Believe it or not, Microsoft *also* has a trademark on the sole word "Windows", without the word "Microsoft" in front of it. That was a key part of the "Lindows" litigation a few years back - Lindows sought to invalidate that particular trademark, the judge was going to allow it, that ruling was upheld on interlocutory appeal, and Microsoft immediately settled for $20 million rather than have Lindows follow through.
The Mojave experiment is a failure because it basically embarrases the potential customer.
Unlike the Pepsi Challenges, or even the Folger's Crystals ads, this was not comparing two products from different companies and trying to convince you to switch, but rather the exact same product from the same company, ie "perceived Vista" vs "real Vista".
For instance, in the Pepsi Challenge, the message was that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, maybe you should drink Pepsi from now on. In the Folger's case, the message was that cheap convenient coffee is just as good as fancy restaurant coffee.
The only message in the Mojave experiment was "you're ignorant about the features of our products - you need to pay better attention".
So, I guess what I want to know is: what are they infringing? My guess is the name (trademark) or the board design (copyright), but who knows?
According to the complaint, it's just over the "Scrabulous" name allegedly infringing on the "Scrabble" trademark - there's a lot of other bitching about other intellectual property in the complaint (for instance, they list the dates when the instruction manual and board layouts were copyrighted) but that's all it boils down to when you get the section where they actually detail what they want.
The "email a photo" functionality is implemented by a third party as a widget. If you don't want to receive photos that way, simply don't choose that widget for display on the device. It's not like the device blindly accepts email photos and displays them.
It's explained in a better article that the 70 cent drop is in operating income per subscriber per month, not per movie, which would seem to imply that an average Netflix subscriber rents four movies per month.
In the GPL2, read section 3, particularly Section 3(c). In the case of commercial use, it's not sufficient to pass on the "written offer" to obtain the unmodified source code - you must also supply it, modified or not.
Which is precisely what Robertson wants - Microsoft ended up paying Lindows $20 million because they were about to lose their clearly generic "Windows" trademark.
They'll pull out the checkbook and pay him off again, or ignore it and hope it goes away on its own. The last thing they want is for this to go to court again.
That may be true, the the broadcasters don't give a crap whether or not you watch or care about their programs. The programs are only there to make you watch the ads - it's the only way they make money. The eyeballs watching ads are the only eyeballs they care about, not the ones watching shows. Programs *cost* them money.
The LGPL basically says that you have to provide a "linkable" version of the code, so that someone can modify the LGPL components and recombine them with the non-free components - it doesn't mean that the non-free components must be modifiable.
You're correct that the combined work must be released with a license that allows this, and that many people don't know that they need to do it. It's one of the most common misconceptions about the LGPL - most people think they only have to publish the source to the free components.
Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".
That's right, those components which fall under Moore's Law (the ram, the cpu, the flash) will just keep dropping in price.
Not necessarily - at some point it's no longer worth the fixed costs to manufacture, inventory, and sell, and the product line is simply discontinued and no longer available at any price.
...even if the GPL were somehow found invalid, it means you have NO license to distribute the software, and thus have not helped your case any!
It depends upon what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're trying to use the code without releasing the source, then you're right.
However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.
"exposing creationist pseudoscience"...
Slashdot is so biased I don't know why I even bother anymore. Bashing Christians is so fashionable these days.
Wait a second - I thought that creationism was a "valid alternative scientific explanation for the origin of the species", and not religion. Are you saying that it's really religion, specifically Christianity, wrapped in deceptive packaging?
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad "malloc" and "free" aren't C keywords.
Believe it or not, Microsoft *also* has a trademark on the sole word "Windows", without the word "Microsoft" in front of it. That was a key part of the "Lindows" litigation a few years back - Lindows sought to invalidate that particular trademark, the judge was going to allow it, that ruling was upheld on interlocutory appeal, and Microsoft immediately settled for $20 million rather than have Lindows follow through.
What do you means DirectX10 isn't cross platform? It runs in all six versions of Windows Vista!
Sure, but Apple doesn't ridicule their own customers , as Microsoft did.
Unlike the Pepsi Challenges, or even the Folger's Crystals ads, this was not comparing two products from different companies and trying to convince you to switch, but rather the exact same product from the same company, ie "perceived Vista" vs "real Vista".
For instance, in the Pepsi Challenge, the message was that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, maybe you should drink Pepsi from now on. In the Folger's case, the message was that cheap convenient coffee is just as good as fancy restaurant coffee.
The only message in the Mojave experiment was "you're ignorant about the features of our products - you need to pay better attention".
So, I guess what I want to know is: what are they infringing? My guess is the name (trademark) or the board design (copyright), but who knows?
According to the complaint, it's just over the "Scrabulous" name allegedly infringing on the "Scrabble" trademark - there's a lot of other bitching about other intellectual property in the complaint (for instance, they list the dates when the instruction manual and board layouts were copyrighted) but that's all it boils down to when you get the section where they actually detail what they want.
The "email a photo" functionality is implemented by a third party as a widget. If you don't want to receive photos that way, simply don't choose that widget for display on the device. It's not like the device blindly accepts email photos and displays them.
The GPL3 doesn't protect against patent claims by entities that have not distributed the particular code released under that license.
It's explained in a better article that the 70 cent drop is in operating income per subscriber per month, not per movie, which would seem to imply that an average Netflix subscriber rents four movies per month.
Probably because Amiga OS5 is the official operating system of the Moller Skycar.
In the GPL2, read section 3, particularly Section 3(c). In the case of commercial use, it's not sufficient to pass on the "written offer" to obtain the unmodified source code - you must also supply it, modified or not.
Which is precisely what Robertson wants - Microsoft ended up paying Lindows $20 million because they were about to lose their clearly generic "Windows" trademark.
They'll pull out the checkbook and pay him off again, or ignore it and hope it goes away on its own. The last thing they want is for this to go to court again.
That may be true, the the broadcasters don't give a crap whether or not you watch or care about their programs. The programs are only there to make you watch the ads - it's the only way they make money. The eyeballs watching ads are the only eyeballs they care about, not the ones watching shows. Programs *cost* them money.
The LGPL basically says that you have to provide a "linkable" version of the code, so that someone can modify the LGPL components and recombine them with the non-free components - it doesn't mean that the non-free components must be modifiable.
You're correct that the combined work must be released with a license that allows this, and that many people don't know that they need to do it. It's one of the most common misconceptions about the LGPL - most people think they only have to publish the source to the free components.
Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM patents WHERE infringing_os="linux';
Anyone checked lately for a Vogon Constructor Fleet?
It's a shame you never saw any part of California besides Los Angeles.
CmdrTaco: Mostly Harmless
Hmmm, sounds like somebody at Dell got The Phone Call.
If you're trying to use the code without releasing the source, then you're right.
However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.
Sounds like you blew the cover there, dude.
I hope he saves the cheerleader.