Well, no, not actually...you also have to abide by the Laws of the United States, and the State in which you do business. Firing someone for "poor performance or bad decision making" isn't so much a problem, though, as firing people because they are brown or black, or firing people who don't go to the "right" church.
I believe it is true (or so they taught in International Business) that in Europe it is much more difficult to fire someone, including applying for permission with the government prior to firing the person.
Borland's compilers kicked ass. They were blinding *fast* to compile compared to everyone else. Way back in the day Borland's SideKick was way cool too, as it was a TSR (terminate and stay resident), which allowed DOS to act like it could multitask. If only producing a better product for less correlated with corporate survival...if only life were so simple.
Perhaps it appeareed self-evident that the article was "little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives." Proposing a reason why such inchoherent misrepresentations would be published is the next order of business. Perhaps you need to catch up?
No,actually GuloGulo has apparently selectively taken 2/3rds of a definition, and applied it without consideration that failing to meet the third condition means that it fails the definition. It is worth reading the Wikipedia articles, because they do demonstrate that GuloGulo is wrong.
So then, in court, it shouldn't matter if a witness has strong reason to lie? We should listen to what they have to say, regardless of multiple perjury counts? Sorry, but the sort of ivory tower "ad hominem" label you apply is only useful in a vaccuum.
"hether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements."
The point is that when disreputable people are paid to do a character assassination, the fact that they are disreputable and have been paid to do a character assassination should be relevant. At the very least, it is noteworthy.
Now in terms of its content, this article is a joke.
Well yeah, CNN and The New York Times are credible. Fox News isn't. The entertainment value of Fox News is one thing, but no one credible (that I know of) thinks Fox News is really about news (so much as molding public opinion.)
"Jonathan Zuck is president of the Association for Competitive Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group specializing in technology issues. ACT's membership roster has some 3,000 companies including Microsoft."
This isn't even close to:
ACT was founded in 1998 in response to the Microsoft antitrust case. Its chief goals are
1. to limit government involvement in technology (such as antitrust actions or free software / open source software requirements); and
2. to support strong intellectual property rights in software.
Currently, ACT is lobbying strongly against the Massachusetts endorsement of the OpenDocument standards.
The bio in the article doesn't make it all clear that the ACT is a biased lobbying group that is hired for propaganda purposes.
"trade group specializing in technology issues" my ass.
I believe you can allow more permissive uses, for the granting of user permissions is what this is all about, but I don't think you can add restrictions so easily, as terms are limited to the kinds of additional requirements. There are limits.
"When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under this License."
specificly, there is a list of A-E types of terms that are acceptable, including:
b) "They may state a disclaimer of warranty and liability in terms different from those used in this License."
c) "prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of contributors, and they may require that certain specified trademarks be used for publicity purposes only in the ways that are fair use under trademark law except with express permission."
"that the work contain functioning facilities that allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding Source Code."
I don't think you can fairly say "more successful" project. Linus made an engine, and RMS made a steering system, braking system, signaling system, suspension, etc...
While it is true that all cars have an engine, all cars better have brakes and steering, too. Linux was never meant to be more than a kernel, whereas the GNU Operating System is an operating system that uses the Linux kernel. Thus, "GNU/Linux". It makes sense.
RMS doesn't support OSS, but rather sees Open Source as diluting (if not peverting) the Free Software movement. If you want to call a man a zealot, consider putting them in the right category:-) Would be like G.W.Bush a Jew, since GW is "born again", and Jewish and Christian religions share some history...
Perhaps they were thinking about ASF? Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering Is there anything to stop MS from patenting the avi format now? What would happen to software that had already been written that used the avi format, if MS did patent the avi format now?
Interestingly, while Nautilus shows thumbnails of the screenshots, Totem-xine won't play them (neither will VLC). I am currently sitting at a Ubuntu install.
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
But windows doesn't "work out of the box" when it comes to divx, or even DVD for that matter. If you plug in a DVD player and try to watch a DVD with media player it will crap out. Install the codec. Now it works. Hmmm...very similar.
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
oh hey wow: a commercial arguement for GPL over LGPL! *shakes head* and *blinks* but it is still there:-)
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
It is not the technology but rather the uses that DRM is put that is so ghastly. DRM has some socially useful uses, but the preponderence of DRM's purpose is to circumvent copyright and IP laws that grant user level rights.
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
The point is that by using the LGPL it is possible for the DRM to be propriatary and linked to the LGPL code. At this point we can't get at the propriatary code to make it user friendly. If the original code were GPL, then they couldn't link propriatary crap into it, and we'd be assured of having access. Thus, the LGPL + propriatary DRM is, in effect, closed (where it counts for this discussion).
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
If you remove the Digital Restrictions, wouldn't it *just play*? It is the DRM, afterall, that prevents the play in the first place...
Well but then you should be writing small modular utilites in your "C or C++" that can easily be piped together to form new and interesting things you maybe didn't even know people would want to do with your utility. Don't write monolithic apps unless you are creating an enviornment rather than an app. Unless of course they are paying you very well and you don't care what people think.
You use innovation in a different sense, is all. There is a difference between everyone using off the shelf parts, and the first adopter of a technology whose marketing power pushes an "off the shelf" technology to the forefront. Oh, and one of the innovations you forgot for apple was the PC. At a time when PCs existed only as "kits" that might or might not be capable of assembly, Apple had the first (ever) assembled personal computer for sale. To suggest that Wang already sold computers is to miss the distinction between minicomputers and PCs. Personally, I do give Apple credit for moving people to floppies and away from cassette tape. But that was a *long* time ago:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, not actually...you also have to abide by the Laws of the United States, and the State in which you do business. Firing someone for "poor performance or bad decision making" isn't so much a problem, though, as firing people because they are brown or black, or firing people who don't go to the "right" church.
I believe it is true (or so they taught in International Business) that in Europe it is much more difficult to fire someone, including applying for permission with the government prior to firing the person.
Borland's compilers kicked ass. They were blinding *fast* to compile compared to everyone else. Way back in the day Borland's SideKick was way cool too, as it was a TSR (terminate and stay resident), which allowed DOS to act like it could multitask. If only producing a better product for less correlated with corporate survival...if only life were so simple.
Perhaps it appeareed self-evident that the article was "little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives." Proposing a reason why such inchoherent misrepresentations would be published is the next order of business. Perhaps you need to catch up?
No,actually GuloGulo has apparently selectively taken 2/3rds of a definition, and applied it without consideration that failing to meet the third condition means that it fails the definition. It is worth reading the Wikipedia articles, because they do demonstrate that GuloGulo is wrong.
"Please don't assume because you think you're right that you are. You've made a mistake, learn from it."
Good advice. Unfortunately you seem immune...
To which we hear the reply, "But the fact that I'm using a fallacy shouldn't discount the worth of the fallacy."
"By simply bringing up the idea that the authors bias may influence the accuracy of his statements, you are committing ad hominem."
...and also performing a public service.
So then, in court, it shouldn't matter if a witness has strong reason to lie? We should listen to what they have to say, regardless of multiple perjury counts? Sorry, but the sort of ivory tower "ad hominem" label you apply is only useful in a vaccuum.
"hether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements."
The point is that when disreputable people are paid to do a character assassination, the fact that they are disreputable and have been paid to do a character assassination should be relevant. At the very least, it is noteworthy.
Now in terms of its content, this article is a joke.
Well yeah, CNN and The New York Times are credible. Fox News isn't. The entertainment value of Fox News is one thing, but no one credible (that I know of) thinks Fox News is really about news (so much as molding public opinion.)
Did you read the wikipedia article?
"Jonathan Zuck is president of the Association for Competitive Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group specializing in technology issues. ACT's membership roster has some 3,000 companies including Microsoft."
This isn't even close to:
ACT was founded in 1998 in response to the Microsoft antitrust case. Its chief goals are
1. to limit government involvement in technology (such as antitrust actions or free software / open source software requirements); and
2. to support strong intellectual property rights in software.
Currently, ACT is lobbying strongly against the Massachusetts endorsement of the OpenDocument standards.
The bio in the article doesn't make it all clear that the ACT is a biased lobbying group that is hired for propaganda purposes.
"trade group specializing in technology issues" my ass.
I don't think you can fairly say "more successful" project. Linus made an engine, and RMS made a steering system, braking system, signaling system, suspension, etc...
While it is true that all cars have an engine, all cars better have brakes and steering, too. Linux was never meant to be more than a kernel, whereas the GNU Operating System is an operating system that uses the Linux kernel. Thus, "GNU/Linux". It makes sense.
Not if they distribute it in binary form. Then they are required to make ths source code availalbe to all third parties.
RMS doesn't support OSS, but rather sees Open Source as diluting (if not peverting) the Free Software movement. If you want to call a man a zealot, consider putting them in the right category :-) Would be like G.W.Bush a Jew, since GW is "born again", and Jewish and Christian religions share some history...
Perhaps they were thinking about ASF? Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering Is there anything to stop MS from patenting the avi format now? What would happen to software that had already been written that used the avi format, if MS did patent the avi format now?
I don't think Gnome has support for different backgrounds for different workspaces...
Interestingly, while Nautilus shows thumbnails of the screenshots, Totem-xine won't play them (neither will VLC). I am currently sitting at a Ubuntu install.
But windows doesn't "work out of the box" when it comes to divx, or even DVD for that matter. If you plug in a DVD player and try to watch a DVD with media player it will crap out. Install the codec. Now it works. Hmmm...very similar.
oh hey wow: a commercial arguement for GPL over LGPL! *shakes head* and *blinks* but it is still there :-)
It is not the technology but rather the uses that DRM is put that is so ghastly. DRM has some socially useful uses, but the preponderence of DRM's purpose is to circumvent copyright and IP laws that grant user level rights.
The point is that by using the LGPL it is possible for the DRM to be propriatary and linked to the LGPL code. At this point we can't get at the propriatary code to make it user friendly. If the original code were GPL, then they couldn't link propriatary crap into it, and we'd be assured of having access. Thus, the LGPL + propriatary DRM is, in effect, closed (where it counts for this discussion).
If you remove the Digital Restrictions, wouldn't it *just play*? It is the DRM, afterall, that prevents the play in the first place...
Secretaries and accountants use Word and Excel. The *real* work is done in Mathematica by actuaries and finance majors ;-)
(Please note the wink.)
Well but then you should be writing small modular utilites in your "C or C++" that can easily be piped together to form new and interesting things you maybe didn't even know people would want to do with your utility. Don't write monolithic apps unless you are creating an enviornment rather than an app. Unless of course they are paying you very well and you don't care what people think.
You use innovation in a different sense, is all. There is a difference between everyone using off the shelf parts, and the first adopter of a technology whose marketing power pushes an "off the shelf" technology to the forefront. Oh, and one of the innovations you forgot for apple was the PC. At a time when PCs existed only as "kits" that might or might not be capable of assembly, Apple had the first (ever) assembled personal computer for sale. To suggest that Wang already sold computers is to miss the distinction between minicomputers and PCs. Personally, I do give Apple credit for moving people to floppies and away from cassette tape. But that was a *long* time ago :-)