In other words, their technique only reveals enormous, low colour-depth, uncompressed images. Do such images actually exist in real life?
Since native windows desktop backgrounds are BMP format images and often mostly one color except for an image on the side or bottom. they would be perfect targets.
I don't know if any of the backdrops in the standard Windows install qualify, but I suspect not.
The right to release another version under a different license.
They would only have that right over the portion of the work that he was responsible for, not the whole work, so that would be meaningless... it would revert to the right, already granted under the BSDL, to release the code under an additional license as well as the BSDL.
they wouldn't be legally required to credit him (or her) in their derived work.
They would also not get the right to remove any other names from the project's license, so, again, they wouldn't get anything meaningful in terms of the attribution terms in the BSDL.
So they're not getting any meaningful ownership rights overt the work he has already done.
The only thing this would cover is work that he has not released to the project. Of which there shouldn't be any, if he's actually following open source principles. It doesn't cover any code that is already in the project.
It's not just that it's Linux, it's that it's not really an open system. Linux software installation depends so much on access to a common set of repositories and tools that installing anything that isn't in the repository that you start from is beyond a non-technical user.
So these boxes might as well be PSPs or iPhones - but without the pool of games and apps that go along with Sony's and Apple's big-company repositories, and without the pool of apps from the developer community. Linux handhelds went through the same initial burst of hope and discovery that there just wasn't that much software for Familiar or whatever... but there they didn't have the option of installing a normal Linux distro. but still, if I'd bought one and discovered that I had to reinstall the whole thing to get access to a decent pool of software, I might have returned it too.
People don't buy computers to run operating systems, they get them to run software. And not just developer software, or power user software, but software that you can't predict people will need. Linux is at a huge disadvantage there in the first place (even compared to OSX, let alone Windows), so throwing away the ability to use the big repositories is foolish.
Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment
If it's been released under the BSD license they can't do that in any meaningful way. The only rights *you* retain in the code you have released under that license is:
* The right to release another version under a different license. * The right to be acknowledged as the author of the code. * Some protection from misrepresentation and lawsuits.
You don't have the right to withdraw the code from distribution by anyone that already has a copy, and I don't think you have the right to remove your name from those copies, so what exactly do they imagine they would own?
If you didn't release your code under the BSD license you would be getting fucked over like you are now.
How exactly is he getting fucked over? He's being given an opportunity that he might not have had if it was a GPL-licensed project, and he doesn't have to take it.
And it's not his project, he's a contributor, he may be a large contributor but that doesn't mean it'll die without him.
So:
* You're assuming he's going to take the offer as is. * You're assuming that his contributions are critical to the project.
Neither of these are given, and even if he thinks the latter is... it probably isn't.
If it really is, he's probably in a better bargaining position than he thinks: if his participation is critical to their fork, then he should be getting a share in the ownership of the result, and demand that.
And THAT doesn't seem like "getting screwed over" to me.
Products expected to be subject to the system are those equipped with secret coding, such as the Felica contactless smart card system developed by Sony Corp., digital copiers and computer servers.
All of these have DRM built in, either explicitly or in things like the anti-counterfeiting code in copiers. Are they targeting all software, or do they mainly want to be able to bypass DRM restrictions?
So, you want to take advantage of cheap chinese labour, but don't want to pay the "hidden costs" of using chinese labour?
What part of "I hear Hungary and eastern Europe are offering particularly cheap factory sites - and this might persuade some firms to relocate." did you miss?
According to most sources, the content is downloaded as soon as a disc is first inserted into the player.
That shouldn't be possible. I mean, literally, technically, you should have to explicitly permit a disc to access to internet outside of the disc's content - something in the player software that the disc can't override or ignore. What else can blu-ray discs do on your player? Pull up a list of other discs you've watched, phone home about them,...?
If a web app demands significant performance from your local processor, comparable to video editing, then it sure as hell is unlikely to be portable and cross-platform. It's got no business being deployed at all.
My wife and I paid $600 each for our first-generation iPhones.
$500 after the store credit they offered when they dropped the price $200, or did you not bother to take them up on that?
If that was subsidized, I'd like to know what the unsubsidized price would have been.
Judging by other Apple products, and how much "Apple Tax" I've paid for Apple products I've bought in the past, about 40% more than a comparable Windows Mobile device, or at least $800.
We've been enjoying them very much, but neither "subsidized" nor "inexpensive" normally occurs to me as appropriate adjectives.
If you want inexpensive devices, don't buy them from Apple.
There's only one single company - ATT - through which Apple's iPhone is available, due to an exclusive contract signed between the maker and the service provider. What does best qualify as a monopoly ?
I'm not even addressing the question of whether there is a monopoly or not.
I am addressing the question of whether there was a subsidy or not.
These are different words. Look them up. I'll wait. "Monopoly". "Subsidy".
It may not be. Go back and read my original message. I suggested two possible scenarios:
1. The open source program was behind schedule, and Mellon terminated it on this basis.
2. The open source program was on track, but the company in Bulgaria engaged in some chicanery to get it terminated anyway.
These both obviously can not both be true. That is why they are what is called "alternatives". In the case of the first alternative, no, obviously nobody stabbed anybody in the back. And indeed, as I *already noted*, that's definitely a valid interpretation of the original article.
So, no, nothing is "wrong with this", you are simply combining two contradictory alternatives and coming to the conclusion that I am making a claim that I am not, in fact, making. My point wasn't 'the Bulgarians stabbed them in the back', it was 'we don't have enough information to say whether they did or not'.
The original iPhone WAS subsidized by AT&T. The fact that it was only available with AT&T service, so there was no unsubsidized price listed, doesn't mean there wasn't a subsidy.
I imagine Apple will appeal on this basis at least.
That would be Eve Online, except for the complete lack of player generated content and the way the players might as well be ship AIs or Shells (as in The Ship Who Sang) since they never actually interact except through the ship.
Someone takes it, throws money at it, and tries to do something with it.
Except according to the OP they're not taking anything, they're re-implementing it from scratch in Java using the current UI as a guide. And it's Carnegie Mellon that's putting up the money, and who were (apparently) providing support for the original project.
Now that's not unreasonable, if there were problems with the original that CM couldn't resolve... for example, if the FOSS software wasn't going anywhere and they needed something that worked (which was my first thought reading the article). And, after all, it's not like there are no FOSS projects that have done the same thing (though if they target another FOSS project rather than a commercial one you tend to get some bad blood). On the other hand, it's possible that the Bulgarians pulled an end-run around the people at CM who knew what was going on and got some PHB to pull the plug on the FOSS project.
We don't know, and it's better to avoid jumping to conclusions... either that Sophie was stabbed in the back by the Bulgarians, or that Sophie was adrift at sea and the Bulgarians rescued it... without more information.
You know Microsoft, they call it $RANDOM_CITY but when it goes into the boxes it'll be renamed "Windows $NONSEQUITER". If it was called $ATTITUDE $ANIMAL it'd really rock.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, their technique only reveals enormous, low colour-depth, uncompressed images. Do such images actually exist in real life?
Since native windows desktop backgrounds are BMP format images and often mostly one color except for an image on the side or bottom. they would be perfect targets.
I don't know if any of the backdrops in the standard Windows install qualify, but I suspect not.
The right to release another version under a different license.
They would only have that right over the portion of the work that he was responsible for, not the whole work, so that would be meaningless... it would revert to the right, already granted under the BSDL, to release the code under an additional license as well as the BSDL.
they wouldn't be legally required to credit him (or her) in their derived work.
They would also not get the right to remove any other names from the project's license, so, again, they wouldn't get anything meaningful in terms of the attribution terms in the BSDL.
So they're not getting any meaningful ownership rights overt the work he has already done.
The only thing this would cover is work that he has not released to the project. Of which there shouldn't be any, if he's actually following open source principles. It doesn't cover any code that is already in the project.
The BSDL is already irrevocable. Whatever he's released, stays released.
It's not just that it's Linux, it's that it's not really an open system. Linux software installation depends so much on access to a common set of repositories and tools that installing anything that isn't in the repository that you start from is beyond a non-technical user.
So these boxes might as well be PSPs or iPhones - but without the pool of games and apps that go along with Sony's and Apple's big-company repositories, and without the pool of apps from the developer community. Linux handhelds went through the same initial burst of hope and discovery that there just wasn't that much software for Familiar or whatever... but there they didn't have the option of installing a normal Linux distro. but still, if I'd bought one and discovered that I had to reinstall the whole thing to get access to a decent pool of software, I might have returned it too.
People don't buy computers to run operating systems, they get them to run software. And not just developer software, or power user software, but software that you can't predict people will need. Linux is at a huge disadvantage there in the first place (even compared to OSX, let alone Windows), so throwing away the ability to use the big repositories is foolish.
Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment
If it's been released under the BSD license they can't do that in any meaningful way. The only rights *you* retain in the code you have released under that license is:
* The right to release another version under a different license.
* The right to be acknowledged as the author of the code.
* Some protection from misrepresentation and lawsuits.
You don't have the right to withdraw the code from distribution by anyone that already has a copy, and I don't think you have the right to remove your name from those copies, so what exactly do they imagine they would own?
If you didn't release your code under the BSD license you would be getting fucked over like you are now.
How exactly is he getting fucked over? He's being given an opportunity that he might not have had if it was a GPL-licensed project, and he doesn't have to take it.
And it's not his project, he's a contributor, he may be a large contributor but that doesn't mean it'll die without him.
So:
* You're assuming he's going to take the offer as is.
* You're assuming that his contributions are critical to the project.
Neither of these are given, and even if he thinks the latter is... it probably isn't.
If it really is, he's probably in a better bargaining position than he thinks: if his participation is critical to their fork, then he should be getting a share in the ownership of the result, and demand that.
And THAT doesn't seem like "getting screwed over" to me.
Products expected to be subject to the system are those equipped with secret coding, such as the Felica contactless smart card system developed by Sony Corp., digital copiers and computer servers.
All of these have DRM built in, either explicitly or in things like the anti-counterfeiting code in copiers. Are they targeting all software, or do they mainly want to be able to bypass DRM restrictions?
So, you want to take advantage of cheap chinese labour, but don't want to pay the "hidden costs" of using chinese labour?
What part of "I hear Hungary and eastern Europe are offering particularly cheap factory sites - and this might persuade some firms to relocate." did you miss?
That shouldn't be possible. I mean, literally, technically, you should have to explicitly permit a disc to access to internet outside of the disc's content - something in the player software that the disc can't override or ignore. What else can blu-ray discs do on your player? Pull up a list of other discs you've watched, phone home about them, ...?
If a web app demands significant performance from your local processor, comparable to video editing, then it sure as hell is unlikely to be portable and cross-platform. It's got no business being deployed at all.
My wife and I paid $600 each for our first-generation iPhones.
$500 after the store credit they offered when they dropped the price $200, or did you not bother to take them up on that?
If that was subsidized, I'd like to know what the unsubsidized price would have been.
Judging by other Apple products, and how much "Apple Tax" I've paid for Apple products I've bought in the past, about 40% more than a comparable Windows Mobile device, or at least $800.
We've been enjoying them very much, but neither "subsidized" nor "inexpensive" normally occurs to me as appropriate adjectives.
If you want inexpensive devices, don't buy them from Apple.
There's only one single company - ATT - through which Apple's iPhone is available, due to an exclusive contract signed between the maker and the service provider.
What does best qualify as a monopoly ?
I'm not even addressing the question of whether there is a monopoly or not.
I am addressing the question of whether there was a subsidy or not.
These are different words. Look them up. I'll wait. "Monopoly". "Subsidy".
How is this unethical?
It may not be. Go back and read my original message. I suggested two possible scenarios:
1. The open source program was behind schedule, and Mellon terminated it on this basis.
2. The open source program was on track, but the company in Bulgaria engaged in some chicanery to get it terminated anyway.
These both obviously can not both be true. That is why they are what is called "alternatives". In the case of the first alternative, no, obviously nobody stabbed anybody in the back. And indeed, as I *already noted*, that's definitely a valid interpretation of the original article.
So, no, nothing is "wrong with this", you are simply combining two contradictory alternatives and coming to the conclusion that I am making a claim that I am not, in fact, making. My point wasn't 'the Bulgarians stabbed them in the back', it was 'we don't have enough information to say whether they did or not'.
The original iPhone WAS subsidized by AT&T. The fact that it was only available with AT&T service, so there was no unsubsidized price listed, doesn't mean there wasn't a subsidy.
I imagine Apple will appeal on this basis at least.
That would be Eve Online, except for the complete lack of player generated content and the way the players might as well be ship AIs or Shells (as in The Ship Who Sang) since they never actually interact except through the ship.
Apologies. I got my fruits mixed up. I must have been out of my gourd.
As long as their Java implementation is also GPL'd, what's the big deal?
If they implemented it from scratch, what makes you think they'd use the same license? Or need to?
But more importantly, there's more to ethics than just following the letter of the law.
Someone takes it, throws money at it, and tries to do something with it.
Except according to the OP they're not taking anything, they're re-implementing it from scratch in Java using the current UI as a guide. And it's Carnegie Mellon that's putting up the money, and who were (apparently) providing support for the original project.
Now that's not unreasonable, if there were problems with the original that CM couldn't resolve... for example, if the FOSS software wasn't going anywhere and they needed something that worked (which was my first thought reading the article). And, after all, it's not like there are no FOSS projects that have done the same thing (though if they target another FOSS project rather than a commercial one you tend to get some bad blood). On the other hand, it's possible that the Bulgarians pulled an end-run around the people at CM who knew what was going on and got some PHB to pull the plug on the FOSS project.
We don't know, and it's better to avoid jumping to conclusions... either that Sophie was stabbed in the back by the Bulgarians, or that Sophie was adrift at sea and the Bulgarians rescued it... without more information.
Mac OS X Polecat
Mac OS X Moggie
Mac OS X Luwak
You know Microsoft, they call it $RANDOM_CITY but when it goes into the boxes it'll be renamed "Windows $NONSEQUITER". If it was called $ATTITUDE $ANIMAL it'd really rock.
Wait, you think they should add a second screen for this? Did I understand you correctly?
The original stowaway keyboard was decent, good feel, almost enough keys. The current one is nasty.
Why not plug your foldable self-powered screen/keyboard thing into your "phone" when you need more pixels or want to type something long?
I'd rather plug my phone module into my PDA when I want a smart phone, or leave it in the dumb phone jacket to save power the rest of the time.
The phone module for the Visor was going to be a step in that direction, but Handspring had corporate ADD.
Didn't Nine Inch nails do that already?
The point of creating a character is that it gives you a visual identity that goes along with your character name.
But who sees it? Just you?
For now though, as far as game terms go one's ship is their avatar.
Sounds like it.