Wouldn't this interpretation (GPL forces software into the Public Domain) put the US in the wrong side of the Berne Convention? Since the US would now no longer honour non-US copyright of works under the GPL (which would still be valid outside the US.)
Set up a Spam-catcher that spots one of these claims, and bounces it back with the message:
You email has been rejected by an automated system, due to previous unjustified DMCA claims in the past all future claims are subject to a $150 an hour surcharge (minimum 10 hours) should there prove to be no infringement.
Please review your claim, and if you are still sufficently convinced that your claim is valid please resubmit your email with the text "I accept the terms and conditions for investigation of my DMCA claim"
Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.
Would this be legal? It's certainly reasonable: the fee is only charged payable if there is no infringement. If the claimant is sufficiently convinced that they are being ripped off they should be happy to agree- they won't have to pay.
Probably not the right sort of lawyers for this, usually firms hire an independent firm of lawyers that specialise in this sort of mess.
But this may not yet be such a big messy deal that they need them- on the other hand the delay between SCO mouthing off and this request for an injunction could just be the time it took to find a firm, hire them, bring them up to speed on the issues and get their advice (sue the crooks!).
SCO: Slightly Criminal Organisation?
Re:What I always wondered
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 1
This suggests there is a hole waiting to be filled by OpenGL.GAME - extensions that provide those features the games writers want specifically.
Open Source being Open Source I imagine there are five or ten contenders already floating around- anyone know which are best of breed for BSDish Licencing and GPL Licencing respectively?
All this takes is discipline. There is no real secret to this.
This is of course circular reasoning.. You need the discipline to develop the discipline etc..
It's true of course, like most circular reasoning, without being helpful.. Already there have been some very sensible and practical suggestions for getting that initial focus.
If once you start you can keep going then it's finding that initial focus that counts. Excercise is one good suggestion- excess energy can express it self in lack of concentration. The other very good suggestion was the visualising the initial steps in the task. Very often with a big bit of work of any sort knowing where to start is the tricky part.
I often find when writing a document for work I can't make a start on it until I have the initial structure and more importantly most of the first paragraph planned.
The first paragraph is usually utter crap and needs to be dumped, but it creates the crack in the wall to start on.
Another idea might be to just start- if you're about to write a report for college but can't get started try writing anything to get yourself into the right frame of mind- a stream of invective about the tutor, a complaint about how the RIAA's tendency to sue everyone for listening to music makes you too angry to concentrate. A stream-of-conciousness about nothing at all.
If it's a coding project I find writing the comments at the head of the file, even if they contain nothing but in-jokes and bad puns to be removed later, get me into the right frame of mind to get started.
Or just reconfigure your machine so it can't see the network anymore to remove that (and email) as a temptation.
If proprietary source (effectively secret) can leak into Open source, then it is certain that Open Source has leaked into proprietary codebases.
The protections against it happening OSS -> Prop. are far far weaker- for one thing the end result isn't there public for anyone to inspect. All SCO had to do to evaluate their claims was download the source. No one else has the chance to do the reverse to check to see if UnixWare is ripping of Linux code.
The incentive is also far greater- Most OSS coders are motivated by the challenge and pride in their own acheivements. Engineers working on proprietary code are more driven by their paychecks, difficult to acheive deadlines.
It's reasonable to assume that if SCO and the FUD from Gates is even slightly true that MS, SCO and many many other companies are guilty of IPR violations galore.
The only reason it might be less of a risk to these companies is the lack of power (in terms of lawyers and political clout) the OSS teams have.
This is slightly countered by the lack of accountability over distribution of the source the openness of OSS encourages
Compared to the other demands on medium/high end mobile (camera, bluetooth, the GSM/CDMA network itself), Java doesn't have that much implication for battery performance- provided it has a decent software implementation or some form of HW acceleration.
Some phones have better Java technology than others however.
Wouldn't SCO selling a license on a product that can only exist illegally be equivalent to incitement to piracy?
The fact that Linus et al may not *wish* to prosecute people doesn't change the fact that SCO would be actively encouraging people and businesses to illegally copy other peoples IP.
Nope.. If SCO code was in Linux then shipping Linux would be illegal, and SCO cannot make it legal.
If a company ships Linux 'knowing' that SCO have rights to portions of it, then they are breaching the copyright because the kernel they no longer have the right to distribute under the GPL.
Since SCO still haven't indicated what is in the kernel and have won no court cases proving that the code is in the kernel, and have previously shipped the code under the GPL knowing it was in there, and are now effectively inciting piracy - it will all probably fizzle out when they go belly up and IBM buys up the rights.
Unless you've cut it short it says nothing about 'region 1'
Since it's legal to move the players about and decss allows me to watch a region 1 film in the US on a region 2 player. (which doesn't breach the DVD license) CSS doesn't enforce the license, and obstructs use in accordance with the license.
Assuming the license stands the quote you have is a claim, not a license agreement.
No license agreement signed, no license agreement visible before purchase.
No license agreement.
If someone wants to sell me something with additional terms they need to tell me before I buy it.
So where on a region 1 DVD does it say "You are only licensed to play this DVD within North America or on a Region 1 licensed DVD player"?
Are you a little unclear on how TV works?
People pay money.. Shows get made.. People watch.. People pay money for more shows.
Now whether the money comes from advertising -which is some of the money people paid for cars, computers and unhealthy foods, reinvested in the hope that people will buy more- or from a direct subscription to a channel, if you watch TV you pay for the shows. Even if you don't watch TV, you still pay for the shows.
Picking to fan-fund a show is really just a more efficient way of ensuring you pay for the stuff you like instead of stuff you don't like. Less cash wasted on the utter crap.
You can of course pay nothing, and watch nothing. Although I do get the impression that everyone who talks about getting involved in the real-world instead of watching TV in fact spend all their extra spare time telling other people who don't watch TV how clever and sensible they are for not watching TV.
If you want to get involved in the real world, then perhaps rather than reading threads about TV shows you don't care about you could be out campaigning for/against the imminent war, or, if you're on the fence, researching it.
Perhaps it's the implication that there's still cool stuff to discover, rather than the idea that all the stuff worth discovering has is already available found.
I was born after the moon landing. Although I know that it was more important than the Columbia's first space flight, it was seeing the space shuttle land for the first time that made me really feel that space flight was cool. Well, that and Star Wars.
When you optimise code like GFX drivers you can only work against a limited number of tests- Some artificial some drawn from real applications.
If you assume that those people running the benchmarks for reviews try to pick the 'mark that most represents likely usage then the card manufacturers will, by using the same benchmarks, generally optimise for the important cases.
Of course there are problems with this- a limited scope in selecting the benchmarks or a mistaken assumption about what is a 'typical' application can cause certain features to perform badly when used in certain ways. But when developing new games and applications the developers will prove against the drivers of popular cards and should change their methods.
Ideally it becomes a virtuous circle, in practise it's more of a meander. The key thing is that the reviewers and the buying public should look at as wide a selection of differing but relevant benchmarks as possible.
Yes, you're on crack. But not the really good stuff.
ARM is a UK company, publicly traded on the LSE and NASDAQ. Intel licenses the rights to manufacture StrongARM and XScale. Along with nearly 200 other companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't this interpretation (GPL forces software into the Public Domain) put the US in the wrong side of the Berne Convention? Since the US would now no longer honour non-US copyright of works under the GPL (which would still be valid outside the US.)
Set up a Spam-catcher that spots one of these claims, and bounces it back with the message:
You email has been rejected by an automated system, due to previous unjustified DMCA claims in the past all future claims are subject to a $150 an hour surcharge (minimum 10 hours) should there prove to be no infringement.
Please review your claim, and if you are still sufficently convinced that your claim is valid please resubmit your email with the text "I accept the terms and conditions for investigation of my DMCA claim"
Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.
Would this be legal? It's certainly reasonable: the fee is only charged payable if there is no infringement. If the claimant is sufficiently convinced that they are being ripped off they should be happy to agree- they won't have to pay.
Probably not the right sort of lawyers for this, usually firms hire an independent firm of lawyers that specialise in this sort of mess.
But this may not yet be such a big messy deal that they need them- on the other hand the delay between SCO mouthing off and this request for an injunction could just be the time it took to find a firm, hire them, bring them up to speed on the issues and get their advice (sue the crooks!).
SCO: Slightly Criminal Organisation?
This suggests there is a hole waiting to be filled by OpenGL.GAME - extensions that provide those features the games writers want specifically.
Open Source being Open Source I imagine there are five or ten contenders already floating around- anyone know which are best of breed for BSDish Licencing and GPL Licencing respectively?
All this takes is discipline. There is no real secret to this.
This is of course circular reasoning.. You need the discipline to develop the discipline etc..
It's true of course, like most circular reasoning, without being helpful.. Already there have been some very sensible and practical suggestions for getting that initial focus. If once you start you can keep going then it's finding that initial focus that counts. Excercise is one good suggestion- excess energy can express it self in lack of concentration. The other very good suggestion was the visualising the initial steps in the task. Very often with a big bit of work of any sort knowing where to start is the tricky part.
I often find when writing a document for work I can't make a start on it until I have the initial structure and more importantly most of the first paragraph planned. The first paragraph is usually utter crap and needs to be dumped, but it creates the crack in the wall to start on.
Another idea might be to just start- if you're about to write a report for college but can't get started try writing anything to get yourself into the right frame of mind- a stream of invective about the tutor, a complaint about how the RIAA's tendency to sue everyone for listening to music makes you too angry to concentrate. A stream-of-conciousness about nothing at all.
If it's a coding project I find writing the comments at the head of the file, even if they contain nothing but in-jokes and bad puns to be removed later, get me into the right frame of mind to get started.
Or just reconfigure your machine so it can't see the network anymore to remove that (and email) as a temptation.
If proprietary source (effectively secret) can leak into Open source, then it is certain that Open Source has leaked into proprietary codebases.
The protections against it happening OSS -> Prop. are far far weaker- for one thing the end result isn't there public for anyone to inspect. All SCO had to do to evaluate their claims was download the source. No one else has the chance to do the reverse to check to see if UnixWare is ripping of Linux code.
The incentive is also far greater- Most OSS coders are motivated by the challenge and pride in their own acheivements. Engineers working on proprietary code are more driven by their paychecks, difficult to acheive deadlines.
It's reasonable to assume that if SCO and the FUD from Gates is even slightly true that MS, SCO and many many other companies are guilty of IPR violations galore.
The only reason it might be less of a risk to these companies is the lack of power (in terms of lawyers and political clout) the OSS teams have.
This is slightly countered by the lack of accountability over distribution of the source the openness of OSS encourages
Compared to the other demands on medium/high end mobile (camera, bluetooth, the GSM/CDMA network itself), Java doesn't have that much implication for battery performance- provided it has a decent software implementation or some form of HW acceleration.
Some phones have better Java technology than others however.
Wouldn't SCO selling a license on a product that can only exist illegally be equivalent to incitement to piracy?
The fact that Linus et al may not *wish* to prosecute people doesn't change the fact that SCO would be actively encouraging people and businesses to illegally copy other peoples IP.
Thats- Fucking SCOmbags
Nope.. If SCO code was in Linux then shipping Linux would be illegal, and SCO cannot make it legal.
If a company ships Linux 'knowing' that SCO have rights to portions of it, then they are breaching the copyright because the kernel they no longer have the right to distribute under the GPL.
Since SCO still haven't indicated what is in the kernel and have won no court cases proving that the code is in the kernel, and have previously shipped the code under the GPL knowing it was in there, and are now effectively inciting piracy - it will all probably fizzle out when they go belly up and IBM buys up the rights.
Unless you've cut it short it says nothing about 'region 1'
Since it's legal to move the players about and decss allows me to watch a region 1 film in the US on a region 2 player. (which doesn't breach the DVD license) CSS doesn't enforce the license, and obstructs use in accordance with the license.
Assuming the license stands the quote you have is a claim, not a license agreement.
No license agreement signed, no license agreement visible before purchase. No license agreement. If someone wants to sell me something with additional terms they need to tell me before I buy it. So where on a region 1 DVD does it say "You are only licensed to play this DVD within North America or on a Region 1 licensed DVD player"?
Well that would make sure the cows didn't follow the horse..
Are you a little unclear on how TV works?
People pay money.. Shows get made.. People watch.. People pay money for more shows.
Now whether the money comes from advertising -which is some of the money people paid for cars, computers and unhealthy foods, reinvested in the hope that people will buy more- or from a direct subscription to a channel, if you watch TV you pay for the shows. Even if you don't watch TV, you still pay for the shows.
Picking to fan-fund a show is really just a more efficient way of ensuring you pay for the stuff you like instead of stuff you don't like. Less cash wasted on the utter crap.
You can of course pay nothing, and watch nothing. Although I do get the impression that everyone who talks about getting involved in the real-world instead of watching TV in fact spend all their extra spare time telling other people who don't watch TV how clever and sensible they are for not watching TV.
If you want to get involved in the real world, then perhaps rather than reading threads about TV shows you don't care about you could be out campaigning for/against the imminent war, or, if you're on the fence, researching it.
Hey.. Perhaps the war should be fan-funded?
Perhaps it's the implication that there's still cool stuff to discover, rather than the idea that all the stuff worth discovering has is already available found. I was born after the moon landing. Although I know that it was more important than the Columbia's first space flight, it was seeing the space shuttle land for the first time that made me really feel that space flight was cool. Well, that and Star Wars.
From what I have heard of SCO I don't think they have any claim to being 'Intelligent Design'.
When you optimise code like GFX drivers you can only work against a limited number of tests- Some artificial some drawn from real applications.
If you assume that those people running the benchmarks for reviews try to pick the 'mark that most represents likely usage then the card manufacturers will, by using the same benchmarks, generally optimise for the important cases.
Of course there are problems with this- a limited scope in selecting the benchmarks or a mistaken assumption about what is a 'typical' application can cause certain features to perform badly when used in certain ways. But when developing new games and applications the developers will prove against the drivers of popular cards and should change their methods.
Ideally it becomes a virtuous circle, in practise it's more of a meander. The key thing is that the reviewers and the buying public should look at as wide a selection of differing but relevant benchmarks as possible.
Yes, you're on crack. But not the really good stuff. ARM is a UK company, publicly traded on the LSE and NASDAQ. Intel licenses the rights to manufacture StrongARM and XScale. Along with nearly 200 other companies.