Did you have a point in there, or were you just telling me your life story? I kind of zoned out after the bit where you claimed to be a poor Chinese peasant.
The DMCA doesn't prohibit having a backup, just creating, obtaining or distributing the tools to make or to use one. That's the risible position that the DMCA puts us in.
WTF are you talking about? He clearly impregnated his wife 9 months before the failed attacks, just so that he'd have an excuse to fly from Australia to India. We'll never beat The Terrorists until we stop underestimating them.
The article does not claim that XP sales will be higher in FY08 than FY07, just that MS has changed their projection of the proportion of Vista/XP sales for FY08. There's no mention of FY07 at all. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
It is viral, it's viral by design, and it's designed to embrace, extend and extinguish other less restrictive licenses, which is what makes it every bit as evil as Microsoft's crack.
Mmm huh, I think I get what you mean. Notice how this all kicked off when Marsha Stewart got out of prison in 2005 on the very same day that scientists at Florida State University concluded that Homo floresiensis is a separate species from Homo sapiens? See? See the connection? No, don't say it out loud; the Girl Scouts are monitoring my communications.
Basic reading comprehension is another important skill. It's just a shame that you answered the article without bothering to either read or comprehend it first.
In what way is "setting up opportunities for people to get to know one another outside of work" equivelant to "[institutionalizing] getting together with your co-workers after work just so you can bond"?
If I wanted to pay someone money to fix my development process, I can be pretty sure that the only thing I'd pay you for is to obtain Lister's phone number.
Nice cognitive dissonance. I expect the next version will feature poisoned barbs that spring out if you try to open it, so that the battery replacement cost will seem even more reasonable.
You are (intentionally?) conflating the GPLv2 itself with the licensing statement that developers choose to attach to their code. What matters isn't so much what GPLv2 says, but the (C) and license statement in the source code that Microsoft distributed. That's what the grandparent was talking about; I know you're probably new around here, but please try to respond to what was written, not what you want to refute.
If they distributed any code with a statement that it was licensed under GPL 2 or "any later version", then the recipient of that code, past, present or future, not Microsoft, can choose to use it under a GPL3 license. The question becomes whether Microsoft are then bound by the terms of GPL3 instead of GPL2 with respect to that code. Microsoft say no, the FSF say yes.
1 - The GPLv2 license has an option to specify that code is licensed by "GPL version 2 or later". If this is the case then the argument goes that many of those who wrote code under GPLv2 could simply say "well now my code is licensed under GPLv3".
Y'all want to go and actually read one of those "version 2 or higher/above" clauses and tell me who it is that can choose to consider it licensed under GPL3?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, please read the fine article:
the only real ruling that has been made in the case is a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, permitting DrewTech to take the deposition of a third-party witness.
The GPL wasn't ruled on. It's never been tested by an actual ruling in the United States. Personally I think that GPL2 is a completely valid and applicable license (i.e. it terminates if it's breached, leaving you violating copyright), but there's no case law to directly support that, and all the wishing in the world won't make it otherwise.
Round of applause, that commentor. Given how much tax money they've wasted on rattling their pathetic little sabre up to now, only to utterly cave on their 'principles' when push came to shove, what else could it ever have been about?
Change the (i)tune, FSF. Yes, we know that GPL3 is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting proprietary devices than GPL2, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.
To think the US doesn't has control of the security council is naive.
Fixed your typo. The US de facto dictates to the SC because if they ever get vetoed then they'll just go it alone and demonstrate how impotent and irrelevant the SC is; ultimately the US would just throw their toys out of the pram, withdraw their financial and military backing, and effectively end the whole UN as a working concept. The SC is just a vehicle for rubberstamping US foreign policy, you fucking chump.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they could. The point is that they haven't.
Did you have a point in there, or were you just telling me your life story? I kind of zoned out after the bit where you claimed to be a poor Chinese peasant.
And have you been frozen in a block of ice since 1979, that your expectations haven't risen?
The DMCA doesn't prohibit having a backup, just creating, obtaining or distributing the tools to make or to use one. That's the risible position that the DMCA puts us in.
Why would I be using it if it wasn't offensive?
WTF are you talking about? He clearly impregnated his wife 9 months before the failed attacks, just so that he'd have an excuse to fly from Australia to India. We'll never beat The Terrorists until we stop underestimating them.
The article does not claim that XP sales will be higher in FY08 than FY07, just that MS has changed their projection of the proportion of Vista/XP sales for FY08. There's no mention of FY07 at all. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
It is viral, it's viral by design, and it's designed to embrace, extend and extinguish other less restrictive licenses, which is what makes it every bit as evil as Microsoft's crack.
Mmm huh, I think I get what you mean. Notice how this all kicked off when Marsha Stewart got out of prison in 2005 on the very same day that scientists at Florida State University concluded that Homo floresiensis is a separate species from Homo sapiens? See? See the connection? No, don't say it out loud; the Girl Scouts are monitoring my communications.
You should call and tell them that.
Basic reading comprehension is another important skill. It's just a shame that you answered the article without bothering to either read or comprehend it first.
In what way is "setting up opportunities for people to get to know one another outside of work" equivelant to "[institutionalizing] getting together with your co-workers after work just so you can bond"?
If I wanted to pay someone money to fix my development process, I can be pretty sure that the only thing I'd pay you for is to obtain Lister's phone number.
It'd be like expecting Slashdot 'editors' to actually read the linked articles before posting the stories. Where would that kind of madness end?
These things should come with a warning!
Can they blend one of their own blenders? Wow, meta headrush.
Nice cognitive dissonance. I expect the next version will feature poisoned barbs that spring out if you try to open it, so that the battery replacement cost will seem even more reasonable.
Don't bring facts into it; he's rolling.
You are (intentionally?) conflating the GPLv2 itself with the licensing statement that developers choose to attach to their code. What matters isn't so much what GPLv2 says, but the (C) and license statement in the source code that Microsoft distributed. That's what the grandparent was talking about; I know you're probably new around here, but please try to respond to what was written, not what you want to refute.
If they distributed any code with a statement that it was licensed under GPL 2 or "any later version", then the recipient of that code, past, present or future, not Microsoft, can choose to use it under a GPL3 license. The question becomes whether Microsoft are then bound by the terms of GPL3 instead of GPL2 with respect to that code. Microsoft say no, the FSF say yes.
Y'all want to go and actually read one of those "version 2 or higher/above" clauses and tell me who it is that can choose to consider it licensed under GPL3?
Crib notes: it's not the author.
A simple "no" would suffice. We can add our own editorial.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, please read the fine article:
The GPL wasn't ruled on. It's never been tested by an actual ruling in the United States. Personally I think that GPL2 is a completely valid and applicable license (i.e. it terminates if it's breached, leaving you violating copyright), but there's no case law to directly support that, and all the wishing in the world won't make it otherwise.
Mod parent "+1, touchingly hilarious"
Round of applause, that commentor. Given how much tax money they've wasted on rattling their pathetic little sabre up to now, only to utterly cave on their 'principles' when push came to shove, what else could it ever have been about?
Film at 11.
Yawn.
Change the (i)tune, FSF. Yes, we know that GPL3 is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting proprietary devices than GPL2, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.
Why's that then?