It appears that Nokia most likely wants to bundle the PyQt package into their phones. The problem arises that when the binding is linked against both Python and Qt, the GPL then extends to those products (according to the GNU website). Nokia is a business, if Riverbank had offered their product under a desired license to Nokia at a price that is less than what they could have developed it themselves, then they would have gotten paid for PyQt.
Put yourself in Nokia's shoes. They need a scripting interface to encourage development on their platform. How much would you pay riverbank for a product that does not exactly meet your needs? The GPL is simply not going to work in the phone environment because not everybody is going to want to license their apps under the GPL. The LGPL has proven to be a far superior compromise as evidenced by the fact that Qt (when it was GPL) previously lost traction to inferior products due to their GPL licensing.
According to the GNU FAQ, "The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone."
So I do not see why it matter whether it is GPL or LGPL. I am not going to link against PyQt when I can link directly against Qt, and the viral effect of the GPL does not extend to the python scripts that I write.
The way that the whole EULA thing has shaped up does not exactly present the US Law Schools in a positive light. I am not sure how anybody could come to the decision that it would be wise to allow for parties to retroactively apply contract terms that were not previously disclosed. How did this happen? How could the very simple idea of contracts that describe mutual agreement between parties get mutilated into a tool that mainly serves to enable dishonest sales practices? My guess is that many judges rule in favor of shrink-wrapped EULAs because they are so widely used, not because the law actually supports the way in which they are distributed.
My hope is that this MS license fiasco will serve as a lesson learned and demonstrate the pitfalls of non-disclosed contract terms to judges in the future. Maybe after seeing how this creates a three-way dispute where nobody can determine what was actually agreed upon some future judge will have a light come on upstairs.
" In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
The factors for fair use "include" those four criteria. This states in plain English that their are more factors that should be considered beyond these four. At least, that is what the defense was arguing.
It may be about sharing for you, but for me, it is hard to deal with the injustice of the system. I do not believe that you should ask from other what you are unwilling to ask of yourselves, and it pains me to see somebody get financially ruined for copyright infringement, knowing that most of us have been guilty of the same thing. How can this judge make this ruling, knowing that she has probably infringed on copyright at some point in her life and got away with it, and if by some small chance, she never infringed on copyright, then surely someone close to her has. What other law today is broken so oftenyet carries such a large penalty for those whom are caught? Copyright infringement is in a class by itself as the singular most unjust law in the Unites States.
copyright infringement may be against the law, but file sharing is not necessarily copyright infringement. Copyright is not black and white. Things like fair use create an enormous gray area, not to mention the fact that many consider copyright to be unconstitutional.
In my experience it takes way more time to fix your new computer than your old computer considering all of your programs that you need to install and all the stuff that needs to be uninstalled.
The US Military is currently all abuzz about OSS. Ecspecially the top leaders. They see that OSS development teams are managing to be successful in areas where military acquisition programs are failing. Software development in a military acquisition program is a painstakenly slow process. Software revisions take years on major acquisition programs. Quick patching of even serious bugs is impossible and even if it were possible can cost millions. Furthermore, the software is not sustainable. The software that they purchase is typically tied to a piece of hardware and when that hardware becomes unavailable or obselete, they cannot port that software to new hardware because they do not have the source code to do so.
Consider this, there are US military aircraft flying right now with hardware and software for which they have no source data. The systems are tied into critical data buses with other avionics. And get this...the hardware and software are designed and built in a foreign country (many times Israel, which is notorious for their espionage activities).
What is my point? The US military acquisition teams are not trained to handle the modern world of software where data rights play a key role in making sure that their systems are secure, sustainable, reliable, and affordable. They know that OSS does well in all of these aspects, but so have many closed source software teams. Until they understand why their acquisition programs have failed in this respect, they will not be successful in their attempt to fix their problems by mimicking OSS processes.
True, but you cannot piggy-back your own EULA on the back of the GPL or any other OSS license unless you are the copyright holder of the entire work (and some OSS licenses would even conflict with this). Afterall, in order to provide a "license" covering a piece of software, you must have a copyright to license.
That is, if the person actually agreed to a licensing agreement as opposed to some other type agreement. We do not know because there is no link to the actual license.
Most OSS licenses allow you to sell the software, but you cannot create a "license" to the software unless you are the copyright holder. I would love to see the site and actually see what they are claiming to license in the EULA.
Well, I don't really have a choice but to run something other than Windows on that hardware. It was not capable of running anything beyond Windows 98. But I also use Windows XP on some other machines so I am not just a "Linux person".
But that is not the point, The point is that the lock-in cycle causes businesses, governments, schools, and home users a lot of money over time and decreases overall efficiency. Take my workplace as an example, I have a computer that I cannot install on which I can install nothing. It has the capability to perform all your typical office functionality like word processing, charting, presentations, etc... There is no software allowed to be installed on the system that would cause it to need high end graphics or processing capability. All the functionality that the machine provides me is no more than the functionality that I used to get on a 450 MHz K6-2 machine. So why then do I receive a new computer every two years on average? I do not request a new PC, the IT group simply has to force out new machines to keep up with the new "requirements". The reason that I use requirements in quotes is because they are not real requirements in the sense of a desired capability. It is always the same old capability being redelivered in a new package because of the lock-in cycle.
Not only is Vista/Windows7 a waste of money for your business in the sense of costing you money for a useless package right now. But it is actually going to cost you money to maintain and change out your entire IT infrastructure. These benchmarks are pointless, because a 5% improvement in the speed of copying files is never going to help you recoup the investment you made in performing the upgrade to Vista/Windows7.
I believe that an 8 yr old OS can be updated and improved to support usb 2.0 and other hardware improvements and it is perfectly acceptable to charge for the additional hardware support. Every other operating system seems to evolve in this way. But that is not what Vista's primary function. Vista is not designed to support your new hardware, Vista is designed to not support your old hardware and to drive you into buying new hardware, otherwise the lock-in cycle would break.
For comparisons sake, I have an old computer running Linux 2.6 that predates Linux 2.2. Of course, there are limited things that you can do with such an old computer in terms of games and multimedia, but it does demonstrate that you OS should not be driving you to upgrade your hardware over a short period of time.
Seriously...Why are people obsessed with Vista and Windows 7? And why the obsession with 5% gains in performance?
Most people do not see a good reason to upgrade. Those that are upgrading are doing so because Vista comes preinstalled in new hardware. Where is the value to be gained in upgrading when I do not use the computer to do anything that was not possible on Windows 2000? All people really want is an operating system that supports their hardware and Windows 2000 would be fine for that if it was supported and updated. This migration to a 10Gb OS is completely unnecessary and I hope that more people start realizing this and stop worrying about miniscule performance changes so that we can finally break the MS lock-in cycle.
Here is how it works:
1. Sell new computers with snappy OS
2. Slowly apply updates to OS until it is a sluggish beast
We were looking at a new Toshiba notebook for my wife and were wondering how this whole downgrade worked. Do you get a copy of both Vista and XP? If you downgrade to XP will you be able to reinstall Vista in the future? or will they require you to purchase another license?
I also cannot understand the "fear" of Java. As far as languages go, it is pretty good. Nothing is perfect. In fact, I think that the similarity in development tools would make for an easier transition between the operating system, as opposed to C/C++ where you will have to get used to all the different libraries, IDEs, build tools, etc...
I have seen a lot of people recommending C/C++, but I that would not be my recommendation. If you want to be able to dive in and see quick results, I would choose a language that you are familiar with that has as little change as possible when switching between windows and Linux. Some of my preferences would be Java, Python, or C# (with Mono).
Also, I think it is a great idea to choose some cross development libraries like Qt or Gtk and begin your development in your familiar Windows environment, and then attempt to build and run in Linux.
You did catch the part about the suicide, right? That is important because that means that she killed herself. We also cannot say for certain that Lori Drew caused any harm at all. For all we know, the suicide would have occurred in absence of the email. That is why Lori Drew is not being brought up on murder or manslaughter charges. Rather she is being charged with computer fraud and abuse. The fact that the suicide occurred is really completely irrelevant as to whether Lori Drew actually committed computer fraud or abuse. The problem that arises in ruling that she did commit computer fraud or abuse is that she was doing something of which millions of others are guilty. So now, if you bully someone in a forum, you can be charged with the same thing as Lori Drew. It does not matter if the recipient of your bullying commits suicide or does anything else.
It's not intolerance. It may be hard for someone to hear and it may not be sensitive but it costs more to ship your ass around the world if you are heavier and consume more space. That is why it costs more to Fedex a 500lb shipment than a 20 lb package. The only difference is that reminding someone that they are larger hurts peoples feelings and their wallets.
The vast majority of Civil Servants in the DoD care a lot about the mission. Hell, half of them are retired military and for those that aren't retired military, they still have a military officer in their chain of command that can fire them.
That is how they do things in the Navy I guess. If you lose the main computers on military or civilian aircraft, you can still fly and land. I am surprised that the same standards to not apply to building ships.
Frankly, I do not see why we should use Apple and not use something free like Linux or BSD. All that you can do on DoD workstations is use an office suite. Decade old technology would suit most of their needs, yet they continue to upgrade machines and Operating Systems on an bi-annual basis. If you actually wanted to use your computer for more advanced functions, then you would need software installed which practically requires a three stars approval. Hell, I knew two people who were trying for over a year to get Matlab installed on their computers and it is an already approved package. They ended up leaving before they ever got it.
Slashdot Mirror
Put yourself in Nokia's shoes. They need a scripting interface to encourage development on their platform. How much would you pay riverbank for a product that does not exactly meet your needs? The GPL is simply not going to work in the phone environment because not everybody is going to want to license their apps under the GPL. The LGPL has proven to be a far superior compromise as evidenced by the fact that Qt (when it was GPL) previously lost traction to inferior products due to their GPL licensing.
So I do not see why it matter whether it is GPL or LGPL. I am not going to link against PyQt when I can link directly against Qt, and the viral effect of the GPL does not extend to the python scripts that I write.
My hope is that this MS license fiasco will serve as a lesson learned and demonstrate the pitfalls of non-disclosed contract terms to judges in the future. Maybe after seeing how this creates a three-way dispute where nobody can determine what was actually agreed upon some future judge will have a light come on upstairs.
the student agrees to the contract by remaining in the class
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
"
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"
The factors for fair use "include" those four criteria. This states in plain English that their are more factors that should be considered beyond these four. At least, that is what the defense was arguing.
It may be about sharing for you, but for me, it is hard to deal with the injustice of the system. I do not believe that you should ask from other what you are unwilling to ask of yourselves, and it pains me to see somebody get financially ruined for copyright infringement, knowing that most of us have been guilty of the same thing. How can this judge make this ruling, knowing that she has probably infringed on copyright at some point in her life and got away with it, and if by some small chance, she never infringed on copyright, then surely someone close to her has. What other law today is broken so oftenyet carries such a large penalty for those whom are caught? Copyright infringement is in a class by itself as the singular most unjust law in the Unites States.
copyright infringement may be against the law, but file sharing is not necessarily copyright infringement. Copyright is not black and white. Things like fair use create an enormous gray area, not to mention the fact that many consider copyright to be unconstitutional.
In my experience it takes way more time to fix your new computer than your old computer considering all of your programs that you need to install and all the stuff that needs to be uninstalled.
The US Military is currently all abuzz about OSS. Ecspecially the top leaders. They see that OSS development teams are managing to be successful in areas where military acquisition programs are failing. Software development in a military acquisition program is a painstakenly slow process. Software revisions take years on major acquisition programs. Quick patching of even serious bugs is impossible and even if it were possible can cost millions. Furthermore, the software is not sustainable. The software that they purchase is typically tied to a piece of hardware and when that hardware becomes unavailable or obselete, they cannot port that software to new hardware because they do not have the source code to do so.
Consider this, there are US military aircraft flying right now with hardware and software for which they have no source data. The systems are tied into critical data buses with other avionics. And get this...the hardware and software are designed and built in a foreign country (many times Israel, which is notorious for their espionage activities).
What is my point? The US military acquisition teams are not trained to handle the modern world of software where data rights play a key role in making sure that their systems are secure, sustainable, reliable, and affordable. They know that OSS does well in all of these aspects, but so have many closed source software teams. Until they understand why their acquisition programs have failed in this respect, they will not be successful in their attempt to fix their problems by mimicking OSS processes.
That is, if the person actually agreed to a licensing agreement as opposed to some other type agreement. We do not know because there is no link to the actual license.
Most OSS licenses allow you to sell the software, but you cannot create a "license" to the software unless you are the copyright holder. I would love to see the site and actually see what they are claiming to license in the EULA.
But that is not the point, The point is that the lock-in cycle causes businesses, governments, schools, and home users a lot of money over time and decreases overall efficiency. Take my workplace as an example, I have a computer that I cannot install on which I can install nothing. It has the capability to perform all your typical office functionality like word processing, charting, presentations, etc... There is no software allowed to be installed on the system that would cause it to need high end graphics or processing capability. All the functionality that the machine provides me is no more than the functionality that I used to get on a 450 MHz K6-2 machine. So why then do I receive a new computer every two years on average? I do not request a new PC, the IT group simply has to force out new machines to keep up with the new "requirements". The reason that I use requirements in quotes is because they are not real requirements in the sense of a desired capability. It is always the same old capability being redelivered in a new package because of the lock-in cycle.
Not only is Vista/Windows7 a waste of money for your business in the sense of costing you money for a useless package right now. But it is actually going to cost you money to maintain and change out your entire IT infrastructure. These benchmarks are pointless, because a 5% improvement in the speed of copying files is never going to help you recoup the investment you made in performing the upgrade to Vista/Windows7.
For comparisons sake, I have an old computer running Linux 2.6 that predates Linux 2.2. Of course, there are limited things that you can do with such an old computer in terms of games and multimedia, but it does demonstrate that you OS should not be driving you to upgrade your hardware over a short period of time.
Most people do not see a good reason to upgrade. Those that are upgrading are doing so because Vista comes preinstalled in new hardware. Where is the value to be gained in upgrading when I do not use the computer to do anything that was not possible on Windows 2000? All people really want is an operating system that supports their hardware and Windows 2000 would be fine for that if it was supported and updated. This migration to a 10Gb OS is completely unnecessary and I hope that more people start realizing this and stop worrying about miniscule performance changes so that we can finally break the MS lock-in cycle.
Here is how it works: 1. Sell new computers with snappy OS
2. Slowly apply updates to OS until it is a sluggish beast
3. Force user to buy better hardware
4. Only allow customer to buy new snappy OS
5. Goto step 2
But a lot of people still have 32-bit processors in their existing machines and see no good reason to upgrade to 64-bit.
Not to mention... $75K is a fairly generous offer for a patent that you are going to use to start a business.
We were looking at a new Toshiba notebook for my wife and were wondering how this whole downgrade worked. Do you get a copy of both Vista and XP? If you downgrade to XP will you be able to reinstall Vista in the future? or will they require you to purchase another license?
At least we haven't heard Fox New refer to it as "cyber terrorism" yet. Or maybe they have.
I have seen a lot of people recommending C/C++, but I that would not be my recommendation. If you want to be able to dive in and see quick results, I would choose a language that you are familiar with that has as little change as possible when switching between windows and Linux. Some of my preferences would be Java, Python, or C# (with Mono). Also, I think it is a great idea to choose some cross development libraries like Qt or Gtk and begin your development in your familiar Windows environment, and then attempt to build and run in Linux.
If I tell someone to go fuck themselves, would that make me a rapist?
You did catch the part about the suicide, right? That is important because that means that she killed herself. We also cannot say for certain that Lori Drew caused any harm at all. For all we know, the suicide would have occurred in absence of the email. That is why Lori Drew is not being brought up on murder or manslaughter charges. Rather she is being charged with computer fraud and abuse. The fact that the suicide occurred is really completely irrelevant as to whether Lori Drew actually committed computer fraud or abuse. The problem that arises in ruling that she did commit computer fraud or abuse is that she was doing something of which millions of others are guilty. So now, if you bully someone in a forum, you can be charged with the same thing as Lori Drew. It does not matter if the recipient of your bullying commits suicide or does anything else.
It's not intolerance. It may be hard for someone to hear and it may not be sensitive but it costs more to ship your ass around the world if you are heavier and consume more space. That is why it costs more to Fedex a 500lb shipment than a 20 lb package. The only difference is that reminding someone that they are larger hurts peoples feelings and their wallets.
The vast majority of Civil Servants in the DoD care a lot about the mission. Hell, half of them are retired military and for those that aren't retired military, they still have a military officer in their chain of command that can fire them.
That is how they do things in the Navy I guess. If you lose the main computers on military or civilian aircraft, you can still fly and land. I am surprised that the same standards to not apply to building ships.
Frankly, I do not see why we should use Apple and not use something free like Linux or BSD. All that you can do on DoD workstations is use an office suite. Decade old technology would suit most of their needs, yet they continue to upgrade machines and Operating Systems on an bi-annual basis. If you actually wanted to use your computer for more advanced functions, then you would need software installed which practically requires a three stars approval. Hell, I knew two people who were trying for over a year to get Matlab installed on their computers and it is an already approved package. They ended up leaving before they ever got it.