No, the number reported to the SEC includes stuff like past losses (their purchase of Cygnus) amortized over time for tax purposes - it's money they've already paid, but that they're just now reporting. The adjusted (that is, not munged for tax purposes) numbers are the ones you want to look at. See the previous slashdot article for details.
"MAPS has worked for me. I've had zero cases of legit (wanted) mail blocked by MAPS (doesn't mean it can't happen somewhere, but it sure doesn't seem to be all that big of a problem)."
[ot]: I was in Borders the other day, and the clerk who sold me my book had a nametag which said "Winston Smith". I asked him if it was real, and he said it wasn't. Still, weird.
"Also, there are already several languages ported to JVM, including Perl and Python."
... and Scheme. But that's not really the same as the Common Language Infrastructure. The CLI is much more transparent. You can just call a Python or C# function from your Perl program as you would a Perl function. Also, they all would have access to one standard library. It's easy (I think) to port a language to the CLR, but it's hard to port non-Java languages to the JVM (as in, I met a dude who did his thesis on porting Perl).
Re:Microsoft donations: you are wrong
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
"Your URL didn't work"
Slashdot sometimes inserts spaces into URLs, just to fuck with you.
"and from what I can tell opensecrets.org only seems to go back to 1999 which postdates the period I was referring to."
You didn't specify - the anti-trust people have been on M$ since the early-mid nineties, so if you're just talking about ancient history.... Besides, they never used to donate like they do now. They're spending over 10 times as much now as they did before the anti-trust trials started.
"As I originally said, Microsoft was a (D) leaning corp before they got jumped by the anti-trust police. Today it does lean towards the (R) side of the donation fence but does maintain significant donation levels to Democratic party organs despite them gunning for the company."
"Despite"? Or "because"? Doesn't it look like they're trying to buy some people off? Not that this is unusual in the American political system or anything, but it's still not OK.
BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LICENSE, MORON!
The GPL is a license on *copying*. That's why you see it in a file called COPYING. The MS EULA is a license on use. The GPL is supported by copyright law. The MS EULA is supported by nothing except a few dodgy court decisions (MAI v. Peak, say).
Um, also, the GPL has a laudable goal, and whether or not it is required, we should release the source to our code. The MS EULA's goal is evil, and ought to be fought.
There exist McDonalds (golden arches) restaurants in Scotland - and even if there didn't, McD's is globally famous enough that they might have a case anyway. Also, (TM), (C), and Patent laws are basically global, because of the WIPO.
Second, trademarks are not "global" in the sense that just because Ray Kroc trademarked "McDonald's" as a name for his burger chain, that doesn't prevent me from opening up a "McDonald's Auto Repair".
I wouldn't be too sure about that. See:
Quality Inns Int'l, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
and
McDonald's Corp. v. McBagel's, Inc.
rodentia [hey, wasn't she spammer?] writes:
"Finally judgements about normativity, while they strike some as distasteful, are really the only way to generalize about psychological phenomena."
Certainly not. Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." One measure of sanity is whether your conception of reality agrees with the actual reality. Certainly, in a society of delusional types, a realist should not be considered mad.
r:
"The idea of universal sanity or a generalized idea of madness are simply absurd and possibly dangerous."
Certainly, they are not as dangerous as a culturally influenced definition of same. Just ask a gay person.
Microsoft donations: you are wrong
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
I'm not saying that everyone's provided for, but that when they aren't, there isn't any bullshit about "freedom." I'm no fan of the USSR, but to call Rand's ideas "freedom" is just too simplistic.
Hm, OK, there's no civil liabiilty, because there's no damages.
There also may be no criminal liabiilty if the US DSS companies are permitted to distribute DSS signals in Canada (maybe by means other than DSS - the law isn't clear:) and chose not to.
Yes. Carmack's post explained why the original poster was wrong about Bungie's technical achievements. A true statement is more informative than one which is at best half true.
Since when did Slashdot become...... a vehicle for people to toot their own horns and advertise their OWN papers, etc?
Yeah! A story is so much more interesting when it languishes unknown in the vastness of the web for six months, only to be discovered by the time it has officially become Old News!
Bring back the good old days of virus reports from even mistier pasts.
1. He did not in the past correct people who were under the impression that it was BSD-licensed. Now, copyright law doesn't require this - but
common courtesy does.
See e.g. this thread:
http://false.net/ipfilter/1999_12/0055.html
And of course, Open, Free, and Net BSDs have been distributing modified versions w/o any problems.
Now, the original license seemed to allow modification - I base this on
two things, which I have marked with _s :
"Redistribution and use in source _and binary_ forms are permitted provided that _this notice is preserved_ and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative works - the original is distributed only in source form.
2. Removal of the notice would constitute modification - the existence of this phrase implies that other modifications and distribution thereof are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in meaning.
The GPL puts restrictions on restrictions. You can distribute, use, and link pretty much however you like. You just can't restrict others from doing so. Of course, there's a bunch of legal stuff along with it, but that's the gist of it. M$ puts restrictions on all of these things.
"The GPL is, in places, so vague that 'interpreting' it can only be done by examining the entrails of freshly slaughtered animals. This vagueness is probably deliberate, and if the GPL is ever determined to be unlawful the vague wording will likely be the prime cause of its downfall."
1. It is in no way vague - you just can't read legalese. It was drafted by a *very* clever lawyer, and has been reviewed by lawyers at *countless* companies. The only ones who think it is unclear are the ones who are trying to find loopholes - they need an excuse for their failure other than "Eben Moglen is one smart dude".
2. Why would it be unlawful? Unenforcable, maybe... but not unlawful. And it *won't* be declared unenforcable - when companies in the past have inadvertently violated it, their lawyers have always determined that they would lose if they fought it in court.
"The GPL states that linking to GPL code is not allowed unless the code doing the linking is also GPL'd. That is explicit. That is the letter of the
GPL, that is the spirit of the GPL."
Exactly.
"That is, in some circumstances, clearly illegal."
No, it's not. It is be illegal to distribute non-free code (except in system libraries) linked to GPL code. This is the distributor's problem, not the GPL's.
"As a result, this EULA is equally explicit."
It also spreads several lies about the GPL. It claims, falsely, that code distributed *with* (not linked against) GPL'd code must be GPL'd.
"As a result, MS can smack you in multiple ways if you try to steal their code using the GPL. "
One cannot steal code using the GPL.
"It's entirely legal, and it is even justified."
Is it legal to maliciously spread lies about your competitors? I don't think so. Are these lies justified? No.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the number reported to the SEC includes stuff like past losses (their purchase of Cygnus) amortized over time for tax purposes - it's money they've already paid, but that they're just now reporting. The adjusted (that is, not munged for tax purposes) numbers are the ones you want to look at. See the previous slashdot article for details.
"MAPS has worked for me. I've had zero cases of legit (wanted) mail blocked by MAPS (doesn't mean it can't happen somewhere, but it sure doesn't seem to be all that big of a problem)."
How would you know?
See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:Z O. html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.
Er, wasn't that Winston Smith who hated rats?
[ot]: I was in Borders the other day, and the clerk who sold me my book had a nametag which said "Winston Smith". I asked him if it was real, and he said it wasn't. Still, weird.
"Also, there are already several languages ported to JVM, including Perl and Python."
... and Scheme. But that's not really the same as the Common Language Infrastructure. The CLI is much more transparent. You can just call a Python or C# function from your Perl program as you would a Perl function. Also, they all would have access to one standard library. It's easy (I think) to port a language to the CLR, but it's hard to port non-Java languages to the JVM (as in, I met a dude who did his thesis on porting Perl).
"Your URL didn't work"
Slashdot sometimes inserts spaces into URLs, just to fuck with you.
"and from what I can tell opensecrets.org only seems to go back to 1999 which postdates the period I was referring to."
You didn't specify - the anti-trust people have been on M$ since the early-mid nineties, so if you're just talking about ancient history.... Besides, they never used to donate like they do now. They're spending over 10 times as much now as they did before the anti-trust trials started.
"As I originally said, Microsoft was a (D) leaning corp before they got jumped by the anti-trust police. Today it does lean towards the (R) side of the donation fence but does maintain significant donation levels to Democratic party organs despite them gunning for the company."
"Despite"? Or "because"? Doesn't it look like they're trying to buy some people off? Not that this is unusual in the American political system or anything, but it's still not OK.
BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LICENSE, MORON!
The GPL is a license on *copying*. That's why you see it in a file called COPYING. The MS EULA is a license on use. The GPL is supported by copyright law. The MS EULA is supported by nothing except a few dodgy court decisions (MAI v. Peak, say).
Um, also, the GPL has a laudable goal, and whether or not it is required, we should release the source to our code. The MS EULA's goal is evil, and ought to be fought.
Now go back to your hole, troll.
There exist McDonalds (golden arches) restaurants in Scotland - and even if there didn't, McD's is globally famous enough that they might have a case anyway. Also, (TM), (C), and Patent laws are basically global, because of the WIPO.
Second, trademarks are not "global" in the sense that just because Ray Kroc trademarked "McDonald's" as a name for his burger chain, that doesn't prevent me from opening up a "McDonald's Auto Repair".
I wouldn't be too sure about that. See:
Quality Inns Int'l, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
and
McDonald's Corp. v. McBagel's, Inc.
rodentia [hey, wasn't she spammer?] writes:
"Finally judgements about normativity, while they strike some as distasteful, are really the only way to generalize about psychological phenomena."
Certainly not. Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." One measure of sanity is whether your conception of reality agrees with the actual reality. Certainly, in a society of delusional types, a realist should not be considered mad.
r:
"The idea of universal sanity or a generalized idea of madness are simply absurd and possibly dangerous."
Certainly, they are not as dangerous as a culturally influenced definition of same. Just ask a gay person.
No, M$ donates much more to the Republicans:
1 .a sp?txtName=microsoft
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/asp/softcomp
I'm not saying that everyone's provided for, but that when they aren't, there isn't any bullshit about "freedom." I'm no fan of the USSR, but to call Rand's ideas "freedom" is just too simplistic.
"Taken as a whole, Rand's body of work is the most complete, thorough defense of human freedom I have ever encountered."
l it fr.htm
This song is basically what I think of Rand's "freedom".
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/songs/texts/cal
Hm, OK, there's no civil liabiilty, because there's no damages.
:) and chose not to.
There also may be no criminal liabiilty if the US DSS companies are permitted to distribute DSS signals in Canada (maybe by means other than DSS - the law isn't clear
Wrong. It is GPL because it is based on the GPL software ucsim.
Yes. Carmack's post explained why the original poster was wrong about Bungie's technical achievements. A true statement is more informative than one which is at best half true.
Since when did Slashdot become... ... a vehicle for people to toot their own horns and advertise their OWN papers, etc?
Yeah! A story is so much more interesting when it languishes unknown in the vastness of the web for six months, only to be discovered by the time it has officially become Old News!
Bring back the good old days of virus reports from even mistier pasts.
That's a good point. I would now call this clause neutral to the interpretation.
1. He did not in the past correct people who were under the impression that it was BSD-licensed. Now, copyright law doesn't require this - but
common courtesy does.
See e.g. this thread:
http://false.net/ipfilter/1999_12/0055.html
And of course, Open, Free, and Net BSDs have been distributing modified versions w/o any problems.
Now, the original license seemed to allow modification - I base this on
two things, which I have marked with _s :
"Redistribution and use in source _and binary_ forms are permitted provided that _this notice is preserved_ and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative works - the original is distributed only in source form.
2. Removal of the notice would constitute modification - the existence of this phrase implies that other modifications and distribution thereof are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in meaning.
The GPL puts restrictions on restrictions. You can distribute, use, and link pretty much however you like. You just can't restrict others from doing so. Of course, there's a bunch of legal stuff along with it, but that's the gist of it. M$ puts restrictions on all of these things.
"The GPL is, in places, so vague that 'interpreting' it can only be done by examining the entrails of freshly slaughtered animals. This vagueness is probably deliberate, and if the GPL is ever determined to be unlawful the vague wording will likely be the prime cause of its downfall."
1. It is in no way vague - you just can't read legalese. It was drafted by a *very* clever lawyer, and has been reviewed by lawyers at *countless* companies. The only ones who think it is unclear are the ones who are trying to find loopholes - they need an excuse for their failure other than "Eben Moglen is one smart dude".
2. Why would it be unlawful? Unenforcable, maybe... but not unlawful. And it *won't* be declared unenforcable - when companies in the past have inadvertently violated it, their lawyers have always determined that they would lose if they fought it in court.
"The GPL states that linking to GPL code is not allowed unless the code doing the linking is also GPL'd. That is explicit. That is the letter of the
GPL, that is the spirit of the GPL."
Exactly.
"That is, in some circumstances, clearly illegal."
No, it's not. It is be illegal to distribute non-free code (except in system libraries) linked to GPL code. This is the distributor's problem, not the GPL's.
"As a result, this EULA is equally explicit."
It also spreads several lies about the GPL. It claims, falsely, that code distributed *with* (not linked against) GPL'd code must be GPL'd.
"As a result, MS can smack you in multiple ways if you try to steal their code using the GPL. "
One cannot steal code using the GPL.
"It's entirely legal, and it is even justified."
Is it legal to maliciously spread lies about your competitors? I don't think so. Are these lies justified? No.
No, they're intentionally misconstruing the GPL to slander it. Read the fucking documents some time.
But if they spread lies about other licenses, they should be rebutted. Further, if they restrict their customers' freedoms, they should be fought.
No, read it again. It says:
1. Free tools may not so much as touch the SDK. This is unethical.
2. The GPL places restrictions on what code it can be distributed with. This is false.
Further, Microsoft's new license is full of lies about the GPL.
The new license says that the GPL requires separate works distributed with GPL software to be GPL'd, which is false.
This has always been M$'s complaint about the GPL - and it has never been true. Now, tho, Microsoft's software contains these terms!