Just a little bit of misinformation on that site, I'm afraid:
If a GPL'd set of icons had been used, would we now be legally able to modify, sell and distribute the episode under the terms of the GPL over the internet?
The answer to that question is NO, the GPL does not affect the licensing of the TV show.
Will write the programming tools? Seems to me Simonyi's not talking about a replacement for modern programming, but an incremental advancement over say AppleScript or Hypercard. More powerful userland tools will not completely replace programming: someone will need to write the components. Or is he thinking that all the components will be in the OS, and thus third party programmers could be eliminated and the OS vendor and the user would be the only parts of the transaction?
Paranoia doesn't work that way, though. He saves the phenomena by convincing himself that the time travelers are prohibited from interfering, and are surveilled for violations, and so have to be very careful about how they use time travel. He also believes he is being surveilled, either by the contemporary government or the time cops.
You'd better document that one. If it's not true, you've just committed libel. And don't think noone will figure out who you are - they will.
my guess is you've never personally met him and any hatred you feel is just the lemming effect of American politicking kicking in)
I suppose you have met GWB? Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine has. Says he came across as a bright fellow. Molly Ivins has said the same thing, by the way, in print and on radio. But I agree with her and not with him: nice he may be, and bright, but he's still wrong.
Problem is that racism still exists. Look at the memo. If people were really hired purely under meritocratic processes, there would be no need for affirmative action. But that's not yet the case.
Unfortunately, the reference.com entry isn't quite complete enough. Redaction comes from the Latin word for edit - I believe redacteur is French for editor (apologies to French speakers in advance if I messed that up - but when used in English of a text it more usually means something that was actually *rearranged* in the process of editing - for instance, Biblical scholars speak of the various redactions of early Biblical texts in the process of their assembly and transmission. In this case, it was used as a euphemism for "censored."
Well, let's see, @Stake is the same company that only a few weeks ago fired Dan Geer for that article on the Microsoft monoculture (http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5082649.html). Who do you want to believe today?
Yeah, I know some of the background. But if it's a registered trademark, he must be either licensing it (under an implied license, or something like the GPL, anyway) or he's letting it become a generic term, right? If it's not a generic term, another user requires permission to use it, no? And so as holder of the trademark, he can revoke that permission. That's my argument. I wouldn't bet a week's salary on it...
The other half of my argument is that if someone uses your work in violation of a license like the GPL, you must inform them that they are in violation of the license and explicitly warn them against using it before you can sue. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be quite shocked if that is not the case. That's what I meant by "revocation." There was a degree of sarcasm, of course, referring to SCO's own antics wrt IBM.
Really? Well, since you obviously are a lawyer, perhaps you could enlighten us? What is the legal process for the author of GPLed software when he learns that a user is violating the license? Does he, or does he not, have to notify them that they are in violation of the license?
I know full well that the trademark "has nothing to do with the GPL," despite the suggestion to the contrary by another poster who at least has the guts to sign his name and make counterarguments, but if there is an implied license to use the trademark, LT may have to notify SCO that they are in violation of the license to distribute the software, and that any further distribution of the software is a violation of LT's copyright, and then that any further use of the Linux trademark on SCO's products is a violation of the terms under which the trademark may be used. If one is revoked, the other needs to be, otherwise there is a suggestion of inconsistency. The "revocation" is a necessity of the process of enforcement - unless you are a lawyer and can give me case law to argue to the contrary, I believe you can't enforce against a violation of a license without giving notice to the violator that he is in violation.
I am not a lawyer, and my arguments in this thread are not legal advice, but the proper way to respond to them is with counterargument, not with snide bullshit.
I think he'll have to revoke their license to use the trademark first (and revoke their GPL); then if they continue to distribute in violation of the trademark license and the GPL, he'll have grounds to sue. But that's uninformed speculation, and IANAL.
NP. Most of what you post is interesting, so I figured you'd find this helpful. Me, I got the degree in what interested me, and learned the tech on the job, so to speak.
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
Shakespeare was hailed as the Ovid of his time by his contemporaries; and the Elizabethans had almost as high an opinion of Ovid (the guy who wrote the Metamorphoses and the Amores, of the poems you're most likely to have heard of) as we do of Homer.
You've got a great point, BWJ, but in this case with Shakespeare you've chosen the wrong example. Shakespeare was recognized as a genius in his own lifetime - otherwise Greene's attack on him as an actor who had the temerity to consider himself a playright (Greene's Groatsworth of Wit 1592, http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/groats.htm, the paragraph starting "And thou no lesse deserving than the other two") would have been pretty pointless - and "bardolatory" was already well on its way when Jonson (17 years after Shakespeare's death - Jonson was a friend, sometime colleague, sometime competitor of Shakespeare's, and would be contending with Marlowe for the title of Greatest English Playright if Shakespeare hadn't lived) wrote his famous "would he had blotted a thousand" passage in Timber (see http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/display prose.cfm?prosenum=12 , starting with line 532). [BTW, be careful looking some of this stuff up, as the Oxfordians and Baconians and other Shakespeare-deniers have a lot of fun twisting both in an attempt to make their points; for background on the writing of Shakespearean biography (and of the Oxfordians and Baconians), Schoenfeld's Shakespeare's Lives is a great book).
I suspect that there was an approximate range (40-80 minutes, say) to choose from, and the "9th Symphony" dictate simply fixed the exact number. Karajan's recording I think (not at home, so I don't have the disc to check) tops out at 69-71 minutes, not the full 74. I assumed that the 74 minutes was to accommodate all the recordings of the 9th in print at the time.
That the capacity of the world's most popular music format was defined by one man's musical taste should not be all that surprising. Necessity may have once been the mother of invention, but these days convenience is the likely surrogate, or at least the midwife.
They make it sound like the 9th Symphony is somehow an erratic thing to have such a high opinion of; in fact, the 9th Symphony is pretty widely (though of course not universally) regarded as the finest piece of music ever written, and a reduced version of its fourth movement (with the lyrics from Schiller's Ode to Joy as Beethoven adapted them) is the European Union's "national" anthem.
I dunno how far that would get since well into the 90th percentile of iraq's population felt he was a good ruler.
More likely 90% of the Iraq's population felt it was safest to say they felt he was a good ruler. The reason US leaders have such low popularity ratings, comparatively, is because US leaders don't as a rule have dissident citizens shot.
SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.
Won't this argument have the side effect of pointing out that the EULA creates limitations on use under rules other than those established by law? IANAL, but it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa.
Actually, no, what I'm talking about isn't simply "secret knowledge" - it's ownership of a text for which the reciters expect to be paid, and so keep secret. This, by the way, has nothing to do with shamanism or "plebs" (you should try not to mix so many different ideas in one message: "plebs" is a Roman term, "shaman" refers to the cultures of the steppes).
The British Patent Office link notes that the Romans and Greeks had the concept of protecting their authorship, not merely "recognizing authorship of works." It has everything to do with "intellectual property," which is the "ownership" of ideas.
No, IP goes back thousands of years - it's copyright laws that were a radical idea in 1709 -they were largely adaptations to the fact that the growth of the printing press in the previous 200+ years had made the circulation of knowledge (specifically, the reproduction of texts) a hell of a lot cheaper than it had been back when every copy was the product of one person working for weeks with a pen. Intellectual property - ideas that are protected, as trade secrets, for instance - goes much, much further back. You see, way back in the 8th century BC, there were special groups who only taught certain texts, or certain scientific methodologies, to members of their group. The Homeridae (those who recited the Iliad and Odyssey), the Asclepiadae and Hippocratics (doctors), etc. This fact - that IP goes back to the ancient Greeks at least - is not a secret, even the British Patent Office knows about it.
Well, I know that this is the third next generation space vehicle program that has had its financial legs cut out from it before a workable prototype could be designed. Is that what you mean by "failure?"
Slashdot Mirror
It's the last lines of *The Hollow Men*:
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
"I for one, welcome our new solar flare overlords." "In Soviet Russia, flare suns you." Am I missing any?
Yeah, you're missing "can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those babies?
Just a little bit of misinformation on that site, I'm afraid:
If a GPL'd set of icons had been used, would we now be legally able to modify, sell and distribute the episode under the terms of the GPL over the internet?
The answer to that question is NO, the GPL does not affect the licensing of the TV show.
Will write the programming tools? Seems to me Simonyi's not talking about a replacement for modern programming, but an incremental advancement over say AppleScript or Hypercard. More powerful userland tools will not completely replace programming: someone will need to write the components. Or is he thinking that all the components will be in the OS, and thus third party programmers could be eliminated and the OS vendor and the user would be the only parts of the transaction?
Particularly interesting is his discussion of his collaborative relationship with Pratchett.
Paranoia doesn't work that way, though. He saves the phenomena by convincing himself that the time travelers are prohibited from interfering, and are surveilled for violations, and so have to be very careful about how they use time travel. He also believes he is being surveilled, either by the contemporary government or the time cops.
You'd better document that one. If it's not true, you've just committed libel. And don't think noone will figure out who you are - they will.
my guess is you've never personally met him and any hatred you feel is just the lemming effect of American politicking kicking in)
I suppose you have met GWB? Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine has. Says he came across as a bright fellow. Molly Ivins has said the same thing, by the way, in print and on radio. But I agree with her and not with him: nice he may be, and bright, but he's still wrong.
Problem is that racism still exists. Look at the memo. If people were really hired purely under meritocratic processes, there would be no need for affirmative action. But that's not yet the case.
Unfortunately, the reference.com entry isn't quite complete enough. Redaction comes from the Latin word for edit - I believe redacteur is French for editor (apologies to French speakers in advance if I messed that up - but when used in English of a text it more usually means something that was actually *rearranged* in the process of editing - for instance, Biblical scholars speak of the various redactions of early Biblical texts in the process of their assembly and transmission. In this case, it was used as a euphemism for "censored."
Well, let's see, @Stake is the same company that only a few weeks ago fired Dan Geer for that article on the Microsoft monoculture (http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5082649.html). Who do you want to believe today?
Yeah, I know some of the background. But if it's a registered trademark, he must be either licensing it (under an implied license, or something like the GPL, anyway) or he's letting it become a generic term, right? If it's not a generic term, another user requires permission to use it, no? And so as holder of the trademark, he can revoke that permission. That's my argument. I wouldn't bet a week's salary on it ...
The other half of my argument is that if someone uses your work in violation of a license like the GPL, you must inform them that they are in violation of the license and explicitly warn them against using it before you can sue. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be quite shocked if that is not the case. That's what I meant by "revocation." There was a degree of sarcasm, of course, referring to SCO's own antics wrt IBM.
Really? Well, since you obviously are a lawyer, perhaps you could enlighten us? What is the legal process for the author of GPLed software when he learns that a user is violating the license? Does he, or does he not, have to notify them that they are in violation of the license?
I know full well that the trademark "has nothing to do with the GPL," despite the suggestion to the contrary by another poster who at least has the guts to sign his name and make counterarguments, but if there is an implied license to use the trademark, LT may have to notify SCO that they are in violation of the license to distribute the software, and that any further distribution of the software is a violation of LT's copyright, and then that any further use of the Linux trademark on SCO's products is a violation of the terms under which the trademark may be used. If one is revoked, the other needs to be, otherwise there is a suggestion of inconsistency. The "revocation" is a necessity of the process of enforcement - unless you are a lawyer and can give me case law to argue to the contrary, I believe you can't enforce against a violation of a license without giving notice to the violator that he is in violation.
I am not a lawyer, and my arguments in this thread are not legal advice, but the proper way to respond to them is with counterargument, not with snide bullshit.
I think he'll have to revoke their license to use the trademark first (and revoke their GPL); then if they continue to distribute in violation of the trademark license and the GPL, he'll have grounds to sue. But that's uninformed speculation, and IANAL.
NP. Most of what you post is interesting, so I figured you'd find this helpful. Me, I got the degree in what interested me, and learned the tech on the job, so to speak.
Shakespeare was hailed as the Ovid of his time by his contemporaries; and the Elizabethans had almost as high an opinion of Ovid (the guy who wrote the Metamorphoses and the Amores, of the poems you're most likely to have heard of) as we do of Homer.
You've got a great point, BWJ, but in this case with Shakespeare you've chosen the wrong example. Shakespeare was recognized as a genius in his own lifetime - otherwise Greene's attack on him as an actor who had the temerity to consider himself a playright (Greene's Groatsworth of Wit 1592, http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/groats.htm, the paragraph starting "And thou no lesse deserving than the other two") would have been pretty pointless - and "bardolatory" was already well on its way when Jonson (17 years after Shakespeare's death - Jonson was a friend, sometime colleague, sometime competitor of Shakespeare's, and would be contending with Marlowe for the title of Greatest English Playright if Shakespeare hadn't lived) wrote his famous "would he had blotted a thousand" passage in Timber (see http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/display prose.cfm?prosenum=12 , starting with line 532). [BTW, be careful looking some of this stuff up, as the Oxfordians and Baconians and other Shakespeare-deniers have a lot of fun twisting both in an attempt to make their points; for background on the writing of Shakespearean biography (and of the Oxfordians and Baconians), Schoenfeld's Shakespeare's Lives is a great book).
I suspect that there was an approximate range (40-80 minutes, say) to choose from, and the "9th Symphony" dictate simply fixed the exact number. Karajan's recording I think (not at home, so I don't have the disc to check) tops out at 69-71 minutes, not the full 74. I assumed that the 74 minutes was to accommodate all the recordings of the 9th in print at the time.
That the capacity of the world's most popular music format was defined by one man's musical taste should not be all that surprising. Necessity may have once been the mother of invention, but these days convenience is the likely surrogate, or at least the midwife.
They make it sound like the 9th Symphony is somehow an erratic thing to have such a high opinion of; in fact, the 9th Symphony is pretty widely (though of course not universally) regarded as the finest piece of music ever written, and a reduced version of its fourth movement (with the lyrics from Schiller's Ode to Joy as Beethoven adapted them) is the European Union's "national" anthem.
Invention is not merely dreaming up an idea, but figuring out exactly how to do it.
I dunno how far that would get since well into the 90th percentile of iraq's population felt he was a good ruler.
More likely 90% of the Iraq's population felt it was safest to say they felt he was a good ruler. The reason US leaders have such low popularity ratings, comparatively, is because US leaders don't as a rule have dissident citizens shot.
SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.
Won't this argument have the side effect of pointing out that the EULA creates limitations on use under rules other than those established by law? IANAL, but it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa.
Actually, no, what I'm talking about isn't simply "secret knowledge" - it's ownership of a text for which the reciters expect to be paid, and so keep secret. This, by the way, has nothing to do with shamanism or "plebs" (you should try not to mix so many different ideas in one message: "plebs" is a Roman term, "shaman" refers to the cultures of the steppes).
The British Patent Office link notes that the Romans and Greeks had the concept of protecting their authorship, not merely "recognizing authorship of works." It has everything to do with "intellectual property," which is the "ownership" of ideas.
No, IP goes back thousands of years - it's copyright laws that were a radical idea in 1709 -they were largely adaptations to the fact that the growth of the printing press in the previous 200+ years had made the circulation of knowledge (specifically, the reproduction of texts) a hell of a lot cheaper than it had been back when every copy was the product of one person working for weeks with a pen. Intellectual property - ideas that are protected, as trade secrets, for instance - goes much, much further back. You see, way back in the 8th century BC, there were special groups who only taught certain texts, or certain scientific methodologies, to members of their group. The Homeridae (those who recited the Iliad and Odyssey), the Asclepiadae and Hippocratics (doctors), etc. This fact - that IP goes back to the ancient Greeks at least - is not a secret, even the British Patent Office knows about it.
Well, I know that this is the third next generation space vehicle program that has had its financial legs cut out from it before a workable prototype could be designed. Is that what you mean by "failure?"
God help me for knowing this: the second Riker changed his name to Tom and eventually ended up in a Dominion prison camp as a Maquis prisoner.