it depends how deritive works are defined, in this instance modifications of the souce could be considered a use of the software and the main way of using it.
of course copyright law was not created for practical tools. it was designed for art that is largely static after creation, and has been strung in interesting ways to apply to source code and object code. It might be necicary to make clear some rights that copyright law does not in the pre-arraged pre-purchace aggreement.
its the best the person can do, the only way to make this stronger if to have some soft of death clause in a pre-agreed contract before buying that states that if the user distrobutes the software they breech contract and have to pay consequences above and beyond copyright law.
However illicit copying of some types of software is much less prevelent than mega-apps. Also Businesses are less likely to do such a thing, and if the software was custom, there are few with the source so it would be fairily easy to establish evidence against the infringer and eill likely be easier to determine damages.
thats specifically not what the poster wants, the creator wants to ensure getting paid, therefore the licence within firefox and truecrypt that permits copying (under certain restrictions) is not acceptable in this case.
Also trademark stuff is valid for all software or anything even without copyright law even if things are in the public domain. Firefox etc all do more which is to copyleft it, making sure that people have to let each next user also view the original source, AND the contributions that any other developer makes, if they distrobute it.
yep, copyright law does all of this, the user can use the software in any manner, but not create copies beyond what is required to use it, nor distribute it, its all very clear and easy.
The user can create derivative products in the strictest sense, but without permission is unable to distribute them unless the part he is distributing has none of the original copyrighted material. (or gets permission)
Paypal acts as an unregulated bank, and it becomes merky territory, most importantly if you ever "transfer" money in via debit or bank account you are pretty fucked. They have been shutdown in multiple jurisdictions for running an unregulated bank.
this isnt open then, open should mean that they are put online and freely available without fear of copyright litigation.
Any modern Information company would love to host all the papers people ever sent them, and verification can be given with the common cryptographic tools that are in common use.
if it costs money to get or submit to "open access" it is not "open access". period.
These things should be uncopyrightable, and it should be set that trying to add typos like the map companies do, is specifically not protected by copyright. There is no reason why it should cost money to access these things when the internet is so free. It should be free to post, free to view, free to download.
I dont think any commercial organization would turn down an opportunity to host papers for free if they were allowed to put little ads next to them when you searched for papers. With modern cryptology it is completely possible to sign these things and know that they came from the people they say, and that the people who reviewed them really did, having the clout of big magazines is unneeded, and doesnt really add anything.
The NIH is the biggest creator of science progress in american, and much of the world. They do all the grunt work so that the pharmecuticals can use their basic research and only do the last little part, and then profit like crazy selling to Americans drugs the public made possible.
NIH research is and has been for decades, the cornerstone of science, and medical science research in America and the world.
he only vetoed things that were contradictory and political.
while he was getting involved in tery shivo to get his hard core Christian fellowshit. But he has in Texas, passing laws letting the hospitals kick out onto the streets dying people who couldn't pay.
the whitehouse has to make a special exception to their principals because they wanted to post youtube.
federal sites have had a long-standing rule against persistent cookies and youtube has them, where is the discussion on flash persistent flash cookies? persistent browser cookies?
vmware doesnt even support completely raw disk images, ie mapped exactally to what it would be on a physical partition, despite that being of course the most open image format possible.
umm, qemu has has had a open disk format for years and vmware refuses to support it even with its converter, or even acknowledge it exists, instead they use their own format that they can make future platforms extend and have complete control over making other products incompatible with any images touched by a future vmware product at any point in time.
you actually can, just create them in qemu/kvm, or even create them are raw images through imaging etc, and then use qemu-img to convert them.
qemu-img can also create just basic vmdk image that you can then use, or you can use vmware-server while is really the only decent vmware tool and can do everything vmware player can do.
Slashdot Mirror
dont be talking, windows took 5 years to release vista, and even after all that time to get it right it sucked.
when debian releases, their releases work and are more solid than anything else.
a freeze is quite a ways away, we just had a hard freeze and now is long merge time.
IN THE CONTEXT OF SWEDEN
law in one country does not automatically decome law in another country!
it depends how deritive works are defined, in this instance modifications of the souce could be considered a use of the software and the main way of using it.
of course copyright law was not created for practical tools. it was designed for art that is largely static after creation, and has been strung in interesting ways to apply to source code and object code. It might be necicary to make clear some rights that copyright law does not in the pre-arraged pre-purchace aggreement.
its the best the person can do, the only way to make this stronger if to have some soft of death clause in a pre-agreed contract before buying that states that if the user distrobutes the software they breech contract and have to pay consequences above and beyond copyright law.
However illicit copying of some types of software is much less prevelent than mega-apps. Also Businesses are less likely to do such a thing, and if the software was custom, there are few with the source so it would be fairily easy to establish evidence against the infringer and eill likely be easier to determine damages.
thats specifically not what the poster wants, the creator wants to ensure getting paid, therefore the licence within firefox and truecrypt that permits copying (under certain restrictions) is not acceptable in this case.
Also trademark stuff is valid for all software or anything even without copyright law even if things are in the public domain. Firefox etc all do more which is to copyleft it, making sure that people have to let each next user also view the original source, AND the contributions that any other developer makes, if they distrobute it.
yep, copyright law does all of this, the user can use the software in any manner, but not create copies beyond what is required to use it, nor distribute it, its all very clear and easy.
The user can create derivative products in the strictest sense, but without permission is unable to distribute them unless the part he is distributing has none of the original copyrighted material. (or gets permission)
Paypal acts as an unregulated bank, and it becomes merky territory, most importantly if you ever "transfer" money in via debit or bank account you are pretty fucked. They have been shutdown in multiple jurisdictions for running an unregulated bank.
this isnt open then, open should mean that they are put online and freely available without fear of copyright litigation.
Any modern Information company would love to host all the papers people ever sent them, and verification can be given with the common cryptographic tools that are in common use.
if it costs money to get or submit to "open access" it is not "open access". period.
These things should be uncopyrightable, and it should be set that trying to add typos like the map companies do, is specifically not protected by copyright. There is no reason why it should cost money to access these things when the internet is so free. It should be free to post, free to view, free to download.
I dont think any commercial organization would turn down an opportunity to host papers for free if they were allowed to put little ads next to them when you searched for papers. With modern cryptology it is completely possible to sign these things and know that they came from the people they say, and that the people who reviewed them really did, having the clout of big magazines is unneeded, and doesnt really add anything.
all while the Internet makes this whole process completely stupid, inefficient, and unnecessary.
Ummmmm, are you trying to be sarcastic?
The NIH is the biggest creator of science progress in american, and much of the world. They do all the grunt work so that the pharmecuticals can use their basic research and only do the last little part, and then profit like crazy selling to Americans drugs the public made possible.
NIH research is and has been for decades, the cornerstone of science, and medical science research in America and the world.
he only vetoed things that were contradictory and political.
while he was getting involved in tery shivo to get his hard core Christian fellowshit. But he has in Texas, passing laws letting the hospitals kick out onto the streets dying people who couldn't pay.
RTFA
the whitehouse has to make a special exception to their principals because they wanted to post youtube.
federal sites have had a long-standing rule against persistent cookies and youtube has them, where is the discussion on flash persistent flash cookies? persistent browser cookies?
warrentless wiretaps of ALL calls, domestic and international.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/first-interview-nsa-whistleblower
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=297abdd5-d0dc-4617-a6c9-c482fa316b59
They copied EVERYTHING, INDISCRIMINATELY, FROM EVERYBOSY, and then passed a 'law' giving the telecoms retroactive immunity.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/countdown-12209-fmr-nsa-agent-communications-rights-ignored/2733120647/descr
you can just turn off popups completely, just go to about:config and change dom.popup_allowed_events
vmware doesnt even support completely raw disk images, ie mapped exactally to what it would be on a physical partition, despite that being of course the most open image format possible.
umm, qemu has has had a open disk format for years and vmware refuses to support it even with its converter, or even acknowledge it exists, instead they use their own format that they can make future platforms extend and have complete control over making other products incompatible with any images touched by a future vmware product at any point in time.
yeah this is kinda useless, people can just use XDMCP or VNC on the host and skip installing any of vmware's code on the client.
wine has vastly better directX support
it doesnt even work with vmware-server? what BS
you actually can, just create them in qemu/kvm, or even create them are raw images through imaging etc, and then use qemu-img to convert them.
qemu-img can also create just basic vmdk image that you can then use, or you can use vmware-server while is really the only decent vmware tool and can do everything vmware player can do.
KVM will own everything else, its free, thin, and has excellent driver support, and is the only hypervisor to support real time scheduling
KVM is gonna win over Xen, especially with the emergence of IOMMU devices in the mainstream