My reading is that the Sioux are a bit pissed off that the planners decided they were worried about Bismark's water supply being polluted but not theirs. I suspect that the burial sites thing is just being pushed as an additional reason.
There's very little precedent regarding the GPL. Most cases that get to trial involve clear cut violations.
The fact is that your example is ridiculous anyway - ScummVM is just an interpreter, it in no way becomes part of what you run with it, the GPL does not apply to the scenario you are talking about. By that logic you couldn't write a proprietary shell script because bash is GPLd !
Section 2b of the GPL v2 says
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
The "work" is the game. This is what is being sold as a single product. The fact that some of the code uses an script interpretor to access the main application and some uses dll interfaces doesn't strike me as a huge difference. The GPL makes no mention of interpretors or linking or anything. Section 2 ends with an attempt to clarify the intent and purpose of the section, but I'd say it makes this even more murky.
It doesn't make much difference what the assets are for. By distributing the interpreter and the game as a single work, GoG.com have created a derived work, which, if we follow the letter of the licence, must be "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
I will say my previous employer had restrictions on use of the GPL based on reasons that most developers would not consider to be restrictions. GoG has a different culture. It's a startup that is willing to take the risk, because they understand the open source community and know that this is not going to be an issue.
Indeed. I was just agreeing with the other poster's point that "The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation."
but if there is any problem at all - it's with GOG not ScummVM. And I don't believe there is an issue since GOG is ScummVM and the assets are two completely disparate projects, GOG is merely doing you the favour of shipping ScummVM preconfigured for you - but you would be quite capable of buying the game from them by itself and doing that yourself. Unbundling here would not benefit anybody - and it wouldn't make anymore more free.
this is what I'm getting at. GoG assume that they are entitled to bundle the assets in this way because the SCUMM team say they can. Do the SCUMM team speak for all the contributors? No, thye don't. GoG could hypothetically face a legal issue from another party, demanding they release, at the very least, the scripted aspects of the SCUMM games.
While GoG's bundling is doing the same thing as anyone else doing so, the same applies to my example of a closed source application using an open source DLL. Legal people want an answer that either is the same for both situations, or some clear explanation as to why these are different. They're not going to advise you to see what "a jury of your peers would determine". Nobody wants that uncertainty. It's an area of vagueness with the licence and what "derived work" actually means.
The SCUMM team might include code from AwesomeGPLProject2. The creators of AwesomeGPLProject2 might disagree with the SCUMM team's view that assets may be distributed under a different licence. Do the scripts I use have to be GPLed? The AwesomeGPLProject2 team might say "Hold on - you're using our code for your proprietary projects. Stop it!" But they may be wrong about the scope of the GPL. GoG could ask all contributors to be sure, but this seems to be losing the benefit of standard licences.
Nope. See above. There is no version where you can distribute a program that is linking (dynamically or statically) to a GPL'd program without having to GPL it yourself. You can run a program that was linked against a proprietary library with a GPL'd one yourself, but you can't give it to anybody else.
Why not? I produce closed source software with a plugin architecture. Loads of people produce third party plugins under different licences. I offer my product with all of these included in the download. Am I barred from including those under the GPL without licencing my code under the GPL? That would seem a strange interpretation.
I'd consider it very likely that Linux is most common if you include Android in the Linux stats. Even if you exclude phones and tablets, it's used for a lot of STBs, satnavs and smart TVs.
True. There is an explicit example of this in the real world. Good Old Games uses the SCUMM VM (licencd under the GPL) for old lucasarts games. The people behind SCUMM VM seem to be of the opinion that assets and code are separate but I could imagine some authors of included code disagreeing that this is the correct interpretation.
I think a more specific issue is dynamically linked libs. I can produce a GPL clone of a closed source DLL. If I replace the closed source library with an GPL one, does an application that uses it need to be open source? I'd say no, because we're not copying anything (or doing anything that would infringe copyright) and the GPL relies on copyright for its teeth. This does seem to lead to a hole.
I'd say Star Trek has pretty good credentials for gender equality (and racial equality). Roddenberry wanted a female first officer, but was overruled. DS9 had a female first officer and a female science officer, and Voyager had a female captain, not to mention countless female admirals and captains seen throughout all the TNG-era series. You might argue that the gender balance is a bit skewed, but that's a minor criticism.
I think a bigger criticism of Trek's equality is they've always been shy about sexuality. I can name dozens of shows with openly gay characters, but Star Trek has only ever addressed this as the moral of the week. Plenty of other shows have had openly gay characters without making too big a deal of it. Paramount was too conservative here.
So an AI that said "guilty" every time would get much better accuracy here:)
That's not really the best comparison though. ECtHR is more comparable to the US Supreme Court. Mostly dealing with appeals based on incompatibilities of legislation with fundamental law.
Orange is the New Black and House of Cards have had 4 seasons each and we're constantly seeing new shows with big budgets and high production values.
Movie fans have already seen Godfather and Empire Strikes back. They'll have a library of DVDs at their disposal. They're not really a huge market. And those that there are often prefer something that they haven't seen.
Nothing wrong with being a "kid's console" though. Kids like games. Nintendo typically addresses this niche as a primary market, whereas Sony and MS seem to see it as secondary to the hardcore gamer.
Nintendo tends to make cheap consoles, so it will appeal to kids. I'll not be surprised if this is priced low enough that two of them are competitive with a PS4/XBOne.
I think this is a roundabout way to eliminate ".com". While the collection of TLDs probably made sense in the early days of the internet, it doesn't really make a lot of sense any more..com has become so ubiquitous that it basically means "internet".
So it should be eliminated. But everybody wants a.com. So they need to make the company TLD a must-have. They do this by making this exclusive. Once google and other big companies have them, everyone elswill want one.
That's because it would be an unreasonable demand in the circumstances. Nothing they can do with their phone in any way affects me, or any other customers I might have.
If I only wanted to get according to my needs, I'd be working a 2 day week.
There's a certain level of social pressure to work 5 days a week though. So I spend the surplus on nice holidays, a nice car and a bunch of other consumer crap that I happen to like. I think people can be bribed with luxuries rather than threatened with starvation.
If they were going to pressure Ecuador to do something, why not pressure them to kick him out? I bet they'd be quite happy to see the back of him if they had a decent excuse.
There is a runaway trolley. It is heading towards an empty stretch of track, where it will stop harmlessly. On the other branch are a group of or philosophy students. Do you switch to kill the philosophers?
And he won't get that for this. This is a maximum possible sentence, assuming guilty of all crimes independently, with a lot of aggravating circumstances.
A key problem seemed to be that Rittmanâ(TM)s kettle didnâ(TM)t come with software that would easily allow integration with other devices in his home, including Amazon Echo, which, like Appleâ(TM)s Siri, allows users to tell connected smart devices what to do.
So Rittman was trying to build the integration functionality himself.
Yeah... I think I see your problem. Perhaps get it to work before trying to do anything clever.
Slashdot Mirror
This map seems to illustrate where the problem is.
My reading is that the Sioux are a bit pissed off that the planners decided they were worried about Bismark's water supply being polluted but not theirs. I suspect that the burial sites thing is just being pushed as an additional reason.
Section 2b of the GPL v2 says "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
The "work" is the game. This is what is being sold as a single product. The fact that some of the code uses an script interpretor to access the main application and some uses dll interfaces doesn't strike me as a huge difference. The GPL makes no mention of interpretors or linking or anything. Section 2 ends with an attempt to clarify the intent and purpose of the section, but I'd say it makes this even more murky.
It doesn't make much difference what the assets are for. By distributing the interpreter and the game as a single work, GoG.com have created a derived work, which, if we follow the letter of the licence, must be "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
I will say my previous employer had restrictions on use of the GPL based on reasons that most developers would not consider to be restrictions. GoG has a different culture. It's a startup that is willing to take the risk, because they understand the open source community and know that this is not going to be an issue.
Indeed. I was just agreeing with the other poster's point that "The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation."
I think the point is largely valid.
this is what I'm getting at. GoG assume that they are entitled to bundle the assets in this way because the SCUMM team say they can. Do the SCUMM team speak for all the contributors? No, thye don't. GoG could hypothetically face a legal issue from another party, demanding they release, at the very least, the scripted aspects of the SCUMM games.
While GoG's bundling is doing the same thing as anyone else doing so, the same applies to my example of a closed source application using an open source DLL. Legal people want an answer that either is the same for both situations, or some clear explanation as to why these are different. They're not going to advise you to see what "a jury of your peers would determine". Nobody wants that uncertainty. It's an area of vagueness with the licence and what "derived work" actually means.
The SCUMM team might include code from AwesomeGPLProject2. The creators of AwesomeGPLProject2 might disagree with the SCUMM team's view that assets may be distributed under a different licence. Do the scripts I use have to be GPLed? The AwesomeGPLProject2 team might say "Hold on - you're using our code for your proprietary projects. Stop it!" But they may be wrong about the scope of the GPL. GoG could ask all contributors to be sure, but this seems to be losing the benefit of standard licences.
Why not? I produce closed source software with a plugin architecture. Loads of people produce third party plugins under different licences. I offer my product with all of these included in the download. Am I barred from including those under the GPL without licencing my code under the GPL? That would seem a strange interpretation.
Yes you can. It doesn't cover the GPL aspect of the code but it does cover your code.
I'd consider it very likely that Linux is most common if you include Android in the Linux stats. Even if you exclude phones and tablets, it's used for a lot of STBs, satnavs and smart TVs.
GPL covers that. Section 3 says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
True. There is an explicit example of this in the real world. Good Old Games uses the SCUMM VM (licencd under the GPL) for old lucasarts games. The people behind SCUMM VM seem to be of the opinion that assets and code are separate but I could imagine some authors of included code disagreeing that this is the correct interpretation.
I think a more specific issue is dynamically linked libs. I can produce a GPL clone of a closed source DLL. If I replace the closed source library with an GPL one, does an application that uses it need to be open source? I'd say no, because we're not copying anything (or doing anything that would infringe copyright) and the GPL relies on copyright for its teeth. This does seem to lead to a hole.
I'd say Star Trek has pretty good credentials for gender equality (and racial equality). Roddenberry wanted a female first officer, but was overruled. DS9 had a female first officer and a female science officer, and Voyager had a female captain, not to mention countless female admirals and captains seen throughout all the TNG-era series. You might argue that the gender balance is a bit skewed, but that's a minor criticism.
I think a bigger criticism of Trek's equality is they've always been shy about sexuality. I can name dozens of shows with openly gay characters, but Star Trek has only ever addressed this as the moral of the week. Plenty of other shows have had openly gay characters without making too big a deal of it. Paramount was too conservative here.
So an AI that said "guilty" every time would get much better accuracy here :)
That's not really the best comparison though. ECtHR is more comparable to the US Supreme Court. Mostly dealing with appeals based on incompatibilities of legislation with fundamental law.
In fact we shouldn't expect these to be too predictable. This is why they go all the way to the ECtHR in the first place
If you need a licence to do whatever you want with the car, you don't own the car. You just have permission to use it.
Orange is the New Black and House of Cards have had 4 seasons each and we're constantly seeing new shows with big budgets and high production values.
Movie fans have already seen Godfather and Empire Strikes back. They'll have a library of DVDs at their disposal. They're not really a huge market. And those that there are often prefer something that they haven't seen.
TV shows are where it's at.
Nothing wrong with being a "kid's console" though. Kids like games. Nintendo typically addresses this niche as a primary market, whereas Sony and MS seem to see it as secondary to the hardcore gamer.
Nintendo tends to make cheap consoles, so it will appeal to kids. I'll not be surprised if this is priced low enough that two of them are competitive with a PS4/XBOne.
I think this is a roundabout way to eliminate ".com". While the collection of TLDs probably made sense in the early days of the internet, it doesn't really make a lot of sense any more. .com has become so ubiquitous that it basically means "internet".
.com. So they need to make the company TLD a must-have. They do this by making this exclusive. Once google and other big companies have them, everyone elswill want one.
So it should be eliminated. But everybody wants a
That's because it would be an unreasonable demand in the circumstances. Nothing they can do with their phone in any way affects me, or any other customers I might have.
Yes. Propaganda is protected speech. As are a lot of other things you might dislike.
If I only wanted to get according to my needs, I'd be working a 2 day week.
There's a certain level of social pressure to work 5 days a week though. So I spend the surplus on nice holidays, a nice car and a bunch of other consumer crap that I happen to like. I think people can be bribed with luxuries rather than threatened with starvation.
If they were going to pressure Ecuador to do something, why not pressure them to kick him out? I bet they'd be quite happy to see the back of him if they had a decent excuse.
He's not the customer's employee. They're the customer of the business. He's a business partner, not an employee.
And yes. I make all sorts of demands of my employer. They tend to be reasonable (salary, days off, essential equipment) so my employer says "okay".
There is a runaway trolley. It is heading towards an empty stretch of track, where it will stop harmlessly. On the other branch are a group of or philosophy students. Do you switch to kill the philosophers?
And he won't get that for this. This is a maximum possible sentence, assuming guilty of all crimes independently, with a lot of aggravating circumstances.
Getting something to do something it's not designed to do takes time. I'm not sure why this is in any way remarkable.
Yeah... I think I see your problem. Perhaps get it to work before trying to do anything clever.