No matter how hostile and immoral in their spying the Cubans and Russians might be, there is so little factual basis to this story, and it's so absurd that no radiation is sensed, etc., and people have visible brain pathology.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't any.
I was able to hear my own heartbeat for a few seconds after the animation started. Your mind is convinced that there will be a sound, you listen intensely, and your habit of ignoring the sound of your own heartbeat is suspended for a few seconds.
A while back, Elon tweeted something about having a quiet evening with some wine and ambien. Fortunately, Elon is wealthy enough that someone else is probably driving if he has to go anywhere under this mix. Elon has also commented that he could be bipolar.
So, sometimes one wonders if Elon is just toying with us, or if he's high.
I think there's one very good thing about this recent spate of announcements and the self-designations that some of them are fake. There was a certain class of young Elon Musk fan (I'm looking at you, Reddit/r/spacex) who didn't believe that Elon Musk lied. No, I'm not kidding. I just figure that all corporate executives lie and that it's part of the job, but not those young fans. But now, Elon seems to be putting out enough consciously conflicting messages that some of them will turn out to be lies, and the fan base can adjust its adoration accordingly.
I do think he's done a whole lot of great things. And I think you need someone like him to do them.
I don't think it's nearly so bad. If software is published in source-code form, reading it is not reverse-engineering. What you have to do is refrain from cutting and pasting. The way we determine if something is a copy or a new work is spelled out in Judge Walker's finding in CAI v. Altai.
GPL2 has patent terms as well. And in general, if you grant Open Source software using a license with no patent terms, there is an implicit estoppel under equitable law. The issue is that you can't give somebody something that infringes your own patent, authorize them to use it, and then sue them for infringement.
Say you used the BSD license. No patent terms, right? Estoppel anyway? Yes!!!
So, most sensible attorneys are happier with having that in writing than implicit.
I don't know who told you this, but it's just not true. A lot of businesses prefer GPL3 to GPL2 because many of its terms are more well written and more fair than GPL2.
Businesses that want to do a TiVo-like lock-down might not like GPL3. That might be some manufacturers or embedded devices. But consider how many WiFi access points allow installation of OpenWRT, etc.
Google is said to have forbidden the Affero versions of the GPL since they effect software-as-a-service. Is that what you're thinking of?
Creating a Laches (which is what you are talking about) isn't really the same as placing something in the public domain. Laches means you waited for economic demand for the infringing product to develop before you brought the lawsuit, presumably to enrich your income. It doesn't apply to the next new infringer to come along.
Also, be careful not to confuse it with trademarks going into the public domain.
Obviously, the Mozilla folks see that direct text input devices may not play a big role in our future, or indeed our present, and they don't want to use the Internet services of another browser maker (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon) to enable non-text on their browser. This would be slower than local recognition and not under their control. Or yours.
It's really easy to stifle innovation by requiring an over-tight focus. Many companies fail by doing just this.
So does this mean, VMWare is in for a world of problems, finally?
No. Last I heard (and many people are not aware of this) the VMWare case was under appeal in Germany. Meaning that VMWare could still lose. However, VMWare has been given cure periods far in excess of the ones mentioned here.
The author clearly doesn't understand why the kernel team rejected the GPLv3
The author understands it was mainly the anti-TiVo-ization terms. But you know Linus. Rather than say "we could use GPL3 and grant an exception to the anti-TiVo-ization terms if we really wanted to", Linus gets obscene, calls, names, personally abuses people,
the whole "Linus Show" which is a lot less cute now than that he is a grown man rather than a young guy challenging a whole industry.
The thing about going to war is that you have to win.
If your goal is having as many users as possible, you don't set out to use the GPL. Inherent in that choice you are rejecting some users in favor of gaining a better bargain for everyone else. The Kernel Team still has trouble dealing with this.
Here's the Wikipedia relicensing. Definitely not easy. I objected to GFDL applied to Wikipedia before this, and they knew that, but I didn't play an active role in this change and there must have been many other people who objected too.
It's not really impossible, and even the Kernel team has studied the problem with a lawyer and acknowledged this. It's not easy either. Remember, Wikipedia did a some time ago. You have to publish the decision for opposition, and then anyone who opposes it who has code in the kernel has the right to ask for that code to be removed before the change.
Most libertarians still believe they have a right to keep uninvited guests out of their living room. I think the same applies to GPL software. The developers made the rules for their party. If you don't want to play by their rules, you do still have no limit on your freedom: you are entirely free to write your own software and set your own rules for it.
If you truly believe in Free Society (free meaning "freedom") then you reject the law because it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with forcing specific beliefs on citizens.
I understand the sentiment, but without the rule of law you probably get the rule of mobsters. We do not yet live in a science-fictional world where coercion is impossible, regardless of the number of arms borne by one side or the other. This might have to wait for a post-scarcity society, if it is even possible then.
Copyright is not the only possible legal regime. It's just the one we have now. A legal structure supporting openness could exist side-by-side with proprietary copyright.
As far as I can tell so far (not having read the actual cases) it's McHardy's legal right. However, the Kernel Team is bothered that it might turn users away from Linux and don't condone his asking people for money. Nor do any community norms I've seen in 20 years approve of his behavior.
To be fair to the Kernel Team, the major thing they objected to in GPL3 back then was the anti-TiVo-ization terms. These would prevent lock-down of the software such that the end user would be blocked from updating it. I am told that a number of products gained a "developer mode" just to comply with GPL3. This is something we should encourage, IMO. But perhaps the Kernel Team are still more oriented to having companies use Linux than keeping it as Free as I would like.
It's not even in our solar system any longer, having traversed the heliosphere of the solar wind into true interstellar space. Power from the nuclear thermal generator runs out in about 2020.
Proof that "information wants to be free" makes great financial sense.
If you knew the entire saying you're failing to quote. you'd understand how silly your premise is. Selling information that people want to give away is a pretty good way to go out of business. People continue to want to give away Open Source software because they feel it's much nicer than being your customer.
Reduce the cost by the fact that the two side boosters are used, thus already paid at their retail cost for by previous missions and now being reused by SpaceX at their internal reuse cost. Now, we don't know SpaceX's refurbishment costs, but all suspicion is that the Block 4 rocket does not require major refurbishment to be used a second or third time. Block 5 rockets are supposed to be reusable more times without refurbishment.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how hostile and immoral in their spying the Cubans and Russians might be, there is so little factual basis to this story, and it's so absurd that no radiation is sensed, etc., and people have visible brain pathology.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't any.
I was able to hear my own heartbeat for a few seconds after the animation started. Your mind is convinced that there will be a sound, you listen intensely, and your habit of ignoring the sound of your own heartbeat is suspended for a few seconds.
A while back, Elon tweeted something about having a quiet evening with some wine and ambien. Fortunately, Elon is wealthy enough that someone else is probably driving if he has to go anywhere under this mix. Elon has also commented that he could be bipolar.
So, sometimes one wonders if Elon is just toying with us, or if he's high.
I think there's one very good thing about this recent spate of announcements and the self-designations that some of them are fake. There was a certain class of young Elon Musk fan (I'm looking at you, Reddit /r/spacex) who didn't believe that Elon Musk lied. No, I'm not kidding. I just figure that all corporate executives lie and that it's part of the job, but not those young fans. But now, Elon seems to be putting out enough consciously conflicting messages that some of them will turn out to be lies, and the fan base can adjust its adoration accordingly.
I do think he's done a whole lot of great things. And I think you need someone like him to do them.
I don't think it's nearly so bad. If software is published in source-code form, reading it is not reverse-engineering. What you have to do is refrain from cutting and pasting. The way we determine if something is a copy or a new work is spelled out in Judge Walker's finding in CAI v. Altai.
GPL2 has patent terms as well. And in general, if you grant Open Source software using a license with no patent terms, there is an implicit estoppel under equitable law. The issue is that you can't give somebody something that infringes your own patent, authorize them to use it, and then sue them for infringement.
Say you used the BSD license. No patent terms, right? Estoppel anyway? Yes!!!
So, most sensible attorneys are happier with having that in writing than implicit.
I don't know who told you this, but it's just not true. A lot of businesses prefer GPL3 to GPL2 because many of its terms are more well written and more fair than GPL2.
Businesses that want to do a TiVo-like lock-down might not like GPL3. That might be some manufacturers or embedded devices. But consider how many WiFi access points allow installation of OpenWRT, etc.
Google is said to have forbidden the Affero versions of the GPL since they effect software-as-a-service. Is that what you're thinking of?
Creating a Laches (which is what you are talking about) isn't really the same as placing something in the public domain. Laches means you waited for economic demand for the infringing product to develop before you brought the lawsuit, presumably to enrich your income. It doesn't apply to the next new infringer to come along.
Also, be careful not to confuse it with trademarks going into the public domain.
Certainly this will be part of the browser.
Obviously, the Mozilla folks see that direct text input devices may not play a big role in our future, or indeed our present, and they don't want to use the Internet services of another browser maker (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon) to enable non-text on their browser. This would be slower than local recognition and not under their control. Or yours.
It's really easy to stifle innovation by requiring an over-tight focus. Many companies fail by doing just this.
In case you didn't realize, the original article is the last link. Or you can just look at it here.
No. Last I heard (and many people are not aware of this) the VMWare case was under appeal in Germany. Meaning that VMWare could still lose. However, VMWare has been given cure periods far in excess of the ones mentioned here.
The author understands it was mainly the anti-TiVo-ization terms. But you know Linus. Rather than say "we could use GPL3 and grant an exception to the anti-TiVo-ization terms if we really wanted to", Linus gets obscene, calls, names, personally abuses people, the whole "Linus Show" which is a lot less cute now than that he is a grown man rather than a young guy challenging a whole industry.
If your goal is having as many users as possible, you don't set out to use the GPL. Inherent in that choice you are rejecting some users in favor of gaining a better bargain for everyone else. The Kernel Team still has trouble dealing with this.
Here's the Wikipedia relicensing. Definitely not easy. I objected to GFDL applied to Wikipedia before this, and they knew that, but I didn't play an active role in this change and there must have been many other people who objected too.
It's not really impossible, and even the Kernel team has studied the problem with a lawyer and acknowledged this. It's not easy either. Remember, Wikipedia did a some time ago. You have to publish the decision for opposition, and then anyone who opposes it who has code in the kernel has the right to ask for that code to be removed before the change.
Most libertarians still believe they have a right to keep uninvited guests out of their living room. I think the same applies to GPL software. The developers made the rules for their party. If you don't want to play by their rules, you do still have no limit on your freedom: you are entirely free to write your own software and set your own rules for it.
I understand the sentiment, but without the rule of law you probably get the rule of mobsters. We do not yet live in a science-fictional world where coercion is impossible, regardless of the number of arms borne by one side or the other. This might have to wait for a post-scarcity society, if it is even possible then.
Copyright is not the only possible legal regime. It's just the one we have now. A legal structure supporting openness could exist side-by-side with proprietary copyright.
As far as I can tell so far (not having read the actual cases) it's McHardy's legal right. However, the Kernel Team is bothered that it might turn users away from Linux and don't condone his asking people for money. Nor do any community norms I've seen in 20 years approve of his behavior.
To be fair to the Kernel Team, the major thing they objected to in GPL3 back then was the anti-TiVo-ization terms. These would prevent lock-down of the software such that the end user would be blocked from updating it. I am told that a number of products gained a "developer mode" just to comply with GPL3. This is something we should encourage, IMO. But perhaps the Kernel Team are still more oriented to having companies use Linux than keeping it as Free as I would like.
It's not even in our solar system any longer, having traversed the heliosphere of the solar wind into true interstellar space. Power from the nuclear thermal generator runs out in about 2020.
I suspect the Publisher might not have wanted to keep that ship afloat if the cost was appeasing you.
If you knew the entire saying you're failing to quote. you'd understand how silly your premise is. Selling information that people want to give away is a pretty good way to go out of business. People continue to want to give away Open Source software because they feel it's much nicer than being your customer.
Because he's egotistical, self promoting, and wins because he's already a winner? You might find me a minor annoyance too, then. :-)
I think it might need people like that to get big things done.
So, by your theory it's the transparency of Open Source projects that dooms them to failure? :-)
Reduce the cost by the fact that the two side boosters are used, thus already paid at their retail cost for by previous missions and now being reused by SpaceX at their internal reuse cost. Now, we don't know SpaceX's refurbishment costs, but all suspicion is that the Block 4 rocket does not require major refurbishment to be used a second or third time. Block 5 rockets are supposed to be reusable more times without refurbishment.