And yet... there are enough people who wanted this law. Why can't those self-same people simply avoid doing business which don't accommodate disabled people? -russ
Frankly, I don't like the idea that if I patent something I have to let anyone who writes open source use it royalty free.
It's not royalty-free. The royalty that you're getting is all of the open source software that's licensed under this code. If you don't think the royalty is high enough, then go ahead and sue.
There is also a legitimate place in the market for closed source software.
Could be, but what does this have to do with the patent clause? -russ
Sure, just like lawyers can write their own software. The lawyers that want their code to actually *work* when entered into a computer will leave the coding to a programmer. -russ
Under the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted. There is no path from there to the public domain except through expiry of the copyright. Read this month's Linux Journal. -russ
Do you really think that if software says "Use of this software implies agreement with this contract which says you will do what we tell you to do" is or should be enforceable?
If you paid for the software, no. If you downloaded it for free, and can easily and reasonably delete it if you disagree with the terms, then yes, continued use should be deemed agreement. -russ
You have no license to change the text of the license. This is common language, even in open source licenses. The GPL is copyrighted, and you are not permitted to make changes. -russ
RMS hates it when you call the GPL "viral". Please don't annoy RMS gratuitiously. A term which is more accurate and less inflammatory is "reciprocal". -russ
RMS failed to create a kernel. Without a kernel, GNU is not an operating system. You could argue that Herd is their kernel, but who ever heard of Herd? Nobody. Who ever heard of the GNU operating system? Nobody. Who ever booted up GNU? Nobody. GNU has failed. -russ
Cool! So if I contribute bloated, inefficient code to Linux, I get to rename Linux to Russ/Linux? Just because my code is bigger than anybody else's code?
Lookit, RMS has asked us to call it GNU/Linux. A normal person would say "Gee, they don't want to do it. I'll stop asking." Instead, he keeps asking and asking and asking. At some point it becomes obvious (maybe even to you) that he's not really asking (since "no" is never the right answer). He's demanding. -russ
pygps takes hundreds of maps at 5 zoom levels (different scale maps including the 7.5 minute series) and seamlessly stitches them together (moving map display, not a moving cursor on a stationary map). Or, at least, the next release will have that. Don't have waypoints yet. Still designing the user interface for it. Could steal somebody else's but don't want to. Don't do DEM's; aren't planning on it either. There's just way too much data to fit onto an iPAQ. Probably be usable on a laptop, and if somebody added support for it, I'd be happy. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
And yet ... there are enough people who wanted this law. Why can't those self-same people simply avoid doing business which don't accommodate disabled people?
-russ
Nope. You'd think so, but no.
-russ
Cool! Hey, somebody should submit this as a story to Slashdot. I know the people there would love to hear about it... again.
-russ
it's a legal gray area.
Agreed.
-russ
I have no problem with restricting people's freedom to harm me in loathsome and disgusting manners, e.g. by suing me for patent infringement.
-russ
If you don't use an approved license, we don't let you use the certification mark, which is "OSI Certified(tm)", or the OSI Certified logo.
-russ
Frankly, I don't like the idea that if I patent something I have to let anyone who writes open source use it royalty free.
It's not royalty-free. The royalty that you're getting is all of the open source software that's licensed under this code. If you don't think the royalty is high enough, then go ahead and sue.
There is also a legitimate place in the market for closed source software.
Could be, but what does this have to do with the patent clause?
-russ
Sure, just like lawyers can write their own software. The lawyers that want their code to actually *work* when entered into a computer will leave the coding to a programmer.
-russ
The Open Source Definition doesn't let you stop people from profiting from your code. Sorry.
-russ
Under the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted. There is no path from there to the public domain except through expiry of the copyright. Read this month's Linux Journal.
-russ
Only a copyright holder has standing to sue. To sue, you would have to be a contributor to the project.
-russ
Do you really think that if software says "Use of this software implies agreement with this contract which says you will do what we tell you to do" is or should be enforceable?
If you paid for the software, no. If you downloaded it for free, and can easily and reasonably delete it if you disagree with the terms, then yes, continued use should be deemed agreement.
-russ
These licences all say, "the only terms under which you can copy this work is if you agree to this licence."
The Open Software License forms a contract. It's only the GPL that claims not to be a contract. But both are reciprocal licenses.
-russ
Yeah, I know that you're trying to flame us, but you failed utterly. You didn't read the licenses, did you? Admit it.
-russ
You have no license to change the text of the license. This is common language, even in open source licenses. The GPL is copyrighted, and you are not permitted to make changes.
-russ
RMS hates it when you call the GPL "viral". Please don't annoy RMS gratuitiously. A term which is more accurate and less inflammatory is "reciprocal".
-russ
this clause is just a way to try and take away people's freedom.
Do you really want people to have the freedom to sue your sorry butt for patent infringement?
-russ
Actually, it's when you feel the breeze.
-russ
If these guys have Linux support, then what is Eric Blossom doing with GNU Radio? And why have these two articles about SDR been posted today?
-russ
RMS failed to create a kernel. Without a kernel, GNU is not an operating system. You could argue that Herd is their kernel, but who ever heard of Herd? Nobody. Who ever heard of the GNU operating system? Nobody. Who ever booted up GNU? Nobody. GNU has failed.
-russ
Cool! So if I contribute bloated, inefficient code to Linux, I get to rename Linux to Russ/Linux? Just because my code is bigger than anybody else's code?
Um, no.
-russ
everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is.
Its correct name is "Linux". Assuming something, and then reasoning from it, does not make your assumption correct.
-russ
Lookit, RMS has asked us to call it GNU/Linux. A normal person would say "Gee, they don't want to do it. I'll stop asking." Instead, he keeps asking and asking and asking. At some point it becomes obvious (maybe even to you) that he's not really asking (since "no" is never the right answer). He's demanding.
-russ
Yup, I'm quite aware of the problems using bitmaps. Vector maps are on my todo list.
-russ
pygps takes hundreds of maps at 5 zoom levels (different scale maps including the 7.5 minute series) and seamlessly stitches them together (moving map display, not a moving cursor on a stationary map). Or, at least, the next release will have that. Don't have waypoints yet. Still designing the user interface for it. Could steal somebody else's but don't want to. Don't do DEM's; aren't planning on it either. There's just way too much data to fit onto an iPAQ. Probably be usable on a laptop, and if somebody added support for it, I'd be happy.
-russ