Then Yoyodyne would have asserted in its lawsuit that Alice was an infringer and did distribute. Which is further evidence for Bob's claim he got it from Alice. Unless Bob were to ignore (and that does not include investigate in good faith) a cease and desist it is hard to see how Bob is liable for much of anything. Yoyodyne and Bob and Alice all agree that Alice was the source of the original file.
I've contributed code directly to Darwin. There are lots of Apple projects with other people involved. There are also lots of parts Apple doesn't write at all, Apple as much as possible doesn't want to write deep components and would rather just integrate from the broader community. I would say Darwin is primarily an integration project not a an authoring project. And even where it is an authoring project they want to make it integration if they can.
What happens if a judge rules that Alice had no right to distribute the work in the first place, such as if the GPL work infringed a third party's look-and-feel copyright?
Then that would effect Yoyodyne as well. Bob isn't intentionally infringing because he was copying from Alice and so (most likely) the court would find Alice was liable for Bob's infringement. Depending on the sale that liability may have passed to Yoyodyne so Yoyodyne might end up owing the third party money for Bob's acts.
Preponderance of the evidence. Bob calls Alice as a witness who testifies she distributed, Bob has his records and Yoyodyne has the burden of proof not Bob.
Why do you think it "works"? There were lot of free OSes and BSD386 (father of Free and Net, grandfather of Open) started a bit earlier. There were also other open OS projects that weren't Unix based. You are begging the question here.
Changing 10% can often be enough to create a new standard version of a piece of software and effectively close source the original. Look at the history of X-Windows where this did in effect happen.
Huh? I.E. 3 was only slightly worse than Netscape 3 (gold) and it was free. I.E. 4.0 and 4.5 were really really good with huge advances (arguably a lot better than 6.0) and Netscape 4.0 wasn't that much different than 3.0.
Yes Microsoft did beat Netscape with a superior product.
I looked this up and 10k is out of date. It looks like 100k - 2m is the norm for new drives. That's probably fine for all but large scale date servers if you include wear leveling. People just don't flip enough data often enough.
Where are you getting that from? To the best of my knowledge 10,000 rewrites is pretty standard except for the Intel X25e which is 68k.
There are 10,000 minutes in a week (roughly). You can burn through it very quickly. Or if you were to do it every 15 minutes you would burn through the rewrites in under 4 months and every 5 minutes in a bit over a month.
You do have a good point though I hadn't thought about. If I expect the drive to last 5 years I can do 5 rewrites a day and still come in under 10,000. Or another way of thinking of that is I can rewrite 1% of the drive every 5 minutes and be fine. So as long as the drive is rotation materials around (which it didn't look they were) caching should be fine.
Block A is full on day 100 10 cells are invalid (i.e. ready to be deleted) but 99% of the blocks still have space
10 cells get wiped cleaan. While allows for 10 new writes. It fills up on day 120 with 10 cells invalid....
day 200 there aren't free blocks anymore block A has 40 cells that are invalid they all get deleted. Since there are 40 free cells this lasts till day 280. Say on day 300 it gets deleted and 40 cells are free again....
So in one situation you are flipping every 20 days, the other every 100 days.
The WSJ is a very high quality newspaper. One of the few and the only major paper that has had drastic cut backs in staffing and still does substantial research.
Murdoch is a jerk but the WSJ deserves respect as a great paper
Turning off caching is a terrible idea. What you want though is information being written in a way that is recoverable after an outage quickly and rectified slowly. A database based filesystem for example like you see on i-os.
I wouldn't call that teasing that's been a time tested model for open source development contribute or pay. Trolltech used that for QT and everyone was OK with it.
Lots of copyright computer stuff has been tested in court but indirectly. In general the courts have tended not to consider mechanism all that important but to consider intent very important. In other words a dynamic library designed only to be linked with a GPLed work would be GPLed while a library that could work on multiple "platforms" would not be.
If the driver structure for Linux is mostly similar to the one for Windows my guess is that it is fine. If it was designed solely to bypass GPL restrictions the court is going to construe things very narrowly.
For almost sixty years it has been driving computer science and language design. There have been literally dozen of Lisps ranging from the Lisp machines of the 70s, to the major software of the 80's: Autolisp, Emacs. Logo is still taught to millions. Many of the idea of LISP are in Ruby, Haskell which is arguably the big "next idea" is a ML / Lisp half breed.
Slashdot Mirror
Then Yoyodyne would have asserted in its lawsuit that Alice was an infringer and did distribute. Which is further evidence for Bob's claim he got it from Alice. Unless Bob were to ignore (and that does not include investigate in good faith) a cease and desist it is hard to see how Bob is liable for much of anything. Yoyodyne and Bob and Alice all agree that Alice was the source of the original file.
Actually you can use Apple's open source X which much cooler than Xorg's version on a Mac. It has all sorts of hooks into Aqua, Cocoa and Carbon.
I've contributed code directly to Darwin. There are lots of Apple projects with other people involved. There are also lots of parts Apple doesn't write at all, Apple as much as possible doesn't want to write deep components and would rather just integrate from the broader community. I would say Darwin is primarily an integration project not a an authoring project. And even where it is an authoring project they want to make it integration if they can.
Don't know if that supports your point or not.
This is the *point* of open source software, to be generous, and let everyone benefit from your work.
No, the point was to create a free Unix like operating system.
What happens if a judge rules that Alice had no right to distribute the work in the first place, such as if the GPL work infringed a third party's look-and-feel copyright?
Then that would effect Yoyodyne as well. Bob isn't intentionally infringing because he was copying from Alice and so (most likely) the court would find Alice was liable for Bob's infringement. Depending on the sale that liability may have passed to Yoyodyne so Yoyodyne might end up owing the third party money for Bob's acts.
Preponderance of the evidence. Bob calls Alice as a witness who testifies she distributed, Bob has his records and Yoyodyne has the burden of proof not Bob.
Why do you think it "works"? There were lot of free OSes and BSD386 (father of Free and Net, grandfather of Open) started a bit earlier. There were also other open OS projects that weren't Unix based. You are begging the question here.
Changing 10% can often be enough to create a new standard version of a piece of software and effectively close source the original. Look at the history of X-Windows where this did in effect happen.
I notice you have a high number. Take a look at what happened to X-Windows during the 1980s under the MIT license. Those licenses were a detriment.
You miss what reciprocity is. In effect the reciprocity of the GPL is:
I'll get contributions from people working on their own projects generally unrelated to mine
and in exchange
I'll give contributions to people working on projects generally unrelated to mine
I don't think they needed to be broken up they needed 2 things removed:
1) Their right to determine how their OS was used
2) Their freedom to price. That is require them to charge all OEMs the same price.
It wasn't Netscape's fault they couldn't compete with free. But that is different than saying that I.E. 4.0 wasn't better than Netscape 4.0 and free.
Huh? I.E. 3 was only slightly worse than Netscape 3 (gold) and it was free. I.E. 4.0 and 4.5 were really really good with huge advances (arguably a lot better than 6.0) and Netscape 4.0 wasn't that much different than 3.0.
Yes Microsoft did beat Netscape with a superior product.
Wiping near clean blocks still creates the same sort of situation the block gets wiped more frequently as it moves towards being more empty.
I looked this up and 10k is out of date. It looks like 100k - 2m is the norm for new drives. That's probably fine for all but large scale date servers if you include wear leveling. People just don't flip enough data often enough.
Where are you getting that from? To the best of my knowledge 10,000 rewrites is pretty standard except for the Intel X25e which is 68k.
There are 10,000 minutes in a week (roughly). You can burn through it very quickly. Or if you were to do it every 15 minutes you would burn through the rewrites in under 4 months and every 5 minutes in a bit over a month.
You do have a good point though I hadn't thought about. If I expect the drive to last 5 years I can do 5 rewrites a day and still come in under 10,000. Or another way of thinking of that is I can rewrite 1% of the drive every 5 minutes and be fine. So as long as the drive is rotation materials around (which it didn't look they were) caching should be fine.
Block A is full on day 100
10 cells are invalid (i.e. ready to be deleted) but 99% of the blocks still have space
10 cells get wiped cleaan. While allows for 10 new writes. It fills up on day 120 with 10 cells invalid....
day 200 there aren't free blocks anymore
block A has 40 cells that are invalid
they all get deleted. Since there are 40 free cells this lasts till day 280. Say on day 300 it gets deleted and 40 cells are free again....
So in one situation you are flipping every 20 days, the other every 100 days.
Good point I'm worried about that too. SSD already has poor life I'm not so sure about the garbage collection idea.
Huh? I don't see any evidence the story quality has dropped and th editorial page has always been nuts.
The WSJ is a very high quality newspaper. One of the few and the only major paper that has had drastic cut backs in staffing and still does substantial research.
Murdoch is a jerk but the WSJ deserves respect as a great paper
Turning off caching is a terrible idea. What you want though is information being written in a way that is recoverable after an outage quickly and rectified slowly. A database based filesystem for example like you see on i-os.
I wouldn't call that teasing that's been a time tested model for open source development contribute or pay. Trolltech used that for QT and everyone was OK with it.
If I then distribute the non-GPL work, without the GPL work
Agreed but Linux distributions would like to distribute both.
Lots of copyright computer stuff has been tested in court but indirectly. In general the courts have tended not to consider mechanism all that important but to consider intent very important. In other words a dynamic library designed only to be linked with a GPLed work would be GPLed while a library that could work on multiple "platforms" would not be.
If the driver structure for Linux is mostly similar to the one for Windows my guess is that it is fine. If it was designed solely to bypass GPL restrictions the court is going to construe things very narrowly.
For almost sixty years it has been driving computer science and language design. There have been literally dozen of Lisps ranging from the Lisp machines of the 70s, to the major software of the 80's: Autolisp, Emacs. Logo is still taught to millions. Many of the idea of LISP are in Ruby, Haskell which is arguably the big "next idea" is a ML / Lisp half breed.
I'd say it has been successful.