so you can't run software without a license (legally).
No. 17 USC 117 permits copying of software if "such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner".
I believe this portion of copyright law was passed in response to ridiculous rulings that did find that copying to RAM was infringement.
From oil drilling in "ANWAR" to funding Columbian shadow governments to new provisions in attorney/client privileges
I'll agree on the second and third points, but drilling in ANWR was a good idea before 9/11 and is even more important now. Depending on the Middle East for our energy needs is insane, and if using 2000 acres out of 15 million acres of essentially frozen wasteland can reduce that dependency, I'm all for it. Long term, we need to shift to renewable energy sources, but until that happens we need to minimize the economic harm that can be inflicted by nations filled with millions of people who hate us (arguably for legitimate reasons, but that's not relevant).
Up until 18 months ago the kill ratio of Palistine to Israel was 20 to 1, it has only recently come down to 3 to 1. This is not self defense, it is slaughter.
Cops kill more criminals than vice versa. Does that mean the criminals are the good guys and the cops are engaged in "slaughter"?
If you read many of your EULA's carefully, you'll find that you have a right to use the software, but you don't actually own the software
No, you'll find a bunch of words saying that the publisher claims that to be the case, but that doesn't make it so. Using software you have legally obtained is not a violation of copyright law, so you don't need to agree to a EULA. In fact, since a EULA (usually) gives you no rights that you didn't already have, it should be invalid on its face for lack of consideration. (IANAL, yada yada yada).
You're proving the point of the poster above who wrote
How many people want to wager that environmentalists will think this is a bad thing. Anything that will allow me to drive my SUV, can't be good, can it?
Seriously, if there were a way to generate enough energy and other resources for our current lifestyles with no environmental impact, how would that not be a good thing? If your goal is to protect the environment, then problem solved. It's only if your goal is to force others to live according to the lifestyle that you deem best that you wouldn't be pleased.
We have a winner. If an employee is doing his assigned work well, why should anyone care if he spends half an hour a day chatting on IM? In the Peter Principle there is a section that describes how good managers evaluate output while incompetent managers evaluate input; the latter seems to be the case for companies that obsess over every keystroke of their employees.
In 1995 Java had substantial advantages over the then-dominant languages. Today I see no compelling reasons for Java developers to jump ship to C#/.NET (and one big reason not to).
IBM/Motorola and Apple work together on the PPC architecture, and that's not a bomb.
That's debatable. Plot the performance of PPC chips over the last 5 years and they will be well under what Moore's law predicts. Take the G4, it was introduced almost 3 years ago at 500MHz; it should be close to 2GHz by now yet it only recently managed half that. Especially compared to how much performance Intel has gotten out of the fundamentally inferior x86 architecture, the PPC has been something of a disappointment so far.
As a matter of fact, the EULA you have to accept to run this software specifically binds you not to try to figure out how it works.
Somewhat off topic, but you do not have to accept a EULA in order to use software you have legally obtained. This is a lie propagated by software publishers and is directly contradicted by US copyright law.
No sane person would consider a non-human-readable executable to be protected free speech.
Some humans can read and understand machine code. Not many, but then again most people can't read C code either.
While I don't agree with what these authors are doing, it isn't remotely comparable to the DMCA and other abusive legislation. The authors are not demanding that the government use its guns to punish acts they don't like, as the **AAs are. They're simply expressing their disapproval of Amazon's policies, and they have every right to do so.
Can you run X-apps and MacOSX apps at the same time?
Sure, there's a rootless X server you can install via fink. The integration is excellent, copy and paste works across environments and the X windows even cast the same drop shadows that regular Aqua windows do.
Even better would be running MacOSX apps under KDE.
No, although I think people are trying to port KDE to Mac OS X. Another cross platform possibility is using GNUstep to port OS X Cocoa apps.
If I get a hold of your software, why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever I want with it?
I agree; absent a real contract (which a EULA is not), you should be able to use legitimately acquired software in any way you want as long as you don't violate copyright. But if I don't want to give you my source code, what right do you have to demand it from me?
The parts that are open are the components that were open to start with. It's tantamount to theivery... considering Apple gives nothing back to the community.>
B******t. Apple has released lots of their own code. Just off the top of my head there's CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, Darwin Streaming Server, NetInfo, and their Objective-C runtime. They also actively contribute to projects like apache and gcc. Yes, they're a corporation, and yes, they're trying to make money. That does not mean their interests are automatically opposed to yours.
Using the software without a license would likely constitute copyright infringement
What is your opinion of the meaning of 17 USC 117, which appears to allow making a copy of software if such a copy is an "essential step" in using it? To me, it seems to negate the argument that you need a license to run software, but I'd appreciate the opinion of someone who actually IAL.
EULAs are a legal fiction and have no force or validity whatsoever.
Amen. We need to stop pretending that EULAs have any more legal force than the statement "by reading this message you agree to pay me $1000".
Congress expressly gave you the right to make a copy in RAM. But what about that copy on your hard disk
Actually 17 USC 117 allows copying if "such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner", which should cover "copying" to your HD, RAM, cache, etc.
Here's something else I just thought of: publishers claim I need a license to run their product, which I allegedly agree to when I run the installer. But by that reasoning, I had no right to run the installer in the first place, since I hadn't agreed to a license prior to running it. Ergo, if shrinkwrap licenses are valid, it is impossible to legally install software.
Buy any USB mouse (I got a 5 button optical with scroll wheel for $20) and plug it in. The right button almost always does what you expect.
I get confused about how to do things that require a second or a third mouse button on PCs
Usually by control-clicking.
learning curve - I spent about 90 minutes yesterday trying to get enlightenment to install on OS X yesterday. it would have been a simple "make && make compile" in FreeBSD.
Try fink. Point and click installation of hundreds of Unix apps, including a rootless X server and lots of window managers (including enlightenment).
price - It seems that I get more bang for the buck with PCs.
That's probably true, although the difference isn't that large if you compare Macs to name-brand PCs.
Considering that Blizzard has already released a Carbon version of Starcraft, I would be very surprised if WC3 were not OS X native. Not that it matters much to me, since Blizzard gets no more of my money until they cease and desist their stupid DMCA tricks.
In other words, conservatives don't like government funding of the arts because it forcibly compels taxpayers to pay for material they may dislike or even find offensive. If you want to support your favorite media, reach into your wallet, not your neighbor's.
This was reported on xenu.net about a week after 9/11. According to the article fox news was scrolling a scientology number across the bottom of the screen as some kind of mental health hotline" for about two hours before they were notified that it was a Scientology number.
Slashdot Mirror
No. 17 USC 117 permits copying of software if "such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner".
I believe this portion of copyright law was passed in response to ridiculous rulings that did find that copying to RAM was infringement.
I'll agree on the second and third points, but drilling in ANWR was a good idea before 9/11 and is even more important now. Depending on the Middle East for our energy needs is insane, and if using 2000 acres out of 15 million acres of essentially frozen wasteland can reduce that dependency, I'm all for it. Long term, we need to shift to renewable energy sources, but until that happens we need to minimize the economic harm that can be inflicted by nations filled with millions of people who hate us (arguably for legitimate reasons, but that's not relevant).
Cops kill more criminals than vice versa. Does that mean the criminals are the good guys and the cops are engaged in "slaughter"?
No, you'll find a bunch of words saying that the publisher claims that to be the case, but that doesn't make it so. Using software you have legally obtained is not a violation of copyright law, so you don't need to agree to a EULA. In fact, since a EULA (usually) gives you no rights that you didn't already have, it should be invalid on its face for lack of consideration. (IANAL, yada yada yada).
Seriously, if there were a way to generate enough energy and other resources for our current lifestyles with no environmental impact, how would that not be a good thing? If your goal is to protect the environment, then problem solved. It's only if your goal is to force others to live according to the lifestyle that you deem best that you wouldn't be pleased.
The US was never in the Kyoto treaty; the Senate had already unanimously rejected it.
We have a winner. If an employee is doing his assigned work well, why should anyone care if he spends half an hour a day chatting on IM? In the Peter Principle there is a section that describes how good managers evaluate output while incompetent managers evaluate input; the latter seems to be the case for companies that obsess over every keystroke of their employees.
In 1995 Java had substantial advantages over the then-dominant languages. Today I see no compelling reasons for Java developers to jump ship to C#/.NET (and one big reason not to).
As an Apple shareholder, I strongly encourage Microsoft to do this.
Which is a pretty good reason, considering Java has nearly identical capabilities and is much more cross-platform.
That's debatable. Plot the performance of PPC chips over the last 5 years and they will be well under what Moore's law predicts. Take the G4, it was introduced almost 3 years ago at 500MHz; it should be close to 2GHz by now yet it only recently managed half that. Especially compared to how much performance Intel has gotten out of the fundamentally inferior x86 architecture, the PPC has been something of a disappointment so far.
Having said that, my TiBook still kicks ass.
Somewhat off topic, but you do not have to accept a EULA in order to use software you have legally obtained. This is a lie propagated by software publishers and is directly contradicted by US copyright law.
No sane person would consider a non-human-readable executable to be protected free speech.
Some humans can read and understand machine code. Not many, but then again most people can't read C code either.
While I don't agree with what these authors are doing, it isn't remotely comparable to the DMCA and other abusive legislation. The authors are not demanding that the government use its guns to punish acts they don't like, as the **AAs are. They're simply expressing their disapproval of Amazon's policies, and they have every right to do so.
Sure, there's a rootless X server you can install via fink. The integration is excellent, copy and paste works across environments and the X windows even cast the same drop shadows that regular Aqua windows do.
Even better would be running MacOSX apps under KDE.
No, although I think people are trying to port KDE to Mac OS X. Another cross platform possibility is using GNUstep to port OS X Cocoa apps.
Mac OS X is based on Mach 3.0.
I agree; absent a real contract (which a EULA is not), you should be able to use legitimately acquired software in any way you want as long as you don't violate copyright. But if I don't want to give you my source code, what right do you have to demand it from me?
And Apple.
NetInfo and CoreFoundation are part of Darwin and available here.
B******t. Apple has released lots of their own code. Just off the top of my head there's CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, Darwin Streaming Server, NetInfo, and their Objective-C runtime. They also actively contribute to projects like apache and gcc. Yes, they're a corporation, and yes, they're trying to make money. That does not mean their interests are automatically opposed to yours.
What is your opinion of the meaning of 17 USC 117, which appears to allow making a copy of software if such a copy is an "essential step" in using it? To me, it seems to negate the argument that you need a license to run software, but I'd appreciate the opinion of someone who actually IAL.
Amen. We need to stop pretending that EULAs have any more legal force than the statement "by reading this message you agree to pay me $1000".
Congress expressly gave you the right to make a copy in RAM. But what about that copy on your hard disk
Actually 17 USC 117 allows copying if "such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner", which should cover "copying" to your HD, RAM, cache, etc.
Here's something else I just thought of: publishers claim I need a license to run their product, which I allegedly agree to when I run the installer. But by that reasoning, I had no right to run the installer in the first place, since I hadn't agreed to a license prior to running it. Ergo, if shrinkwrap licenses are valid, it is impossible to legally install software.
Buy any USB mouse (I got a 5 button optical with scroll wheel for $20) and plug it in. The right button almost always does what you expect.
I get confused about how to do things that require a second or a third mouse button on PCs
Usually by control-clicking.
learning curve - I spent about 90 minutes yesterday trying to get enlightenment to install on OS X yesterday. it would have been a simple "make && make compile" in FreeBSD.
Try fink. Point and click installation of hundreds of Unix apps, including a rootless X server and lots of window managers (including enlightenment).
price - It seems that I get more bang for the buck with PCs.
That's probably true, although the difference isn't that large if you compare Macs to name-brand PCs.
Considering that Blizzard has already released a Carbon version of Starcraft, I would be very surprised if WC3 were not OS X native. Not that it matters much to me, since Blizzard gets no more of my money until they cease and desist their stupid DMCA tricks.
In other words, conservatives don't like government funding of the arts because it forcibly compels taxpayers to pay for material they may dislike or even find offensive. If you want to support your favorite media, reach into your wallet, not your neighbor's.
Moderate this up.