There is no catch. Telecommunications technology has just improved a hell of a lot in the last 100 years. This is the reason why cell phone provides are so antsy to relaim all those 6 MHz wide UHF allocations....you can use that bandwidth so much more effectively with modern techniques, instead of throwing raw, uncompressed analog data out there.
Yeah, I never have drop outs or loss of quality with those ultra modern digital cell phones. And those digital TV stations sure ar perfect. Yep, no artifacts whatsoever. I'm sure glad my cable company want me to pay double for the privledge.
Encoding digital signals in a small amount of bandwidth has to come with a catch. What's this sound like if the signal strength is low? What kind of digital qaulity is this? Is there lossy compression used?
Because of Yahoo? Nah. Google better rethink their IPO because their technology has been broken by spammers. Searching with google used to be a lot more fruitful in the old days. Anything searches that could be construed as porn or is sold on Amazon.com is going to yield tons of useless links.
Das Machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren musten keepen das cotten-pickenen hands in das pockets - relaxen und watchen das blinkenlights.
You could make a bathtub fly using modern matrials and computers. That doesn't mean it's a realistic design. You've been watching Hudson Hawk one too many times.
Of course it does. Software is all about derivative work. Let's say a college student working towards his PHD takes a single java file line-for-line out of a huge GPLed project for his research program he working on. He releases his program to the world completely free of charge. He took the GPLed code, but if it falls under fair use, he's allowed. Now someone else takes his code, which is free, and grabs the file. Was the GPL license technically rendered null on that file? If so, how much code from a GPLed project constitues a copyright violation? Jusges have wrangled over this issue for years with other forms of copyrighted material. Text is pretty lienent in terms of "bowrrowing." However, music cases have indicated that copyright is pretty strict (a few notes). Nobody has tested the GPL or any other software license to say what's fair use, yet.
It's not? Hm... so if someone is using GPL code without complying with the terms of the license, and therefore not releasing their code along with their product, they're not causing any damage to the OS community? This assumes that the OS community doesn't benefit from people releasing their code under the GPL. I'd tend to think that it does, and furthermore that the amount of benefit can be quantified in the man-hours it takes to write and debug the code.
And you think some judge is going to know how to put a price on that? What basis are you going to use for salary? An oursourced Indian programmer? Besides, we already know the cost in man-hours for OSS projects: $0. Have you contributed to an OSS project? Did you get a check?
Yes. They depend on "damages." A project that gives away it's code for free is going to have an uphill battle trying to show a court what it's damages are. Judges are going to have a hard time putting a dollar value on "failing to contribute back to the over all OSS experience."
But that doesn't take away from the article's title. It's not a misconception that the GPL is viral. It's a misconception that you will be forced by a court of law to open source your proprietary code. However, if you put a small amount of GPLed code in your project, a judge can force you to stop distributing the whole thing due to a small infraction. That's what people mean when they use the term "viral."
Actually, it is, because the infringer still has a choice. Either they can agree to the GPL, in which case they have to GPL the derived code, or they can disagree with it, in which case they have to remove the GPL'd code entirely.
One of the defenses I've heard from GPL advocates regarding the SCO scandal is that SCO "gifted" their code because they didn't pull their Linux distribution right away. From what you're saying, it sounds like that wouldn't be the case. However, does that imply that SCO or any other contributer could pull their code since they choose not to abide by the license anymore, either?
Is it okay to use and distribute a snippet of GPLed code if it's considered "fair use"? If so, can you ignore the GPL license since it would THEN be more restrictive than the current copyright law?
"The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits."
But it's the GPL, not Copyright Act that states the proprietary code needs to be released as GPLed open code. Why couldn't a judge order them to do that? It's not unthinkable. Besides, what possible monatery damages could there be to the GPLed project? It's not that the offending company is taking away income from the open source community.
Don't be too surprised. Stan Lee made many references to competing characters throught his career, and the competition has returned the favor. Check out the Simpsons episode with Mr. Lee. It's quite hilarious to watch him shove a Thing doll into a Batmobile.
"The only people google really needs to keep happy to stay in business are the people using the search engine to find things, and the people who pay to have a text ad on the side of the page."
You just described how politics really work. There's no shadow force controling the government, just a small subset of people who vote AND contribute to a politician's campaign. Why is it so easy to see when it's Google we're talking about and not a senator?
Unless topic shifts to eating "crisps," walking on the "pavement," smoking a "fag," or pushing a "pram" come up during the support call, I'm going to say that the differences between the British and American versions of the English language are negligable.
Considering that this is animation...animation where they don't take a lot of care to animate the mouth movements to the sounds the characters are making...is it that big of a deal as long as the dub is well done? Most problems with dubs I've seen is the poor quality and casting of voice actors.
No one is denying that lossy compression isn't perfect. But at some point, the amount of work required to get to "perfect" isn't worth the effort. At some point, it becomes "good enough." A sound sample from an obscure piece of "music" doesn't validate spending time/effort/money on encoding your entire collection as FLAC, nor does it mean that equipment manufacturers are wise to add in whatever costs are associated to support these lesser used formats.
For most people, encoding MP3s with LAME --alt-preset standard will suffice for the kind of listening they're going to do on their modestly priced audio equipment.
I really gotta know... Can you honestly say that an MP3 encoded at a constant 320 kbps using LAME sounds inferior to a FLAC (or WAV) version on your equipment? I understand that MP3 is lossy, but come on. FLACs are about 50% - 60% of the original WAV file. MP3s at the highest encoding level are still smaller and will work in with any modern MP3 decoder. Is there THAT much of a noticable fidelity loss between the two?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no catch. Telecommunications technology has just improved a hell of a lot in the last 100 years. This is the reason why cell phone provides are so antsy to relaim all those 6 MHz wide UHF allocations....you can use that bandwidth so much more effectively with modern techniques, instead of throwing raw, uncompressed analog data out there.
Yeah, I never have drop outs or loss of quality with those ultra modern digital cell phones. And those digital TV stations sure ar perfect. Yep, no artifacts whatsoever. I'm sure glad my cable company want me to pay double for the privledge.
Encoding digital signals in a small amount of bandwidth has to come with a catch. What's this sound like if the signal strength is low? What kind of digital qaulity is this? Is there lossy compression used?
Because of Yahoo? Nah. Google better rethink their IPO because their technology has been broken by spammers. Searching with google used to be a lot more fruitful in the old days. Anything searches that could be construed as porn or is sold on Amazon.com is going to yield tons of useless links.
Das Machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren musten keepen das cotten-pickenen hands in das pockets - relaxen und watchen das blinkenlights.
You could make a bathtub fly using modern matrials and computers. That doesn't mean it's a realistic design. You've been watching Hudson Hawk one too many times.
I also ANAL
T.M.I. - Too Much Information, Bloater. Way too much.
Of course it does. Software is all about derivative work. Let's say a college student working towards his PHD takes a single java file line-for-line out of a huge GPLed project for his research program he working on. He releases his program to the world completely free of charge. He took the GPLed code, but if it falls under fair use, he's allowed. Now someone else takes his code, which is free, and grabs the file. Was the GPL license technically rendered null on that file? If so, how much code from a GPLed project constitues a copyright violation? Jusges have wrangled over this issue for years with other forms of copyrighted material. Text is pretty lienent in terms of "bowrrowing." However, music cases have indicated that copyright is pretty strict (a few notes). Nobody has tested the GPL or any other software license to say what's fair use, yet.
It's not? Hm... so if someone is using GPL code without complying with the terms of the license, and therefore not releasing their code along with their product, they're not causing any damage to the OS community? This assumes that the OS community doesn't benefit from people releasing their code under the GPL. I'd tend to think that it does, and furthermore that the amount of benefit can be quantified in the man-hours it takes to write and debug the code.
And you think some judge is going to know how to put a price on that? What basis are you going to use for salary? An oursourced Indian programmer? Besides, we already know the cost in man-hours for OSS projects: $0. Have you contributed to an OSS project? Did you get a check?
Monatery damamges can vary depending on the case.
Yes. They depend on "damages." A project that gives away it's code for free is going to have an uphill battle trying to show a court what it's damages are. Judges are going to have a hard time putting a dollar value on "failing to contribute back to the over all OSS experience."
But that doesn't take away from the article's title. It's not a misconception that the GPL is viral. It's a misconception that you will be forced by a court of law to open source your proprietary code. However, if you put a small amount of GPLed code in your project, a judge can force you to stop distributing the whole thing due to a small infraction. That's what people mean when they use the term "viral."
Actually, it is, because the infringer still has a choice. Either they can agree to the GPL, in which case they have to GPL the derived code, or they can disagree with it, in which case they have to remove the GPL'd code entirely.
One of the defenses I've heard from GPL advocates regarding the SCO scandal is that SCO "gifted" their code because they didn't pull their Linux distribution right away. From what you're saying, it sounds like that wouldn't be the case. However, does that imply that SCO or any other contributer could pull their code since they choose not to abide by the license anymore, either?
Is it okay to use and distribute a snippet of GPLed code if it's considered "fair use"? If so, can you ignore the GPL license since it would THEN be more restrictive than the current copyright law?
"The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits."
But it's the GPL, not Copyright Act that states the proprietary code needs to be released as GPLed open code. Why couldn't a judge order them to do that? It's not unthinkable. Besides, what possible monatery damages could there be to the GPLed project? It's not that the offending company is taking away income from the open source community.
Don't be too surprised. Stan Lee made many references to competing characters throught his career, and the competition has returned the favor. Check out the Simpsons episode with Mr. Lee. It's quite hilarious to watch him shove a Thing doll into a Batmobile.
Use FDISK. There's no artifical 32 GB restriction for FAT 32 there.
"The only people google really needs to keep happy to stay in business are the people using the search engine to find things, and the people who pay to have a text ad on the side of the page."
That's a direct quote from the parent. Try again.
You just described how politics really work. There's no shadow force controling the government, just a small subset of people who vote AND contribute to a politician's campaign. Why is it so easy to see when it's Google we're talking about and not a senator?
Unless topic shifts to eating "crisps," walking on the "pavement," smoking a "fag," or pushing a "pram" come up during the support call, I'm going to say that the differences between the British and American versions of the English language are negligable.
This might come as a shock but English is one of the two official national languages in India, so they actually are native speakers.
That's English?! I must be speaking some other language then.
Considering that this is animation...animation where they don't take a lot of care to animate the mouth movements to the sounds the characters are making...is it that big of a deal as long as the dub is well done? Most problems with dubs I've seen is the poor quality and casting of voice actors.
ASPs (Application Service Companies)
Gee that's "ceculiar" acronym.
Designing a spyware program: $153
Bulk emailing said program: $35
Obtaining thousands of credit card numbers: Priceless
No one is denying that lossy compression isn't perfect. But at some point, the amount of work required to get to "perfect" isn't worth the effort. At some point, it becomes "good enough." A sound sample from an obscure piece of "music" doesn't validate spending time/effort/money on encoding your entire collection as FLAC, nor does it mean that equipment manufacturers are wise to add in whatever costs are associated to support these lesser used formats.
For most people, encoding MP3s with LAME --alt-preset standard will suffice for the kind of listening they're going to do on their modestly priced audio equipment.
Or...
Xbox: $179
Modchip: $50
XBMP or XBMC: Free
Total: $229
Even cheaper and you can play games on it.
I really gotta know... Can you honestly say that an MP3 encoded at a constant 320 kbps using LAME sounds inferior to a FLAC (or WAV) version on your equipment? I understand that MP3 is lossy, but come on. FLACs are about 50% - 60% of the original WAV file. MP3s at the highest encoding level are still smaller and will work in with any modern MP3 decoder. Is there THAT much of a noticable fidelity loss between the two?