You were perfectly clear. The problem is that you are wrong. I have provided solid proof to back up my assertions. Unless you believe that Apple's IP lawyers are wrong, that is.
Yeah, I was wrong. Yes, you have provided solid proof. Way good enough for me, at least.
The BSD license does not require that you provide derivative works under the BSD license. If you did so, and your only rights are as under the APSL, then you'd be violating the APSL.
So, I can download Darwin 'n' combine it with OpenBSD stuff, and if I ever gave it to anyone else, it could be under the terms of the APSL and not the BSD license.
Since the GPL has additional requirements that I can not legally provide (according to the APSL), I could take Darwin, combine it with the Linux kernel, but if I distributed that to anyone else, there would be no license that I could give them legally, and I would thus be violating both the GPL and the APSL.
"Hi. I have a cluster with several hundred single-CPU linux boxes, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not breaking the law."
"Oh, I've heavily edited the Linux source. I've cut out over %90 of the code, sacrificing functionality for size of code."
"No, I don't have NUMA, RCU, or SMP capabilities."
"Sure, you can see my code. I cannot distribute it to you, because I do not want to license it to you under the GPL. You'll have to sign this NDA. Basic terms. You aren't allowed to show anyone anything you see here, even if you've seen it before, you have to agree to ________"
The new advantage is that they can make 30 fps observation of chemical reactions in a liquid. Previously, they could get 30 fps in gas or solids, and they could get 3 fps in liquid, but now they can get both at high speed.
Really interesting. I want to hear what they're learning.
They say it's "Not free enough" to APPLY TO YOUR OWN SOFTWARE. They don't say it's "not free enough" for any other purpose. They say it's fine to use.
They'd like it to be GPL compatible. If it were, then we could combine it with all this other software. There would be a giant tangible benefit to GPL compatibility. The APSL does not have this characteristic, and that's too bad. The FSF laments the lack. Give them a fucking break.
Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.
You'd definitely have to use the APSL-2.0 for the resulting product.
But the architectures of the two systems are different enough that you aren't going to be able to plug in the SMP support. Or most drivers. Darwin uses a unique kernel and driver architecture.
Yes, correct. The GPL works similarly in that regard. I think their definition of external deployment is different.
I'm mildly disappointed that GPL coders won't be able to co-opt any of the code in Darwin under the APSL-2.0, but this is still a vast improvement.
This is by design. It's the same "viral" aspect of the GPL, but it infects things for Apple rather than the GNU hippies. And Apple gets to use the infected stuff in closed-source products. That's why Apple needs a new free software license.
I own a copyright on some of the boilerplate included in the SCO Linux IP License. Feel free to use Linux, but if you buy the SCO License, then you're infringing on my copyright.
I'll license you the ability to use SCO's Linux IP License for the small, one time fee of $15,000. Per user.
My photos were dragged off of a CF reader into folders by me. Those folders were then named according to their content. When iPhoto imported everything, it used those folder names to name the rolls.
You realize I'm not talking about albums, right? Rolls. Make sure iPhoto is showing you everything organized by roll.
That's funny, when I imported my massive collection of photos, each roll was automatically named with the parent folder's name, and organized automatically.
Sure, they weren't hierarchically organized, but whatever.
First of all, one of the many bad things about the DMCA is that yes, his presentation was illegal.
But that's not the point. He was arrested for the distribution of DMCA violating software. His company sold software here, in the US, so it doesn't matter that it's legal in Russia.
There are plenty of reasons that he was not guilty of violating the DMCA. Jurisdiction was none of those reasons. Admit it.
Otherwise, every woman who visited Saudi Arabia might get stoned to death for wearing a bikini in Florida. Stupid analogy, I know, but it's the best I have right now.
Let me complete your analogy:
If I sent a copy of Penthouse featuring bikini clad women in Florida to my friend in Saudi Arabia, they might very well pick me up at the airport. They didn't arrest him for the things that happened in Russia. They arrested him for the things that happened in the US.
Of course, he was not responsible for those things that happened in the US. Also, those things that happened in the US aren't exactly illegal. So, he should not have been arrested.
This has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Admit it.
The Senator Hollings would be arguing all the same bullshit even if Disney never gave him a dime. His vote was *not* swayed by cash. However, if Disney hadn't propped him up, he might have a harder time getting reellected.
I've never felt that Hollings knew he was doing wrong. I'm sure he thinks he's the most righteous person in DC, on this issue.
You would be able to copyright them. Larry Lessig doesn't want to stop you. However, if you wish to do so, you'd need to make a point to request a copyright.
The reason for this is that there are many things that no one ever desired a copyright for, but they are still prevented from being used/archived/etc due to automatic copyrights. So we lose helpful but forgotten material. This has only been going on since the mid 60s, and it only happened because content industries didn't want to have to compete with free content.
IMHO, a requirement for an explicit copyright notice would be sufficient in this regard. If you want to copyright, just say "Copyright "Magic Thread Heavy Industries, LLC", July 31 2003" and don't worry about it. If you forget to provide notice, then you're the asshole.
His source code requirement is so that computer programs don't get special protection not provided to books, which is what copyright was designed for.
Show me the part of the constitution that contradicts his proposal, and I'll show you a naked picture of my girlfriend. She's 19, and she's hot. The constitution is 200 and wrinkly. I'd say that's a fair spread...
The whole point is that he doesn't want things like Slashdot comments to have automatic, near-infinite copyrights.
He wants most things (emails, notes, blogs) to be free of copyright. Copyright would only apply to things that actually had some cost in their production, and would not get produced without copyright.
That means that instead of having a giant WWW full of copyrighted material, you'd have a giant WWW full of the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
You were perfectly clear. The problem is that you are wrong. I have provided solid proof to back up my assertions. Unless you believe that Apple's IP lawyers are wrong, that is.
Yeah, I was wrong. Yes, you have provided solid proof. Way good enough for me, at least.
The BSD license does not require that you provide derivative works under the BSD license. If you did so, and your only rights are as under the APSL, then you'd be violating the APSL.
So, I can download Darwin 'n' combine it with OpenBSD stuff, and if I ever gave it to anyone else, it could be under the terms of the APSL and not the BSD license.
Since the GPL has additional requirements that I can not legally provide (according to the APSL), I could take Darwin, combine it with the Linux kernel, but if I distributed that to anyone else, there would be no license that I could give them legally, and I would thus be violating both the GPL and the APSL.
I think I was more clear the first time.
Call SCO, request to talk to a salesperson.
"Hi. I have a cluster with several hundred single-CPU linux boxes, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not breaking the law."
"Oh, I've heavily edited the Linux source. I've cut out over %90 of the code, sacrificing functionality for size of code."
"No, I don't have NUMA, RCU, or SMP capabilities."
"Sure, you can see my code. I cannot distribute it to you, because I do not want to license it to you under the GPL. You'll have to sign this NDA. Basic terms. You aren't allowed to show anyone anything you see here, even if you've seen it before, you have to agree to ________"
Where _______ is whatever we want.
The new advantage is that they can make 30 fps observation of chemical reactions in a liquid. Previously, they could get 30 fps in gas or solids, and they could get 3 fps in liquid, but now they can get both at high speed.
Really interesting. I want to hear what they're learning.
They already use little submarines.
They need their own license so that they can guarantee that they can use any improvement it ever sees in their own closed-source product.
They also want others to be able to link to it without using the APSL, because that will allow driver developers to use it with fewer barriers.
It's almost the same as the NPL, but they need to make a new copy of it so that rights cede to Apple rather than Netscape.
They say it's "Not free enough" to APPLY TO YOUR OWN SOFTWARE. They don't say it's "not free enough" for any other purpose. They say it's fine to use.
They'd like it to be GPL compatible. If it were, then we could combine it with all this other software. There would be a giant tangible benefit to GPL compatibility. The APSL does not have this characteristic, and that's too bad. The FSF laments the lack. Give them a fucking break.
Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.
You'd definitely have to use the APSL-2.0 for the resulting product.
But the architectures of the two systems are different enough that you aren't going to be able to plug in the SMP support. Or most drivers. Darwin uses a unique kernel and driver architecture.
Yes, correct. The GPL works similarly in that regard. I think their definition of external deployment is different.
I'm mildly disappointed that GPL coders won't be able to co-opt any of the code in Darwin under the APSL-2.0, but this is still a vast improvement.
This is by design. It's the same "viral" aspect of the GPL, but it infects things for Apple rather than the GNU hippies. And Apple gets to use the infected stuff in closed-source products. That's why Apple needs a new free software license.
No, it was:
"Muvo says we can license their player for a few bucks."
"Oh, cool. Then we could put it in the gateway store with some huge markup and fleece morons."
"Right on. Should be done in a week."
No, no, no.
I own a copyright on some of the boilerplate included in the SCO Linux IP License. Feel free to use Linux, but if you buy the SCO License, then you're infringing on my copyright.
I'll license you the ability to use SCO's Linux IP License for the small, one time fee of $15,000. Per user.
Your hypothesis seems to be: "Nintendo needs developers."
However, the hypothesis that you have proved is: "Nintendo is bad to developers."
You'll have to explain what 3D party developers would bring to Nintendo (primarily a software company). Why can't they survive without?
ARGH!!!
--
The above is my own expression and no one elses, unless quoted, of which the author will be given credit.
You blatantly failed to give credit to Charles "Sparky" Schultz, creator of the expression "ARGH!!!", author of Peanuts.
Photoshop runs on the Mac because of the Carbon API, which isn't exactly standard Unix fare.
If they were porting to Linux, I'd say it'd be a tossup whether they should port from Win32 or from Carbon.
Uh... people with only one eye can't see the 3D aspect of a hologram. They can see a 2D picture just fine.
If they move their head, then they can see the 3d aspect as well.
One eyed folks will do just fine here.
My photos were dragged off of a CF reader into folders by me. Those folders were then named according to their content. When iPhoto imported everything, it used those folder names to name the rolls.
You realize I'm not talking about albums, right? Rolls. Make sure iPhoto is showing you everything organized by roll.
That's funny, when I imported my massive collection of photos, each roll was automatically named with the parent folder's name, and organized automatically.
Sure, they weren't hierarchically organized, but whatever.
First of all, one of the many bad things about the DMCA is that yes, his presentation was illegal.
But that's not the point. He was arrested for the distribution of DMCA violating software. His company sold software here, in the US, so it doesn't matter that it's legal in Russia.
There are plenty of reasons that he was not guilty of violating the DMCA. Jurisdiction was none of those reasons. Admit it.
Otherwise, every woman who visited Saudi Arabia might get stoned to death for wearing a bikini in Florida. Stupid analogy, I know, but it's the best I have right now.
Let me complete your analogy:
If I sent a copy of Penthouse featuring bikini clad women in Florida to my friend in Saudi Arabia, they might very well pick me up at the airport. They didn't arrest him for the things that happened in Russia. They arrested him for the things that happened in the US.
Of course, he was not responsible for those things that happened in the US. Also, those things that happened in the US aren't exactly illegal. So, he should not have been arrested.
This has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Admit it.
The Senator Hollings would be arguing all the same bullshit even if Disney never gave him a dime. His vote was *not* swayed by cash. However, if Disney hadn't propped him up, he might have a harder time getting reellected.
I've never felt that Hollings knew he was doing wrong. I'm sure he thinks he's the most righteous person in DC, on this issue.
You would be able to copyright them. Larry Lessig doesn't want to stop you. However, if you wish to do so, you'd need to make a point to request a copyright.
The reason for this is that there are many things that no one ever desired a copyright for, but they are still prevented from being used/archived/etc due to automatic copyrights. So we lose helpful but forgotten material. This has only been going on since the mid 60s, and it only happened because content industries didn't want to have to compete with free content.
IMHO, a requirement for an explicit copyright notice would be sufficient in this regard. If you want to copyright, just say "Copyright "Magic Thread Heavy Industries, LLC", July 31 2003" and don't worry about it. If you forget to provide notice, then you're the asshole.
His source code requirement is so that computer programs don't get special protection not provided to books, which is what copyright was designed for.
Show me the part of the constitution that contradicts his proposal, and I'll show you a naked picture of my girlfriend. She's 19, and she's hot. The constitution is 200 and wrinkly. I'd say that's a fair spread...
Hahahaha.
This is VALinux, dude. They don't have profits.
The whole point is that he doesn't want things like Slashdot comments to have automatic, near-infinite copyrights.
He wants most things (emails, notes, blogs) to be free of copyright. Copyright would only apply to things that actually had some cost in their production, and would not get produced without copyright.
That means that instead of having a giant WWW full of copyrighted material, you'd have a giant WWW full of the public domain.
The editor now notes that the article was meant as satire.
Ok, that makes sense, since otherwise I would have thought it was horseshit.
However, we might have realized it was satire IF IT WAS FUCKING FUNNY.