Actually, the license only forbids development using tools that make use of viral licenses. It's not worded vert well, but here is the relevent clause:
(c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
The BSD licence (which TCP/IP is based on) is not mentioned, nor is it similar to any of the listed licenses.
This is just another move by Microsoft in their campaign against the GPL (which is, IMO, a good move on their part).
This license ensures developers can't be forced to use a specific license further down the line.
Yes, but how much of the research the corps. are paying for is actually funded by the public?
If Corporation X payes college Y to do research in Z, not only does the college have more funds to spend, the researchers (grad students) get to do interesting work.
besides, if it's research that the public has any use for (i.e. is cheap to implement), chances are the corporation could develop it without the college.
Artists get such a small amount because they get HUGE advances (I'm talking tens, if not hundreds, of thousands here). The money from the CD sale itself goes into paying off the advance on royalties.
Once total royalty sales > advance, usually the money the artist gets increases.
Another factor to consider is that 90% of the artists don't even cover production costs. They sell so badly, are so unheard or are just so crap that people don't want to buy the albums.
It's up to the remaining 10% to foot the bill for the majority, and that means their albums need to be higher priced to pay for it.
Yes folks, the money made in the music industry is shared between all artists, not in royalties, but in up front advances and signing bonuses.
I mean, outside the context of IT, "hacking" is generally something that involves destruction and an axe-type implement.
Why try and change the,eaning of a word when every accepts that it's a negative one. And, IIRC:
hacking=studying a system to see how it works
cracking=bypassing passwords/copy protection
phreaking=phucking with fone lines
(2600 should actually be a phreaking mag, not a hacking/cracking mag. The name comes the frequency BlueBox' used to use (2600Hz), not even they can get it right.).
If 80% of the planet thinks a word means something, then that word does mean something. Language isn't a constant.
And now that Google can take posted articles out of context and publish them without attribution -- and if Google becomes the dominant UseNet entryway in the same way Windows is the dominant OS -- then it puts a chill, or at least a corporatized spin, on UseNet.
Where does it say it can publish them without attribution? The copyright doesn't change hands, and even under license, the copyright holder must be credited.
The clause in question only means that Google has automatic permission to re-use the post without having to ask the copyright holder, not claim ownership of it.
"In exchange for using this service, Google can re-use your post."
From the clause, I can see no change of copyright or any other IP, but Google is granted non-exclusive rights to the post. (Non-exclusive meaning the copyright holder can still do whatever he likes with it, even sell it on).
Hasbro (The owners of Microprose) have this nasty habit of sueing their competition, even develoeprs of cheap/free games.
And if the orignal post is correct and there is a patent involved here (as opposed to a trademark, whih I expect is the case), then you shouldn't be suprised if Hasbro pull the same trick they did last year when they sued anyone developing a clone of an Atari title.
Many console modems are locked into a specific ISP (Think about it. they buy the hardware then they have to pay a monthly fee to use the hardware).
I think this is how it was on the DreamCast for standard Kage-based (one of Sega;s network APIs) multiplayer gaming, and it wouldn't suprise me if AOL did the same for the PS2. They could even prevent other ISPs from getting hardware authorized if it risked their monopoly (Manufacturers aren't opposed to exclusive contracts).
I've seen something better....
on
3D w/o Goggles
·
· Score: 2
Cannon have developed a monitor with Criterion (The RenderWare people) that does this using just 2 "layers" at lasts years ECTS.
From what I could tell (I have a vision problem, so I was starting at this monitor for a few minutes wondering what was so special about it) it works the same way as the hologram on Coke machines in pubs (the ones where the image moves with your head).
There where infact 2 images projected onto cones. When at the right distance, each eye will see a different image (a-la 3D goggles) giving a true 3D image.
Of course, this technology assumes people have the same distance between the eyes, and have no eye dominance problem (I'm *very* left eye dominant, I only see 2dimensions, which is why I didn't see why the monitor was good at first.
I havn't been able to find any info about it at the cannon website though....
Please, shut up. We don't care. Stupid political tensions and dick sizing contests fuck over a LOT of projects -- it's unfortunate, but it's nothing new.
Just curious, but wont this have exactly the opposite effect on the geek comunity?
Um, why?
Doesn't part of the/. partyline say 'everything should be controlled by the masses, aka demoncracy'?
Instead of a core group of people controlling the rating (as is the case with current censorware), "the people" can decide is the content is suitable or not.
You won't get the situation where sites that bad-mouth the product are blocked, or politicians sites are blocked, or sex-related problems sites are blocked, or...
The 'geek community' should be proud about this. Just think, no more goatse.cx links being visited at work...
Imagine trying to get three different shutters to open and close at the exact same moment in time. Neigh on impossible.
The site also shows a projector, which is focused properly, could possibly remove most of the distortion by 'reversing' the perspective as it was projected.
They will be (and are) fought by analysts and diplomats:
Side A: "Our intelligence says you require this much power to keep your hospitals running. Either you release those prisoners or we launch these ICBMs pointed at these power stations"
Side B: "And? WHo says we didn't plant that intelligence? We anticipated your move, and have tripled military power output and redirected it to potential targets"
I often use the recorder as a handy note-taking device, not only for interviews but to dictate notes to myself while I'm driving or engaged in other hand-occupying activities.
I knew it!
Slashdot is really a cover for a pre-recorded phonesex company. Think about it.... VA(saline) Linux own it....
Of course, the mad rush to upgrade to 2.2.16 was purely cosmetic, and had nothing to do with a root exploit affecting all the previous kernels of the 2.2 series.
And BIND has never had a serious exploit in it. Oh no.
Ok. Let's say I write an application that is 150k lines of code. There is a GPLed program that has a tiny bit of functionality I would like in my application, which is about 5k lines.
With less than 1% of my application being from the GPLed program, is it really FAIR that I am forced to use the GPL? I mean, the program isn't just a plain rip off of something else with the name changed..
(Note: this is a hypothetical situation).
This happened with BeOS using a few functions from Electic Fence.
A *good* licence which is similar to the GPL is the POVray licence, which states that the ORIGINAL source (i.e. the POVray) must be made available, but any changes don't need to be.
SAMPLE CODE. You may modify the sample source code located in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT's root directory "\DXF\Samples\Multimedia"("Sample Code") to design, develop and test your Application. You may also reproduce and distribute the Sample Code in object code form along with any modifications you make to the Sample Code, provided that you comply with the Distribution Requirements described below. For purposes of this Section, "modifications" shall mean enhancements to the functionality of the Sample Code.:\mssdk\samples\multimedia\d3d8\
THe distrobution requirements are:
You actually change the code
You don't use Microsofts name or logo
Microsoft is not responsible if it fucks up
I don't think you can get more copyleft than that. Microsoft don't even want their names attached to a product based on their free code.
As a side note, most of the applications included with Windows can be found in the MSDN Library samples sections.
Slashdot Mirror
The BSD licence (which TCP/IP is based on) is not mentioned, nor is it similar to any of the listed licenses.
This is just another move by Microsoft in their campaign against the GPL (which is, IMO, a good move on their part).
This license ensures developers can't be forced to use a specific license further down the line.
Yes, but AFAIK, the corporations do not take research from projects they had no involvment with.
Corporation can pay for research in several ways:
1) Investment - they give the uni cash to do the research. Everyone involved is better off as a result.
2) Sponsorship - Corporations pay for the students to be at the college. Everyone involved is better off as a result.
3) Partnerships - The corporations shares resources with the college to do the research. Everyone involved is better off.
I doubt that any college is stupid enough to give away research that was funded entirely by public funding.
Yes, but how much of the research the corps. are paying for is actually funded by the public?
If Corporation X payes college Y to do research in Z, not only does the college have more funds to spend, the researchers (grad students) get to do interesting work.
besides, if it's research that the public has any use for (i.e. is cheap to implement), chances are the corporation could develop it without the college.
I mean, get real.
Not only do corporations pay taxes, but they also make major contributions to the institutes doing the research.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
Artists get such a small amount because they get HUGE advances (I'm talking tens, if not hundreds, of thousands here). The money from the CD sale itself goes into paying off the advance on royalties.
Once total royalty sales > advance, usually the money the artist gets increases.
Another factor to consider is that 90% of the artists don't even cover production costs. They sell so badly, are so unheard or are just so crap that people don't want to buy the albums.
It's up to the remaining 10% to foot the bill for the majority, and that means their albums need to be higher priced to pay for it.
Yes folks, the money made in the music industry is shared between all artists, not in royalties, but in up front advances and signing bonuses.
WHat is all the fuss about?
,eaning of a word when every accepts that it's a negative one. And, IIRC:
I mean, outside the context of IT, "hacking" is generally something that involves destruction and an axe-type implement.
Why try and change the
hacking=studying a system to see how it works
cracking=bypassing passwords/copy protection
phreaking=phucking with fone lines
(2600 should actually be a phreaking mag, not a hacking/cracking mag. The name comes the frequency BlueBox' used to use (2600Hz), not even they can get it right.).
If 80% of the planet thinks a word means something, then that word does mean something. Language isn't a constant.
Netcraft can tell you what operating system a server uses, but you do have to pay for that information.
(They do penty of other stuff besided the web server survey, including security analysis and other online surveys).
And now that Google can take posted articles out of context and publish them without attribution -- and if Google becomes the dominant UseNet entryway in the same way Windows is the dominant OS -- then it puts a chill, or at least a corporatized spin, on UseNet.
Where does it say it can publish them without attribution? The copyright doesn't change hands, and even under license, the copyright holder must be credited.
The clause in question only means that Google has automatic permission to re-use the post without having to ask the copyright holder, not claim ownership of it.
"In exchange for using this service, Google can re-use your post."
From the clause, I can see no change of copyright or any other IP, but Google is granted non-exclusive rights to the post. (Non-exclusive meaning the copyright holder can still do whatever he likes with it, even sell it on).
What exactly is the problem here?
Probably not for much longer.
Hasbro (The owners of Microprose) have this nasty habit of sueing their competition, even develoeprs of cheap/free games.
And if the orignal post is correct and there is a patent involved here (as opposed to a trademark, whih I expect is the case), then you shouldn't be suprised if Hasbro pull the same trick they did last year when they sued anyone developing a clone of an Atari title.
It depends who makes the modems.
Many console modems are locked into a specific ISP (Think about it. they buy the hardware then they have to pay a monthly fee to use the hardware).
I think this is how it was on the DreamCast for standard Kage-based (one of Sega;s network APIs) multiplayer gaming, and it wouldn't suprise me if AOL did the same for the PS2. They could even prevent other ISPs from getting hardware authorized if it risked their monopoly (Manufacturers aren't opposed to exclusive contracts).
Cannon have developed a monitor with Criterion (The RenderWare people) that does this using just 2 "layers" at lasts years ECTS.
From what I could tell (I have a vision problem, so I was starting at this monitor for a few minutes wondering what was so special about it) it works the same way as the hologram on Coke machines in pubs (the ones where the image moves with your head).
There where infact 2 images projected onto cones. When at the right distance, each eye will see a different image (a-la 3D goggles) giving a true 3D image.
Of course, this technology assumes people have the same distance between the eyes, and have no eye dominance problem (I'm *very* left eye dominant, I only see 2dimensions, which is why I didn't see why the monitor was good at first.
I havn't been able to find any info about it at the cannon website though....
Please, shut up. We don't care. Stupid political tensions and dick sizing contests fuck over a LOT of projects -- it's unfortunate, but it's nothing new.
:-P
I couldn't agree more.
Oh, and John, my book's better than yours
Um, why?
Doesn't part of the
Instead of a core group of people controlling the rating (as is the case with current censorware), "the people" can decide is the content is suitable or not.
You won't get the situation where sites that bad-mouth the product are blocked, or politicians sites are blocked, or sex-related problems sites are blocked, or...
The 'geek community' should be proud about this. Just think, no more goatse.cx links being visited at work...
I think it's a case of both.
Imagine trying to get three different shutters to open and close at the exact same moment in time. Neigh on impossible.
The site also shows a projector, which is focused properly, could possibly remove most of the distortion by 'reversing' the perspective as it was projected.
Wrong.
They will be (and are) fought by analysts and diplomats:
Side A: "Our intelligence says you require this much power to keep your hospitals running. Either you release those prisoners or we launch these ICBMs pointed at these power stations"
Side B: "And? WHo says we didn't plant that intelligence? We anticipated your move, and have tripled military power output and redirected it to potential targets"
Side A: "Damn!"
Yes
o ryID=3041
http://www.gamedev.net/info/news/FullStory.asp?St
You do know the PS2 devkits come with GCC as the compiler?
I sure as hell would like the source to that... (Emotion engine opsoces anyone? Emulators?)
I often use the recorder as a handy note-taking device, not only for interviews but to dictate notes to myself while I'm driving or engaged in other hand-occupying activities.
I knew it!
Slashdot is really a cover for a pre-recorded phonesex company. Think about it.... VA(saline) Linux own it....
Did you install IIS5 on your desktop machine which doesn't act as a server?
If you're going to trash Windows, trash Windows, not the applications for it,
No gaping holes in LInux?
Of course, the mad rush to upgrade to 2.2.16 was purely cosmetic, and had nothing to do with a root exploit affecting all the previous kernels of the 2.2 series.
And BIND has never had a serious exploit in it. Oh no.
[Note for the sarcasm impaired: That was sarcasm]
Ok. Let's say I write an application that is 150k lines of code. There is a GPLed program that has a tiny bit of functionality I would like in my application, which is about 5k lines.
With less than 1% of my application being from the GPLed program, is it really FAIR that I am forced to use the GPL? I mean, the program isn't just a plain rip off of something else with the name changed..
(Note: this is a hypothetical situation).
This happened with BeOS using a few functions from Electic Fence.
A *good* licence which is similar to the GPL is the POVray licence, which states that the ORIGINAL source (i.e. the POVray) must be made available, but any changes don't need to be.
THe distrobution requirements are:
You actually change the code
You don't use Microsofts name or logo
Microsoft is not responsible if it fucks up
I don't think you can get more copyleft than that. Microsoft don't even want their names attached to a product based on their free code.
As a side note, most of the applications included with Windows can be found in the MSDN Library samples sections.
Free software is about people's freedoms.
What about the developers freedom to relicense the code?
Or are freedom and choice mutually exclusive?
Apple was incorporated April 1, 1976.
So Apple is just one big giant joke?
(and is this latest stunt a misunderstanging of the Darwin award?)