Wow, maybe the training should be inheriently valuable in and of itself. Then your employer will see it as an investment. I always found that funny. Consider admin people vs development people. Admin dudes are sent to every course under the sun to get certified. It's just considered standard practice. Oh, we want to use Cisco routers? Gunna need at least 2 admins with Cisco certification. Now think about programmers. Each one is expected to have his own specialties which he brings to the job with him. There's no sending them off to be trained as the need arises. Oh, the customer has required that we develop this next application in Java. Damn, better hire some more Java people and lay off some of the C# coders.
Well yes, you would have to process the asteroid to get the platnium out, but it would be very low tech. The whole system is easy to design and build, no new technology is needed. Returning the payload is easy, there's a number of options, but a bunch of cheap aerosol boosters would be more than enough. Point it at the moon and let gravity do the rest. De-orbiting it once it got to earth orbit would be harder. For a commercial interest that is, de-orbiting with the shuttle would be simple. The mining probe could return a tonne of material a week for years and years. The Eros probe cost $150 million cause it was made by NASA. Duh. 100 tonnes would not even put a dent in the platinium market. Platinium is not like gold, it has millions of applications which gives it inherient value.
Dude, you don't get it do you? The EULA doesn't *have* to "disallow" it. Copyright law prevents it. You're making a copy, copyright law gives that right exclusively to the copyright holder. The user is permitted to do the things solely authorised by the license. The license does not state that you are authorised to make a modification of the software for the purpose of playing it multiplayer. That's it. You're making a derivative work, the license does not permit you to make a derivative work, therefore you are not allowed to make a derivative work. Fair use laws states no situation in which you are authorised to make a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder.
Wow, isn't $110 million a lot for that? I mean, say you were a commercial concern and you wanted to do something that was actually profitable in space. You could send a robot probe to one of those asteroids that circle the sun in orbits close to earth and mine it. At least a few of those asteroids have high quantities of platinum. Say your robot probe could mine a tonne of it and return it to earth. How much would that be worth? Oh, about $30 million. So how many tonnes would your robot probe have to return to earth to be profitable? It's a finite number and wouldn't even make up a significant fraction of the total mass of the asteroid. Sounds like a pretty simple project really. If you could send back enough loads you could afford to sent humans instead of robots and cut out all that pesky upfront R&D. Just grab yourself 5 SpaceX boosters, point and shoot.
Oh well, I suppose China/India/Japan or commercial interests will get around to it sooner or later.
Because it's subjective. If you can write in an article what the game is about, without subjecting your own needs and desires onto the game, I can read your article and apply *my* needs and desires onto your article and determine whether I want to play the game.
As I said in another post, people need to start offering guided tours in Second Life. That way newbies can see all the great things in the world without being exposed to the "giant shopping mall".
I agree that there's potential there, but it doesn't go far enough. I think what the system lacks is an ability to skin or "mod" the client. Imagine you had that, you could make a traditional RPG or FPS inside Second Life. I think that's kinda what games are all about. Accepting a set of rules and participating within those rules. The only rules that Second Life seems to present to players are economic ones.. and no-one seems to be offering any other rules.
I suppose someone in SL has actually made a pool table. Even assuming everyone agrees to only use the telekentic powers to manipulate the pool cues (and not the balls) is the interface sufficient to play a game? I'm guessing that it is not. Now, Virtual Pool (back in the day) had a very good interface for "stroking" the pool cue with your mouse. It was actually one of the first games to use the mouse for something other than pointing. Can you script the SL client to simulate that sort of interface? Probably not right? That's the kind of thing you need to make games. Interfaces for different situations and rules under which to participate.
Some people who have spent a long time in Second Life should really offer a tour guide service. I'm sure there's heaps to see, but the majority of "trial" users just wonder around, see rundown shops with no attendants and leave despondant over the whole experiment.
I think Second Life is the biggest online shopping mall I've ever been to. That said, I think you could make some interesting games in Second Life if you could set more "laws" for the land that you own. Like forcing people to give up their magically SL abilities when they step onto your property. It's a bit hard to make, say, a race car track when anyone can just fly to the finish line or plop down their own car which has no speed limitations.
Nintendo vs Accolade man. That's the case that determined that copying into memory is making a copy under copyright law. It has been upheld in every case since.
Software and books are not the same thing. The US, Europe and Australian courts have all ruled that copying software into memory in order to run it is "making a copy" under copyright law. So every single time you run a piece of software you are subject to the license under which it is supplied to you. Proprietary software like GTA 3 is supplied under a license which prohibits making derivative works. That means you are not permitted to make a derivative work by combining the software with other software in memory.
Is that fair? Hell no. But that's what those wacky judges have ruled. You can't run software without copying it and therefore you are subject to copyright law whenever you run software.
Now I hear you, you're going to say that even if the user is violating their license with the supplier of GTA3 the creators of MTA are not breaking any laws, right? Well no, because they are encouraging others to break copyright law. That's contributory copyright infringement.
So yeah, if Rockstar Games wanted to shut down MTA they could easily do so, and they could be awarded punitive damages in the range of millions which presumably would bankrupt the creators of MTA.
pah-lease. When you run the game, with modifications, the work you are using is a derivative work of the original. There isn't a court in the land that would not strike such unauthorised modifications down.
The Berne Convention is that pesky treaty that allows any country to enforce its specific blend of copyright law anywhere in the world. So, for example, if I reverse engineer software owned by someone in the US and they've got a clickthrough license that says I can't do that, they can sue me, even though here in Australia we have laws that state that reverse engineering is legal under specific circumstances. That's one of the reasons why Australia was reluctant to sign the onto the Berne Convention, but they did it anyway. So, it's not the Berne Convention that says a copyright owner is free to terminate a license at any time, it's Australian law, and the Berne Convention permits Australian copyright owners to enforce that law in countries that don't have that law. If you think that's stupid, then I agree with you, it's fucked up, but no matter how stupid and far reaching copyright laws are, copyright owners seem to get whatever they want.
My point simply was that you can't claim that someone should think about computers in the same way as they think about toasters. Specifically you talked about politics and religion. Both aluding to the fact that you believe people take their computers a heck of a lot more seriously than they should. When you apply that line of thinking to a toaster I admit it doesn't make sense, but that's because computers are different to toasters. They're not just appliances. They're devices for expressing yourself through speech, work and recreation. By pointing out how different computers are to toasters I hoped to show to you that thinking about computers seriously is justified.
Look, read the freakin' license, it specifically says that if you violate the license your rights under the license are terminated. That's it, there's no regaining the rights from someone else, the copyright holder has terminated your rights. Even more so, countries like Australia (which is where I'm at BTW) specifically state that a copyright holder can terminate a license at any time and for any reason. The Berne Convention would permit me to exercise that right in any country that has signed the WIPO treaty, so frankly it doesn't even matter what the GPL says.
There is if the copyright holder wants there to be. If you violate my license and I feel like I'll prevent you from ever distributing my software again by using that clause of the GPL. Any judge would read that clause and agree with my interpretation of it. Especially seeing software licenses are more often used to restrict people's freedom than protect them.
Uhh no. There is only one license, issued by the owner of the copyright. The GPL specifically says the owner can revoke that license for people who violate it. It would be a nonsense clause if the user could just go and aquire another license for the software from someone other than the owner of the copyright. The court is more likely to uphold something that makes sense than something that is nonsense.
Read the GPL. It specifically says that if you violate the license you lose any rights you have under that license. That means you have no rights to copy and distribute the software, forever. No-one else loses any rights, just the person who violated the license.
Yes, but say if someone was to distribute a GPL v3 linux kernel that contained code which had not been released for GPL v3 distribution, the owner of that code can revoke the right of that person to distribute their code. The rest of the controversial section 4 of the license:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
To me that means everyone who distributed the tainted GPL v3 linux kernel would lose the right to distribute the unauthorised code, even if they were to subsequently aquire any copy of the code under compliant terms. A lot of people distribute the linux kernel. That's a lot of people who our antagonist could prohibit from distributing the linux kernel until such time as the offending code (and all derivative works) was removed from the linux kernel.
Even if I'm wrong it still sounds like a legal mine field. The only real safe thing to do is to distribute the code under the exact license under which it was written for release to the public. For the linux kernel that's the GPL Version 2, June 1991.
Uhh.. say it is a driver. Say it's self contained. What about those people who wrote a similar driver by taking the existing one, stripping bits out and adding bits in? I mean every driver looks kinda similar.. Bill's lawyers could easily claim that every driver that "looks like" the one Bill has a claim on is derived from it. If you argue he'll drag your ass into court (not IBM, not some legal fund, YOU) and ask you questions like "so you're tell me you've never read the source code to another driver before you wrote yours?" "Oh, you did? Then how can you be so sure you never read the source code to our driver and accidentally copied it into yours?" And that's the kind of shit lawyers will ask you. They'll make it look to a judge like you've never put any effort into making sure you had "clean hands" because the license said you were free to copy. Then once Bill's lawyer has shown you can't possibily have clean hands he'll say that you have no authority to change the license on your own code without his permission. Your driver won't be going into the GPL v3 linux kernel either.. and when some significant portion of the linux kernel has been put on dubious ground it'll be really easy to say that the whole kernel is dubious.
Now, with all that pain fresh in your mind, can you think of a really good reason why we'd ever need to move the linux kernel to GPL v3? Is it really worth it?
Well firstly, RMS has never changed. He's been the same since the 70s. Even physically, he's like the unaging man. As for the Free Software Foundation, there is absolutely no possibility that it could suddenly change policy, and even if it were to do so, some future version of the GPL which wasn't in the spirit of the current version of the GPL would simply not be valid. There's checks built into the GPL specifically to prevent that.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, maybe the training should be inheriently valuable in and of itself. Then your employer will see it as an investment. I always found that funny. Consider admin people vs development people. Admin dudes are sent to every course under the sun to get certified. It's just considered standard practice. Oh, we want to use Cisco routers? Gunna need at least 2 admins with Cisco certification. Now think about programmers. Each one is expected to have his own specialties which he brings to the job with him. There's no sending them off to be trained as the need arises. Oh, the customer has required that we develop this next application in Java. Damn, better hire some more Java people and lay off some of the C# coders.
Well yes, you would have to process the asteroid to get the platnium out, but it would be very low tech. The whole system is easy to design and build, no new technology is needed.
Returning the payload is easy, there's a number of options, but a bunch of cheap aerosol boosters would be more than enough. Point it at the moon and let gravity do the rest. De-orbiting it once it got to earth orbit would be harder. For a commercial interest that is, de-orbiting with the shuttle would be simple.
The mining probe could return a tonne of material a week for years and years.
The Eros probe cost $150 million cause it was made by NASA. Duh.
100 tonnes would not even put a dent in the platinium market. Platinium is not like gold, it has millions of applications which gives it inherient value.
Dude, you don't get it do you? The EULA doesn't *have* to "disallow" it. Copyright law prevents it. You're making a copy, copyright law gives that right exclusively to the copyright holder. The user is permitted to do the things solely authorised by the license. The license does not state that you are authorised to make a modification of the software for the purpose of playing it multiplayer. That's it. You're making a derivative work, the license does not permit you to make a derivative work, therefore you are not allowed to make a derivative work. Fair use laws states no situation in which you are authorised to make a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder.
Oh well, I suppose China/India/Japan or commercial interests will get around to it sooner or later.
Blah, unless you actually know what to look for in a game you often don't know how good it actually is.
Because it's subjective. If you can write in an article what the game is about, without subjecting your own needs and desires onto the game, I can read your article and apply *my* needs and desires onto your article and determine whether I want to play the game.
As I said in another post, people need to start offering guided tours in Second Life. That way newbies can see all the great things in the world without being exposed to the "giant shopping mall".
I agree that there's potential there, but it doesn't go far enough. I think what the system lacks is an ability to skin or "mod" the client. Imagine you had that, you could make a traditional RPG or FPS inside Second Life. I think that's kinda what games are all about. Accepting a set of rules and participating within those rules. The only rules that Second Life seems to present to players are economic ones.. and no-one seems to be offering any other rules.
I suppose someone in SL has actually made a pool table. Even assuming everyone agrees to only use the telekentic powers to manipulate the pool cues (and not the balls) is the interface sufficient to play a game? I'm guessing that it is not. Now, Virtual Pool (back in the day) had a very good interface for "stroking" the pool cue with your mouse. It was actually one of the first games to use the mouse for something other than pointing. Can you script the SL client to simulate that sort of interface? Probably not right? That's the kind of thing you need to make games. Interfaces for different situations and rules under which to participate.
Some people who have spent a long time in Second Life should really offer a tour guide service. I'm sure there's heaps to see, but the majority of "trial" users just wonder around, see rundown shops with no attendants and leave despondant over the whole experiment.
I think Second Life is the biggest online shopping mall I've ever been to. That said, I think you could make some interesting games in Second Life if you could set more "laws" for the land that you own. Like forcing people to give up their magically SL abilities when they step onto your property. It's a bit hard to make, say, a race car track when anyone can just fly to the finish line or plop down their own car which has no speed limitations.
Nintendo vs Accolade man. That's the case that determined that copying into memory is making a copy under copyright law. It has been upheld in every case since.
Is that fair? Hell no. But that's what those wacky judges have ruled. You can't run software without copying it and therefore you are subject to copyright law whenever you run software.
Now I hear you, you're going to say that even if the user is violating their license with the supplier of GTA3 the creators of MTA are not breaking any laws, right? Well no, because they are encouraging others to break copyright law. That's contributory copyright infringement.
So yeah, if Rockstar Games wanted to shut down MTA they could easily do so, and they could be awarded punitive damages in the range of millions which presumably would bankrupt the creators of MTA.
pah-lease. When you run the game, with modifications, the work you are using is a derivative work of the original. There isn't a court in the land that would not strike such unauthorised modifications down.
Blah, they could sue these guys for making a derivative work. That simple.
The Berne Convention is that pesky treaty that allows any country to enforce its specific blend of copyright law anywhere in the world. So, for example, if I reverse engineer software owned by someone in the US and they've got a clickthrough license that says I can't do that, they can sue me, even though here in Australia we have laws that state that reverse engineering is legal under specific circumstances. That's one of the reasons why Australia was reluctant to sign the onto the Berne Convention, but they did it anyway. So, it's not the Berne Convention that says a copyright owner is free to terminate a license at any time, it's Australian law, and the Berne Convention permits Australian copyright owners to enforce that law in countries that don't have that law. If you think that's stupid, then I agree with you, it's fucked up, but no matter how stupid and far reaching copyright laws are, copyright owners seem to get whatever they want.
My point simply was that you can't claim that someone should think about computers in the same way as they think about toasters. Specifically you talked about politics and religion. Both aluding to the fact that you believe people take their computers a heck of a lot more seriously than they should. When you apply that line of thinking to a toaster I admit it doesn't make sense, but that's because computers are different to toasters. They're not just appliances. They're devices for expressing yourself through speech, work and recreation. By pointing out how different computers are to toasters I hoped to show to you that thinking about computers seriously is justified.
Look, read the freakin' license, it specifically says that if you violate the license your rights under the license are terminated. That's it, there's no regaining the rights from someone else, the copyright holder has terminated your rights. Even more so, countries like Australia (which is where I'm at BTW) specifically state that a copyright holder can terminate a license at any time and for any reason. The Berne Convention would permit me to exercise that right in any country that has signed the WIPO treaty, so frankly it doesn't even matter what the GPL says.
So I'm guessing you havn't heard of Win64, for which all drivers have to be rewritten and for which no 64 bit app can load a 32 bit dll.
I'm sorry, but if my toaster came with a list of things I wasn't allowed to do with it I'd think of a toaster as a political party or a religion too.
There is if the copyright holder wants there to be. If you violate my license and I feel like I'll prevent you from ever distributing my software again by using that clause of the GPL. Any judge would read that clause and agree with my interpretation of it. Especially seeing software licenses are more often used to restrict people's freedom than protect them.
Uhh no. There is only one license, issued by the owner of the copyright. The GPL specifically says the owner can revoke that license for people who violate it. It would be a nonsense clause if the user could just go and aquire another license for the software from someone other than the owner of the copyright. The court is more likely to uphold something that makes sense than something that is nonsense.
Read the GPL. It specifically says that if you violate the license you lose any rights you have under that license. That means you have no rights to copy and distribute the software, forever. No-one else loses any rights, just the person who violated the license.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
To me that means everyone who distributed the tainted GPL v3 linux kernel would lose the right to distribute the unauthorised code, even if they were to subsequently aquire any copy of the code under compliant terms. A lot of people distribute the linux kernel. That's a lot of people who our antagonist could prohibit from distributing the linux kernel until such time as the offending code (and all derivative works) was removed from the linux kernel.
Even if I'm wrong it still sounds like a legal mine field. The only real safe thing to do is to distribute the code under the exact license under which it was written for release to the public. For the linux kernel that's the GPL Version 2, June 1991.
Now, with all that pain fresh in your mind, can you think of a really good reason why we'd ever need to move the linux kernel to GPL v3? Is it really worth it?
Well firstly, RMS has never changed. He's been the same since the 70s. Even physically, he's like the unaging man. As for the Free Software Foundation, there is absolutely no possibility that it could suddenly change policy, and even if it were to do so, some future version of the GPL which wasn't in the spirit of the current version of the GPL would simply not be valid. There's checks built into the GPL specifically to prevent that.