The drug dealer didn't voluntarily sign a contract with the government agreeing to have some rights waived, as people who voluntarily enter the military or intelligence agencies do.
No it's not. According to Snowden's logic, a jury should decide on whether this is malicious or whistleblowing for the greater good.
With respect to national security matters whistleblowing would be going to Congress not the press. Plus there is the issue of waving certain rights when you voluntarily enter into a contract with the military or intelligence agencies.
Also for trials involving classified material shouldn't a jury of peers be people with an appropriate security clearance and not the general public?;-)
But should violating your security clearance cost you the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers?
When one voluntarily joins the military or an intelligence agency one voluntarily signs a contract agreeing that one's rights will be limited during the term of that contract.
Whistle blowing would be going to an appropriate Senator or Member of the House and saying something like "I have classified information that the Congress should be aware of", and waiting for members of Congress with intelligence oversight authority ordering her to reveal the information.
And the point of the article was to let a jury decide that.
Juries decide the facts based on the evidence, i.e. did she knowing disclose classified information. Why she did so does not alter such facts. Why she did so is something to consider during sentencing as a mitigating factor to perhaps give her a lighter sentence.
Then you should already know that RAD offers license and royalty free source releases for the 3rd party game tools prior to 1999. Which is the only licensed 3rd party tool that was used by blizzard at the time for their development.
A source license does not allow the licensee to redistribute source code. If differs from a traditional binary license in that you get the source code so you can fix things or change things and redistribute your own binary. A source license is the only sane way to use a 3rd party library.
The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)
That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not.
It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has.
When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.
Guess you don't know anybody who's worked for Blizzard huh?
That would be a very very bad guess.
That policy changed around the time WC3 was released and they started working on their first MMO.
No, I'm familiar with things going back to SC1/D1 days. Employees had work for hire contracts. Matter of fact anything game related they wrote belonged to Blizzard even when on their own time and computer; they had to explicitly have exceptions put into an addendum to their contract for personal projects they wanted to continue to support. Problems relicensing code are in 3rd party libraries like movie playback, not in Blizzard written code.
The only thing I miss about my friends working for them is it was great to be a part of the F&F Team.
Also known as "visiting hours" by employees, when friends and family got to visit during "crunch time" and play the game before public beta.
No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute...
The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)
That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not. The proprietary version must be built from source code without the GPL.
No. A single code base can be shared under GPL and published in binary form under a different licence.
The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.
It can be built from the same code base. The GPL does not prevent this, where the code is owned by the person creating the non-GPL licenced version.
Yet it is an entirely separate work from the perspective of the GPL, not a derivative as the original post I responded to suggested. Plus the way things typically work i that the non-GPL version is the standard company version and the GPL version is a derivative of that.
> You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries.
Yes you can, it's call dual licensing.
Did you read my second paragraph, I explained dual licensing? Only the non-GPL instance of your code can make proprietary binaries, never the GPL instance.
There is no contradiction. The code exists in two instances one GPL and one not-GPL. The GPL version can never create proprietary binaries, it can never limit the person downstream. The post I replied to seriously misstated the GPL's working and mixed up things from dual licensing. It is only the non-GPL version that can create proprietary binaries. If its not-GPL, its not a derivative of the GPL. The GPL does not allow a derivative to remove the GPL. The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.
No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute to their hearts content.
To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. Have two copies of their source code, one under GPL and one under something proprietary compatible. Only binaries built from the non-GPL version of the source code can remain proprietary.
No, it's because some of the people who worked for Blizzard and wrote the original Starcraft code aren't at Blizzard anymore but still have ownership of those snippits of code. Remember how the industry used to be? Where code sections you wrote would remain under your power, as a part of your employment at the company?
No. Never. The Starcraft developers were Blizzard employees. Blizzards Inc owns and controls all code. Employees got paychecks in the typical "work for hire" manner that transfers copyright to the company.
The source code is not being released because it is partly still in use. The game engine is the same code in the upcoming 4K display compatible release, which is network/gameplay compatible with this free version. Its only the graphics code that is changing.
I failed one class in my life, an 8am Freshman Calculus class. Freshman calc, 2nd year calc, differential equations, linear algebra,... in the afternoon no problem.
I am not discussing net neutrality, etc. I am discussing gender pay equality, female participation. In these Google is absolutely in line with the political left. In words but not deeds.
The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.
You don't get raises if you don't ask, and the men seemed to be more headstrong about asking.
Its not just asking, its being willing to leave. I worked at a company part time as a software developer while in school working on a computer science degree. It was a great job, flexible hours to accommodate my class schedule, etc. When I graduated I brought up the topic of my salary, expecting at least the industry average of the region. Management said that would be too large a percentage increase and offered me something below the industry average. I pointed out that I have been with them for over two, am fully trained for their specialties, and have received very good reviews. My manager said his hands were tied, too big a percentage increase. I started a job search that night.
Six weeks later I was back in front of my manager submitting my resignation after accepting a new job elsewhere. He instantly offered to match my current job offer, which was a little above what I had originally asked of him. I asked what happened to the percentage increase problem. He said that in light of the new circumstances that could be waived. I told him I was sorry (I lied) but that I had already accepted the other offer and would not be breaking my word (the truth).
I was happy, liked the work, liked my coworkers, but I was young, aggressive and not going to take that sort of BS.
I think you are confusing the phrase "about half", especially in the context of what Google's N would be. P.S. The audience is not math/stat students.
There could well be a few very well paid people that skew the mean...
Except that the data being referred to is pay by position. Exceptionally talented people would have very different positions than what most applicants are applying for.
I see, you think it is 'evil' what Google is doing.
No, I think it is hypocritical. Google supports the political left which indeed demands pay equality. But like many liberal elites, the rules are for others, not for them.
My post was also satire for those coming from the left who equate those giving away free stuff and offering superficial nice words as the good people. Those who judge other by intentions rather than by results, intentions which can easily be a mask.
You can Google average salary info for the type of position you are looking for. No need to specify your gender...
If its average then about half the current employees are below it. And why would an applicant think they are going to start above average, above half the current employees at Google, employees who have had reviews, raises, etc? Ask for average and you price yourself out of a job possibly, regardless of whether you are male or female.
There must be a mistake because google is all about not being evil. Its right their in their corporate motto. That is how we know we can trust them with everything, the motto and the free stuff.
If they call it a severance package it is a severance package. There might be two, one a defined severance package from your original contract plus an optional severance package they offer you when announcing your layoff. Two independent contracts, one old, one new.
A "new additional contract" is not a severance package.
Yes, it can be. You original contract may not promise one. When notified of your "layoff" one may be offered, say three months pay in exchange for staying an extra month to train replacements. Decline, you get a check for outstanding work and vacation hours that day and you are gone. Accept and you are on payroll for an additional month and you get three months additional pay when you leave, in a month.
You statutory rights are nothing more than payment for hours worked and accumulated vacation time. You might have additional contractual rights depending on your original employment contract and of course a new and separate contract can be offered as described above.
Slashdot Mirror
The drug dealer gets to have a jury, though.
The drug dealer didn't voluntarily sign a contract with the government agreeing to have some rights waived, as people who voluntarily enter the military or intelligence agencies do.
Thats pretty much common law, Juries are supposed to judge both the accused and the law itself. That is their exact function in our society.
Its also common law to hang traitors. You sure you want to go the medieval historical precedent path? :-)
No it's not. According to Snowden's logic, a jury should decide on whether this is malicious or whistleblowing for the greater good.
With respect to national security matters whistleblowing would be going to Congress not the press. Plus there is the issue of waving certain rights when you voluntarily enter into a contract with the military or intelligence agencies.
;-)
Also for trials involving classified material shouldn't a jury of peers be people with an appropriate security clearance and not the general public?
But should violating your security clearance cost you the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers?
When one voluntarily joins the military or an intelligence agency one voluntarily signs a contract agreeing that one's rights will be limited during the term of that contract.
Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing.
Whistle blowing would be going to an appropriate Senator or Member of the House and saying something like "I have classified information that the Congress should be aware of", and waiting for members of Congress with intelligence oversight authority ordering her to reveal the information.
> Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing.
And the point of the article was to let a jury decide that.
Juries decide the facts based on the evidence, i.e. did she knowing disclose classified information. Why she did so does not alter such facts. Why she did so is something to consider during sentencing as a mitigating factor to perhaps give her a lighter sentence.
Then you should already know that RAD offers license and royalty free source releases for the 3rd party game tools prior to 1999. Which is the only licensed 3rd party tool that was used by blizzard at the time for their development.
A source license does not allow the licensee to redistribute source code. If differs from a traditional binary license in that you get the source code so you can fix things or change things and redistribute your own binary. A source license is the only sane way to use a 3rd party library.
It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has.
When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.
Guess you don't know anybody who's worked for Blizzard huh?
That would be a very very bad guess.
That policy changed around the time WC3 was released and they started working on their first MMO.
No, I'm familiar with things going back to SC1/D1 days. Employees had work for hire contracts. Matter of fact anything game related they wrote belonged to Blizzard even when on their own time and computer; they had to explicitly have exceptions put into an addendum to their contract for personal projects they wanted to continue to support. Problems relicensing code are in 3rd party libraries like movie playback, not in Blizzard written code.
The only thing I miss about my friends working for them is it was great to be a part of the F&F Team.
Also known as "visiting hours" by employees, when friends and family got to visit during "crunch time" and play the game before public beta.
The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)
That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not. The proprietary version must be built from source code without the GPL.
No. A single code base can be shared under GPL and published in binary form under a different licence.
The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.
It can be built from the same code base. The GPL does not prevent this, where the code is owned by the person creating the non-GPL licenced version.
Yet it is an entirely separate work from the perspective of the GPL, not a derivative as the original post I responded to suggested. Plus the way things typically work i that the non-GPL version is the standard company version and the GPL version is a derivative of that.
> You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries.
Yes you can, it's call dual licensing.
Did you read my second paragraph, I explained dual licensing? Only the non-GPL instance of your code can make proprietary binaries, never the GPL instance.
There is no contradiction. The code exists in two instances one GPL and one not-GPL. The GPL version can never create proprietary binaries, it can never limit the person downstream. The post I replied to seriously misstated the GPL's working and mixed up things from dual licensing. It is only the non-GPL version that can create proprietary binaries. If its not-GPL, its not a derivative of the GPL. The GPL does not allow a derivative to remove the GPL. The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.
No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute to their hearts content.
To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. Have two copies of their source code, one under GPL and one under something proprietary compatible. Only binaries built from the non-GPL version of the source code can remain proprietary.
No, it's because some of the people who worked for Blizzard and wrote the original Starcraft code aren't at Blizzard anymore but still have ownership of those snippits of code. Remember how the industry used to be? Where code sections you wrote would remain under your power, as a part of your employment at the company?
No. Never. The Starcraft developers were Blizzard employees. Blizzards Inc owns and controls all code. Employees got paychecks in the typical "work for hire" manner that transfers copyright to the company.
The source code is not being released because it is partly still in use. The game engine is the same code in the upcoming 4K display compatible release, which is network/gameplay compatible with this free version. Its only the graphics code that is changing.
I failed one class in my life, an 8am Freshman Calculus class. Freshman calc, 2nd year calc, differential equations, linear algebra, ... in the afternoon no problem.
I am not discussing net neutrality, etc. I am discussing gender pay equality, female participation. In these Google is absolutely in line with the political left. In words but not deeds.
Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.
The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.
You don't get raises if you don't ask, and the men seemed to be more headstrong about asking.
Its not just asking, its being willing to leave. I worked at a company part time as a software developer while in school working on a computer science degree. It was a great job, flexible hours to accommodate my class schedule, etc. When I graduated I brought up the topic of my salary, expecting at least the industry average of the region. Management said that would be too large a percentage increase and offered me something below the industry average. I pointed out that I have been with them for over two, am fully trained for their specialties, and have received very good reviews. My manager said his hands were tied, too big a percentage increase. I started a job search that night.
Six weeks later I was back in front of my manager submitting my resignation after accepting a new job elsewhere. He instantly offered to match my current job offer, which was a little above what I had originally asked of him. I asked what happened to the percentage increase problem. He said that in light of the new circumstances that could be waived. I told him I was sorry (I lied) but that I had already accepted the other offer and would not be breaking my word (the truth).
I was happy, liked the work, liked my coworkers, but I was young, aggressive and not going to take that sort of BS.
I think you are confusing mean with median.
I think you are confusing the phrase "about half", especially in the context of what Google's N would be. P.S. The audience is not math/stat students.
There could well be a few very well paid people that skew the mean...
Except that the data being referred to is pay by position. Exceptionally talented people would have very different positions than what most applicants are applying for.
I see, you think it is 'evil' what Google is doing.
No, I think it is hypocritical. Google supports the political left which indeed demands pay equality. But like many liberal elites, the rules are for others, not for them.
My post was also satire for those coming from the left who equate those giving away free stuff and offering superficial nice words as the good people. Those who judge other by intentions rather than by results, intentions which can easily be a mask.
You can Google average salary info for the type of position you are looking for. No need to specify your gender...
If its average then about half the current employees are below it. And why would an applicant think they are going to start above average, above half the current employees at Google, employees who have had reviews, raises, etc? Ask for average and you price yourself out of a job possibly, regardless of whether you are male or female.
There must be a mistake because google is all about not being evil. Its right their in their corporate motto. That is how we know we can trust them with everything, the motto and the free stuff.
Again, that's not a severance package.
If they call it a severance package it is a severance package. There might be two, one a defined severance package from your original contract plus an optional severance package they offer you when announcing your layoff. Two independent contracts, one old, one new.
A "new additional contract" is not a severance package.
Yes, it can be. You original contract may not promise one. When notified of your "layoff" one may be offered, say three months pay in exchange for staying an extra month to train replacements. Decline, you get a check for outstanding work and vacation hours that day and you are gone. Accept and you are on payroll for an additional month and you get three months additional pay when you leave, in a month.
You statutory rights are nothing more than payment for hours worked and accumulated vacation time. You might have additional contractual rights depending on your original employment contract and of course a new and separate contract can be offered as described above.