Why should you have to prove ownership of something you've already bought? Interesting how software companies get to be police, but without any of the restrictions on them.
Linus hasn't had a real development (odd-minor-numbered) kernel for over a year. Now, he's accepting everything he wanted to before, but didn't because it could break too many things.
Well, I wasn't trolling, but I think this has been mentioned several hundred times before on Slashdot, so I wouldn't be surprised if what I wrote was pretty close to another post.
Sigh. I won't say that copyright infringement doesn't cost companies money, but if I, for instance, was only willing to spend $10 on Windows XP, so I copied it from a friend instead of buying it (i.e. I would never have bought it at $150), then Microsoft would have failed to gain $10, not $150 (and it certainly did not lose any money).
Even this is view of losses is questionable, since Microsoft has already lost hundreds of "potential revenues" from me, due to the fact that I run Debian instead of Windows.
I won't even bother to address the difference between stealing vs. copyright infringement, since this has already been discussed at length, and you obviously have no desire to educate yourself before you post.
This ruling has absolutely no effect on the GPL whatsoever. Perhaps you should learn the law and read the GPL before you make claims that only serve to mislead others.
The GPL does not govern use, only distribution of copies. If the GPL is completely invalid, then you have no legal right to distribute copies of GPL'd programs. EULAs, on the other hand, specify restrictions in addition to copyright, which this court has ruled to be non-binding.
I'm sure you intend to stay 100% within the law, and if intent mattered, you'd be safe. But there are so many provisions in EULAs that if you were to try to follow them all you basically wouldn't be able to compute.
There are also many provisions in EULAs that are unenforceable. Oh. What? DMCA? WELL FIX IT!
EVEN IF you have a clean room, it can still happen. That's why a relatively large percentage of hard drives are returned to the manufacturer, or are never shipped.
Slashdot Mirror
FUD!! Only one developer quit.
Why are symlink forests not a solution?
Why should you have to prove ownership of something you've already bought? Interesting how software companies get to be police, but without any of the restrictions on them.
Well, after the VM fiasco, would you make that mistake again?
Linus hasn't had a real development (odd-minor-numbered) kernel for over a year. Now, he's accepting everything he wanted to before, but didn't because it could break too many things.
Problem solved.
I wouldn't count on it.
Nobody ever looked stupid for choosing Linux.
2.4.15.
It doesn't even have to be better. It just has to be close enough that the benefits of using Linux will outweigh the benefits of using Windows.
You write as if id is insignificant, which is clearly not the case.
It's not really MS bashing if it's true.
All we need is for existing law to be applied (or maybe extended) to spammers. i.e. theft of services, fraud / false pretense, etc.
Bah. It was more fun being ignorant. Ten minutes of browsing through the results of a search, and I already feel like an idiot.
Well, I wasn't trolling, but I think this has been mentioned several hundred times before on Slashdot, so I wouldn't be surprised if what I wrote was pretty close to another post.
Or RGB, or PNG, or RGB/LZ, or RLE, or one of the many other open formats out there.
Even this is view of losses is questionable, since Microsoft has already lost hundreds of "potential revenues" from me, due to the fact that I run Debian instead of Windows.
I won't even bother to address the difference between stealing vs. copyright infringement, since this has already been discussed at length, and you obviously have no desire to educate yourself before you post.
Why did you buy PCs with Windows on them, if you didn't want it?
The GPL does not govern use, only distribution of copies. If the GPL is completely invalid, then you have no legal right to distribute copies of GPL'd programs. EULAs, on the other hand, specify restrictions in addition to copyright, which this court has ruled to be non-binding.
There are also many provisions in EULAs that are unenforceable. Oh. What? DMCA? WELL FIX IT!
Since when do Windows sysadmins have the authority to agree to these things on behalf of the company?
It's really a matter of item numbers vs offsets...
EVEN IF you have a clean room, it can still happen. That's why a relatively large percentage of hard drives are returned to the manufacturer, or are never shipped.
s/pirating/copyright infringement/g;
I'll re-phrase that: Software isn't being treated like a real engineering discipline, like it should be.
Software is not a real engineering discipline.
Code is art until you release it. Then, it's poor engineering.