It has to do with context, fair use, and the difficulty of independent creation. A variable name wouldn't count, just ask that author a few years back who was sued for taking paragraphs out of someone else's book, with only minor substitutions. Portion shouldn't be defined, it should be loose, ala the Constitution, to allow the vourts to decide. Trying to make an explicit definition of ``portion'' would add about 500 context sensitive pages to the GPL.
The States are not the individuals. While I agree that ``method of doing business'' patents shouldn't exist, this would set a bad precedent. It would give states the right to ignore patents. Patents and Copyrights are around to encourage inovation. If the states can steal innovation, it greatly hinders the encouragement of patenting an item/idea. The states are hardly ants, compared to the individual.
Imagine if states could ignore patents. What's to prevent them from creating `state-run' businesses that don't have to pay royalties (besides votes of course, and the states position can be spun to seem a lot better to joe schmoe); thereby, with the aid of tax money, putting other businesses out of business, and forming (in the worst case scenario) a de facto communist system (again, besides the voters). With the correct spin, this could even be made to seem a good idea, inching along year by year until 20 years from now people think it's normal (ala Nazi takeover of German Politics).
The States/Cities already have monopolies such as electricity and water, for good reasons though. The scary part is there are also ``good reasons'' for the states to have businesses/monopolies/anti-patent protection for other things as well. Where does the line get drawn?
If those Brazilians use Eldritch Press, or any other online book place, they might. Aren't many types of copyright reciprocated throughout a lot of countries? The internet isn't limited to any one country. Legal issues that involve it should be of interest to all of the net's users, as they will be affected by those issues. (I realize that this issue isn't strictly net related.)
In certain legal settings, as the guy from Harvard stated, an open method can really help. In most others, you are correct, it'll hurt. When it comes right down to it, it's up to the defending and prosecuting attorney's to determine what they will and won't use; you don't need to convince a group, as only one or a few people have the last word. I think this method would be best used with constitutional level issues, as winning doesn't matter with them, being right and winning matters. The lawyers in a constitutional case shouldn't be out to win the case no matter what, they should be out to defend freedom and the like.
As to the reward. If it's your argument that wins the case, but you have a horrific LSAT score, don't you think the law school would give you a better chance than if you just had a horrible LSAT? This can be expanded to cover other things as well. As with OSS, the prestige/experience garnered from OL can be used to get better jobs. If it's a constitutional issue that's at stake, at least some lawyers would be willing to go pro bono to defend their rights.
Why does being based on something that is 30-years old automatically make something bad. Look at those horrible bicycles, they're over a hundred years old. The plane's over 90-years old.
No, not Mindcraft, then they would win! Give the job to an independent group. Better yet, have MS and a Linux corp. each give input into what happens to a particular server, and see what happens. Even better, take an identical Dell system, possibly with a different RAID, and beat Mindcraft's NT results.
The Mindcraft box was 1.7 times faster under NT/IIS. The single-cpu box was 2.2x faster that the Mindcraft box under Linux. So this says nothing about Linux's SMP capabilities.
According to the CraftyMind survey, the peak performance on that quad box was 1,000 rps', 3,770 for IIS. This implies that a $25k Dell Linux box is more than 2x inferior to you $3k solution.
They do have the option to blow your brain out, it would just be doubly-illegal to do so. If they're willing to commit murder in the first place, they're probably willing to illegally acquire a gun.
What it really boils down to, is that it doesn't matter what the ``founding fathers'' intended. Just being the founders of our nation didn't make them infallible, as they well knew (amendments). I don't care what the founders would think; I can reason just as well as they can.
A while back, I saw a blurb on/. for the UDI (universal driver initiative). It's supposedly being pioneered by a bunch of unix corps. Do a/. search for UDI and you'll hopefully find it.
It's been a few years, but alien should still be around. It converts between rpm's deb's tgz's and slp's, don't know how well though. I'm installing stampede, so I'll find out within a week or two.
It's the fine, but distinct, line between educated guessing, and pseudo-random guessing with an almost unshakeable belief that your guess is correct and must not be second guessed for fear of losing everything....run on and on and on and on.
I take it on faith that the 'net works as fiber-optic cables, silicon, etc... though I ahve no absolute proof. It might not be. The 'net might be completely non-physical/spiritual, that happens to appear as though it is not. Can YOU prove differently?
It's much better to have a single maintainer for any large piece of documentation. Whether this documentation is a single chapter in a HOWTO, with a TOC sent up to the toc maintainer, or an entire howto. This promotes consistent language and useability.
While code yells at you if you aren't syntactically correct, documentation doesn't, or at least not as fast. Anyone who reads code to modify it, will have a much greater chance of understanding it, even if poorly written/documented, than a newbie who is trying to learn something (a howto reader).
Slashdot Mirror
It has to do with context, fair use, and the difficulty of independent creation. A variable name wouldn't count, just ask that author a few years back who was sued for taking paragraphs out of someone else's book, with only minor substitutions. Portion shouldn't be defined, it should be loose, ala the Constitution, to allow the vourts to decide. Trying to make an explicit definition of ``portion'' would add about 500 context sensitive pages to the GPL.
The States are not the individuals. While I agree that ``method of doing business'' patents shouldn't exist, this would set a bad precedent. It would give states the right to ignore patents. Patents and Copyrights are around to encourage inovation. If the states can steal innovation, it greatly hinders the encouragement of patenting an item/idea. The states are hardly ants, compared to the individual.
Imagine if states could ignore patents. What's to prevent them from creating `state-run' businesses that don't have to pay royalties (besides votes of course, and the states position can be spun to seem a lot better to joe schmoe); thereby, with the aid of tax money, putting other businesses out of business, and forming (in the worst case scenario) a de facto communist system (again, besides the voters). With the correct spin, this could even be made to seem a good idea, inching along year by year until 20 years from now people think it's normal (ala Nazi takeover of German Politics).
The States/Cities already have monopolies such as electricity and water, for good reasons though. The scary part is there are also ``good reasons'' for the states to have businesses/monopolies/anti-patent protection for other things as well. Where does the line get drawn?
VA deals in commodity HW and SW. MS has always dealt in proprietary SW, (with some commodity name-brand HW on the side).
Social Darwinism. If those who don't believe what you believe in are beat up, your world view will tend to win out.
It's more complicated than that, but this is it in a nutshell.
If those Brazilians use Eldritch Press, or any other online book place, they might. Aren't many types of copyright reciprocated throughout a lot of countries? The internet isn't limited to any one country. Legal issues that involve it should be of interest to all of the net's users, as they will be affected by those issues. (I realize that this issue isn't strictly net related.)
In certain legal settings, as the guy from Harvard stated, an open method can really help. In most others, you are correct, it'll hurt. When it comes right down to it, it's up to the defending and prosecuting attorney's to determine what they will and won't use; you don't need to convince a group, as only one or a few people have the last word. I think this method would be best used with constitutional level issues, as winning doesn't matter with them, being right and winning matters. The lawyers in a constitutional case shouldn't be out to win the case no matter what, they should be out to defend freedom and the like.
As to the reward. If it's your argument that wins the case, but you have a horrific LSAT score, don't you think the law school would give you a better chance than if you just had a horrible LSAT? This can be expanded to cover other things as well. As with OSS, the prestige/experience garnered from OL can be used to get better jobs. If it's a constitutional issue that's at stake, at least some lawyers would be willing to go pro bono to defend their rights.
pro bono v. sony bono. Who'll win?
Additionally: ``They'' aren't making you reinvent the wheel. They're doing it by themselves, out of the goodness of their own hearts.
A beginning user should go out and get a boxed set that comes with all the apps they want, such as COL.
Why does being based on something that is 30-years old automatically make something bad. Look at those horrible bicycles, they're over a hundred years old. The plane's over 90-years old.
"There is no reason why the GIMP developers, or another team couldn't port GIMP to Mac OS X either, except for perhaps their pride."
Not their pride, most of them would have no reason to, because they won't be using OS X. That doesn't mean someone else won't port it though.
No, not Mindcraft, then they would win! Give the job to an independent group. Better yet, have MS and a Linux corp. each give input into what happens to a particular server, and see what happens. Even better, take an identical Dell system, possibly with a different RAID, and beat Mindcraft's NT results.
The Mindcraft box was 1.7 times faster under NT/IIS. The single-cpu box was 2.2x faster that the Mindcraft box under Linux. So this says nothing about Linux's SMP capabilities.
According to the CraftyMind survey, the peak performance on that quad box was 1,000 rps', 3,770 for IIS. This implies that a $25k Dell Linux box is more than 2x inferior to you $3k solution.
I read on the wear-hard list that it's his own design. Not surprising that he'd make his own hardware, when you look at his history.
They do have the option to blow your brain out, it would just be doubly-illegal to do so. If they're willing to commit murder in the first place, they're probably willing to illegally acquire a gun.
What it really boils down to, is that it doesn't matter what the ``founding fathers'' intended. Just being the founders of our nation didn't make them infallible, as they well knew (amendments). I don't care what the founders would think; I can reason just as well as they can.
A while back, I saw a blurb on /. for the UDI (universal driver initiative). It's supposedly being pioneered by a bunch of unix corps. Do a /. search for UDI and you'll hopefully find it.
It's been a few years, but alien should still be around. It converts between rpm's deb's tgz's and slp's, don't know how well though. I'm installing stampede, so I'll find out within a week or two.
All I have to do is look at many mathematical proofs to see this isn't so.
It's the fine, but distinct, line between educated guessing, and pseudo-random guessing with an almost unshakeable belief that your guess is correct and must not be second guessed for fear of losing everything....run on and on and on and on.
I take it on faith that the 'net works as fiber-optic cables, silicon, etc... though I ahve no absolute proof. It might not be. The 'net might be completely non-physical/spiritual, that happens to appear as though it is not. Can YOU prove differently?
A gui is hardly an ``innovation''. It's obvious. How to implement one is the question.
You're implying that murdering people is wrong. Was this your intent?
What's wrong with avoiding reality just because it feels good to do so?
I've heard that OS/9'll do this. Not positive though.
It's much better to have a single maintainer for any large piece of documentation. Whether this documentation is a single chapter in a HOWTO, with a TOC sent up to the toc maintainer, or an entire howto. This promotes consistent language and useability.
While code yells at you if you aren't syntactically correct, documentation doesn't, or at least not as fast. Anyone who reads code to modify it, will have a much greater chance of understanding it, even if poorly written/documented, than a newbie who is trying to learn something (a howto reader).