Step 1: Bob downloads Jim's copyrighted GPL'd work. Bob has no right to distribute (or even use) Jim's work.
Step 2: Bob accepts Jim's contract, granting him the right to use and redistribute his product as long as he releases anything he makes with it, INCLUDING PROGRAMS LINKED WITH IT. It shouldn't matter if this falls under some technical definition of "derivative work", it's still an action that requires GPL'ing the new code under the terms of the GPL-contract with Jim.
(By the way, IANAL so I don't know if this how the GPL actually works, but it's how it SHOULD work.)
For the last time, this is copyright law and not software license law. As an individual, you have absolutely no rights to distribute except those explicitly granted by a contract with the copyright holder. Under the GPL, the only way you can get the right to redistribute the work is by agreeing to a contract (NOTE: not a license, a contract) with the copyright holder agreeing that you will distribute the source to your derivative work with the GPL'd code included. If you don't agree to this license, you have no right to distribute your derivatve work. End of story.
Think for a minute: How does watermarking prevent large-scale pirating? It doesn't. All the pirate has to do is get a DVD, pull the data off bit-by-bit, and submit it as an order to a DVD manufacturing house. Having it watermarked won't help, because the watermark will be copied along with the rest of it. The only logical reason why the MPAA is pushing for this watermarking stuff is that they have ulterior motives. They are more interested in removing normal law-abiding citizens' rights and then selling them back than they are about large-scale pirating. If they were really concerned about large-scale pirates, they'd opt for some sort of hologram system.
What he does at the end of the movie completely changes the perspective of the entire movie up to that point. Seeing it the first time is a complete shock and you have to basically watch the entire movie again keeping the ending in mind to fully understand what's going on. One of the advantages of telling the story backwards is that things later in the film affect things earlier in the film, and Momento uses this very effectively.
I saw it on an Air France flight back to the US a couple of months ago. I watched it two-and-a-half times, and I still don't have the entire story straight. That's a REALLY good movie!
Making an autononomous robot changes the competition completely. For one, the robots would be a lot slower. Also, the problem to be solved would be a LOT simpler. This shouldn't disappoint: The problem of making a remote-controlled robot to do a complex task is just as hard or harder than making an autonomous robot do easy task.
While I agree with your point, I don't agree with your example. There are very few games, in my opinion, that wouldn't benefit from releasing their source. In fact, games are prime examples of things that SHOULD be open-sourced. Just look at all the different versions of Doom, D1x, etc. As long as the company doesn't release their LEVELS as well, they're fine. (On the other hand, graphics engines probably shouldn't be open-sourced or the developer wouldn't be able to sell any).
You're completely wrong. In an ideal world, you would be paying the RIAA for every minute you listen to music of any kind, including on the radio. Not only is this good for the artists, it's good for the consumer too because they're giving their money to a worthy cause: the poor, helpless RIAA and the poor, helpless artists they represent. You should feel ashamed at yourself for not buying that Britney Spears CD. Because of you, she had to go without food for a day. How do you feel now, you dirty, thieving pirate scum!
That's multihoming and I'm pretty sure you have to get your ISP's to do special things if you want it to work the way you describe. Just using two default routes, you'd be able to have more connections at their max bandwidth, but you wouldn't get twice the bandwidth on a single connection. (Of course, I'm probably wrong.)
ease of use of an apple and the logic and design of the OS.
I won't get into the whole "ease of use" issue, but have you ever, even once, looked at the way MacOS works? The whole duct-tape-and-string toolbox-and-interrupts mess of it? It's TERRIBLE! It's a surprise the whole things works as well as it does, let alone works at all. MacOS X is a step in the right direction that Microsoft took when they went to Windows NT and Apple should have taken with Be or, failing that, NeXT. That Apple stayed with their crufty, awful, MacOS is a tribute to their stupiditiy.
</rant>
Joe User goes to a porno site and gives them his credit card number. They start running his card dry.
Joe goes running to Friendly Government Fraud-busting Agency. They decide to help him.
Good Guy, an employee of this agency, goes to the site while researching the case.
Evil Buraucrat, while looking at the filewall logs, decides he doesn't like Guy and gets him fired for looking at pornographic materials.
Now, I know this is a bit extreme but there's really nothing preventing Evil from doing such a dasterdly deed (assuming the poster didn't twist the wording of the ruling).
Aaron Plattner
Certainly not your right to bear arms and form a militia, and most likely not the one about quartering troops. The rest, maybe, if you're really lucky.
The kits are really not pre-fab robots, and the size and weight restrictions are there more to make the competition fair and prevent people from pouring money and/or power into their robots than they are to restrict students. Even though the kits contain all the same parts, they're mostly things like motors, wheels, and wire that any robot is going to need anyway. Very little re-engineering is required. If it were entirely up to the students to make the robots, most teams would come to the competition with duct-tape-and-string robots while others would have things that looked like NASA projects (the good ones, not the ones that spontaneously died).
Yeah, I remember that. That was fun! By the way, you do know we're sponsored by Rockwell now, don't you? The guys at Rockwell are great though. We get to use Rockwell facilities and we were actually competitive last year and are hoping to be even better this year without becoming a totally Rockwell-run team. Not all the large sponsors are bad. I do agree, though, that the teams where none of the students know how the robots works are pretty sad.
This guy is talking about Canadian FIRST and I think you're talking about US FIRST (At least, I remember a Wildstang team from US FIRST before). How long has Canada's FIRST been around? It sounds to me like they're either underprepared, just getting started, or a real scam. (Their website is certainly better-looking than US FIRST's).
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not like we're all going to be prosecuted for using our shoutcast servers or anything.
They said they won't prosecute you, but they can change their mind at any time, which is scary. I wouldn't get too relaxed, if I were you...
Yeah, but are you paying ANSI a license, or are you using "illegal circumvention devices"? You could go to jail!
Step 1: Bob downloads Jim's copyrighted GPL'd work. Bob has no right to distribute (or even use) Jim's work.
Step 2: Bob accepts Jim's contract, granting him the right to use and redistribute his product as long as he releases anything he makes with it, INCLUDING PROGRAMS LINKED WITH IT. It shouldn't matter if this falls under some technical definition of "derivative work", it's still an action that requires GPL'ing the new code under the terms of the GPL-contract with Jim.
(By the way, IANAL so I don't know if this how the GPL actually works, but it's how it SHOULD work.)
For the last time, this is copyright law and not software license law. As an individual, you have absolutely no rights to distribute except those explicitly granted by a contract with the copyright holder. Under the GPL, the only way you can get the right to redistribute the work is by agreeing to a contract (NOTE: not a license, a contract) with the copyright holder agreeing that you will distribute the source to your derivative work with the GPL'd code included. If you don't agree to this license, you have no right to distribute your derivatve work. End of story.
Think for a minute: How does watermarking prevent large-scale pirating? It doesn't. All the pirate has to do is get a DVD, pull the data off bit-by-bit, and submit it as an order to a DVD manufacturing house. Having it watermarked won't help, because the watermark will be copied along with the rest of it. The only logical reason why the MPAA is pushing for this watermarking stuff is that they have ulterior motives. They are more interested in removing normal law-abiding citizens' rights and then selling them back than they are about large-scale pirating. If they were really concerned about large-scale pirates, they'd opt for some sort of hologram system.
I agree. I think the MPAA and the RIAA should be given the prestigous "US-constitution-wrapped-around-a-brick-thrown-thr ough-the-window" award.
Somebody should propose a law making it illegal for media providers to purposefully use technological means to restrict consumers' fair-use rights.
And watermarking the content helps with this how? There's no reason the pirated DVD's won't be identical (including the watermark) to the real thing.
No, a site license means that you can get upgrades, not new OEM copies of Windows. It's a really dumb distinction, but it's there.
What he does at the end of the movie completely changes the perspective of the entire movie up to that point. Seeing it the first time is a complete shock and you have to basically watch the entire movie again keeping the ending in mind to fully understand what's going on. One of the advantages of telling the story backwards is that things later in the film affect things earlier in the film, and Momento uses this very effectively.
I saw it on an Air France flight back to the US a couple of months ago. I watched it two-and-a-half times, and I still don't have the entire story straight. That's a REALLY good movie!
Robot != Autononomous
Not all robots are autonomous robots.
Making an autononomous robot changes the competition completely. For one, the robots would be a lot slower. Also, the problem to be solved would be a LOT simpler. This shouldn't disappoint: The problem of making a remote-controlled robot to do a complex task is just as hard or harder than making an autonomous robot do easy task.
This reminds me a lot of the AOL vs. MSN Messenger battle. Why does AOL feel like it has to prosecute everyone?
While I agree with your point, I don't agree with your example. There are very few games, in my opinion, that wouldn't benefit from releasing their source. In fact, games are prime examples of things that SHOULD be open-sourced. Just look at all the different versions of Doom, D1x, etc. As long as the company doesn't release their LEVELS as well, they're fine. (On the other hand, graphics engines probably shouldn't be open-sourced or the developer wouldn't be able to sell any).
You're completely wrong. In an ideal world, you would be paying the RIAA for every minute you listen to music of any kind, including on the radio. Not only is this good for the artists, it's good for the consumer too because they're giving their money to a worthy cause: the poor, helpless RIAA and the poor, helpless artists they represent. You should feel ashamed at yourself for not buying that Britney Spears CD. Because of you, she had to go without food for a day. How do you feel now, you dirty, thieving pirate scum!
</sarcasm>Er, I don't think "convert" has support for Ogg Vorbis (yet), so you'll have to do some more nasty work than that (that's what shell scripts are for).
You should add a disclaimer at the beginning of the script that says "WARNING: If you're using this to convert your MP3 collection, YOU ARE A MORON!".
That's multihoming and I'm pretty sure you have to get your ISP's to do special things if you want it to work the way you describe. Just using two default routes, you'd be able to have more connections at their max bandwidth, but you wouldn't get twice the bandwidth on a single connection. (Of course, I'm probably wrong.)
Aaron Plattner
ease of use of an apple and the logic and design of the OS.
I won't get into the whole "ease of use" issue, but have you ever, even once, looked at the way MacOS works? The whole duct-tape-and-string toolbox-and-interrupts mess of it? It's TERRIBLE! It's a surprise the whole things works as well as it does, let alone works at all. MacOS X is a step in the right direction that Microsoft took when they went to Windows NT and Apple should have taken with Be or, failing that, NeXT. That Apple stayed with their crufty, awful, MacOS is a tribute to their stupiditiy.
</rant>
- Joe User goes to a porno site and gives them his credit card number. They start running his card dry.
- Joe goes running to Friendly Government Fraud-busting Agency. They decide to help him.
- Good Guy, an employee of this agency, goes to the site while researching the case.
- Evil Buraucrat, while looking at the filewall logs, decides he doesn't like Guy and gets him fired for looking at pornographic materials.
Now, I know this is a bit extreme but there's really nothing preventing Evil from doing such a dasterdly deed (assuming the poster didn't twist the wording of the ruling).Aaron Plattner
Certainly not your right to bear arms and form a militia, and most likely not the one about quartering troops. The rest, maybe, if you're really lucky.
The kits are really not pre-fab robots, and the size and weight restrictions are there more to make the competition fair and prevent people from pouring money and/or power into their robots than they are to restrict students. Even though the kits contain all the same parts, they're mostly things like motors, wheels, and wire that any robot is going to need anyway. Very little re-engineering is required. If it were entirely up to the students to make the robots, most teams would come to the competition with duct-tape-and-string robots while others would have things that looked like NASA projects (the good ones, not the ones that spontaneously died).
Aaron Plattner
And it's the biggest medal I've ever seen! Lots of pennies in those things...
Yeah, I remember that. That was fun! By the way, you do know we're sponsored by Rockwell now, don't you? The guys at Rockwell are great though. We get to use Rockwell facilities and we were actually competitive last year and are hoping to be even better this year without becoming a totally Rockwell-run team. Not all the large sponsors are bad. I do agree, though, that the teams where none of the students know how the robots works are pretty sad.
Aaron Plattner
This guy is talking about Canadian FIRST and I think you're talking about US FIRST (At least, I remember a Wildstang team from US FIRST before). How long has Canada's FIRST been around? It sounds to me like they're either underprepared, just getting started, or a real scam. (Their website is certainly better-looking than US FIRST's).