I consider exploiting loopholes to achieve a result that's obviously contrary to what was intended a nasty thing to do.
The limitation in scope of the term "derivative work" is not a loophole. If RMS had his way, Microsoft would be able to control distribution of every program written for Windows, Apple for MacOS, etc. He'd have completely lost the "war", all four of the GNU freedoms, in order to win a fairly minor point.
In the CLISP exchange, RMS claims his lawyers would think exploitation of this is a "subterfuge". They might, but that's just authority bias rearing it's ugly head, this time with the copyright holder being seen as the authority. The question should be settled by looking at the law and deciding whether or not a person's actions violated it, not by assuming the copyright holder has the right to do whatever he wants and the user shouldn't be able to use limitations in the copyright holder's rights to do otherwise.
Actually, you could write in the license a definition for Derivative Work.
You could, but it wouldn't be meaningful. The term is from the law; individual copyright holders don't get to expand it at will.
As the copyright holder of a program, you are the one who decide how it can be used when you license it.
No. The copyright holder of a program gets to decide who can reproduce (except as subject to 17 USC 117), distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or prepare derivative works from the program. The copyright holder does not get to decide how it can be used. Nor (and this is the disputed point) do they get to control the reproduction, distribution, and/or use of a work which merely references their work.
The last two checks I wrote (and the only two in some time) were to municipal taxing authorities. The State finally got around to being able to do ACHs recently, and the IRS has been able to take your money that way for a while (as opposed to the more traditional way of sending goons over to take your kids' piggybanks).
Some companies (like my property management company) which really ought to be able to do better still take only paper checks. I enter the payment into my electronic bill paying application. My service company then writes a check out and mails it to them. They physically deposit into their bank... their bank then images it, electronically clears it, and destroys the paper copy. Pretty silly, when I know they could arrange for a direct transfer. Probably their bank charges them such outrageous fees for doing it that it's cheaper for them to hire someone to carry real checks to the bank.
Note that in the US, with "Check 21", you're not guaranteed to get your original cleared check back in any case.
Bingo. It isn't the speech that should be illegal. It is the crime itself, that in some cases may be aided by speech, that should be prosecuted. Freedom of speech needs to be absolute, but that does not mean committing a crime through the use of speech gets any exemption.
You can't split hairs that finely. There's no bright line between "speech" and "committing a crime through use of speech". For example, sedition (where illegal) is a crime often committed through speech, but freedom of speech would be pretty meaningless if the government could punish seditious speech.
This has been "suggested" by paranoid radio elite who lie about the intention of others who have made it clear that taxes will not be raised on 95% of the public, and all of the middle class.
Right. Such paranoid radio elite as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and National Economic Council director Lawrence H. Summers.
If General Motors (GM) were allowed to enter bankruptcy without a government bailout, then GM would likely have been purchased in whole, or in parts, by a European or Japanese auto company. The purchaser would have assumed all of GM's liabilities. Of course, the sale price would have been set to reflect the costs of these liabilities.
No, that only happens if the company is bought whole. If nobody wants it with all the liabilities (which seems likely in GMs case), then the company can be sold off without the liabilities. Another company could purchase "substantially all the assets" of GM. From that sale price the creditors would be partially paid, and anything left the creditors are stuck with; the entity owing them has ceased to exist.
Evidentally, it's even possible to run low on fools. Or at least fools who have not yet been separated from their money. P.T. Barnum must be rolling in his grave.
According to TFA, the publisher pulled it after being threatened. Dumb move, IMO; if it comes to court, Langdell will claim that as an admission of liability.
As far as I can tell, Langdell's company never released a game identified as "Edge" or anything similar.
I'd take it with a LOT of skepticism. They shipped 109 cars in a month, which probably means they booked the revenue for those cars in that month. But they probably didn't make (and thus book the costs of) anything like 109 cars in that month. So it's just a blip.
Teenagers are not a biological issue at all, but a societal one. And one pretty easy to understand. Actually allow a smooth transition between childhood and adulthood, rather than making laws to restrict and "protect" teens until they hit that magic age of 18 or 21 or whatever, and while the problems won't go away, they'll become no worse than those of other young primates.
Before Heinlein was a writer, he was an officer in the Navy, having been through the Naval Academy. Which suggests he probably could take and give orders, co-operate, act alone, conn a ship, fight efficiently, and plan an invasion.
I'd guess that he could also change a diaper, pitch manure, butcher a hog, build a wall, set a bone, balance accounts, and comfort the dying, all of those being skills someone of his background would have picked up one way or another.
The only building I know of he "designed" was the one in "...And He Built A Crooked House"; that one probably doesn't count.
The only one of those I'm sure he failed to do is die gallantly.
This may not be true in this particular case, but I really love it when people go on and on about the dangers of smoking while they themselves live in smog filled cities.
Unless you're living in Los Angeles, Mexico City or <insert city in China's industrial regions here> you're not getting anything like the amount of nastiness in primary cigarette smoke just by breathing the air.
For several centuries (1632). Means "to copy closely but often clumsily and ineptly". Granted, the verb "parrot", meaning "to repeat by rote" is a little older (1596), but if you're just getting used to it now, I think perhaps I ought to vacate your lawn.
The problem is that for that warranty to be effective, the parties had to agree. Hence, those that say open source software is not an agreement (or that one does not have to accept the terms of the GPL etc.) have a problem. I've said it before, certain of the terms of the GPL are not merely license language. The community cannot have it both ways.
If there's no agreement, there's no warranty. If you accept the terms, there's no warranty. There's no attempt to have it both ways. The "NO WARRANTY" notice is just that, a notice, not an agreement. It may or may not have any effect; some implied warranties cannot be disclaimed. But for software which is free as in beer, there probably isn't any implied warranty.
Drop and liquid sensors have been used to detect abuse for years. For instance, very low tech ones, stuck on packages, so you know if the shipping company dropped it or got it wet. So what's actually new here?
Their first claim is laughably general: 1. A system for detecting consumer abuse in an electronic device, the system comprising:one or more sensors configured to detect an occurrence of an abuse event;abuse detection circuitry configured to receive indication of the occurrence of the abuse event from the one or more sensors and to generate a record corresponding to the occurrence of the abuse event upon receiving the indication;a memory device configured to store the record; and an interface configured to facilitate communication between the electronic device and an external device.
Personally I don't mind these devices being used to detect abuse, provided they are reliable and that their data is evaluated critically rather than just being used to say "NO". But color change liquid intrusion sensors notoriously aren't reliable, changing color in the presence of humidity. Thermal sensors could be tripped by whatever caused the failure rather than by abuse. And tamper sensors... well, "breaking this seal voids the warranty", when breaking the seal is required to perform some service or upgrade, isn't kosher under Magnussen-Moss, regardless of how high-tech the seal is.
It's simplest when federal agents are the first ones carrying RFID documents. Construction of the device is more difficult when everyone's shirt, shoes, and underwear has a chip, as the detector then has to know what kinds of codes are in ID cards of various types.
There's two approaches to that problem, both viable together or separately. One is to find out common elements about the Fed IDs -- if no other way, carry a reader into a place known Feds go to lunch or something. The other is to find out common elements about the noise IDs, easily obtained by carrying the reader into Wal-Mart, Sears, etc, when few people are around.
Slashdot Mirror
The limitation in scope of the term "derivative work" is not a loophole. If RMS had his way, Microsoft would be able to control distribution of every program written for Windows, Apple for MacOS, etc. He'd have completely lost the "war", all four of the GNU freedoms, in order to win a fairly minor point.
In the CLISP exchange, RMS claims his lawyers would think exploitation of this is a "subterfuge". They might, but that's just authority bias rearing it's ugly head, this time with the copyright holder being seen as the authority. The question should be settled by looking at the law and deciding whether or not a person's actions violated it, not by assuming the copyright holder has the right to do whatever he wants and the user shouldn't be able to use limitations in the copyright holder's rights to do otherwise.
You could, but it wouldn't be meaningful. The term is from the law; individual copyright holders don't get to expand it at will.
No. The copyright holder of a program gets to decide who can reproduce (except as subject to 17 USC 117), distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or prepare derivative works from the program. The copyright holder does not get to decide how it can be used. Nor (and this is the disputed point) do they get to control the reproduction, distribution, and/or use of a work which merely references their work.
Not a problem; they'll just change their name to Monster Edge.
The last two checks I wrote (and the only two in some time) were to municipal taxing authorities. The State finally got around to being able to do ACHs recently, and the IRS has been able to take your money that way for a while (as opposed to the more traditional way of sending goons over to take your kids' piggybanks).
Some companies (like my property management company) which really ought to be able to do better still take only paper checks. I enter the payment into my electronic bill paying application. My service company then writes a check out and mails it to them. They physically deposit into their bank... their bank then images it, electronically clears it, and destroys the paper copy. Pretty silly, when I know they could arrange for a direct transfer. Probably their bank charges them such outrageous fees for doing it that it's cheaper for them to hire someone to carry real checks to the bank.
Note that in the US, with "Check 21", you're not guaranteed to get your original cleared check back in any case.
You can't split hairs that finely. There's no bright line between "speech" and "committing a crime through use of speech". For example, sedition (where illegal) is a crime often committed through speech, but freedom of speech would be pretty meaningless if the government could punish seditious speech.
Right. Such paranoid radio elite as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and National Economic Council director Lawrence H. Summers.
Because when the most famous use of a principle is blatant abuse thereof, it may be worth rethinking the desirability of the principle.
IANAL, but I would say "Probably not", given that AT&T has tried similar clauses before and had them struck down as "unconscionable".
No, that only happens if the company is bought whole. If nobody wants it with all the liabilities (which seems likely in GMs case), then the company can be sold off without the liabilities. Another company could purchase "substantially all the assets" of GM. From that sale price the creditors would be partially paid, and anything left the creditors are stuck with; the entity owing them has ceased to exist.
Evidentally, it's even possible to run low on fools. Or at least fools who have not yet been separated from their money. P.T. Barnum must be rolling in his grave.
According to TFA, the publisher pulled it after being threatened. Dumb move, IMO; if it comes to court, Langdell will claim that as an admission of liability.
As far as I can tell, Langdell's company never released a game identified as "Edge" or anything similar.
I'd take it with a LOT of skepticism. They shipped 109 cars in a month, which probably means they booked the revenue for those cars in that month. But they probably didn't make (and thus book the costs of) anything like 109 cars in that month. So it's just a blip.
It's not that they're progressive, it's that we westerners stepped onto a dead-end path a while back.
Teenagers are not a biological issue at all, but a societal one. And one pretty easy to understand. Actually allow a smooth transition between childhood and adulthood, rather than making laws to restrict and "protect" teens until they hit that magic age of 18 or 21 or whatever, and while the problems won't go away, they'll become no worse than those of other young primates.
And here I thought they were just glomming on random bits of language syntax
C++
C++0x
C++0x[]
C++0x[&]
C++*0x[&]
etc.
Before Heinlein was a writer, he was an officer in the Navy, having been through the Naval Academy. Which suggests he probably could take and give orders, co-operate, act alone, conn a ship, fight efficiently, and plan an invasion.
I'd guess that he could also change a diaper, pitch manure, butcher a hog, build a wall, set a bone, balance accounts, and comfort the dying, all of those being skills someone of his background would have picked up one way or another.
The only building I know of he "designed" was the one in "...And He Built A Crooked House"; that one probably doesn't count.
The only one of those I'm sure he failed to do is die gallantly.
*sigh*. I thought confusion of schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder was pretty much done with.
Here, try this:
"I recently quit smoking, and the voices in my head say they're fine with it."
Unless you're living in Los Angeles, Mexico City or <insert city in China's industrial regions here> you're not getting anything like the amount of nastiness in primary cigarette smoke just by breathing the air.
For several centuries (1632). Means "to copy closely but often clumsily and ineptly". Granted, the verb "parrot", meaning "to repeat by rote" is a little older (1596), but if you're just getting used to it now, I think perhaps I ought to vacate your lawn.
Unlimited liability for lawyers who make arguments which don't hold up in court.
If there's no agreement, there's no warranty. If you accept the terms, there's no warranty. There's no attempt to have it both ways. The "NO WARRANTY" notice is just that, a notice, not an agreement. It may or may not have any effect; some implied warranties cannot be disclaimed. But for software which is free as in beer, there probably isn't any implied warranty.
Drop and liquid sensors have been used to detect abuse for years. For instance, very low tech ones, stuck on packages, so you know if the shipping company dropped it or got it wet. So what's actually new here?
Their first claim is laughably general:
1. A system for detecting consumer abuse in an electronic device, the system comprising:one or more sensors configured to detect an occurrence of an abuse event;abuse detection circuitry configured to receive indication of the occurrence of the abuse event from the one or more sensors and to generate a record corresponding to the occurrence of the abuse event upon receiving the indication;a memory device configured to store the record; and an interface configured to facilitate communication between the electronic device and an external device.
Any "black box" type device is prior art; the only change is the application to consumers. Hardly a patentworthy innovation. In fact, I believe some car black boxes have _already been used_ to deny warranty claims: http://blogs.internetautoguide.com/6296914/auto-repair/nissan-gt-r-warranty-claims-being-voided-by-black-box-data-proving-racing/index.html
Sorry, Apple. Nothing novel here.
Personally I don't mind these devices being used to detect abuse, provided they are reliable and that their data is evaluated critically rather than just being used to say "NO". But color change liquid intrusion sensors notoriously aren't reliable, changing color in the presence of humidity. Thermal sensors could be tripped by whatever caused the failure rather than by abuse. And tamper sensors... well, "breaking this seal voids the warranty", when breaking the seal is required to perform some service or upgrade, isn't kosher under Magnussen-Moss, regardless of how high-tech the seal is.
For the kind of really high performance stuff OpenCL is targeted to, we didn't. Look at the low level code in GnuMP, for instance.
There's two approaches to that problem, both viable together or separately. One is to find out common elements about the Fed IDs -- if no other way, carry a reader into a place known Feds go to lunch or something. The other is to find out common elements about the noise IDs, easily obtained by carrying the reader into Wal-Mart, Sears, etc, when few people are around.
The Ribbon is no good even in Windows. And isn't it patented? There's no reason Open Office needs to ape Microsoft's mistakes.