Well, yes and no. While completely agreeing with the "What did you think would happen if you did that?" part, I think that whether or not the United States government is a legal government could be debated. It took power at the point of a sword from the former government and has never held a church sanctified coronation. To add murkiness, the previous government was also certainly not legal, having taken power by force from the native inhabitants. Unless and until a church sanctified coronation is held in Cuba, whatever government has power there is merely a de facto government, not a legal one.
Rights that you would not have if you did not agree to it. You aren't bound to it by downloading the BusyBox source code, but it grants you the right to redistribute that code (or binaries produced from it). You can't on the one hand claim not to agree to the GPL and exercise the rights it grants you on the other.
EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.
You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.
Again, if you disagree, here's the EULA for this comment:
By reading this comment, you agree to make a $5 donation to the EFF.
But if that were true, he'd own the IP. I've met many, many non technical folks who will quite blithely claim they "created the entire blueprint" of whatever their partners actually did.
This whole situation seems more than mildly racist to me. I don't imagine anyone would pay the least attention to Arrington's claims if FG weren't Indian.
If Arrington did have the engineers in his employ, then he'd own the IP and FG wouldn't be able to push him out. Everything I've read has said FG did the engineering.
That just leaves the publicity from his blog and other touchy feely marketing somesuch. 35% seems well and above reasonable for that.
It doesn't seem that he contributed anything to this project other than marketing support. If that's the case, 35% of the company seems astronomically generous.
I would much rather not have to deal with other people's children or silly rules to protect them. Build kiddie pools and throw the little snots and the content filters in them.
Saying "we have sooper sekret technology" to investors can often be worth more than the costs of constantly backporting things. Even if it's really nothing. That's just the way the world works.
As for the case in TFA, is there a decent PDF library released under the BSD license? I don't think there is, and that will often be the case because the GPL is just better for the developer, if not always the user. (Though it is for the end user.)
There's certainly a lot of good reasons for businesses to prefer BSD licensed code. There are just as many good reasons for developers (or businesses actually writing said code) to prefer the GPL.
If you release code under the BSD license, you'll never see a dime for it that isn't charity. If you release code under the GPL, you get all the warm fuzzies of giving it to everyone and the ability to tell corporate users to pay up for closed source use.
I don't know if there's a decent BSD licensed PDF library. I don't think so.
That seems rather counterintuitive. The people downloading ROMs are going to be heavily weighted toward those who bought the cartridges at some point and want to revisit them.
Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.
They're right that it's not open to debate. Piracy is going to happen, and there's absolutely nothing Nintendo or anyone else can do about it. They can accept that, and find a way to profit from it, or turn away people who want to be paying customers.
Given that the Chinese firewall is built by western corporations, if we blocked that activity, China would have no choice but to abandon it.
No, some Opera is not better than no Opera, because no Opera isn't on the table. There's no way China could censor every mention of Opera from the internet. They could try to stop Opera from making money in China, but that just removes any power they have over them.
It's my understanding that they're just routing through China's existing firewalls.
You're setting up a strawman, though. I didn't suggest we bar Opera, Google et al from operating in China, but that we bar them from cooperating with the censorship.
But if the free world passed laws barring it's corporations from cooperating with Chinese censorship, they'd have to choose between caving or building everything themselves.
The people you know aren't harvesting their own wood for heating. They're buying it through an industrial harvesting process, probably shipped for far off.
Haiti, which does rely on local firewood for it's heating needs, has been destroying it's forests. It's a common historical trend, populations will tend to deforest an area if they're using wood fuel. Look at Europe, and especially the British Isles.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes and no. While completely agreeing with the "What did you think would happen if you did that?" part, I think that whether or not the United States government is a legal government could be debated. It took power at the point of a sword from the former government and has never held a church sanctified coronation. To add murkiness, the previous government was also certainly not legal, having taken power by force from the native inhabitants. Unless and until a church sanctified coronation is held in Cuba, whatever government has power there is merely a de facto government, not a legal one.
Rights that you would not have if you did not agree to it. You aren't bound to it by downloading the BusyBox source code, but it grants you the right to redistribute that code (or binaries produced from it). You can't on the one hand claim not to agree to the GPL and exercise the rights it grants you on the other.
EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.
You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.
Again, if you disagree, here's the EULA for this comment:
By reading this comment, you agree to make a $5 donation to the EFF.
But unless you put pen to paper, it has no legal force.
If you don't believe that, then:
By reading this comment, you agree to send $5 to the EFF.
But if that were true, he'd own the IP. I've met many, many non technical folks who will quite blithely claim they "created the entire blueprint" of whatever their partners actually did.
This whole situation seems more than mildly racist to me. I don't imagine anyone would pay the least attention to Arrington's claims if FG weren't Indian.
If Arrington did have the engineers in his employ, then he'd own the IP and FG wouldn't be able to push him out. Everything I've read has said FG did the engineering.
That just leaves the publicity from his blog and other touchy feely marketing somesuch. 35% seems well and above reasonable for that.
It doesn't seem that he contributed anything to this project other than marketing support. If that's the case, 35% of the company seems astronomically generous.
Second Life manages perfectly well to keep child safe areas alongside the most disturbing furry wtfery without mixing the two.
I would much rather not have to deal with other people's children or silly rules to protect them. Build kiddie pools and throw the little snots and the content filters in them.
It's been, what, a month since they were informed of the lapse, and less than that since they acknowledged the error?
Show a reasonable amount of patience.
I hear there's rampant copyright violation there.
Saying "we have sooper sekret technology" to investors can often be worth more than the costs of constantly backporting things. Even if it's really nothing. That's just the way the world works.
As for the case in TFA, is there a decent PDF library released under the BSD license? I don't think there is, and that will often be the case because the GPL is just better for the developer, if not always the user. (Though it is for the end user.)
There's certainly a lot of good reasons for businesses to prefer BSD licensed code. There are just as many good reasons for developers (or businesses actually writing said code) to prefer the GPL.
If you release code under the BSD license, you'll never see a dime for it that isn't charity. If you release code under the GPL, you get all the warm fuzzies of giving it to everyone and the ability to tell corporate users to pay up for closed source use.
I don't know if there's a decent BSD licensed PDF library. I don't think so.
Though it is for some, certainly. Why should Nintendo (or anyone else) care one way or another about those people?
Why spite the people who have a non-zero price point in some sort of misguided revenge on people who won't pay (but will pirate regardless)?
That seems rather counterintuitive. The people downloading ROMs are going to be heavily weighted toward those who bought the cartridges at some point and want to revisit them.
Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.
They're right that it's not open to debate. Piracy is going to happen, and there's absolutely nothing Nintendo or anyone else can do about it. They can accept that, and find a way to profit from it, or turn away people who want to be paying customers.
No one is suggesting we should isolate China.
Given that the Chinese firewall is built by western corporations, if we blocked that activity, China would have no choice but to abandon it.
No, some Opera is not better than no Opera, because no Opera isn't on the table. There's no way China could censor every mention of Opera from the internet. They could try to stop Opera from making money in China, but that just removes any power they have over them.
China can tell Opera to cooperate or get out. As it is now, they have absolutely no reason not to cooperate. They don't lose anything from doing so.
If we were to make Opera et al choose between China and the free world, China would lose much of the leverage it has over these companies.
It's my understanding that they're just routing through China's existing firewalls.
You're setting up a strawman, though. I didn't suggest we bar Opera, Google et al from operating in China, but that we bar them from cooperating with the censorship.
But if the free world passed laws barring it's corporations from cooperating with Chinese censorship, they'd have to choose between caving or building everything themselves.
The people you know aren't harvesting their own wood for heating. They're buying it through an industrial harvesting process, probably shipped for far off.
Haiti, which does rely on local firewood for it's heating needs, has been destroying it's forests. It's a common historical trend, populations will tend to deforest an area if they're using wood fuel. Look at Europe, and especially the British Isles.
Human consumption of firewood doesn't generally get replaced, and subsistence human habitation will tend to deforest an area.
It releases quite a bit of carbon.
Mono gives Windows, Linux, and OS X have official support, and BSD community support.
Microsoft didn't create the SCO situation, but they were certainly friendly toward their shenanigans.
But the grandparent's assertion was that any "real geek" would have Linux, Windows and OS X machines.