Duh. What do you thinky our current Sky Box or Tivo uses? Proprietary code run on a microproccessor/controller, even using Linux. The point of the creative commons is that we can provide more featureful, misfeatureless, bugless (and modifiable) code. Would you record programs on your microwave? I wouldn't, so get another PC to run your PVR from; shuttle PCs are probably no more expensive than a Sky+ box. (Karma whores, please confirm or deny this).
Lastly, why climb the mountain? Because it's there, and, also, because there is a mad gunman at the top with your family.
Why not have a license that specifically indicates which interfaces may be accessed by programs under which license; the Linux kernel already has something similar with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. It wouldn't change the primary indication of a derivative work, but it would certainly clear up linking issues?
Secondly, the purpose of the GPL seems to be such that anything so much as looking at it without being GPL compatible is against the license ; as such it is the purpose of the LGPL to allow proprietary programs to link with the program in question...
That merely resolves any licensing problems with the GPL, it still leaves any non web based implementation liable to royalties, which is the point of the article anyway. This workaround does not change anything.
This point has already been made, but either you or I have missed something:
Who is 'you'? Surely, the MIT License (and GPL, etc) are licenses on copyrightable works, so if you write an implementation of a web standard and then put a MIT style license on it, it in no way changes the license on the patent (and maybe not even if you were). So, if you then use the MIT licensed code for an implementation on a non-web technology, you are still liable for the patent royalties/license fees, just not any license fees or restrictions on the implementation. Surely this is not a workaround?
Yes, the domesday book is still readable 1000 years later. This is probably the norm for systems taht have a low rate of change and evolution. However, a feature in evolving systems is that some branchs die out, and the understanding/knowledge/system disappears. If we take a few examples, we can see that it is not so uncommon in to have dead languages too. Egyptian heiroglyphics were undecipherable to western civilisation (and modern egypt afaik) up to and including the early part of the century, after the Egyptian empire dissolved and the written language was lost. Another example of lost languages are Linear A and Linear B; the former was discovered to be a form of greek with different symbols (and some slightly modified rules) for writing; the latter has yet to be decided.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh. What do you thinky our current Sky Box or Tivo uses? Proprietary code run on a microproccessor/controller, even using Linux. The point of the creative commons is that we can provide more featureful, misfeatureless, bugless (and modifiable) code. Would you record programs on your microwave? I wouldn't, so get another PC to run your PVR from; shuttle PCs are probably no more expensive than a Sky+ box. (Karma whores, please confirm or deny this).
Lastly, why climb the mountain? Because it's there, and, also, because there is a mad gunman at the top with your family.
Why not have a license that specifically indicates which interfaces may be accessed by programs under which license; the Linux kernel already has something similar with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. It wouldn't change the primary indication of a derivative work, but it would certainly clear up linking issues?
Secondly, the purpose of the GPL seems to be such that anything so much as looking at it without being GPL compatible is against the license ; as such it is the purpose of the LGPL to allow proprietary programs to link with the program in question...
That merely resolves any licensing problems with the GPL, it still leaves any non web based implementation liable to royalties, which is the point of the article anyway. This workaround does not change anything.
This point has already been made, but either you or I have missed something:
Who is 'you'? Surely, the MIT License (and GPL, etc) are licenses on copyrightable works, so if you write an implementation of a web standard and then put a MIT style license on it, it in no way changes the license on the patent (and maybe not even if you were). So, if you then use the MIT licensed code for an implementation on a non-web technology, you are still liable for the patent royalties/license fees, just not any license fees or restrictions on the implementation. Surely this is not a workaround?
Yes, the domesday book is still readable 1000 years later. This is probably the norm for systems taht have a low rate of change and evolution. However, a feature in evolving systems is that some branchs die out, and the understanding/knowledge/system disappears. If we take a few examples, we can see that it is not so uncommon in to have dead languages too. Egyptian heiroglyphics were undecipherable to western civilisation (and modern egypt afaik) up to and including the early part of the century, after the Egyptian empire dissolved and the written language was lost. Another example of lost languages are Linear A and Linear B; the former was discovered to be a form of greek with different symbols (and some slightly modified rules) for writing; the latter has yet to be decided.