Eurogamer sounds a little breathless. Maybe they should give EA's dick a brief respite while they write their reviews.
Most memorably during the course of the presentation, a group of enemies firing on you from the third floor of a ruined building (with the front having already been cast asunder) have the rug literally pulled out from beneath then when the concrete pillars supporting their floor are taken out by an RPG, sending them and tons of dust and rubble tumbling in on itself as every floor of the remainder of the building collapses in on itself in protest, crushing anyone else firing at you beneath. Think of the shattered levels in all those WWII games, but with the ability to keep piling on the destruction. To use a horribly overused word, it is simply awesome.
I'll admit, I was expecting further misuses of the word "literally" in this review. Yes, probably a good game.
Yes, I'm sure that's lawyerese CYA and not malevolence, but it's probably BSD & GPL incompatible just the same. There are other OSI licenses that might work much better.
Not sure there is a compatibility problem. If the recipients of the GPLed software must acquire a license to use those patents infringed by the software, that could be counter to "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." in the GPL. Obviously since Microsoft is granting these licenses to all comers, that may not be a conflict at all. Maybe people use patent licenses like this all the time with GPL code.
It certainly would be a problem if at some point in the future, Microsoft stopped granting these licenses to anyone at all. That would be the only reason that requiring a separate acquisition of a license to use those patents could be considered a "further restriction" now.
I'm sure he read the rest. That doesn't make it the same as the BSD license, MS-hatred or not. As a developer using these patents, you cannot simply say:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
As far as I can tell, if one were to use these patents and follow the requirements of Microsoft's patent license, then they would not be able to use the BSD license. You'd have to use a license that discusses patent restrictions. Yes, your license would probably be meet OSI reqs, but it would not be GPL and it would not be new-BSD.
That is still significantly different from the BSD or GPL licenses.
Every distribution of your software requires a patent license from Microsoft. BSD and GPL software typically only require a license from whoever wrote the software.
This is a practical problem for many OSS developers, your long quote notwithstanding.
Right. And their terms look totally excellent. It still seems slightly concerning to me:
The proprietors of OpenOffice receive a perpetual license to use those patents. Any user of OpenOffice also receives a perpetual license from Microsoft (The proprietors of OpenOffice cannot sublicense directly).
At some point in the future, if Microsoft has a change of heart, they cannot revoke those licenses. Got it.
Can they, however, refuse to grant new licenses to new users of OpenOffice? I don't see why not. If they can do so, that may preclude the distribution of software that uses these patents under the GPL in nations that enforce software patents.
If you see what I mean. I'm not a lawyer, and I highly doubt that my analysis is entirely correct. But I still think this patent license may not be entirely capital-FSF-Free. Whether or not you prefer capital-FSF-Free, that could have practical implications.
I would interpret that to mean that they could revoke your ability to distribute at any time. They could stop offering licenses to new users of the patent.
That isn't the end of the world, and if the license turns out to be as unrestricted as it seems, that's pretty excellent. But no, not quite so free as BSD.
I'll get modded down shortly then. I've only received two upmods.
So, if Rodi is using FreeNet-like rerouting, wouldn't it also need FreeNet-like encryption to ensure that the packet gets back to whomever requested it?
Is Rodi identical to FreeNet except that you get to choose what blocks you host?
That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C.
The problem is B. B is the guy that gets sued. B is the one offering the valuable service. B is the one that needs to be protected.
show placemarks set by people on the Keyhole web forum ("Look! I found a cool thing here!")
That was the feature I was hoping for after I checked out Keyhole. Now you can have stringers uploading data to your Globe. Some day we'll be able to do GPS mapping of photographs so that they can be plastered on those 3D projections of buildings.
Like Snow Crash. Next they just have to build the Librarian.
No one is talking about giving their routers to the federal, state, or county government. The law that was passed will not constrain private internet service providers. It doesn't matter what you do or do not trust the government to do with your internet access.
If some municipal government in Texas attempts to regulate ISPs, they'll have the FCC to answer to. Which, if you think about it, should irk the fuck out of y'all states-rights types.
I debate that "keeping Apple alive" is an upside to the existence of Apple Zealots. Being dicks to strangers wasn't necessary, and they would have kept buying Apple's stagnant products anyway.
As Pogue discusses, one thing you common to most OS zealots is that they don't know what they're talking about. I've heard so many people say, "Iduno, I'm really good with computers, but when I sit down at a (PC|Macintosh), I just don't know where to go to do anything."
That's supposed to add to your credibility, you moron?
Re:McVoy does get it.At least part of it.
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
The world will never be all open or closed source. People that think it should be are like those that think the world should forced to all be one faith.
Close. They're like the ones who think that their faiths are the correct ones (everyone). They think that everyone should, out of enlightened self interest, choose this correct faith. The FSF types tend to believe that everyone should, out of enlightened self interest, choose to use and create Free software.
Sure, there are crusaders who would love to legislate that no software can be (GPL) Free. There are also some crusaders who would love to legislate that all software must be Free, but I think they're in the minority even among FSF fanboys.
That logic doesn't work very well for me. Anyone who knew about the vulnerability would have known to create a hit list. Yes, it could have been an inside contact that acquired information about the vulnerability in the first place, but this is not two points of data, as implied by above quote.
Coulda been someone inside, or coulda been someone else who figured out the bug in ISS's software. They write security software, ferchrissakes, it seems like crackers around the world would have their sights trained on them.
You'ld find it less than comfortable. The girls are just pointing out the same thing.
No, they're just trying to drive up traffic to their website by posting pictures of half-naked women. Just like the booth babe employers.
If there was... iduno... content to the hall of shame aside from said photos, I might feel differently. But there isn't and I don't. The booth babe interviews from previous years are much more interesting and better at humanizing the issue (however much or little an issue it is).
Slashdot Mirror
To my reading, there's no rug and there's no pulling.
Yes, I'm sure that's lawyerese CYA and not malevolence, but it's probably BSD & GPL incompatible just the same. There are other OSI licenses that might work much better.
Not sure there is a compatibility problem. If the recipients of the GPLed software must acquire a license to use those patents infringed by the software, that could be counter to "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." in the GPL. Obviously since Microsoft is granting these licenses to all comers, that may not be a conflict at all. Maybe people use patent licenses like this all the time with GPL code.
It certainly would be a problem if at some point in the future, Microsoft stopped granting these licenses to anyone at all. That would be the only reason that requiring a separate acquisition of a license to use those patents could be considered a "further restriction" now.
But I am very not sure.
Nice troll. Got me.
That is still significantly different from the BSD or GPL licenses.
Every distribution of your software requires a patent license from Microsoft. BSD and GPL software typically only require a license from whoever wrote the software.
This is a practical problem for many OSS developers, your long quote notwithstanding.
Right. And their terms look totally excellent. It still seems slightly concerning to me:
The proprietors of OpenOffice receive a perpetual license to use those patents. Any user of OpenOffice also receives a perpetual license from Microsoft (The proprietors of OpenOffice cannot sublicense directly).
At some point in the future, if Microsoft has a change of heart, they cannot revoke those licenses. Got it.
Can they, however, refuse to grant new licenses to new users of OpenOffice? I don't see why not. If they can do so, that may preclude the distribution of software that uses these patents under the GPL in nations that enforce software patents.
If you see what I mean. I'm not a lawyer, and I highly doubt that my analysis is entirely correct. But I still think this patent license may not be entirely capital-FSF-Free. Whether or not you prefer capital-FSF-Free, that could have practical implications.
I would interpret that to mean that they could revoke your ability to distribute at any time. They could stop offering licenses to new users of the patent.
That isn't the end of the world, and if the license turns out to be as unrestricted as it seems, that's pretty excellent. But no, not quite so free as BSD.
No kidding. This is a press hit.
I'll get modded down shortly then. I've only received two upmods.
So, if Rodi is using FreeNet-like rerouting, wouldn't it also need FreeNet-like encryption to ensure that the packet gets back to whomever requested it?
Is Rodi identical to FreeNet except that you get to choose what blocks you host?
Is it faster?
Who cares if A can hide their identity? B can't.
show placemarks set by people on the Keyhole web forum ("Look! I found a cool thing here!")
That was the feature I was hoping for after I checked out Keyhole. Now you can have stringers uploading data to your Globe. Some day we'll be able to do GPS mapping of photographs so that they can be plastered on those 3D projections of buildings.
Like Snow Crash. Next they just have to build the Librarian.
Your comment is off topic.
No one is talking about giving their routers to the federal, state, or county government. The law that was passed will not constrain private internet service providers. It doesn't matter what you do or do not trust the government to do with your internet access.
If some municipal government in Texas attempts to regulate ISPs, they'll have the FCC to answer to. Which, if you think about it, should irk the fuck out of y'all states-rights types.
What do you want, a cookie?
I'm an atheist. I think they all suck.
I debate that "keeping Apple alive" is an upside to the existence of Apple Zealots. Being dicks to strangers wasn't necessary, and they would have kept buying Apple's stagnant products anyway.
As Pogue discusses, one thing you common to most OS zealots is that they don't know what they're talking about. I've heard so many people say, "Iduno, I'm really good with computers, but when I sit down at a (PC|Macintosh), I just don't know where to go to do anything."
That's supposed to add to your credibility, you moron?
Sure, there are crusaders who would love to legislate that no software can be (GPL) Free. There are also some crusaders who would love to legislate that all software must be Free, but I think they're in the minority even among FSF fanboys.
See, not so bad. You just have a different faith.
Maxim.
Props to Google.
That really looks like he's tucking in after stealing something and stuffing it up his shirt.
Not wanking.
- Way more respect for Mr. Otellini. I had assumed he got the job due to mob ties.
- Hardly the point of his talk, or the article
Oh, and: "D" sounds like it was hella boring this year.That logic doesn't work very well for me. Anyone who knew about the vulnerability would have known to create a hit list. Yes, it could have been an inside contact that acquired information about the vulnerability in the first place, but this is not two points of data, as implied by above quote.
Coulda been someone inside, or coulda been someone else who figured out the bug in ISS's software. They write security software, ferchrissakes, it seems like crackers around the world would have their sights trained on them.
Grow a sense of humor. If you don't want to read it...
Apparently nick and jessica really are (or were or something) a celebrity couple, and google news is discussing their state.
So the asshole criticizing bloggers for being self-involved knows more about celebrities than... probably most of the people on Slashdot.
3: not bothered at all; thinks id3 is the right way to do it anyway due to cross platform filename hiccoughs.
If there was... iduno... content to the hall of shame aside from said photos, I might feel differently. But there isn't and I don't. The booth babe interviews from previous years are much more interesting and better at humanizing the issue (however much or little an issue it is).
So, not only do you talk sense about unreleased Apple products while being an Apple employee, you do so from your office at Apple?
Awesome.