"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
It's quite obvious that you only care about the bold part. Snowgirl is correctly pointing out that there's more in there:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
So yeah, add your own Hello World application and you're most likely good to go. However, you are failing to prove that indescriminate copying is per definition allowed in open source context.
Re:Just an improvement on a bad programming techni
on
Knuth Got It Wrong
·
· Score: 1
3x16 = 48, not 300.
But I understand what you want to say.
I suspect you don't. The point is that TFA mentions 300GB VM, on a machine with 16GB physical RAM.
Three such machines might match one machine with 300GB physical RAM, at a much lower price.
3x16 is irrelevant.
Isn't it every game designers prerogative to decide what parts should be quick and easy?
In an RTS, it's might be quick and easy to order your squad to take out that enemy platoon, while you worry about the grander scheme of things.
In an FPS, it's probably quick and easy to figure out what guys you need to kill, but less so to get it done.
Leveling a character, or grinding valuables for auction house hardly qualify as a fundamental "part of using a computer".
Long distance travel in Fallout 3 is there by design. WoW picked a different route. You're free to dislike mundane aspects, but Blizzard made this game, and they're free to include it. And of course, you're free to stop playing if you really hate it.
Also, you're free to do whatever you want in your single player games, including cheating. However, cheating in WoW impacts everyone else on the server, and I most definitely believe Blizzard has every right to protect the WoW eco-system from people who reached level 80 and 100K gold, not by playing the game, but by installing an application.
Some players think they have the right to cheat in WoW. Some people think they have the right to play on level terms with everyone around them, and feel this right violated by cheaters. One group is gonna be pissed off. I definitely appreciate the side Blizzard picked.
It ain't.
No where did any piece of legislation say that all intelligence, whether artificial or human, was created equal, and human rights does not apply to computers.
Sure, you say your AI is entitled to play WoW, but who gives a shit what you say.
Do you even realize that WoW is an MMO?
It's so utterly transparent that by "buying" WoW, you're paying a setup fee for you ongoing subscription.
Hate them all you want. Your ideology just doesn't go with MMO's. I guess they're not your thing then, and I'm wondering why you can be bothered to post here.
And btw, there's no (software) pirates (but plenty of the actual one-eyed, peg-legged, parrot-accompanied villains) in WoW. Unless you're counting private servers. Which I guess Blizzard don't really care THAT much about, since their activities aren't actually hurting the real world... of warcraft.
We've just learned that nothing interesting is going on! Specifically, the president has NOT been assasinated, 3rd world war did NOT just start, and CERN has NOT produced earth-destroying black holes.
But has any developer gone to such lengths for its fans?
Seems to me like they're taking the easy road, by putting project management partially into the hands of the players rather than doing it by themselves. A more interesting question is if it won't end up hurting the game rather than improving it.
Society should decide how important each parasite is, and reward them accordingly.
I'm personally a fan of free market, so we're obviously not seeing eye to eye, but nevertheless... there's at least three kinds of actual working people:
Those who make it possible for us to survive at all (food)
Those who help us live longer (health)
Those who make life worth living (entertainment)
Education probably falls within the realm of entertainment (even though school might no be "entertaining"). Britney Spears is worth more than your average school teacher because a school teacher spends 10 years preparing 30 people for doing well within one field of expertise, while Britney Spears single-handedly amuses millions of people worldwide.
Wait a minute - the studios are powerless in stopping a commercial rental service despite the fact that these DVD's explicitly say that they cannot be used for anything other than private viewing?
Most of the time I spent on Wiki has to do with exotic animals or theoretical physics, or other topics that are almost by definition "educational".
I do however remember picking up this brilliant reference from a/.'er who had forgotten what "vulva" was.
While it can be educational in context, this might be a bit borderline, and certainly NSFW.
you'll get bored with your character soon enough and be begging for it to finish soon so you can try a new playthrough
I guess this is the point where I usually realize that I'm playing to have fun. If I suspect I'll have more fun making a new character, I'll just do that, rather than feel forced to see the game through to the end.
Cute. I love how some people consider Apples products a gift to humanity to the point where it's use or lack thereof should be subject to human rights. Apple made the product. They're free to make it however they want. You're free to not buy it if you don't like it.
Could you show a quote confirming your point? Taken entirely literally, there's definitely a difference between "circumventing a technological measure", and "being capable of planning a concept that, if executed, circumvents a technological measure".
I think you're conveniently bypassing the implied notion that *all* life requires water.
An organism that can create it's own water does not provide an example of non water dependant organisms. Untill such an organism is found, it's sensible to assume water is a necessity for life, and it's sensible to assume that life will not form where the conditions for life don't exist.
This is actually untrue. Parent didn't disagree and repeat. He pointed out that the statement was obviously flawed, and explained why it accurately described reality.
As long as digital pirates feel the need to hide as "Anonymous Coward" on/., I'm pretty sure they're pretty far form working up the guts to even hold a gun.
Your reasoning is sound.
Thought experiment: so, now all ISP's actually raise their prices to a level where they have a viable business model, rather than attempting to hoard as many net-loss customers together as possible. After ISP's worldwide lose 60% of their clients, it becomes obvious to established physical-goods companies, medias, government instances and certain major IT companies that they can no longer rely on everyone and their mother using the internet to order their concert tickets, do their banking, and check the stock of their local IKEA online.
An initiative of content suppliers worldwide figures that it's good business to sign agreements to support ISP's for the purpose of keeping end user bandwidth pricing low.
I guess my point is - surely, the ISP's are to blame. But the internet is young still, massive changes are still likely to happen, and at this point, they've probably done the world a massive favor by dumping prices to the point where they almost seem to be unselfishly giving away internet for free, for the benefit of society as a whole.
Targetting Google specifically is obvious, given the fair dataload caused by YouTube. In the grander scheme of things though, taking the issue to court might actually serve as a quicker transition than raising prices, waiting for content providers to react on decreased web-based market penetration, and voluntarily accepting similar terms.
Google generating massive revenue and ISP's struggling to survive doesn't seem fair given their interdependance. Raising end user prices is a possible fix. Charging content suppliers for market penetration is a different possible fix.
It likely conflicts with net neutrality on several accounts, but what good is net neutrality if only a small portion of the population can afford access anyway? It wouldn't be the first beautiful idealistic vision to fail based on harsh realities.
Slashdot Mirror
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
It's quite obvious that you only care about the bold part. Snowgirl is correctly pointing out that there's more in there:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
So yeah, add your own Hello World application and you're most likely good to go. However, you are failing to prove that indescriminate copying is per definition allowed in open source context.
3x16 = 48, not 300. But I understand what you want to say.
I suspect you don't. The point is that TFA mentions 300GB VM, on a machine with 16GB physical RAM.
Three such machines might match one machine with 300GB physical RAM, at a much lower price.
3x16 is irrelevant.
Isn't it every game designers prerogative to decide what parts should be quick and easy?
In an RTS, it's might be quick and easy to order your squad to take out that enemy platoon, while you worry about the grander scheme of things.
In an FPS, it's probably quick and easy to figure out what guys you need to kill, but less so to get it done.
Leveling a character, or grinding valuables for auction house hardly qualify as a fundamental "part of using a computer".
Long distance travel in Fallout 3 is there by design. WoW picked a different route. You're free to dislike mundane aspects, but Blizzard made this game, and they're free to include it. And of course, you're free to stop playing if you really hate it.
Also, you're free to do whatever you want in your single player games, including cheating. However, cheating in WoW impacts everyone else on the server, and I most definitely believe Blizzard has every right to protect the WoW eco-system from people who reached level 80 and 100K gold, not by playing the game, but by installing an application.
Some players think they have the right to cheat in WoW. Some people think they have the right to play on level terms with everyone around them, and feel this right violated by cheaters. One group is gonna be pissed off. I definitely appreciate the side Blizzard picked.
It ain't.
No where did any piece of legislation say that all intelligence, whether artificial or human, was created equal, and human rights does not apply to computers.
Sure, you say your AI is entitled to play WoW, but who gives a shit what you say.
Do you even realize that WoW is an MMO?
It's so utterly transparent that by "buying" WoW, you're paying a setup fee for you ongoing subscription.
Hate them all you want. Your ideology just doesn't go with MMO's. I guess they're not your thing then, and I'm wondering why you can be bothered to post here.
And btw, there's no (software) pirates (but plenty of the actual one-eyed, peg-legged, parrot-accompanied villains) in WoW. Unless you're counting private servers. Which I guess Blizzard don't really care THAT much about, since their activities aren't actually hurting the real world... of warcraft.
We've just learned that nothing interesting is going on! Specifically, the president has NOT been assasinated, 3rd world war did NOT just start, and CERN has NOT produced earth-destroying black holes.
*Sigh* Maybe you should RTFM.
I thought the purpose of Apple products was that you shouldn't have to.
Not sure the word 'fact' belongs in that sentence with the rest of the wild speculation.
It's a fact that it may be the deciding factor.
But has any developer gone to such lengths for its fans?
Seems to me like they're taking the easy road, by putting project management partially into the hands of the players rather than doing it by themselves. A more interesting question is if it won't end up hurting the game rather than improving it.
Society should decide how important each parasite is, and reward them accordingly.
I'm personally a fan of free market, so we're obviously not seeing eye to eye, but nevertheless... there's at least three kinds of actual working people:
Those who make it possible for us to survive at all (food)
Those who help us live longer (health)
Those who make life worth living (entertainment)
Education probably falls within the realm of entertainment (even though school might no be "entertaining"). Britney Spears is worth more than your average school teacher because a school teacher spends 10 years preparing 30 people for doing well within one field of expertise, while Britney Spears single-handedly amuses millions of people worldwide.
Wait a minute - the studios are powerless in stopping a commercial rental service despite the fact that these DVD's explicitly say that they cannot be used for anything other than private viewing?
Bass or snare?
Most of the time I spent on Wiki has to do with exotic animals or theoretical physics, or other topics that are almost by definition "educational". /.'er who had forgotten what "vulva" was.
I do however remember picking up this brilliant reference from a
While it can be educational in context, this might be a bit borderline, and certainly NSFW.
you'll get bored with your character soon enough and be begging for it to finish soon so you can try a new playthrough
I guess this is the point where I usually realize that I'm playing to have fun. If I suspect I'll have more fun making a new character, I'll just do that, rather than feel forced to see the game through to the end.
Except for one thing: Google search would then be selling their data collection to 3rd party.
Cute. I love how some people consider Apples products a gift to humanity to the point where it's use or lack thereof should be subject to human rights. Apple made the product. They're free to make it however they want. You're free to not buy it if you don't like it.
Gen 4...finally.
Apple always gets it right in the product not yet available.
It's cooler than any e-reader on the market, the same way that an iMac is cooler than any calculator on the market.
Funny. If not for the order of appearance, I would've thought putting your phone inside an iPod touch was the worst move ever.
Could you show a quote confirming your point? Taken entirely literally, there's definitely a difference between "circumventing a technological measure", and "being capable of planning a concept that, if executed, circumvents a technological measure".
I think you're conveniently bypassing the implied notion that *all* life requires water.
An organism that can create it's own water does not provide an example of non water dependant organisms. Untill such an organism is found, it's sensible to assume water is a necessity for life, and it's sensible to assume that life will not form where the conditions for life don't exist.
This is actually untrue. Parent didn't disagree and repeat. He pointed out that the statement was obviously flawed, and explained why it accurately described reality.
As long as digital pirates feel the need to hide as "Anonymous Coward" on /., I'm pretty sure they're pretty far form working up the guts to even hold a gun.
Your reasoning is sound.
Thought experiment: so, now all ISP's actually raise their prices to a level where they have a viable business model, rather than attempting to hoard as many net-loss customers together as possible. After ISP's worldwide lose 60% of their clients, it becomes obvious to established physical-goods companies, medias, government instances and certain major IT companies that they can no longer rely on everyone and their mother using the internet to order their concert tickets, do their banking, and check the stock of their local IKEA online.
An initiative of content suppliers worldwide figures that it's good business to sign agreements to support ISP's for the purpose of keeping end user bandwidth pricing low.
I guess my point is - surely, the ISP's are to blame. But the internet is young still, massive changes are still likely to happen, and at this point, they've probably done the world a massive favor by dumping prices to the point where they almost seem to be unselfishly giving away internet for free, for the benefit of society as a whole.
Targetting Google specifically is obvious, given the fair dataload caused by YouTube. In the grander scheme of things though, taking the issue to court might actually serve as a quicker transition than raising prices, waiting for content providers to react on decreased web-based market penetration, and voluntarily accepting similar terms.
Google generating massive revenue and ISP's struggling to survive doesn't seem fair given their interdependance. Raising end user prices is a possible fix. Charging content suppliers for market penetration is a different possible fix.
It likely conflicts with net neutrality on several accounts, but what good is net neutrality if only a small portion of the population can afford access anyway? It wouldn't be the first beautiful idealistic vision to fail based on harsh realities.