Actually, the microchip was patented when it first came out. (I would insert a link here, but this happened in the early 60s, and the earliest patent for "silicon chip" in the IBM patent database is from 1971.)
A few years ago, I read a book from the library called "The Chip". It has a subtitle but I forget what it was; and I've just spent some time in a fruitless search on various book sites for a link, to no avail. Anyway, the basic story is that in the early 60s, the chip was independently invented almost simultaneously by two inventors, one of whom worked for Texas Instruments, the other was one of the founders of Intel. One of the inventors filed for a patent, and while they were waiting, the other inventor file and received his patent. There was some legal maneuvering, the result of which was that the patent application of the inventor who had the earlier date in his lab notebook was upheld, but both are considered today to be the fathers of the microchip.
I'm sorry I couldn't provide more information; this is from approximately 6-year-old memory.
Interesting side note: Today, of course, the standard product cycle is that the new high end is very expensive and generally only purchased by early adopters, who provide the initial capital for the companies to keep going while they start producing the new product in volume, driving down the price. Well, in the early 60s, there was no pre-existing market to drive the price down. The kick-start that got the silicon business going was the United States space race; money was no object to the government as long as it shaved a few ounces off the weight of the vehicle (because we Had To Beat The Russians At All Costs). This provided the initial capital that allowed the chipmakers to learn how to do it more cheaply.
Today, of course, there is no longer a patent on the idea of integrated circuits, silicon chips.
So Sun released a kit that ports Linux kernel drivers to Solaris. The article (if you actually read it) says nothing about them shipping binaries of copylefted software without source.
In other words, Sun's kit assists you in a piece of free software to another platform. Call the cops! There's much sound and fury here, but no real substance. It sounds to me that it's more a matter of somebody getting their knickers twisted about their Free software being used on a closed platform than anything else.
I've decided that these folks at LinuxGram are officially clueless. Take this story (linked from the GPL article), for instance, about KDE and Debian. Among other things, it makes the rather dubious assertions that "[d]espite widespread pressure from the developer community, KDE was left out of... Debian... because of it [sic] wasn't GPL," and that "KDE finally agreed to dual-license Qt".
<trite>Move along, folks, nothing to see here.</trite>
The only restriction the QPL added is that you couldn't charge for distributing software (which the GPL, surprisingly enough, allows.)
It's the one thing that you'll never get out of an FSF zealot: just what the hell is wrong with the QPL?
I think you are mistaken here. Even RMS says that it's a free license, but that you can only distribute modifications as patches. According to the QPL itself:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (emphasis mine)
The main sticking point is/was here:
6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
...which is an "additional restriction".
Note also:
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court.
...which is the same sort of sticking point that is currently being experienced with Python.
Not that there's anything wrong with the license (even RMS says it's a free license, so it must be okay, right? <g>), but IIRC, it was these two parts of it that caused all the brouhaha.
Actually, I believe patents, like trademarks, also require you to defend them or lose their protection.
No, actually, patents can be selectively enforced, and that does not lessen any legal remedy you may be entitled to seek in the future. Consider the Amazon/Barnes & Noble lawsuit; Amazon isn't going after the little guys using 1-Click(tm) Technology(sm)(c)(mcmxcix), just the big guys. But they can still sue anybody they want, even if they haven't sued somebody else they know about, with the full force of law. (I'd provide a link somewhere, but I'm lazy right now.)
If there is patent infringement, what is the patent number?
Just FYI (and to play devil's advocate), the words "Patent Pending" are molded into the bottom of my CueCats. However, a search or two of their main site and their CueCat-specific site didn't find any mention of patents. Neither did a manual search of their sites. The CueCat FAQ mentioned nothing about patents either.
Not that it isn't pretty shitty, what they're trying to pull and get us to believe.
...the Debian system can't be installed without either a floppy drive in your machine or downloading/buying a fullblow ISO/CD...
It depends on the architecture. Debian/SPARC, for example, will TFTP a boot image just fine and do a net install. Or, on the PC, you can make any kind of CD image you want (including just a minimal setup installation). There's also information on a variety of installati on methods available for i386.
Had any of them READ their contract when they 'registered' a domain, they would clearly see that they do not 'OWN' it, that this is merely a registration of a name in the DNS, and all that that implies.
Sounds like you need to get a new registrar. The contract for registration at gandi.net starts out as follows:
The client ("SLD holder") owns the registered domain name ("SLD"). GANDI ("Registrar") simply acts on the client's behalf.
The worst part of it is that my current number used to belong to a fax machine and so I get fax calls at all hours.
In a case like that, I'm almost positive that you can get them to change your number at no charge (if you want to go through the hassle of changing your phone number again).
Arbitrarily reassigning your phone number, though, that just doesn't seem right. Yet another reason to dislike the phone company. (I'm still waiting on getting my DSL from Verizon after that cute li'l strike of theirs.)
DO NOT SUPPORT COMPANIES WHOSE GOALS ARE TO CENSOR, BLOCK, OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
Yeah! Right on!
Um, wait... they all do. Damn.
Do you know of any nice cabins for sale in the Montana woods?
--
Re:Here's the difference between an OS and its app
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
Boy, do I feel like a dipshit replying to myself, but those pesky <'s and >'s do like to be encoded, don't they? I swore I previewed and it was fine...
What I meant to say was:
Here's the difference between an OS and its apps: ~$ diff <(ls -lR/bin; ls -lR/sbin) <(ls -lR/usr)
--
Here's the difference between an OS and its apps
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, spatula@pair.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you
might have done that may have caused the error.
Premature end of script headers:/usr/www/users/spatula/redir.cgi
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
A few years ago, I read a book from the library called "The Chip". It has a subtitle but I forget what it was; and I've just spent some time in a fruitless search on various book sites for a link, to no avail. Anyway, the basic story is that in the early 60s, the chip was independently invented almost simultaneously by two inventors, one of whom worked for Texas Instruments, the other was one of the founders of Intel. One of the inventors filed for a patent, and while they were waiting, the other inventor file and received his patent. There was some legal maneuvering, the result of which was that the patent application of the inventor who had the earlier date in his lab notebook was upheld, but both are considered today to be the fathers of the microchip.
I'm sorry I couldn't provide more information; this is from approximately 6-year-old memory.
Interesting side note: Today, of course, the standard product cycle is that the new high end is very expensive and generally only purchased by early adopters, who provide the initial capital for the companies to keep going while they start producing the new product in volume, driving down the price. Well, in the early 60s, there was no pre-existing market to drive the price down. The kick-start that got the silicon business going was the United States space race; money was no object to the government as long as it shaved a few ounces off the weight of the vehicle (because we Had To Beat The Russians At All Costs). This provided the initial capital that allowed the chipmakers to learn how to do it more cheaply.
Today, of course, there is no longer a patent on the idea of integrated circuits, silicon chips.
--
--
In other words, Sun's kit assists you in a piece of free software to another platform. Call the cops! There's much sound and fury here, but no real substance. It sounds to me that it's more a matter of somebody getting their knickers twisted about their Free software being used on a closed platform than anything else.
I've decided that these folks at LinuxGram are officially clueless. Take this story (linked from the GPL article), for instance, about KDE and Debian. Among other things, it makes the rather dubious assertions that "[d]espite widespread pressure from the developer community, KDE was left out of... Debian... because of it [sic] wasn't GPL," and that "KDE finally agreed to dual-license Qt".
<trite>Move along, folks, nothing to see here.</trite>
--
--
--
--
deb http://kde.tdyc.com/debian/ potato kde contrib
Pardon the pun, but then it's automatic... for the people!
--
As for the conflict, see a previous post by me here.
--
Note also:
Not that there's anything wrong with the license (even RMS says it's a free license, so it must be okay, right? <g>), but IIRC, it was these two parts of it that caused all the brouhaha.
--
--
--
IANAL.
--
Not that it isn't pretty shitty, what they're trying to pull and get us to believe.
--
Just thought I'd point this out. ;)
--
Can the MPAA sue me for looking at the source to their web pages?
--
The client ("SLD holder") owns the registered domain name ("SLD"). GANDI ("Registrar") simply acts on the client's behalf.
--
Arbitrarily reassigning your phone number, though, that just doesn't seem right. Yet another reason to dislike the phone company. (I'm still waiting on getting my DSL from Verizon after that cute li'l strike of theirs.)
--
--
Um, wait... they all do. Damn.
Do you know of any nice cabins for sale in the Montana woods?
--
What I meant to say was:
Here's the difference between an OS and its apps: /bin; ls -lR /sbin) <(ls -lR /usr)
~$ diff <(ls -lR
--
--
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, spatula@pair.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
Premature end of script headers: /usr/www/users/spatula/redir.cgi
--
Freaking morons. Smells like they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, to me.
--