Of course almost a decade ago Oracle's (now defunct ?) oramail product did this, ie 250 people who got a single message were actually linked to a single, shared copy of that message (easy enough to do using the good old Oracle DB, natch:). It actually worked pretty well but never really caught on.
Perhaps this approach would catch on now though, what with corporate morons emailing massive Word docs, power points and mp3 files to each other, not to mention virus-laden executables.
Re:Society Only Appreciates Scientists In Movies
on
Enigma
·
· Score: 1
Actually if you read Churchill's memoirs (hard work, there are 5 volumes of them and much of it is quoted direct from pretty dry official utterances) you will find there is not a single mention of Enigma anywhere, not, from memory, of Ultra. Churchill gave virtually nothing away in them about the importance of code breaking to the allied effort, because this information was still secret when he wrote.
If you video "Men in Black" off of HBO and then show the tape at a public viewing somewhere thats already a no-no. So I can see they have a point with sending shows to each other, even if their way of gathering the evidence reeks.
But if you keep hitting pause while you're videoing the movie when the commercials come on, and then later on you watch the whole thing through by yourself and without ads, thats perfectly legit. These toys are just artificial aids to do exactly that. You didn't sign an EULA when you purchase or switch the TV on, so how on earth can it be illegal to NOT watch ads ?
By using the original document as input for your document, you are creating a derivative work of it, and you must therefore obey the license you "obtained" the document under.
You would therefore have no right to issue such a derivative work under the GPL, and you, and anyone who built on your work (and so on down) would have their asses sued off by MS until they stopped.
Of course you might say "but how would they know I copied/adapted/altered their work" - but thats a different question. If you based your work on theirs you have to obey their rules.
Microsoft are really looking to kick sand in someone's eye with their license. In fact there was no need for them to add the anti-GPL clause, because the other parts of the license do not allow sublicensing - so any number of licenses (including GPL) that require sublicensing simply won't work. The clause says as much - it has no real legal meaning itself.
Good thing we have the MS marketing types on our side to keep those damn GPL commies at bay.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course almost a decade ago Oracle's (now defunct ?) oramail product did this, ie 250 people who got a single message were actually linked to a single, shared copy of that message (easy enough to do using the good old Oracle DB, natch :). It actually worked pretty well but never really caught on.
Perhaps this approach would catch on now though, what with corporate morons emailing massive Word docs, power points and mp3 files to each other, not to mention virus-laden executables.
Actually if you read Churchill's memoirs (hard work, there are 5 volumes of them and much of it is quoted direct from pretty dry official utterances) you will find there is not a single mention of Enigma anywhere, not, from memory, of Ultra. Churchill gave virtually nothing away in them about the importance of code breaking to the allied effort, because this information was still secret when he wrote.
If you video "Men in Black" off of HBO and then show the tape at a public viewing somewhere thats already a no-no. So I can see they have a point with sending shows to each other, even if their way of gathering the evidence reeks.
But if you keep hitting pause while you're videoing the movie when the commercials come on, and then later on you watch the whole thing through by yourself and without ads, thats perfectly legit. These toys are just artificial aids to do exactly that. You didn't sign an EULA when you purchase or switch the TV on, so how on earth can it be illegal to NOT watch ads ?
By using the original document as input for your document, you are creating a derivative work of it, and you must therefore obey the license you "obtained" the document under.
You would therefore have no right to issue such a derivative work under the GPL, and you, and anyone who built on your work (and so on down) would have their asses sued off by MS until they stopped.
Of course you might say "but how would they know I copied/adapted/altered their work" - but thats a different question. If you based your work on theirs you have to obey their rules.
Microsoft are really looking to kick sand in someone's eye with their license. In fact there was no need for them to add the anti-GPL clause, because the other parts of the license do not allow sublicensing - so any number of licenses (including GPL) that require sublicensing simply won't work. The clause says as much - it has no real legal meaning itself. Good thing we have the MS marketing types on our side to keep those damn GPL commies at bay.