This has been done before, on the realms, with a character known (famously!) as NakedSorceress. The rules were a little bit different, but NakedSorceress managed to beat Diablo. Not sure how far she got on the higher difficulties.
Actually, the government as an entity isn't legally capable of holding a copyright - works produced by it are, by definition, in the public domain. You'd think this would mean that legal documents are public domain, too, which they are - except that they hire specific companies to transcribe them into usable form, and said companies hold the copyright on the LINE NUMBERING of the resultant documents. Spit.
If you "hate" the GPL, then you're alot more of a zealot than most of the people posting in this thread.
Lets look at this a little differently - I write something and I release it as GPL, not because open source is trendy, but because I believe in the principles it espouses - that people who use my work should have the right to change it and hack on it and see how it works. Because I like doing that, and I want to pass that enjoyment along. Why should I sell that out for money? I'm not doing it for money in the first place. You're basically saying that anyone who isn't willing to compromise a principle for cash is an unthinking fanatic. If thats true, it's sad state of affairs, but goes along way toward explaining your "hatred" of the GPL.
Just as a headsup, you DO know that you still retain copyright on code you might submit to a GPLed project, and are capable of re-licensing it independently if you want?
And yet he still has the vocabulary of a middle schooler, and can't pronounce common English words.
Here's whats even scarier - this man has an entire contingent of people behind him, who're very experienced and intelligent, some of the best in their field. Their sole and only job is to coach and prep him for public appearances. And yet, even WITH all this help, GWB can't even manage to give an address as coherently as Reagan could - and he had friggin Alzheimers.
Didn't even read the/. write-up, eh? The blocked pages INCLUDE the NRAs gun law pages.
I'm not ready to start pointing fingers and screaming about liberal conspiracies, especially because I'm a liberal conspiracist who wants to take your guns away anyway. And I can see a reason for blocking things like sites that sell guns, and have pictures and diagrams of guns, and certainly that tell you how to build guns. This just points out (yet another) problem with censorware and automated cataloging of sites (although you wonder how such an obvious pro-gun but reasonable site as the NRA 'slipped' through QA). People have known about this shit for years. And thats one reason I hate blocking software of this kind, because it's ineffictive and discriminatory, and it's sold as a panacea to parents who really should understand that there aren't any quick fixes.
Maybe they could ship with some standard configurations: "Rabid Christian" would block any and all sites about sex ("don't look and it won't exist"), "Bleeding Heart Liberal" could block the NRAA and godhatesfags ("children might get confused if they thought other people didn't all believe the same"). At least then you're being a little more honest.
Oh, and publish the goddamn blocklists, and the criteria used for automatic blocking.
I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.
You've just defined the difference between a GPL zealot and a GPL advocate> I agree with the OP;)
There's yet a 5th option, of course - rewrite the terminal functionality using a LGPL or otherwise appropriatly licensed library.
It's also possible that they don't consider what they did to be a violation. I'm aware of the FSFs stance on this (and I use the LGPL anyway, just for clarity), but it's very possible that use of, say, exported interfaces from a shared library would be considered "normal use", just as syscalls into the Linus kernel are. The legal world hasn't really caught up to technology when it comes to derived works (and especially derived works that are only "derived" in that they rely on library functionality).
Well, blah blah blah - I suppose you could say that, as far as it goes, although I believe you're allowed to SAY a license is invalid all day long as long as you still conform to it.
That aside, the Reg article (and Slashdot write up) are claiming a new, specific GPL violation - the distribution of Linux under a different and not GPL compliant license. I can't find any proof of that from the provided links and would like some before "we" mouth off too much.
I don't see anything on the SCO pages linked from the Reg article that would make this a GPL violation - they're password protecting thier FTP server so that only thier customers can access it. This is completely legitimate.
No license is displayed anywhere I can see (I'm not an SCO customer...), but I assume you can get one from the FTP site itself. Does anyone who IS an SCO customer want to actually look at the license and post the text?
Just to be clear, SCO hasn't asserted, except in press releases, any ownership over Linux whatsoever. Theres no courtcase whatsoever. The scope of thier actual, legal claims in the IBM case are for more restrained (although still laughable, imo) than thier statements to the press.
There have been bills considered and introduced (I don't have the numbers handy, but they were covered on slashdot a couple months ago) that would extend explicit protection to databases. The parent was confused if he thought they had been signed into law already.
I'd agree that they could. The difference here is that this is a software patent - this isn't an IMPLEMENTATION of embedding a plugin. It's a patent on the concept of embedding a plugin. There's nothing in the patent about the technical details involved in the implementation, which, especially in this case, are much more difficult to solve than coming up with the idea (which, as listed in the patent is basically "instead of launching a helper app for this mime type, select a plugin instead and run that").
Theres actually a comment in the patch (about some back end changes to the way skills work) that "we did this for our own purposes but modders should like it too"
Stealing cable is a civil offense, or criminal if you do it for profit(resell), because it's copyright infringment (also probably trespass to chattel and theft of service and a number of other things). It's ALSO illegal in it's own right, because when the big cable rollouts were happening the telcos were in bed even more with the politicians than they are now, so there was special, specific legislation passed to protect cable companies. The people referred to in the notes are complaining that the FBI, which is the ogranization responsible for enforcing these specific cable laws is too busy, and the company itself can only enforce the civil provisions. Thats why they want a state law, so that the (less busy, more easily influenced) state officials can prosecute cable theft as well as the FBI.
The statement is that the existing special purpose laws don't cover digital cable.
Just to clarify, you don't need a license agreement to USE software. You still couldn't get free products by proving the MS EULA invalid, because it's not a distribution license, and MS (or any other company) doesn't need an EULA to protect itself from software piracy.
I think it might be kinda cool. Lets say SCO wins unconditionally. It'd mean that it's totally impossible to license any copyrighted work, and thus for anyone except the copyright holder to distribute it. No more publishers! Anywhere! Ever!
Thats all well and good, of course, but thats actually been in Outlook for quite some time. The bug lies in the fact that (theoretically) non executable file types can coerce IE into executing them.
The person who actually submitted the code is public information from lklm posts. So SCO, assuming that they actually have specific lines of code to claim, already know at least one name involved. Given those names, going up the chain for project leaders and managers and whatnot to see who actually gave the authorization is totally legitimate, but thats not what they're doing.
The difference here is that, in the US at least, insurance is for operating a car, not for a specific car. The car you own can affect your rates, but it's YOUR insurance, not the cars insurance. Things like taxes and title registration are the responsibility of the owner, in this case the dealership.
If they advertise a jig and you send them money and they send you a jig, then you bought a jig, post-sale conditions not withstanding - this has been tried lots of times before. It has always, without exception, been struck down. The manufacturer is probably trying to ride the tails of software EULAs, but I suspect this is more likely to have the opposite effect.
If, on the other hand, they advertise the opportunity to license thier new jig design, and you recieve a contract specifying the license terms, which you then agree to and THEN you get the jig, this is a perfectly normal and valid patent licensing scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been done before, on the realms, with a character known (famously!) as NakedSorceress. The rules were a little bit different, but NakedSorceress managed to beat Diablo. Not sure how far she got on the higher difficulties.
OUR mainframe is reliable because they shut it down for 6 hours every day. I spit on mainframes. Patooie!
Actually, the government as an entity isn't legally capable of holding a copyright - works produced by it are, by definition, in the public domain. You'd think this would mean that legal documents are public domain, too, which they are - except that they hire specific companies to transcribe them into usable form, and said companies hold the copyright on the LINE NUMBERING of the resultant documents. Spit.
Lets look at this a little differently - I write something and I release it as GPL, not because open source is trendy, but because I believe in the principles it espouses - that people who use my work should have the right to change it and hack on it and see how it works. Because I like doing that, and I want to pass that enjoyment along. Why should I sell that out for money? I'm not doing it for money in the first place. You're basically saying that anyone who isn't willing to compromise a principle for cash is an unthinking fanatic. If thats true, it's sad state of affairs, but goes along way toward explaining your "hatred" of the GPL.
Just as a headsup, you DO know that you still retain copyright on code you might submit to a GPLed project, and are capable of re-licensing it independently if you want?
Here's whats even scarier - this man has an entire contingent of people behind him, who're very experienced and intelligent, some of the best in their field. Their sole and only job is to coach and prep him for public appearances. And yet, even WITH all this help, GWB can't even manage to give an address as coherently as Reagan could - and he had friggin Alzheimers.
(Posting w/o karma due to offtopic silliness)
I'm not ready to start pointing fingers and screaming about liberal conspiracies, especially because I'm a liberal conspiracist who wants to take your guns away anyway. And I can see a reason for blocking things like sites that sell guns, and have pictures and diagrams of guns, and certainly that tell you how to build guns. This just points out (yet another) problem with censorware and automated cataloging of sites (although you wonder how such an obvious pro-gun but reasonable site as the NRA 'slipped' through QA). People have known about this shit for years. And thats one reason I hate blocking software of this kind, because it's ineffictive and discriminatory, and it's sold as a panacea to parents who really should understand that there aren't any quick fixes.
Maybe they could ship with some standard configurations: "Rabid Christian" would block any and all sites about sex ("don't look and it won't exist"), "Bleeding Heart Liberal" could block the NRAA and godhatesfags ("children might get confused if they thought other people didn't all believe the same"). At least then you're being a little more honest.
Oh, and publish the goddamn blocklists, and the criteria used for automatic blocking.
If I were going to be logical about it, though, a cold area makes alot of sense for a critter that sees with IR - no background radiation.
You've just defined the difference between a GPL zealot and a GPL advocate> I agree with the OP ;)
There's yet a 5th option, of course - rewrite the terminal functionality using a LGPL or otherwise appropriatly licensed library.
It's also possible that they don't consider what they did to be a violation. I'm aware of the FSFs stance on this (and I use the LGPL anyway, just for clarity), but it's very possible that use of, say, exported interfaces from a shared library would be considered "normal use", just as syscalls into the Linus kernel are. The legal world hasn't really caught up to technology when it comes to derived works (and especially derived works that are only "derived" in that they rely on library functionality).
That aside, the Reg article (and Slashdot write up) are claiming a new, specific GPL violation - the distribution of Linux under a different and not GPL compliant license. I can't find any proof of that from the provided links and would like some before "we" mouth off too much.
If Fox would quit running it's goddamn commercials over all it's own shows there wouldn't be any confusion.
No license is displayed anywhere I can see (I'm not an SCO customer...), but I assume you can get one from the FTP site itself. Does anyone who IS an SCO customer want to actually look at the license and post the text?
Just to be clear, SCO hasn't asserted, except in press releases, any ownership over Linux whatsoever. Theres no courtcase whatsoever. The scope of thier actual, legal claims in the IBM case are for more restrained (although still laughable, imo) than thier statements to the press.
File suit individuall for each file. Mmmmm. 10,000 per infringment.
There have been bills considered and introduced (I don't have the numbers handy, but they were covered on slashdot a couple months ago) that would extend explicit protection to databases. The parent was confused if he thought they had been signed into law already.
I'd agree that they could. The difference here is that this is a software patent - this isn't an IMPLEMENTATION of embedding a plugin. It's a patent on the concept of embedding a plugin. There's nothing in the patent about the technical details involved in the implementation, which, especially in this case, are much more difficult to solve than coming up with the idea (which, as listed in the patent is basically "instead of launching a helper app for this mime type, select a plugin instead and run that").
Of course it's a free speech issue, it's just not a first amendment issue.
Theres actually a comment in the patch (about some back end changes to the way skills work) that "we did this for our own purposes but modders should like it too"
The statement is that the existing special purpose laws don't cover digital cable.
There's never been a working democracy, either, so whats your point?
Just to clarify, you don't need a license agreement to USE software. You still couldn't get free products by proving the MS EULA invalid, because it's not a distribution license, and MS (or any other company) doesn't need an EULA to protect itself from software piracy.
I think it might be kinda cool. Lets say SCO wins unconditionally. It'd mean that it's totally impossible to license any copyrighted work, and thus for anyone except the copyright holder to distribute it. No more publishers! Anywhere! Ever!
Thats all well and good, of course, but thats actually been in Outlook for quite some time. The bug lies in the fact that (theoretically) non executable file types can coerce IE into executing them.
The person who actually submitted the code is public information from lklm posts. So SCO, assuming that they actually have specific lines of code to claim, already know at least one name involved. Given those names, going up the chain for project leaders and managers and whatnot to see who actually gave the authorization is totally legitimate, but thats not what they're doing.
The difference here is that, in the US at least, insurance is for operating a car, not for a specific car. The car you own can affect your rates, but it's YOUR insurance, not the cars insurance. Things like taxes and title registration are the responsibility of the owner, in this case the dealership.
If, on the other hand, they advertise the opportunity to license thier new jig design, and you recieve a contract specifying the license terms, which you then agree to and THEN you get the jig, this is a perfectly normal and valid patent licensing scheme.