Actually, if you read it, the developer claims there was no copyright assignment or explicit contract in place. Without that, the contractee really only has the right to use the code developed
IANAL and I've heard conflicting stories on that, but fortunately in this case, it doesn't matter.
It's not the same code - it's a reimplementation of the same idea in a different way.
So what? They choose it now, when they can freely choose dollars or e-gold.
I would be more impressed if libertarians didn't deny that the vast history of theft upon theft upon theft of property by the rich from the poor, was relevant to today's ownership relations. You're hypocrites.
The sad thing is that this concept resonates so well amongst Americans.
I think you're too pessimistic here. It might resonate very well with a small proportion of loudmouth Americans - especially young people who haven't thought about it very hard.
However, if it was truly popular, how come the Libertarian Party is such a fringe party?
(a) the group of people who coined the phrase (actually Christine Petersen is the person credited with coining the phrase, if you want to be pedantic, but she's fully behind the definition)
and (b) the definition used and agreed by the vast majority of the open source community
The vast majority of the open source community do not accept "shared source" from Microsoft or SCSL from Sun as open source, even though the source is "open" in a sense, and MS and Sun are usually careful not to use the term open source for those two things - because they know that they would be accused of fraud by the real open source community.
Basically, almost no-one supports your position. There is one true open source definition, and it's the definition linked above.
Moreover, if you want to do rock-hard verification, not just "strong" testing, you need static typing. You can't do verification in general if "command()" could mean anything! (Unless it's within spec that command() could do anything, of course.) You have to pin down method semantics with types.
I don't think ZFS is officially released yet, so how could they ethically benchmark it?
Re:Unions do this already...
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 1
I don't have too much respect for unions.
Translation: I don't have much respect for workers who stand up for their rights collectively.
Unions are just organisations created to represent the interests of their members. They can be more or less corrupt, like any other organisation. Sometimes they suceed against difficult odds, sometimes they fail against difficult odds.
I don't think you can seriously claim that all unions are useless or counterproductive. That's a slap in the face to unionised workers.
In my experience (very limited - few hundred lines of code so far) - Retroweaver 1.0rc5 works fine with all language features, except JDK 1.4 assertions (ironically, because they're not a JDK 5.0 feature). But that's OK for a new project because you can just code your own assertion function.
H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
That's true - but that was with privosos. However, you're probably right in implying that Kerry's foreign policy wouldn't be that different - that's what Kerry's advisors have said.
he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions
WTF is wrong with being opposed to money-laundering - a prime means of funding terrorist and criminal activity? Just because something is in the PATRIOT ACT means it must be satanic and Un-American???
and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing).
You have reached the heart of the problem, but have it backwards because you don't understand how the law works. If Microsoft infringes upon someone else's patent then _Microsoft_ is responsible for satisfying the patent holder and for providing the same or equivalent product to the customer. If some bozo check in some Linux code that is later found to violate a patent then the city of Munich is responsible (because they have no indemnification from the software provider.)
Please show evidence of Microsoft providing any patent indemnification whatsoever to its customers.
And no, pointless "We will refund your purchase price" clauses are not indemnification. As another poster said, it would be impossibly expensive for Microsoft to do such a thing, despite its $billions in the bank.
What has any of that ramblings to do with copyright? If you can't spell and think that "the man azimov" is a famous science fiction writer, more fool you.
That's correct. If you look at the criteria used for evaluating AIDS in countries like the US (HIV testing) and compare it to the criteria in most African countries (often based on dubious extrapolations from visible symptoms alone - no HIV testing), it's an absurd comparison. It's completely unscientific.
Re:Supported by IBM who supports Sen Hatch ...
on
IT, Be Free!
·
· Score: 1
Developer freedom is going to be under severe attack if every consumer application is going to have to be acceptable to the RIAA and their equivalent in other areas, yet IBM directly sponsors Sen Hatch who is pushing the INDUCE act forward.
Maybe they "support" Sen Hatch because they feel that throwing him a bribe or two is going to give their opinions more weight (on whatever they want to oppose or push, not just the INDUCE act)?
After all, isn't that exactly how politics works these days in the good old US of A - or am I being too cynical?
The force you hit him with will be minimal, as he will not have had any time to slow down. Basic physics says if you rear end someone who is doing 68mph, when you are doing 70, will produce a 2mph impact.
I agree with the second sentence but I'm not sure about the first one. How do you figure that the front car will only have slown down by 2mph by the time the back car hits it?
I'm like that once in a blue moon (i.e. on a coding binge or something) - but really, all the time? You're probably doing serious damage to your health.
And when your motherboard goes on the fritz, what then?
So what? You didn't understand my point. Just because it's on your motherboard, doesn't imply you're forced to use it. It's not some poison that will secretly steal your credit card numbers or something whether you use it or not. In fact, it could be used to protect your credit card numbers.
Remember, there are bigger corporate interests that want DRM. Sony, Disney, Microsoft, you name 'em.
The entire entertainment industry put together is a lot smaller than all the companies and industries who benefit from Linux and open source. This may not be always reflected in political perception, but it is the reality.
That's right, they want control over their machines - control which Free Software gives them - which means they don't want some Eolas dropping the software equivalent of a nuke on the Open Source sector.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL and I've heard conflicting stories on that, but fortunately in this case, it doesn't matter.
It's not the same code - it's a reimplementation of the same idea in a different way.
I would be more impressed if libertarians didn't deny that the vast history of theft upon theft upon theft of property by the rich from the poor, was relevant to today's ownership relations. You're hypocrites.
What's stopping it from doing that now? The fact that it overwhelmingly chooses fiat currencies, indicates that you are wrong.
Well done for spotting that SlashdotTroll is, uh, a troll!
I think you're too pessimistic here. It might resonate very well with a small proportion of loudmouth Americans - especially young people who haven't thought about it very hard.
However, if it was truly popular, how come the Libertarian Party is such a fringe party?
Uh... to make money, perhaps?
(a) the group of people who coined the phrase (actually Christine Petersen is the person credited with coining the phrase, if you want to be pedantic, but she's fully behind the definition)
and (b) the definition used and agreed by the vast majority of the open source community
The vast majority of the open source community do not accept "shared source" from Microsoft or SCSL from Sun as open source, even though the source is "open" in a sense, and MS and Sun are usually careful not to use the term open source for those two things - because they know that they would be accused of fraud by the real open source community.
Basically, almost no-one supports your position. There is one true open source definition, and it's the definition linked above.
Please explain how to do that in C. It's not possible, with all the pointer-fiddling magic you can do.
Translation: I don't have much respect for workers who stand up for their rights collectively.
Unions are just organisations created to represent the interests of their members. They can be more or less corrupt, like any other organisation. Sometimes they suceed against difficult odds, sometimes they fail against difficult odds.
I don't think you can seriously claim that all unions are useless or counterproductive. That's a slap in the face to unionised workers.
That's true - but that was with privosos. However, you're probably right in implying that Kerry's foreign policy wouldn't be that different - that's what Kerry's advisors have said.
he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions
WTF is wrong with being opposed to money-laundering - a prime means of funding terrorist and criminal activity? Just because something is in the PATRIOT ACT means it must be satanic and Un-American???
and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing).
Yes... so what? That doesn't sound so bad at all.
Please show evidence of Microsoft providing any patent indemnification whatsoever to its customers.
And no, pointless "We will refund your purchase price" clauses are not indemnification. As another poster said, it would be impossibly expensive for Microsoft to do such a thing, despite its $billions in the bank.
Uh, yes they are. Thousands of authors create works "that people want". Only a few go on to become super-high-earners like J. K. Rowling.
What has any of that ramblings to do with copyright? If you can't spell and think that "the man azimov" is a famous science fiction writer, more fool you.
Maybe they "support" Sen Hatch because they feel that throwing him a bribe or two is going to give their opinions more weight (on whatever they want to oppose or push, not just the INDUCE act)?
After all, isn't that exactly how politics works these days in the good old US of A - or am I being too cynical?
I agree with the second sentence but I'm not sure about the first one. How do you figure that the front car will only have slown down by 2mph by the time the back car hits it?
So what? You didn't understand my point. Just because it's on your motherboard, doesn't imply you're forced to use it. It's not some poison that will secretly steal your credit card numbers or something whether you use it or not. In fact, it could be used to protect your credit card numbers.
Remember, there are bigger corporate interests that want DRM. Sony, Disney, Microsoft, you name 'em.
The entire entertainment industry put together is a lot smaller than all the companies and industries who benefit from Linux and open source. This may not be always reflected in political perception, but it is the reality.
As for Microsoft... antitrust anyone?