with the goal of making a true SCO Linux/Unix (they own the Unix trademark, no?)
UNIX® is a registered trademark of Open Group, but if SCO were successful in bringing the GNU/Linux system up to the Single UNIX® Specification, it could license the trademark.
In exchange for the dubious "right to use" the software, they state that you must agree to waive certain rights you would otherwise have. By clicking on the little "I Agree" button, you thereby (supposedly) waive those rights in exchange for the "right to use". But there is no "right to use" -- or rather, the right to use is inherent in legitimately-granted access to the software.
But there is no access to the software if the "I Agree" button is not clicked or if the software package is unopened. The software is a compressed, encrypted archive until you push that button; it's just a cheap CD case until you open it. You have the right to use it, but you do not have the ability.
The issue with linking is not that it's modifying, but that it is is creating a derived work from the library.
Again, IANAL, but modification == creation of a derivative work.
When a program is dynamically linked to a library, some information is placed in the resulting executable as to what library files need to be accessed.
Is this information (linker.defs) considered a "derivative work" of the GPL'd library? It seems to be in Cygwin's case.
How about if the OS has been documented by the producer admiting to the existance of oh, say 65000 bugs?
It seems that M$ reported 65,535 confirmed issues because anything higher than that would overflow the data type unsigned short. Sounds like they wrote their bug tracker with an old 16-bit DOS compiler. The scandiskers (can't say fsckers; this is M$) should have used this 32-bit compiler (a Free one at that) to make their bug tracker...
I am not a lawyer, but I'm thinking of pursuing law after I get my CS degree. Laws have bugs; the court system is a debugging tool.
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License
Compiling is modifying. Linking is modifying (otherwise, there would be no need for Lesser GPL). Any irreversible transformation is modifying in the eyes of the law (tarballing or zipping is "mere aggregation," not modifying, because it can straightforwardly and automatically be undone).
So by compiling the program, you modify it and accept the License including without limitation the NO WARRANTY provision. The only way a program can be executed without being compiled would be:
if it's in an interpreted language such as Scheme or Perl, or
if it comes as precompiled binaries, in which case its installer is probably considered clickwrap.
GNU GPL is a non-shrink-wrap license. (However, if you are using InstallShield instead of RPM to install your packages, it is shrink-wrap.) Non-shrink-wrap licenses have no protection under UCITA.
Premise1: The aim of copyright law is to protect the IP of the owner
According to the Constitution, the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is an artificial right, put in so that art creators would have an incentive to create art.
In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
Here is a nonpatented perceptual audio coding system from xiph.org.
Patents don't suck; software patents suck. Non-software patents actually work; for example, look at the model for development of new pharmaceuticals. Without the guarantee of a monopoly, drug companies would have no incentive to spend big bucks on research and development.
Software patents, on the other hand... The Patent Office needs to get better reviewers who actually know something about the software industry, especially free software. Only truly revolutionary techniques (MPEG audio layer 3, RSA public-key encryption, etc.) deserve a patent. This Unisys patent (even dumber than its LZW patent) doesn't.
The Dreamcast doesn't have a hard drive, right? so where is Bleem going to live? In ram, and you have to download it every time you want to use it? Blah.
The Dreamcast console's GD-ROM drive is fast; the Bleem CD would probably be a preboot. Isn't there a version of PSX Grand Theft Auto that has a preboot CD? You already load parts of PC Bleem from a CD every time you use it ("please insert cd key").
This whole thing sounds like the Sega Channel on the old Genesis console.
-o I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. o-
The solution is rent to own. How about permanently adding the game to the user's playlist once the player rents it 10 to 20 times? Otherwise, role-playing games will not get downloaded, as they generally take more than a month to beat.
This just means that Sega is going to step up its anti-piracy campaign. (get paid) Nintendo of America Inc., for instance, doesn't even want players having ROM images of cartridges they own and even discredits freebeerware ROM development by claiming "emulators only support piracy."
Cool! I can play Sonic the Hedgehog on the Dreamcast console. But there should be a "purchase" option or a "rent to own" option that after 20 rentals ($30) licenses the game to a user permanently.
But Bleem^TM for the Dreamcast console? Is it even fast enough to run PSX games at full speed? I'd think only PSX 2 has enough juice for that (binary compatibility is one of PSX 2's selling points).
The "search" and "chat" functions are hosted on a whole bunch of servers at napster.com. "Sharing files" means uploading a list of your valid MP3 files to the Napster central server.
Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death).
Any work created on or after 1923 will remain under copyright forever. Every time the year approaches when copyrights will start to expire again, The Walt Disney Company buys a retroactive copyright term extension from the United States Congress so that o (Mickey Mouse) doesn't fall into public domain. This time it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF factsheet here), passed in October 1999 by voice vote; representatives and senators didn't even have to account to their constituents for their votes. IANAL, but IMHO this retroactive extension is unconstitutional; it violates the "limited times" provision of Article I Section 8. What kind of cr4ck were our representatives and senators smoking to think that extending copyright 70 years after an artist's death would "progress of science and useful arts"?
My current recording artist boycott list:
Sonny and Cher (for the Sonny Bono Act)
Metallica (music sucks; band is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)
Dr. Dre (music sucks; so-called "artist" is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)
Slashdot Mirror
Users cannot create files and folders whose names are reserved words like DOS device names.
But...
third-party application developers can create their own device drivers and add their names to the reserved list.
What about: create a folder, then reboot with a device driver of the same name loaded?
According to Illiad, who draws the UserFriendly, MCSE == Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
Maybe he wants a monopoly on DDOS clients too
MS-DOS: Micro$oft Denial Of Service.
with the goal of making a true SCO Linux/Unix (they own the Unix trademark, no?)
UNIX® is a registered trademark of Open Group, but if SCO were successful in bringing the GNU/Linux system up to the Single UNIX® Specification, it could license the trademark.
In exchange for the dubious "right to use" the software, they state that you must agree to waive certain rights you would otherwise have. By clicking on the little "I Agree" button, you thereby (supposedly) waive those rights in exchange for the "right to use". But there is no "right to use" -- or rather, the right to use is inherent in legitimately-granted access to the software.
But there is no access to the software if the "I Agree" button is not clicked or if the software package is unopened. The software is a compressed, encrypted archive until you push that button; it's just a cheap CD case until you open it. You have the right to use it, but you do not have the ability.
The issue with linking is not that it's modifying, but that it is is creating a derived work from the library.
Again, IANAL, but modification == creation of a derivative work.
When a program is dynamically linked to a library, some information is placed in the resulting executable as to what library files need to be accessed.
Is this information (linker .defs) considered a "derivative work" of the GPL'd library? It seems to be in Cygwin's case.
How about if the OS has been documented by the producer admiting to the existance of oh, say 65000 bugs?
It seems that M$ reported 65,535 confirmed issues because anything higher than that would overflow the data type unsigned short. Sounds like they wrote their bug tracker with an old 16-bit DOS compiler. The scandiskers (can't say fsckers; this is M$) should have used this 32-bit compiler (a Free one at that) to make their bug tracker...
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License
Compiling is modifying. Linking is modifying (otherwise, there would be no need for Lesser GPL). Any irreversible transformation is modifying in the eyes of the law (tarballing or zipping is "mere aggregation," not modifying, because it can straightforwardly and automatically be undone).
So by compiling the program, you modify it and accept the License including without limitation the NO WARRANTY provision. The only way a program can be executed without being compiled would be:
All that's needed is a clause in the license that says that you aren't allowed to distribute the modified program as source or otherwise.
Troll Tech's QPL already does this; modified source must be distributed as patches.
...and receives no protection under UCITA.
GNU GPL is a non-shrink-wrap license. (However, if you are using InstallShield instead of RPM to install your packages, it is shrink-wrap.) Non-shrink-wrap licenses have no protection under UCITA.
Premise1: The aim of copyright law is to protect the IP of the owner
According to the Constitution, the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is an artificial right, put in so that art creators would have an incentive to create art.
In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
Here is a nonpatented perceptual audio coding system from xiph.org.
I'd like to see a certain country band take on MP3.com/Napster/Gnutella.
what's to stop them from pulling a unisys and start charging fees for every use of mp3s? Nothing, AFAIK...
Wide acceptance of Xiph.org's Ogg Vorbis audio compression technology, that's what.
In 2 words: patents suck.
Patents don't suck; software patents suck. Non-software patents actually work; for example, look at the model for development of new pharmaceuticals. Without the guarantee of a monopoly, drug companies would have no incentive to spend big bucks on research and development.
Software patents, on the other hand... The Patent Office needs to get better reviewers who actually know something about the software industry, especially free software. Only truly revolutionary techniques (MPEG audio layer 3, RSA public-key encryption, etc.) deserve a patent. This Unisys patent (even dumber than its LZW patent) doesn't.
Two words: Sega Channel. Genesis games broadcasted over cable.
The Dreamcast doesn't have a hard drive, right? so where is Bleem going to live? In ram, and you have to download it every time you want to use it? Blah.
The Dreamcast console's GD-ROM drive is fast; the Bleem CD would probably be a preboot. Isn't there a version of PSX Grand Theft Auto that has a preboot CD? You already load parts of PC Bleem from a CD every time you use it ("please insert cd key").
This whole thing sounds like the Sega Channel on the old Genesis console.
-o I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. o-
The solution is rent to own. How about permanently adding the game to the user's playlist once the player rents it 10 to 20 times? Otherwise, role-playing games will not get downloaded, as they generally take more than a month to beat.
This just means that Sega is going to step up its anti-piracy campaign. (get paid) Nintendo of America Inc., for instance, doesn't even want players having ROM images of cartridges they own and even discredits freebeerware ROM development by claiming "emulators only support piracy."
Cool! I can play Sonic the Hedgehog on the Dreamcast console. But there should be a "purchase" option or a "rent to own" option that after 20 rentals ($30) licenses the game to a user permanently.
But Bleem^TM for the Dreamcast console? Is it even fast enough to run PSX games at full speed? I'd think only PSX 2 has enough juice for that (binary compatibility is one of PSX 2's selling points).
The "search" and "chat" functions are hosted on a whole bunch of servers at napster.com. "Sharing files" means uploading a list of your valid MP3 files to the Napster central server.
Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death).
Any work created on or after 1923 will remain under copyright forever. Every time the year approaches when copyrights will start to expire again, The Walt Disney Company buys a retroactive copyright term extension from the United States Congress so that o (Mickey Mouse) doesn't fall into public domain. This time it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF factsheet here), passed in October 1999 by voice vote; representatives and senators didn't even have to account to their constituents for their votes. IANAL, but IMHO this retroactive extension is unconstitutional; it violates the "limited times" provision of Article I Section 8. What kind of cr4ck were our representatives and senators smoking to think that extending copyright 70 years after an artist's death would "progress of science and useful arts"?
My current recording artist boycott list:Go on any search engine and look for Tetripz.
Or better yet, using the portable Allegro wrapper around DirectX. I did this for freepuzzlearena (get it here).