But that means that the small, insignificant works can also remain copyrighted forever. An increasing percentage of zero is still zero. And Microsoft et al. would minimize their income the same way they minimize their taxes.
I've been waiting for someone to say that. I'd mod you up if I had the points. I wish there was some way to do this, so that when I'm in the middle of a long string of Undo/Redo commands (to, say, get some text that I erased a while ago) I don't have to be extra-careful not to type anything or risk losing all my redo buffer.
Don't forget that copyright originally applied to books and maps, and that today we have computer programs. While the lifespan of a book (i.e., the time that the work could be considered of value) is rather long (we still read Shakespear and the Bible), computer programs are largely useless after only several years. Consider the original code to DOS 1985+14=1999, +14=2013 would be the year the extended term ran out. Even after fourteen years (1999) DOS would be pretty useless in most cases (yes, I'm aware that it has its uses, but Debian is mainstream compared to them).
In my humble opinion, the "lifetime of the author" idea is very bad. The whole idea of copyrights is to encourage people to create, but if once the creator creates a sufficiently large money-maker, he is done for life, then copyright law has failed in its (original) task. I also don't think copyright should expire after the creator does (pardon the pun), because that would not provide someone old, or dying, etc. the same encouragement as someone in the middle of life. The point is that anyone out to earn money does so (in general) not only for herself, but also for her heirs, especially if they are her children. These two facts combined are the reason why I feel a fixed term is the best solution. I also believe unlimited extensions are a bad thing. Think of it this way: you are paying the govornment in exchange for a monopoly on the distribution rights. Think you should be able to buy yourself a monopoly? I don't. (That said, perhaps a good system for working out the fee can convince me, but I doubt it.)
Try this version instead: "We will give you the following monopoly on producing/deciding who produces copies of your content, in return for you creating the content in the first place". The notion that it has anything to do with property at all (including the mere existence of the term "intellectual property") is what causes the misconception, that the author somehow deserves this right as an unaliable right, comparable to the right to own property.
If your user account has sudo privilages, and someone gets your user password, they can run programs as root w/o your root password. The assumption is that you are slightly more careful with your root password than with your user password, I guess, and that you can't log in remotely as root. (That depends on your configuration, but it's standard practice)
It's actually base 36, becase it has 36 digits (0-9, A-Z). So it's 33*36+16, which is 1204. But you're assuming XP is in base 36. It could be in the special encoding system called "billcode". The rules: Anything starting with "lin" and ending with "ux" is automatically negative...
Aren't journalling filesystems implemented in the kernel side? Doesn't that make it (sorta kinda) server-side code? Or, if there's only one client, then of course you can do everything without the formality of having a separate server. That said, I believe it is possible to fake transactions completely using only client-side code (if you have semaphores or other atomic locks provided for you, that is). I think it's an interesting problem in computer science. If there's proof that this thing cannot be accomplished, I'd be very interested.
I think the difference your teacher's case and this case is that while the pro-life/pro-choice issue is very well-known by the public, the public (that is to say, the non-/.-reading public) does not know about this issue. I think the idea is that once the public finds out about the issue, everyone will be against the DMCA (or certain aspects of it)
You're correct about obscure third-party functions, but if you put too many comments explaining functionality (x->run();/* run x */ i++/* increment i */), your code will be cluttered to the point of unreadability.
If you're viewing a YRO (your rights online) article and click on the big slashdot icon at the top, you are sent, not to the home page, but to the YRO home page. Same for any other section.
It talks about how [Microsoft's new license, that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products] does not allow [software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement].
That's because the source is usually available from the same place and on the same terms as the binary, and that's also accepted by the GPL. (e.g., click here to get the binary and here to get the source is all you need).
3. You may copy and distribute the Program... provided that you also do one of the following:...
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code...
The answer is hat KDE "chooses" to include binaries that are submitted to them. If nobody gave them FreeBSD binaries, they won't include them. As simple as that.
.....betweeen a Microsoft Product and a Virus/Trojan ?
Viruses reduce productivity, consume system resources and annoy the users of a computer system.
So far, it seems that Windows is a virus.
However, viruses work as expected, are well-coded and documented and have 99% uptime.
Conclusion: Windows is not a virus. Windows is a bug.
So was win95.
One thing that nobody seems to remember was any version of Windows before 3.1. I'll be 19 next month, but my first computer was a PS/2 (386) that ran DOS 4.01 and Windows/386, which is a version of Windows 2.
Slashdot Mirror
But that means that the small, insignificant works can also remain copyrighted forever. An increasing percentage of zero is still zero. And Microsoft et al. would minimize their income the same way they minimize their taxes.
I've been waiting for someone to say that. I'd mod you up if I had the points. I wish there was some way to do this, so that when I'm in the middle of a long string of Undo/Redo commands (to, say, get some text that I erased a while ago) I don't have to be extra-careful not to type anything or risk losing all my redo buffer.
Don't forget that copyright originally applied to books and maps, and that today we have computer programs. While the lifespan of a book (i.e., the time that the work could be considered of value) is rather long (we still read Shakespear and the Bible), computer programs are largely useless after only several years. Consider the original code to DOS 1985+14=1999, +14=2013 would be the year the extended term ran out. Even after fourteen years (1999) DOS would be pretty useless in most cases (yes, I'm aware that it has its uses, but Debian is mainstream compared to them).
In my humble opinion, the "lifetime of the author" idea is very bad. The whole idea of copyrights is to encourage people to create, but if once the creator creates a sufficiently large money-maker, he is done for life, then copyright law has failed in its (original) task. I also don't think copyright should expire after the creator does (pardon the pun), because that would not provide someone old, or dying, etc. the same encouragement as someone in the middle of life. The point is that anyone out to earn money does so (in general) not only for herself, but also for her heirs, especially if they are her children. These two facts combined are the reason why I feel a fixed term is the best solution.
I also believe unlimited extensions are a bad thing. Think of it this way: you are paying the govornment in exchange for a monopoly on the distribution rights. Think you should be able to buy yourself a monopoly? I don't. (That said, perhaps a good system for working out the fee can convince me, but I doubt it.)
Try this version instead: "We will give you the following monopoly on producing/deciding who produces copies of your content, in return for you creating the content in the first place". The notion that it has anything to do with property at all (including the mere existence of the term "intellectual property") is what causes the misconception, that the author somehow deserves this right as an unaliable right, comparable to the right to own property.
If your user account has sudo privilages, and someone gets your user password, they can run programs as root w/o your root password. The assumption is that you are slightly more careful with your root password than with your user password, I guess, and that you can't log in remotely as root. (That depends on your configuration, but it's standard practice)
That's also why you're not allowed a semicolon immediately before the word "else" in an if statement.
It's actually base 36, becase it has 36 digits (0-9, A-Z). So it's 33*36+16, which is 1204.
But you're assuming XP is in base 36. It could be in the special encoding system called "billcode". The rules: Anything starting with "lin" and ending with "ux" is automatically negative...
Aren't journalling filesystems implemented in the kernel side? Doesn't that make it (sorta kinda) server-side code? Or, if there's only one client, then of course you can do everything without the formality of having a separate server.
That said, I believe it is possible to fake transactions completely using only client-side code (if you have semaphores or other atomic locks provided for you, that is). I think it's an interesting problem in computer science. If there's proof that this thing cannot be accomplished, I'd be very interested.
The second DVD had the extras. The movie itself was only one DVD.
Internationalization.
There are 18 letters between the I and the N.
There's also l10n, which stands for localization.
I think the difference your teacher's case and this case is that while the pro-life/pro-choice issue is very well-known by the public, the public (that is to say, the non-/.-reading public) does not know about this issue. I think the idea is that once the public finds out about the issue, everyone will be against the DMCA (or certain aspects of it)
It's true, but they won't ship outside the US and Canada.
You're correct about obscure third-party functions, but if you put too many comments explaining functionality (x->run(); /* run x */ i++ /* increment i */), your code will be cluttered to the point of unreadability.
You're practically guaranteed a huge amount of $.
If you're viewing a YRO (your rights online) article and click on the big slashdot icon at the top, you are sent, not to the home page, but to the YRO home page. Same for any other section.
That was terrible
Don't dare count the syllables
Curse those long class names
Sorry, couldn't resist.
3. Profit!
Took me a while to understand :-)
It talks about how
[Microsoft's new license, that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products]
does not allow
[software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement].
But it's slashdotted already. Off to find a mirror...
That's because the source is usually available from the same place and on the same terms as the binary, and that's also accepted by the GPL. (e.g., click here to get the binary and here to get the source is all you need).
3. You may copy and distribute the Program... provided that you also do one of the following: ...
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code...
The answer is hat KDE "chooses" to include binaries that are submitted to them. If nobody gave them FreeBSD binaries, they won't include them. As simple as that.
Viruses reduce productivity, consume system resources and annoy the users of a computer system.
So far, it seems that Windows is a virus.
However, viruses work as expected, are well-coded and documented and have 99% uptime.
Conclusion: Windows is not a virus. Windows is a bug.
So was win95.
One thing that nobody seems to remember was any version of Windows before 3.1. I'll be 19 next month, but my first computer was a PS/2 (386) that ran DOS 4.01 and Windows/386, which is a version of Windows 2.