Sometimes it takes people with nothing to lose to try something that everyone else is too afraid to try because it is questionably legal. Once they do it, however, and the laws have some time to decide whether what they are doing is legal or not, then the rest of the sector who want to be in that business can move in.
All I can tell you is that this is common law. I can't tell you where you can go look it up in your locale, cause I am not in your locale. I got a better idea for you though.. it's really easy for you to find out if I am lying. Just go paint YOUR wall some ugly ass color and see how long it takes before you are told to paint over it. Then, when you refuse, see how long it takes for the council to just paint over it with whatever color they like. Then go to court and claim that you have the right to paint your wall whatever color you like and see how far it gets you. This stuff is very old and very clear law. The fact that you don't even know about it is evidence that you don't own any walls, nor have you ever tried to paint them.
It's not "my line of reasoning".. it's common law. Go look it up. Your property line is defined by where you build that wall. Doesn't matter if you build it 10 feet into where you think your property line starts. A public facing wall is half yours.. the half that faces your property. The other half belongs to the public. If the local council wants to paint your wall, there's nothing you can do about it. If they pass a law that states that anyone can paint that wall, again, there's nothing you can do about it.
The purpose of the GPLv3 is to make the language of the license more legally binding. Everything else that has been added is just icing on the cake. It is possible that some of this language could be backported into the 2.x branch, not incorporating any of this icing, but I don't think there is anyone who wants to do that. We like icing.
You're so right. I mean, some people like having giant bleeding legal holes in the middle of their license. No need to update a 14 year old legal document so those holes can be plugged.
Paintings, statues, performances(including dance) can all be protected by copyright. Just because a software application has almost no artistic value does not mean it does not deserve the same kind of protection. That's exactly what it means.
I understand where you're coming from man.. and in places where the council can force you to clean it up, at your cost, it's definitely wrong, but the thing is, when you build a wall facing a public place, it's not completely your wall anymore. It's a public wall. Personally, I think that if the public is free to do what they want with your wall (say, if the council wants to paint it) then you shouldn't be forced to repaint it at your expense if a minority of the public does what the majority don't like with it. Then there's the guys who jump fences and paint on houses and shit. That's just juvenile.
Personally, if I could get Microsoft to sign something saying that would never sue me (for anything), I'd find the money somewhere to pay for it. In fact, if I can find someone who will give me a get out of jail free card for any major corporation, I could have a lot of fun:)
and if there were no Used Honda Civics in the world, that would be an accurate statement.
Or, to put it another way, Hondas are cheaper than BMWs because BMW doesn't sell anything in the low end of the market, and Honda does. The fact that if you tried to buy a luxury vehicle from Honda you might end up paying more than you would for a BMW is irrelevant to the discussion of which is cheaper.
I'm typing this on a stinkpad. And, unfortunately, whenever I get on another Laptop without the Fn in the corner, I end up pressing the Fn where the Ctrl is on the stinkpad. There ya go.
Yes. That's what "cheaper" means. It doesn't mean "two machines with the same specs vary in cost and one is less", it means "I have to pay more than I want to pay for an Apple laptop." The bottom end of the market exists for a reason. People don't see the reason to pay the same amount of money for a car in the low end of the market as they do for a PC in the low end of the market. A PC is worth less than a car, it shouldn't cost the same as a car.
Was there any need for a retarded analogy? What's hard to understand here? PCs are available for less money than Macs.. that's what *everyone* means when they say something is cheaper than something else. The only people who do a "gee, if I buy the top end model I can get it cheaper from Apple" are people who are trying to justify paying more for a PC. Shit, the low end machines have more grunt than any normal person requires anyway.. there's simply no justification for buying a high end machine unless you are doing something more than word processing and surfing the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it takes people with nothing to lose to try something that everyone else is too afraid to try because it is questionably legal. Once they do it, however, and the laws have some time to decide whether what they are doing is legal or not, then the rest of the sector who want to be in that business can move in.
Yep, and that's what all those "earn money using your computer" ads you see taped to telephone poles are all about.
Patsies.
Way to not be funny.
RTFA and find out.
Sheesh.
All I can tell you is that this is common law. I can't tell you where you can go look it up in your locale, cause I am not in your locale. I got a better idea for you though.. it's really easy for you to find out if I am lying. Just go paint YOUR wall some ugly ass color and see how long it takes before you are told to paint over it. Then, when you refuse, see how long it takes for the council to just paint over it with whatever color they like. Then go to court and claim that you have the right to paint your wall whatever color you like and see how far it gets you. This stuff is very old and very clear law. The fact that you don't even know about it is evidence that you don't own any walls, nor have you ever tried to paint them.
It's not "my line of reasoning".. it's common law. Go look it up. Your property line is defined by where you build that wall. Doesn't matter if you build it 10 feet into where you think your property line starts. A public facing wall is half yours.. the half that faces your property. The other half belongs to the public. If the local council wants to paint your wall, there's nothing you can do about it. If they pass a law that states that anyone can paint that wall, again, there's nothing you can do about it.
Don't believe me?
GO LOOK IT UP.
The purpose of the GPLv3 is to make the language of the license more legally binding. Everything else that has been added is just icing on the cake. It is possible that some of this language could be backported into the 2.x branch, not incorporating any of this icing, but I don't think there is anyone who wants to do that. We like icing.
You're so right. I mean, some people like having giant bleeding legal holes in the middle of their license. No need to update a 14 year old legal document so those holes can be plugged.
How can you honestly be opposed to software patents but be ok with considering them "literary works".
Do your own research.
Everywhere is different.
Wall != car. I didn't invent the fuckin' law man.. I'm just telling you the way it is.
I understand where you're coming from man.. and in places where the council can force you to clean it up, at your cost, it's definitely wrong, but the thing is, when you build a wall facing a public place, it's not completely your wall anymore. It's a public wall. Personally, I think that if the public is free to do what they want with your wall (say, if the council wants to paint it) then you shouldn't be forced to repaint it at your expense if a minority of the public does what the majority don't like with it. Then there's the guys who jump fences and paint on houses and shit. That's just juvenile.
That's what insurance is.
:)
Personally, if I could get Microsoft to sign something saying that would never sue me (for anything), I'd find the money somewhere to pay for it. In fact, if I can find someone who will give me a get out of jail free card for any major corporation, I could have a lot of fun
Such people would have bought a Mac regardless of the price. They're suckers.
it is failing.
and if there were no Used Honda Civics in the world, that would be an accurate statement.
Or, to put it another way, Hondas are cheaper than BMWs because BMW doesn't sell anything in the low end of the market, and Honda does. The fact that if you tried to buy a luxury vehicle from Honda you might end up paying more than you would for a BMW is irrelevant to the discussion of which is cheaper.
The fact that the Mac Mini looks like a toy doesn't help either.
I'm typing this on a stinkpad. And, unfortunately, whenever I get on another Laptop without the Fn in the corner, I end up pressing the Fn where the Ctrl is on the stinkpad. There ya go.
Well, to make the Mac comparable to the Dell, you have to install Windows (or now, Ubuntu) on it.. how is that not DIY?
So why not install Linux on it?
:)
I await the day someone buys me a Mac to shut me up.. it'll happen, then I'll have to start dissin' "Mac Advocates" instead
Heh, it's not really that complicated. Simply, if you use a Mac, you're a Mac user.
Yes. That's what "cheaper" means. It doesn't mean "two machines with the same specs vary in cost and one is less", it means "I have to pay more than I want to pay for an Apple laptop." The bottom end of the market exists for a reason. People don't see the reason to pay the same amount of money for a car in the low end of the market as they do for a PC in the low end of the market. A PC is worth less than a car, it shouldn't cost the same as a car.
Was there any need for a retarded analogy? What's hard to understand here? PCs are available for less money than Macs.. that's what *everyone* means when they say something is cheaper than something else. The only people who do a "gee, if I buy the top end model I can get it cheaper from Apple" are people who are trying to justify paying more for a PC. Shit, the low end machines have more grunt than any normal person requires anyway.. there's simply no justification for buying a high end machine unless you are doing something more than word processing and surfing the web.
Yeah, god forbid you read the article, or even the god damn summary.
Can't say I'm surprised, a Mac user is exactly the kind of person who would bring a sword to a gun fight.