I've been reading a lot about the anti-open source crusade by Microsoft.
Now the way I see this debate is: for the crazy hyper restrictive bordeline abusive EULAS that are now common in the software word, a very strong copyright law must exist. The law must give wide and far reaching means to the autors to control the distribution of their works.
Now, if the law gives MS the right to control their works in such a complete and broad way, how can a licence like the GPL or any other community based licence not be strenghten by the strong stance software developpers are taking?
It seems to me that for MS to win on this front, "we" have to win to.
Or is there something I don't get? I know some people on/. just go nuts when the discussion moves onto copyright law , but the fact is that for the GPL to be enforceable, we NEED a very very strong protection on software. If "we" get it, so does MS. And MS is likely to be working very hard to insure that they have the law on their side, thus doing work for the open source/free software/alternative licencing creed communities.
Is there a loophole where the rights of MS on their software could be different that rights granted by open licences?
Sorry. Been using OS X full time since it's release. PB before that.
Sush!
It does NOT have full support out of the box. It has NO suport for Localtalk.
It does however, and I think that's what you're refering to, have ful Appleshare support, but over TCP/IP. So it does indeed integrate well with 8.6 and above machines.
Just FYI, OS X does not support AppleTalk (networking protocol) for anything but printing. It does not support LocalTalk (network topology) at all.
File Sharing and other network services are all based on TCP/IP.
Well for Mac there is a really nice package called Oculus that does all what is wanted here.
But it's not free or open or whatever. Don't go there is these things offend you.
I suppose that for transmission of the data, the solutions using HAM packet radios would be perfect. I know nothing about them except that a buddy of mine has one in his Jeep and it works in crazy places!
BTW: you gotta check this site: the moustaches on the guy on the first page are just unbelieveable!
Well I don't know exactly what the law is on that particular topic (UI and all) in the USA right now, but I can assure you that there is more to trademarks than actual logotypes.
The colored Apple with a bite on the side is an obvious trademark of Apple inc. But just as a particular type of container can be trademarked (think Coke glass bottle) or even a certain font and color combination (think Nivea cream), the idea that the very specific look of Aqua UI widgets could be considered a common law trademark (not a registered one AFAIK) is not that crazy.
Duh... Of course MS won't sue anyone using the Windoze look and feel.
Microsoft would then be using the same arguments Apple used in the lawsuit every third comment in this discussion refers to... A jugde would have a hard time keeping a straight face hearing Microsoft's arguments in a case like that.
MS argued, and still argues that UI is not distinctive and can't be protected. If MS want to rip Aqua off, they sure as hell won't be going after people trying to do to them what they have been doing to Apple all along!
I realize I'm not exactly going with the flow here, but I can't understand why the average slashdotter will fight to the end to defend the enforceability of the GPL or the proper use of the Linux trademark/name but will scream bloody murder when a big compagny defends their own IP.
The law Apple is using here is the same one that keeps your software free as in speech.
If you can use it for purposes you feel are worthy, respect the fact that a compagny might feel the same way about the look of their upcoming UI.
Besides, what does Apple have now other than a distinctive UI? BSD under the hood, more and more generic hardware parts, Windows catching up fast in useability...
It is likely that the main target of their "playing tough" game is Microsoft, not some small time skin developper. But when trademarks are involved, if you don't enforce them, you loose them. It would be rather sad if Microsoft could invoke Apple's leniency towards skins developpers to jusitfy ripping Aqua for Whistler.
Oh come on!
First, your federal governement has nothing to do with that.
Second: you are still supposed to declare the value of the goods you bought out of state and pay the taxes, eventually, on those goods.
Almost nobody does, of course, so that's why catalog and other out of state purchases are considered tax free, which is technically not the case.
This changes nothing, in principle. It just makes it easier to enforce the exsiting principle.
Web proxy for the Mac? I use WebFree, available at http:// www.falken.net/webfree/ Works fine on OS 9, although it has not been updated since 1997.
You can use pseudo-grep syntax to match tags, block cookies on the outgoing side and stop animated gifs. All in one simple control panel
It bothers me a lot that people like the parent to this comment are whining about the pre-98 archives: this invaluable data seems to be available only in Deja's (quasi mythical now) archives and it's future is quite incertain. It may not be new now to post about now, but when it IS time to post, it may be too late.
Some other posters have suggested that Deja could charge a fee for consultation of this archive, and few will disagree that Deja deserves some compensation for the archiving work they've done: they seem to have been the only one to put down the ressources to keep that colective memory alive.
On the other hand, they will be making profit (if they're lucky) using our work. It brings quite a few copyrights issues to my mind. The lawsuits many newpapers a facing from their freelance journalists regarding the web rights of their articles are a good example of the problems that might arise from a fee-based service from Deja.
The easiest way out of this would be for some nice dot-com billionaire (there gotta be one or two left) to buy the archive from deja and release it under a very permissive license for all to mirror at their heart's content.
The current Mattel situation regarding the GPL might give you a hint as to why Apple has chosen to retain certain rights on the code. (namely, iirc, to be able to prevent distribution if required to do so by a third party in the case of a legal problem with some part of the code). Just like in the Mattel situation, it's not likely that such a restriction would be efficient in allow Apple to pull a piece of software of the Net in case of a license problem, but it allows them to cover their legal butts.
People suggested @Home could sue (how US-like!:-) or get an injunction. I doubt these actions would stand on any legal basis: there is no legal link between the news-server-operators-of-the-world and @Home. The only possibility would be, I think, if @Home could prove that the group that advised for the UDP were actually intending to do damage to @Home. The obvious answer to this argument for the news server operators would be that they were trying to minimize their own damage caused by @Home's negligence (actually a legal obligation I believe). And then who ever was lucky enough to be sued by @Home could simply counter sue for the expenses incurred by the spam. Thanks to @Home for opening Pandora's box!
Another cool thing would be a class action on the behalf of all @Home users against that group of news server admins who agreed to the UDP. Now this would be interesting. Because the users have a contract with @Home, and the UDP most likely prevents @Home from respecting the terms of that contract. I don't know how well that contract could be opposable to the group that advised for the UDP though.
Anyone knows if this I really impossible? What did I miss?
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
/. just go nuts when the discussion moves onto copyright law , but the fact is that for the GPL to be enforceable, we NEED a very very strong protection on software. If "we" get it, so does MS. And MS is likely to be working very hard to insure that they have the law on their side, thus doing work for the open source/free software/alternative licencing creed communities.
I've been reading a lot about the anti-open source crusade by Microsoft.
Now the way I see this debate is: for the crazy hyper restrictive bordeline abusive EULAS that are now common in the software word, a very strong copyright law must exist. The law must give wide and far reaching means to the autors to control the distribution of their works.
Now, if the law gives MS the right to control their works in such a complete and broad way, how can a licence like the GPL or any other community based licence not be strenghten by the strong stance software developpers are taking?
It seems to me that for MS to win on this front, "we" have to win to.
Or is there something I don't get? I know some people on
Is there a loophole where the rights of MS on their software could be different that rights granted by open licences?
Sorry. Been using OS X full time since it's release. PB before that.
Sush!
It does NOT have full support out of the box. It has NO suport for Localtalk.
It does however, and I think that's what you're refering to, have ful Appleshare support, but over TCP/IP. So it does indeed integrate well with 8.6 and above machines.
Just FYI, OS X does not support AppleTalk (networking protocol) for anything but printing. It does not support LocalTalk (network topology) at all.
File Sharing and other network services are all based on TCP/IP.
But it's not free or open or whatever. Don't go there is these things offend you. I suppose that for transmission of the data, the solutions using HAM packet radios would be perfect. I know nothing about them except that a buddy of mine has one in his Jeep and it works in crazy places!
BTW: you gotta check this site: the moustaches on the guy on the first page are just unbelieveable!
Well I don't know exactly what the law is on that particular topic (UI and all) in the USA right now, but I can assure you that there is more to trademarks than actual logotypes.
The colored Apple with a bite on the side is an obvious trademark of Apple inc. But just as a particular type of container can be trademarked (think Coke glass bottle) or even a certain font and color combination (think Nivea cream), the idea that the very specific look of Aqua UI widgets could be considered a common law trademark (not a registered one AFAIK) is not that crazy.
Duh... Of course MS won't sue anyone using the Windoze look and feel.
Microsoft would then be using the same arguments Apple used in the lawsuit every third comment in this discussion refers to... A jugde would have a hard time keeping a straight face hearing Microsoft's arguments in a case like that.
MS argued, and still argues that UI is not distinctive and can't be protected. If MS want to rip Aqua off, they sure as hell won't be going after people trying to do to them what they have been doing to Apple all along!
I realize I'm not exactly going with the flow here, but I can't understand why the average slashdotter will fight to the end to defend the enforceability of the GPL or the proper use of the Linux trademark/name but will scream bloody murder when a big compagny defends their own IP.
The law Apple is using here is the same one that keeps your software free as in speech.
If you can use it for purposes you feel are worthy, respect the fact that a compagny might feel the same way about the look of their upcoming UI.
Besides, what does Apple have now other than a distinctive UI? BSD under the hood, more and more generic hardware parts, Windows catching up fast in useability...
It is likely that the main target of their "playing tough" game is Microsoft, not some small time skin developper. But when trademarks are involved, if you don't enforce them, you loose them. It would be rather sad if Microsoft could invoke Apple's leniency towards skins developpers to jusitfy ripping Aqua for Whistler.
Oh come on!
First, your federal governement has nothing to do with that.
Second: you are still supposed to declare the value of the goods you bought out of state and pay the taxes, eventually, on those goods.
Almost nobody does, of course, so that's why catalog and other out of state purchases are considered tax free, which is technically not the case.
This changes nothing, in principle. It just makes it easier to enforce the exsiting principle.
Web proxy for the Mac? I use WebFree, available at http:// www.falken.net/webfree/ Works fine on OS 9, although it has not been updated since 1997. You can use pseudo-grep syntax to match tags, block cookies on the outgoing side and stop animated gifs. All in one simple control panel
It bothers me a lot that people like the parent to this comment are whining about the pre-98 archives: this invaluable data seems to be available only in Deja's (quasi mythical now) archives and it's future is quite incertain. It may not be new now to post about now, but when it IS time to post, it may be too late.
Some other posters have suggested that Deja could charge a fee for consultation of this archive, and few will disagree that Deja deserves some compensation for the archiving work they've done: they seem to have been the only one to put down the ressources to keep that colective memory alive.
On the other hand, they will be making profit (if they're lucky) using our work. It brings quite a few copyrights issues to my mind. The lawsuits many newpapers a facing from their freelance journalists regarding the web rights of their articles are a good example of the problems that might arise from a fee-based service from Deja.
The easiest way out of this would be for some nice dot-com billionaire (there gotta be one or two left) to buy the archive from deja and release it under a very permissive license for all to mirror at their heart's content.
If anything was ever worthy of a +5, this is.
The current Mattel situation regarding the GPL might give you a hint as to why Apple has chosen to retain certain rights on the code. (namely, iirc, to be able to prevent distribution if required to do so by a third party in the case of a legal problem with some part of the code).
Just like in the Mattel situation, it's not likely that such a restriction would be efficient in allow Apple to pull a piece of software of the Net in case of a license problem, but it allows them to cover their legal butts.
Disclaimer: IANAL
:-) or get an injunction. I doubt these actions would stand on any legal basis: there is no legal link between the news-server-operators-of-the-world and @Home.
People suggested @Home could sue (how US-like!
The only possibility would be, I think, if @Home could prove that the group that advised for the UDP were actually intending to do damage to @Home. The obvious answer to this argument for the news server operators would be that they were trying to minimize their own damage caused by @Home's negligence (actually a legal obligation I believe). And then who ever was lucky enough to be sued by @Home could simply counter sue for the expenses incurred by the spam. Thanks to @Home for opening Pandora's box!
Another cool thing would be a class action on the behalf of all @Home users against that group of news server admins who agreed to the UDP. Now this would be interesting. Because the users have a contract with @Home, and the UDP most likely prevents @Home from respecting the terms of that contract. I don't know how well that contract could be opposable to the group that advised for the UDP though.
Anyone knows if this I really impossible? What did I miss?
You gan get the Mac version of the Media Player here. Not that anyone in his right mind would do so... :-)