That's true. He is also free to continue pushing the GPLed version that has already been released. You cannot retroactively de-GPL code.
Of course if there are patents in play then you can effectively discourage people from using GPL code...
*THIS*
The employer may be able to change the license for everything going forward; they may even be able to stop distribution of non-GPL versions, but they cannot stop someone from distributing the last version that they released that was still GPL!
Although.... (Devil's Advocate time)
Also note that by the terms of the GPL, the really strict statement that the company is only required to distribute the code to other parties that got the binary. If the company kept the program in-house at all times, never distributing externally, then they have had no obligation to ever distribute the code.
And (as others have commented,) if you did the coding while employed under a fairly standard contract, *YOU* have no rights to keep the code, either. The company is the owner of the copyright, so they can license it however they want. And if they didn't give it to you under terms that treat you as an outside party with access to the source, then you likely don't even have a legal basis to possess the code to spin off.....
Yup, I was expecting uses that were "innovative", with at least halfway-serious suggestions. Can the/. editors please make sure to make it obvious when an article is humor instead of trying to lead us to believe it's serious?
Last year, I entered a Microsoft-sponsored contest that promoted home energy efficiency. You had to demonstrate how you had improved your home's efficiency, and explain what you would like to improve. (The prize was a few thousand dollars to Home Depot, IIRC.)
Among other things, I demonstrated that in my basement, where I had recently added insulation and replaced the old windows with new energy efficient ones, I have a home office with no heating in it. Yet just leaving my server on and at full processor load is enough, in the dead of Winter, to make the room TOO warm. (Compared to a spare bedroom upstairs with horrible old insulation and windows where it was 55F if I left the heat vent closed and door to the rest of the house closed.)
(Yes, I know I'm not the first person to think of this, I'm not ACTUALLY accusing Microsoft of stealing my idea...)
A "Word Mark" covers the exact graphical presentation of the words. So, for example, "Coca Cola" is a word mark covering the words "Coca Cola" in the script font the Coca Cola corporation uses. Likewise "Ford" written in the script font is a word mark of the Ford Motor Company.
For example, the Ford Motor Company owns the text trademark on "Ford" as it relates to automobiles. However, it has been allowed for non-automotive companies to use the name "Ford". These other companies CANNOT, however, use the script "Ford" in a blue circle, because that is a Word Mark assigned to Ford Motor Company.
A text Trademark covers the name itself, not an exact graphical representation.
(P.S., *ANYONE* can use to "claim" a trademark. It's just easier to defend when you file it with the USPTO. Once they have accepted it, you can use ®.)
A few years ago, I got a book that was the printed form of presentations from a conference in 1969. It was a bunch of presentations from fairly famous scientists and sci-fi writers about their predictions for what various areas of society/technology would be like in 2000.
Some were laughably off the mark (colonies on Mars and the Moon, manned voyages to the moons of Jupiter under way,) some were ridiculously close to reality (predicted Wikipedia and smart phones!) Surprisingly, nobody predicted flying cars. Simple airplanes yes, (including a prediction of the still-being-developed semi-autonomous light aircraft proposed by NASA and the FAA,) but not what most '60s stereotypes of "flying cars" are like.
A trademark, according to US law, has to be an adjective. Hence "Band-Aid brand bandages". He's using it purely as a noun "Bitcoins are..." His trademark can be easily struck down on that basis alone. Ironically, using a trademark as a noun is exactly the thing that depreciates the trademark as a protectable entity. (Again: See Band-Aid. They fought and fought to make sure that people not just call all bandages "band-aids", because using their trademark as a noun instead of an adjective is what dilutes it.)
I have my Apple IIc that I use to play old Apple II games I played as a kid. I sometimes use it with its original matching green-screen CRT display, sometimes I plug it in to my 47" HDTV.
Yes, the teaching of critical thinking is already going on. When she is old enough for this event, she should be ready for it, as well. And, yes, I will have had two years of this event occurring to base my decision on, as well.
My company makes an enterprise application that uses a web interface. Because of the long development lead times, we're still behind-the-curve on web browser support (only just added IE8 support and FF3! But thankfully we did finally get to drop IE6, in spite of a huge outcry from some of our enterprise customers.) We 'work' on Chrome, Safari, and FF4, but there are some glitches.
Many of us in the company prefer to use Firefox to do everything, as do quite a few of our customers. If Mozilla makes changes that break our product, though, we're going to have to just remove Firefox from our supported browsers list.
Yah, I know, Chrome OS isn't a "desktop" OS, but I could see integrating this with "bookmark sync". Put one device to sleep, and when you wake any 'paired' device, it opens to the same thing. Google Docs, Maps, random website, etc. Chrome OS is a good candidate for this since it's nearly all web-based already.
I could also see Apple doing this with iCloud. Edit a Pages document on your iPad and put it to sleep, and when you get home and wake up your iMac, it has that document already open. Reverse, too. Have a web page open in Safari on your MacBook, put it to sleep, unlock your iPhone, and that same web page is right there.
Heck, Microsoft could do this between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8, while they're at it... Pretty much anywhere the mobile and "desktop" are the same ecosystem.
Thank you for the reference, and for the calm response. My relatives who had Alzheimer's had all had varying levels of 'functionality', with the highest being fairly bad still. Yet all died of completely unrelated causes. (And I had not heard of any friends-of-family dying of Alzheimer's-related causes.)
Well, as the old saying goes, now I know. And knowing is...
No, if you read my comment, I was only nit-picking the use of the word "terminal" to describe the disease. I fully agree with Mr. Pratchett's right to make his decision.
First, I am in full support of a person's right to choose their time and place of death when confronted with certain death anyway (I voted for Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law - both times it came up.)
Second, I fully understand the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's, having multiple relatives who have succumb to it late in life.
However, since when is Alzheimer's itself "Terminal"? I have yet to have a relative die "because of Alzheimer's".
According to the latest statistics (http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/yr13-tbl-1.pdf,) the most common underlying illness that has prompted people to take advantage of Oregon's law is, by far, cancer. (Or, "Malignant neoplasms" as it is phrased in the report.) 80.8%. Next is ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease",) with 8%. Next Chronic lower respiratory disease (which covers lots of lung issues other than cancer,) with 3.8%, then AIDS at 1.5%, and "Other" rounding out the rest. They detail "Other" in the footnotes, and no Alzheimer's.
So, while I fully understand the desire of someone who is used to major functionality not wanting to succumb to the depths of Alzheimer's, to call it a Terminal Illness is lying to yourself.
Never have to worry about the editor itself going obsolete because of emerging HTML standards, never have to worry about the tool itself disappearing.
Find yourself random web host of choice (I like nearlyfreespeech) that supports direct upload of files, no fiddly web interface forced on you, and voila! Instant future-proof website!
(Yes, I'm going to have to be weaned off iWeb+MobileMe for my personal domain, too. I'm a lazy bastard, and iWeb was too easy. Now I'll have to go back to hand-coding and/or at least find a simple-to-upload-to-from-iWeb host; which, now that I think about it, nearlyfreespeech should do.)
Uh, because the guy that wrote the wireless sync utility used massive hacks to do it. Apple could do it in the core without needing massive hacks. Using completely different code.
Yes, they COULD have hired the guy (apparently they told him to submit a resume,) but they could also just implement it RIGHT.
Yes, this independent developer's wireless sync utility is a great thing - it implemented a much-desired feature before there was official support. But the developer was TOLD AT THE TIME OF REJECTION that Apple was already working on it.
Big difference. Microsoft actually used Stacker's code.
This is Apple implementing a similar feature *in a completely different way*.
Apple has done similar things plenty of times before. See Spaces, see Dashboard, see any of a dozen other functionalities Apple implemented in the core OS after similar-to-near-identical independent utilities existed. It's called "people want a feature - that feature is implemented by third parties now - but people want it built-in, so we built it in."
Apple will tell this guy to buzz off, and he will.
Skylab was pretty damned big. 60% the mass of the completed Mir, 80% the interior pressurized volume - and all in one large tube rather than a set of smaller ones.
A product that I had no problem with being proprietary at all is now unusable because "The Devil" just bought it, even though there is no change at all in the product or its usability.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. He is also free to continue pushing the GPLed version that has already been released. You cannot retroactively de-GPL code.
Of course if there are patents in play then you can effectively discourage people from using GPL code...
*THIS*
The employer may be able to change the license for everything going forward; they may even be able to stop distribution of non-GPL versions, but they cannot stop someone from distributing the last version that they released that was still GPL!
Although.... (Devil's Advocate time)
Also note that by the terms of the GPL, the really strict statement that the company is only required to distribute the code to other parties that got the binary. If the company kept the program in-house at all times, never distributing externally, then they have had no obligation to ever distribute the code.
And (as others have commented,) if you did the coding while employed under a fairly standard contract, *YOU* have no rights to keep the code, either. The company is the owner of the copyright, so they can license it however they want. And if they didn't give it to you under terms that treat you as an outside party with access to the source, then you likely don't even have a legal basis to possess the code to spin off.....
Yup, I was expecting uses that were "innovative", with at least halfway-serious suggestions. Can the /. editors please make sure to make it obvious when an article is humor instead of trying to lead us to believe it's serious?
Last year, I entered a Microsoft-sponsored contest that promoted home energy efficiency. You had to demonstrate how you had improved your home's efficiency, and explain what you would like to improve. (The prize was a few thousand dollars to Home Depot, IIRC.)
Among other things, I demonstrated that in my basement, where I had recently added insulation and replaced the old windows with new energy efficient ones, I have a home office with no heating in it. Yet just leaving my server on and at full processor load is enough, in the dead of Winter, to make the room TOO warm. (Compared to a spare bedroom upstairs with horrible old insulation and windows where it was 55F if I left the heat vent closed and door to the rest of the house closed.)
(Yes, I know I'm not the first person to think of this, I'm not ACTUALLY accusing Microsoft of stealing my idea...)
A "Word Mark" covers the exact graphical presentation of the words. So, for example, "Coca Cola" is a word mark covering the words "Coca Cola" in the script font the Coca Cola corporation uses. Likewise "Ford" written in the script font is a word mark of the Ford Motor Company.
For example, the Ford Motor Company owns the text trademark on "Ford" as it relates to automobiles. However, it has been allowed for non-automotive companies to use the name "Ford". These other companies CANNOT, however, use the script "Ford" in a blue circle, because that is a Word Mark assigned to Ford Motor Company.
A text Trademark covers the name itself, not an exact graphical representation.
Bitcoin digital currency alternative. :-P
(P.S., *ANYONE* can use to "claim" a trademark. It's just easier to defend when you file it with the USPTO. Once they have accepted it, you can use ®.)
A few years ago, I got a book that was the printed form of presentations from a conference in 1969. It was a bunch of presentations from fairly famous scientists and sci-fi writers about their predictions for what various areas of society/technology would be like in 2000.
Some were laughably off the mark (colonies on Mars and the Moon, manned voyages to the moons of Jupiter under way,) some were ridiculously close to reality (predicted Wikipedia and smart phones!) Surprisingly, nobody predicted flying cars. Simple airplanes yes, (including a prediction of the still-being-developed semi-autonomous light aircraft proposed by NASA and the FAA,) but not what most '60s stereotypes of "flying cars" are like.
A trademark, according to US law, has to be an adjective. Hence "Band-Aid brand bandages". He's using it purely as a noun "Bitcoins are..." His trademark can be easily struck down on that basis alone. Ironically, using a trademark as a noun is exactly the thing that depreciates the trademark as a protectable entity. (Again: See Band-Aid. They fought and fought to make sure that people not just call all bandages "band-aids", because using their trademark as a noun instead of an adjective is what dilutes it.)
I have my Apple IIc that I use to play old Apple II games I played as a kid. I sometimes use it with its original matching green-screen CRT display, sometimes I plug it in to my 47" HDTV.
Also get rid of jomegat for writing the completely wrong and hyped-up headline and story.
Yes, the teaching of critical thinking is already going on. When she is old enough for this event, she should be ready for it, as well. And, yes, I will have had two years of this event occurring to base my decision on, as well.
My company makes an enterprise application that uses a web interface. Because of the long development lead times, we're still behind-the-curve on web browser support (only just added IE8 support and FF3! But thankfully we did finally get to drop IE6, in spite of a huge outcry from some of our enterprise customers.) We 'work' on Chrome, Safari, and FF4, but there are some glitches.
Many of us in the company prefer to use Firefox to do everything, as do quite a few of our customers. If Mozilla makes changes that break our product, though, we're going to have to just remove Firefox from our supported browsers list.
Yup, my daughter is only six, so I sure hope they keep this going from here forward. I'll definitely bring her when she's eight.
Yah, I know, Chrome OS isn't a "desktop" OS, but I could see integrating this with "bookmark sync". Put one device to sleep, and when you wake any 'paired' device, it opens to the same thing. Google Docs, Maps, random website, etc. Chrome OS is a good candidate for this since it's nearly all web-based already.
I could also see Apple doing this with iCloud. Edit a Pages document on your iPad and put it to sleep, and when you get home and wake up your iMac, it has that document already open. Reverse, too. Have a web page open in Safari on your MacBook, put it to sleep, unlock your iPhone, and that same web page is right there.
Heck, Microsoft could do this between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8, while they're at it... Pretty much anywhere the mobile and "desktop" are the same ecosystem.
Apple II, anyone?
IBM just made it mainstream for businesses.
Microsoft, by negotiating in such a way as to allow clones, made IBM's definition of PC explode (without IBM.)
Absolutely. And iWeb will even integrate with Google AdSense, if you really want to use iWeb, and want to potentially earn a little money.
Thank you for the reference, and for the calm response. My relatives who had Alzheimer's had all had varying levels of 'functionality', with the highest being fairly bad still. Yet all died of completely unrelated causes. (And I had not heard of any friends-of-family dying of Alzheimer's-related causes.)
Well, as the old saying goes, now I know. And knowing is...
No, if you read my comment, I was only nit-picking the use of the word "terminal" to describe the disease. I fully agree with Mr. Pratchett's right to make his decision.
First, I am in full support of a person's right to choose their time and place of death when confronted with certain death anyway (I voted for Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law - both times it came up.)
Second, I fully understand the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's, having multiple relatives who have succumb to it late in life.
However, since when is Alzheimer's itself "Terminal"? I have yet to have a relative die "because of Alzheimer's".
According to the latest statistics (http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/yr13-tbl-1.pdf ,) the most common underlying illness that has prompted people to take advantage of Oregon's law is, by far, cancer. (Or, "Malignant neoplasms" as it is phrased in the report.) 80.8%. Next is ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease",) with 8%. Next Chronic lower respiratory disease (which covers lots of lung issues other than cancer,) with 3.8%, then AIDS at 1.5%, and "Other" rounding out the rest. They detail "Other" in the footnotes, and no Alzheimer's.
So, while I fully understand the desire of someone who is used to major functionality not wanting to succumb to the depths of Alzheimer's, to call it a Terminal Illness is lying to yourself.
Notepad, TextEdit, TeX, emacs, vi, pico, whatever.
Never have to worry about the editor itself going obsolete because of emerging HTML standards, never have to worry about the tool itself disappearing.
Find yourself random web host of choice (I like nearlyfreespeech) that supports direct upload of files, no fiddly web interface forced on you, and voila! Instant future-proof website!
(Yes, I'm going to have to be weaned off iWeb+MobileMe for my personal domain, too. I'm a lazy bastard, and iWeb was too easy. Now I'll have to go back to hand-coding and/or at least find a simple-to-upload-to-from-iWeb host; which, now that I think about it, nearlyfreespeech should do.)
Uh, because the guy that wrote the wireless sync utility used massive hacks to do it. Apple could do it in the core without needing massive hacks. Using completely different code.
Yes, they COULD have hired the guy (apparently they told him to submit a resume,) but they could also just implement it RIGHT.
Yes, this independent developer's wireless sync utility is a great thing - it implemented a much-desired feature before there was official support. But the developer was TOLD AT THE TIME OF REJECTION that Apple was already working on it.
Big difference. Microsoft actually used Stacker's code.
This is Apple implementing a similar feature *in a completely different way*.
Apple has done similar things plenty of times before. See Spaces, see Dashboard, see any of a dozen other functionalities Apple implemented in the core OS after similar-to-near-identical independent utilities existed. It's called "people want a feature - that feature is implemented by third parties now - but people want it built-in, so we built it in."
Apple will tell this guy to buzz off, and he will.
Skylab was pretty damned big. 60% the mass of the completed Mir, 80% the interior pressurized volume - and all in one large tube rather than a set of smaller ones.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf shows lots of drawings of what the Shuttle and Skylab would have looked like docked.
As long as it doesn't play second fiddle to a crappy search mechanism in the old Mac OS, it should do fine.
Wow. That shows the truly massive difference in size between Mir and ISS.
I thought there had been a similar shot of ISS when it was smaller, too, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe I was thinking of that Mir shot.
whine, whine whine whine.
A product that I had no problem with being proprietary at all is now unusable because "The Devil" just bought it, even though there is no change at all in the product or its usability.