Are you incapable of reading English or are you just blissfully ignorant of the points other people are making?
He never asked why he should care about copyright. He asked why he should care about Dosbox's copyrights MORE than anyone else's. In fact, he made that clear more than once, so I find it odd you somehow managed to miss it. Can we all start calling you Alberto from now on?
Of course, I don't agree with tit for tat reasoning, and don't think the fact that ID's games are pirated by other people (who aren't the creators of Dosbox) gives ID the right to violate Dosbox's copyrights, but you should still at least attempt to answer the question he actually posed....
Can you point to a specific section of the license that supports your claim?
About the only section I'm aware of that addresses components being distributed in a single package but that AREN'T linked together (or combined into one executable) is the mere aggregation clause, which says exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Furthermore, your claim is rather dubious considering what could be defined as a "package" (which is something that isn't defined in the GPL, or your comment AFAIK). If I make a ZIP file (or RPM, DEB, MSI, DMG, etc etc) that contains a copy of FreeDOS and a proprietary DOS application, are you claiming that automatically places the entire contents of that package under the terms of the GPL? How exactly is that any different than burning both components onto a CD or DVD? Both are formats for archiving and distributing multiple files in a single "package", with the only difference being that CDs and DVDs are physical objects whereas the others listed are not.
Assuming for the moment that you actually understand how FreeDOS works (which from the grandparent comment doesn't seem to be a safe assumption, but I digress), you would realize that it would be ludicrous to state that these 2 components (the game and FreeDOS) are combined in any way other than merely being distributed together, which again, is specifically exempted by the GPL itself.
FreeDOS is merely a platform upon which applications can be run, such as the games in question. Just because it isn't an entire operating system like Linux doesn't change the way the license is applied to components or applications that run on top of it (which is that it isn't applied unless there is linking, plain and simple). Linux distributors such as Novell and Linspire regularly combine proprietary components in a single "package", with those bits running on Linux and GNU, which is also included in said "package", with no objection from the FSF or any copyright holder whatsoever.
About the only thing I'm uncertain of is why I'm wasting time arguing about this. Unless the FreeDOS creators, who are the only ones with grounds to complain in the first place, file any form of complaint against ID, this argument is pretty pointless. It's no one's job but their's to enforce the license covering their copyrighted works. No one else even has a say in the matter.
And if they do that, it is up to a Judge to interpret the license, not random Slashdot posters.
You're completely and utterly wrong on games running on DOSBox requiring release under the GPL. That would be like saying that just because a program runs on Linux or runs inside of an open source virtual machine, its source code needs to be released. DOSBox doesn't require you to link to it when programming. This would be mere aggregation, and the GPL, even if it said that the release was required, couldn't be enforced that way due to the limitations of copyright law.
I can take any old DOS application and run it in DOSBox without looking at a line of code. That's the....ummm....whole entire point of DOSBox.
There is a difference, though, between censoring data that is unavailable anyways, and spying on your users for a government. In China, for instance, Google has only one the former, whereas Yahoo! is quite happy to do the latter.
Microsoft merely had a link to a C|Net download of Ubuntu Linux. I'm not quite sure if this would actually qualify as them distributing Linux. Furthermore, if this wasn't intentional on Microsoft's behalf, but instead was a hacker or rogue employee, that would make any claim that this affects Microsoft's patent claims even more dubious.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's patent claims are also dubious thusfar.
Just tried reading the article. He actually specifically says it isn't about marketshare, but instead about iPhone's. So the title is perhaps misleading.
However, he then compared Safari to IE by saying Safari is proprietary. At that point, I stopped reading the article.
Safari is proprietary, but Webkit is opensource. You simply cannot say the same thing about internet explorer.
I'm not going to bother reading the F article, because based on the summary alone I can tell the author misses the mark. This is primarily an iPhone SDK for Windows. Apple would probably be happy with a 1 or 2% marketshare boost due to Safari on Windows. I highly doubt they expect to be the dominant browser in a year or 2.
You do have some valid points, but some of your post is downright factually incorrect.
As for Google being in bed with the CIA, until I see some hard evidence, I'm going to hold off passing judgment. All we have are the accusations of one person, which doesn't mesh with the fact that Google is the only search engine to fight the US government in court over user privacy.
Yahoo and AOL have demonstrated their public disregard for user privacy in more serious ways than Google has thus far done. Yahoo knowingly entered China with Yahoo Mail while at the same time entering into an agreement with the government to provide personal data such as emails. AOL posted their query logs on the internet while doing a half-assed job of protecting it and anonymizing it.
Gmail does NOT have a built-in calendar, word processor or anything, other than the standard address book. Gmail contains LINKS to these other services. If they bother you that much, use greasemonkey and get rid of them. I know tons of people who use Gmail daily and don't even know Docs & Spreadsheets exists.
I can't see Google Maps or Earth going live anytime soon. The US Government has much better technology than Google will use, so I'd be more worried about them.
Almost every service Google offers is also offered by Yahoo! and Microsoft, and Yahoo! has definitely shown itself to not give a shit about privacy. I'm a critic of Google's privacy practises, but I disagree with Google's ranking in this report (see my blog)
One thing I noticed, that they conveniently left out, as Google themselves pointed out, is the various companies' histories. Google fought the Justice Department to protect user queries, Microsoft & Yahoo just handed them over and AOL posted their's on the freakin internet.
Google's privacy practises definitely warrant concern, but Yahoo! is the one whom is handing over e-mail to the Chinese government daily.
Google Desktop relies on Spotlight, whereas the Windows Version can fully replace Windows Desktop search. The 2 products (Mac and PC Desktop) are completely different for Google Search.
Considering the AK-47 is well over 60 years old, I fail to see how any patent covering the AK-47 could withstand judicial scrutiny. Patent law is not international, and I'm willing to bet that this patent would be invalid under the laws of most countries.
Also, Russia is far from known for protecting "intellectual property". Quite the opposite indeed. This is hypocritical, to say the least.
Trust me, making her use a pre-paid phone that she has to pay for (so there is no chance of receiving any bills, let alone one for $1000) would cut down on her texting pretty quickly.
As for her being addicted, I'll grant you that, but I'm not entirely sure where the "completely oblivious to the world around her, and its dangers" comes from... Couldn't the same be said for people who spend all day on Slashdot and are posting here at 3 in the morning?
Actually, that was me (Slashdot does show who posts which comments you know...), and you completely twisted what I was saying. Do you have a blind-spot in your eye that caused you to miss the 3 solutions to the problem that could be used instead of taking away the phone that I posted?
My point was that the original poster who said "no more phone" sounds like one of those morons who wants to shut down Myspace instead of teaching their kids how to not get stalked by predators online. I never said they "may use it for texting in the future" (reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits is it?), I said the parents could take quick and easy action to PREVENT it without taking away the phone.
Oh, and since I forgot to put this in my last post, I have 4 Gmail accounts at the moment compared to 1 Hotmail Account and 0 Yahoo! Mail Accounts, so what exactly is your point? I know 5 other people off the top of my head that have 2 or more Gmail accounts as well.
It is just as easy to create multiple Gmail accounts as it is creating multiple Hotmail and Yahoo! accounts. In-fact, those 4 gmail accounts of mine don't include the numerous other ones I've created when I need a temporary e-mail account.
How is the fact that you would be using your ISP's domain name a downside to Google Apps Partner Edition? That makes no sense.
Whether your ISP is hosting its e-mail services on Google Apps, Windows Live Mail, their own servers or wherever else, this same problem is present. This isn't a problem with Google Apps Partner Edition, this is a problem with ISP supplied e-mail services period.
Privacy issues would be a much more valid concern IMHO.
Not sure about in the U.S., but in Canada SMS is provided by third parties, not the main cell phone companies. This is the case with all 3 major Canadian networks (Telus, Bell, Rogers). I work for one of them, and we were just discussing this the other day.
When I was a teenager (like, 4 years ago) I KNEW how much texting cost, and at the beginning of each billing cycle cleared all the text messages on my phone so I could monitor how much I sent during the billing cycle and limit my usage.
It took me about 2 and 1/2 minutes of work a month. As I've always maintained, the vast majority of teenagers are far from the sharpest tools in the shed. It isn't exactly a difficult concept.... each text costs money, hence the more texts you send, the higher your bill will be.
Of course I also paid my own phone bill when I got my first phone at age 15. So a good solution would be to tell your kids that if they want a cell phone, pay for it themselves (no age restrictions on pre-paid plans). Pre-paid plans are also good if you pay for your kids' cell plans, because if they use up all of the money on the account, their phone simply stops functioning.
And last but not least, parents who let their kids use a service that is billed based on usage with no restrictions whatsoever kind of deserve to have this happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you incapable of reading English or are you just blissfully ignorant of the points other people are making?
He never asked why he should care about copyright. He asked why he should care about Dosbox's copyrights MORE than anyone else's. In fact, he made that clear more than once, so I find it odd you somehow managed to miss it. Can we all start calling you Alberto from now on?
Of course, I don't agree with tit for tat reasoning, and don't think the fact that ID's games are pirated by other people (who aren't the creators of Dosbox) gives ID the right to violate Dosbox's copyrights, but you should still at least attempt to answer the question he actually posed....
Whoops....replace FreeDOS with Dosbox in my parent post. Apparently it is time for bed....
How so?
Can you point to a specific section of the license that supports your claim?
About the only section I'm aware of that addresses components being distributed in a single package but that AREN'T linked together (or combined into one executable) is the mere aggregation clause, which says exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Furthermore, your claim is rather dubious considering what could be defined as a "package" (which is something that isn't defined in the GPL, or your comment AFAIK). If I make a ZIP file (or RPM, DEB, MSI, DMG, etc etc) that contains a copy of FreeDOS and a proprietary DOS application, are you claiming that automatically places the entire contents of that package under the terms of the GPL? How exactly is that any different than burning both components onto a CD or DVD? Both are formats for archiving and distributing multiple files in a single "package", with the only difference being that CDs and DVDs are physical objects whereas the others listed are not.
Assuming for the moment that you actually understand how FreeDOS works (which from the grandparent comment doesn't seem to be a safe assumption, but I digress), you would realize that it would be ludicrous to state that these 2 components (the game and FreeDOS) are combined in any way other than merely being distributed together, which again, is specifically exempted by the GPL itself.
FreeDOS is merely a platform upon which applications can be run, such as the games in question. Just because it isn't an entire operating system like Linux doesn't change the way the license is applied to components or applications that run on top of it (which is that it isn't applied unless there is linking, plain and simple). Linux distributors such as Novell and Linspire regularly combine proprietary components in a single "package", with those bits running on Linux and GNU, which is also included in said "package", with no objection from the FSF or any copyright holder whatsoever.
About the only thing I'm uncertain of is why I'm wasting time arguing about this. Unless the FreeDOS creators, who are the only ones with grounds to complain in the first place, file any form of complaint against ID, this argument is pretty pointless. It's no one's job but their's to enforce the license covering their copyrighted works. No one else even has a say in the matter.
And if they do that, it is up to a Judge to interpret the license, not random Slashdot posters.
You're completely and utterly wrong on games running on DOSBox requiring release under the GPL. That would be like saying that just because a program runs on Linux or runs inside of an open source virtual machine, its source code needs to be released. DOSBox doesn't require you to link to it when programming. This would be mere aggregation, and the GPL, even if it said that the release was required, couldn't be enforced that way due to the limitations of copyright law.
I can take any old DOS application and run it in DOSBox without looking at a line of code. That's the....ummm....whole entire point of DOSBox.
There is a difference, though, between censoring data that is unavailable anyways, and spying on your users for a government. In China, for instance, Google has only one the former, whereas Yahoo! is quite happy to do the latter.
Microsoft merely had a link to a C|Net download of Ubuntu Linux. I'm not quite sure if this would actually qualify as them distributing Linux. Furthermore, if this wasn't intentional on Microsoft's behalf, but instead was a hacker or rogue employee, that would make any claim that this affects Microsoft's patent claims even more dubious.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's patent claims are also dubious thusfar.
Just tried reading the article. He actually specifically says it isn't about marketshare, but instead about iPhone's. So the title is perhaps misleading.
However, he then compared Safari to IE by saying Safari is proprietary. At that point, I stopped reading the article.
Safari is proprietary, but Webkit is opensource. You simply cannot say the same thing about internet explorer.
I'm not going to bother reading the F article, because based on the summary alone I can tell the author misses the mark. This is primarily an iPhone SDK for Windows. Apple would probably be happy with a 1 or 2% marketshare boost due to Safari on Windows. I highly doubt they expect to be the dominant browser in a year or 2.
What are you on?
You do have some valid points, but some of your post is downright factually incorrect.
As for Google being in bed with the CIA, until I see some hard evidence, I'm going to hold off passing judgment. All we have are the accusations of one person, which doesn't mesh with the fact that Google is the only search engine to fight the US government in court over user privacy.
Yahoo and AOL have demonstrated their public disregard for user privacy in more serious ways than Google has thus far done. Yahoo knowingly entered China with Yahoo Mail while at the same time entering into an agreement with the government to provide personal data such as emails. AOL posted their query logs on the internet while doing a half-assed job of protecting it and anonymizing it.
Gmail does NOT have a built-in calendar, word processor or anything, other than the standard address book. Gmail contains LINKS to these other services. If they bother you that much, use greasemonkey and get rid of them. I know tons of people who use Gmail daily and don't even know Docs & Spreadsheets exists.
I can't see Google Maps or Earth going live anytime soon. The US Government has much better technology than Google will use, so I'd be more worried about them.
Almost every service Google offers is also offered by Yahoo! and Microsoft, and Yahoo! has definitely shown itself to not give a shit about privacy. I'm a critic of Google's privacy practises, but I disagree with Google's ranking in this report (see my blog)
One thing I noticed, that they conveniently left out, as Google themselves pointed out, is the various companies' histories. Google fought the Justice Department to protect user queries, Microsoft & Yahoo just handed them over and AOL posted their's on the freakin internet.
Google's privacy practises definitely warrant concern, but Yahoo! is the one whom is handing over e-mail to the Chinese government daily.
Google Desktop relies on Spotlight, whereas the Windows Version can fully replace Windows Desktop search. The 2 products (Mac and PC Desktop) are completely different for Google Search.
Considering the AK-47 is well over 60 years old, I fail to see how any patent covering the AK-47 could withstand judicial scrutiny. Patent law is not international, and I'm willing to bet that this patent would be invalid under the laws of most countries.
Also, Russia is far from known for protecting "intellectual property". Quite the opposite indeed. This is hypocritical, to say the least.
My Linux doesn't legally challenge Microsoft.... what kernel module do I have to load to make it do that?
Many (most?) companies sign contracts while keeping them secret. I don't see why this is dodgy...
Anyone who would get mad about Microsoft signing a deal with Opera has too much time on their hands and should focus on more important things.
Trust me, making her use a pre-paid phone that she has to pay for (so there is no chance of receiving any bills, let alone one for $1000) would cut down on her texting pretty quickly. As for her being addicted, I'll grant you that, but I'm not entirely sure where the "completely oblivious to the world around her, and its dangers" comes from... Couldn't the same be said for people who spend all day on Slashdot and are posting here at 3 in the morning?
Actually, that was me (Slashdot does show who posts which comments you know...), and you completely twisted what I was saying. Do you have a blind-spot in your eye that caused you to miss the 3 solutions to the problem that could be used instead of taking away the phone that I posted?
My point was that the original poster who said "no more phone" sounds like one of those morons who wants to shut down Myspace instead of teaching their kids how to not get stalked by predators online. I never said they "may use it for texting in the future" (reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits is it?), I said the parents could take quick and easy action to PREVENT it without taking away the phone.
Comprende?
Oh, and since I forgot to put this in my last post, I have 4 Gmail accounts at the moment compared to 1 Hotmail Account and 0 Yahoo! Mail Accounts, so what exactly is your point? I know 5 other people off the top of my head that have 2 or more Gmail accounts as well.
It is just as easy to create multiple Gmail accounts as it is creating multiple Hotmail and Yahoo! accounts. In-fact, those 4 gmail accounts of mine don't include the numerous other ones I've created when I need a temporary e-mail account.
Yes it is. Every traffic comparison (not account comparison) I've seen also points to Gmail being behind both Hotmail and Yahoo!
How is the fact that you would be using your ISP's domain name a downside to Google Apps Partner Edition? That makes no sense.
Whether your ISP is hosting its e-mail services on Google Apps, Windows Live Mail, their own servers or wherever else, this same problem is present. This isn't a problem with Google Apps Partner Edition, this is a problem with ISP supplied e-mail services period.
Privacy issues would be a much more valid concern IMHO.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? I don't get what you're trying to say...
Not sure about in the U.S., but in Canada SMS is provided by third parties, not the main cell phone companies. This is the case with all 3 major Canadian networks (Telus, Bell, Rogers). I work for one of them, and we were just discussing this the other day.
Yes, because limiting access to technology is so much better than the myriad of other solutions to the problem:
1) Unlimited Texting plans
2) Pre-paid phones
3) Forcing the teens to pay their own phone bills
etc etc
Why don't we also completely forbid their access to computers as well and keep them in locked rooms just because they MAY look at porn.
Kind of a short-sighted solution if you ask me.
When I was a teenager (like, 4 years ago) I KNEW how much texting cost, and at the beginning of each billing cycle cleared all the text messages on my phone so I could monitor how much I sent during the billing cycle and limit my usage.
It took me about 2 and 1/2 minutes of work a month. As I've always maintained, the vast majority of teenagers are far from the sharpest tools in the shed. It isn't exactly a difficult concept.... each text costs money, hence the more texts you send, the higher your bill will be.
Of course I also paid my own phone bill when I got my first phone at age 15. So a good solution would be to tell your kids that if they want a cell phone, pay for it themselves (no age restrictions on pre-paid plans). Pre-paid plans are also good if you pay for your kids' cell plans, because if they use up all of the money on the account, their phone simply stops functioning.
And last but not least, parents who let their kids use a service that is billed based on usage with no restrictions whatsoever kind of deserve to have this happen.
Say what? I can't remember what we were talking about!
Hong Kong is autonomous and seperately governed from the rest of China last time I checked. I believe it has its own legal system and everything.