The GPL requires all linked code be released under the GPL. That wouldn't apply to your Photoshop example, because Photoshop would not be linked to the GPL plugin.
While you do retain the copyright to code linked to QT under the GPL, it doesn't help you any. You can never release under any other license without either Trolltech's permission, or removing the QT dependencies.
You could normally take a GPL licensed product (that you have the full copyright to) and re-release it under a different license. However, you'll have to get licenses for any libraries you link to, and Trolltech is fully within their rights to decline to sell you one.
That's exactly the point. This isn't a debate about whether or not to hire black hats, former or otherwise, it's a debate about whether or not to hire failed black hats.
Wait, you're trying to tell me that a software program run on thousands of machines has failed in some cases!? No fscking way. That never happens--WGA should be error free--this is unacceptable.
Given that WGA provides absolutely no benefit to the owner of the machine, yes, it is quite reasonable to demand 0 false positives. False negatives are perfectly acceptable, though.
Those rules apply to scarce, but renewable resources. It works great for wheat and cars and things where higher demand results in more supply. It starts to fray on non-renewable resources, like oil, as more gets "produced" regardless of the looming end of supply. It only applies somewhat to land, not applying very well to urban settings. There are always rules about who can sell to who, and for what purpose.
I should have alos mentioned that it's not fair if it interferes with broadcasts that stations pay for.
I have to disagree with this, and it's the one thing that justifies pirate radio. We need a fairer way to allocate the spectrum that doesn't rest on how much money one can raise.
There is a middle way. Tell people about better solutions, but don't offer to install them, and rebuff any handholding requests, unless it's a person you want to be handholding for the forseeable future.
There are two main differences between Turnitin.com and Kazaa/edonkey/whatever.
1. Turnitin.com are directly providing access to copyrighted data. There's no plausible deniability, and no legitimate use to cover them. In the case of filesharing apps, the person to go to to ask to take something down wouldn't be the network provider, it would be the person sharing the file. Turnitin.com happens to be both.
2. Turnitin.com are sharing papers not intended for distribution in the first place, where as most of the disputed works on filesharing services were intended to be distributed publicly.
Fine then, restrict your marketing to explicit opt-in only, with no strings attached, and no one will complain. That would be what, 0.001% of all marketing?
Yet it is precisely the friction between the wheels and road which make a car go forward. Friction with the car wheels is not bad, you need it. Friction with the air is bad, but not the wheels.
We could do without the friction on the wheels for propultion without much difficulty. Stopping is entirely another matter...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they can find a way for it to explode in mid flight, too.
Tools do not, by and large, have an impact on productivity. There is no serious dispute on this point in the software engineering field.
The GPL requires all linked code be released under the GPL. That wouldn't apply to your Photoshop example, because Photoshop would not be linked to the GPL plugin.
While you do retain the copyright to code linked to QT under the GPL, it doesn't help you any. You can never release under any other license without either Trolltech's permission, or removing the QT dependencies.
You could normally take a GPL licensed product (that you have the full copyright to) and re-release it under a different license. However, you'll have to get licenses for any libraries you link to, and Trolltech is fully within their rights to decline to sell you one.
Yes, QT is about $3300 per seat, if you want to develop something you hold the rights too. It is good, but it isn't *that* good.
That's the problem with QT. You can't just buy a license, without support.
$600 isn't a particularily high price for a cell phone, usually your network provider will provide a subsidy.
That's exactly the point. This isn't a debate about whether or not to hire black hats, former or otherwise, it's a debate about whether or not to hire failed black hats.
You have a very strange definition of "all right".
Wait, you're trying to tell me that a software program run on thousands of machines has failed in some cases!? No fscking way. That never happens--WGA should be error free--this is unacceptable.
Given that WGA provides absolutely no benefit to the owner of the machine, yes, it is quite reasonable to demand 0 false positives. False negatives are perfectly acceptable, though.
Many people much smarter and with more data than you disagree. Do you have anything to justify that, or are you just talking out of your ass.
My side says that libraries, whoever and however they are created, shouldn't be illegal.
Those rules apply to scarce, but renewable resources. It works great for wheat and cars and things where higher demand results in more supply. It starts to fray on non-renewable resources, like oil, as more gets "produced" regardless of the looming end of supply. It only applies somewhat to land, not applying very well to urban settings. There are always rules about who can sell to who, and for what purpose.
I should have alos mentioned that it's not fair if it interferes with broadcasts that stations pay for.
I have to disagree with this, and it's the one thing that justifies pirate radio. We need a fairer way to allocate the spectrum that doesn't rest on how much money one can raise.
God !q's a kitten.
There is a middle way. Tell people about better solutions, but don't offer to install them, and rebuff any handholding requests, unless it's a person you want to be handholding for the forseeable future.
The biggest concern should be that somebody had a bad experience, not that they tell other people about it.
Yes, and part of that is not recommending tools that aren't appropriate.
There are two main differences between Turnitin.com and Kazaa/edonkey/whatever.
1. Turnitin.com are directly providing access to copyrighted data. There's no plausible deniability, and no legitimate use to cover them. In the case of filesharing apps, the person to go to to ask to take something down wouldn't be the network provider, it would be the person sharing the file. Turnitin.com happens to be both.
2. Turnitin.com are sharing papers not intended for distribution in the first place, where as most of the disputed works on filesharing services were intended to be distributed publicly.
Fine then, restrict your marketing to explicit opt-in only, with no strings attached, and no one will complain. That would be what, 0.001% of all marketing?
Hint: When the only argument you can come up with is an ad hominem, it means you're wrong.
That would hardly be a controlled stop, and I don't know how functional the vehicle would be aftewards...
Yes, acceleration would be easy enough to replace with another method, though. Controlled deceleration would be much harder.
Pressing it a little too hard and bumping it certainly will.
Yes, a solar sail that doesn't reflect is impossible, and nonsensical. It's roughly equivilent to a photovoltaic panal that doesn't absorb light.
Yet it is precisely the friction between the wheels and road which make a car go forward. Friction with the car wheels is not bad, you need it. Friction with the air is bad, but not the wheels.
We could do without the friction on the wheels for propultion without much difficulty. Stopping is entirely another matter...