The author mentions that most people think personal use copying is ok.
I would say the same is true of companies, but only for open source, for some reason.
Companies often download open source, modify the software, copy the modified software among hundreds of people, demonstrate the modified software publicly, then say they will release the software when the product is released.
But, there was no copyright or licence that granted the internal copies of the modified software, as the modifications were not published.
If a company used evaluation copies of Windows, internally, copying to hundreds of developers, then demonstrated something publicly obviously on an evaluation copy of windows, what would happen?
Side rant: Often "viral" is mentioned in FUD concerning Open Source, but one should note that regular copyright is also "viral", in the sense that if you make a derivative copy of commercial software (or writing or music...), you are still bound my the copyright/license of the original work.
Are the Korean hands getting bigger every day? Or is it now popular to hold a phone with two hands now? I really wish there was a Nexus phone with a 4"(or less) display.
Sugar does have thousands of years more testing than artificial sweeteners....
And there is no statistical evidence that 'diet soda' helps one loose or maintain weight.
Even if we had no studies that show that artificial sweetener is dangerous, why consume it? Especially when it taste so bad...
What's wrong with water?
I view soda as a dessert (not a very good one...). I will have one occasionally, but never with a meal. I would never eat sugar free cake or ice cream,... either. That would miss the point, unless you are consuming such things for another purpose than taste...
Without support for modern file systems, It can not be taken seriously.
They should not dismiss suggestions to adopt use of fuse based filesystems such as ntfs3g, as this may likely be the most direct way to get support for popular file systems.
Google was the best bet in bringing Java back to life.
But Oracle is suing Google for making Java somewhat popular again...
I imagine even Google will give up on Java at some point with some new platform that exposes binder services to javascript, deprecates Java, and merges with Chrome OS.
This is a common myth that companies and people have.
An open source license does not propagate itself more than a closed source license.
If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code? You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!
With any software license you have agreed to, you do assume you are free to do whatever you want with it? You read the license, and follow them in order use the source legally.
> How do you get your results? > > From over 30 sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites, Yahoo! "BOSS", > "embed.ly", "WolframAlpha", "EntireWeb", "Bing" & "Blekko".
People are not leaving Google because other search engines are getting better.
Rather, people are leaving because Google is getting worse and has lost focus of search simplicity.
Google instant drove me out.
If start typing and several pages fly by per second, this increases the garbage to information ratio, is inefficient, and disruptive. Often, the result is a blank page.
I switched to duckduckgo, as it simple, and the results are good.
Occasionally, I will use !g in the duckduckgo search to access google, but I try to avoid it.
Google should stop worrying about Bing, and look within.
C++ was not an ISO standard until 1998. Somehow it was used it before then.
In 1997, if there was a competing language standard that was patented and required royalty payment, called LangX.
Which would be considered "free" Which would be considered "open" Which would be considered an "open standard"
Your comment assumes that these are all the same question. (the summary only discusses freedom, and you comment about "open" assuming that it means "open standard")
Of course the word "open" is evolving as well (partly because of "open source" in 1998), so the question may be answered differently today than back then.
> This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs?
All of these are royalty free standards. So these are unusual comparisons to make a case.
The definition of "open" has changed a bit over the years due to open source.
"Open" in "OpenWindows" released by Sun in 1989, is quite different than the "Open" in "OpenOffice" released by Sun in 2000, or the 2006 "OpenDocument" format.
You must have "a less-mainstream opinion of copyright law builds a publicly distributable firmware that will leave the PS3 wide open to piracy"
"open to piracy" meaning : "open", like a PC.
I'm not sure when a desire to have a PC became "less-mainstream".
Many just want a PC with a cell processor that runs Linux. Perhaps if Sony or someone else sold such a box, then less effort would be devoted to jailbreak their precious game machine.
"software system" does not magically make something unique. Compare "A method for adding 1+2" with "A method for adding 1+2 using software".
Wow software! how original.
But, that's how our patent system works.
You likely can't patent a general banking system.
But you could patent: "banking system on the internet" then "banking system on a mobile phone" then "banking system on a smart phone" then "banking system on a tablet" then... "banking system on a holographic computing device"...
Our system, unfortunately, encourages this type of reinvention.
Get a fortune cookie, add "on the computer|Internet|phone|modern-computing-device", and patent it.
> As much as it hurts me to say it, it seems that the DMCA is useful in this case.
What leads you to that conclusion? There is nothing useful about the DMCA.
The article seems to imply a dangerous precedent:
"Thus, even though – as discussed above – the court ruled that Glider did not facilitate copyright infringement, MDY could still be liable under the DMCA for circumventing Warden's detection features."
So the DMCA can apparently be used to attack reverse engineering that was not necessarily used to facilitate copyright infringment.
Slashdot Mirror
The author mentions that most people think personal use copying is ok.
I would say the same is true of companies, but only for open source, for some reason.
Companies often download open source, modify the software, copy the modified software among hundreds of people, demonstrate the modified software publicly, then say they will release the software when the product is released.
But, there was no copyright or licence that granted the internal copies of the modified software, as the modifications were not published.
If a company used evaluation copies of Windows, internally, copying to hundreds of developers, then demonstrated something publicly obviously on an evaluation copy of windows, what would happen?
Side rant: Often "viral" is mentioned in FUD concerning Open Source, but one should note that regular copyright is also "viral", in the sense that if you make a derivative copy of commercial software (or writing or music ...), you are still bound my the copyright/license of the original work.
Are the Korean hands getting bigger every day? Or is it now popular to hold a phone with two hands now?
I really wish there was a Nexus phone with a 4"(or less) display.
The security flaw was the storage of the passwords rather than passwords hash.
Did they fix that?
What should concern everyone, and the reason John Roberts supported the mandate, is that it sets a precedent to allow privatization of taxation.
The "Left" supported it because the mandate was attached to health care, but this is a step towards corporatism much bigger than Citizens United.
Sugar does have thousands of years more testing than artificial sweeteners....
And there is no statistical evidence that 'diet soda' helps one loose or maintain weight.
Even if we had no studies that show that artificial sweetener is dangerous, why consume it?
Especially when it taste so bad...
What's wrong with water?
I view soda as a dessert (not a very good one...). I will have one occasionally, but never with a meal. I would never eat sugar free cake or ice cream, ... either. That would miss the point, unless you are consuming such things for another purpose than taste...
oh, you said Bowser
Without support for modern file systems, It can not be taken seriously.
They should not dismiss suggestions to adopt use of fuse based filesystems such as ntfs3g, as this may likely be the most direct way to get support for popular file systems.
... It just say "France"...
Why is Cinnamon needed. Hasn't LXDE and/or XFCE filled that void?
Google was the best bet in bringing Java back to life.
But Oracle is suing Google for making Java somewhat popular again ...
I imagine even Google will give up on Java at some point with some new platform that exposes binder services to javascript, deprecates Java, and merges with Chrome OS.
I think "most useful" here means "most profitable".
Ideas are most useful ... when people use them ..., not when they are collectively monopolized.
"prohibit licenses which propagate themselves"
This is a common myth that companies and people have.
An open source license does not propagate itself more than a closed source license.
If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code?
You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!
With any software license you have agreed to, you do assume you are free to do whatever you want with it?
You read the license, and follow them in order use the source legally.
The "proof" is also in the duckduckgo FAQ...
https://duckduckgo.com/faq.html
> How do you get your results?
>
> From over 30 sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites, Yahoo! "BOSS",
> "embed.ly", "WolframAlpha", "EntireWeb", "Bing" & "Blekko".
> option right beside the search box to turn 'Google instant' off.
Really, every time I go to Google?
> You can also turn it off in settings ?
I don't stay logged in to Google.
> And, it also appears to default to off if you're not signed in.
I wish. That is not true. I wish it was, then perhaps I would still use Google.
People are not leaving Google because other search engines are getting better.
Rather, people are leaving because Google is getting worse and has lost focus of search simplicity.
Google instant drove me out.
If start typing and several pages fly by per second, this increases the garbage to information ratio, is inefficient, and disruptive. Often, the result is a blank page.
I switched to duckduckgo, as it simple, and the results are good.
Occasionally, I will use !g in the duckduckgo search to access google, but I try to avoid it.
Google should stop worrying about Bing, and look within.
Do they use simulated subspace communication the other times?
Are there other parts of the "simulation" that are modified for convenience? Can they have pizza delivered?
According to the OSI, it *is not* an "open standard"
http://opensource.org/osr
According to the EU, it *is not* a "free and open standard"
http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
You are conflating ISO with "open standard".
"open" is may be interpreted differently. The word generally means "not closed".
The common use of "open" in computing has changed quite a bit in the past two decades.
C++ was not an ISO standard until 1998.
Somehow it was used it before then.
In 1997, if there was a competing language standard that was patented and required royalty payment, called LangX.
Which would be considered "free"
Which would be considered "open"
Which would be considered an "open standard"
Your comment assumes that these are all the same question.
(the summary only discusses freedom, and you comment about "open" assuming that it means "open standard")
Of course the word "open" is evolving as well (partly because of "open source" in 1998), so the question may be answered differently today than back then.
The OSI certainly would answer differently than the ISO.
http://opensource.org/osr
>I wonder why underwater?
Because it reduces the NIMBY factor.
> This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs?
All of these are royalty free standards. So these are unusual comparisons to make a case.
The definition of "open" has changed a bit over the years due to open source.
"Open" in "OpenWindows" released by Sun in 1989, is quite different than the "Open" in "OpenOffice" released by Sun in 2000, or the 2006 "OpenDocument" format.
The most annoying thing about smart dolphins is that the voice translators must use a squeaky baby voice.
"Fishy!"
I asked this question to PGE.
They claimed that they looked into it, but the bandwidth was not wide enough.
Really? What kind of bandwidth does one need to send power usage information?
My guess was that they wanted to set up another "last mile" network for later commercialization.
Network over power lines is the obvious solution for a smart meter, and that is a common setup in Europe.
You must have "a less-mainstream opinion of copyright law builds a publicly distributable firmware that will leave the PS3 wide open to piracy"
"open to piracy" meaning :
"open",
like a PC.
I'm not sure when a desire to have a PC became "less-mainstream".
Many just want a PC with a cell processor that runs Linux. Perhaps if Sony or someone else sold such a box, then less effort would be devoted to jailbreak their precious game machine.
"Its a patent for a software system."
"software system" does not magically make something unique. Compare "A method for adding 1+2" with "A method for adding 1+2 using software".
Wow software! how original.
But, that's how our patent system works.
You likely can't patent a general banking system.
But you could patent: ... ...
"banking system on the internet"
then
"banking system on a mobile phone"
then
"banking system on a smart phone"
then
"banking system on a tablet"
then
"banking system on a holographic computing device"
Our system, unfortunately, encourages this type of reinvention.
Get a fortune cookie, add "on the computer|Internet|phone|modern-computing-device", and patent it.
> As much as it hurts me to say it, it seems that the DMCA is useful in this case.
What leads you to that conclusion? There is nothing useful about the DMCA.
The article seems to imply a dangerous precedent:
"Thus, even though – as discussed above – the court ruled that Glider did not facilitate copyright infringement, MDY could still be liable under the DMCA for circumventing Warden's detection features."
So the DMCA can apparently be used to attack reverse engineering that was not necessarily used to facilitate copyright infringment.