Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
But Fair Use isn't a right. Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
Wait for what? Unless they are going to start monitoring the software that every person runs on their computer there is no way they can prevent him or any other Linux user from using libcss2 to play their DVDs.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No two laws are coming into conflict with each other. For anyone who isn't a moron it's quite clear that the latter law, the DMCA in this case, takes precedence over an older law, in this case the 1976 Copyright Act. This has always been the case.
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
The law doesn't make any provision against obtaining the tool. The DMCA criminalizes the production and distribution of the tool to bypass copyright protections. Practically, it means you can only obtain a tool from people breaking the law.
Re:All-or-nothing mentality of the GPL is the prob
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 1
But companies also want to integrate their freely-licensed software with their commercial software.
And what would stop them? The copyright holder to GPL code can do whatever they hell they want to do with it. The terms of the GPL apply to third parties who use the code.
Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
However there are proprietary ripoffs of Apache and that is the problem that the GPL tries to defeat.
How can you ripoff something that is freely given to all to use as they see fit as long they follow it's simple terms? Ripping off implies that you are taking something without someone's consent which is clearly not the case for proprietary software that is based on Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licensed software.
Oops that $1.1 billion was for all of Blizzard. WoW only grossed around $250-300 million which makes the submitter's comment even more patently absurd.
With video gaming â" specifically the massively multiplayer online titles â" quickly surpassing Hollywood's cash flow
This is fucking bullshit. Each of the Hollywood studios brought in around $8-12 billion each last year. Activision Blizzard as a whole company only made $5 billion. World of Warcraft is the most successful MMO to date and it grossed around $1.1 billion last year. I'm not sure where this submitter is getting that an MMO title's cash flow exceeds any Hollywood studio's cash flow, since it's total BS.
Except Microsoft's revenue wasn't completely made up like Enron's. Unless you have concrete facts with which to make this analogy, you're basically spouting bullshit.
I'm sorry, but 2007? Really? I can't tell if it's just a typo or what, but either way, how about some up-to-date news on that? Is that too much to ask [indiatimes.com]?
No, it's not a typo. The last full year data for them is from 2008 so as I was talking about yearly revenue and net income it would be rather hard to talk about 2009 since the year hasn't ended. Secondly, one year of slumping in 2009 is hardly a "death spiral". To say otherwise would be disingenuous.
Huh? They've increased revenues for 5 straight years now at around 10%. And they're last year net income grew 25% over 2007. Yeah, that's a real death spiral. Gee, I wish I could run a company in a "death spiral" that generates 60 billion in revenue and almost 18 billion in net income.
They've supported Flash on Linux for quite some time now since they started doing simultaneous OS releases. Linux was even the first to get experimental 64-bit support.
I believe some features that might help C++ is automatic memory allocation (where objects are automatically resized and freed when they go out of scope),
What are those people supposed to say about their language? That it sucks? That user's shouldn't use it? None of those quotes imply anything that you are claiming. Those are just snippets telling people what the positives of using their languages is. In the case of Ruby the maintainer even says that if you are happy with Perl or Python that you shouldn't switch to Ruby. That's hardly a claim of "my language is the solution to all your problems and it's going to take over the world".
Oh, and that's not even getting to the fact that Microsoft still uses C++ extensively throughout it's products. Yes, clearly that is a sign of a company that isn't crazy about C++ anymore.
I would be willing to bet that some vendors that make more than one language are probably not too crazy about doing more with an open language like C++. Not that I would make any association with a large software vendor founded in the 1970s that leveraged a pretty good BASIC interpreter into operating system and tools dominance... but
Yeah, Microsoft is so uninterested in C++ that for the Visual C++ 2010 release that they've added in a whole bunch of new features including partial support for this new standard.
but when it comes right down to it. If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler ( even if they didn't always look the quite the same). It would go a long way to providing something most developers need and want that can't be found in a lot of languages.
What developers are out their complaining about C++ not having language native GUI libraries? Secondly, unless this would be done in the way Qt does it currently by using the native rendering engine of the platform, this is just a waste of time. What the world doesn't need is a bunch of C++ programs that are written that look alien on every platform it runs on like Java Apps do (yes Java 6 fixes this in quite a few ways but they still don't look entirely like native apps).
A flamebait mod? Seriously? Have that mod not been following what has been going on in committee with respect to this new revision? The whole entire process has been a joke for years.
C++0x was intended to be a C++ standard released between 2000 and 2009; at this point, it looks like it is actually going to be released in 2010, and we'll all be calling it C++10.
No, we'll all just be calling it a joke because that's what this whole farce is.
What's really unfortunate is that he's one of the very few language maintainers out there that isn't of the mentality "Rah rah! My language/tool/design-philosophy/whatever is the solution to all your problems and will take over the world tomorrow."
Care to actually provide the names of those other language maintainers, with appropriate citations, that make such claims?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
But Fair Use isn't a right. Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
Wait for what? Unless they are going to start monitoring the software that every person runs on their computer there is no way they can prevent him or any other Linux user from using libcss2 to play their DVDs.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No two laws are coming into conflict with each other. For anyone who isn't a moron it's quite clear that the latter law, the DMCA in this case, takes precedence over an older law, in this case the 1976 Copyright Act. This has always been the case.
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
The law doesn't make any provision against obtaining the tool. The DMCA criminalizes the production and distribution of the tool to bypass copyright protections. Practically, it means you can only obtain a tool from people breaking the law.
But companies also want to integrate their freely-licensed software with their commercial software.
And what would stop them? The copyright holder to GPL code can do whatever they hell they want to do with it. The terms of the GPL apply to third parties who use the code.
However there are proprietary ripoffs of Apache and that is the problem that the GPL tries to defeat.
How can you ripoff something that is freely given to all to use as they see fit as long they follow it's simple terms? Ripping off implies that you are taking something without someone's consent which is clearly not the case for proprietary software that is based on Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licensed software.
Unless nVidia will license that same technology to ATI, it sounds like it freezes ATI out of the multi-GPU-on-Intel-chipsets market.
Why would AMD want to license nVidia's SLI when it is a direct competitor to its own Crossfire technology?
Oops that $1.1 billion was for all of Blizzard. WoW only grossed around $250-300 million which makes the submitter's comment even more patently absurd.
With video gaming â" specifically the massively multiplayer online titles â" quickly surpassing Hollywood's cash flow
This is fucking bullshit. Each of the Hollywood studios brought in around $8-12 billion each last year. Activision Blizzard as a whole company only made $5 billion. World of Warcraft is the most successful MMO to date and it grossed around $1.1 billion last year. I'm not sure where this submitter is getting that an MMO title's cash flow exceeds any Hollywood studio's cash flow, since it's total BS.
Except Microsoft's revenue wasn't completely made up like Enron's. Unless you have concrete facts with which to make this analogy, you're basically spouting bullshit.
I'm sorry, but 2007? Really? I can't tell if it's just a typo or what, but either way, how about some up-to-date news on that? Is that too much to ask [indiatimes.com]?
No, it's not a typo. The last full year data for them is from 2008 so as I was talking about yearly revenue and net income it would be rather hard to talk about 2009 since the year hasn't ended. Secondly, one year of slumping in 2009 is hardly a "death spiral". To say otherwise would be disingenuous.
Microsoft has been in a death spiral for years.
Huh? They've increased revenues for 5 straight years now at around 10%. And they're last year net income grew 25% over 2007. Yeah, that's a real death spiral. Gee, I wish I could run a company in a "death spiral" that generates 60 billion in revenue and almost 18 billion in net income.
I do believe the user base at home will decline heavily (Free Product vs Highly priced crap),
Yeah, cause such a thing has surely helped propel Linux to taking over the home desktop marketshare... Oh wait, that's only 2% at best.
or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux
They've supported Flash on Linux for quite some time now since they started doing simultaneous OS releases. Linux was even the first to get experimental 64-bit support.
I believe some features that might help C++ is automatic memory allocation (where objects are automatically resized and freed when they go out of scope),
The future 10 years ago!
That is sort of the point... you now CAN'T have a compliant C++0x compiler for DOS...
IT doesn't really matter since no one is going to create one anyway. Your entire scenario is completely moot.
What are those people supposed to say about their language? That it sucks? That user's shouldn't use it? None of those quotes imply anything that you are claiming. Those are just snippets telling people what the positives of using their languages is. In the case of Ruby the maintainer even says that if you are happy with Perl or Python that you shouldn't switch to Ruby. That's hardly a claim of "my language is the solution to all your problems and it's going to take over the world".
Oh, and that's not even getting to the fact that Microsoft still uses C++ extensively throughout it's products. Yes, clearly that is a sign of a company that isn't crazy about C++ anymore.
I would be willing to bet that some vendors that make more than one language are probably not too crazy about doing more with an open language like C++. Not that I would make any association with a large software vendor founded in the 1970s that leveraged a pretty good BASIC interpreter into operating system and tools dominance... but
Yeah, Microsoft is so uninterested in C++ that for the Visual C++ 2010 release that they've added in a whole bunch of new features including partial support for this new standard.
but what about something like DOS where there is no threads?
I think the bigger obstacle would be the lack of a compiler for C++0x for DOS. Until you get over that bigger hump first, your question is moot.
You've never seen a Python coder, have you?
He said language maintainer, not language user. Care to quote the Python language maintainer(s) making such a claim?
but when it comes right down to it. If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler ( even if they didn't always look the quite the same). It would go a long way to providing something most developers need and want that can't be found in a lot of languages.
What developers are out their complaining about C++ not having language native GUI libraries? Secondly, unless this would be done in the way Qt does it currently by using the native rendering engine of the platform, this is just a waste of time. What the world doesn't need is a bunch of C++ programs that are written that look alien on every platform it runs on like Java Apps do (yes Java 6 fixes this in quite a few ways but they still don't look entirely like native apps).
A flamebait mod? Seriously? Have that mod not been following what has been going on in committee with respect to this new revision? The whole entire process has been a joke for years.
C++0x was intended to be a C++ standard released between 2000 and 2009; at this point, it looks like it is actually going to be released in 2010, and we'll all be calling it C++10.
No, we'll all just be calling it a joke because that's what this whole farce is.
What's really unfortunate is that he's one of the very few language maintainers out there that isn't of the mentality "Rah rah! My language/tool/design-philosophy/whatever is the solution to all your problems and will take over the world tomorrow."
Care to actually provide the names of those other language maintainers, with appropriate citations, that make such claims?