Wow, that's a shitty way to make a conclusion. You're assuming everything in Red Hat is properly documented... Try looking at the source RPM instead...
Every ID I've ever had made used a camera where the movement and zoom were controlled by the computer and the picture was a frame pulled from the video stream.
Yeah, but the can certainly relicense the code within it that performs their generated functions that happen to be fairly universal. Kernel modules can be non-GPL (think Nvidia drivers). All the do now is include a kernel on the same disk.
Raw voice beats the shit out of VoIP. VoIP is for getting it from relay point to relay point on an existing network, not the last mile. Not the worst idea for something around the house or office, but won't be hitting the streets either...
Yes, that's true. But if I put up a website about pizza, my current employer would be pretty damned pissed if I mentioned who they are... (hint: I'm employed by a big pizza company:)
Please forgive my sucky website then - I just keep it for info, and the host of it just came under my control - the front page REALLY needs to be torn down. Anyhow, you did make the point yourself... word for word...
Of course, the mods should be slapped for not modding up the original one...
One piece of software may be licensed more than one way. Take QT for example - it's available under both the GPL and a proprietary license. Take you pick...
The GPL is a royalty-free license. The patent basically says that if you want to use their method, you must do it by citing credit to them and using a derivitive of their work. Fairly wierd, but still... It sums to say you just can't generate your own code from the ground up - but you could make a derivitive work that has nothing the same except the result. Either way, it must both remain under the GPL and the patent owner must recieve credit in the code.
I think before anybody else replies to my thread here, it would be nice to remember that this is in the context of the patent holder GPLing the code under there own will, or by contract with a customer that says this will be the result. Precedence shows that you can't un-license the GPL either; that's the reason that we have OpenSSH.
Yeah, and mod this dumb fucker down while you're at it - he has no place verbatim copying somebody's post and then reaping karma off it by adding the lines "Please mod up anonymous coward parent. Or just read it." The original post should get the original credit, even if it's anonymous.
See this reply. It's the same situation as Unisys. I guess the only concern I have is whether they can undo the action of GPLing it - and I don't think they can. It was perfectly legal for them to place it under the GPL (or for whoever contracted them out to do so if that was the agreement) because they own the patent.
Yes, but remember that this is in the context of the owner placing that code. The situation is exactly the same as that of Unisys. And I don't think that Unisys would be allowed to undo that action even if they still have a valid patent (do they?). It's still obvious that you can't simply GPL somebody else's patented work unless they permit it...
Basically, patenting something in software and then GPLing it means you're the only one who can write the code that does that, but anyone can modify and redistribute what you've done. Kind of confusing, but basically it means that a certain method of doing something in software can now only be done if it's under the GPL - interesting.
I think that this also falls under the class of submarine patents. Either way, if I'm right in my conclusion, they can't do anything about it - you can't "unlicense" a GPL license; and it's non-exclusive, so anybody that has it can keep it going even after you stop offering it...
I am not one who will rip a user's machine to shreds at random - but I am practical. I can't afford to have a ghosted image for each user with only God knows what kind of stuff kept on there. I can't afford the time to try and wade through the nasty mess that is a dead system hoping to bring it back to life every time. It's all about feasibility. The bigger your system, the more locked down and uniform it has to be to preserve the sanity of the admins.
My cable provider which covers most of the state runs off of a single OC-3... and it's not bad except for when they get stupid and fuck over the router...
The article does NOT state that Wi-Fi devices are in the 900 Mhz range - it merely talks about other devices in that range. It's an entirely different paragraph. Poorly worded by the author, yes - but still not wrong...
What, you've never seen somebody too stupid to avoid touching the thermal parts when clearing a paper jam? Ooh, it's hard to keep the laughing stifled...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a shitty way to make a conclusion. You're assuming everything in Red Hat is properly documented... Try looking at the source RPM instead...
Every ID I've ever had made used a camera where the movement and zoom were controlled by the computer and the picture was a frame pulled from the video stream.
Yeah, but what if he marketed it as a veritable vault?
They wouldn't care - it's the "next big thing."
Yeah, but the can certainly relicense the code within it that performs their generated functions that happen to be fairly universal. Kernel modules can be non-GPL (think Nvidia drivers). All the do now is include a kernel on the same disk.
Raw voice beats the shit out of VoIP. VoIP is for getting it from relay point to relay point on an existing network, not the last mile. Not the worst idea for something around the house or office, but won't be hitting the streets either...
Yes, that's true. But if I put up a website about pizza, my current employer would be pretty damned pissed if I mentioned who they are... (hint: I'm employed by a big pizza company :)
Of course, the mods should be slapped for not modding up the original one...
One piece of software may be licensed more than one way. Take QT for example - it's available under both the GPL and a proprietary license. Take you pick...
The GPL is a royalty-free license. The patent basically says that if you want to use their method, you must do it by citing credit to them and using a derivitive of their work. Fairly wierd, but still... It sums to say you just can't generate your own code from the ground up - but you could make a derivitive work that has nothing the same except the result. Either way, it must both remain under the GPL and the patent owner must recieve credit in the code.
I think before anybody else replies to my thread here, it would be nice to remember that this is in the context of the patent holder GPLing the code under there own will, or by contract with a customer that says this will be the result. Precedence shows that you can't un-license the GPL either; that's the reason that we have OpenSSH.
Yeah, and mod this dumb fucker down while you're at it - he has no place verbatim copying somebody's post and then reaping karma off it by adding the lines "Please mod up anonymous coward parent. Or just read it." The original post should get the original credit, even if it's anonymous.
See this reply. It's the same situation as Unisys. I guess the only concern I have is whether they can undo the action of GPLing it - and I don't think they can. It was perfectly legal for them to place it under the GPL (or for whoever contracted them out to do so if that was the agreement) because they own the patent.
Yes, but remember that this is in the context of the owner placing that code. The situation is exactly the same as that of Unisys. And I don't think that Unisys would be allowed to undo that action even if they still have a valid patent (do they?). It's still obvious that you can't simply GPL somebody else's patented work unless they permit it...
I think that this also falls under the class of submarine patents. Either way, if I'm right in my conclusion, they can't do anything about it - you can't "unlicense" a GPL license; and it's non-exclusive, so anybody that has it can keep it going even after you stop offering it...
Summary: Chill out in the walk-in freezer!
Been reading Catch-22, eh Milo?
I am not one who will rip a user's machine to shreds at random - but I am practical. I can't afford to have a ghosted image for each user with only God knows what kind of stuff kept on there. I can't afford the time to try and wade through the nasty mess that is a dead system hoping to bring it back to life every time. It's all about feasibility. The bigger your system, the more locked down and uniform it has to be to preserve the sanity of the admins.
My cable provider which covers most of the state runs off of a single OC-3... and it's not bad except for when they get stupid and fuck over the router...
Ummm, duh - they just change reality. Didn't you see the first one? Next time you get deja vu, run to the theaters so you can see the third part!
Definitely true - but I had taken that comment to be in reference to running as root. noexec is definitely a wise option on shell account systems...
The article does NOT state that Wi-Fi devices are in the 900 Mhz range - it merely talks about other devices in that range. It's an entirely different paragraph. Poorly worded by the author, yes - but still not wrong...
Let me reword that for you - noexec disables the execution of binaries FROM that drive. Programs can still affect it (otherwise what use would it be?)
Yeah, and? It may not be the best example of using that with the `find` command, but dammit - it gets the point across!
What, you've never seen somebody too stupid to avoid touching the thermal parts when clearing a paper jam? Ooh, it's hard to keep the laughing stifled...
All else failing, go to the linky, move the fscking cable to the right port, and leave...