Not it's not a matter of what they "want" to do. It's a matter of legality. If linking against a library creates a derivative work of that library, then the GPL is in direct conflict with typical license you get on your commercial unix box. It doesn't matter what the GPL says, if such a linking creates a derivative work the any program linked against a particular library must be distributed under a license compatible with that library.
Yeah right on brother. This here crack house sure ain't illegal, cause, like, we never sell or use crack ourselves. Some thing with the hideyhole in the back where we stuff the wanted murderers. We ain't doin' nuttin' wrong. Just mindin' our own bizness and not sayin' nuttin'.
The opencodex group is in favor of open source. Which is why I don't see why they could want to support Apple. Sure they are probably mac users, but as such they should be particularily sensitive to this sort of issue. See Apple's users want to play with everybody else's toys, but Apple doesn't want to share their own. "Open source" really isn't about that kind of selfish behavior.
The Windows version of Quicktime is an abomination. Quicktime for Windows would be like MS porting their DirectMedia to MacOS. Something they haven't done yet.
I don't think that's true. Otherwise anybody distributing binaries of GCC for a non-GPL-ed platform are in violation of the GPL. People like Cygnus and the FSF. However you are right. If Stallman's bizarre interpretation is legit, then since the various vendor copyrights are not compatible with the GPL, nobody should be distributing precompiled binaries for those platforms.
Re:Now if they'll just make them I-opener friendly
on
Linux BIOS
·
· Score: 1
The odd thing is that there is already a decent standard for that on PCs. It's called WfM and has a component called PXE. Which provides a generic ABI to a network driver. It uses DHCP/BOOTP to boot off the network. Part of that negotiation indicates whether a network boot is appropriate as well. Then it downloads a small loader that can then use the generic network driver to download you actual OS/management tool/whatever.
Additionally most cards that support it also support WOL so you can power up machines remotely.
No I understand the position Apple takes. It's just highly unfortunate that they won't, for example, supply their codecs using the normal Windows codec interfaces so that all applications can benefit, not just the ones specifically tuned to use quicktime. Sure they may not be able to gain whatever perceived advantage is there, but the users would sure be happier.
I don't think this is quite true. Stallman likes to argue that a dynamically linked program is "linked." Thus if you write a program that uses a standard API/ABI to link against a GPLed library, your code is now GPLed. Even if you strictly stuck with the API/ABI only.
However along with every other aspect of the GPL this has never been tested in court. What's more it's unlikely that such an idea would survive a court case.
Why would a group in favor of opensource support a notoriously closed source platform?
Apple has a exclusive license with Sorenson Vision for the Sorenson codec. Also Apple doesn't port their codecs to the native platforms standard media layers.
Seems goofy that anyone would care to support Quicktime until Quicktime supports us.
No their using the wrong law to sue MacNN. They should be suing for copyright violation. And a copyright violation used for commercial gain is upwards of $100,000 punative damages plus "actual" damages per violation.
It's an article. Not a legal brief. I wouldn't be surprised it they paraphrased Adobe's position. The fact that they are close to releasing is a trade secret. A competitor knowing that Photoshop 6 is about to come out allows them many possibilities to gain an advantage. Everything from pushing the release date on their competing product to advertising their competing product to cut into Adobe's revenue.
So the way it works out is that Adobe sues the beta tester. The beta tester loses. The beta tester then goes and sues Appleinsider for inciting him/her to violate their NDA. Or something.
At least that's how it would work in this day and age.
Of course there's also the issue of who wrote the preview article. And how exactly was is done. If someone at macnn wrote the article without laying their hands on the software in question, got some screen shots from a low ethics individual, and the printed the result, there may be a defamation recourse.
If they wrote the article based upon an acquired copy from a beta tester, then they are in copyright violation.
If they are the beta tester, then it would be obvious that they are breaking their agreement with adobe to keep quiet about what they see.
Actually I think they would be acquired illegally, because until the NDA participant gives the information to macnn there has been no illegal act. The illegal act was in giving the information out. Thus the transfer of secrets to macnn was illegal. Whether they did anything illegal is questionable and will be an issue for the courts to decide.
I would expect that if the beta party in question is not macnn/appleinsider then it would be reasonable to conclude that they are acting in concert. As this is not a whistleblower situation, it would be unlikely they could argue that the reporting was for the public good.
Maybe you are making a distinction between Toll roads and free roads, maybe between US highways and State Highways, but the Interstate Highway System is called just that. Interstate Highway System. The one with the big Red White and Blue shields with big white numbers Even numbers go east/west (I-10, I-76), odd numbers go north south (I-95, I-81), 3 digits are thruways/byways/beltways near major municipalities (I-110, I-495, I-195). Got it?
Duh. I bet you feel all important now. The fact is that in common usage a "freeway" is what was being talked about. Using the phrase "highway" is insufficient to distinguish between a roadway that has limitted access, minimum speed limits, and meets certain specifications for grades, turns, embankments, etc. I would assume that someone as anal retentive as yourself would prefer accuracy of communication of the second term.
While I'm at it, keeping our HIGHWAYS smooth and driveable in your Boxster is not necesarily a priority when their intent is to simple provide stable, consistent ground on which to help defend the US from outside agression. However, it is a very good groundwork to consistently move heavy traffic, like tanks. No weak bridges to cross, no narrow lanes, etc.
You cannot drive a tank at speed on any commonly deployed hunk of road without breaking down the actual road surface such that it would be better to drive on than any other random stretch of levelled ground. It's not a matter of narrow lanes, or weak bridges. It's a matter of the actual road material being unable to withstand the forces involved.
Yes the freeway system was specifically meant for defense purposes. No they do not drive tanks on it. Would they in the event of a local war? I'm sure they would if necessary. In any other event? No. That's why they have wheeled carrier vehicles to transport tracked heavy equipment.
Modern tanks cannot drive on roads. Well they can, but only once or twice. A tank brigade would complete destroy a modern freeway. I know this from personal experience.
But I see you are talking about Freeways and not highways. Freeways are different beasts all together.
Right near Palm Beach International there are curves that look like indy;P
Not tanks. Nor particularily were they designed for size/strength. Nor was it highways. It is freeways you are thinking of. And they are designed such that they can be driven on at a particular speed (75 MPH IIRC) and still be drivable. Thus we have things like gradual turns, banks, limited inclines, etc.
The first TV that I can remember my family owning had all these stickers on the back. A couple of times a year the a representative from the county would come around and collect a TV tax and add that years sticker. It's only with the cable co's that consumers had to stop paying this. Now the cable co's are required to pay for the translator stations that broadcast the signal via air.
Same basic system with major differences. In preindustrial Europe there was a very limited number of people who could be a patron. And when they did choose to take an artist on it was pretty much all they could afford to bring hire that one person. Today you have companies like Sony with thousands of contracts.
Of course it's unlike today. Today if you have talent you can get a deal if you bust your ass enough. In Mozart's time there was such limitted opportunity that you didn't the option.
Slashdot Mirror
Not it's not a matter of what they "want" to do. It's a matter of legality. If linking against a library creates a derivative work of that library, then the GPL is in direct conflict with typical license you get on your commercial unix box. It doesn't matter what the GPL says, if such a linking creates a derivative work the any program linked against a particular library must be distributed under a license compatible with that library.
For every relatively honest person like yourself there are probably 150-15000 dishonest people who never buy the CD.
Umm. He's an attorney. Napster has money. Napster needs an attorney. QED.
This is not informative at all. It's just wrong. The DOJ has not done shit. An attorney who worked for the DOJ got hired. Woop-dee-doo.
Like that's some kind of "win"... (as stated in the lead in.)
Yeah right on brother. This here crack house sure ain't illegal, cause, like, we never sell or use crack ourselves. Some thing with the hideyhole in the back where we stuff the wanted murderers. We ain't doin' nuttin' wrong. Just mindin' our own bizness and not sayin' nuttin'.
And thus the FSF would be in violation of the GPL by distrbuting binaries of GCC linked against vendor libraries. Wonder if we can sue them.
The opencodex group is in favor of open source. Which is why I don't see why they could want to support Apple. Sure they are probably mac users, but as such they should be particularily sensitive to this sort of issue. See Apple's users want to play with everybody else's toys, but Apple doesn't want to share their own. "Open source" really isn't about that kind of selfish behavior.
The Windows version of Quicktime is an abomination. Quicktime for Windows would be like MS porting their DirectMedia to MacOS. Something they haven't done yet.
I don't think that's true. Otherwise anybody distributing binaries of GCC for a non-GPL-ed platform are in violation of the GPL. People like Cygnus and the FSF. However you are right. If Stallman's bizarre interpretation is legit, then since the various vendor copyrights are not compatible with the GPL, nobody should be distributing precompiled binaries for those platforms.
The odd thing is that there is already a decent standard for that on PCs. It's called WfM and has a component called PXE. Which provides a generic ABI to a network driver. It uses DHCP/BOOTP to boot off the network. Part of that negotiation indicates whether a network boot is appropriate as well. Then it downloads a small loader that can then use the generic network driver to download you actual OS/management tool/whatever.
Additionally most cards that support it also support WOL so you can power up machines remotely.
No I understand the position Apple takes. It's just highly unfortunate that they won't, for example, supply their codecs using the normal Windows codec interfaces so that all applications can benefit, not just the ones specifically tuned to use quicktime. Sure they may not be able to gain whatever perceived advantage is there, but the users would sure be happier.
I don't think this is quite true. Stallman likes to argue that a dynamically linked program is "linked." Thus if you write a program that uses a standard API/ABI to link against a GPLed library, your code is now GPLed. Even if you strictly stuck with the API/ABI only.
However along with every other aspect of the GPL this has never been tested in court. What's more it's unlikely that such an idea would survive a court case.
IANAL though.
Why would a group in favor of opensource support a notoriously closed source platform?
Apple has a exclusive license with Sorenson Vision for the Sorenson codec. Also Apple doesn't port their codecs to the native platforms standard media layers.
Seems goofy that anyone would care to support Quicktime until Quicktime supports us.
No their using the wrong law to sue MacNN. They should be suing for copyright violation. And a copyright violation used for commercial gain is upwards of $100,000 punative damages plus "actual" damages per violation.
It's an article. Not a legal brief. I wouldn't be surprised it they paraphrased Adobe's position. The fact that they are close to releasing is a trade secret. A competitor knowing that Photoshop 6 is about to come out allows them many possibilities to gain an advantage. Everything from pushing the release date on their competing product to advertising their competing product to cut into Adobe's revenue.
So the way it works out is that Adobe sues the beta tester. The beta tester loses. The beta tester then goes and sues Appleinsider for inciting him/her to violate their NDA. Or something.
At least that's how it would work in this day and age.
Of course there's also the issue of who wrote the preview article. And how exactly was is done. If someone at macnn wrote the article without laying their hands on the software in question, got some screen shots from a low ethics individual, and the printed the result, there may be a defamation recourse.
If they wrote the article based upon an acquired copy from a beta tester, then they are in copyright violation.
If they are the beta tester, then it would be obvious that they are breaking their agreement with adobe to keep quiet about what they see.
Actually I think they would be acquired illegally, because until the NDA participant gives the information to macnn there has been no illegal act. The illegal act was in giving the information out. Thus the transfer of secrets to macnn was illegal. Whether they did anything illegal is questionable and will be an issue for the courts to decide.
I would expect that if the beta party in question is not macnn/appleinsider then it would be reasonable to conclude that they are acting in concert. As this is not a whistleblower situation, it would be unlikely they could argue that the reporting was for the public good.
Duh. I bet you feel all important now. The fact is that in common usage a "freeway" is what was being talked about. Using the phrase "highway" is insufficient to distinguish between a roadway that has limitted access, minimum speed limits, and meets certain specifications for grades, turns, embankments, etc. I would assume that someone as anal retentive as yourself would prefer accuracy of communication of the second term.
You cannot drive a tank at speed on any commonly deployed hunk of road without breaking down the actual road surface such that it would be better to drive on than any other random stretch of levelled ground. It's not a matter of narrow lanes, or weak bridges. It's a matter of the actual road material being unable to withstand the forces involved.
Yes the freeway system was specifically meant for defense purposes. No they do not drive tanks on it. Would they in the event of a local war? I'm sure they would if necessary. In any other event? No. That's why they have wheeled carrier vehicles to transport tracked heavy equipment.
But I see you are talking about Freeways and not highways. Freeways are different beasts all together.
LOL!
Not tanks. Nor particularily were they designed for size/strength. Nor was it highways. It is freeways you are thinking of. And they are designed such that they can be driven on at a particular speed (75 MPH IIRC) and still be drivable. Thus we have things like gradual turns, banks, limited inclines, etc.
The internet didn't get it's explosive growth spurt until the government got out of the business.
The first TV that I can remember my family owning had all these stickers on the back. A couple of times a year the a representative from the county would come around and collect a TV tax and add that years sticker. It's only with the cable co's that consumers had to stop paying this. Now the cable co's are required to pay for the translator stations that broadcast the signal via air.
Same basic system with major differences. In preindustrial Europe there was a very limited number of people who could be a patron. And when they did choose to take an artist on it was pretty much all they could afford to bring hire that one person. Today you have companies like Sony with thousands of contracts.
Of course it's unlike today. Today if you have talent you can get a deal if you bust your ass enough. In Mozart's time there was such limitted opportunity that you didn't the option.