... it's highly likely that EULAs arn't that enforcable in Germany.
They aren't. German contract law says that an EULA isn't a contract but an offer. An no, clicking on "accept" does not mean: "I accept the offer" but: "I want to use the software I already bought."
WTF is that? I thought xGPL was about code, and has nothing to do with rights to reverse engineer and or modify your work!?
The LGPL says 'the work' (i.e. the library licensed under the LGPL), not 'your work'. As long as you allow replacing the library and you don't take measures to make debugging the library (not your code) impossible, everything is ok. If you use a dynamic, standard linking mechanism (e.g. if the library is a DLL or JAR), all of this is automatically the case.
I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who release code under GPL have a hero fantasy in which Microsoft gets caught stealing their GPLed code and is thus forced to release the source for Windows...
That just can't happen. If Microsoft really took GPL code, they would simply infringe on the authors' copyright (and could be sued for that). They would not be, however, forced to release their code.
The Yahoo story and the slashdot blurb have both been (intentionally) misled. Under this directive anything "technical" can be patented. Programs running on a computer are technical. Business methods implemented "with a computer network" are technical.
Well, you seem to have found the problem. But you obviously have not read the report from the Parl. Committee [PDF]. That report says so often that a computer programme shall not be patentable just because it runs on a computer that you could call it paranoid about that.
Unfortunatly, this report, from the Legal Affairs committee, does support software patents, ignoring the advice of the Industry committee, the Culture committee, and the vast majority of the response to their public consultation on the issue.
...or everyone else who does not have any clue.
Although the European Patent Convention (EPC) says that "programs for computers" are not patentable whereas the (draft) Directive explicitly says that "computer-implemented inventions" are (art. 52), there is actually no difference: The EPC was never meant to prevent patents on computer-implemented inventions; the clause that prevents patent on "computer programmes" simply has no effect -- patent lawyers agree that they are either "technical" (and patentable) or "non-technical" (and not patentable). Unlike the US patent system, the European patent system only protects "technical" inventions.
Patents on "technical" computer programmes are not that bad -- after all, they are technical inventions that just happen to be implemented with computers.
The real problem is that patent offices tend to view all computer software as "technical" because a computer is technical. This results in patents on algorithms, business methods, etc. that just happen to be implemented with computers.
The draft EU Directive does a lot to clarify this: It says several times that computer programmes are not technical just because they run on a computer. It also says that algorithms are not patentable and that a patent on a technical invention that uses an algorithm does not cover the algorithm itself (yeah, the Yahoo editor obviously did not read the documents; s/he even got the date wrong: 2003-06-16 was Monday, not Tuesday). The rationale clearly says that they don't want algorithms and business models to be convered.
These clarifications will actually result in less software patents because all the bogous software patents that are not patents on computer-implemented technical inventions but on computer-implemented algorithms, business models, etc., are now so clearly outlawed by the explicit text of the Directive that every patent officer should get it.
The issue is a big organization showing the world that Linux is viable on the client.
And by offering large discounts, Ballmer actually shot himself into the foot: Munich will not only show that OSS is viable -- and cheaper. Ballmer also provoked press releases from the ruling parties of the town council which say that Linux is also the qualitatively and strategically better solution. That's a huge PR accident.
This evil German things like militarism, discipline are Prussian, while Bavaria hates them.
Prussia also had some positive contributions wrt to administrative las. On the other hand, Munich was the centre and "capital of the [Nazi] movement" -- that's definitely an "evil German thing" that's not Prussian.
No, the biggest city of West Germany was Hamburg. Well, that is if you only count municipialities. If you'd define "city" differently -- the largest metropolitan area is the Rhurgebiet, which consists of several large neighbouring cities.
... the Article offers a normative proposal... [and] argues that courts should reject a contract theory of authorization, and should narrow the scope of unauthorized access statutes to circumvention of code-based restrictions on computer privileges.
...the death penalty is banned (mandatory for EU members)
Not only European Union members, but all members of the Council of Europe, of which virtually all Eurpoean Countries are a member, including Russia and Turkey (only Belarus, Northern Cyprus, and Yugoslavia are missing). Yes, this means that Human Rights could theoretically be enforced in Russia much better than in the USA.
Re:They have legalised copyright breaking?
on
DMCA, Auf Deutsch
·
· Score: 1
Well, it works like this:
Traditinally, you are explicitly allowed to make copies for private use, for example (whatever is called "fair use" in the US). As a compensation, there's a "tax" (which is levied by copyright holder associations, not the government) on media and devices, which are "desinged to copy material protected by copyright". In principle, that's a good idea: You don't have to give up you personal freedom, and the authors still get their money.
The Digital Right Management Systems change that: The personal freedom (fair use) is taken away by the DRMS and circumventing the DRMS is explicitly forbidden.
The funny thing is that the copyright industry is shooting themselves into the foot by using DRMS: If the DRMS is "effective" (which is what the copyright industry will claim, of course) and thus protected by the laws, they can't claim that CD-Rs, CD burners, etc. are "designed" to copy their material... so they are no longer entitled to get a compensation.
The outcome will probably be like this:
Some people crack the DRMS and make the copyrighted material available.
This material is shared over P2P networks (remember: the next generation will be completly anonymous, so you can't take down sharers).
If you really felt safe on this side of the pond (or are still feeling safe anywhere), you are just plain ignorant.
The protection of DRMS - the controversial part of the DMCA - has never been an US-only law. It is also part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) currently signed by 51 countries, including the European Communities and all of its member states.
You have to expect similar laws in all major industry nations (and some nations you haven't even heard of, especially if you're American)
Political action agains national laws does not help much: You can only reach the least bad solution possible within the scope of International Law. To really change something, you have to address the WCT (and the EUCD).
Isn't using a buffer overflow like this violating the DMCA or whatever?
There's no copy protection that's circumvented. A modchip is illegal under the DMCA because it allows copied games to run, which is a circumvention of the copy protection. The exploit to run Linux does not circumvent a copy protection.
Just let all of the domains point to the same user, e.g. in/var/qmail/controls/virtualdomains: domain.org: domain-org domain.com: domain-org domain.net: domain-org
No, the parts that are older than 100 years would fall into the non-public domain. So everyone distributing software based on that old code would have to pay royalties.
Itanium is too expensive, and isn't that fast, nor does it have the really attractive property of other Intel CPU's: volume. [...] And Apple doesn't have the sales figures to bring Itanium's volume up.
Apple's sales figures were high enough to produce the PowerPC CPUs at sensible prices. Intel could probably easily produce a cheaper desktop variant of Itanium for Apple at prices similar to the PowerPC. Itanium's EPIC architecture fits neatly into Apple's image of always using superior technology.
The problem with XML, as stated by the article (Yes, I've read it), is that parsers are complex to interface with. This of course, is due to the flexibility XML provides:
You can have a complete hierarchical structure, which is far beyond what typical name/value pairs (or relational tables) provide. If you need a structured config file, a non-XML parser and the interface to it will get complicated, too.
XML parsers can parse any XML, not only the subset defined by a single DTD, so the parser has to return everything as it does not know what is just structure and what is the important data. It might be a good idea to create a tool that takes a DTD and a binding between the XML structure and the in-programme data (such as structures, arrays, objects) and creates the necessary parser and interface.
No, the definition of planet says that the body must revolve around a star, not another planet. Bodies that revolve around a planet are moons.
That definition fails if the moon's size gets close to the planet's. Where is the line between a planet and a moon on one hand and a binary planet on the other hand? And can there be such a thing as a binary planet, which is actually two objects not revolving around the sun but around a common centre? Are they just "nothing", i.e. neither sun nor moon? The problem with definitions is that they tend to fail on borderline cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft lost.
The LGPL says 'the work' (i.e. the library licensed under the LGPL), not 'your work'.
As long as you allow replacing the library and you don't take measures to make debugging the library (not your code) impossible, everything is ok.
If you use a dynamic, standard linking mechanism (e.g. if the library is a DLL or JAR), all of this is automatically the case.
That report says so often that a computer programme shall not be patentable just because it runs on a computer that you could call it paranoid about that.
Although the European Patent Convention (EPC) says that "programs for computers" are not patentable whereas the (draft) Directive explicitly says that "computer-implemented inventions" are (art. 52), there is actually no difference:
The EPC was never meant to prevent patents on computer-implemented inventions; the clause that prevents patent on "computer programmes" simply has no effect -- patent lawyers agree that they are either "technical" (and patentable) or "non-technical" (and not patentable). Unlike the US patent system, the European patent system only protects "technical" inventions.
Patents on "technical" computer programmes are not that bad -- after all, they are technical inventions that just happen to be implemented with computers.
The real problem is that patent offices tend to view all computer software as "technical" because a computer is technical. This results in patents on algorithms, business methods, etc. that just happen to be implemented with computers.
The draft EU Directive does a lot to clarify this: It says several times that computer programmes are not technical just because they run on a computer. It also says that algorithms are not patentable and that a patent on a technical invention that uses an algorithm does not cover the algorithm itself (yeah, the Yahoo editor obviously did not read the documents; s/he even got the date wrong: 2003-06-16 was Monday, not Tuesday).
The rationale clearly says that they don't want algorithms and business models to be convered.
These clarifications will actually result in less software patents because all the bogous software patents that are not patents on computer-implemented technical inventions but on computer-implemented algorithms, business models, etc., are now so clearly outlawed by the explicit text of the Directive that every patent officer should get it.
Yeah, you got it.
No, the biggest city of West Germany was Hamburg. Well, that is if you only count municipialities. If you'd define "city" differently -- the largest metropolitan area is the Rhurgebiet, which consists of several large neighbouring cities.
Yes, this means that Human Rights could theoretically be enforced in Russia much better than in the USA.
Traditinally, you are explicitly allowed to make copies for private use, for example (whatever is called "fair use" in the US).
As a compensation, there's a "tax" (which is levied by copyright holder associations, not the government) on media and devices, which are "desinged to copy material protected by copyright".
In principle, that's a good idea: You don't have to give up you personal freedom, and the authors still get their money.
The Digital Right Management Systems change that: The personal freedom (fair use) is taken away by the DRMS and circumventing the DRMS is explicitly forbidden.
The funny thing is that the copyright industry is shooting themselves into the foot by using DRMS: If the DRMS is "effective" (which is what the copyright industry will claim, of course) and thus protected by the laws, they can't claim that CD-Rs, CD burners, etc. are "designed" to copy their material... so they are no longer entitled to get a compensation.
The outcome will probably be like this:
The protection of DRMS - the controversial part of the DMCA - has never been an US-only law. It is also part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) currently signed by 51 countries, including the European Communities and all of its member states.
While the WCT could theoretically be ignored by its signatories as there's no legal system to enforce its implementation, this is different for the European Communities member states: The EC has implemented the WCT as a EC Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society), which is binding to all EC member countries. It had to be implemented until 22 Dec 2002 (yes, last year).
So, one should note that:
To really change something, you have to address the WCT (and the EUCD).
There's no copy protection that's circumvented. A modchip is illegal under the DMCA because it allows copied games to run, which is a circumvention of the copy protection. The exploit to run Linux does not circumvent a copy protection.
|echo "Error message (#a.b.c)"; exit 100 in
|command add the domains to
Add the addresses to ~alias/.qmail-address, you can even redirect bounces by setting up ~alias/.qmail-address-owner.
See the qmail FAQ.Just let all of the domains point to the same user, e.g. in
domain.org: domain-org
domain.com: domain-org
domain.net: domain-org
What exactly is it that qmail can't do?
No, the parts that are older than 100 years would fall into the non-public domain. So everyone distributing software based on that old code would have to pay royalties.
Itanium's EPIC architecture fits neatly into Apple's image of always using superior technology.
It might be a good idea to create a tool that takes a DTD and a binding between the XML structure and the in-programme data (such as structures, arrays, objects) and creates the necessary parser and interface.
The problem with definitions is that they tend to fail on borderline cases.