The OS's main menu which is pushed up from the Windows "Start" button on the bottom left from about Windows 95 onwards if memory serves me correctly.
So the button for the menu being beneath the menu it reveals? That's just a default, you can put it at the top or at the side if you feel that's a better option.
Read carefully. Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas.
Are you sure you're reading carefully? Before you just said they paid for the rights to their ideas.
By your standard then everyone copied from Xerox.
They did, just as everyone copied Xerox's ball mouse, so what? Look at the similarity between phones from different manufacturers in the late 90s and early 00s.
There is a difference between rights and ideas, however. You can borrow ideas.
Borrow ideas? Yeah, you can take an idea, keep it for a while and then give it back. No they copied those ideas, just as everyone else has.
Why Apple is suing (and has sued) is that they feel that companies have outright copied their designs.
The suit says rounded corners with a black border and an array of icons, look at all the design elements the iphone takes from previous phones/PDAs.
The issue is why would you pay for something when you can legally get the exact same thing for free? Your car analogy fails on the grounds that the product isn't free and the CD analogy fails on the grounds that it isn't legal.
You can buy a CD, copy it for no cost, and sell it, and yet CDs still get sold.
Are you stupid, ignorant or just being obtuse? You cannot do that legally, unlike the situation we are discussing.
The fact they removed it in a software upgrade doesn't change the fact that a GPLv3-licensed binary was distributed: the fact that the binary is still on the machine (and able to be restored by a factory reset) actually proves that GPLv3 code is likely STILL being distributed.
How does that prove it's being distributed? They've actioned it by forcing a removal in a firmware update.
It's a lot more than a technicality. A common-sense interpretation of both the GPLv3 and case law says that there is an actionable claim here for a license violation.
Really? The resolution is either to release the "Installation Information" and source code, or to stop distributing the software, they've done the latter.
Here's the basic issue. gpgv2 is GPL3. It's in the box. The user cannot modify it, as per the GPL3 license. Thus, Boxee is failing to meet the GPL3 license obligations.
And - as you'll note in TFA - that software was removed in a firmware update and is no longer being distributed, which is - as per the GPLv3 - an acceptable resolution to a violation. So there is really no news here.
That's a little naive. It was non-voting shares, at a time when Apple was basically dying and had very little to give MS in return, aside from merely existing as a useful argument for Microsoft to use in its anti-trust case.
Apple paid Xerox $1M in stock for the right to use the ideas of the Star system and for 2 meetings with Xerox engineers.
Really? What 'rights' were those exactly? In any case they copied those ideas from an existing system, just as i said, so you can get off your high horse.
Apple did not copy the Star system but they did borrow ideas from it like the desktop concept and windows. If you actually looked at the two, there are differences.
Of course there are differences, it's not a direct copy, neither was it in any other case...they all 'borrowed' ideas from eachother.
The Star system was a very good prototype; Apple refined many of the ideas but added their own ideas to it.
Just as any company does, they aren't making a direct copy.
Because it is touted as 'free as in freedom' but comes with restrictions. BSD fits that motto better as I can do anything I want with BSD code.
It fits it better, but you can't do 'anything you want' you still have to retain the license and copyright. I much prefer BSD-style license as while the GPL is a Free Software license it is a restrictive license rather than a permissive one.
I just read the GPLV3 and don't find a clear statement that you must be able to run the modified source code on the same system upon which the modified object code has been received. You must get source, yes. Must execute, I don't see.
It's quite clear: "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. Section 6. of GPLv3
Second, doesn't the GPL specifically deny any warrantee of any kind, even for "usability and fitness of purpose" or whatever, to anyone who modifies the code? If you modify the code and try to install it and it does not run, doesn't the GPL specifically release the provider from ANY requirement to support the modified code? Doesn't that mean "if you change it and it doesn't run, tough luck?"
If you cannot use your own custom version of gpgv2 in place of what they are without their magic keys... then they would be in violation of the GPLv3.
And that's exactly what the article says: Contact D-Link AND Boxee and request the ability to modify the GPLv3 Software included in your Boxee Box. Specifically you require the OpenSSL keys to generate the signature files found in the boxee.iso firmware file, and the scripts and instructions for their use.
Yet you're saying "it is not clear that the copy of gpgv2 is in violation of the GPLv3", i think the article has made it quite clear.
Didn't Windows copy the Lisa & Mac "trade dress"?
How did that turn out Apple?
And the Lisa and Mac copied Xerox. The main thing was that out of all the rubbish that was Xerox suing Apple suing Microsoft no precedent for 'look and feel' copyright was set.
But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
If you have a tab running with a flash website thrashing the cpu and you kill the process running that tab that does not in any way affect any other tabs. Try it, you'll see how wrong you are.
Using which browser I don't have? Sure as hell doesn't work in Firefox - do I need a special Flash-approved browser for that? Do I have to buy into the unholy alliance of Adobe and Google?
Any browser that sandboxes tab processes, it's obvious - if you have any technical knowledge - that killing one of the processes (or thread even) executing on the runtime won't kill the runtime itself. Just like in Javascript, you don't create a new instance of the JS renderer for every script and if the browser wants to kill a script it doesn't kill the JS renderer, it kills the script, so your comment: But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
Obviously makes no sense since the browser isn't going to kill flash, just the process/thread that's thrashing the flash runtime.
And how the hell is one supposed to know which Flash process is going bonkers?
The same way you know apparently know a JS script is going bonkers, but of course that was my initial question, how do you determine whether it's using 100% CPU legitimately or not? As i asked here.
Do I have to go to a adobe.com page that will tell me if I offer my first-born?
I get it, you're anti-flash, i don't particularly like flash either but im not about to go around spreading FUD like you are just because of that.
So, what can you not do with HTML5 that you can do with Flash / Silverlight?
Can you sync sound with vector animations?
Can you interact with the webcam or microphone?
Can you do videos with alpha channels?
I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but they are some of the more advanced stuff that im pretty sure - im not a flash dev so i'm not entirely sure - can be done in flash and not sure if the can be done in HTML5 (yet).
Sounds like you need a tour of a local high school to understand that not all students are destined for upper management these days.
What about finance, design, science, engineering, arts, journalism, etc...? There are plenty of fields other than 'upper management' that don't fit into the category of 'low skilled jobs'.
But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
If you have a tab running with a flash website thrashing the cpu and you kill the process running that tab that does not in any way affect any other tabs. Try it, you'll see how wrong you are.
It's not that hard to understand - unless your hard-on for Flash keeps the blood from your brain.
Don't resort to that sort of rubbish just because you fail to understand the topic. I'm not a flash proponent, i'm just saying that is not a valid argument for one over the other.
You wouldn't be able to understand, judging from your previous comments.
What you mean is actually that you don't know so you'll try and pass it off that way instead of admitting it's something you made up and aren't capable of defining.
Granularity of what the browser can do. With Flash, all the browser can do is kill the Flash process - period. With JS it can simply stop executing that one JS script.
If you've got a canvas thrashing the CPU or a swf thrashing the CPU it makes no difference which you kill, the content is gone. It doesn't impact the browse because the browser tabs are sandboxed processes anyway. And that still doesn't help you determine whether it's legitimately using 100% CPU or not.
It can even detect if a script acts funny - no such chance with Flash.
How so? What is 'acts funny' even supposed to mean?
Opposed to flash content where the player runs the content (and therefor acquires resources from the system) JS content is run by the browser. If the browser detects some script that goes crazy it will simply kill it (or ask you if you want to kill it).
Javascript is run by a javascript renderer and flash is rendered by a flash renderer, your browser can stop either of them. What's the difference between a script 'going crazy' vs one that's legitimately using 100% CPU and flash content 'going crazy' vs one that's legitimately using 100% CPU?
Slashdot Mirror
If it were a joke, it would have gotten at least one "Funny" moderation. So it's not a joke. And thus it is a troll, not insightful. QED
Clearly...because moderators are always right...except when they're not...in which case it must be a troll.
Read the whole post.
I did.
But you do not sound nearly as smart if you only read part of a post and then attempt to slam it by making a point already in the post.
I asked a question that was not answered in the post.
Again though. As I stated. I you posted that full well knowing the limitations of attacking without reading then more power to you. :)
That series of sentences - if you can even call them that - don't make any sense.
The problem is that it's not like a normal store.
How is that a problem? It's not supposed to be like a normal store.
The real problem is people that own a home that they can ONLY furnish from Ikea.
And how is that a problem? It's their choice, leave it to them.
Yeah that's true, even if you find the objectively best way to do it you might not be able to do it that way because someone else got there first.
The OS's main menu which is pushed up from the Windows "Start" button on the bottom left from about Windows 95 onwards if memory serves me correctly.
So the button for the menu being beneath the menu it reveals? That's just a default, you can put it at the top or at the side if you feel that's a better option.
Read carefully. Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas.
Are you sure you're reading carefully? Before you just said they paid for the rights to their ideas.
By your standard then everyone copied from Xerox.
They did, just as everyone copied Xerox's ball mouse, so what? Look at the similarity between phones from different manufacturers in the late 90s and early 00s.
There is a difference between rights and ideas, however. You can borrow ideas.
Borrow ideas? Yeah, you can take an idea, keep it for a while and then give it back. No they copied those ideas, just as everyone else has.
Why Apple is suing (and has sued) is that they feel that companies have outright copied their designs.
The suit says rounded corners with a black border and an array of icons, look at all the design elements the iphone takes from previous phones/PDAs.
Cost is not the issue here.
The issue is why would you pay for something when you can legally get the exact same thing for free? Your car analogy fails on the grounds that the product isn't free and the CD analogy fails on the grounds that it isn't legal.
You can buy a CD, copy it for no cost, and sell it, and yet CDs still get sold.
Are you stupid, ignorant or just being obtuse? You cannot do that legally, unlike the situation we are discussing.
The fact they removed it in a software upgrade doesn't change the fact that a GPLv3-licensed binary was distributed: the fact that the binary is still on the machine (and able to be restored by a factory reset) actually proves that GPLv3 code is likely STILL being distributed.
How does that prove it's being distributed? They've actioned it by forcing a removal in a firmware update.
It's a lot more than a technicality. A common-sense interpretation of both the GPLv3 and case law says that there is an actionable claim here for a license violation.
Really? The resolution is either to release the "Installation Information" and source code, or to stop distributing the software, they've done the latter.
If you buy a car, modify it and sell it, the car company can't do anything about it. Yet cars are still sold. Why is this?
Really? You really need it explained to you that you can copy software for virtually no cost but you can't do the same with a car?
Here's the basic issue. gpgv2 is GPL3. It's in the box. The user cannot modify it, as per the GPL3 license. Thus, Boxee is failing to meet the GPL3 license obligations.
And - as you'll note in TFA - that software was removed in a firmware update and is no longer being distributed, which is - as per the GPLv3 - an acceptable resolution to a violation. So there is really no news here.
That's a little naive. It was non-voting shares, at a time when Apple was basically dying and had very little to give MS in return, aside from merely existing as a useful argument for Microsoft to use in its anti-trust case.
Naive? No, it's fact.
Apple paid Xerox $1M in stock for the right to use the ideas of the Star system and for 2 meetings with Xerox engineers.
Really? What 'rights' were those exactly? In any case they copied those ideas from an existing system, just as i said, so you can get off your high horse.
Apple did not copy the Star system but they did borrow ideas from it like the desktop concept and windows. If you actually looked at the two, there are differences.
Of course there are differences, it's not a direct copy, neither was it in any other case...they all 'borrowed' ideas from eachother.
The Star system was a very good prototype; Apple refined many of the ideas but added their own ideas to it.
Just as any company does, they aren't making a direct copy.
Because it is touted as 'free as in freedom' but comes with restrictions. BSD fits that motto better as I can do anything I want with BSD code.
It fits it better, but you can't do 'anything you want' you still have to retain the license and copyright. I much prefer BSD-style license as while the GPL is a Free Software license it is a restrictive license rather than a permissive one.
I just read the GPLV3 and don't find a clear statement that you must be able to run the modified source code on the same system upon which the modified object code has been received. You must get source, yes. Must execute, I don't see.
It's quite clear:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
Section 6. of GPLv3
Second, doesn't the GPL specifically deny any warrantee of any kind, even for "usability and fitness of purpose" or whatever, to anyone who modifies the code? If you modify the code and try to install it and it does not run, doesn't the GPL specifically release the provider from ANY requirement to support the modified code? Doesn't that mean "if you change it and it doesn't run, tough luck?"
Yes, that's correct.
If you cannot use your own custom version of gpgv2 in place of what they are without their magic keys... then they would be in violation of the GPLv3.
And that's exactly what the article says:
Contact D-Link AND Boxee and request the ability to modify the GPLv3 Software included in your Boxee Box. Specifically you require the OpenSSL keys to generate the signature files found in the boxee.iso firmware file, and the scripts and instructions for their use.
Yet you're saying "it is not clear that the copy of gpgv2 is in violation of the GPLv3", i think the article has made it quite clear.
if there is any sense in the law
you have much to learn.
Apple kept their suit going until the war was long over, but Apple only dropped the case after Microsoft gave them $150 million
They didn't give them $150million, they bought $150million of stock.
Didn't Windows copy the Lisa & Mac "trade dress"? How did that turn out Apple?
And the Lisa and Mac copied Xerox. The main thing was that out of all the rubbish that was Xerox suing Apple suing Microsoft no precedent for 'look and feel' copyright was set.
But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
If you have a tab running with a flash website thrashing the cpu and you kill the process running that tab that does not in any way affect any other tabs. Try it, you'll see how wrong you are.
Using which browser I don't have? Sure as hell doesn't work in Firefox - do I need a special Flash-approved browser for that? Do I have to buy into the unholy alliance of Adobe and Google?
Any browser that sandboxes tab processes, it's obvious - if you have any technical knowledge - that killing one of the processes (or thread even) executing on the runtime won't kill the runtime itself. Just like in Javascript, you don't create a new instance of the JS renderer for every script and if the browser wants to kill a script it doesn't kill the JS renderer, it kills the script, so your comment:
But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
Obviously makes no sense since the browser isn't going to kill flash, just the process/thread that's thrashing the flash runtime.
And how the hell is one supposed to know which Flash process is going bonkers?
The same way you know apparently know a JS script is going bonkers, but of course that was my initial question, how do you determine whether it's using 100% CPU legitimately or not? As i asked here.
Do I have to go to a adobe.com page that will tell me if I offer my first-born?
I get it, you're anti-flash, i don't particularly like flash either but im not about to go around spreading FUD like you are just because of that.
So, what can you not do with HTML5 that you can do with Flash / Silverlight?
Can you sync sound with vector animations?
Can you interact with the webcam or microphone?
Can you do videos with alpha channels?
I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but they are some of the more advanced stuff that im pretty sure - im not a flash dev so i'm not entirely sure - can be done in flash and not sure if the can be done in HTML5 (yet).
Sounds like you need a tour of a local high school to understand that not all students are destined for upper management these days.
What about finance, design, science, engineering, arts, journalism, etc...? There are plenty of fields other than 'upper management' that don't fit into the category of 'low skilled jobs'.
But the content in all other browser windows wouldn't. When Flash is gone its gone everywhere.
If you have a tab running with a flash website thrashing the cpu and you kill the process running that tab that does not in any way affect any other tabs. Try it, you'll see how wrong you are.
It's not that hard to understand - unless your hard-on for Flash keeps the blood from your brain.
Don't resort to that sort of rubbish just because you fail to understand the topic. I'm not a flash proponent, i'm just saying that is not a valid argument for one over the other.
You wouldn't be able to understand, judging from your previous comments.
What you mean is actually that you don't know so you'll try and pass it off that way instead of admitting it's something you made up and aren't capable of defining.
Granularity of what the browser can do. With Flash, all the browser can do is kill the Flash process - period. With JS it can simply stop executing that one JS script.
If you've got a canvas thrashing the CPU or a swf thrashing the CPU it makes no difference which you kill, the content is gone. It doesn't impact the browse because the browser tabs are sandboxed processes anyway. And that still doesn't help you determine whether it's legitimately using 100% CPU or not.
It can even detect if a script acts funny - no such chance with Flash.
How so? What is 'acts funny' even supposed to mean?
Opposed to flash content where the player runs the content (and therefor acquires resources from the system) JS content is run by the browser. If the browser detects some script that goes crazy it will simply kill it (or ask you if you want to kill it).
Javascript is run by a javascript renderer and flash is rendered by a flash renderer, your browser can stop either of them. What's the difference between a script 'going crazy' vs one that's legitimately using 100% CPU and flash content 'going crazy' vs one that's legitimately using 100% CPU?