You know very little, and what you do know is wrong.
Your company,and (since you own part of it, you) is trying to steal something which they don't own. Worse still it belongs to everyone.
I agree that it's not a 1st amendment issue, it is much more basic than that.
The real issue is "is might right?": Is it okay for the powerful to take what they want from those they see as weak because they are not rich? Is it fine for people to steal what they want if the owner has no means to prevent them? Is it okay for people to set up burning crosses on your lawn because they outnumber/outgun you and they just feel like it?
King would have said no, I think. Why don't you?
If you think there is no connection, no spectrum of attitude, that connects the cross-burners to M$ in this case, then you are a fool. The issues are the same: the "big men" have said "this is how it's going to be - if you don't like it that's too bad" and we, like ML King are saying "NO, might is not right and we'll carry on and we'll take you on, and we will win because we are right and you are wrong".
I have faced down the Man, and I know why and where and what for.
The Man has many guises, all of them seem acceptable to someone - that's why he has a range. The one you see now is the one designed to fool you, so wise up.
This is not strictly true. The impression given by the media about the Demon case suggests it is but that was settled out of court so there is no legal precedent yet AFAIK.
M$ say that they are copyright holders "on penalty of perjury". They aren't the copyright holders, so who takes them to court and has them crucified?
Surely this is the golden moment we've all waited for for years? M$ has made a huge legal blunder in front of a target too big and too well supported, and just too damned annoyed, to back down, and while they're on the ropes from the DoJ too.
Wipe them out now, don't wait for break-up, just kill the bastards now. Put every amoral SOB who ever took the M$ shilling on welfare. Take the company assets and burn them. Plough the M$ HQ building into the ground and sow the ground with salt. Deny bread, water and salt to Gates and the scum who serve him. Break his glasses and pitch his wife and children into the street. Burn his filthy house to the ground and give his money to the Red Cross.
Make an example of Gates for all those who see him as a "business genius". Show the world that people can only be pushed so far in the name of one man's greed.
Hang his bloodless body heel-first from a lamp post to show children what happens when you live by stealing other people's work and speak only lies and deceit.
Your country is supposed to be based on "Government by the people, for the people"; show that is has not irreversibly become "Government by the rich, for the rich".
Now our company will have to buy up "ourname.eu" and "our-name.eu" to add to our collection of "ourname.com" "ourname.co.uk" "our-name.com"and "our-name.co.uk" just to stop squatters using our (registered) trading name. More money wasted by us and more money given to registries for bugger-all work.
I'd like to see the back of the.co.uk domain (replace it with just.uk) and either a rule that when you buy (name.TLD) you get (name.<all TLDs other than MIL>) as part of the package or that any one organisation/person can only be own one domain.
Neither would work very well, but then neither does the current system.
I wonder if the opinions of the/. readership would be different if a new company named O'rily published a booked called "Programming Perl" and it had a 2 humped camel on the cover.
Slightly more relevent would be the question "would the opinions of the/. readership be different if some unknown person somewhere posted a web page titled 'Programming Perl'?". No one would care.
Try to read the news item before posting - the story has nothing to do with people producing books that look like the "For Dummies" ones.
I've used Windows and it stinks. Who wants to read x million lines of sticky source code written by demoralised programmers?
I've never understood why anyone (other than MS) thinks this option has any value: the whole problem with Windows is that it needs to have its source code thrown out and started again from scratch; there's more dead wood in there than living after all these years of feature creep.
MS, on the other hand like the idea becaue they know that no one will be able to do much with the code without a couple of years of study (at which point a new version appears). I mean, Microsoft have a lot of trouble managing and understanding the source code and they wrote it!
We'd all be better off speding the time re-reading Knuth's Art of Computer Programming again than trawling though MS's lousy excuse for an OS looking for the three lines of good code.
TWW
Re:they why a database at all?
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
Because the content of each page varies depending on the user, but that's under program control and does not require any input to the database.
TWW
Re:What are you using it for?
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
The point here is that if you don't already own a car, a Porsche shouldn't be your first choice when looking to buy something to tow a caravan.
Yes, but getting a new database program is not the same as buying a new car (unless you go for Oracle).
But you are right: I should have said "don't buy a Porsche to tow your caravan".
TWW
What are you using it for?
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 2
We use mySQL for a database which is >99% read-only for users. We update it, obviously, but transactions etc are irrelevent to us, sub-selects would be nice but not at the cost of read-speed.
As ever, it depends on what you're doing - don't use a Porche to tow your caravan.
it's the user's fault if they execute something they don't understand.
It's not the user's fault that their crappy MS software allows programs to be embedded in email and then executed when you read the damn things.
Besides which, 99% of people using computers don't understand what they are doing anymore than people really understand their car engine; should nobody use computers unless they can explain every line of code in Word?
So don't just laugh and point and say we deserve it. Some of us have no choice.
Well then this is your chance to break free - "Look at what M$ has let happen to us! Let's change."
Remember that this virus will have affected your managers. Let them know there is an alternative and they might act while the problem is fresh in their minds.
it matters if the program is running the memory space of my black box versus your black box.
I know, as a programmer, what you're getting at but the GPL is not written for programmers, it has no mention of program counters, memory spaces, forking or the like. The GPL is a document which, ultimatly, is intended for a jury of people who have decide if a program has been "distributed" or not.
Copying and distribution are mentioned as separate cases thoughout the GPL and the method of distribution is not specified. I take this to be because any type of distribution is covered, and specifically the mention of distribution of the program in "executable form" (section 3) implies that allowing the program to be executed by a third party is distribution; if the program is available over the web for me to execute, doesn't that mean that it is in executable form?
The problem really hinges on the use of the word "distribute" when "use" is closer to the spirit of the licence. Of such minor quibbles is a lawyer's income made.
I hate to belabor this whole thing,
Well, if you can't belabour a point on/. then something's gone wrong with the world in general.
You don't consider a "program's functionality" to be "output", as referred to by the GPL?
No, take a word processor as an example. The functionality of the wp is to output documents. The document it produces is the output, it is not the function.
If I put 4 into the sqr function the output is 2, the function is sqr - not "2". If my program to calculate the square root is based on GPLed code I have to provide my code too. The person who uses it to get "2" does not have to do anything as the GPL doesn't cover output.
Maybe it's not as clear cut as it seems to me.
I know that feeling!
One final example before I go to bed:
If you write a program covered by the GPL and give it to me on a disc you have to give me the code too, if I want it. If you instead give me a black box I can't open but which boots into your program from startup, do you have to give me the source?
My answer is "obviously". Do you disagree? If you don't then the question is "does it matter if the black box is accessed over the web?"
If, on the other hand, you're 'just' out to terrorize people, you fire your missile at an oil refinery or office building,
But you may want to fire into an army barracks to cause casulties rather than simple panic, in which case the S/A does limit your abilities. Without it, trig' gets your targeting coordinates, and GPS does your steering.
(A) Confusing the UK TV Tax or some vendor's seat licence restrictions with the GPL is silly.
It was just an example of a licence where thelocation of the resources is not important.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
We are not talking about the actual act of running the program but the act of making the program available to be run. i.e., distribution of the program.
As you say, it makes no difference whether the program is running locally, over a terminal or where the server is located: I have been provided with the program's functionality so it's GPLed. End of story.
If giving someone the ability to run a program is not distribution, what is? Does it only apply to a binary residing on the individual's disc?
I feel that you're applying a hardware interpretation to a software issue.
I created a missle, and it landed within 100m of my prefered target, it would take out my target.
How big is your missile?
I used to have a shop and one night the IRA set off a 3-500lb bomb about 100m away (official figure was 300lbs, my own estimate from the damage is 500lbs; it removed two buildings next to it). For a home-made device that's pretty big; for a home-made missile it's huge.
The damage to a policewoman on the other side of the street (the actual target) was the instant removal of both legs, but she survived, the damage to my shop was the loss of the suspended ceiling and the front windows.
In other words, 5m took out some buildings, 10m did not totally take out the real (soft) target and 100m did nothing terrible to my little shop, even with a large "warhead".
As regards Desert Storm, I heard that in fact the degrading was switched off for the duration because:
The Iraqi forces were known to have very few GPS units, and
The US forces ran out of military units but had large supplies of civi units, so they turned it off to allow those units to be used by the men-on-the-ground for finding where the hell they were in all that sand (and darkness, since so much was at night).
I remember at the time hearing about soldiers sending off mail-order for civilian units for their personal use.
Also, given the orbital physics of the GPS's themselves, I would think any regional control would be very course grained.
I refute this argument (or at least I disagree with it): In the case of the video example the end-user (ie the person at the movie) has no input, he or she simply watches what someone else has done with the program; they are not using the program, the effects director is.
In the case of a program used though a terminal the end-user is given control of the program and in that sense the program is distributed to them. The issue is not with the output of the word-processor or the video-toaster or whatever, it is with the ability of the user to control the program. A program that you can control, run, break out of, crash etc. has been distributed to you, no matter how many layers of interfaces are between you and the binary.
At the end of the day this must be true as humans are never in direct control of software: there is always a keyboard controller or some other hardware in-between. If this does not prevent the software from being distributed to me why should a network card?
I do use/. frequently and the use of slashdot has been distributed to me. The product is not just the source code for/., it is also the interface which allows me to post comments, preview my replies, read yours etc. If this had not been distributed to me I would not be able to post this response to you; therefore slashdot has been distributed to me in a form.
If what you are saying was held to be true then, as you imply, any X-based program which exports its display would need no license for the end-user, and people in the UK would not need TV licenses since all the resources used are in the studio and only displayed on the user's TV. Not a great example for Americans, but there you are.
but how does it affect national security when Joe Citizen has a GPS unit that is accurate to 1 cm
It depends what country he's "Joe Citizen" of, and whether he's aiming missiles at American troops. GPS is global so this move aids everyone, including America's list of "today's enimies".
There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who make a work available for people to use without distributing it,
Actually, ASP's do distribute. If multiple users using a cental fileserver with Word on it are counted for licencing purposes as having had the product distributed to them, what difference does it make if the server is hundreds of miles away? If someone can use a product to do work then that product has been distributed.
I may be foolish but I can't see even the most out-of-touch judge supporting the idea that an item can be used by many people and yet not have been distributed to those people.
L.Ron was so bad at SF he decided the real money was in setting up his own fake religionRon was so bad at SF he decided the real money was in setting up his own fake religion
Yes, but you've got to admit he was right! The interesting thing is that he never tried to hide the fact that it was all fake from SF writers and fans - he knew that even if he was up-front and said it was all made up that the sort of people that swallow this rubbish would still believe it.
In later years, I think, he started to believe his own press but, honestly, as a money making scheme it was a work of genius.
He may not have been a great writer but he wasn't stupid, either.
Could some UKian tell us Yanks whether the government still has oversight in BT matters? Or has that been privatized?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by oversight but BT was privatized about 20 years ago.
Seems to an outsider that the sight of one monopoly doing a deal to shore up another would attract some criticism from the Labor Party.
But this is Labour Party v2.1 which is basically the Conservative party as was. That's why the real conservative pary is having so much trouble: there simply isn't a need for two of them.
Blair is very keen on monopolies: M$, BT, Railtrack, and various others have all been in to see him at No10 and gone away happy. About the only one he doesn't seem to like is the Post Office, which is by far the best, most efficent and profitable PO in the world. So obviously we need to break it up!
Microsoft's dominance of the marketplace, and their competitive strategies, are not morally wrong like government regulation of industry
Yes, obviously when someone steals other peoples ideas and promotes them as their own, while driving the original person out of business by cross-subsidising the price of the product from their other concerns the real criminal is the government agency which tries to stop this from happening.
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
So what are you proposing, then? That if a big company like M$ steals your intellectual property that, instead of going to the big bad government you fight them yourself? Good luck.
I'd also point out that many previous generations of people got along fine with no concept of intellectual property; even trademarks are quite new and they predate all other forms of IP in the west AFAIK.
The truth is that the ability to fight those who would take what you want to keep is the basis of all private property, nothing else. It is only quite recently that the value of ideas has become so great that people are really keen on keeping them. OGG the 1st probably did not worry about intelectual property at all, never mind use the notion as the basis of all private property.
Unless you are, as the saying goes, "the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the whole valley" you run the risk of having your property taken off you by the next bigger SOB. The job of government regulations should (not always "is", but should) be to be the biggest SOB and to fight for you when you can't fight for yourself.
If you think otherwise then you are arguing for Might-Makes-Right (the Nazi way) which, incidently, is the opposite of both democracy and anarchy.
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged
Fine, then get out of our society, stop using our roads, stop using our schools and hospitals, stop eating food you didn't grow yourself, purify your own water; in short - go and die in the woods.
I've never heard of Ann Rand before but she sounds like she's full of crap to me.
Slashdot Mirror
PM has left Bullfrog, Lionhead is his own company so this has nothing to do with Bullfrog.
TWW
Your company ,and (since you own part of it, you) is trying to steal something which they don't own. Worse still it belongs to everyone.
I agree that it's not a 1st amendment issue, it is much more basic than that.
The real issue is "is might right?": Is it okay for the powerful to take what they want from those they see as weak because they are not rich? Is it fine for people to steal what they want if the owner has no means to prevent them? Is it okay for people to set up burning crosses on your lawn because they outnumber/outgun you and they just feel like it?
King would have said no, I think. Why don't you?
If you think there is no connection, no spectrum of attitude, that connects the cross-burners to M$ in this case, then you are a fool. The issues are the same: the "big men" have said "this is how it's going to be - if you don't like it that's too bad" and we, like ML King are saying "NO, might is not right and we'll carry on and we'll take you on, and we will win because we are right and you are wrong".
I have faced down the Man, and I know why and where and what for.
The Man has many guises, all of them seem acceptable to someone - that's why he has a range. The one you see now is the one designed to fool you, so wise up.
TWW
TWW
Surely this is the golden moment we've all waited for for years? M$ has made a huge legal blunder in front of a target too big and too well supported, and just too damned annoyed, to back down, and while they're on the ropes from the DoJ too.
Wipe them out now, don't wait for break-up, just kill the bastards now. Put every amoral SOB who ever took the M$ shilling on welfare. Take the company assets and burn them. Plough the M$ HQ building into the ground and sow the ground with salt. Deny bread, water and salt to Gates and the scum who serve him. Break his glasses and pitch his wife and children into the street. Burn his filthy house to the ground and give his money to the Red Cross.
Make an example of Gates for all those who see him as a "business genius". Show the world that people can only be pushed so far in the name of one man's greed.
Hang his bloodless body heel-first from a lamp post to show children what happens when you live by stealing other people's work and speak only lies and deceit.
Your country is supposed to be based on "Government by the people, for the people"; show that is has not irreversibly become "Government by the rich, for the rich".
TWW
I'd like to see the back of the .co.uk domain (replace it with just .uk) and either a rule that when you buy (name.TLD) you get (name.<all TLDs other than MIL>) as part of the package or that any one organisation/person can only be own one domain.
Neither would work very well, but then neither does the current system.
TWW
Slightly more relevent would be the question "would the opinions of the /. readership be different if some unknown person somewhere posted a web page titled 'Programming Perl'?". No one would care.
Try to read the news item before posting - the story has nothing to do with people producing books that look like the "For Dummies" ones.
TWW
I've never understood why anyone (other than MS) thinks this option has any value: the whole problem with Windows is that it needs to have its source code thrown out and started again from scratch; there's more dead wood in there than living after all these years of feature creep.
MS, on the other hand like the idea becaue they know that no one will be able to do much with the code without a couple of years of study (at which point a new version appears). I mean, Microsoft have a lot of trouble managing and understanding the source code and they wrote it!
We'd all be better off speding the time re-reading Knuth's Art of Computer Programming again than trawling though MS's lousy excuse for an OS looking for the three lines of good code.
TWW
TWW
Yes, but getting a new database program is not the same as buying a new car (unless you go for Oracle).
But you are right: I should have said "don't buy a Porsche to tow your caravan".
TWW
As ever, it depends on what you're doing - don't use a Porche to tow your caravan.
TWW
It's not the user's fault that their crappy MS software allows programs to be embedded in email and then executed when you read the damn things.
Besides which, 99% of people using computers don't understand what they are doing anymore than people really understand their car engine; should nobody use computers unless they can explain every line of code in Word?
TWW
Well then this is your chance to break free - "Look at what M$ has let happen to us! Let's change."
Remember that this virus will have affected your managers. Let them know there is an alternative and they might act while the problem is fresh in their minds.
TWW
I know, as a programmer, what you're getting at but the GPL is not written for programmers, it has no mention of program counters, memory spaces, forking or the like. The GPL is a document which, ultimatly, is intended for a jury of people who have decide if a program has been "distributed" or not.
Copying and distribution are mentioned as separate cases thoughout the GPL and the method of distribution is not specified. I take this to be because any type of distribution is covered, and specifically the mention of distribution of the program in "executable form" (section 3) implies that allowing the program to be executed by a third party is distribution; if the program is available over the web for me to execute, doesn't that mean that it is in executable form?
The problem really hinges on the use of the word "distribute" when "use" is closer to the spirit of the licence. Of such minor quibbles is a lawyer's income made.
I hate to belabor this whole thing,
Well, if you can't belabour a point on /. then something's gone wrong with the world in general.
TWW
No, take a word processor as an example. The functionality of the wp is to output documents. The document it produces is the output, it is not the function.
If I put 4 into the sqr function the output is 2, the function is sqr - not "2". If my program to calculate the square root is based on GPLed code I have to provide my code too. The person who uses it to get "2" does not have to do anything as the GPL doesn't cover output.
Maybe it's not as clear cut as it seems to me.
I know that feeling!
One final example before I go to bed:
If you write a program covered by the GPL and give it to me on a disc you have to give me the code too, if I want it. If you instead give me a black box I can't open but which boots into your program from startup, do you have to give me the source?
My answer is "obviously". Do you disagree? If you don't then the question is "does it matter if the black box is accessed over the web?"
TWW
But you may want to fire into an army barracks to cause casulties rather than simple panic, in which case the S/A does limit your abilities. Without it, trig' gets your targeting coordinates, and GPS does your steering.
TWW
It was just an example of a licence where thelocation of the resources is not important.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
We are not talking about the actual act of running the program but the act of making the program available to be run. i.e., distribution of the program.
As you say, it makes no difference whether the program is running locally, over a terminal or where the server is located: I have been provided with the program's functionality so it's GPLed. End of story.
If giving someone the ability to run a program is not distribution, what is? Does it only apply to a binary residing on the individual's disc?
I feel that you're applying a hardware interpretation to a software issue.
TWW
How big is your missile?
I used to have a shop and one night the IRA set off a 3-500lb bomb about 100m away (official figure was 300lbs, my own estimate from the damage is 500lbs; it removed two buildings next to it). For a home-made device that's pretty big; for a home-made missile it's huge.
The damage to a policewoman on the other side of the street (the actual target) was the instant removal of both legs, but she survived, the damage to my shop was the loss of the suspended ceiling and the front windows.
In other words, 5m took out some buildings, 10m did not totally take out the real (soft) target and 100m did nothing terrible to my little shop, even with a large "warhead".
TWW
I remember at the time hearing about soldiers sending off mail-order for civilian units for their personal use.
Also, given the orbital physics of the GPS's themselves, I would think any regional control would be very course grained.
TWW
In the case of a program used though a terminal the end-user is given control of the program and in that sense the program is distributed to them. The issue is not with the output of the word-processor or the video-toaster or whatever, it is with the ability of the user to control the program. A program that you can control, run, break out of, crash etc. has been distributed to you, no matter how many layers of interfaces are between you and the binary.
At the end of the day this must be true as humans are never in direct control of software: there is always a keyboard controller or some other hardware in-between. If this does not prevent the software from being distributed to me why should a network card?
TWW
If what you are saying was held to be true then, as you imply, any X-based program which exports its display would need no license for the end-user, and people in the UK would not need TV licenses since all the resources used are in the studio and only displayed on the user's TV. Not a great example for Americans, but there you are.
TWW
It depends what country he's "Joe Citizen" of, and whether he's aiming missiles at American troops. GPS is global so this move aids everyone, including America's list of "today's enimies".
TWW
Actually, ASP's do distribute. If multiple users using a cental fileserver with Word on it are counted for licencing purposes as having had the product distributed to them, what difference does it make if the server is hundreds of miles away? If someone can use a product to do work then that product has been distributed.
I may be foolish but I can't see even the most out-of-touch judge supporting the idea that an item can be used by many people and yet not have been distributed to those people.
TWW
Yes, but you've got to admit he was right! The interesting thing is that he never tried to hide the fact that it was all fake from SF writers and fans - he knew that even if he was up-front and said it was all made up that the sort of people that swallow this rubbish would still believe it.
In later years, I think, he started to believe his own press but, honestly, as a money making scheme it was a work of genius.
He may not have been a great writer but he wasn't stupid, either.
TWW
I'm not quite sure what you mean by oversight but BT was privatized about 20 years ago.
Seems to an outsider that the sight of one monopoly doing a deal to shore up another would attract some criticism from the Labor Party.
But this is Labour Party v2.1 which is basically the Conservative party as was. That's why the real conservative pary is having so much trouble: there simply isn't a need for two of them.
Blair is very keen on monopolies: M$, BT, Railtrack, and various others have all been in to see him at No10 and gone away happy. About the only one he doesn't seem to like is the Post Office, which is by far the best, most efficent and profitable PO in the world. So obviously we need to break it up!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
TWW
Yes, obviously when someone steals other peoples ideas and promotes them as their own, while driving the original person out of business by cross-subsidising the price of the product from their other concerns the real criminal is the government agency which tries to stop this from happening.
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
So what are you proposing, then? That if a big company like M$ steals your intellectual property that, instead of going to the big bad government you fight them yourself? Good luck.
I'd also point out that many previous generations of people got along fine with no concept of intellectual property; even trademarks are quite new and they predate all other forms of IP in the west AFAIK.
The truth is that the ability to fight those who would take what you want to keep is the basis of all private property, nothing else. It is only quite recently that the value of ideas has become so great that people are really keen on keeping them. OGG the 1st probably did not worry about intelectual property at all, never mind use the notion as the basis of all private property.
Unless you are, as the saying goes, "the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the whole valley" you run the risk of having your property taken off you by the next bigger SOB. The job of government regulations should (not always "is", but should) be to be the biggest SOB and to fight for you when you can't fight for yourself.
If you think otherwise then you are arguing for Might-Makes-Right (the Nazi way) which, incidently, is the opposite of both democracy and anarchy.
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged
Fine, then get out of our society, stop using our roads, stop using our schools and hospitals, stop eating food you didn't grow yourself, purify your own water; in short - go and die in the woods.
I've never heard of Ann Rand before but she sounds like she's full of crap to me.
TWW