Most computer users today have at least a general understanding of how Windows works, this means that for a mid-sized business a dedicated IT position is not necessary.
I don't think I agree with this. Most computer users today know they can stick a CD in and they can click next, but they don't understand what is happening, where the files are going, or the different options when choosing a configuration.
I think that some users think they have a general understanding, but there are actually very few who do.
This has been an ongoing debate for a long time. It boils down to the user of the software should have the ability to change the software. (Are you really using the software if you cannot change it? Or, is the software using you?).
The problem is that when you use a database over the internet to provide a report to your browser, and the database is licensed under the GPL, you the user aren't able to see or modify the source code for that database which you are using.
I personally disagree with this, since you the user are not using the database, you are viewing reports generated by someone else's computer (which is using the database). It's like giving the plans for a printing factory when you buy a book. Doesn't make sense to me.
Actually it is biased to view numbers in base 10. It's also biase to view + as a plus. Someone who does not know the modern number system may interpret it totally different. It is biased according to the context, which in this case is the modern number system.
I agree that Daimou has put his employer in a difficult position, however, they have also benefited from it. As you say they would have to re-write the GPL'd code in order to by-pass the GPL. They would have had to write it in the first place as well, so really they are no further behind.
However if they instead just use the GPL'd code and have that particular product as an open source, they might start seeing some unexpected benifits. (3rd party compatibility (IBM) springs to mind).
The real sticking point seems to be that the employer either: 1. didn't understand what Daimou was bringing in. 2. didn't understand the ramifications of the GPL. 3. decided that the GPL didn't matter. 4. decided that since they owned anything Daimou thinks of, or has ever thought of (!) they must also own anything he has come in contact with "if it enters the building". From the story.
Daimou is painting the picture as #4. But as we all know there are 3 sides to every story. (his/theirs/truth).
I think you missed what I was saying. If he removes all the original GPL'd code, all he has left are his additions. He can obviously license his own code however he wants.
From the GPL Preamble: Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
If Daimanou wrot the code prior to the IP agreement He owns the copyright to his changes, the GPL license holders own the copyright to their code. As he wrote it against GPL'd code his changes are also GPL'd unless he specifically removes the GPL'd (original code) from his changes.
Xorg now has windows transparancies, is much more stable, and is being actively developed to include many new and useful things. For example, my ATI system works great using xorg, didn't work at all with xfree.
So if I understand this correctly, AOL is assuming the copyright on anything you post. So if you post something inflammatory, libelous, or hateful, AOL owns it....
At a recent LUG I meet a Microsoft evanaglist who was saying that the problem with Linux is that there is no accountablity. That fortune 500 companies do not deal with Linux because there is no one to blame for a failure. They therefore only have RedHat and Novell as possible tier 1 providers, and so the cost of Linux is as great or greater then Microsoft.
As I was still recovering from a 3am virus and spyware purge, (not on Linux) I was so dumbfounded that I couldn't reply. So I'm asking you. Is this the offical MS stand, or is this one persons misguided perception? If it is MS's official stand, how do they justify it, as MS is only one company, and seem to be: 1. Uninterested in fixing core problems which are central to the last 10 years of virus infections (Active X for example). 2. A Single point of failure which (according to the guy) should therefore be blamed for all the problems.
They are a third party to a transaction between two people, and have no status in the transaction beyond casting a slanderous accusation at one of the parties.
They are infringing on your ability to distribute your stuff. Isn't that infringing on your copyright?
1. That advertising that someone has stolen something, that was actually theirs to start with, would be lible.
2. That informing third parties that material they obtained from you is stolen is lible, and infringes upon your copyright.
3. You aren't informed that the person who is running the MPAA's software has been told this lie, and therefore are unable to defend yourself against it.
Who wrote the song? And how can you prove that it was entirely original? Perhaps you did subconsciously copy the work as in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (the "My Sweet Lord" case), and the original songwriter and music publisher deserve their cuts.
Oh, I never thought of that. I guess I can't do anything original.... BUT WAIT, neither can anyone else! So there is not such thing as copyright, since nothing is original and and and....
or
Maybe I can do something original.
Nitpick: Music publishers make up the NMPA/Harry Fox Agency, not the Motion Picture Association of America.
OK, suppose you make a family movie and post it on the web.
Suppose you record your own music, save it on your machine. You give it to your friends, or release it on the net. The MPAA claims that it's stolen, which implies that it's not yours go give away.
So has this been accepted at all? Has there been a rfc?
I was thinking of something built into the tcp stack that would mark the data as compressed. But then the recieving stack would also need to know it was compressed, which implies a protocal (in order to see if compression is supported). So to incrementally release it (assuming it has the stamp of approval) you start with main servers. Add it as a protocal (compressed tcp). The first thing the protocal does is request if the receiving end supports compression. If not it reverts into tcp. The problem is that we will need one layer of the stack talking to another at the other end. Usually that is transparent.
You would think that tcp would have a bit in it's protocal to say "compressed/uncompressed".
Of course I'm talking with 101 knowledge here so I'm probably totally off base.
The City named a huge tourist attraction after RIM. It's called RIM park! Go there if you ever want to get rimmed^h^h^h^h^h^h nevermind...
RIM park is a huge attraction because of how it was put together. (With pure money... Really!)
The RIM park modelling idea: The City should patent it's RIM park modelling idea and make millions to pay for the park.
Kneecarrot is right about the streets, only it's done by satellite with microwaves. It was a side effect of all the PDA's sending signals to the RIM head quarters.
They also have built PI. It's a big building with lots of eggs in it. (Really!)
Slashdot Mirror
Damn! Now I've got the oompa Loompa brain virus! It will take me a week to get this out of my head!
Most computer users today have at least a general understanding of how Windows works, this means that for a mid-sized business a dedicated IT position is not necessary.
I don't think I agree with this. Most computer users today know they can stick a CD in and they can click next, but they don't understand what is happening, where the files are going, or the different options when choosing a configuration.
I think that some users think they have a general understanding, but there are actually very few who do.
This has been an ongoing debate for a long time. It boils down to the user of the software should have the ability to change the software. (Are you really using the software if you cannot change it? Or, is the software using you?).
The problem is that when you use a database over the internet to provide a report to your browser, and the database is licensed under the GPL, you the user aren't able to see or modify the source code for that database which you are using.
I personally disagree with this, since you the user are not using the database, you are viewing reports generated by someone else's computer (which is using the database). It's like giving the plans for a printing factory when you buy a book. Doesn't make sense to me.
Actually it is biased to view numbers in base 10.
It's also biase to view + as a plus.
Someone who does not know the modern number system may interpret it totally different. It is biased according to the context, which in this case is the modern number system.
What distro do you use? Does the 3d stuff have a programmer accessible api? Looks very cool, but of course way beyond my budget.
Well that works :)
Tried it under XP with cygwin.
I've never seen a computer cry like that before...
I agree that Daimou has put his employer in a difficult position, however, they have also benefited from it. As you say they would have to re-write the GPL'd code in order to by-pass the GPL. They would have had to write it in the first place as well, so really they are no further behind.
However if they instead just use the GPL'd code and have that particular product as an open source, they might start seeing some unexpected benifits. (3rd party compatibility (IBM) springs to mind).
The real sticking point seems to be that the employer either:
1. didn't understand what Daimou was bringing in.
2. didn't understand the ramifications of the GPL.
3. decided that the GPL didn't matter.
4. decided that since they owned anything Daimou thinks of, or has ever thought of (!) they must also own anything he has come in contact with "if it enters the building". From the story.
Daimou is painting the picture as #4. But as we all know there are 3 sides to every story. (his/theirs/truth).
I think you missed what I was saying. If he removes all the original GPL'd code, all he has left are his additions. He can obviously license his own code however he wants.
From the GPL Preamble:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
If Daimanou wrot the code prior to the IP agreement He owns the copyright to his changes, the GPL license holders own the copyright to their code. As he wrote it against GPL'd code his changes are also GPL'd unless he specifically removes the GPL'd (original code) from his changes.
Xorg now has windows transparancies, is much more stable, and is being actively developed to include many new and useful things. For example, my ATI system works great using xorg, didn't work at all with xfree.
That's why.
So if I understand this correctly, AOL is assuming the copyright on anything you post. So if you post something inflammatory, libelous, or hateful, AOL owns it....
So if someone wants to sue, they sue AOL?
At a recent LUG I meet a Microsoft evanaglist who was saying that the problem with Linux is that there is no accountablity. That fortune 500 companies do not deal with Linux because there is no one to blame for a failure. They therefore only have RedHat and Novell as possible tier 1 providers, and so the cost of Linux is as great or greater then Microsoft.
As I was still recovering from a 3am virus and spyware purge, (not on Linux) I was so dumbfounded that I couldn't reply. So I'm asking you. Is this the offical MS stand, or is this one persons misguided perception? If it is MS's official stand, how do they justify it, as MS is only one company, and seem to be:
1. Uninterested in fixing core problems which are central to the last 10 years of virus infections (Active X for example).
2. A Single point of failure which (according to the guy) should therefore be blamed for all the problems.
So what do you think?
Maybe, learn more then three chords?
They are a third party to a transaction between two people, and have no status in the transaction beyond casting a slanderous accusation at one of the parties.
They are infringing on your ability to distribute your stuff. Isn't that infringing on your copyright?
OK, substitute Home movie for music.
I would have thought
1. That advertising that someone has stolen something, that was actually theirs to start with, would be lible.
2. That informing third parties that material they obtained from you is stolen is lible, and infringes upon your copyright.
3. You aren't informed that the person who is running the MPAA's software has been told this lie, and therefore are unable to defend yourself against it.
IANAL either.
Who wrote the song? And how can you prove that it was entirely original? Perhaps you did subconsciously copy the work as in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (the "My Sweet Lord" case), and the original songwriter and music publisher deserve their cuts.
....
Oh, I never thought of that. I guess I can't do anything original.... BUT WAIT, neither can anyone else! So there is not such thing as copyright, since nothing is original and and and
or
Maybe I can do something original.
Nitpick: Music publishers make up the NMPA/Harry Fox Agency, not the Motion Picture Association of America.
OK, suppose you make a family movie and post it on the web.
Suppose you record your own music, save it on your machine. You give it to your friends, or release it on the net. The MPAA claims that it's stolen, which implies that it's not yours go give away.
Isn't the MPAA infringing on your copyrights?
You are my new friend :)
So has this been accepted at all? Has there been a rfc?
I was thinking of something built into the tcp stack that would mark the data as compressed. But then the recieving stack would also need to know it was compressed, which implies a protocal (in order to see if compression is supported). So to incrementally release it (assuming it has the stamp of approval) you start with main servers. Add it as a protocal (compressed tcp). The first thing the protocal does is request if the receiving end supports compression. If not it reverts into tcp. The problem is that we will need one layer of the stack talking to another at the other end. Usually that is transparent.
You would think that tcp would have a bit in it's protocal to say "compressed/uncompressed".
Of course I'm talking with 101 knowledge here so I'm probably totally off base.
Make you visible to TS new open 3d videocard
Let the company know what the demand is.
The City named a huge tourist attraction after RIM. It's called RIM park! Go there if you ever want to get rimmed^h^h^h^h^h^h nevermind...
RIM park is a huge attraction because of how it was put together. (With pure money... Really!)
The RIM park modelling idea:
The City should patent it's RIM park modelling idea and make millions to pay for the park.
Kneecarrot is right about the streets, only it's done by satellite with microwaves. It was a side effect of all the PDA's sending signals to the RIM head quarters.
They also have built PI. It's a big building with lots of eggs in it. (Really!)
You would think that with all of slashdot using torrent I'd get better the 3K (no 2K) per sec.
I understand that I have to wait for the torrent to start working, but it seems that this very cool idea just doesn't work. (Ever!)
Only 106 Hours to go...
Seriously, people are making console systems out of old pc's and pac-man technology games, so why not use something like this for it instead.