But my point wasn't that licensing, its just not a community centric open source project, SUN control it. No, you said it wasn't really an open source project. Last time I checked, community involved, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with the definition of whether something is open source.
MySQL was considering the close sourcing of the enterprise stuff before they were acquired by Sun. After being acquired Sun was pushing that they don't go with the close source route as was confirmed in the previous thread. http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525246&cid=23098626
The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO) prior to the acquisition by Sun, so this has nothing to do with Sun. On the contrary, Sun is more likely to influence this decision the other way. Troll harder next time.
Good. I'm glad that Sun was able to convince the MySQL staff to not close source any of the codebase. And yes, as was pointed out in the other thread, Sun wasn't the one pushing the close source move they were actually trying to convince them to go the opposite.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or Oops, you failed.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
RAM is unnecessarily confusing the issue. How so? Their entire claim is built on the fact that the copy of the program in RAM is infringing on their copyright. Did you even read the articles? So to say that discussing the central thrust of their claim is confusing the issue is a completely baffling statement.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
I'm just going by what the FSF lawyers say, that compliance with the license is the *only* thing that grants you access to the copyrighted work. What works for GPL should work for EULAs. What the FSF lawyers say means about as much as dog feces smeared on a piece of paper when it flies in the face of the law and legal precendents. Having copies of WoW in your RAM isn't and never has been copyright infringement so even if you violate the EULA you are breaking a contract you can't be sued for such imaginary infringement. You can clearly be banned from their servers and any other such punishment for violating your contract, but you haven't violated any copyrights.
enabling users to add features, up to and including games and BASIC scripting." Just what everyone in the world was clamoring for: games for their camera.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright Except that's not how the law works. If you don't comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a contract not a copyright.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Except they consider it copyright infringement to copy the program into RAM even if you aren't running Glider or any other cheating software. So it's not like the GPL at all. They have a case for someone breaking the EULA and a contract dispute, but the claim of copyright infringement is fucking asinine. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't have loaded into the RAM on your computer.
Instead, Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies. Make sure to carefully read the bolded section.
No, that's not it.
Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies. That license, Blizzard argues, includes limitations, like not using bots like Glider. So using glider is a violation of the license, meaning that making that RAM copy is copyright infringement. Their whole claim is based on the fact that since you are violating their EULA by running Glider that they are now going to sue you for these supposed infringing RAM copies of WoW. It has nothing to do with any notion of a derived work.
That's not what they are arguing. They are trying to claim that you are infringing their copyrights whenever portions of WoW are copied into memory (which is a fucking requirement to running the program) but that they normally let it slide. Now the crux of their case is that since these people are running Glider that they are now waiving their grace of not suing you over these copyright infringing RAM copies.
I think you misread the quoted section. Blizzard is trying to claim that you are engaging in copyright infringement whenever portions of WoW get copied into RAM. Which is extremely ludicrous because of the fact that these portions of the program have to be copied into RAM to fucking run it. Here's from Public Knowledge:
In this case, Blizzard is saying that any user who runs Glider while playing WoW is infringing Blizzard's copyrights. This is despite the fact that Glider doesn't make any copies of WoW. Instead, Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies. Utter fucking lunacy.
Blizzard is trying to make the claim that that section doesn't apply since the users aren't "owners". This running contrary to almost all precedent with regards to this.
Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game. This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
Saying that it's dangerous to take away someone's option not to penalize you Whoever made this claim that you are saying is dangerous? Care to give an actual quotation? No one said the judge should be forced to penalize in every case and as with anything it's up to their discretion. If this was the actual thrust of your claim you were attacking a strawman.
is exactly like saying you should never be penalized. You've been spending the last 3 posts bemoaning how if a plaintiff *gasp* might get punished for abusing the legal system that they will somehow go full steamroller ahead. We've all seen how the lack of accountability that the DMCA has offered has really prevented such abuses. *rolls eyes*.
I'm talking about before the judge rules. Suppose that the plaintiffs realizes their mistake after the courts are involved but before the final judgment. In that event, unscrupulous plaintiffs may decide they're better off fighting tooth and nail to prevent being proven wrong rather than trying to back down and facing penalties. So then we should cease to penalize anyone? This is what your logic dictates.
The problem is that it gives the plaintiffs a strong reason not to back down, even if they want to. Their choices become: 1) say "I'm sorry" and get fined by the judge, or 2) say "oh, crud" and throw in every legal resource at their disposal in the hope that you'll get scared (or go bankrupt) and give in. I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If the judge has already ruled their claim to be fraudulent and is going to fine them, exactly through what mechanism is this supposed plaintiff going to have to go after you?
Imagine the same scenario, except now the plaintiff faces penalties from a pissed-off judge if they admit they're wrong and want to drop their case. I'm failing to see the problem with that scenario. Maybe next time the person won't be sending out fradulent DMCA requests anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
But you have to remember that Microsoft does everything wrong. *rolls eyes*
Wasn't there talk of Sun possibly doing a port for Linux? That would be much appreciated if they did so.
Good. I'm glad that Sun was able to convince the MySQL staff to not close source any of the codebase. And yes, as was pointed out in the other thread, Sun wasn't the one pushing the close source move they were actually trying to convince them to go the opposite.
Did you miss the part where it said "may be" lower. As in, it's in some cases that might be true, but not others.
That's not what they are arguing. They are trying to claim that you are infringing their copyrights whenever portions of WoW are copied into memory (which is a fucking requirement to running the program) but that they normally let it slide. Now the crux of their case is that since these people are running Glider that they are now waiving their grace of not suing you over these copyright infringing RAM copies.
Blizzard is trying to make the claim that that section doesn't apply since the users aren't "owners". This running contrary to almost all precedent with regards to this.
The nanosecond resolution is there for mission critical systems that need a finer resolution than seconds.
Woooooooooosh