Hah, I see what you did there. You ripped on Ubuntu for being steeped in politics, while ignoring the available facts, i.e. that Ubuntu 10.4 is a stable Long Term Support release, and that it wipes the floor with FreeBSD 8.0 in performance.
That's pretty funny. I mean, if you did it on purpose.
Fair point about derivative works, but that's still extrinsic to the license, and you'd have to pay a lawyer to prove it. Ask IBM.
"Compiling in" is not vague at all though, at least in the context of a C/C++ compiler. "Header files" have no meaning to the compiler - it's all just source, regardless of which top level module caused it to be included verbatim. [citation]
They're all owned for by the same 'campaign contributors', so why on earth would they be different? Are you saying that Democrats aren't enough honest enough to stay bought?
Look, it's perfectly simple. If you compile in headers, then by the plain language of the license, you've created a derivative work. Any suggestion that you haven't done so is extrinsic to the license.
Then anyone who's not a complete retard should be able to explain why AFPA has standing, while sub-retards and non intelligent people like you and I don't. Want to take a stab at it?
Thanks, that's interesting reading. I'm still puzzled as to what kind of wacky statue gives AFPA standing to receive relief for breach of someone else's rights. That's like... well, there is no appropriate analogy. It's exactly like receiving relief for breach of someone else's rights. The mind boggles as to the size of the can of legal worms that opens up in France.
But AFPA does not own any copyrights in the original VNC source, and in any sane jurisdiction wouldn't be able to receive relief over those rights. I can't figure out if this case is over contract law (therefore not a GPL issue), over AFPA's rights to any modified source that was created for them as a work-for-hire (therefore not a GPL issue) or is genuinely them asserting rights that they don't own (insane in the membrane).
Slashdot Mirror
It's OK, the link to the article already contains the "NSFW title", so you're damned already in the eyes of your sysadmin.
Now, now, not so hasty. It's not really noteworthy until kdawson dupes it.
Hah, I see what you did there. You ripped on Ubuntu for being steeped in politics, while ignoring the available facts, i.e. that Ubuntu 10.4 is a stable Long Term Support release, and that it wipes the floor with FreeBSD 8.0 in performance.
That's pretty funny. I mean, if you did it on purpose.
Why do you hate children? Also, for all you know, you could be hating on a midget.
CERTAIN DEATH!
It would help if they hadn't chosen to call it a "machine gun". What's wrong with "photon ejaculator"? Make love, not war.
Yes. Why do you think I'm being tailgated?
It's zero risk to me. What are you, some kind of communist?
They couldn't come up with a decent analogy involving drunken cheerleaders?
Will these robot scorers successfully identify the above as either +1 Funny or +1 Insightful? Taking bets.
If 10% of them are buying politicians, the politicians are still 100% bought.
I guess you missed the part about having to pay to prove the copyright status of a header. How many years has SCO vs IBM (et al) being dragging on?
Windows Server, Solaris and Windows XP?
Fair point about derivative works, but that's still extrinsic to the license, and you'd have to pay a lawyer to prove it. Ask IBM.
"Compiling in" is not vague at all though, at least in the context of a C/C++ compiler. "Header files" have no meaning to the compiler - it's all just source, regardless of which top level module caused it to be included verbatim. [citation]
They're all owned for by the same 'campaign contributors', so why on earth would they be different? Are you saying that Democrats aren't enough honest enough to stay bought?
Look, it's perfectly simple. If you compile in headers, then by the plain language of the license, you've created a derivative work. Any suggestion that you haven't done so is extrinsic to the license.
Where it is today is trailing behind the BSD based OS X. M'kay?
Preach it, bro'. They don't explode because they're full of shitty batteries, they explode because they're full of extreme awesomeness.
No, no, no. He commissioned the crime, it was you that conspired on it. They'd get me too, but I've already turned State's evidence, suckers.
That sticker is really big. I bet a child could easily pry it off and choke on it.
Then anyone who's not a complete retard should be able to explain why AFPA has standing, while sub-retards and non intelligent people like you and I don't. Want to take a stab at it?
So are you and I. Can we sue Edu4 as well?
Thanks, that's interesting reading. I'm still puzzled as to what kind of wacky statue gives AFPA standing to receive relief for breach of someone else's rights. That's like... well, there is no appropriate analogy. It's exactly like receiving relief for breach of someone else's rights. The mind boggles as to the size of the can of legal worms that opens up in France.
But AFPA does not own any copyrights in the original VNC source, and in any sane jurisdiction wouldn't be able to receive relief over those rights. I can't figure out if this case is over contract law (therefore not a GPL issue), over AFPA's rights to any modified source that was created for them as a work-for-hire (therefore not a GPL issue) or is genuinely them asserting rights that they don't own (insane in the membrane).
Read the VNC source. Do you see "Copyright AFPA" in there? What kind of crackpot legal system lets Alice sue Bob over Carol's copyrights?