No, they told me that they meant that if you embed the font in a document, you can distribute the document under any license that you desire to use. But you can't sell the font separately, or convert it to another license.
That's what they meant, anyway. What it says, however, can be parsed about four different ways. So, we have to get a judge and let him/her pick one.
Good license writers make them clear enough that there aren't ambiguities in the license itself to litigate.
Most of my customers are in embedded systems. Sometimes, it concerns Android, and I have told them that Android does not represent the quality that should be expected out of an Open Source project. But their customers are asking for Android. So, we don't really get to make that decision.
If you look at how many presentations, etc., Bob did at the recent NMRA (National Model Railroading Association) conference, he hardly got snuffed. It almost looks as if people were going to the conference just to see him.
Katzer spent a lot of money, has no product he can legally sell today (his web site currently only points to a list of articles) and his reputation is in the pits over this with anyone who might have otherwise been a customer.
But yes, anyone less tenacious than Bob would have lost, and it wouldn't have been terribly expensive for the patent holder. The patent system is so tuned to incent the bad guy that it really stinks.
It's the SIL font license. This is the problem paragraph:
5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be
distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to
remain under this license does not apply to any document created
using the Font Software.
The problem is, if you embed the font, it explicitly says the license doesn't apply any longer. If you then extract the font, the authors of this license assume that the license magically applies once more. I am far from sure that is the case.
It's more of a victory for you and me, because we have the benefit of Bob's court precedents. Katzer had previously intimidated at least one other person with patent threats, and Bob felt that the team could not go on with their project with this hanging over their heads. But I agree that the Open Source developer really paid, paid big, to get this. I've taken tons of s**t for what I attempt to do for the community too. You'd better believe in what you're doing, because there isn't always a thank-you.
If you read the second appeal, I don't think DMCA is a big deal in it. But if we're going to have dumb law, let's at least make it work for us. IMO worse than DMCA is the entire concept that cases like this can bankrupt someone before they have a chance to win. How can there be justice if that's the case?
I am gainfully employed in consulting companies, mostly, that are trying to cope with Open Source but still have the old mindset. That's what they have me there to fix. Of course lots of people who are gainfully employed get paid to work on Open Source today. But it's interesting, when I visit these companies, that I already know their hottest programmers - through Open Source.
It's actually the appeals court that was sympathetic. Twice. The lower court seems
to have had less understanding of the Open Source developer's plight.
Using "the right one": means the right Open Source license. A real key here is getting one that had competent legal help in its drafting. There are a few
real duds on the OSI list, including a font license that I swear allows
you to convert the font to the public domain. Only the programmers who wrote
it don't see it that way.
Sorry about the lack of paragraph breaks. I tend to write too many of
them and the editor responded by using too few of them. He might have
fixed that and the web cache hasn't been flushed yet.
Although Crete is 200 miles from the coast of Africa, there are lots of intervening islands between it and Greece, and the crossings are more like 10 and 20 miles rather than 200. You can see one island from the next. These are still formidable crossings for ancient humans, but not so grand as a single 200-mile trip.
Motorola owns Yaesu. Actually, it owns "Vertex Standard" and Yaesu is a division of it, thus the newer Yaesu logo which is a stylized "VS". I guess this is going with the enterprise radio division.
Obviously hams have been nervous that Motorola would kill Yaesu since the purchase happened. I don't see any reason to be less nervous.
It's been argued that the odds are, we are living in a matrix in an omega-point computer or somebody-from-the-future's ancestor simulation.
Right. Computers will be so powerful that the vast majority of entities will live in simulated worlds. So, the odds are that this has already occurred and we live in a simulated world.
Combine sensory input (video, tactile, audible), referential statistical modeling, massive parallel computation, against looping tumblers of self-modifying/improving code, add a random check variable for uncertainty, and you will eventually get AI.
That's a whole lot of evolution to achieve with finite (although larger than today) computation. In 20 years????
Oh come on. I don't even have a computer that can pick up stuff in my room
and organize it without prior input, and nobody does, and that would not be
close to a general AI when it happens.
They're really assuming that the technology will go from zero to
sixty in 20 years. Which they assumed 20 years ago, too, and it didn't
happen. Meanwhile, nobody has any significant understanding of what
consciousness is. Now, it might be that a true AI computer doesn't need to be
conscious, but we still don't know enough about it to fake it. We
also have no system that can on demand form its own symbolic system to deal
with a rich and arbitrary set of inputs similar to those conveyed by the human
senses.
Compare this to things that actually have been achieved: We had the
mathematical theory of computation at least 100 years before there was a
mechanical or electronic system that would practically execute it (Babbage
didn't get his system built). We had the physical theory for space travel
that far back, too.
We know very little about how a mind works, except that it keeps turning out to
be more complicated than we expected.
Once those options are exercised they have the same exact effect on the overall equity and capital structure of the corporation as straight stock does. So there's not much point throwing them into the conversation, might as well leave it as just "equity".
You can't be serious. OK, maybe you are serious, but in that case you're missing a whole lot.
Your typical employee stock grant vests after four years at a fixed strike price, which is generally set at some price the stock reached at some arbitrary point previous to the start of those four years, generally around when the board decided on the employee stock plan. So, the employee is actually being granted a sort of stock future. If the stock goes up, the option has some value. If the stock goes down and stays there, the option is never exercised. So, the non-employee and management stockholders only get diluted when the stock goes up (in which case they make money anyway). And the company takes on its balance sheet not the current price of the stock at the time the option is exercised, but the strike price set in the option grant, which is of course less. The funds gained by the employee come from the sale of the stock to the public at the time the option is exercised. not from the company.
I think SGI's problem was being a systems rather than a graphics company, they could have had ATI and nVidia's market as a fabless semiconductor company. The problem was that when Jim started the company with a graphics terminal rather than a graphics workstation, it didn't sell well. And then they stuck in the high-end workstation market until it was too late.
Nobody remembers HP? They charged 70% margins for HP-9000. The ended up givingthe PA-RISC design to Intel, along with the employees who made it, for no cash and what I think ended up being useless options.
Institutional investors have a whole lot more going for them than the unacredited stockholder. But there are cases where the institution is empowered and its members are not. The worst ones are probably the ones run by the company in which they are invested, and the ones for public service employees which can be run by political appointees.
Your attempt is to dehumanize the bosses make them seem sub human so you feel better that you are not a millionaire too.
I don't discuss my finances on the net, unlike another Open Source evangelist who once made a really big fool of himself this way, because he says he lost it all. However, I play or have played all of the roles I discussed.
I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws
That doesn't mean anything, because you are assuming that the laws themselves have some benevolent or equalizing role, but you don't specify it except that the constitution should say what it is.
I don't think you realize that neither socialism nor capitalism have ever happened in real societies. What we have gotten is some mix of socialism and communism and some mix of feudalism and capitalism. Capitalism might actually be possible at some time in the future if it could actually be made to operate fairly to all players. Perhaps someday this will be within the range of computation.
That's over-simplistic. Paying employees stock would be no different from paying them cash if the stock was fully fungible in the form payed to employees. It generally has delays of years attached before the employee can sell it, and as I mentioned earlier, it's a different tier from the stock held by the more privileged managers, some of the investors, etc.
And those who are thinking beyond tomorrow's lunch are often deluded into believing that through sheer hard work and determination they can one day be at the top of this pile.
Slashdot Mirror
That should probably be: use the version 3 ones. There are a lot of lessons from experience in the v3 series.
Jammag just wrote this submission in a hurry. It means use the right Open Source license.
No, they told me that they meant that if you embed the font in a document, you can distribute the document under any license that you desire to use. But you can't sell the font separately, or convert it to another license.
That's what they meant, anyway. What it says, however, can be parsed about four different ways. So, we have to get a judge and let him/her pick one.
Good license writers make them clear enough that there aren't ambiguities in the license itself to litigate.
Most of my customers are in embedded systems. Sometimes, it concerns Android, and I have told them that Android does not represent the quality that should be expected out of an Open Source project. But their customers are asking for Android. So, we don't really get to make that decision.
If you look at how many presentations, etc., Bob did at the recent NMRA (National Model Railroading Association) conference, he hardly got snuffed. It almost looks as if people were going to the conference just to see him.
Katzer spent a lot of money, has no product he can legally sell today (his web site currently only points to a list of articles) and his reputation is in the pits over this with anyone who might have otherwise been a customer.
But yes, anyone less tenacious than Bob would have lost, and it wouldn't have been terribly expensive for the patent holder. The patent system is so tuned to incent the bad guy that it really stinks.
It's the SIL font license. This is the problem paragraph:
The problem is, if you embed the font, it explicitly says the license doesn't apply any longer. If you then extract the font, the authors of this license assume that the license magically applies once more. I am far from sure that is the case.
It's more of a victory for you and me, because we have the benefit of Bob's court precedents. Katzer had previously intimidated at least one other person with patent threats, and Bob felt that the team could not go on with their project with this hanging over their heads. But I agree that the Open Source developer really paid, paid big, to get this. I've taken tons of s**t for what I attempt to do for the community too. You'd better believe in what you're doing, because there isn't always a thank-you.
If you read the second appeal, I don't think DMCA is a big deal in it. But if we're going to have dumb law, let's at least make it work for us. IMO worse than DMCA is the entire concept that cases like this can bankrupt someone before they have a chance to win. How can there be justice if that's the case?
Nobody told you that the answer was 42?
I am gainfully employed in consulting companies, mostly, that are trying to cope with Open Source but still have the old mindset. That's what they have me there to fix. Of course lots of people who are gainfully employed get paid to work on Open Source today. But it's interesting, when I visit these companies, that I already know their hottest programmers - through Open Source.
It's actually the appeals court that was sympathetic. Twice. The lower court seems to have had less understanding of the Open Source developer's plight.
Using "the right one": means the right Open Source license. A real key here is getting one that had competent legal help in its drafting. There are a few real duds on the OSI list, including a font license that I swear allows you to convert the font to the public domain. Only the programmers who wrote it don't see it that way.
Sorry about the lack of paragraph breaks. I tend to write too many of them and the editor responded by using too few of them. He might have fixed that and the web cache hasn't been flushed yet.
Although Crete is 200 miles from the coast of Africa, there are lots of intervening islands between it and Greece, and the crossings are more like 10 and 20 miles rather than 200. You can see one island from the next. These are still formidable crossings for ancient humans, but not so grand as a single 200-mile trip.
Motorola owns Yaesu. Actually, it owns "Vertex Standard" and Yaesu is a division of it, thus the newer Yaesu logo which is a stylized "VS". I guess this is going with the enterprise radio division.
Obviously hams have been nervous that Motorola would kill Yaesu since the purchase happened. I don't see any reason to be less nervous.
Right. Computers will be so powerful that the vast majority of entities will live in simulated worlds. So, the odds are that this has already occurred and we live in a simulated world.
It's enough to make me take up gnosticism.
That's a whole lot of evolution to achieve with finite (although larger than today) computation. In 20 years????
Oh come on. I don't even have a computer that can pick up stuff in my room and organize it without prior input, and nobody does, and that would not be close to a general AI when it happens.
They're really assuming that the technology will go from zero to sixty in 20 years. Which they assumed 20 years ago, too, and it didn't happen. Meanwhile, nobody has any significant understanding of what consciousness is. Now, it might be that a true AI computer doesn't need to be conscious, but we still don't know enough about it to fake it. We also have no system that can on demand form its own symbolic system to deal with a rich and arbitrary set of inputs similar to those conveyed by the human senses.
Compare this to things that actually have been achieved: We had the mathematical theory of computation at least 100 years before there was a mechanical or electronic system that would practically execute it (Babbage didn't get his system built). We had the physical theory for space travel that far back, too.
We know very little about how a mind works, except that it keeps turning out to be more complicated than we expected.
So, I'm really very dubious.
You can't be serious. OK, maybe you are serious, but in that case you're missing a whole lot.
Your typical employee stock grant vests after four years at a fixed strike price, which is generally set at some price the stock reached at some arbitrary point previous to the start of those four years, generally around when the board decided on the employee stock plan. So, the employee is actually being granted a sort of stock future. If the stock goes up, the option has some value. If the stock goes down and stays there, the option is never exercised. So, the non-employee and management stockholders only get diluted when the stock goes up (in which case they make money anyway). And the company takes on its balance sheet not the current price of the stock at the time the option is exercised, but the strike price set in the option grant, which is of course less. The funds gained by the employee come from the sale of the stock to the public at the time the option is exercised. not from the company.
I think SGI's problem was being a systems rather than a graphics company, they could have had ATI and nVidia's market as a fabless semiconductor company. The problem was that when Jim started the company with a graphics terminal rather than a graphics workstation, it didn't sell well. And then they stuck in the high-end workstation market until it was too late.
Nobody remembers HP? They charged 70% margins for HP-9000. The ended up givingthe PA-RISC design to Intel, along with the employees who made it, for no cash and what I think ended up being useless options.
Institutional investors have a whole lot more going for them than the unacredited stockholder. But there are cases where the institution is empowered and its members are not. The worst ones are probably the ones run by the company in which they are invested, and the ones for public service employees which can be run by political appointees.
I think you need to discuss options, then, which are what is actually paid.
I don't discuss my finances on the net, unlike another Open Source evangelist who once made a really big fool of himself this way, because he says he lost it all. However, I play or have played all of the roles I discussed.
That doesn't mean anything, because you are assuming that the laws themselves have some benevolent or equalizing role, but you don't specify it except that the constitution should say what it is.
I don't think you realize that neither socialism nor capitalism have ever happened in real societies. What we have gotten is some mix of socialism and communism and some mix of feudalism and capitalism. Capitalism might actually be possible at some time in the future if it could actually be made to operate fairly to all players. Perhaps someday this will be within the range of computation.
That's over-simplistic. Paying employees stock would be no different from paying them cash if the stock was fully fungible in the form payed to employees. It generally has delays of years attached before the employee can sell it, and as I mentioned earlier, it's a different tier from the stock held by the more privileged managers, some of the investors, etc.
Oops. I forgot to mention stock dilution. Another big way to work against the stockholders with stock.
Arbeit macht frei.