn't allow redistribution and use of said code.
And not to mention that 40GB is barely enough to have Vista or 7 breathing, once Office installed.
And yet I have both Windows 7 and Office installed and it doesn't even take up 10 gigs of space.
If you read the customer specs for any of the larger capacity platter drives, you really notice the failure rates: failures at the 3-6 month mark should be one in 100,000, not a one in 100 (or less).
And where are you getting statistics that are showing that one in 100 hard drives are failing with in 3-6 months? Oh wait, you're extrapolating based off a biased sample.
Perhaps they can combine it and make even more money: for each time you frag her, she has to remove one piece of clothing.... /ME runs to patent the idea ;-)
Until you realize that the "girl" you are playing with is actually a dude or if it really is female she's a jabba the hutt look-a-like?
Most countries have laws which state pretty clearly that goods and services must be fit for the purpose for which they are sold. In the UK you'd have the Sale of Goods Act, not sure what you'd have elsewhere.
Apparently you haven't actually read such act. In fact the act has specific terms on which you can disclaim warranty to a product.
Great dodge, man! Secondly, you keep claiming this is extortion with absolutely zero legal basis to back it up.
So sure, you could fix the open source parts yourself, but how could you fix flaws in their proprietary code?
Patching the binary file. Duh. There are numerous patches that people have created to proprietary software to fix bugs and security flaws without even a single line of the original source code. Do you somehow think that game crackers have the game's source code when cracking the games or creating key gens? Are you really that ignorant?
So that's a no on having any relevant statutory or case law to back up the claim that they could be successfully sued for extortion? Yeah, I thought so.
And what specific law(s) are these disclaimers of warranty violating? If such warranty disclaimers are invalid it would be quite interesting that the lawyers for the FSF and UC Berkeley were unaware of them when drafting their licenses.
And I'm sure you have relevant case law to cite that shows that the universal disclaimer of warranty with regards to software (both proprietary and open source software) is not valid in some states or countries? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
So it really doesn't matter in this particular case if you agreed to their terms or not so long as a court would agree that this is extortion...
Which is highly unlikely and I doubt you have a shred of case law to back up any claim to the contrary.
You mean except for the fact that they disclaim all warranties and liabilities in the license? Exactly what basis would you bring up this lawsuit when you agreed to their licensing terms?
What you paid for was the media and the distribution costs. The proposed EA scheme is nothing like shareware at all.
How is this shareware? Shareware was giving away free trial versions of a software that you then had to pay to upgrade to the full version. This is selling people a beta version of a game to demo.
Why would id sue Illfonic when Illfonic obtained a license to the Quake1 engine?
Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL.
No, that's why they also got a license to the Quake1 engine:
Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL.
From here.
Without John Carmack and LordHavoc (Darkplaces engine developer) giving permission, they're in a huge mess.
LordHavoc is porting the Darkspaces engine to the PS3. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough sign that he's given permission.
I don't disagree. He worded it poorly.
Yes, because it's much more maintainable to keep repeating the same code everywhere and having it scattered throughout the source than to use some metaprogramming to make a useful (and efficient) macro.
Then extract the repeated code into another method. Much more maintainable than a macro.
When the author said dynamic, he was using it to refer to the dynamic language features of Ruby, not dynamic programming.
You're advocating that non-contributors to a project get a vote?
Of course. Most businesses, like Canonical, want customers.
Because everyone is a programmer, right? And everyone is intimately familiar with everyone else's code bases and every library, UI toolkit etc that are also used, right? Yeah, except for these quite high barriers to entry, yes everyone can go about fixing other people's code.
I always knew the reason Internet Explorer won the 1990s browser war was because it was the default install. NOT because it was superior (it wasn't - IE was shit compared to Netscape), but because newbies equated IE to internet without realizing alternatives like Mozilla or Netscape or Opera existed.
Yeah, except for the fact that Netscape 6 was a buggy piece of shit and almost universally panned. It's not at all amazing that it was at around it's release that IE surpassed it. So basically you're making up bullshit and reinventing history.
Imagine if they paired up.
Yes, we do. Your friends and a ton of other people were taking shots of themselves with your naked girlfriend. That's what? Sloppy hundredths?