So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent.
Not anything, but anything that is a form of expression.
To the mods that used +Informative and all the readers: my apologies, I should have started with IANAL. Do NOT take the above as a reality, it is my personal opinion/assessment of the situation.
Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
Depends on what you want to use for: as a form of expression, you should be able to. Use the binary form to read/write, all depends on the MS patents and whether or not MS grants you a license.
Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion?
Regarding developers: the software is posted as source code with instructions on how to install them from source. Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes? Mind you, any existing patents should not play any role into it: after all a patent is a public disclosure of methods/constructs that constitute the invention (the text of the patent is not copyrighted), so the source code should not be anything but an alternative form of expression of the same.
Regarding users: yes, using the compiled binaries would violate the temporary monopoly granted by any existing patents. However, I can't imagine any corporations starting to track which hobbyist home users:
1. downloaded the source code - should not be, per se, illegal - the copyleft license allows you to do it and the patent should not trump the copyright.
2. for each of them, ask for a discovery to see if that source code has been compiled - again, compilation should not be illegal, I'm obtaining a derivative form of expression and the GPL copyright license allows me to do it
3. use the binary - this is the only step that would violate the patent
Is the technical team than need to be convinced? Either you convince the guys to do the right thing (write better code as part of professional pride) or you need to convince the managers to impose doing the things right (i.e. better processes, tools, infrastructure). Did you note the difference between doing the right thing (part of the leadership) and doing the things right (part of management)?
If it is the management team that need to be convinced, then either:
a. the cost of lack of quality is greater than the cost of "missed opportunity" (i.e. the cost of not releasing in time). In this case, management should be on your side and be ready to accept an extra investment in setting up the quality system; or b. the cost of lost opportunity overshadows the cost of non-quality - in which case your focus on quality may not be the right thing (for the business) and you should consider your position: accept the risk of non-quality and forge ahead to early releases (maybe you'll get enough time to fix the bugs) or not accept it and find for yourself another employer.
I'm not a biologist, but digesting the cauliflower should result in breaking the proteins in simple aminoacids. So I guess we should be safe unless:
a. the gene drives the cauliflower in producing toxins - does it?
b. you inspire or inject in you bloodstream bits of cauliflower (or have rough unprotected sex with the cauliflower, so bits of it will get into you bloodstream through the ensuing friction rashes) and trigger an allergic reaction
I don't think it is likely to see cauliflower multiplying as viruses in your blood/tissues.
If Microsoft wants a PC manufacturing business, why not just finish off the job they have already started and set one up themselves? They already have the product design, retail links and manufacturing capability in place from the Surface Pro, all it would take is launching a desktop or two (and possibly some servers) to flesh out the range and they would be all set to compete with Dell, for far less than $3Bn.
I know you have the intellectual ability to perform additions. Would you please perform by yourself these 3-4 million additions by tomorrow for a margin of 0.5% profit?
Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.
You still using a water cooler? I hear that there's an app for that: it extends the coolness of an iPhone to the water. They even plan to make iPhone bigger (or was it to make iPad smaller?), so that the app could be used more efficiently against AGW.
In my mind, any software that does not evolve for 5 years is either:
a. complete - so that nobody is hurt by inclusion in a commercial software - the original still exists (anyone stupid enough to use it as sold by a party instead of taking it from the public domain is paying the stupidity tax)
b. dead prematurely - as in "incomplete but with no maintainers" - in which case too small chances to be revived in open source.
So, how's open source movement losing from a copyright reduced to 5 years?
The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.
I can understand this. What I can't understand: how could it support even one instance of you? (non-malicious kidding. Or... "was speaking to myself", if you like it better).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm safe then.
So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent.
Not anything, but anything that is a form of expression.
Chances are you are too young to remember/know about "encryption as a weapon" brouhaha approx 18-22 years ago (or too old and already forgot about it).
Anyway, as a memory refresh: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional
To the mods that used +Informative and all the readers: my apologies, I should have started with IANAL. Do NOT take the above as a reality, it is my personal opinion/assessment of the situation.
Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
Was this as a result a law or a court decision?
Now, what are we going to do for a living after everything's been automated?
Soylent green.
Trickle down - thats the rich, suffering from an enlarged prostate (otherwise it wouldn't be trickle), pissing on the ever increasing poor classes.
*Then* they'll start suing.
Suing who?
Am I allowed to use this implementation?
Depends on what you want to use for: as a form of expression, you should be able to. Use the binary form to read/write, all depends on the MS patents and whether or not MS grants you a license.
Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion?
Regarding developers: the software is posted as source code with instructions on how to install them from source. Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
Mind you, any existing patents should not play any role into it: after all a patent is a public disclosure of methods/constructs that constitute the invention (the text of the patent is not copyrighted), so the source code should not be anything but an alternative form of expression of the same.
Regarding users: yes, using the compiled binaries would violate the temporary monopoly granted by any existing patents. However, I can't imagine any corporations starting to track which hobbyist home users:
1. downloaded the source code - should not be, per se, illegal - the copyleft license allows you to do it and the patent should not trump the copyright.
2. for each of them, ask for a discovery to see if that source code has been compiled - again, compilation should not be illegal, I'm obtaining a derivative form of expression and the GPL copyright license allows me to do it
3. use the binary - this is the only step that would violate the patent
1. Write the worst code you possibly can.
(long list)
Used to be quite easy in the past. With C, you just needed let your pointer variables uninitialized or free twice the same memory.
Or CA?
Cybernetic organism, a cheap watch over a human arm
Agreed: wearable machines make one at most cyberpunk (a bit different from what cybernetics mean)
and we know what needs to change technically
Which we?
Is the technical team than need to be convinced? Either you convince the guys to do the right thing (write better code as part of professional pride) or you need to convince the managers to impose doing the things right (i.e. better processes, tools, infrastructure). Did you note the difference between doing the right thing (part of the leadership) and doing the things right (part of management)?
If it is the management team that need to be convinced, then either:
a. the cost of lack of quality is greater than the cost of "missed opportunity" (i.e. the cost of not releasing in time). In this case, management should be on your side and be ready to accept an extra investment in setting up the quality system; or
b. the cost of lost opportunity overshadows the cost of non-quality - in which case your focus on quality may not be the right thing (for the business) and you should consider your position: accept the risk of non-quality and forge ahead to early releases (maybe you'll get enough time to fix the bugs) or not accept it and find for yourself another employer.
cyber weapons hobbyist
Does the use of lasers/magnetic fields in gadgets convert them to "cyber"?
a. the gene drives the cauliflower in producing toxins - does it?
b. you inspire or inject in you bloodstream bits of cauliflower (or have rough unprotected sex with the cauliflower, so bits of it will get into you bloodstream through the ensuing friction rashes) and trigger an allergic reaction
I don't think it is likely to see cauliflower multiplying as viruses in your blood/tissues.
If Microsoft wants a PC manufacturing business, why not just finish off the job they have already started and set one up themselves? They already have the product design, retail links and manufacturing capability in place from the Surface Pro, all it would take is launching a desktop or two (and possibly some servers) to flesh out the range and they would be all set to compete with Dell, for far less than $3Bn.
I know you have the intellectual ability to perform additions. Would you please perform by yourself these 3-4 million additions by tomorrow for a margin of 0.5% profit?
Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.
You still using a water cooler? I hear that there's an app for that: it extends the coolness of an iPhone to the water.
They even plan to make iPhone bigger (or was it to make iPad smaller?), so that the app could be used more efficiently against AGW.
(ducks)
How about those protocols which have remained unpublished?
Ok... for you, let me be as explicit as possible: put you faith in God and pray!
Is it clearer now?
If not, do consider the context (or else).
Still confused? I hope this will clear the matter: whoosh!
myself, I cannot see how one could test the scientific method without using it, thus bringing the results into question
So little faith you have...
(large grin)
S'riously?
Looks to me as an acceptable orthography for the word.
In my mind, any software that does not evolve for 5 years is either:
a. complete - so that nobody is hurt by inclusion in a commercial software - the original still exists (anyone stupid enough to use it as sold by a party instead of taking it from the public domain is paying the stupidity tax)
b. dead prematurely - as in "incomplete but with no maintainers" - in which case too small chances to be revived in open source.
So, how's open source movement losing from a copyright reduced to 5 years?
Well, what about the avocados?
I highlighted the passage relevant to your question:
because you're just jealous of my LAURA and the awesorme sexy love that we have for each other!
Grammar!, not syntax.
I have done this in the past but most people live in cities.
Rattus norvegicus is pretty common in the city scape.
Would this do:
memmove(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me));
Someone novice enough to skip the verification of the source against equality to NULL (SIGSEGV ensued).
The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.
I can understand this. What I can't understand: how could it support even one instance of you? (non-malicious kidding. Or... "was speaking to myself", if you like it better).