Well, OK, I'll give you that one. The replay value on Pitfall II was rather low. It's biggest draw for me was the sheer amazement that they'd packed that many levels and such relatively good graphics into a single game.
Oh but the mistake there was starting with Oracle when it wasn't needed. Of course it may not be worth upgrading to the next version when it comes along down the line, but once paid for, it's usually a sunk cost so you might as well use it.
It could go either way. It seemed like our DBA staff costs were proportional to the number of tables managed, so there were measurable, non-hidden costs involved. I contend that those costs were a lot higher for us on these projects than for MySQL (or anything else), even considering the manpower required to manage the free systems.
And back in 2000 you'd have had the option of MySQL3 (in which I spent a lot of time, ugh in retrospect) as the free DB. PostgreSQL wasn't well known.
Nah. We were using PostgreSQL 6 in production at a web shop I went to after the Oracle debacle.
To be clear, Oracle and other big-iron databases clearly have their uses. It's just that I can definitely see reasons why you'd want to migrate pre-existing to a Free database, mainly when you're paying a lot for capabilities you never use.
1) If the EULA is, as you claim, unenforceable, why would you bother to pay for OS X instead of downloading one of the many pirate versions that are available?
I believe that Apple makes a good product and I want to support their continued efforts. That is also the business model that Apple has adopted, and since I wish to do business with them, I voluntarily follow it.
On the other hand, I'm a bit troubled by the implication that Apple's EULA is the only thing keeping you in compliance, and that without it you'd be downloading it from The Pirate Bay.
I like Apple. I buy their stuff. That doesn't mean I have to blindly accept every hare-brained statement out of Cupertino.
2) It specifically uses the same hyphenated term, which under modern English usage rules (i.e. the agreed upon ones rather than your private invented version), has a single meaning; a computer that has been labelled by Apple.
I understand now. I had assumed that you were a native English speaker. To native speakers, that clause could take two distinct and equally correct meanings: "a computer labeled by Apple", or "a computer labeled as an Apple". For example, I am a Kirk-named person; my name is Kirk. My children are also Kirk-named people; they were named by Kirk. I apologize for the ambiguity in our language and wish you the best of luck in your studies!
A company moving from Oracle to MySQL should have its head examined.
Not necessarily. During the dotcom days, I saw lots of companies blowing venture capital on Oracle to manage tiny databases when almost anything would have been more cost-effective. The folks I worked for wanted to use it to store the output of Nagios, for instance.
Note: I'm a PostgreSQL fanboy, but the idea still stands.
Please suggest another valid interpretation (with "valid" in this context meaning that it complies with modern English usage of first letter capitalisation and hyphenation).
This is a computer. This is an Apple label. This is the label on the computer, making it an Apple-labeled computer.
Note that the (almost certainly unenforceable) EULA doesn't even require a legitimate Apple label, only that the computer be labeled as an Apple. Well, given a Sharpie, that would take about 5 seconds. While lawyers could get their groove on by suing anyone who tried to sell the results, they'd have a hard time suing me for marking up my own personal computer.
They would sue you out of existence for selling the Apple sticker because it's infringing their trademark.
Not even close. I got a couple of stickers when I bought Leopard. I assure you I am free to sell them.
Note also that Apple's lawyers have been very precise with their wording, because "Apple-labelled computer" means a computer labelled by Apple (hence the use if the hyphen), not a computer that somebody who isn't Apple puts a sticker on.
While you may choose to read it that way, that is clearly not the only valid interpretation.
But there's nothing Apple could do to stop you from selling someone an unopened Leopard box, an Apple sticker, and installation instructions. Did that make it easier for you to understand?
(I still do undirected hacking with the help of Bugzilla, but that would have ruined the joke. Unless you're my boss. In which case, I'm doing that ISO-approved engineering process I told you about that one day. Yeah.
You could do this, but if you did it often enough to get noticed you would be sued for copyright infringement. Depending on the amount of plaintiff's material used and 'transformative nature' of your derivative you would likely be found infringing, and probably then get sued for some amount of damages or at least injunction.
Are you sure about that? I'm not talking about making copies and reselling them; that would be clearly illegal. Say it's a collection of short stories and I physically chop up the book and reassemble it in a different order that I like better. If I add "...as rearranged by Just Some Guy" to the cover so that I'm not pretending it's the "real" version, wouldn't that be legally protected? It seems like our friend, the first sale doctrine, would kick in.
Obligatory car analogy: I can do anything I want to a car and resell it, and that car's manufacturer can't stop me. Are you certain that we don't have the same right for books? For software?
That's not the copy of OSX you can buy at the store. Trying to pass it off as a legal copy of Leopard is fraud. Do anything you want with *your own* copy of Leopard, but if you try to sell modified copies, Apple can and should sue.
I think I morally disagree with that, regardless of its legality (which I don't know about). As far as I know, I can buy a book, edit that physical copy, and resell it. I believe that you should be allowed to do the same with software, so long as you're clearing labeling it as a modified version and you pay for every copy you pass along.
"Agile development" is the biggest load of crap out there, IMHO.
Yeah. Back when I was doing "agile development", my teachers called it "undirected hacking". I think I'm going to start playing video games at work and call it "Utilitarian Computing" since it makes me happy.
You either agree to this license, or you have no right to install the software.
Bullshit. You bought it - you have the right to install it. I have old books that say you're not allowed to resell them, but that's BS too.
Ok, you can put an "Apple" label on your computer. Then you're in worse trouble with a trademark infringement:-)
Not if you put them on your own computer, you're not. Trademark only kicks in when you're trying to pass something off as something else. There's an Apple sticker on my wife's minivan, but we're clearly not infringing anything.
This is not some nebulous "shrink wrap license are not enforceable" concern. If *any* license that is granted as a result of copyright is valid (hint, GPL, creative commons, SCSL), then this one is.
Does Steve Jobs tuck you in at night or something? No. You're flat-out wrong. That is exactly one of those dumb EULA concerns, especially when you're trying to mingle it with copyright. As you bought the software, you have the legal right to use it so long as you're not installing it on a bunch of machines or distributing copies. It's kind of sad and scary that presumably rational people will try to argue otherwise.
IANAL, but I believe that you can install OS X on anything you want (as long as you buy it).
Of course you can. Silly unenforcable EULA stuff aside, once you buy a copy, it's your copy. So long as you don't make unauthorized copies of it (which does not include the copy you install on a single machine, because that's what your store receipt says that you paid for), you can do whatever you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Clerk: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: That's my dad! (chuckling wittily)
The trade term is "dominatrix".
Well, OK, I'll give you that one. The replay value on Pitfall II was rather low. It's biggest draw for me was the sheer amazement that they'd packed that many levels and such relatively good graphics into a single game.
Emacs is already perfect.
Fortunately for developers, the AGPL is easy enough to ignore.
It could go either way. It seemed like our DBA staff costs were proportional to the number of tables managed, so there were measurable, non-hidden costs involved. I contend that those costs were a lot higher for us on these projects than for MySQL (or anything else), even considering the manpower required to manage the free systems.
And back in 2000 you'd have had the option of MySQL3 (in which I spent a lot of time, ugh in retrospect) as the free DB. PostgreSQL wasn't well known.Nah. We were using PostgreSQL 6 in production at a web shop I went to after the Oracle debacle.
To be clear, Oracle and other big-iron databases clearly have their uses. It's just that I can definitely see reasons why you'd want to migrate pre-existing to a Free database, mainly when you're paying a lot for capabilities you never use.
How can you leave out Pitfall and Pitfall II?
Just use -t to set a lower TTL.
I believe that Apple makes a good product and I want to support their continued efforts. That is also the business model that Apple has adopted, and since I wish to do business with them, I voluntarily follow it.
On the other hand, I'm a bit troubled by the implication that Apple's EULA is the only thing keeping you in compliance, and that without it you'd be downloading it from The Pirate Bay.
I like Apple. I buy their stuff. That doesn't mean I have to blindly accept every hare-brained statement out of Cupertino.
2) It specifically uses the same hyphenated term, which under modern English usage rules (i.e. the agreed upon ones rather than your private invented version), has a single meaning; a computer that has been labelled by Apple.I understand now. I had assumed that you were a native English speaker. To native speakers, that clause could take two distinct and equally correct meanings: "a computer labeled by Apple", or "a computer labeled as an Apple". For example, I am a Kirk-named person; my name is Kirk. My children are also Kirk-named people; they were named by Kirk. I apologize for the ambiguity in our language and wish you the best of luck in your studies!
No, it doesn't. There. Got that out of the way.
Not necessarily. During the dotcom days, I saw lots of companies blowing venture capital on Oracle to manage tiny databases when almost anything would have been more cost-effective. The folks I worked for wanted to use it to store the output of Nagios, for instance.
Note: I'm a PostgreSQL fanboy, but the idea still stands.
This is a computer. This is an Apple label. This is the label on the computer, making it an Apple-labeled computer.
Note that the (almost certainly unenforceable) EULA doesn't even require a legitimate Apple label, only that the computer be labeled as an Apple. Well, given a Sharpie, that would take about 5 seconds. While lawyers could get their groove on by suing anyone who tried to sell the results, they'd have a hard time suing me for marking up my own personal computer.
Not even close. I got a couple of stickers when I bought Leopard. I assure you I am free to sell them.
Note also that Apple's lawyers have been very precise with their wording, because "Apple-labelled computer" means a computer labelled by Apple (hence the use if the hyphen), not a computer that somebody who isn't Apple puts a sticker on.While you may choose to read it that way, that is clearly not the only valid interpretation.
In college, we christened my friend's Jaz as the "WORN drive" - Write Once, Read Never.
But there's nothing Apple could do to stop you from selling someone an unopened Leopard box, an Apple sticker, and installation instructions. Did that make it easier for you to understand?
(I still do undirected hacking with the help of Bugzilla, but that would have ruined the joke. Unless you're my boss. In which case, I'm doing that ISO-approved engineering process I told you about that one day. Yeah.
Are you sure about that? I'm not talking about making copies and reselling them; that would be clearly illegal. Say it's a collection of short stories and I physically chop up the book and reassemble it in a different order that I like better. If I add "...as rearranged by Just Some Guy" to the cover so that I'm not pretending it's the "real" version, wouldn't that be legally protected? It seems like our friend, the first sale doctrine, would kick in.
Obligatory car analogy: I can do anything I want to a car and resell it, and that car's manufacturer can't stop me. Are you certain that we don't have the same right for books? For software?
You are a good little consumer, aren't you? Let's look at this from a less-party-line angle:
I go to the store and buy eggs. They're my eggs.
I go to the store and buy a TV. It's my TV.
I go to the store and buy a book. It's my book.
I go to the store and buy a program. It's my program.
If you think otherwise, then there's something seriously wrong with your sense of property rights.
I think I morally disagree with that, regardless of its legality (which I don't know about). As far as I know, I can buy a book, edit that physical copy, and resell it. I believe that you should be allowed to do the same with software, so long as you're clearing labeling it as a modified version and you pay for every copy you pass along.
Yeah. Back when I was doing "agile development", my teachers called it "undirected hacking". I think I'm going to start playing video games at work and call it "Utilitarian Computing" since it makes me happy.
Bullshit. You bought it - you have the right to install it. I have old books that say you're not allowed to resell them, but that's BS too.
Ok, you can put an "Apple" label on your computer. Then you're in worse trouble with a trademark infringementNot if you put them on your own computer, you're not. Trademark only kicks in when you're trying to pass something off as something else. There's an Apple sticker on my wife's minivan, but we're clearly not infringing anything.
This is not some nebulous "shrink wrap license are not enforceable" concern. If *any* license that is granted as a result of copyright is valid (hint, GPL, creative commons, SCSL), then this one is.Does Steve Jobs tuck you in at night or something? No. You're flat-out wrong. That is exactly one of those dumb EULA concerns, especially when you're trying to mingle it with copyright. As you bought the software, you have the legal right to use it so long as you're not installing it on a bunch of machines or distributing copies. It's kind of sad and scary that presumably rational people will try to argue otherwise.
Of course you can. Silly unenforcable EULA stuff aside, once you buy a copy, it's your copy. So long as you don't make unauthorized copies of it (which does not include the copy you install on a single machine, because that's what your store receipt says that you paid for), you can do whatever you want.
Thus explaining why birds weren't practical until the early 1900s.
Non-Copyright Movies
Nitpick: pretty much everything is copyrighted by default. I think you meant "freely distributable".
...because someone with the source will fork it.Uh-huh. That's especially likely when almost every contributor to said project works for the company that sells it. Oh, wait, it's not likely at all.