I'd say, if Google don't fix this before it hits the main media, they will suffer irreparable damage to their reputation.
Exaggeration.
Also, looking at the results for allinurl:imatix.com and searching google for that phrase, I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, spammers appear, but your page is consistently ranked #1. Maybe GoogleBoy saw your comment and had the engineers immediately fix your problem on every cluster, but somehow I doubt it. Same thing for that other page you said got 302ed. tsomething.it.
I can say with pretty good confidence that this is the one thing holding Firefox back from widespread use in businesses.
There's a whole pile of things. Our idiot intraweb is totally dependent on things like <a href="file://ourserver/ourshare/our directory/our idiot doc file.doc">this</a>, which (shockingly!) do not work in firefox.
VB.NET has been marketed by Microsoft as an updated version of the previous Visual Basic on its.NET framework, but VB.NET is really just C# with a slightly different syntax and fewer libraries.
In this particular case, both the citation in the story and your complaint do not match what he's said. Yes, he does say, "See how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything?", but he's talking about web phishing, and he's right w.r.t. web phishing.
He also says "Two-factor authentication is not useless. It works for local login, and it works within some corporate networks." which is exactly what it sounds like MS is talking about using two-factor authentication for.
If your code is a derivative of GPLed code, then the derivative is under the GPL, regardless of any other agreements.
I think that might be putting it weirdly. The point isn't really what is GPLed. The point is that their software contains code for which they do not own copyright. If they want to violate IBM's copyright on their source code, they might get caught. If they would not like to violated IBM's copyright, then they should consider licensing the code. IBM has already invited them to license it under the GPL.
As you point out, Daimaou and the IP agreement he signed is obviously completely irrelevant. He never owned the copyright to IBM's code, so he cannot transfer it to his employers, even if he wished to do so. Similarly, he probably has no liability to IBM. He's not violating their copyright; his employer is.
If Daimou's employer can file a patent on his work, that may be their legal right. That is also irrelevant to the fact that they will be violating IBM's copyright on their code. If Daimou's employer ever sees the light and decides to distribute their software under the GPL, then their patent would not excuse them from the conditions of the license:
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
To sum up: those jackasses need better lawyers. Daimou's only option may be to notify the copyright owners, but iduno if he'd be protected from being fired for doing so. In order to make sure that he'd be covered as a whistleblower or something, he should hire his own lawyer.
I agree completely. As you say, it's just annoying that they act like a non-commercial restriction is a good idea.
My utter bafflement, though, is that in the 2.0 licenses they don't have a no-attrib option. Why? WTF? That means that as far as I can tell, none of the CC 2.0 licenses are GPL compatible. I'm sure they had a reason, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.
Well, interfering with a wiretap is a federal crime. For example, if there is a tap on your phone, and you notice it, and you remove it, they can send you to jail. Has nothing to do with whose property you assume it is. Assume all the way to the clink.
But in this case, isn't it rather one contract you agreed to, which had a certain sentence which could be interpreted as 'all your messages are belong to us', which they now changed?
Yes, exactly, except that they also publicly claimed that their privacy policy could not be interpreted as "all your messages are belong to us". If someone went after AOL for repurposing their AIM conversation, and AOL, in court, said, "But look at our privacy policy!", plaintiff would only have to say, "But look at your press release, you lying sonofabitch." Judges brook no such bullshit.
From my experience, lawyers usually pay a lot of attention on the things they write, and especially these kind of mistakes are the ones that plainly don't happen in published legal documents...... unless they wanted to trick you into it, ofcourse.
No, you are full of crap. If a lawyer says, "Sign this document, and we'll execute contract A," and then has you sign a document actually only authorizing contract B, the signed document would be thrown out in court. If the lawyer knew about it, he might be liable, and he might be guilty of fraud.
Once AOL publically said, "No, we have not and will not read AIM chats," it better have been the truth, otherwise they could get turned inside out in court. No matter what their privacy policy said.
And I'm guessing neither of the three of us know all that much about the details of video compression. The "Motion Picture Experts Group" or whoever are probably smart people. They already compress video by only noting changes between frames & stuff like that. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that their methods may already sortof make use of this technique.
Slashdot Mirror
But Li-poly is easier to get into cramped enclosures, right? Less heinous material means no metal box.
Yes
Yes
YesExaggeration.
Also, looking at the results for allinurl:imatix.com and searching google for that phrase, I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, spammers appear, but your page is consistently ranked #1. Maybe GoogleBoy saw your comment and had the engineers immediately fix your problem on every cluster, but somehow I doubt it. Same thing for that other page you said got 302ed. tsomething.it.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
&c.
Glad to hear it. The intranet also depend on windows integrated security. Solve that, and we'd be 90% home.
I can say with pretty good confidence that this is the one thing holding Firefox back from widespread use in businesses.
There's a whole pile of things. Our idiot intraweb is totally dependent on things like <a href="file://ourserver/ourshare/our directory/our idiot doc file.doc">this</a>, which (shockingly!) do not work in firefox.
- I have no idea if CSS is flawed, or what the problems might be with it.
- According to Dave Hyatt, "Sometimes trying to support the standards can be a real pain."
Yes, in that article some of his woes may have been caused by IE6 and lower, but IE7 will have to deal with the precedent set by IE6 just the same.Or AdBlock might cause a reflow after the page is loaded. That's how everyone else solves the problem.
In this particular case, both the citation in the story and your complaint do not match what he's said. Yes, he does say, "See how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything?", but he's talking about web phishing, and he's right w.r.t. web phishing.
He also says "Two-factor authentication is not useless. It works for local login, and it works within some corporate networks." which is exactly what it sounds like MS is talking about using two-factor authentication for.
He says his complaints do not apply here.
As you point out, Daimaou and the IP agreement he signed is obviously completely irrelevant. He never owned the copyright to IBM's code, so he cannot transfer it to his employers, even if he wished to do so. Similarly, he probably has no liability to IBM. He's not violating their copyright; his employer is.
If Daimou's employer can file a patent on his work, that may be their legal right. That is also irrelevant to the fact that they will be violating IBM's copyright on their code. If Daimou's employer ever sees the light and decides to distribute their software under the GPL, then their patent would not excuse them from the conditions of the license:To sum up: those jackasses need better lawyers. Daimou's only option may be to notify the copyright owners, but iduno if he'd be protected from being fired for doing so. In order to make sure that he'd be covered as a whistleblower or something, he should hire his own lawyer.
Thank you.
1) Good call. I was parroting something I'd heard, and I can't find anything to back it up. Probably wrong.
2) w.r.t. "airmchair fascist", you seem to be a bigger idiot than I am.
I agree completely. As you say, it's just annoying that they act like a non-commercial restriction is a good idea.
My utter bafflement, though, is that in the 2.0 licenses they don't have a no-attrib option. Why? WTF? That means that as far as I can tell, none of the CC 2.0 licenses are GPL compatible. I'm sure they had a reason, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.
Well, interfering with a wiretap is a federal crime. For example, if there is a tap on your phone, and you notice it, and you remove it, they can send you to jail. Has nothing to do with whose property you assume it is. Assume all the way to the clink.
Awesome troll, man.
If this shit ever does get made, I'll be able to use Firefox for just about everything.
Sweet! I don't demand that stuff, but it means I can use Firefox a whole lot more.
Plus configuration via GPO, support for UNC based file:// links, support for Windows integrated security, and centralized updates.
Firefox is a tradeoff, not a fucking panacea.
Or "Yes, your honor, I am a totally ordinary person that could not properly interpret the legal meaning of this document."
:)
And that's why you record all your conversations with lawyers
Once AOL publically said, "No, we have not and will not read AIM chats," it better have been the truth, otherwise they could get turned inside out in court. No matter what their privacy policy said.
w.r.t. "unhealthily raising your expectations", my girlfriend is hotter than pornstars. So thank you, porn, for raising my expectations.
I'd love it if they'd knock down some doors at Maui X-Stream. Unfortunately, that's probably what it will take.
And I'm guessing neither of the three of us know all that much about the details of video compression. The "Motion Picture Experts Group" or whoever are probably smart people. They already compress video by only noting changes between frames & stuff like that. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that their methods may already sortof make use of this technique.