Just because some code is in a driver for some aspect of a phone, doesn't mean it won't be useful in some other driver or scenario. Learn to think outside of the box.
But what these "it's just a typo" people seem to have forgotten is that MSN works fine in Opera with the IE stylesheet. Thus begging the question, why go with an Opera-specific one?
Hmmm...perhaps you should renice xmms to, say, -20 (If you trust it that much), and Kazaa Lite to 19.
XMMS takes next to no processing power on an XP 1700+. I can run XMMS and Q3 at the same time and still get FPS in the 100s. Q3 isn't that CPU intensive. Nor is Unreal these days. UT2003 I could understand, but that's because it canes my system without XMMS running (XP1600+, GF3).
But nobody actually plays 3DMark. Did you try benching them on things like Quake3, UT and flight sims? For the most part, the Voodoo5 beat the MX by quite a margin, and owned the GF2 in UT and Unreal based games.
"As to look and feel YES, it is actionable (there was a court case between Microsoft and Apple, it was settled out of court as far as I can recall)." IIRC Apple pretty much buckled. After all, why have Apple not shut down the Aqua themes that don't use Apple's trademarks or copyrighted code/images?
"In implementing ADFS if ANY disassembly and reverse engineering of code was done this would amount to a violation of the DCMA. Similarly in the implementation of ArmLinux on RISC OS platforms if ANY reverse engineering was proven they too would be subject to the same legal strictures." I don't give a shit about the DMCA, since I'm not in the US, and I'm fairly certain the initial ADFS support was done by a British man in the UK.
"The antialiasing system in RISC OS is far superior to that on Linux (which at best is second rate). I certainly have had problems with Rh7.1 which leaves some of the stuff pretty unreadable at small font sizes (at which RISC OS would work well in comparison)." Hmm... http://homepages.nildram.co .uk/~dwinsper/eclipse.p ng http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper/eclip se-d ebug.png http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper /spam.png
Seems quite nice to me. If you want specific shots of specific sizes, let me know.
"If there is ANY GPL code in RISC OS 5 (and this is not proven) it MUST be removed - I really DON'T like the idea of having ANY Linux code in RISC OS - no matter HOW small." Why, don't like the idea of superior code being used? How's RISC OS's IDE performance these days?
"It is interesting to note that some Linux users have suggested that they will "not support Castle products".... fine so that means RISC OS (sans GPL code) will not have ANY competition from Linux then - that suits me just fine." Eh? RISC OS provides no competition to Linux at all, especially with RISC OS ltd. still losing money. By not supporting Castle, I can sympathise. After all, I still know people who use RISC OS machines (Like my father), and I know who I'll tell him not to buy from.
"By the way Darren will you and the Linux Stormtroopers be as vigilate about Microdigitals Omega with respect to it's PCI code ????"
I can only speak for myself. I don't have access to any modern RISC OS hardware, so I'll not be performing checks. However, I'm sure some people will be. Especially after Castle have pissed off the ARMLinux folks by basically trying to cover their tracks after being found out. Why haven't they denied their use of GPL code?
There is no code whatsoever in Linux that comes from RISC OS. Things like ROX are inspired by RISC OS, but last time I checked, a similar look and feel is not copyright violation. The disk formats have nothing to do with copyright violation. Yes, Linux can read ADFS formatted disks, but that's just conforming to a specification.
Let's look at RISC OS 5. RISC OS 5 contains GPL code (apparently, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest so) and is being distributed, but sans source. Thus, it follows that Castle are in violation of the GPL and have two options: 1) Stop distibuting the RISC OS 5 immediately. They can only legally distribute RISC OS 5 once the GPL code has been removed, at which point they will either need a complete replacement for the GPL code, or RISC OS 5 won't work on their hardware 2) GPL RISC OS 5.
There are no other options.
And as for the anti-aliasing system in RISC OS, it was good in its day, but it's really not particually special any more.
Fair use is a small snippet. A few lines of code (Few does not mean hundreds, which is what they would have had to use), a paragraph from a book, a screencap from a film. There's no way a judge could rule it was fair use.
It would be just as valid as in the US. UK copyright law isn't much different from US copyright law (not DMCA). If anything, it's more restrictive which would give the GPL more teeth in the matter.
Fair use? Why would that enter into it? It would definitely be a dirivative work, since they started from the kernel code, and then derived their version from it.
That's wrong. While there are legitimate "spammers", I'd hesitate to even call them a spammer. If I opt-into something, then surely it's not spam because I asked for it.
The problem is the people who send me spam and then, if I attempt to opt-out, seem to think "hmm...maybe he means 'send me 6,000,000 more spams'".
Well, it's not quite as easy as you think. For example, I have an e-mail address I never gave out except to a few people. At the beginning of this year, I started recieving about 3 spams a day to it, all from the same people (Advertising different things and having different addresses, but the spam has the same layout design). Now, I'm not sure how they got hold of it, but they did, and I have to deal with it.
Javascript: There's nothing inherently wrong with client-side scripting, but individual implementations have problems. There are some things that are far better suited to client-side rather than server-side scripting, such as tree views.
Cookies: Cookies solve a legitimate problem of persistent information, especially over a connectionless protocol like TCP/IP. However, they can be abused, hence why you should be careful about what cookies you accept.
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this program exploits a bug in IE to stealth-install. If it doesn't and people just blindly click "yes" to any old dialogue box that pops up, then once again I have no sympathy for them, but I wouldn't recommend changing browser, I'd recommend they get a clue.
You know, I should have sympathy for the victims of this, but I don't. The solution is simple; don't use IE! Countless security holes and other problems have occured with IE in the past, yet people still use it.
This goes double for the people I've already warned. Every time something nasty like this happens, I tell them the solution is to use something else. Then they come crying to me the next time it happens.
With all the details set to max, UT2003 is just about playable on my GeForce3 Ti200 (at 1024*768). When I enable AA and AF, performance drops like a rock. There is no way in Hell the first generation Radeon can play UT2003 with those detail levels at an acceptable resolution.
Talk about clutching at straws. I could post a screenshot of my desktop with a DVD playing, but it's not worth the effort. After all, you've yet to prove your point.
Eh? The UK has been forced to delay its introduction of the EUCD into the commons because of all the feedback it got, most of it being quite damning of the EUCD.
I'd say that technically, yes, you were violating. However, I wouldn't have thought it were significant enough for even RMS to get pissy over it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
The real question is what people would consider significant enough to go after you for the violation.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because some code is in a driver for some aspect of a phone, doesn't mean it won't be useful in some other driver or scenario. Learn to think outside of the box.
But they showed the site working fine in Opera 6 using the IE stylesheet.
But what these "it's just a typo" people seem to have forgotten is that MSN works fine in Opera with the IE stylesheet. Thus begging the question, why go with an Opera-specific one?
Hmmm...perhaps you should renice xmms to, say, -20 (If you trust it that much), and Kazaa Lite to 19.
XMMS takes next to no processing power on an XP 1700+. I can run XMMS and Q3 at the same time and still get FPS in the 100s. Q3 isn't that CPU intensive. Nor is Unreal these days. UT2003 I could understand, but that's because it canes my system without XMMS running (XP1600+, GF3).
Would this be the same Tom's Hardware that was caught forging pictures of a P4 running at something silly like 3.6GHz?
SMP in Q3 has been broken for a long time. It's not on by default, and will likely crash if you do enable it.
But nobody actually plays 3DMark. Did you try benching them on things like Quake3, UT and flight sims? For the most part, the Voodoo5 beat the MX by quite a margin, and owned the GF2 in UT and Unreal based games.
"As to look and feel YES, it is actionable (there was a court case between Microsoft and Apple, it was settled out of court as far as I can recall)."
o .uk/~dwinsper/eclipse.p ngp se-d ebug.pngr /spam.png
.... fine so that means RISC OS (sans GPL code) will not have ANY competition from Linux then - that suits me just fine."
IIRC Apple pretty much buckled. After all, why have Apple not shut down the Aqua themes that don't use Apple's trademarks or copyrighted code/images?
"In implementing ADFS if ANY disassembly and reverse engineering of code was done this would amount to a violation of the DCMA. Similarly in the implementation of ArmLinux on RISC OS platforms if ANY reverse engineering was proven they too would be subject to the same legal strictures."
I don't give a shit about the DMCA, since I'm not in the US, and I'm fairly certain the initial ADFS support was done by a British man in the UK.
"The antialiasing system in RISC OS is far superior to that on Linux (which at best is second rate). I certainly have had problems with Rh7.1 which leaves some of the stuff pretty unreadable at small font sizes (at which RISC OS would work well in comparison)."
Hmm...
http://homepages.nildram.c
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper/ecli
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinspe
Seems quite nice to me. If you want specific shots of specific sizes, let me know.
"If there is ANY GPL code in RISC OS 5 (and this is not proven) it MUST be removed - I really DON'T like the idea of having ANY Linux code in RISC OS - no matter HOW small."
Why, don't like the idea of superior code being used? How's RISC OS's IDE performance these days?
"It is interesting to note that some Linux users have suggested that they will "not support Castle products"
Eh? RISC OS provides no competition to Linux at all, especially with RISC OS ltd. still losing money. By not supporting Castle, I can sympathise. After all, I still know people who use RISC OS machines (Like my father), and I know who I'll tell him not to buy from.
"By the way Darren will you and the Linux Stormtroopers be as vigilate about Microdigitals Omega with respect to it's PCI code ????"
I can only speak for myself. I don't have access to any modern RISC OS hardware, so I'll not be performing checks. However, I'm sure some people will be. Especially after Castle have pissed off the ARMLinux folks by basically trying to cover their tracks after being found out. Why haven't they denied their use of GPL code?
There is no code whatsoever in Linux that comes from RISC OS. Things like ROX are inspired by RISC OS, but last time I checked, a similar look and feel is not copyright violation. The disk formats have nothing to do with copyright violation. Yes, Linux can read ADFS formatted disks, but that's just conforming to a specification.
Let's look at RISC OS 5. RISC OS 5 contains GPL code (apparently, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest so) and is being distributed, but sans source. Thus, it follows that Castle are in violation of the GPL and have two options:
1) Stop distibuting the RISC OS 5 immediately. They can only legally distribute RISC OS 5 once the GPL code has been removed, at which point they will either need a complete replacement for the GPL code, or RISC OS 5 won't work on their hardware
2) GPL RISC OS 5.
There are no other options.
And as for the anti-aliasing system in RISC OS, it was good in its day, but it's really not particually special any more.
Fair use is a small snippet. A few lines of code (Few does not mean hundreds, which is what they would have had to use), a paragraph from a book, a screencap from a film. There's no way a judge could rule it was fair use.
No they're not. Acorn created the Archimedes, and Acorn aren't around in any recognisable form any more.
OK, then the code falls back to copyright law. What happens? Oops, the person who just invalidated the GPL has no right to distribute the code at all.
If the GPL were made invalid, then Castle couldn't distribute RISC OS anyway.
It would be just as valid as in the US. UK copyright law isn't much different from US copyright law (not DMCA). If anything, it's more restrictive which would give the GPL more teeth in the matter.
Fair use? Why would that enter into it? It would definitely be a dirivative work, since they started from the kernel code, and then derived their version from it.
That's wrong. While there are legitimate "spammers", I'd hesitate to even call them a spammer. If I opt-into something, then surely it's not spam because I asked for it.
The problem is the people who send me spam and then, if I attempt to opt-out, seem to think "hmm...maybe he means 'send me 6,000,000 more spams'".
Well, it's not quite as easy as you think. For example, I have an e-mail address I never gave out except to a few people. At the beginning of this year, I started recieving about 3 spams a day to it, all from the same people (Advertising different things and having different addresses, but the spam has the same layout design). Now, I'm not sure how they got hold of it, but they did, and I have to deal with it.
Thank God for Mozilla's spam filters.
Javascript: There's nothing inherently wrong with client-side scripting, but individual implementations have problems. There are some things that are far better suited to client-side rather than server-side scripting, such as tree views.
Cookies: Cookies solve a legitimate problem of persistent information, especially over a connectionless protocol like TCP/IP. However, they can be abused, hence why you should be careful about what cookies you accept.
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this program exploits a bug in IE to stealth-install. If it doesn't and people just blindly click "yes" to any old dialogue box that pops up, then once again I have no sympathy for them, but I wouldn't recommend changing browser, I'd recommend they get a clue.
You know, I should have sympathy for the victims of this, but I don't. The solution is simple; don't use IE! Countless security holes and other problems have occured with IE in the past, yet people still use it.
This goes double for the people I've already warned. Every time something nasty like this happens, I tell them the solution is to use something else. Then they come crying to me the next time it happens.
With all the details set to max, UT2003 is just about playable on my GeForce3 Ti200 (at 1024*768). When I enable AA and AF, performance drops like a rock. There is no way in Hell the first generation Radeon can play UT2003 with those detail levels at an acceptable resolution.
Talk about clutching at straws. I could post a screenshot of my desktop with a DVD playing, but it's not worth the effort. After all, you've yet to prove your point.
Prove it. After all, I use DeCSS all the time, but never to rip a DVD. There are a large number of people who can say the same.
"Trading music this way is, right or wrong, still illegal"
For a subset of all music. For some music, it's perfectly legal.
But a lot of the EUCD is "optional", thus we could then simply drop a lot of the nasty bits and a lot of the crap would thus be removed.
Eh? The UK has been forced to delay its introduction of the EUCD into the commons because of all the feedback it got, most of it being quite damning of the EUCD.
I'd say that technically, yes, you were violating. However, I wouldn't have thought it were significant enough for even RMS to get pissy over it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
The real question is what people would consider significant enough to go after you for the violation.