KIllustrator is grossly in violation of Adobe's trademark. Slashdotters all agreed on this on the previous article.
I must have missed that one. It's particularly hard to believe since it there is no trademark violation in this case.
Given a generic term like "illustrator" the mark lies in the presentation of the word (ie the logo colours, design, font etc.). Given that, there's no case to answer and never was.
I'll put it a different way since I wasn't very clear:
The author is saying "This is copyrighted to me but I'll let you off if you do this..."
If you don't agree then you don't get to ignore copyright since the law does not require your agreement to enforce copyright.
The real difference between GPL and EULA's is that the latter generally try to restrict you while GPL is giving you more rights. You don't need to sign anything to get more rights.
Copyright does not require you to agree; it just is. The GPL allows a relaxation of copyright; you don't need to agree for it to appy as it is the AUTHOR who is relaxing their rights. If you don't agree then normal copyright appies and you can use but not copy.
Basically, this does not affect the GPL, just as it does not affect copyright.
Henry: Who was that at the door, Min? Min: It was a nice robber-man, Henry Henry: Did you tell him we have no money, Min? Min: Yes, Henry. Henry: And what did he say to that, Min? Min: He said he'd give us a year to save some up, Henry Henry: What a nice chap! We'd better get started; get your suspenders on, Minnie, we're going to Amsterdam.
On the other hand, RedHat don't charge a monthy fee unless you want to. I use RH in all my machines both at home an at work (where I'm the IT Director) and I've never paid RH anything, nor have they asked me to. If they charged for a service I need I would pay but they don't so I don't.
You are confused as to what RH's commercial product is: it isn't Linux.
.NET is a lock-in trap. All the crap about it being an open protocol at the W3C is pointless; are the W3C going to shut MS down when they start adding to the protocol to make life difficult for third parties? No.
The "Open Protocol" is a MARKETING ploy.
The long term goal of.NET is to trap everyone into relying on MS for all their computing needs.
The biggest criminal organization the world has ever seen is almost certainly still the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (I'm sure China is working on it, though). Or maybe the Teamsters.
I meant in monetary terms; none of these (even under Hoffa) had the resources of MS.
On slightly calmer reflection I suppose the pre-1943 Nazi party had access to similar levels of funding to Gates.
So basically the appeal court agrees that MS is the largest criminal organisation the world has ever seen but it refuses to punish it. What does MS have to do? Start shooting people?
The GPL does not force people that use your source to publish their changes, only those who distribute their changed versions of your code in binary form.
The motivation behind the GPL is "I'll help you by giving you my work for free but only if you promise to help others". One way of looking at it is "I'm not doing this work for your profits", which is the attitude many have to MS using their code.
Where the clash really is is when someone like MS not only uses free code (such as the BSD stuff they use) but they also turn around and shit on coders by stealing their work outright (eg doublestack) and start calling other people's code "viral" as they've started to with any code they can't use to increase their profits, and finally to take away the user's rights to own their own software and data (.NET).
It's about that point that many people start asking "why should I let these people use my code? They're just bastards!" and stop releasing totally free code.
In a perfect world there would be no need for the GPL or any other licences and Bill Gates has spent most of his life trying to stop that perfect world ever coming to pass. Funny how it's always the people with extra privileges (Gates got his start from a trust fund of over a million 1955 dollars from pa and granpa) who most want to take privileges of others, isn't it?
No, a continuous time dimension forbids motion. Zeno's paradox is based on the false assumption that a dimension must be divisible to an infinite degree. Other theories fall down on this but, really, there is no evidence to support (and lots to contradict) the idea that our universe contains anything which can be infinitely subdivided.
Hawking is a media darling, none of his work has moved into the canon of physical science, although many people think it will one day. Personally I thought he was a twat when he could walk and talk and I don't believe it does the disabled any good to assume that their problems automatically immunise them from being wrong.
That all said, I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Spacetime exists, sure, just some of the extrapolations thrown about are nonsense. But then, "hypothesis->experiment->observe->repeat". We need a supply of hypothesises to feed in to that system.
The sensible thing to do is to eliminate the one assumption that makes it false, the time axis.
That is not the only possible assumption that makes it false: another assumption is that time and space can both be divided infinitely. If they can't then movement becomes possible again.
The Altair was a PC (Personal Computer) and so was the IBM Personal Computer that came along later. The tight usage of the term "PC" that is in vogue today is based mainly on people not actually thinking about what the letters stand for.
Proof by assertion, I see. Not even the greatest scientists of the world held such power. Besides, there are more than one Zeno's "paradox."
Zeno's paradox about the impossibility of movement is indeed false. I walked to work today and, in so doing, disproved it. This sort of garbage depends on throwing out all observations which do not fit with the crank theory being espoused.
Given the clash between observation and Zeno's paradox one must be discarded. It is clear that it must be Zeno that loses since I can move. Arguing against such a simple fact indicates not deep thought but pretentious intellectual posturing in a childish attempt to show off.
"Oh, oh! Look at me, I challenge authority! Look at me, pleeeeeeese!"
I don't know what you're doing but our entire company's site fits into the server's RAM with space to spare, the disc is only used for logging most of the time.
With gigabyte RAM available to even small companies now the question of disc access is relatively unimportant.
An interesting point which has been brought up in this list is the difference between the BSD and GPL licences. It seems pretty obvious that the attaction of the former for MS and companies like it is that it allows them to make big money off other people's work.
Given this, and the sort of people MS are and the way they treat us, why should I release anything under the BSD licence?? I can help decent people by releasing under GPL/LGPL, so why should I work for Gates & Co.?
Teach C first for the simple and practical reason that a huge number of other languages are based on C syntax.
Then give them a complex data manipulation program to think about (say, converting a Postscript font to Truetype).
Start them thinking about better ways of handling the data.
During this discussion introduce OO concepts and a clean OO language (Smalltalk, say).
Once some progress has been made introduce them to a "real world" OO language like C++ or Java. They'll then have three languages and a grounding in what OO actually helps with as well as what compromises are made between the "ideal" OOL and the ones in use.
Personally, if I need OO I use Forth. That way I can define "OO" to fit the problem. Anything that doesn't need OO I just use Perl, C, or assembler depending on how important speed is.
If you had the option of paying per view to get an ad-free version or just getting the version with ads for "free" that might be quite good.
I can't see why this would either be difficult to arrange or be something the provider would not want to do.
Anybody have figures on the total cost of advertising per viewer per half-hour of programming in the US or UK? That's the figure the provider would have to charge us (per half-hour) to watch without the ads. Obviously the current rate varies but it would be interesing to get a feel for what it would cost.
As such, I think Gartner raises a very valid point that a Linux install that doesn't have some sort of support contract going along with it, says "what's the point?" Gartner points out that not many companies are going to do something like that anyway.
But more importantly, if the installs aren't being accompanied by support contracts, then they really don't play a part in accounting for "where the money is".
On the other hand, a valid issue is "where the money isn't", ie, what money is MS missing out on. In that case the lack of support contracts is unimportant.
In general Linux gives the user much greater opportunity to do their own support, which is what my company does. This is a problem for RedHat as much as it is for MS but it's not a problem for those of us using Linux as their server platform.
We've got the source code!
Obviously Jon Erikson does not exist (read his user info, it is quite funny) but people like that do exist, and their not satires.
The answer to them is: imagine your company makes widgets. You have a page about what makes your widgets great. MS's browser inserts a link on the word "widget" to another company's site. This site has a table comparing various widgets on the market and shows, by their criteria, that you widget sucks.
Still think it's a great idea? Better insert those meta tags in ALL you pages.
The better answer is to block IE6 with a page explaining why and a link to proper browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have missed that one. It's particularly hard to believe since it there is no trademark violation in this case.
Given a generic term like "illustrator" the mark lies in the presentation of the word (ie the logo colours, design, font etc.). Given that, there's no case to answer and never was.
TWW
The author is saying "This is copyrighted to me but I'll let you off if you do this..."
If you don't agree then you don't get to ignore copyright since the law does not require your agreement to enforce copyright.
The real difference between GPL and EULA's is that the latter generally try to restrict you while GPL is giving you more rights. You don't need to sign anything to get more rights.
TWW
Basically, this does not affect the GPL, just as it does not affect copyright.
TWW
TWW
Min: It was a nice robber-man, Henry
Henry: Did you tell him we have no money, Min?
Min: Yes, Henry.
Henry: And what did he say to that, Min?
Min: He said he'd give us a year to save some up, Henry
Henry: What a nice chap! We'd better get started; get your suspenders on, Minnie, we're going to Amsterdam.
TWW
You are confused as to what RH's commercial product is: it isn't Linux.
There is no going back. You got that bit right.
TWW
The "Open Protocol" is a MARKETING ploy.
The long term goal of .NET is to trap everyone into relying on MS for all their computing needs.
Who the hell wants to reverse-engineer a trap?
TWW
Which consumer is that? Did you get his/her name and are they aware that they are an endangered species?
TWW
I meant in monetary terms; none of these (even under Hoffa) had the resources of MS.
On slightly calmer reflection I suppose the pre-1943 Nazi party had access to similar levels of funding to Gates.
TWW
Pathetic.
TWW
The GPL does not force people that use your source to publish their changes, only those who distribute their changed versions of your code in binary form.
The motivation behind the GPL is "I'll help you by giving you my work for free but only if you promise to help others". One way of looking at it is "I'm not doing this work for your profits", which is the attitude many have to MS using their code.
Where the clash really is is when someone like MS not only uses free code (such as the BSD stuff they use) but they also turn around and shit on coders by stealing their work outright (eg doublestack) and start calling other people's code "viral" as they've started to with any code they can't use to increase their profits, and finally to take away the user's rights to own their own software and data (.NET).
It's about that point that many people start asking "why should I let these people use my code? They're just bastards!" and stop releasing totally free code.
In a perfect world there would be no need for the GPL or any other licences and Bill Gates has spent most of his life trying to stop that perfect world ever coming to pass. Funny how it's always the people with extra privileges (Gates got his start from a trust fund of over a million 1955 dollars from pa and granpa) who most want to take privileges of others, isn't it?
TWW
No, a continuous time dimension forbids motion. Zeno's paradox is based on the false assumption that a dimension must be divisible to an infinite degree. Other theories fall down on this but, really, there is no evidence to support (and lots to contradict) the idea that our universe contains anything which can be infinitely subdivided.
TWW
TWW
That all said, I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Spacetime exists, sure, just some of the extrapolations thrown about are nonsense. But then, "hypothesis->experiment->observe->repeat". We need a supply of hypothesises to feed in to that system.
TWW
That is not the only possible assumption that makes it false: another assumption is that time and space can both be divided infinitely. If they can't then movement becomes possible again.
TWW
TWW
Proof by assertion, I see. Not even the greatest scientists of the world held such power. Besides, there are more than one Zeno's "paradox."
Zeno's paradox about the impossibility of movement is indeed false. I walked to work today and, in so doing, disproved it. This sort of garbage depends on throwing out all observations which do not fit with the crank theory being espoused.
Given the clash between observation and Zeno's paradox one must be discarded. It is clear that it must be Zeno that loses since I can move. Arguing against such a simple fact indicates not deep thought but pretentious intellectual posturing in a childish attempt to show off. "Oh, oh! Look at me, I challenge authority! Look at me, pleeeeeeese!"
TWW
With gigabyte RAM available to even small companies now the question of disc access is relatively unimportant.
TW
Given this, and the sort of people MS are and the way they treat us, why should I release anything under the BSD licence?? I can help decent people by releasing under GPL/LGPL, so why should I work for Gates & Co.?
TWW
Then give them a complex data manipulation program to think about (say, converting a Postscript font to Truetype). Start them thinking about better ways of handling the data.
During this discussion introduce OO concepts and a clean OO language (Smalltalk, say).
Once some progress has been made introduce them to a "real world" OO language like C++ or Java. They'll then have three languages and a grounding in what OO actually helps with as well as what compromises are made between the "ideal" OOL and the ones in use.
Personally, if I need OO I use Forth. That way I can define "OO" to fit the problem. Anything that doesn't need OO I just use Perl, C, or assembler depending on how important speed is.
TWW
I can't see why this would either be difficult to arrange or be something the provider would not want to do.
Anybody have figures on the total cost of advertising per viewer per half-hour of programming in the US or UK? That's the figure the provider would have to charge us (per half-hour) to watch without the ads. Obviously the current rate varies but it would be interesing to get a feel for what it would cost.
TWW
But more importantly, if the installs aren't being accompanied by support contracts, then they really don't play a part in accounting for "where the money is".
On the other hand, a valid issue is "where the money isn't", ie, what money is MS missing out on. In that case the lack of support contracts is unimportant.
In general Linux gives the user much greater opportunity to do their own support, which is what my company does. This is a problem for RedHat as much as it is for MS but it's not a problem for those of us using Linux as their server platform. We've got the source code!
TWW
Obviously Jon Erikson does not exist (read his user info, it is quite funny) but people like that do exist, and their not satires.
The answer to them is: imagine your company makes widgets. You have a page about what makes your widgets great. MS's browser inserts a link on the word "widget" to another company's site. This site has a table comparing various widgets on the market and shows, by their criteria, that you widget sucks.
Still think it's a great idea? Better insert those meta tags in ALL you pages.
The better answer is to block IE6 with a page explaining why and a link to proper browsers.
TWW
TWW