The task of any lawyer or group of lawyers is to zealously protect the rights of their client
No, a lawyer's primary task is to make money for their firm. Just as a prostitute's primary task is to make money for her pimp. In both cases it is often, though not always, a good tactic to make the client happy, but that's just a by-product. Also, in both cases law and morality are non-factors.
By the time I had hunted down the details GrayArea had posted a very full reply, so read that instead!
Even if the material was all "open" the position MS has in the market place means that they have little to worry about if the standard is messed with by another organisation (they just ignore it) or by themselves (their customers/MSDN programmers simply have to take it and ask for more, please, sir) so the reality of such a standard is that it is only binding on everyone else.
This is just a fact of life, and is not in itself sinister. What makes it sinister is MS's track record, which speaks for itself. IE6 still can't display.png or CSS level 2, for example, dispite claims to the contrary, while supporting, and pushing, various non-standard extensions to both HTML and CSS.
You are still thinking in technical terms, how things are done instead of what is done.
What is being done is that the image is published by giving it a URL. You are saying that the use of that URL is only allowed in some circumstances, ie in the context of another URL which points to a page of HTML or whatever.
I am also saying that not understanding what a URL is (the method of publishing material on the Internet) is no position to argue the in's and out's of copyright law. At a technical level (the "how") copyright does not apply here as nothing is copied by the defendant, but also the litigant has actually, definitely, and in clear language, made the image available for linking by giving it a publicly accessable URL which is an entirely optional step which they chose (perhaps unwittingly) to take.
If I own a field surrounded by common land and put no markers up to tell people that this normal looking patch of grass (the image URL) is different from all the other grass (other URL's) I don't see how any court could justify a case of trespass against someone that "uses" my land by walking over it.
This point has been made before, but it bears repeating. only tiny parts of C# and the CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) are ECMA standards. Those standards are of no relevence in the real world due to their high level of incompletness and the very high degree of power that MS has amongst developers on the dominant platform.
You are falling into the trap of assuming that everything that looks familiar is familiar. That's a very poor approach when making laws in a changing world.
What you are saying is that there are "special" URLs, ie ones that point to images, which are inherently pointing to things which are not published to the public and "normal" URLs, pointing to HTML, which constitute the intended published context of an item. This is arbitrary and false (at the same time!).
Since it is possible, as even the trolls have pointed out, to prevent deep linking to images quite easily, thereby actually making this distinction non-arbitrary, it should be assumed that an image not so protected is available for linking.
The existance of unused locks and keep-out signs in an otherwise public context denies any claim of trespass.
Apart from anything else, how many images are there on the web which were taken with a specific HTML page in mind? Very few when talking about photographs. So, what makes a photograph less of a "content item" than the piece of text it may at a later date find itself dropped into? Nothing, and if you can link to one then you can link to both.
Copyright doesn't apply to the linking site; it didn't copy anything. The real case, insofar that there is a case, would be against the browser maker for allowing img to work tags without permission, which is clearly silly.
You make it publicly available, you have to live with the public seeing it. There are server directives for when you don't want it to be publicly available.
Yes, part of.NET is already portable and it'll stay that way until after launch. Just long enough for three-time-losers to think that it's a "standard". Then MS will change it and all the little pointy-haired-bosses will run around shouting "we have to have Microsoft.NET, we can't risk hidden incompatabilities" and WHOOSH goes the Mono.NET subset into the dustbin of history.
To answer your first question: what I'm smoking is experience.
MS are not going to make.NET portable. How obvious does it have to be before idiots stop posting comments about how the future could be great if.NET is done well?
Look at it this way: if.NET is all MS says it will be then they will be opening themselves up to more and more competition; they will be creating a freer market for code than exists today. Surely no one here is so stupid as to imagine that's what MS wants?
.NET will launch with as much support as the marketing department can get for it and then it will slowly morph.
Each year will see a new version with more API calls etc defined and, you know what? Just after that all the MS programs that have been written using the beta versions of those API's will come out, well in advance of even the poor dupes that fork out for MSDN.
Everyone apart from MS will be playing catch-up again.
How many fucking times do you have to be done over before you learn???
people forget that.NET is just microsofts' packaging and marketing of OPEN STANDARD
Easy to forget things that aren't true..NET is not an open standard, it is a partly open standard with most of the spec being controled and non-open. It's called "bait and switch"; the bait is the little bit of openess and the switch will come when enough idiots like Miguel have started using it and discover that MS can change the practical spec anytime they want.
I was beginning to think I was the only person here that had noticed that. It is bizzare how easily MS have managed to get people to swallow yet another of their crappy "technologies". How many times do they have to be hit before they stop getting into the ring???
You can release Version1.0 of something under GPL and Version2.0 under something else. You can re-release Version1.0 under a looser license but not a tighter one.
Since Gnome claims to be part of RMS's project (GNU), I don't see why he can't demand to know why they are doing what they are doing. If they don't want to answer then they should change their name to something non-GNU.
You, like many people here, are confusing "Troll" with "other opinion". Moz is and has been a pile of crap for years now and comments like "The goal of mozilla is to make a application environment based on XUL, so it makes sense that it had themes before anything else." show how far up its own ass it has gone.
Also your whining about pop up windows being slow, please, I normally run with java script off on my browser
So: pop up windows are not slow if you switch them off? Who's the troll here?
You didn't read the article, did you? The headers were not malformed and the main issue with OE was with the contents of the body being parsed despite the fact that there was no reason to.
Where the hell the moderator found any insight in your demented ramblings I don't know.
when you use the term GNU/Linux you are acknowledging Unix.
You acknowledge something by negating it???
I think you're the first to complain about how wealthy RMS is.
Maybe I am, but the fact is that it's a very very long time since RMS needed to work for a living; a fact which is reflected in his patronising attitude to those of us that do.
Generally, I think the Sorcery Linux model sounds pretty good. I find that I'm compiling more and more software on my systems so a source-based method appeals and also gets rid of the "which version" issues with binary distros.
Bogus bullshit. GNU (ie FSF) did not make Linux. they provided the tools that were used. Should every Windows program compiled with Borland C++ be called "Borland something" or should Grand Theft Auto be called "Microsoft Grand Theft Auto" because it uses DirectX?
Or perhaps GNU/Linux should be Unix/GNU/Linux since all the "GNU" tools were designed for and by Unix users. Oh, but that would acknowledge someone other than RMS. Can't have that; forget I even mentioned it.
This whole GNU/Linux crap is ego-boo on a grand scale. It's easy to sit on your ass and complain about the work others do when you can live off the proceeds of grants and prizes.
The whole RPM thing is dead as far as I'm concerned. I've used RH since version 5 and I'm leaving it now (in stages) in favour of Debian, although I'm going to try Sorcery on one machine to see how it goes.
The reason is obvious: dependancy hell. I've had enough of it. Any system which uses RPMs is simply too hard to maintain.
If RPM5 comes out in the next month or so and supports a high-quality dependancy resolution system I might still stick with RH, but I don't expect it to.
Loki's problems were distribution and market size. Linux is still a small market for games and that is reduced further by the total lack of retail outlets (which is caused by the small market for the games...etc.).
BUT, they did have the advantage of closed-source. From a seller's point of view this is a big improvement compared to open-source. Release the source and you lose control. Which the users are all for, obviously, and most of us here agree it is a good thing. A dead project can be taken over and resurrected, modifications peculiar to one's own circumstances can be made etc.
My question is, who is actually making money out of writing open-source code? Not consulting/support or packaging. Who is actually able to support themselves full-time from the money they make selling the product of hours of development work in a project where the source is open? Is anyone?
People who have received large grants or prizes don't count. People like Alan Cox don't count either since the company he works for is not making a profit from his work (RH makes money on the support angle) so he, too is artifically subsidised.
I've written various programs which I use on my machines which are useful to me but require work to get them to a stage where they have any hope of general applicability, and as far as I can see, there is no chance that I would ever receive any payment for that work. Given that I have a full-time job and other commitments, part-time development would take a loooong time to get anywhere and I'm not inclined to do that.
I could do it; I would do it if I was unemployed and living off savings or the state, but I'm not.
Slashdot Mirror
No, a lawyer's primary task is to make money for their firm. Just as a prostitute's primary task is to make money for her pimp. In both cases it is often, though not always, a good tactic to make the client happy, but that's just a by-product. Also, in both cases law and morality are non-factors.
TWW
Even if the material was all "open" the position MS has in the market place means that they have little to worry about if the standard is messed with by another organisation (they just ignore it) or by themselves (their customers/MSDN programmers simply have to take it and ask for more, please, sir) so the reality of such a standard is that it is only binding on everyone else.
This is just a fact of life, and is not in itself sinister. What makes it sinister is MS's track record, which speaks for itself. IE6 still can't display .png or CSS level 2, for example, dispite claims to the contrary, while supporting, and pushing, various non-standard extensions to both HTML and CSS.
TWW
What is being done is that the image is published by giving it a URL. You are saying that the use of that URL is only allowed in some circumstances, ie in the context of another URL which points to a page of HTML or whatever.
I am also saying that not understanding what a URL is (the method of publishing material on the Internet) is no position to argue the in's and out's of copyright law. At a technical level (the "how") copyright does not apply here as nothing is copied by the defendant, but also the litigant has actually, definitely, and in clear language, made the image available for linking by giving it a publicly accessable URL which is an entirely optional step which they chose (perhaps unwittingly) to take.
If I own a field surrounded by common land and put no markers up to tell people that this normal looking patch of grass (the image URL) is different from all the other grass (other URL's) I don't see how any court could justify a case of trespass against someone that "uses" my land by walking over it.
TWW
TWW
What you are saying is that there are "special" URLs, ie ones that point to images, which are inherently pointing to things which are not published to the public and "normal" URLs, pointing to HTML, which constitute the intended published context of an item. This is arbitrary and false (at the same time!).
Since it is possible, as even the trolls have pointed out, to prevent deep linking to images quite easily, thereby actually making this distinction non-arbitrary, it should be assumed that an image not so protected is available for linking.
The existance of unused locks and keep-out signs in an otherwise public context denies any claim of trespass.
Apart from anything else, how many images are there on the web which were taken with a specific HTML page in mind? Very few when talking about photographs. So, what makes a photograph less of a "content item" than the piece of text it may at a later date find itself dropped into? Nothing, and if you can link to one then you can link to both.
TWW
You make it publicly available, you have to live with the public seeing it. There are server directives for when you don't want it to be publicly available.
TWW
Yes, part of .NET is already portable and it'll stay that way until after launch. Just long enough for three-time-losers to think that it's a "standard". Then MS will change it and all the little pointy-haired-bosses will run around shouting "we have to have Microsoft.NET, we can't risk hidden incompatabilities" and WHOOSH goes the Mono .NET subset into the dustbin of history.
To answer your first question: what I'm smoking is experience.
TWW
Look at it this way: if .NET is all MS says it will be then they will be opening themselves up to more and more competition; they will be creating a freer market for code than exists today. Surely no one here is so stupid as to imagine that's what MS wants?
.NET will launch with as much support as the marketing department can get for it and then it will slowly morph.
Each year will see a new version with more API calls etc defined and, you know what? Just after that all the MS programs that have been written using the beta versions of those API's will come out, well in advance of even the poor dupes that fork out for MSDN.
Everyone apart from MS will be playing catch-up again.
How many fucking times do you have to be done over before you learn???
TWW
Easy to forget things that aren't true. .NET is not an open standard, it is a partly open standard with most of the spec being controled and non-open. It's called "bait and switch"; the bait is the little bit of openess and the switch will come when enough idiots like Miguel have started using it and discover that MS can change the practical spec anytime they want.
TWW
I was beginning to think I was the only person here that had noticed that. It is bizzare how easily MS have managed to get people to swallow yet another of their crappy "technologies". How many times do they have to be hit before they stop getting into the ring???
You can release Version1.0 of something under GPL and Version2.0 under something else. You can re-release Version1.0 under a looser license but not a tighter one.
TWW
From the front page of mozilla.org: "Mozilla is an open-source web browser"
Perhaps you should tell them it's not an app, they appear to think otherwise.
TWW
Also your whining about pop up windows being slow, please, I normally run with java script off on my browser
So: pop up windows are not slow if you switch them off? Who's the troll here?
TWW
TWW
Where the hell the moderator found any insight in your demented ramblings I don't know.
TWW
What do you mean "still", the whole point of this article is that they are not currently supporting Internet email.
TWW
Seriously, folks, someone is taking the piss with this moderation thing.
You acknowledge something by negating it???
I think you're the first to complain about how wealthy RMS is.
Maybe I am, but the fact is that it's a very very long time since RMS needed to work for a living; a fact which is reflected in his patronising attitude to those of us that do.
TWW
What like?
Generally, I think the Sorcery Linux model sounds pretty good. I find that I'm compiling more and more software on my systems so a source-based method appeals and also gets rid of the "which version" issues with binary distros.
TWW
Or perhaps GNU/Linux should be Unix/GNU/Linux since all the "GNU" tools were designed for and by Unix users. Oh, but that would acknowledge someone other than RMS. Can't have that; forget I even mentioned it.
This whole GNU/Linux crap is ego-boo on a grand scale. It's easy to sit on your ass and complain about the work others do when you can live off the proceeds of grants and prizes.
TWW
The reason is obvious: dependancy hell. I've had enough of it. Any system which uses RPMs is simply too hard to maintain.
If RPM5 comes out in the next month or so and supports a high-quality dependancy resolution system I might still stick with RH, but I don't expect it to.
TWW
BUT, they did have the advantage of closed-source. From a seller's point of view this is a big improvement compared to open-source. Release the source and you lose control. Which the users are all for, obviously, and most of us here agree it is a good thing. A dead project can be taken over and resurrected, modifications peculiar to one's own circumstances can be made etc.
My question is, who is actually making money out of writing open-source code? Not consulting/support or packaging. Who is actually able to support themselves full-time from the money they make selling the product of hours of development work in a project where the source is open? Is anyone?
People who have received large grants or prizes don't count. People like Alan Cox don't count either since the company he works for is not making a profit from his work (RH makes money on the support angle) so he, too is artifically subsidised.
I've written various programs which I use on my machines which are useful to me but require work to get them to a stage where they have any hope of general applicability, and as far as I can see, there is no chance that I would ever receive any payment for that work. Given that I have a full-time job and other commitments, part-time development would take a loooong time to get anywhere and I'm not inclined to do that.
I could do it; I would do it if I was unemployed and living off savings or the state, but I'm not.
TWW
it really comes down to truth, things look something like this:
So you're saying that the problem is that no one pays for Linux games, whereas Windows is much better off because people don't pay for the games?
TWW