D'oh! You are right, as I see by reading the other posts. My mistake. I was thinking "all bookmarks" rather than just the defaults.
I guess I'm glad I deleted all of those default bookmarks:) Now if I could just get the meshuggeneh "Personal Toolbar Folder" to go away, I'd be happy.
It's true that if there's something bad to be said about Microsoft, you'll probably read it here first. However, I think some of your defense is a little over-stated.
But - IE's been out for a while and since version 4 it's been stable, fast and feature packed -
Netscape and others can't hold a candle to it.
I can't comment on the "feature packed"-ness of ie, since I don't use it. Netscape sure hasn't caught up in the number of security issues, though - Internet Explorer had about one per week for a while there, didn't it? Maybe a few less features and a little more thought would have been in order.
MS came outta a dream of two people without any cash - kinda
like Apple. They worked hard and played hard ball to get where they are. If you used any "dirty
tricks" - I think no more than any other successful company (wanna check Oracle's records?
Novells? Even Apple isn't lilly white. And if you think Red Hat got to where it is just cause it's
being "nice" - well... just think about it and review those news stories AFTER the IPO buzz
faded).
I don't approve of "dirty tricks" on the part of any company, but there is a legal distinction in the U.S. when it comes to such actions on the part of a market monopoly. Like it or not, Microsoft is held to a higher standard (rightfully, IMHO) in its business dealings since it significantly greater power as a monopoly than if it were just one of a number of competitors in a market.
In the hypersensitive world of free software and Linux, it would have been impossible for Red Hat to get to where it is without being "nice". Even as they are now, distributing their primary products for free and contributing thousands of dollars of hacker salary back into community Linux development, there are constant fears that Red Hat will become the next Microsoft. There is very little trust of big, unresponsive corporations in the Linux market, such that I can't believe that Red Hat has been getting away with MS-like tactics on the sly. Do you have specifics?
-- ethereal, who isn't normally a big RH defender, and definitely has no IPO buzz goin' on (the very thought makes me chuckle:)
This whole thing is hardly original... everybody's darling Netscape have been doing this for years.
Um, no. When I select a link from my Netscape bookmarks, I go right to the site. No queries or redirects from Microsoft or even Netscape, for that matter.
Granted, banner ads are a different matter, but we wouldn't want to get too far off topic, would we;)
Although shouldn't it be copyright law, rather than RMS, that dictates what is and is not a
derivative work?
Copyright law doesn't really recognize the sort of derivative work that RMS was trying to encourage, though - normally you can't take someone else's book and fix typos, add footnotes, or move chapters around and then publish it yourself. The GPL was written to extend copyright into "copyleft" to add those specific permissions. As fast as the computer industry moves, it probably would not be possible to keep the body of copyright law up-to-date with the latest developments in the software industry anyway. Plus, what if the BSD licensors wanted to use a different definition of "derived"?
What if Microsoft slipped something into the Windows EULA saying that all
programs that call the windows DLLs are derivative of those DLLs, and thus royalties must be
paid to Microsoft for the distribution of the "derived" work?
Well, if the GPL really is legally enforceable (still untested), then maybe Microsoft could do just that. IANAL, though, and the "derivative work" section of the GPL is the part that I understand least, though. In thinking about it, perhaps I understand it least because it's the most vague - I was looking around on www.fsf.org for some more in-depth information about exactly what the boundaries of derivative works are, and there doesn't seem to be any. Is the whole "libraries are derived works" thing an edict straight from RMS, or is there some documented background for it?
Microsoft has to split up, yet AOL and Time Warner may merge. Where's the
logic in that?
Actually, the latest news is that both European and U.S. regulators will probably block the merger as it stands, and the divestitures that they would require for the merger to go forward would be very unpalatable to AOL-Time Warner. So for the time being things are looking up.
Interesting conundrum. I would say that the users have committed no violations. The GPL only governs how you may distribute binaries generated from GPL'd source code. So perhaps the users who have installed your closed Gtk+ clone could no longer redistribute their Gnome installs? It is a very good question.
A dynamically-linked library by itself may not be a derivative work, but if your program depends in large part on functionality provided by a FSF-provided library, how can you really say the ultimate operation of your program is not a derivative of the FSF's work?
I agree that it gets hazy, though - is a request through the dynamic loader for services significantly different from a request through a network socket (especially considering that most CORBA requests will be served by the local machine)? The defining line that RMS has chosen to defend the GPL at seems to be the boundaries of one process or thread of execution. This boundary is already invisible to the user and will become progressively moreso to developers as component architectures replace monolithic applications (including those that use dynamic library linking).
CSS, which is the only technology affected by DeCSS, is not patented. It is a licensed trade secret, but reverse engineering is a legal way to produce a product which contains the trade secret technology and can be distributed without the license. Now if the DVDCCA had patented CSS, then they would have legal grounds to prevent such products as DeCSS. On the other hand, if CSS was patented then all of the technical details would be exposed before the world, and it would have been a lot easier to write DeCSS in the first place.
The DVDCCA is trying to have their cake and eat it too - not really surprising, a lot of technology companies make similar efforts. It is disappointing to see the U.S. legal system in agreement with them, though, since this case is really about legal reverse engineering. The MPAA's "right" to make a profit should be laughed out of court when it is brought up.
So how'd we get all of those plants, back before Henry Ford was born? Tell me another, Hairy!
Seriously: if anything plants need Magnesium, which is a building block of chlorophyll. Also Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. Plant fertilizers don't even include iron.
Funny enough, here in big orange country, not one person has asked for an orange one. No
wonder Apple quit making it if even people in Tennessee weren't buying 'em.
My wife and I were discussing the orange ones last night, and she pointed out that you tend to see mostly orange ones in ads (not official Apple commercials, but resellers, etc.), probably because those are the models that they have left and they want to move them.
How exactly was that Flamebait? Incorrect, perhaps, since it isn't really a secret Beta, but not really Flamebait since it is common knowledge that Apple will pretty much sue anybody provides info about them before they're ready (I'm not saying that this is always wrong, but it is what happens).
Moderators: Remember, you can't just pick any of the choices in the drop-down box; those choices all have words on them, and your job is to pick the word which most closely describes the post which you are moderating. "Flamebait" wasn't even close.
It's true, the Democrats are becoming increasingly scary, from their attempts to placate Ma and Pa Kent by blaming the movies/video games/music industry, to Lieberman's attempts to bring religion into the campaign and into government, to the Clinton administration's unthinkable support for Star Wars (10 years ago you'd be laughed out of town for suggesting that a Democratic president would go in for that).
What I really need to see is a party which supports:
more than just lip service for the Bill of Rights - both big parties are horrible about this.
individual rights against those of corporations and faceless international organizations
democracy worldwide - the U.S. should make a real committment to democracy, by supporting governments which are democratic and ceasing to prop up governments which act in ways that are opposed to democratic principles. Both parties are nowhere close to this either.
fiscal conservatism - the U.S. needs to pay off debts now, while the surplus remains. If the Republicans were fiscal conservatives rather than social conservatives, they would have made this their battle cry.
A reasonable social safety net - welfare reform is OK, but we shouldn't be decreasing taxes on wealthy Americans until we can be sure that all children have decent school to go to. Other than providing a safety net, socially neutral.
I wouldn't worry about Inigo - he's not looking to seize control of the group, just trying to track down the man with six fingers on his right hand. Once he does, he will say to him:
My name is Inigo Montoya.
You killed my father.
Prepare to die
Unfortunately, with Netscape 4.61 on an HP-UX TrueColor display (visual), 7 of the 22 really safe colors display GIF-BGCOLOR mismatches. Of course, some of the supposedly non-safe colors may work OK on my display, but if you're trying to be truly cross-platform, the number is reduced to 15 safe colors.
What really bugs me recently is not color mismatches, but sites which have some sort of horizontal bar with many repeating vertical color streaks. It looks really ugly and I've seen it on a number of sites, so it seems to be more of a browser problem. Perhaps it's CSS that Netscape 4.x doesn't understand correctly?
Not really. It's a pity that such code will no longer be usable with other GPL'd code, but them's the breaks.
What matters to me is that not just the ability to use the existing code, but also the ability to get and use future updates. From that perspective, the GPL makes it easier for the user community to get updates, bug fixes, etc. back from users who would otherwise not publicize their changes. You lose some options with the code in the short term in order to preserve that long-term gain, IMHO.
But it's not for everybody, which is OK with me. I just wanted clarification of the original poster's intentions.
Well, technically just copying it onto your hard drive falls within the bounds of fair use (not to hear the RIAA tell it, but really it does). Now actually distributing it over the Internet probably is a copyright violation, due to the current copyright laws.
Unfortunately, the only people who could currently implement Beam-It legally would be the recording companies, who are of course the last people to take an interest in doing so. Oh well.
You can re-release previous versions under a new license, but be aware that those versions are still available under the GPL as well. Once they're out under the GPL, there's nothing you can do to take that licensing away. Although you can certainly not GPL any future versions.
Technically this article isn't quickies, as you would have quickly discovered had you actually read the title, the dept., and/or the blurb from Timothy. This is in fact a slashback section, which contains updates on stories which were previously seen on/. So it's not Timothy's fault that several interesting stories had updates; that's just the news biz.
I have to agree with that sentiment - the letter from Digital Convergence, full OF whacko CAPITALIZATION as it was, really didn't need a special write-up by the Cmdr. to make it look quite silly. Any serious/. reader will agree:)
I have no respect for these folks until they can state exactly what IP has been distributed. So far I have seen no evidence that this was not an instance of completely legal reverse engineering. The letter posted above seems to be an attempt to gain sympathy and build community without describing the real reasons (or lack thereof) that caused the crackdown.
Slashdot Mirror
I shop smart. I shop S-Mart.
D'oh! You are right, as I see by reading the other posts. My mistake. I was thinking "all bookmarks" rather than just the defaults.
I guess I'm glad I deleted all of those default bookmarks :) Now if I could just get the meshuggeneh "Personal Toolbar Folder" to go away, I'd be happy.
It's true that if there's something bad to be said about Microsoft, you'll probably read it here first. However, I think some of your defense is a little over-stated.
I can't comment on the "feature packed"-ness of ie, since I don't use it. Netscape sure hasn't caught up in the number of security issues, though - Internet Explorer had about one per week for a while there, didn't it? Maybe a few less features and a little more thought would have been in order.
I don't approve of "dirty tricks" on the part of any company, but there is a legal distinction in the U.S. when it comes to such actions on the part of a market monopoly. Like it or not, Microsoft is held to a higher standard (rightfully, IMHO) in its business dealings since it significantly greater power as a monopoly than if it were just one of a number of competitors in a market.
In the hypersensitive world of free software and Linux, it would have been impossible for Red Hat to get to where it is without being "nice". Even as they are now, distributing their primary products for free and contributing thousands of dollars of hacker salary back into community Linux development, there are constant fears that Red Hat will become the next Microsoft. There is very little trust of big, unresponsive corporations in the Linux market, such that I can't believe that Red Hat has been getting away with MS-like tactics on the sly. Do you have specifics?
-- ethereal, who isn't normally a big RH defender, and definitely has no IPO buzz goin' on (the very thought makes me chuckle :)
Um, no. When I select a link from my Netscape bookmarks, I go right to the site. No queries or redirects from Microsoft or even Netscape, for that matter.
Granted, banner ads are a different matter, but we wouldn't want to get too far off topic, would we ;)
Copyright law doesn't really recognize the sort of derivative work that RMS was trying to encourage, though - normally you can't take someone else's book and fix typos, add footnotes, or move chapters around and then publish it yourself. The GPL was written to extend copyright into "copyleft" to add those specific permissions. As fast as the computer industry moves, it probably would not be possible to keep the body of copyright law up-to-date with the latest developments in the software industry anyway. Plus, what if the BSD licensors wanted to use a different definition of "derived"?
Well, if the GPL really is legally enforceable (still untested), then maybe Microsoft could do just that. IANAL, though, and the "derivative work" section of the GPL is the part that I understand least, though. In thinking about it, perhaps I understand it least because it's the most vague - I was looking around on www.fsf.org for some more in-depth information about exactly what the boundaries of derivative works are, and there doesn't seem to be any. Is the whole "libraries are derived works" thing an edict straight from RMS, or is there some documented background for it?
Actually, the latest news is that both European and U.S. regulators will probably block the merger as it stands, and the divestitures that they would require for the merger to go forward would be very unpalatable to AOL-Time Warner. So for the time being things are looking up.
Interesting conundrum. I would say that the users have committed no violations. The GPL only governs how you may distribute binaries generated from GPL'd source code. So perhaps the users who have installed your closed Gtk+ clone could no longer redistribute their Gnome installs? It is a very good question.
Just like "piracy" and "free" - it seems like the simplest terms arouse the most heated discussions around here :)
A dynamically-linked library by itself may not be a derivative work, but if your program depends in large part on functionality provided by a FSF-provided library, how can you really say the ultimate operation of your program is not a derivative of the FSF's work?
I agree that it gets hazy, though - is a request through the dynamic loader for services significantly different from a request through a network socket (especially considering that most CORBA requests will be served by the local machine)? The defining line that RMS has chosen to defend the GPL at seems to be the boundaries of one process or thread of execution. This boundary is already invisible to the user and will become progressively moreso to developers as component architectures replace monolithic applications (including those that use dynamic library linking).
CSS, which is the only technology affected by DeCSS, is not patented. It is a licensed trade secret, but reverse engineering is a legal way to produce a product which contains the trade secret technology and can be distributed without the license. Now if the DVDCCA had patented CSS, then they would have legal grounds to prevent such products as DeCSS. On the other hand, if CSS was patented then all of the technical details would be exposed before the world, and it would have been a lot easier to write DeCSS in the first place.
The DVDCCA is trying to have their cake and eat it too - not really surprising, a lot of technology companies make similar efforts. It is disappointing to see the U.S. legal system in agreement with them, though, since this case is really about legal reverse engineering. The MPAA's "right" to make a profit should be laughed out of court when it is brought up.
So how'd we get all of those plants, back before Henry Ford was born? Tell me another, Hairy!
Seriously: if anything plants need Magnesium, which is a building block of chlorophyll. Also Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. Plant fertilizers don't even include iron.
Those damned NeXTstep hackers - whenever will we be free of their tyranny :)
My wife and I were discussing the orange ones last night, and she pointed out that you tend to see mostly orange ones in ads (not official Apple commercials, but resellers, etc.), probably because those are the models that they have left and they want to move them.
How exactly was that Flamebait? Incorrect, perhaps, since it isn't really a secret Beta, but not really Flamebait since it is common knowledge that Apple will pretty much sue anybody provides info about them before they're ready (I'm not saying that this is always wrong, but it is what happens).
Moderators: Remember, you can't just pick any of the choices in the drop-down box; those choices all have words on them, and your job is to pick the word which most closely describes the post which you are moderating. "Flamebait" wasn't even close.
It's true, the Democrats are becoming increasingly scary, from their attempts to placate Ma and Pa Kent by blaming the movies/video games/music industry, to Lieberman's attempts to bring religion into the campaign and into government, to the Clinton administration's unthinkable support for Star Wars (10 years ago you'd be laughed out of town for suggesting that a Democratic president would go in for that).
What I really need to see is a party which supports:
Oh well, back to more of the same old same-old.
...5 is right out.
1...2...4
Three, sir!
Three!
I just want an EDitor!! Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!!
ROTFLMFAO! Somehow I always imagine the short bad guy from the Princess Bride saying that part...
I wouldn't worry about Inigo - he's not looking to seize control of the group, just trying to track down the man with six fingers on his right hand. Once he does, he will say to him:
Now Ingo Molnar on the other hand ... :)
Unfortunately, with Netscape 4.61 on an HP-UX TrueColor display (visual), 7 of the 22 really safe colors display GIF-BGCOLOR mismatches. Of course, some of the supposedly non-safe colors may work OK on my display, but if you're trying to be truly cross-platform, the number is reduced to 15 safe colors.
What really bugs me recently is not color mismatches, but sites which have some sort of horizontal bar with many repeating vertical color streaks. It looks really ugly and I've seen it on a number of sites, so it seems to be more of a browser problem. Perhaps it's CSS that Netscape 4.x doesn't understand correctly?
Superintendent: That's funny, I'm from upstate New York and I've never heard of "steamed hams" before.
Skinner: It's more of an Albany dialect.
Not really. It's a pity that such code will no longer be usable with other GPL'd code, but them's the breaks.
What matters to me is that not just the ability to use the existing code, but also the ability to get and use future updates. From that perspective, the GPL makes it easier for the user community to get updates, bug fixes, etc. back from users who would otherwise not publicize their changes. You lose some options with the code in the short term in order to preserve that long-term gain, IMHO.
But it's not for everybody, which is OK with me. I just wanted clarification of the original poster's intentions.
Well, technically just copying it onto your hard drive falls within the bounds of fair use (not to hear the RIAA tell it, but really it does). Now actually distributing it over the Internet probably is a copyright violation, due to the current copyright laws.
Unfortunately, the only people who could currently implement Beam-It legally would be the recording companies, who are of course the last people to take an interest in doing so. Oh well.
You can re-release previous versions under a new license, but be aware that those versions are still available under the GPL as well. Once they're out under the GPL, there's nothing you can do to take that licensing away. Although you can certainly not GPL any future versions.
Technically this article isn't quickies, as you would have quickly discovered had you actually read the title, the dept., and/or the blurb from Timothy. This is in fact a slashback section, which contains updates on stories which were previously seen on /. So it's not Timothy's fault that several interesting stories had updates; that's just the news biz.
If you don't like it, don't read it. Moron.
I have to agree with that sentiment - the letter from Digital Convergence, full OF whacko CAPITALIZATION as it was, really didn't need a special write-up by the Cmdr. to make it look quite silly. Any serious /. reader will agree :)
I have no respect for these folks until they can state exactly what IP has been distributed. So far I have seen no evidence that this was not an instance of completely legal reverse engineering. The letter posted above seems to be an attempt to gain sympathy and build community without describing the real reasons (or lack thereof) that caused the crackdown.