It is ironic that RMS apparently does not believe in copyright, at least for software, when copyright is the powerful legal tool he used to implement his vision.
No. GPL is the implementation of non-copyright within the copyright system as it is.
You do not need the GPL when there is no copyright (on software).
Patents and copyright are too deep into economy to be taken out, agreed.
But in this information age, the timings of it all are growing bad. If I publish an idea on the internet, other companies can still patent that same idea within a year, without me being able to stop them, even losing my rights on the idea if I don't patent first! Did I do something wrong? I don't think so...
Even now, big companies drop patents (software, mostly) after a couple of years, not willing to pay for all 17 years they are entitled to.
So do not drop patents, but change them to fit the needs of current society. Three years for a software feature would suit me.
It's not Moore going down the drain, it's Turing. Quantum computers are different, but that doesn't mean they can compute 1+1 faster (read the last paragraph of the article where they claimed to need _longer_ dephasing times?)
Chip manufacturers still have normal optical chips to go, which are significantly faster than conventional chips.
Why do you combine computational quantum power with intelligence? It's intriguing to take that into our own heads, where so many quantum states are available (exceeding the chemical states and processes by far).
1) A patent has to be controllable, that means, they will have to prove you actually use their patent if anything goes to court. How are they planning to do that?
2) claims 2-54 are subclaims of claim one. If your game/whatever does not fall under claim one, it certainly does not fall under 2-54.
3) occurences of ``at least one'' local client/participant give possibilities: use one dumb server without clients -> No violation. (Does it really read ``at least one...''? Yes. Can't believe it, always write ``any number of...'')
4) occurences of ``plurality'' give possiblities to ``single'' application environments and such (or am I misinterpreting the word plurality here?)
5) Forget the abstract. Only the claims are valid. For instance, where in claim one is ``Seamless multi-server management'' desribed? I only see multiple servers...
Slashdot Mirror
See www.nichia.com, where it states the ``violet'' laser diode will be available from October 1999. It is 2001 now, man!
No. GPL is the implementation of non-copyright within the copyright system as it is.
You do not need the GPL when there is no copyright (on software).
In case you didn't notice, money is as virtual as software.
Patents and copyright are too deep into economy to be taken out, agreed.
But in this information age, the timings of it all are growing bad. If I publish an idea on the internet, other companies can still patent that same idea within a year, without me being able to stop them, even losing my rights on the idea if I don't patent first! Did I do something wrong? I don't think so...
Even now, big companies drop patents (software, mostly) after a couple of years, not willing to pay for all 17 years they are entitled to.
So do not drop patents, but change them to fit the needs of current society. Three years for a software feature would suit me.
If they would've been sure about their claim, the claim would have been asking for 10%. Or 50% of the profit.
It's not Moore going down the drain, it's Turing.
Quantum computers are different, but that doesn't mean they can compute 1+1 faster (read the last paragraph of the article where they claimed to need _longer_ dephasing times?)
Chip manufacturers still have normal optical chips to go, which are significantly faster than conventional chips.
Why do you combine computational quantum power with intelligence? It's intriguing to take that into our own heads, where so many quantum states are available (exceeding the chemical states and processes by far).
1) A patent has to be controllable, that means, they will have to prove you actually use their patent if anything goes to court. How are they planning to do that?
...''? Yes. Can't believe it, always write ``any number of ...'')
2) claims 2-54 are subclaims of claim one. If your game/whatever does not fall under claim one, it certainly does not fall under 2-54.
3) occurences of ``at least one'' local client/participant give possibilities: use one dumb server without clients -> No violation. (Does it really read ``at least one
4) occurences of ``plurality'' give possiblities to ``single'' application environments and such (or am I misinterpreting the word plurality here?)
5) Forget the abstract. Only the claims are valid. For instance, where in claim one is ``Seamless multi-server management'' desribed? I only see multiple servers...