I'm certainly not advocating forcing Apple to modify their software specifically to support anyone else's software (although your NES analogy did make me smile). However, nothing gives Apple the right to tell me, the consumer, what hardware I am required to run their operating system on. The fact that they specify this in their EULA doesn't make it valid; I'd like to see someone sell me a music CD and dictate what kind of stereo system I'm allowed to play it on.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
The idea here is that this manufacturer is offering hardware that they've purpose-built to work with MacOS. If it doesn't function properly, their customers will demand refunds and the company will be out of business quickly. If it does function properly, the market wins with more competition on the hardware front.
(1) Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.
(2) I receive said media, and having completed the sale, the right of first sale doctrine kicks in. I can do any damned thing I please with that media, aside from distributing the copyrighted material to others while I'm still using the product.
(3) Legally speaking, Steve can take a printed copy of his EULA and smoke it.
On the contrary, I fully support them "making a profit on Apple's brand." I also support other companies making a profit on Ubuntu's brand, as they market computer systems specifically designed to be Linux-compatible. Apple makes a decent operating system, and I fully support the right of the consumer to choose what hardware that OS runs on.
Many software manufacturers have included provisions in their EULAs that resemble Apple's, and all are practically unenforceable against consumers. If I've legally purchased a product, Apple doesn't have any legal standing to tell me how to use that product, aside from unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.
I can melt the CD down into a little voodoo doll of Steve Jobs, use it as a coaster, or install it on another computer I own. So long as I'm not providing the software to another person for their use, I've broken no law. Remember, EULAs fall under contract law, which is widely regarded as the weakest of all agreements.
It would seem that legally speaking, hardware manufacturers cannot dictate what I do with their product as it functions immediately after I've purchased it. I could use it as intended, or as an expensive doorstop. The issue arises when the product is designed to connect to external services for things like software updates, which the hardware manufacturer may have direct control over, along with the legal right to restrict use of said services to specifically configured devices.
A lot might depend on how licensing agreements are worded. When we buy a product that is designed to receive periodic patches and other updates, are we allowed to tell the manufacturer how to run their service? If we're paying for it, it would seem we might have more rights in this area. I'm certainly not a lawyer, so it gets murky here.
The purchase would be less about saving money, and more about making a statement. Copyright law was always intended to prevent unauthorized distribution of protected materials, and not to dictate use of legitimately purchased materials. In my opinion, and other reading of the law is excessively restrictive.
Listen everyone, I dislike twitter as much as anyone. However, the parent post appears to contain a valid statement of opinion regarding Microsoft's tactics with respect to the OLPC project. Moderation should probably be according to the content of the post, not simply the poster's name.
I might just buy one. I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for installing their operating system (which I've paid for) on a computer I privately own. Have fun with that.
Listen, Broadcomm has repeatedly stated that they fully intend to release open source drivers for their wireless chipsets as soon as Duke Nukem Forever is released.
I wholeheartedly agree that Reiser deserves a hefty load of punishment for the crime. That said, I read the balance of your reply as semantics. Any reasonably intelligent person can discern the contextual differences you listed for the term "loss." As indicated in my original post, I'm certainly not making any attempt to minimize their situation.
As part of the deal that was discussed, CBS News learned that Reiser's mandated sentence of 25 years to life sentence could be cut to 15 years to life. Such an agreement would entail a judge allowing Reiser's conviction to be reduced to second-degree murder.
Emphasis is mine. It's not guaranteed that he'll get a reduced sentence.
As understandable as the sentiment is, that won't bring Nina Reiser back. I've lost a loved one to a drunk driver, and it isn't much comfort that the bastard went to prison. I hope his kids get a little bit of peace from the fact that at least they have a final answer on the matter, and that they'll be able to visit their mother's grave. This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.
Thank God someone finally gave Sir Mix-a-Lot the long overdue credit he richly deserves as a true environmentalist, humanitarian, and supporter of renewable bun energy extraction technologies. It's about time we broke the oil cartels' blockage on innovation and hooked up generators to all those pulsating rumps!
I say, let them do all the side bends and situps they want, since the calories expending in diminishing that rump will surely guide us into a new era of plentiful energy for all.
I have to say, I actually like your style:). I take no issue with your demand for honesty; in fact, I applaud it.
Here's my perspective on the whole bit:
(1) The article summary was, in fact, taken largely from the article (blog entry), as denoted by the portions in quotes.
(2) It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now). Hence, while the headline may appear somewhat sensational, I do not believe it is a misrepresentation of the nature of or gravity of the situation (Congress making and end-run around justice).
(3) While you're obviously capable of stating your position on the matter of journalistic integrity with great clarity, I respectfully disagree with your assertions on the matter [insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here];). Thanks!
(3)
I guess it should have read: "Anti Illegal Wiretap" instead... or you could have just taken that inference as a give considering the actual material presented in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone believe that Apple has any desire whatsoever to have an open platform?
Absolutely! Just look at the quantity of BSD-licensed code their operating system contains...
Unless you were referring to the soda, "coke" should not have been capitalized. The beverage incarnation hasn't contained cocaine for quite some time.
I'm certainly not advocating forcing Apple to modify their software specifically to support anyone else's software (although your NES analogy did make me smile). However, nothing gives Apple the right to tell me, the consumer, what hardware I am required to run their operating system on. The fact that they specify this in their EULA doesn't make it valid; I'd like to see someone sell me a music CD and dictate what kind of stereo system I'm allowed to play it on.
So you're saying I can't drive my car off-road?
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
The idea here is that this manufacturer is offering hardware that they've purpose-built to work with MacOS. If it doesn't function properly, their customers will demand refunds and the company will be out of business quickly. If it does function properly, the market wins with more competition on the hardware front.
I like it.
I don't think you get it. Here's how it goes:
(1) Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.
(2) I receive said media, and having completed the sale, the right of first sale doctrine kicks in. I can do any damned thing I please with that media, aside from distributing the copyrighted material to others while I'm still using the product.
(3) Legally speaking, Steve can take a printed copy of his EULA and smoke it.
There, fixed that for you.
On the contrary, I fully support them "making a profit on Apple's brand." I also support other companies making a profit on Ubuntu's brand, as they market computer systems specifically designed to be Linux-compatible. Apple makes a decent operating system, and I fully support the right of the consumer to choose what hardware that OS runs on.
Many software manufacturers have included provisions in their EULAs that resemble Apple's, and all are practically unenforceable against consumers. If I've legally purchased a product, Apple doesn't have any legal standing to tell me how to use that product, aside from unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.
I can melt the CD down into a little voodoo doll of Steve Jobs, use it as a coaster, or install it on another computer I own. So long as I'm not providing the software to another person for their use, I've broken no law. Remember, EULAs fall under contract law, which is widely regarded as the weakest of all agreements.
It would seem that legally speaking, hardware manufacturers cannot dictate what I do with their product as it functions immediately after I've purchased it. I could use it as intended, or as an expensive doorstop. The issue arises when the product is designed to connect to external services for things like software updates, which the hardware manufacturer may have direct control over, along with the legal right to restrict use of said services to specifically configured devices.
A lot might depend on how licensing agreements are worded. When we buy a product that is designed to receive periodic patches and other updates, are we allowed to tell the manufacturer how to run their service? If we're paying for it, it would seem we might have more rights in this area. I'm certainly not a lawyer, so it gets murky here.
The purchase would be less about saving money, and more about making a statement. Copyright law was always intended to prevent unauthorized distribution of protected materials, and not to dictate use of legitimately purchased materials. In my opinion, and other reading of the law is excessively restrictive.
Listen everyone, I dislike twitter as much as anyone. However, the parent post appears to contain a valid statement of opinion regarding Microsoft's tactics with respect to the OLPC project. Moderation should probably be according to the content of the post, not simply the poster's name.
I might just buy one. I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for installing their operating system (which I've paid for) on a computer I privately own. Have fun with that.
Listen, Broadcomm has repeatedly stated that they fully intend to release open source drivers for their wireless chipsets as soon as Duke Nukem Forever is released.
I wholeheartedly agree that Reiser deserves a hefty load of punishment for the crime. That said, I read the balance of your reply as semantics. Any reasonably intelligent person can discern the contextual differences you listed for the term "loss." As indicated in my original post, I'm certainly not making any attempt to minimize their situation.
He likes the interface better.
As part of the deal that was discussed, CBS News learned that Reiser's mandated sentence of 25 years to life sentence could be cut to 15 years to life. Such an agreement would entail a judge allowing Reiser's conviction to be reduced to second-degree murder.
Emphasis is mine. It's not guaranteed that he'll get a reduced sentence.
Wish I had mod points. +100 Insightful.
I hope he gets his in prison.
As understandable as the sentiment is, that won't bring Nina Reiser back. I've lost a loved one to a drunk driver, and it isn't much comfort that the bastard went to prison. I hope his kids get a little bit of peace from the fact that at least they have a final answer on the matter, and that they'll be able to visit their mother's grave. This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.
I've been working feverishly on Duke Nukem Forever, getting mighty close to release ...
I was 100% on board with you until that part, at which point Steve Jobs ran past me and the reality distortion field overwhelmed my senses.
Thank God someone finally gave Sir Mix-a-Lot the long overdue credit he richly deserves as a true environmentalist, humanitarian, and supporter of renewable bun energy extraction technologies. It's about time we broke the oil cartels' blockage on innovation and hooked up generators to all those pulsating rumps!
I say, let them do all the side bends and situps they want, since the calories expending in diminishing that rump will surely guide us into a new era of plentiful energy for all.
I have to say, I actually like your style :). I take no issue with your demand for honesty; in fact, I applaud it.
;). Thanks!
(3)
Here's my perspective on the whole bit:
(1) The article summary was, in fact, taken largely from the article (blog entry), as denoted by the portions in quotes.
(2) It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now). Hence, while the headline may appear somewhat sensational, I do not believe it is a misrepresentation of the nature of or gravity of the situation (Congress making and end-run around justice).
(3) While you're obviously capable of stating your position on the matter of journalistic integrity with great clarity, I respectfully disagree with your assertions on the matter [insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here]
I guess it should have read: "Anti Illegal Wiretap" instead... or you could have just taken that inference as a give considering the actual material presented in the article.
You obviously didn't read the submission yourself. Reference my earlier post regarding the article summary.
I think you've either been trolling throughout this thread, or you're simply unwilling to admit to your initial overreaction, but I'll bite anyhow.
Reference my earlier comment regarding the article summary, read the article itself in its entirety, and come back if you've got something more intelligent to say.