Use of copyright on intermediate copies is effective for using copyright to restrict the use of software. The
end product of software is the execution of the software in the CPU,
and is not possible to separate the execution from the intermediate
copying which precedes it.
So, some legal theorists suggested using intermediate copying to restrict the production of 3D-printed objects using copyright, even though the objects themselves can not be protected with copyright under 17 USC 102(b) and similar law.
Use of copyright on intermediate copies is not, however, effective for
restriction of copying of two-dimensional or three dimensional shapes,
because the end product is a rendering or physical object which can be
measured independently of the program that created it, and embodies
all of the attributes of the shape. In the case of fonts, one need
only render the font in a license-compliant manner, and then trace the
outline of the resulting glyph into another program. This is a
well-established way of bringing typefaces into Open Source from
proprietary fonts, without copyright infringement.
In the case of 3D objects, any means of fitting a mesh or other
geometric representation to the created shape would provide a means to
bring that shape into another program in a manner that does not
infringe on the copyright of the program or data which is used to
create the shape. This would include various methods of scanning,
optical ones or even exotic things such as CT and MRI. It would also
be possible to record the physical movement of the printer or the
light beam in producing the object, and map that back to a shape.
So, we have well-established precedent and I'd feel very comfortable
testifying about 3D objects (and of course typefaces) not being capable of protection using copyright, in a relevant case.
Design patents, on the other hand, would work fine.
Open Hardware is a good thing to make, but we need to be aware of its limitations. Regardless of the license used, creating a device from the plans is not copyright infringement.
Let's make sure everyone understands that. You can manufacture an open hardware design, regardless of the license, and share nothing, and it is not a crime.
It is, however, potentially a copyright infringement if you publish the plans in violation of the license.
This is because of this text in copyright law. This is the US version but there are similar things in many nations.
17 CFR 102(b) (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
The reason for this is that functional things such as hardware are protected by patent rather than copyright.
We should also consider what would happen if Open Hardware licenses could be enforced using copyright. Suddenly, any published schematic in a book or online publication would be protected using copyright and the copyright enforced on hardware manufacturers, including all of those in books that exist today. Which would have a major chilling effect on the Open Hardware industry and hardware production in general. We do not want this to happen.
Thus, in general we should not use copyright-based licenses on hardware, lest the courts begin to consider this to be normal practice and create case law that supports it. Courts and legislators do this, it's how we got software patents and other nightmares of today. Let's not encourage them.
I think you are not considering the scaling issues. In a perfect world, your box of pepperoni would have a blockchain by which you could trace back to that mad cow and the farm it came from, and the guys who undercooked it, and the plant they work at, once someone got CJD. In real life the processors co-mingle meat at every stage, and the accounting load doesn't scale.
I own very many devices that are capable of having an embedded serial number. For some reason, most of them have "12345678" or something equally inane programmed into the serial number field.
Rather than just provide x86 emulation on ARM, we can use x86 emulation on ARM to run Oracle's x86 Java implementation. We can run the jRuby interpreter in that. And we can use jRuby to run this ATARI 2600 emulator.
I bet a lot of you folks can suggest a more absurd one than that.
Obviously, Elon Musk has a direction he's planned for the world, not just for Tesla, and he's going that way and damn the stockholders if they aren't interested in being there for the ride.
This is all fine, but the corporate governmental structure that would fit it is to be a "B" corporation. Then your stockholders know what they're signing on to and the courts don't get to hold you to producing profit without regard for the long-term viability of your company or the world around it.
Fact: tracking the source of a potentially tainted product from a single receipt, instantly, can be helpful in finding the tainted product, testing it, stopping its distribution if necessary, and notifying the purchasers.
Fluff: rather than use a bunch of simple database joins, we used a distributed cryptographic system providing reliable attestation of a transaction without dependence on a particular server, together with anonymity. We also swat mosquitoes with atomic bombs.
I think Dyn started out as a community effort rather than an explicit for-profit. I signed on back then. I seem to remember signing on for something long-term, for not much money. Not long after that they went commercial. My sign-on was supposed to be carried over to a year's service or something, I don't remember and I didn't pursue it because I was only interested in the community effort.
On the other hand, if you are not marketing to someplace that will continue to have a Java shop whether you like it or not, you will be more concerned with time-to-market. Which can make or break a company. Java isn't a great language for time-to-market, you can arrive at a finished product in another language more quickly. It's not great for programmer utilization either, for the same reason.
Now me, I just always declined to learn Cobol or Fortran because I didn't want to be mired in that part of the world. I had to write a little Ratfor once. And that's part of the reason I didn't get involved in Java either. The other reason was Sun holding it back from being fully Open Source. Which meant it would not be where I was going personally.
It's a legacy language. They last for incredibly long, but it's not what a forward-looking CTO would have their people coding in today. And too bad for the Apache project, which seems to have tied its own relevance to Java.
Google surely regrets the decision in Android now. For both technical and legal/financial reasons. I was one of their defense consultants in Oracle v. Google. Made some money, but how useless for the industry. Google is transitioning to some sort of Android/Chrome meld now.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could pass enough states, and the EC's effect would be nullified. It might be that Trump provides sufficient impetus for states to pass it. So far it is looking like Hillary won the popular vote, and it is certainly possible that Trump will wet his boots badly enough that State legislatures take action.
Well, hey, I would have preferred to have Bernie win the Democratic primary.
The cable itself has a maximum current which is independent of the device, and it can be one of three values. They didn't want every USB C cable to have to be built to carry 100 Watts.
The Supreme court are appointed by elected officials, so there is at least some connection to the electorate there. If they were a properly working judiciary they would not rule on party boundaries but we know they mostly do. However, in the case of Roe v. Wade only one justice in the majority opinion, if I have this right, was appointed by a Democrat and that was Thurgood Marshall. The opinion was written by a Nixon appointee and the rest of those who joined the majority were appointed by Nixon, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. Byron White, a Kennedy appointee, was the senior dissenting justice.
So, the Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade and the two Democrats on the opinion nullified each other! I don't see how this supports your argument at all.
I would imagine you've been in favor of at least some of what lefties view as social progress over the past few decades. Little to none of that would have happened had the U.S. been a direct democracy.
Actually this was not a SF Chronicle story. It was a poll run by the late political commentator John McLaughlin. He claimed that in a sample of 800 foreign-born registered voters (and it doesn't say how he could tell they were registered) 13% said they were not US citizens.
And I really have to question the veracity. He's hardly an un-biased surveyor, and I can't find very much at all about the survey online. Nobody credible seems to have duplicated it.
Well, yes, but the time for you to convince the USB standard authors of this was around 1996. They came up with a standard that very deliberately made it possible to construct dumb-and-cheap peripherals at the expense of significant complexity in the host computer's driver. Did you know that a device driver author has to write an interpreter in order to parse what should be done with the structure fields sent by a USB human interface device? Essentially, the device can send whatever fields it wants to, in whatever order it wants, and whatever data size it wants, and the driver has to pick the structure apart according to a few pages of ROM definitions sent by the device when it's connected.
So, now we have about 5 generations of legacy standards that USB C is overloaded on top of, and the only way to give it its the opportunity to do new stuff in a port designed for USB 1.0 is for it to identify itself with a resistor. Just a little SMD chip resistor that costs 5 cents.
And by the way, how many connectors have we gone through now? At least 7.
I don't want to move, I want this country to implement direct democracy. There is nothing wrong with working for a reasonable political change, which IMO this is.
Now, would you like to take a try at explaining why I wouldn't like it? A few people in this discussion have said or implied that, but nobody had any reasons other than a desire to have people in the boonies given more weight to their vote than people from urban areas. Which doesn't seem to make sense.
This is just progress. Like Flash being deprecated once HTML5 could do everything that Flash could, with better compatibility, performance, and security. Once USB has a 100-Watt charging profile, there's no point in still having QC 3.0
You are not personally after my money, but it may be that your roads and infrastructure, your social services and benefits, etc., are paid for out of my pocket, because your state receives more Federal funds than it pays. For example the people in North Dakota receive more Federal benefit dollars than they pay in taxes, more than any other state, while the government of Minnesota receives more Federal funds than its people pay in taxes, more than any other state. You didn't necessarily ask for this, but you benefit from it anyway.
California, where I live, is low on the list and I get the feeling that we're carrying a lot of the country with our taxes. Red states tend to be more dependent upon the Federal Government than otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Use of copyright on intermediate copies is effective for using copyright to restrict the use of software. The end product of software is the execution of the software in the CPU, and is not possible to separate the execution from the intermediate copying which precedes it.
So, some legal theorists suggested using intermediate copying to restrict the production of 3D-printed objects using copyright, even though the objects themselves can not be protected with copyright under 17 USC 102(b) and similar law.
Use of copyright on intermediate copies is not, however, effective for restriction of copying of two-dimensional or three dimensional shapes, because the end product is a rendering or physical object which can be measured independently of the program that created it, and embodies all of the attributes of the shape. In the case of fonts, one need only render the font in a license-compliant manner, and then trace the outline of the resulting glyph into another program. This is a well-established way of bringing typefaces into Open Source from proprietary fonts, without copyright infringement.
In the case of 3D objects, any means of fitting a mesh or other geometric representation to the created shape would provide a means to bring that shape into another program in a manner that does not infringe on the copyright of the program or data which is used to create the shape. This would include various methods of scanning, optical ones or even exotic things such as CT and MRI. It would also be possible to record the physical movement of the printer or the light beam in producing the object, and map that back to a shape.
So, we have well-established precedent and I'd feel very comfortable testifying about 3D objects (and of course typefaces) not being capable of protection using copyright, in a relevant case.
Design patents, on the other hand, would work fine.
If you're looking for the law I discuss, it's 17 USC 102(b), not "CFR". It's here, second paragraph.
Open Hardware is a good thing to make, but we need to be aware of its limitations. Regardless of the license used, creating a device from the plans is not copyright infringement.
Let's make sure everyone understands that. You can manufacture an open hardware design, regardless of the license, and share nothing, and it is not a crime.
It is, however, potentially a copyright infringement if you publish the plans in violation of the license.
This is because of this text in copyright law. This is the US version but there are similar things in many nations.
The reason for this is that functional things such as hardware are protected by patent rather than copyright.
We should also consider what would happen if Open Hardware licenses could be enforced using copyright. Suddenly, any published schematic in a book or online publication would be protected using copyright and the copyright enforced on hardware manufacturers, including all of those in books that exist today. Which would have a major chilling effect on the Open Hardware industry and hardware production in general. We do not want this to happen.
Thus, in general we should not use copyright-based licenses on hardware, lest the courts begin to consider this to be normal practice and create case law that supports it. Courts and legislators do this, it's how we got software patents and other nightmares of today. Let's not encourage them.
The last time I was in Reykjavic, there was a garden store called "Alaska".
I think you are not considering the scaling issues. In a perfect world, your box of pepperoni would have a blockchain by which you could trace back to that mad cow and the farm it came from, and the guys who undercooked it, and the plant they work at, once someone got CJD. In real life the processors co-mingle meat at every stage, and the accounting load doesn't scale.
I own very many devices that are capable of having an embedded serial number. For some reason, most of them have "12345678" or something equally inane programmed into the serial number field.
Rather than just provide x86 emulation on ARM, we can use x86 emulation on ARM to run Oracle's x86 Java implementation. We can run the jRuby interpreter in that. And we can use jRuby to run this ATARI 2600 emulator.
I bet a lot of you folks can suggest a more absurd one than that.
Obviously, Elon Musk has a direction he's planned for the world, not just for Tesla, and he's going that way and damn the stockholders if they aren't interested in being there for the ride.
This is all fine, but the corporate governmental structure that would fit it is to be a "B" corporation. Then your stockholders know what they're signing on to and the courts don't get to hold you to producing profit without regard for the long-term viability of your company or the world around it.
Fact: tracking the source of a potentially tainted product from a single receipt, instantly, can be helpful in finding the tainted product, testing it, stopping its distribution if necessary, and notifying the purchasers.
Fluff: rather than use a bunch of simple database joins, we used a distributed cryptographic system providing reliable attestation of a transaction without dependence on a particular server, together with anonymity. We also swat mosquitoes with atomic bombs.
I think Dyn started out as a community effort rather than an explicit for-profit. I signed on back then. I seem to remember signing on for something long-term, for not much money. Not long after that they went commercial. My sign-on was supposed to be carried over to a year's service or something, I don't remember and I didn't pursue it because I was only interested in the community effort.
On the other hand, if you are not marketing to someplace that will continue to have a Java shop whether you like it or not, you will be more concerned with time-to-market. Which can make or break a company. Java isn't a great language for time-to-market, you can arrive at a finished product in another language more quickly. It's not great for programmer utilization either, for the same reason.
Now me, I just always declined to learn Cobol or Fortran because I didn't want to be mired in that part of the world. I had to write a little Ratfor once. And that's part of the reason I didn't get involved in Java either. The other reason was Sun holding it back from being fully Open Source. Which meant it would not be where I was going personally.
"Go" if you want it to be compiled. It will take a bit of leadership, but breaking away from the old always does.
It's a legacy language. They last for incredibly long, but it's not what a forward-looking CTO would have their people coding in today. And too bad for the Apache project, which seems to have tied its own relevance to Java.
Google surely regrets the decision in Android now. For both technical and legal/financial reasons. I was one of their defense consultants in Oracle v. Google. Made some money, but how useless for the industry. Google is transitioning to some sort of Android/Chrome meld now.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could pass enough states, and the EC's effect would be nullified. It might be that Trump provides sufficient impetus for states to pass it. So far it is looking like Hillary won the popular vote, and it is certainly possible that Trump will wet his boots badly enough that State legislatures take action.
Well, hey, I would have preferred to have Bernie win the Democratic primary.
USB C has 4 power conductors vs. 1 on the older connectors. Thus the capacity for 100 Watts.
The cable itself has a maximum current which is independent of the device, and it can be one of three values. They didn't want every USB C cable to have to be built to carry 100 Watts.
The Supreme court are appointed by elected officials, so there is at least some connection to the electorate there. If they were a properly working judiciary they would not rule on party boundaries but we know they mostly do. However, in the case of Roe v. Wade only one justice in the majority opinion, if I have this right, was appointed by a Democrat and that was Thurgood Marshall. The opinion was written by a Nixon appointee and the rest of those who joined the majority were appointed by Nixon, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. Byron White, a Kennedy appointee, was the senior dissenting justice.
So, the Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade and the two Democrats on the opinion nullified each other! I don't see how this supports your argument at all.
Can you prove that with numbers?
Actually this was not a SF Chronicle story. It was a poll run by the late political commentator John McLaughlin. He claimed that in a sample of 800 foreign-born registered voters (and it doesn't say how he could tell they were registered) 13% said they were not US citizens.
And I really have to question the veracity. He's hardly an un-biased surveyor, and I can't find very much at all about the survey online. Nobody credible seems to have duplicated it.
Well, yes, but the time for you to convince the USB standard authors of this was around 1996. They came up with a standard that very deliberately made it possible to construct dumb-and-cheap peripherals at the expense of significant complexity in the host computer's driver. Did you know that a device driver author has to write an interpreter in order to parse what should be done with the structure fields sent by a USB human interface device? Essentially, the device can send whatever fields it wants to, in whatever order it wants, and whatever data size it wants, and the driver has to pick the structure apart according to a few pages of ROM definitions sent by the device when it's connected.
So, now we have about 5 generations of legacy standards that USB C is overloaded on top of, and the only way to give it its the opportunity to do new stuff in a port designed for USB 1.0 is for it to identify itself with a resistor. Just a little SMD chip resistor that costs 5 cents.
And by the way, how many connectors have we gone through now? At least 7.
I don't want to move, I want this country to implement direct democracy. There is nothing wrong with working for a reasonable political change, which IMO this is.
Now, would you like to take a try at explaining why I wouldn't like it? A few people in this discussion have said or implied that, but nobody had any reasons other than a desire to have people in the boonies given more weight to their vote than people from urban areas. Which doesn't seem to make sense.
This is just progress. Like Flash being deprecated once HTML5 could do everything that Flash could, with better compatibility, performance, and security. Once USB has a 100-Watt charging profile, there's no point in still having QC 3.0
Google is so large that "ex-Google engineers" just means "people". As in "Anker is supposed to be a bunch of people, right?" :-)
That said, I have a few of their products, which seem to be OK.
If you look at this, you can see how the less populous states still have a block large enough to count in an election, if they vote together.
You are not personally after my money, but it may be that your roads and infrastructure, your social services and benefits, etc., are paid for out of my pocket, because your state receives more Federal funds than it pays. For example the people in North Dakota receive more Federal benefit dollars than they pay in taxes, more than any other state, while the government of Minnesota receives more Federal funds than its people pay in taxes, more than any other state. You didn't necessarily ask for this, but you benefit from it anyway.
Before you and your state walk off, check to see if your state gets more revenue from the Federal Government than you contribute. Then, if your state is high on the list, figure out how to feed yourselves if you decide to abscond.
California, where I live, is low on the list and I get the feeling that we're carrying a lot of the country with our taxes. Red states tend to be more dependent upon the Federal Government than otherwise.