Armadillo Aerospace is a rocket company, not a ticket selling company. Just like Scaled Composites is a plane company, and Virgin Galactic sells the tickets.
And yes, I too will be waiting until I see it.. to see it I guess I'll have to do that:)
Do people still need the "early adopter" concept explained to them? We live in a technological society where new gadgets and experiences come onto the market all the time. The early adopters pay top dollar for them, this attracts competitors, and the price starts to drop.
At Space Access, after the grumblings about being trumped on the LLC, Carmack made the pledge that this year they'll be doing something new. Here's hoping it involves *people*.
I find it funny that no-one ever reports the most interesting part of these scams. Most of the time they money they are laundering is stolen by botnets. These same botnets often send spam that includes some amount of recruitment of money mules. Some of these "work from home" scams involve people putting up posters and yard signs to recruit money mules. The entire scam is facilitated and organized by an automatic distributed computer program. It's like a huge ants nest. The workers don't really know what they're doing, but the network maintains their motivation to keep doing it. The strangest part of all is that often these systems are so resilient that they keep going long after the head has been cut off by law enforcement. Somewhere there's probably accounts bursting with money funneled there by unthinking dupes acting as part of an unconscious mechanism.
Obviously *I* don't. But frankly, there isn't a man alive who understands or appreciates female PMT and the fact that there are *numerous* treatments available for this condition, *some* of which are effective at eliminating the condition completely, and women choose not to take them is, I think, more than sufficient reason for us to be disgusted, just as women are towards men who refuse to use deodorant, or as the majority of us are towards the mentally ill who refuse to stay on their meds.
The human condition is flawed and can be improved. Each of us has a responsibility to the rest of society to do what we can to make it a little more pleasant to be around each other, or risk being ostracized.
Of course, the Catholic Church would be up in arms about this,
huh? I'm pretty sure just about everyone would be up in arms about mass sterilization.. I mean, if you're not going to defend your right to breed they you probably shouldn't even bother arming yourself.
Little known fact: for about the last 10 years there's been implants available that completely eliminate the female menstrual cycle. This is completely reversible and requires no surgery (the implant is just injected in the arm). So every time you have to put up with a woman with PMT, understand that you are enduring it because they're either ignorant or negligent.
Eliminating disease is about population control. Wherever there is high mortality rates there is high population growth. It's just human nature: death is all around, make more babies.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's guiding philosophy is the Limits To Growth as described in the '72 book commissioned by the Club of Rome. The interest in the third world is the reduction in population growth to head off the bloody global competition for resources. Predominately the approach for this has been in trying to raise the conditions of living to first world standards, as population growth in the first world is basically nil or declining. However, the dark side to Limits To Growth (or I guess I should say "darker") is the prediction that this will fail and only a China style One Child Policy and mass sterilization programs will be effective for limiting population growth. As such, seeing that they are funding this kind of research now is a very bad sign.
In step 6 the court finds for Claire because Bob is claiming he had a license (the GPL) and Claire is claiming that she never licensed her changes under the GPL. The court will look at the explicit license of Claire (which is proprietary) and declare that Bob violated the terms of the license.
In step 7 the court finds for Alice because Claire violated the terms of license that Alice distributed the software to Claire under (the GPL).
In step 9 the court finds for Claire for the same reason as in step 6. Bob is an idiot who doesn't learn his lesson or get legal advice.
In step 10 the court finds for Claire because Alice has no established that Claire has engaged in new distribution since step 6.
Sigh. No. If changes to GPL works were automatically licensed under the GPL then it would be impossible for anyone to violate the GPL by making changes. Ya know, it's 2010.. we've had the GPL for, what, 21 years? 19 if you're talking about v2. This stuff is LONG settled and the fact that so many people on Slashdot seem to be just completely IGNORANT is frightening.
No-one can "automatically" license software you write under the GPL. Only the copyright owner can license the software and it must be done explicitly. If you don't want to be sued, you'll license your changes to GPL licensed software under the terms of the GPL, but it doesn't happen automatically.
Yes, no doubt if they distribute the software they may discover Claire comes knocking... but there's also the distinct possibility that no-one will care, or they'll never distribute the software. Either way, the our Ask Slashdoter should hope he doesn't become involved, cause it will no doubt be in an overall negative capacity.
No, and as I've said, oh, I don't know, 5 times now in this thread.. my changes to a GPL licensed work never automatically become GPL licensed. I must explicitly license them under the terms of the GPL before I distribute them or I will be violation of the copyright. As so many of you seem to have a problem understand this, I'll dumb down this situation for you too.
1. Alice writes some GPL code. 2. Claire writes some extensions to Alice's code, she provides those changes to Bob in binary form but only provides the unmodified source code. 3. Bob demands that Claire provide the full source code under the GPL. 4. Instead, Claire offers to provide Bob the modifications but only under a restrictive license. 5. Bob accepts the code and then distributes the combined work under the GPL. 6. Claire sues Bob for copyright infringement. Bob argues that Claire's code was under the GPL and so he had the right to redistribute the work. The court finds in favor of Claire. 7. Bob gets pissed, goes to talk to Alice. Alice sues Claire for copyright infringement. The court finds in favor of Alice. 8. Bob fails to get legal advice and distributes the combined work under the GPL again. 9. Claire sues Bob again, the court finds for Claire. 10. Alice sues Claire again, the court finds for Claire because Alice has already sued Claire once for the distribution to Bob, and cannot sue her again.
Gah. I wish Slashdot readers would read the whole thread before replying. But hey, I'll answer your questions.
We are not talking about changes, but about the complete derived work, which is based on GPL code, whose copyrights belong partly to Bob and partly to the original authors. It is not clear to me at all why Alice shouldn't have the right to distribute the full work.
Because Bob owns parts of the work and Alice doesn't have permission to distribute those parts of the work. If Bob decides to grant Alice permission to distribute the work then he must do so under the terms of the GPL, but he is not required to grant that permission, and has not.
Since Alice doesn't own the copyrights, what gives her the grounds to sue?
Alice owned copyright on the work before being hired by Bob. Unless she transferred the copyright of that work to Bob she still owns some rights to the work. But as I said in step 1, she licensed those rights under the GPL, so Bob has the right to use the work (under any conditions, the GPL makes no restrictions on use) and has the right distribute the work, under the terms of the GPL.
Uhhh.. "it depends" is always the answer.. but in general work for hire is owned by the employer. And as for the first two situations you described, they're identical. Whether Alice is extending MySQL-commercial-license vs MySQL-GPL-license is irrelevant, Bob owns the work Alice does. I think you're as confused as the other people I've replied to, and I wish people on Slashdot would learn to read the entire thread before replying..... but I'll repeat. If I extend a GPL licensed work, I own my own work, it is not licensed under the GPL until I do so explicitly. It does not automatically become GPL licensed.
Umm.. no. If I extend a GPL work my code does not magically become GPL licensed. This is a myth that is parodied around for the benefit of anti-GPL shills. The only way code I write can become GPL licensed is if I license it that way, explicitly. If I distribute something that is derived from a GPL licensed product then you may say that I am now required to license it under the GPL, but I am perfectly within my rights to tell you to bugger off. If you have standing, you might sue me, and I might have to pay you damages, but the work still won't be GPL licensed until I license it as such.
Alice owned the copyright on the work before Bob hired her.
Linus Torvalds started the Linux kernel project.. he later went to work for Transmeta.. Transmeta didn't suddenly become the owner of the Linux kernel. I don't know if I can dumb this down for you any more.
Depends on your employment agreement and the jurisdiction.
Typically, though, if you're doing anything your employer might like to claim you should probably get an explicit written disclaimer of interest in the project from them. If you're worried that they might say no, then you should be really worried:)
But the other point about this that is never mentioned is that contractors implicitly give licenses to whoever is paying them. Without a written contract that license is often interpreted VERY broadly.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of the fuel for a flight like this is about $2000.
Armadillo Aerospace is a rocket company, not a ticket selling company. Just like Scaled Composites is a plane company, and Virgin Galactic sells the tickets.
And yes, I too will be waiting until I see it.. to see it I guess I'll have to do that :)
Do people still need the "early adopter" concept explained to them? We live in a technological society where new gadgets and experiences come onto the market all the time. The early adopters pay top dollar for them, this attracts competitors, and the price starts to drop.
Crappy picture in the article, here's a video of the concept vehicle.
At Space Access, after the grumblings about being trumped on the LLC, Carmack made the pledge that this year they'll be doing something new. Here's hoping it involves *people*.
I find it funny that no-one ever reports the most interesting part of these scams. Most of the time they money they are laundering is stolen by botnets. These same botnets often send spam that includes some amount of recruitment of money mules. Some of these "work from home" scams involve people putting up posters and yard signs to recruit money mules. The entire scam is facilitated and organized by an automatic distributed computer program. It's like a huge ants nest. The workers don't really know what they're doing, but the network maintains their motivation to keep doing it. The strangest part of all is that often these systems are so resilient that they keep going long after the head has been cut off by law enforcement. Somewhere there's probably accounts bursting with money funneled there by unthinking dupes acting as part of an unconscious mechanism.
Thanks. And remember, "the science is settled".
Obviously *I* don't. But frankly, there isn't a man alive who understands or appreciates female PMT and the fact that there are *numerous* treatments available for this condition, *some* of which are effective at eliminating the condition completely, and women choose not to take them is, I think, more than sufficient reason for us to be disgusted, just as women are towards men who refuse to use deodorant, or as the majority of us are towards the mentally ill who refuse to stay on their meds.
The human condition is flawed and can be improved. Each of us has a responsibility to the rest of society to do what we can to make it a little more pleasant to be around each other, or risk being ostracized.
You sicken me.
I think people are *free* to do whatever they *want* and you have no right to sterilize them without their permission.
Of course, the Catholic Church would be up in arms about this,
huh? I'm pretty sure just about everyone would be up in arms about mass sterilization.. I mean, if you're not going to defend your right to breed they you probably shouldn't even bother arming yourself.
BTW, I hope you fucking die fascist.
Little known fact: for about the last 10 years there's been implants available that completely eliminate the female menstrual cycle. This is completely reversible and requires no surgery (the implant is just injected in the arm). So every time you have to put up with a woman with PMT, understand that you are enduring it because they're either ignorant or negligent.
Eliminating disease is about population control. Wherever there is high mortality rates there is high population growth. It's just human nature: death is all around, make more babies.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's guiding philosophy is the Limits To Growth as described in the '72 book commissioned by the Club of Rome. The interest in the third world is the reduction in population growth to head off the bloody global competition for resources. Predominately the approach for this has been in trying to raise the conditions of living to first world standards, as population growth in the first world is basically nil or declining. However, the dark side to Limits To Growth (or I guess I should say "darker") is the prediction that this will fail and only a China style One Child Policy and mass sterilization programs will be effective for limiting population growth. As such, seeing that they are funding this kind of research now is a very bad sign.
In step 6 the court finds for Claire because Bob is claiming he had a license (the GPL) and Claire is claiming that she never licensed her changes under the GPL. The court will look at the explicit license of Claire (which is proprietary) and declare that Bob violated the terms of the license.
In step 7 the court finds for Alice because Claire violated the terms of license that Alice distributed the software to Claire under (the GPL).
In step 9 the court finds for Claire for the same reason as in step 6. Bob is an idiot who doesn't learn his lesson or get legal advice.
In step 10 the court finds for Claire because Alice has no established that Claire has engaged in new distribution since step 6.
Pretty simple.
No. You're simply wrong and I don't have the time to explain why you're an idiot.
Sigh. No. If changes to GPL works were automatically licensed under the GPL then it would be impossible for anyone to violate the GPL by making changes. Ya know, it's 2010.. we've had the GPL for, what, 21 years? 19 if you're talking about v2. This stuff is LONG settled and the fact that so many people on Slashdot seem to be just completely IGNORANT is frightening.
No-one can "automatically" license software you write under the GPL. Only the copyright owner can license the software and it must be done explicitly. If you don't want to be sued, you'll license your changes to GPL licensed software under the terms of the GPL, but it doesn't happen automatically.
Yes, no doubt if they distribute the software they may discover Claire comes knocking... but there's also the distinct possibility that no-one will care, or they'll never distribute the software. Either way, the our Ask Slashdoter should hope he doesn't become involved, cause it will no doubt be in an overall negative capacity.
No, and as I've said, oh, I don't know, 5 times now in this thread.. my changes to a GPL licensed work never automatically become GPL licensed. I must explicitly license them under the terms of the GPL before I distribute them or I will be violation of the copyright. As so many of you seem to have a problem understand this, I'll dumb down this situation for you too.
1. Alice writes some GPL code.
2. Claire writes some extensions to Alice's code, she provides those changes to Bob in binary form but only provides the unmodified source code.
3. Bob demands that Claire provide the full source code under the GPL.
4. Instead, Claire offers to provide Bob the modifications but only under a restrictive license.
5. Bob accepts the code and then distributes the combined work under the GPL.
6. Claire sues Bob for copyright infringement. Bob argues that Claire's code was under the GPL and so he had the right to redistribute the work. The court finds in favor of Claire.
7. Bob gets pissed, goes to talk to Alice. Alice sues Claire for copyright infringement. The court finds in favor of Alice.
8. Bob fails to get legal advice and distributes the combined work under the GPL again.
9. Claire sues Bob again, the court finds for Claire.
10. Alice sues Claire again, the court finds for Claire because Alice has already sued Claire once for the distribution to Bob, and cannot sue her again.
Bob dies poor and alone.
Gah. I wish Slashdot readers would read the whole thread before replying. But hey, I'll answer your questions.
We are not talking about changes, but about the complete derived work, which is based on GPL code, whose copyrights belong partly to Bob and partly to the original authors. It is not clear to me at all why Alice shouldn't have the right to distribute the full work.
Because Bob owns parts of the work and Alice doesn't have permission to distribute those parts of the work. If Bob decides to grant Alice permission to distribute the work then he must do so under the terms of the GPL, but he is not required to grant that permission, and has not.
Since Alice doesn't own the copyrights, what gives her the grounds to sue?
Alice owned copyright on the work before being hired by Bob. Unless she transferred the copyright of that work to Bob she still owns some rights to the work. But as I said in step 1, she licensed those rights under the GPL, so Bob has the right to use the work (under any conditions, the GPL makes no restrictions on use) and has the right distribute the work, under the terms of the GPL.
Uhhh.. "it depends" is always the answer.. but in general work for hire is owned by the employer. And as for the first two situations you described, they're identical. Whether Alice is extending MySQL-commercial-license vs MySQL-GPL-license is irrelevant, Bob owns the work Alice does. I think you're as confused as the other people I've replied to, and I wish people on Slashdot would learn to read the entire thread before replying..... but I'll repeat. If I extend a GPL licensed work, I own my own work, it is not licensed under the GPL until I do so explicitly. It does not automatically become GPL licensed.
Umm.. no. If I extend a GPL work my code does not magically become GPL licensed. This is a myth that is parodied around for the benefit of anti-GPL shills. The only way code I write can become GPL licensed is if I license it that way, explicitly. If I distribute something that is derived from a GPL licensed product then you may say that I am now required to license it under the GPL, but I am perfectly within my rights to tell you to bugger off. If you have standing, you might sue me, and I might have to pay you damages, but the work still won't be GPL licensed until I license it as such.
It's not a gray area as the GPL explicitly says that it does not cover use, only distribution.
Alice owned the copyright on the work before Bob hired her.
Linus Torvalds started the Linux kernel project.. he later went to work for Transmeta.. Transmeta didn't suddenly become the owner of the Linux kernel. I don't know if I can dumb this down for you any more.
Depends on your employment agreement and the jurisdiction.
Typically, though, if you're doing anything your employer might like to claim you should probably get an explicit written disclaimer of interest in the project from them. If you're worried that they might say no, then you should be really worried :)
Contractors are not employees.
But the other point about this that is never mentioned is that contractors implicitly give licenses to whoever is paying them. Without a written contract that license is often interpreted VERY broadly.