One of the popular mythes is that the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is baseless.
I totally agree that the McDonald's case had merit in that it was proven that they heated the coffee too much, refused to respond to multiple complaints, and generally gave the impression that they did not give a rat's ass about it. So they were definitely at fault.
What does this do for their case? Are they going to come forward and say "See, EV1 bought a license. Now YOU need to buy a license!" or what? Really, what does this do for them legally? Anything. I sure hope not.
While it might have the effect of making other companies choose to buy a license, legally it has no weight. If I set up a scam and you fall for it, and I get caught, I can't tell the judge "Look, this guy bought one, so it must be legit!" That would simply not fly in a court of law in the US.
So now that you know what a typical seller is like... now do you hate us?
I don't play the online games anymore so I don't have as much of a stake in it these days, but my initial reaction from your description is no, I don't think I would hate you.
Unless you cheated, hacked into the system, used security exploits -- which it sounds like you didn't -- then you were simply "playing the system". The game rules allow you to do all this so you did it. Many people play real life systems this way. I know I do come April when I try to squeeze the biggest refund legally possible from the IRS.
To anyone here playing EQ: If the methods that this person used are considered "unfair" to anyone else here playing EQ, just remember to direct your bile towards the people that designed the game and allowed things like this to happen, not at the people that use the system according to the rules.
Clay Shirky has an excellent article on his site about how online groups are their own worst enemy. Basically, he states that in any online community there will eventually come hordes of people who miss the point and spoil the fun for everybody. It's a great read for anybody who's ever been player-killed, trolled or flamed on the 'net.
This is an excellent article. One of the most important points, I feel, that can be applied to this discussion is the fact that no online group is a democracy. All online groups eventually become such that you have a small group of people with more privileges (either real or perceived) that trump the "rights" of the masses.
Take, for example, Linux kernel development. Technically, when I get a Linux kernel, I can fully exercise my rights under the GPL and modify the code anyway I see fit and then redistribute it. But who's going to accept it? The most likely response from people doing any serious work in Linux will be "but it isn't official is it?"
What makes a Linux kernel "official"? Only those versions that have been blessed by dictator-for-life Linus Torvalds and his penguinistas. I don't say that to be disparaging. It's a good idea to have some sort of organized development of such a key piece of software, and I happen to like the current setup with the Linux kernel. But it does how how these things come about. Linus invented Linux, and the people around him have been hacking at it the longest, thus they have become the de-facto "government" of the Linux community. While I can certainly distribute my own fork of Linux, few people will take it, because of the hierarchy that has come into place in the community.
The best online games, IMHO, are not the ones that attempt to force democracy on everyone, but the ones that allow for the development of a more influential cadre that help keep the game running. Yes, it does mean you can get into ugly politics and bias sometimes, but overall it still makes for a more stable environment.
I remember when I purchased this game new for my C64 while I was still a teen living with my parents. I went so far as to paste a fake label on the floppy disk to disguise the game so I didn't have to answer awkward questions from my parents if they saw it lying around. I thought I was being so "naughty" by getting this game (young AND foolish you see...).
Never finished the game in my youth. Then I got married to someone who liked these games as much as I did but had never played this one. We fired it up under a Linux port of the Inform parser, played it together, and proceeded to laugh our asses off as we played it. We each picked up more subtle jokes in descriptions, characters, and room layouts that the other didn't.
I'm not sure whether its still in the shops, but a few years ago I bought the Lost Treasures of Infocom, which brings together many of their best games.
What's really cool about these games is that the data files for the games are platform-agnostic. I originally bought a Lost Treasures before I became a 100% Linux convert, and to my delight discovered that the Linux port of the Inform parser ran these games perfectly from the data files. Same thing when I got a hold of some old Scott Adams game files and the parser for it.
That died when the stock market and big corporations became the norm and drove the local mom-and-pop stores out of business.
Hit the nail on the head. This implies that you get better service from smaller companies, and this is absolutely right.
Case and point: I recently purchased a new PC from a small company called Penguin Computing. Really nice 2.5GHz Intel Xeon system, all SCSI, RH9 preinstalled. Only when I got the system, the Iomega Jaz drive didn't work. I had the problem resolved in only 3 business days. Here's how it went:
Day 1: call tech support, get a LIVE HUMAN BEING without the need to go through a menu. Do some troubleshooting, decide to try a different disk.
Day 2: Received new disk via FedEx overnight (yes, you read that right). Tried it out, didn't work, called support again. Again got a real live human being who I did NOT have to explain the whole problem to all over again. More troubleshooting, decides the drive is defective, sends a new one.
Day 3: New drive received via, again, FedEx overnight. Replace drive, works like a champ. Get an email from customer service later in the day that says here's the RMA for the defective drive and, oh by the way, we'll have FedEx come to your door to pick up the defective drive for return.
I almost didn't want to tell anyone about this company for fear they'll get so successful that they'll become yet another monolithic supermegacorp and their support will turn lousy. I guess I'll just have to enjoy it while it lasts.
While I know you were most likely trying to be funny, realize that part of the money that you spend on a CD-R goes right to the RIAA again. This is in effect a "piracy tax" that the industry managed to get placed on recordable media such as the CD-R, supposedly to cover the cost of potential losses from the piracy that some users of the media may do.
Wrong. The Free Software Foundation make exactly that claim: see the GPL FAQ..
I stand corrected. I missed this on my initial look-through of the FAQ. Nice to be corrected on Slashdot without the unnecessary flammage for once. Mod this person's post +1 Polite.
However, since a GPL program cannot use libraries that are not under a GPL-compatible license, you would not be able to link to these libraries from a GPL program.
I looked though the site again to see if I could find any exact wording that supports this, but came up empty. However, I can see how the GPL as it is now can be interpreted this way.
I have to admit that I don't exactly agree with some of the interpretations that the FSF has. I personally don't consider linking to a library anything more than using it, as I might use a program by running it, since my executable does not contain their GPL code if I dynamically link it. However, it is their license and I respect their intended use for it.
I wonder if the XFree folks might be amenable to putting in an exception clause for software that merely links to it and if that might help smooth over matters. I can't imagine that the intent was to suck in everything that links to the libraries under the same license.
But then again, that seems to be the intent of the GPL if used on a library. Hmmm...
Or, more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem.
I must have missed something in the license. I didn't see anything that covered mere linking into the software. Even the GPL does not claim that linking to GPL'ed libraries makes your program GPL, so I don't think linking to Xfree86-licensed libraries makes your program XFree86-licensed. The license appears to deal specifically with the physical distribution of the libraries and related software, not anything that links to it.
I do understand Mandrake's position from the point of view of having to modify docs at the last minute, but I fail to see the relation to the GPL. If all you do is link to XFree libs, the compatibility is not an issue. Someone feel free to enlighten me if I missed the point.
This implementation is the one we've been using for Linux Ages. But since recently, they have failed to deliver a greater-than-the-previous product: no extraordinary boosts, no rewrite of the starting system, etc... It's beginning to grow too old - we can see that by the starting greed of the project over its programmers.
You raise an excellent point, but we have to remember that any new implementation of X11 is going to have to allow all the existing drivers to work with it. Otherwise we face a lot of things like this: "Uh, hello, NVidia? Remember how we whined to you to make drivers for XFree86? Well forget that, now we need you to do it all over again for this new implementation."
Yes, in the perfect world, all graphic card specs would be open and anyone could write a driver for them. But it is not likely going to happen anytime soon, and to abandon all the work that companies who have not opened the specs but have graciously chosen to give us drivers is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (and I'm not implying that you're saying this, but it is something that might follow from an attempt to rewrite everything from scratch).
I am aware that this attitude flies in the face of free software purists. Much as I respect RMS and his position, I prefer to meet somewhere in the middle.
Have anyone considered the privacy and security issues when sending this information to foreign companies?
I have another one for you: Has anyone considered the stability issues?
Outsourcing to India makes me nervous. Not so much the outsourcing itself (other than the natural worry about one's job security) but the fact that it is going specifically to India. I saw an article recently about Pakistan and how its leader came rather close to assassination at several points over the last year or so, and that a successful attempt could have meant the rise of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Pakistan.
Put 2 and 2 together. Pakistan has nuclear capability. Pakistan is skirmishing with India over disputed territory and routinely rattles its saber at India. Now imagine Pakistan with a Taliban-like government.
I don't know about you, but I don't care to think about how much of our IT infrastructure would be damaged if Pakistan and India nuked each other.
Outsourcers come....
I have 1 billion people, 200,000 jobs, and tax revenue of 1 billion dollars. I now have a huge net export of goods and services.
Political climate in US changes...
Pipeline of jobs to India shuts down. Now you're back to 1 billion people, 10,000 jobs, and tax revenue of 100 million with which to feed them.
things always seem alot worse when youre homeless and used to have a house than if youve been homeless your whole life
Combine this with a shutdown of the job pipe, and you have a recipe for civil unrest.
It is true that it is unlikely that the outsourcing will stop anytime soon. But no nation should rely on the bulk of their economy coming from a single outside source. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.
With so much good fiction out there why did they have to take a book that got the science unbelieveably wrong.
Yes, but it got only a brief mention. I approached the article in question with the initial though "great, another grey-goo-swallows-the-earth piece". The term was mentioned, but like the book, only in passing.
I was pleasantly surprised by the article. I found many of the concerns over nanotech to be valid. Rather than talking about what might be (intelligent nanobots running amuck), they talked about straightforward health and environment risks (nanoparticles breathed/ingested).
I definitely believe nanotech research should move forward, but I also believe that there are some real risks that need to be studied in tandem before there is widespread use of the technology.
Give them a break, at least they are being creative now!
Yes, they're trying to get congress to come up with creative legislation all the time to mandate DRM in your computer hardware. Yep, some creative folks over there at Disney.
(j) to damage the name or reputation of DIRECWAY, DIRECTV, Hughes Network Systems, Hughes Electronics Corporation or any of their respective parents, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties;
I'd love to hear their definition of what constitutes "damage". Technically, this is unenforceable. If I post or distribute information that is damaging to them, but is totally true and factual and not derived from ill-gotten confidential information, I am protected under the First Amendment. To prove libel or slander, they have to go to court.
On a more serious note, could future unmanned and manned missions take advantage of the stuff we have dropped on Mars? Send up a collection bot, hopefully it won't crash, and then it collects all the parts while mapping/surveying, and then another bot lands and builds something out of the parts.
I think a better idea is to leave all those old probes exactly where they lay. Being the optimist that I am about space exploration, I really believe we'll eventually colonize the planet. If this is the case, I'd like the old landing sites to be preserved just as they are. Perhaps build space history museums around them, or some of them can become part of the town square or something of a community.
Naturally this assumes that Mars is not too harsh on these old probes and there will be something left to look at, since it will likely take a long while before colonization of the planet becomes technologically and economically feasible.
My grandfather died of lung cancer (no, he didn't smoke) after working win a plant that used PCB's for 20 years. He was 50. Beat *that*.
I had two aunts that died of lung cancer. Neither smoked a single thing in their lives and lived in a relatively clean low-pollution part of town. Yet they both worked in offices for 20 years where other people smoked like chimneys before the days of office smoking regulations.
Which is why people that say that second hand smoke doesn't hurt you are full of shit.
If IBM isn't happy with SCO's discovery replies (and based on what I've seen -- see Declaration of Ryan Tibbets -- they won't be), SCO will be in very hot water, because it could be seen as a violation of a court order.
This could very well be why they filed this suit.
Think about it. SCO claims Novell caused them "irreparable harm" in attempting to assert their copyrights. Perhaps SCO is seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the IBM case. They figure that they now have a good chance of losing the IBM lawsuit, so what better way to recoup the loss by suing someone else? In other words: "We're going to lose the suit, and it's all Novell's fault, so we're going to make them pay."
A good premise for a ST series would be similar to what you were saying about the "verge of collapse". Have a disaster that renders federation/klingon/romulan/major species computer technology useless. As a bonus, have it somehow involve the destruction of the borg for all time.
A nice idea, but fraught with the problem of making the reason for the tech regression plausible.
I like the Federation-collapse idea. But rather than tech being the cause of the collapse, have it be political in nature. No matter how advanced the tech, people are still people and politics are still politics. For example, the Federation is HUGE. Management of this monstrosity must be a nightmare (think Old Republic from the recent Star Wars pictures). I can't believe it can continue along its present lines forever. Eventually it will get too big an entity and start to fall apart from conflicting interests. Making it political means you almost force character interaction and development right from the get-go and make it very difficult to apply a tech fix to everything. Hell, you can get a decent plot by having people try to apply a tech fix and failing miserably at it.
First of all, and perhaps most important, do *NOT* bring up the term "GPL".
Then how do we get people to start taking it seriously if we never mention what it is?
Actually, I think we're past the point where we need to keep "hiding" what the GPL is. It is a license, pure and simple, just like any other license. It has terms and conditions, just like any other license. It has obligations to those that use software under it, just like any other license.
This "but don't mention the term GPL" is getting a little ridiculous. If IBM can take it seriously, so can any other company.
You say Lucas is 60 now (that's in 2004)... if so, then how will he be 66 in 2012, *eight* years from now?
Lucas wants the special effects for the next movie to be so incredibly realistic that he's sinking all the money from his company into a real spacecraft so he can film scenes, in effect, on location. On some recent test runs of his spacecraft, he got a little carried away and got too close to the speed of light. "I hate it when my time gets dialated like that," he was quoted as saying.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree that the McDonald's case had merit in that it was proven that they heated the coffee too much, refused to respond to multiple complaints, and generally gave the impression that they did not give a rat's ass about it. So they were definitely at fault.
BUT ... I still say that this line ...
holding the coffee cup between her legs
... shows that she was total fucking moron.
If that happens, you can be sure CmdrTaco will post it here on Slashdot for all of us to read and comment on.
And then again on Thursday.
And once more next month.
</ObDupejoke>
While it might have the effect of making other companies choose to buy a license, legally it has no weight. If I set up a scam and you fall for it, and I get caught, I can't tell the judge "Look, this guy bought one, so it must be legit!" That would simply not fly in a court of law in the US.
I don't play the online games anymore so I don't have as much of a stake in it these days, but my initial reaction from your description is no, I don't think I would hate you.
Unless you cheated, hacked into the system, used security exploits -- which it sounds like you didn't -- then you were simply "playing the system". The game rules allow you to do all this so you did it. Many people play real life systems this way. I know I do come April when I try to squeeze the biggest refund legally possible from the IRS.
To anyone here playing EQ: If the methods that this person used are considered "unfair" to anyone else here playing EQ, just remember to direct your bile towards the people that designed the game and allowed things like this to happen, not at the people that use the system according to the rules.
This is an excellent article. One of the most important points, I feel, that can be applied to this discussion is the fact that no online group is a democracy. All online groups eventually become such that you have a small group of people with more privileges (either real or perceived) that trump the "rights" of the masses.
Take, for example, Linux kernel development. Technically, when I get a Linux kernel, I can fully exercise my rights under the GPL and modify the code anyway I see fit and then redistribute it. But who's going to accept it? The most likely response from people doing any serious work in Linux will be "but it isn't official is it?"
What makes a Linux kernel "official"? Only those versions that have been blessed by dictator-for-life Linus Torvalds and his penguinistas. I don't say that to be disparaging. It's a good idea to have some sort of organized development of such a key piece of software, and I happen to like the current setup with the Linux kernel. But it does how how these things come about. Linus invented Linux, and the people around him have been hacking at it the longest, thus they have become the de-facto "government" of the Linux community. While I can certainly distribute my own fork of Linux, few people will take it, because of the hierarchy that has come into place in the community.
The best online games, IMHO, are not the ones that attempt to force democracy on everyone, but the ones that allow for the development of a more influential cadre that help keep the game running. Yes, it does mean you can get into ugly politics and bias sometimes, but overall it still makes for a more stable environment.
I remember when I purchased this game new for my C64 while I was still a teen living with my parents. I went so far as to paste a fake label on the floppy disk to disguise the game so I didn't have to answer awkward questions from my parents if they saw it lying around. I thought I was being so "naughty" by getting this game (young AND foolish you see ...).
Never finished the game in my youth. Then I got married to someone who liked these games as much as I did but had never played this one. We fired it up under a Linux port of the Inform parser, played it together, and proceeded to laugh our asses off as we played it. We each picked up more subtle jokes in descriptions, characters, and room layouts that the other didn't.
What's really cool about these games is that the data files for the games are platform-agnostic. I originally bought a Lost Treasures before I became a 100% Linux convert, and to my delight discovered that the Linux port of the Inform parser ran these games perfectly from the data files. Same thing when I got a hold of some old Scott Adams game files and the parser for it.
Hit the nail on the head. This implies that you get better service from smaller companies, and this is absolutely right.
Case and point: I recently purchased a new PC from a small company called Penguin Computing. Really nice 2.5GHz Intel Xeon system, all SCSI, RH9 preinstalled. Only when I got the system, the Iomega Jaz drive didn't work. I had the problem resolved in only 3 business days. Here's how it went:
Day 1: call tech support, get a LIVE HUMAN BEING without the need to go through a menu. Do some troubleshooting, decide to try a different disk.
Day 2: Received new disk via FedEx overnight (yes, you read that right). Tried it out, didn't work, called support again. Again got a real live human being who I did NOT have to explain the whole problem to all over again. More troubleshooting, decides the drive is defective, sends a new one.
Day 3: New drive received via, again, FedEx overnight. Replace drive, works like a champ. Get an email from customer service later in the day that says here's the RMA for the defective drive and, oh by the way, we'll have FedEx come to your door to pick up the defective drive for return.
I almost didn't want to tell anyone about this company for fear they'll get so successful that they'll become yet another monolithic supermegacorp and their support will turn lousy. I guess I'll just have to enjoy it while it lasts.
While I know you were most likely trying to be funny, realize that part of the money that you spend on a CD-R goes right to the RIAA again. This is in effect a "piracy tax" that the industry managed to get placed on recordable media such as the CD-R, supposedly to cover the cost of potential losses from the piracy that some users of the media may do.
I give up. I can't tell the litigious bastards without a scorecard anymore.
Okay, someone clue me in. Which litigious bastards are we supposed to be angry at now?
These litigious bastards ... ...
these other litigious bastards...
now these litigious bastards
or perhaps (and oldie but a goodie) these litigious bastards
Man, that's going to be an awful lot of HREFs to compile in my posts to talk about anybody on Slashdot anymore.
I stand corrected. I missed this on my initial look-through of the FAQ. Nice to be corrected on Slashdot without the unnecessary flammage for once. Mod this person's post +1 Polite.
However, since a GPL program cannot use libraries that are not under a GPL-compatible license, you would not be able to link to these libraries from a GPL program.I looked though the site again to see if I could find any exact wording that supports this, but came up empty. However, I can see how the GPL as it is now can be interpreted this way.
I have to admit that I don't exactly agree with some of the interpretations that the FSF has. I personally don't consider linking to a library anything more than using it, as I might use a program by running it, since my executable does not contain their GPL code if I dynamically link it. However, it is their license and I respect their intended use for it.
I wonder if the XFree folks might be amenable to putting in an exception clause for software that merely links to it and if that might help smooth over matters. I can't imagine that the intent was to suck in everything that links to the libraries under the same license.
But then again, that seems to be the intent of the GPL if used on a library. Hmmm ...
I must have missed something in the license. I didn't see anything that covered mere linking into the software. Even the GPL does not claim that linking to GPL'ed libraries makes your program GPL, so I don't think linking to Xfree86-licensed libraries makes your program XFree86-licensed. The license appears to deal specifically with the physical distribution of the libraries and related software, not anything that links to it.
I do understand Mandrake's position from the point of view of having to modify docs at the last minute, but I fail to see the relation to the GPL. If all you do is link to XFree libs, the compatibility is not an issue. Someone feel free to enlighten me if I missed the point.
You raise an excellent point, but we have to remember that any new implementation of X11 is going to have to allow all the existing drivers to work with it. Otherwise we face a lot of things like this: "Uh, hello, NVidia? Remember how we whined to you to make drivers for XFree86? Well forget that, now we need you to do it all over again for this new implementation."
Yes, in the perfect world, all graphic card specs would be open and anyone could write a driver for them. But it is not likely going to happen anytime soon, and to abandon all the work that companies who have not opened the specs but have graciously chosen to give us drivers is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (and I'm not implying that you're saying this, but it is something that might follow from an attempt to rewrite everything from scratch).
I am aware that this attitude flies in the face of free software purists. Much as I respect RMS and his position, I prefer to meet somewhere in the middle.
I have another one for you: Has anyone considered the stability issues?
Outsourcing to India makes me nervous. Not so much the outsourcing itself (other than the natural worry about one's job security) but the fact that it is going specifically to India. I saw an article recently about Pakistan and how its leader came rather close to assassination at several points over the last year or so, and that a successful attempt could have meant the rise of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Pakistan.
Put 2 and 2 together. Pakistan has nuclear capability. Pakistan is skirmishing with India over disputed territory and routinely rattles its saber at India. Now imagine Pakistan with a Taliban-like government.
I don't know about you, but I don't care to think about how much of our IT infrastructure would be damaged if Pakistan and India nuked each other.
I have 1 billion people, 200,000 jobs, and tax revenue of 1 billion dollars. I now have a huge net export of goods and services.
Political climate in US changes ...
Pipeline of jobs to India shuts down. Now you're back to 1 billion people, 10,000 jobs, and tax revenue of 100 million with which to feed them.
things always seem alot worse when youre homeless and used to have a house than if youve been homeless your whole lifeCombine this with a shutdown of the job pipe, and you have a recipe for civil unrest.
It is true that it is unlikely that the outsourcing will stop anytime soon. But no nation should rely on the bulk of their economy coming from a single outside source. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.
Yes, but it got only a brief mention. I approached the article in question with the initial though "great, another grey-goo-swallows-the-earth piece". The term was mentioned, but like the book, only in passing.
I was pleasantly surprised by the article. I found many of the concerns over nanotech to be valid. Rather than talking about what might be (intelligent nanobots running amuck), they talked about straightforward health and environment risks (nanoparticles breathed/ingested).
I definitely believe nanotech research should move forward, but I also believe that there are some real risks that need to be studied in tandem before there is widespread use of the technology.
Yes, they're trying to get congress to come up with creative legislation all the time to mandate DRM in your computer hardware. Yep, some creative folks over there at Disney.
I'd love to hear their definition of what constitutes "damage". Technically, this is unenforceable. If I post or distribute information that is damaging to them, but is totally true and factual and not derived from ill-gotten confidential information, I am protected under the First Amendment. To prove libel or slander, they have to go to court.
I think a better idea is to leave all those old probes exactly where they lay. Being the optimist that I am about space exploration, I really believe we'll eventually colonize the planet. If this is the case, I'd like the old landing sites to be preserved just as they are. Perhaps build space history museums around them, or some of them can become part of the town square or something of a community.
Naturally this assumes that Mars is not too harsh on these old probes and there will be something left to look at, since it will likely take a long while before colonization of the planet becomes technologically and economically feasible.
I had two aunts that died of lung cancer. Neither smoked a single thing in their lives and lived in a relatively clean low-pollution part of town. Yet they both worked in offices for 20 years where other people smoked like chimneys before the days of office smoking regulations.
Which is why people that say that second hand smoke doesn't hurt you are full of shit.
This could very well be why they filed this suit.
Think about it. SCO claims Novell caused them "irreparable harm" in attempting to assert their copyrights. Perhaps SCO is seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the IBM case. They figure that they now have a good chance of losing the IBM lawsuit, so what better way to recoup the loss by suing someone else? In other words: "We're going to lose the suit, and it's all Novell's fault, so we're going to make them pay."
A nice idea, but fraught with the problem of making the reason for the tech regression plausible.
I like the Federation-collapse idea. But rather than tech being the cause of the collapse, have it be political in nature. No matter how advanced the tech, people are still people and politics are still politics. For example, the Federation is HUGE. Management of this monstrosity must be a nightmare (think Old Republic from the recent Star Wars pictures). I can't believe it can continue along its present lines forever. Eventually it will get too big an entity and start to fall apart from conflicting interests. Making it political means you almost force character interaction and development right from the get-go and make it very difficult to apply a tech fix to everything. Hell, you can get a decent plot by having people try to apply a tech fix and failing miserably at it.
I pity the fool that violates the GPL!
Then how do we get people to start taking it seriously if we never mention what it is?
Actually, I think we're past the point where we need to keep "hiding" what the GPL is. It is a license, pure and simple, just like any other license. It has terms and conditions, just like any other license. It has obligations to those that use software under it, just like any other license.
This "but don't mention the term GPL" is getting a little ridiculous. If IBM can take it seriously, so can any other company.
Lucas wants the special effects for the next movie to be so incredibly realistic that he's sinking all the money from his company into a real spacecraft so he can film scenes, in effect, on location. On some recent test runs of his spacecraft, he got a little carried away and got too close to the speed of light. "I hate it when my time gets dialated like that," he was quoted as saying.