Yes, the author can fork any previous release if he wants to... (or the current one, as long as VMWare doesn't change the license). That doesn't mean he can just take the Vert.x project itself and move it to another company, however, which was all I was ever originally saying.
And obviously, VMWare can't change the licensing on any code that wasn't written by its employees. Again, that doesn't invalidate any of what I was saying.
First of all, who owns the copyright *ALWAYS* matters. The distribution license only states who has permission to copy the work. It does not override copyright.
Secondly, VMWare already *ARE* stupid enough to argue about who owns copyrights. The vert.x project *DOES* belong to them. The author can, if he chooses, create a fork of the project and call it something else, although he should probably best do so quickly, before VMWare changes the license (although such a change would not be retroactive, it would still apply to the current release from that time forward, and given that they appear to be arguing about this anyways, it wouldn't surprise me if they did).
It can be an open source project, but the copyright still belongs to the company. Without written permission to show the contrary, the employee does not have any ownership of the projects he or she worked on while under their employ, nor authority to transfer ownership to anyone else.
Depends if he did whilst he was "on the clock" or using his employers equipment, if he didn't then he would definatly retain ownership
No... not definitely. It depends largely on what state laws allows, and even then can depend on whether the employer has agreed to allow the employee to do work that could arguably compete with the employer.
If he wrote it while working for VMWare, then unless there is written proof that VMWare agreed to allow him to retain ownership, the project is VMWare's, period. It doesn't give them license to own part of another company, because the employee wouldn't have the right to bring the project to another company in the first place. If VMWare wanted to change the license on the project, as the lawful copyright holder, they could even do that.
That it is licensed under an Apache license has no bearing on who owns the copyright. Since he was working for VMWare at the time it was written, VMWare would hold the copyright on it unless there is something *IN WRRITING* from VMWare that says otherwise.
... his employer at the time that he wrote it has ownership.
This sort of situation just highlights the need for people to get a paper trail. It'd be ideal if a person's word was their bond and you shouldn't need them to sign something to agree to it, but alas.... we live in a notably less than ideal world.
Wouldn't the more immediate conclusion be that there must be some sort of mistake, rather than thinking that somebody else did something which incriminated you?
SOPA and PIPA was in everybody's best interest to stop... they fundamentally broke the way the Internet is supposed to function.
It has yet to be shown that this 6-strikes plan will significantly impact anything other than the unlawful exchange of infringing content. It may be theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen.
The only reason Pluto was considered a planet for so long was that it was discovered early enough that it was not yet apparent how many similar sized objects existed in the various debris fields in the solar system.
Exactly! Just like how we discovered these really tiny particles a couple of centuries back and called them "atoms" because we thought they were indivisible, and when it turned out that they weren't, we.... Oh... Wait a minute, we still *DO* call them atoms.
Bribes aren't actually earned... they can be offered as some sort of "payment" for some service, but the service rarely, if ever, necessarily deserves such payment.
Examples of completely ordinary, legal, and quite ethical bribes:
An employer offers an employee a hiring bonus if they sign on with them. That's nothing less than an outright bribe... and there's nothing shameful about offering it or receiving it.
Honorariums are basically bribery. You might get something in exchange for participating in a focus group, for instance.
Any sort of monetary reward for turning in evidence for a crime that the police have solicited public help on, which results in a conviction
There are others, but I trust you get the gist of things. Bribes are a perfectly normal aspect of living in a capitalistic society,
There is absolutely nothing wrong, or even particularly shameful about accepting a bribe, unless you are accepting it in exchange for a favor that is illegal or otherwise considered unethical.
Even when autopiloting cars become the norm, the top reason will remain because there will still be actual people needing to see. If not drivers then pedestrians... or even cyclists.
You'd get a pretty good idea, I think... if you simply went to the area. If it's a secure location, you'd get some idea of what it is based on the type of people who are guarding the entrance.
Being "outside of the market", as you put it, does not instill any more popularity than it already has. Linux use is an almost vanishingly small percentage of home users as it is, and most of those that also run games also already have windows, so there's not going to be any incentive for them to rush out and buy this console.
It's content (generally speaking) that drives console sales, after all... and if all the content works on Windows PC's anyways, what motivation would anybody have to buy this unless they were already going to anyways? And really, do you think that number would be enough to make it commercially successful?
If your intent is to have them dead, you don't stop until that's achieved.
No.... I said your intent *BEFORE* you pull the trigger is to kill them. This is entirely independent of what you may be satisfied with as an outcome. Where is it written that people can't change their minds? Again, I would liken intent in this matter to one's intent when taking a course in college. If you get a B+ in a course when your intent was for an A, unless there is some particular reason that you actually *need* to get an A (due to course quotas, etc), you're probably not going to retake the course, since generally, a B+ is an entirely satisfactory grade. That you are satisfied with the outcome doesn't mean that the intent beforehand was not to get an A. Similarly, once a person has been stopped by shooting them, this can be an entirely satisfactory conclusion to a situation. That doesn't mean that the intent to kill was not present before pulling the trigger.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the author can fork any previous release if he wants to... (or the current one, as long as VMWare doesn't change the license). That doesn't mean he can just take the Vert.x project itself and move it to another company, however, which was all I was ever originally saying.
And obviously, VMWare can't change the licensing on any code that wasn't written by its employees. Again, that doesn't invalidate any of what I was saying.
Everything will be just fine, I'm sure. There's nothing that can go wrong with this. Nope. Not a thing. No sir-ee Bob.
Hmm.... yes. Good point. How much of it *was* written by Fox or other VMWare employees?
Unfortunately, this experience will probably convince VMWare never to allow an employee to use open source license on a future project ever again.
First of all, who owns the copyright *ALWAYS* matters. The distribution license only states who has permission to copy the work. It does not override copyright.
Secondly, VMWare already *ARE* stupid enough to argue about who owns copyrights. The vert.x project *DOES* belong to them. The author can, if he chooses, create a fork of the project and call it something else, although he should probably best do so quickly, before VMWare changes the license (although such a change would not be retroactive, it would still apply to the current release from that time forward, and given that they appear to be arguing about this anyways, it wouldn't surprise me if they did).
It can be an open source project, but the copyright still belongs to the company. Without written permission to show the contrary, the employee does not have any ownership of the projects he or she worked on while under their employ, nor authority to transfer ownership to anyone else.
No... not definitely. It depends largely on what state laws allows, and even then can depend on whether the employer has agreed to allow the employee to do work that could arguably compete with the employer.
If the employer paid him for that project, it most certainly does, without written evidence to the contrary.
If he wrote it while working for VMWare, then unless there is written proof that VMWare agreed to allow him to retain ownership, the project is VMWare's, period. It doesn't give them license to own part of another company, because the employee wouldn't have the right to bring the project to another company in the first place. If VMWare wanted to change the license on the project, as the lawful copyright holder, they could even do that.
That it is licensed under an Apache license has no bearing on who owns the copyright. Since he was working for VMWare at the time it was written, VMWare would hold the copyright on it unless there is something *IN WRRITING* from VMWare that says otherwise.
This sort of situation just highlights the need for people to get a paper trail. It'd be ideal if a person's word was their bond and you shouldn't need them to sign something to agree to it, but alas.... we live in a notably less than ideal world.
I would think a) is the much more probable conclusion by somebody who is genuinely unaware of any of b).
Wouldn't the more immediate conclusion be that there must be some sort of mistake, rather than thinking that somebody else did something which incriminated you?
.... is if her connection was really used without her knowledge, then how would she know about it?
SOPA and PIPA was in everybody's best interest to stop... they fundamentally broke the way the Internet is supposed to function.
It has yet to be shown that this 6-strikes plan will significantly impact anything other than the unlawful exchange of infringing content. It may be theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen.
It's a fairly safe bet that there won't be enough people doing what you describe to really make a significant difference.
Which generation would that be, exacty?
The only reason Pluto was considered a planet for so long was that it was discovered early enough that it was not yet apparent how many similar sized objects existed in the various debris fields in the solar system.
Exactly! Just like how we discovered these really tiny particles a couple of centuries back and called them "atoms" because we thought they were indivisible, and when it turned out that they weren't, we.... Oh... Wait a minute, we still *DO* call them atoms.
So... What was I saying?
Bribes aren't actually earned... they can be offered as some sort of "payment" for some service, but the service rarely, if ever, necessarily deserves such payment.
Examples of completely ordinary, legal, and quite ethical bribes:
An employer offers an employee a hiring bonus if they sign on with them. That's nothing less than an outright bribe... and there's nothing shameful about offering it or receiving it.
Honorariums are basically bribery. You might get something in exchange for participating in a focus group, for instance.
Any sort of monetary reward for turning in evidence for a crime that the police have solicited public help on, which results in a conviction
There are others, but I trust you get the gist of things. Bribes are a perfectly normal aspect of living in a capitalistic society,
There is absolutely nothing wrong, or even particularly shameful about accepting a bribe, unless you are accepting it in exchange for a favor that is illegal or otherwise considered unethical.
Even when autopiloting cars become the norm, the top reason will remain because there will still be actual people needing to see. If not drivers then pedestrians... or even cyclists.
You'd get a pretty good idea, I think... if you simply went to the area. If it's a secure location, you'd get some idea of what it is based on the type of people who are guarding the entrance.
Being "outside of the market", as you put it, does not instill any more popularity than it already has. Linux use is an almost vanishingly small percentage of home users as it is, and most of those that also run games also already have windows, so there's not going to be any incentive for them to rush out and buy this console.
It's content (generally speaking) that drives console sales, after all... and if all the content works on Windows PC's anyways, what motivation would anybody have to buy this unless they were already going to anyways? And really, do you think that number would be enough to make it commercially successful?
....That this news really needs to fall on deaf ears to be appreciated.
No.... I said your intent *BEFORE* you pull the trigger is to kill them. This is entirely independent of what you may be satisfied with as an outcome. Where is it written that people can't change their minds? Again, I would liken intent in this matter to one's intent when taking a course in college. If you get a B+ in a course when your intent was for an A, unless there is some particular reason that you actually *need* to get an A (due to course quotas, etc), you're probably not going to retake the course, since generally, a B+ is an entirely satisfactory grade. That you are satisfied with the outcome doesn't mean that the intent beforehand was not to get an A. Similarly, once a person has been stopped by shooting them, this can be an entirely satisfactory conclusion to a situation. That doesn't mean that the intent to kill was not present before pulling the trigger.