if you repeat the search replacing mandrake with mandriva and red hat with fedora, you'll see that both stay relatively constant, but indeed, your point is quite striking
The Adobe Reader is not GPL in the first place. The sections of the license refer to GPL software that is limited by patent deals of the contributor, barring them from distributing said software unless they manage to fulfill all license provisions (e.g. sublicensing of patented parts in accordance with GPL3)
Yes yes, what I meant was simply that microsoft has a list of companies that they can use as examples: "Well these guys took our licenses, supporting our claim that they are valid through their actions."
Well it's not really about MS code, but code that was created by Novell and is found to infringe on MS patents. There's an interesting bit in section 2 of the rationale http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) which essentially means that Novell is protected from not being allowed to distribute GPL3 software because MS is a direct distributor of Novell SLES (due to their coupons), thereby granting a full patent sublicense once the GPL3 is in effect in any part of Novell SLES.
The paragraphs disallowing a party that cannot fulfill the GPL3 terms from distributing are worded as follows in the draft (section 12[7]):
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
Yes, in essence, as I understand it, it boils down to having to rewrite large portions of the software that Microsoft has any patent claims to unless the patent deal with Novell/Xandros/Linspire includes a license to sublicense patented parts in accordance with the provisions of the GPL (e.g. access to source code, free modification, forking, all the good stuff).
So if the deals do not include wording that specifically allows Novell to grant sublicenses to its users in accordance with GPL provisions, this means that a) Novell is barred from distributing any GPL3 software (as they cannot fulfill the requirements of the license) and b) that those portions which have patent claims attached will have to be rewritten by the community. If the deal includes that wording, we're all in the green.
I realise that, I was specifically referring to section 11 of the current draft. If the Novell/Linspire/Xandros deals include licenses to Microsoft patents, relicensing to GPL3 will extend that patent license downstream to all users of said software, thereby protecting them from any patent claims that Microsoft makes. Of course the enforcability of this third-party downstream patent claim protection is something that will be tested in court. Of course I'm not trained in the legal profession and I'm just trying to understand this whole conundrum for myself. Since the Novell deal essentially grants Novell a license to sublicense Microsoft patents to its users, the following clause will extend this sublicensing to all users of Novell's contributions, irrespective of their status as direct Novell customers.
From the current GPL3 draft, section 11: A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
Maybe I should have worded it differently. In order for the GPL3 patent protection to be effective all copyright holders must agree to relicense their contributions to GPL3 (unless the copyright notice states specifically that any derivative work can be licensed under GPL2 or later, which is true in most cases, thereby making it possible for other people to repackage and rerelease under GPL3 as much as I unerstand)
e.g from the template header for GPL software: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
So any of the parts of, say, the linux kernel, copyrighted by Novell, are exempt from downstream patent protection unless either above clause is part of the license (in which case the parts can be forked and relicensed) or Novell specifically agrees to relicense to GPL3.
I'm guessing the point is that Microsoft will have a growing list of vendors who agree that perhaps patents are being violated, thereby justifying their litigation action if any is going to occur.
The problem is that a lot of the software we use on a daily basis is largely copyrighted by these businesses in addition to the thousands of developers that have contributed code. Most of the nuts and bolts of a linux distro, including a lot of the kernel, came from redhat developers. As for the desktop, GNOME has a lot of contributions from Novell programmers. KDE is almost entirely Trolltech's child and so on. So in case any patent litigator has valid (in legal terms, we all know how much we agree with software patents) claims in any of these pieces of software, the community at large will be forced to rewrite large portions unless these copyright owners transfer everything to GPL3.
Okay... look at this halo 3 gameplay trailer : http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19430&ty pe=wmv and tell me why the hell the player is unable to hit most targets that are a couple of meters away and only slowly moving? At one point he even shoots around in confusion because he can't track the enemy at a sufficient speed. I realise the game has been designed with this in mind (e.g. missing a lot, forgiving collision detection, wide area weapons) but it just takes the point away from fps. The nice thing about keyboard/mouse control is the smoothness with which the two devices combine their motion (other than the curled up fingers and the resulting pain from the wsad keys... a technical hurdle that could easily be solved with a special device for your keyboard hand sporting a couple of buttons and an intuitive direction control). Take a look at some counterstrike demos and appreciate the difference.
No matter which positive aspects this warming trend has, I think it's also important to look at the flux of refugees that will eventually develop when (if?) most the southern hemisphere transforms into a desert. I'm sure we Europeans would be happy to welcome all North Africans on our shores because their arable land has completely dried out while you guys will embrace most of South and all of Central America moving to the States.
I assume it it because of the radiation regulation. I'm just pulling this out of my arse but it is well possible that this combination minimises the ability of "van eck phreaking" to be successful.
There's a few exceptions to this, namely buying a pint in a pub and road usage. I want roads to go metric, i grew up being taught metric and haven't a clue about most imperial units. Ah, that's quite an impressive point of view, I'm a foreigner living in Britain you're the first Briton to claim that!
I'm currently studying Physics in the UK but come from one of the most SI countries in the world, Luxembourg. When talking to people I discovered that even though the UK has officially gone metric most people still think in imperial units when it comes to body weight and height, liquid volumes, speeds and distances (long and short) and those who I asked said they found it hard to picture 170cm or 70kg, very common numbers which I find extremely natural, much preferring "feet/inches" and "stones".
I must admit however that the foot is a very appealing unit in that it can be easily measured using common body parts such as the hand-elbow distance or the foot.
I think the problem is that the parents who grew up with imperial units use them in day to day conversation, hence associating different benchmark sizes with specific words in their children's developing minds, making a natural transition to metric quite difficult, but certainly not impossible... i guess the situation will improve once britain follows ireland in getting the traffic system metricized.
Well, the redhat thing is slightly different. As linux is open and free there is no reason that the future market has to stick with a red hat product. They could just as well build their own distro...
Slashdot Mirror
if you repeat the search replacing mandrake with mandriva and red hat with fedora, you'll see that both stay relatively constant, but indeed, your point is quite striking
% 2C+fedora%2C+debian%2C+gentoo&ctab=0&geo=all&date= all&sort=0
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+mandriva
The Adobe Reader is not GPL in the first place. The sections of the license refer to GPL software that is limited by patent deals of the contributor, barring them from distributing said software unless they manage to fulfill all license provisions (e.g. sublicensing of patented parts in accordance with GPL3)
Yes yes, what I meant was simply that microsoft has a list of companies that they can use as examples: "Well these guys took our licenses, supporting our claim that they are valid through their actions."
Well it's not really about MS code, but code that was created by Novell and is found to infringe on MS patents. There's an interesting bit in section 2 of the rationale http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) which essentially means that Novell is protected from not being allowed to distribute GPL3 software because MS is a direct distributor of Novell SLES (due to their coupons), thereby granting a full patent sublicense once the GPL3 is in effect in any part of Novell SLES.
The paragraphs disallowing a party that cannot fulfill the GPL3 terms from distributing are worded as follows in the draft (section 12[7]):
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
Yes, in essence, as I understand it, it boils down to having to rewrite large portions of the software that Microsoft has any patent claims to unless the patent deal with Novell/Xandros/Linspire includes a license to sublicense patented parts in accordance with the provisions of the GPL (e.g. access to source code, free modification, forking, all the good stuff).
So if the deals do not include wording that specifically allows Novell to grant sublicenses to its users in accordance with GPL provisions, this means that a) Novell is barred from distributing any GPL3 software (as they cannot fulfill the requirements of the license) and b) that those portions which have patent claims attached will have to be rewritten by the community. If the deal includes that wording, we're all in the green.
I realise that, I was specifically referring to section 11 of the current draft. If the Novell/Linspire/Xandros deals include licenses to Microsoft patents, relicensing to GPL3 will extend that patent license downstream to all users of said software, thereby protecting them from any patent claims that Microsoft makes. Of course the enforcability of this third-party downstream patent claim protection is something that will be tested in court. Of course I'm not trained in the legal profession and I'm just trying to understand this whole conundrum for myself. Since the Novell deal essentially grants Novell a license to sublicense Microsoft patents to its users, the following clause will extend this sublicensing to all users of Novell's contributions, irrespective of their status as direct Novell customers.
From the current GPL3 draft, section 11:
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
Maybe I should have worded it differently. In order for the GPL3 patent protection to be effective all copyright holders must agree to relicense their contributions to GPL3 (unless the copyright notice states specifically that any derivative work can be licensed under GPL2 or later, which is true in most cases, thereby making it possible for other people to repackage and rerelease under GPL3 as much as I unerstand)
e.g from the template header for GPL software: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
So any of the parts of, say, the linux kernel, copyrighted by Novell, are exempt from downstream patent protection unless either above clause is part of the license (in which case the parts can be forked and relicensed) or Novell specifically agrees to relicense to GPL3.
I'm guessing the point is that Microsoft will have a growing list of vendors who agree that perhaps patents are being violated, thereby justifying their litigation action if any is going to occur.
The problem is that a lot of the software we use on a daily basis is largely copyrighted by these businesses in addition to the thousands of developers that have contributed code. Most of the nuts and bolts of a linux distro, including a lot of the kernel, came from redhat developers. As for the desktop, GNOME has a lot of contributions from Novell programmers. KDE is almost entirely Trolltech's child and so on. So in case any patent litigator has valid (in legal terms, we all know how much we agree with software patents) claims in any of these pieces of software, the community at large will be forced to rewrite large portions unless these copyright owners transfer everything to GPL3.
what what what? a new season? really? i thought futurama was dead... thank you!
You are aware that the magnet that blew up was built by Fermilab and it was on their side that the mistake was made?
Okay... look at this halo 3 gameplay trailer : http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19430&ty pe=wmv and tell me why the hell the player is unable to hit most targets that are a couple of meters away and only slowly moving? At one point he even shoots around in confusion because he can't track the enemy at a sufficient speed. I realise the game has been designed with this in mind (e.g. missing a lot, forgiving collision detection, wide area weapons) but it just takes the point away from fps. The nice thing about keyboard/mouse control is the smoothness with which the two devices combine their motion (other than the curled up fingers and the resulting pain from the wsad keys... a technical hurdle that could easily be solved with a special device for your keyboard hand sporting a couple of buttons and an intuitive direction control). Take a look at some counterstrike demos and appreciate the difference.
No matter which positive aspects this warming trend has, I think it's also important to look at the flux of refugees that will eventually develop when (if?) most the southern hemisphere transforms into a desert. I'm sure we Europeans would be happy to welcome all North Africans on our shores because their arable land has completely dried out while you guys will embrace most of South and all of Central America moving to the States.
That has actually been done and is called GameTycoon http://www.gametycoon.de/ (site is in german) A review can be found here: http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/gametycoon/revi ew.html
i have two mobiles...
Are you being serious? So I'm paying the BT for this useless telephone line even though I don't have to?
I assume it it because of the radiation regulation. I'm just pulling this out of my arse but it is well possible that this combination minimises the ability of "van eck phreaking" to be successful.
I should probably have said estimated rather than measured, sorry.
Oh cmon, how can you mod that down?!
I'm currently studying Physics in the UK but come from one of the most SI countries in the world, Luxembourg. When talking to people I discovered that even though the UK has officially gone metric most people still think in imperial units when it comes to body weight and height, liquid volumes, speeds and distances (long and short) and those who I asked said they found it hard to picture 170cm or 70kg, very common numbers which I find extremely natural, much preferring "feet/inches" and "stones".
I must admit however that the foot is a very appealing unit in that it can be easily measured using common body parts such as the hand-elbow distance or the foot.
I think the problem is that the parents who grew up with imperial units use them in day to day conversation, hence associating different benchmark sizes with specific words in their children's developing minds, making a natural transition to metric quite difficult, but certainly not impossible... i guess the situation will improve once britain follows ireland in getting the traffic system metricized.
well, it's not a smartphone but the nokia 1100 has that :)
What if your alphabet has more than 26 characters? hah!
Well, the redhat thing is slightly different. As linux is open and free there is no reason that the future market has to stick with a red hat product. They could just as well build their own distro...
http://www.webvastu.com/ - the page is horrendous, I certainly hope people don't adapt her style too much!