How about first finding out that it is, in fact, a "ripoff", then determining if there's any misrepresentation, then if there's any violation of any license, *then* figuring out what sort of vigilante action to take.
I like arbitrarily lynching people without any actual evidence of wrongdoing as much as the next guy. but I'm just saying....
I just find it Strange that they change the design of their site to mirror that of Apples at the sametime as they shamelessly copy iPhoto and iTunes gui:s
They've had that appearance for a couple of years now - a simple Google search would show that people have been bitching about the look of the site for a long time. They didn't do this recently. Of course, rounded tabs can be found on *hundreds* of sites, many of them much older than Apple's.
These images were not posted solely for the purpose of viewing in a browser. His posts explicitly invite others to download the images for other uses, in particular, desktop backgrounds.
So what was the license under which you believe you submitted the art? If, as you say, there was no license, then the default copyright rules would seem to apply - therefore *anyone* who has downloaded this artwork is in violation of your copyright.
However, you *did* post this artwork to a site whose sole known purpose is to allow downloads of the artwork you posted, and you explicitly invite people to download it, and you appear to have placed no restrictions on its usage.
So, what would be the basis for any complaint against Lindows/Linspire? Why is there no issue with kde-look.org (another commercial entity - they accept money for ad placement) for unauthorized distribution of your copyrighted material?
But that would therefore seem to mean that *any* copying, by *anybody* is also not permitted. Under this interpretation, anyone even looking at the images in a browser (which involves copying from the server to the client machine) is just as bad, since the author did not specifically allow that usage any more that he did Lindows' usage.
So what was the intention of posting the images in the first place?
There was a Mandrake guy there in a 10x10 booth with a tiny sign. He pretty much introduced himself as "one of the two guys left standing in the United States" after the layoff bloodbath and would mention the Mandrake bankruptcy and trademark lawsuit in the first couple of sentences when discussing the company.
I use Mandrake 9 myself, and I'm no marketing genius, but I have to say this was not exactly the best way to build any confidence in the future of the distribution.
....except that according to the filing, Lindows has not taken any venture capital whatsoever - they are totally running off of Michael Robertson's personal money.
It looks to me like they changed their business plan for some reason, maybe because they found out it was harder than they thought, or perhaps even unecessary given the later emergence of things like StarOffice.
We also don't see Rhapsody shipping from Apple, Chrome shipping from Microsoft, or any number of other projects announced with great fanfare but never released.
If you required companies to actually ship what (and when) they say they're going to ship, Microsoft would probably have the most to lose.
Re:I seriously want to know!
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 3, Informative
As I understand it from an article I read elsewhere, updates to the operating system are free, just as they are with Windows, and don't require a subscription.
What the click and play thing is for is other applications which don't come preinstalled, and unlike Microsoft's recent experiment with subscriptions, you're not required to maintain a subscription to continue to use the products you've acquired.
Since it's a Debian-based distribution, you can probably just use apt-get if you don't want to subscribe to their service.
Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public. I agree it's not perfect, but it's better than letting the investment bankers and large institutional investors be the only ones able to get the opening price.
However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.
The founders of the United States evidentally believed it was a strong possibility that a demographic majority would use democracy to suppress the rights of others. The first ten amendments to the Constituion - The Bill or Rights - were passed specifically to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority.
Despite that, the United States managed to legally keep people in slavery for a long time, and even once they were freed, abused the democratic system to keep them from voting for another hundred years.
Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions and to exercise control over their own lives.
But you'd be amazed how many of those very same people also want to prevent others from expressing their opinions or exercise control over their own lives.
So much for SCO saying the GPL has no weight in court:-)
...at least in Germany.
SCO has been claiming the GPL is in violation of the US Constitution, so a single court ruling in Germany probably won't change their minds about that.
When did Lindows settle with Microsoft? As far as I can tell, despite the name change to their product and website, the US litigation is still alive. No agreement seems to have been reached, no money or licenses have been exchanged, and Microsoft doesn't appear to have dropped any lawsuits yet.
I guess we'll get to see if Robertson is correct that Microsoft is really just using the trademark thing to come after his company by their reaction to the product name change. Given their recent absurdity over claiming that "Lin----" somehow infringes, they may just claim that Linspire also infringes and drag Lindows through court just to make an example of them.
Re:gl pipeline not for raytracing
on
The State of OpenGL
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Precisely how is this stoplight punishing anyone? All it seems to be doing is making the next intersection a red light so that the driver slows down and (hopefully) stops. If the driver chooses to subsequently run the red light, well, there's nothing special about this light over any other red light.
This is no different than metering lights on freeway onramps that control traffic flow. This one just happens to pay attention to speeders.
Where exactly did I say anything about Linux having or not having security problems? I'm just saying that you can't equate remotely exploitable security holes with difficulties installing a game as the original poster had done.
If he had instead pointed out a security problem in Linux, like, say, in the help system or the email client, comparable to the one in Windows, then I'd be the first to agree with him. Perhaps you know of one?
Re:gl pipeline not for raytracing
on
The State of OpenGL
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Uh, no. Pixar movies typically use the REYES micropolygon algorithm, with some assists from raytracing for certain effects as necessary, implemented within their Photorealistic Renderman (PRMan) product.
The notion that Pixar would use OpenGL for final rendering if only it were fast enough comes up every time a new video card or GL enhancement comes along just indicates how little people understand how Pixar actually makes their films. Oddly, Pixar really doesn't make this information much of a secret, and they'll even sell you the same software they use.
Interesting post, but what has difficulties in installing games on Linux got to do with the fact that Windows has a gaping security hole?
If Linux can't run a particular game out of the box, it doesn't hurt anyone. If Windows has a massive security hole, it costs businesses millions of dollars, clogs up the Internet with traffic, creates opportunities for spammers to make spam zombies, and exposes sensitive private data.
I just don't see how you can compare those two types of problems.
In Squeak (the direct descendant of Xerox's Smalltalk-80), you *do* get the source of the primitives and the virtual machine as part of the image.
They're written in a compatible subset of Smalltalk called "Slang" which is translated to C, which is then compiled and linked to produce a new virtual machine.
The advantage is that you can modify and run the Smalltalk code to simulate the virtual machine in order to test it, and kick out the C code when you're done. There are a few platform-specific files, of course, that are written in pure C.
One of the complaints that Lindows made to the US judge recently was that Microsoft was getting the foreign injunctions ex parte - Lindows was not even notified about the filings or the hearings until they had already taken place, and therefore had no opportunity to respond.
When only one side gets to present evidence, I don't think you can claim that the ruling is fair.
You do not recall correctly - Microsoft indeed has a trademark on the single word "windows", in addition to the combination "Microsoft Windows".
The key point of the case is that Lindows.com claims, as you have said, that the term "windows" had a generic meaning in the field of computers prior to Microsoft's usage and that the trademark grant was in error. Microsoft, on the other hand, absurdly claims that that "windows" did not have a prior generic meaning, and even if it did, then that prior meaning should not be considered. because they have since created a secondary meaning related solely to their product. Lindows.com counters that any secondary meaning is a natural and direct result of the exclusive use that Microsoft was incorrectly granted and is therefore irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I like arbitrarily lynching people without any actual evidence of wrongdoing as much as the next guy. but I'm just saying....
[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE] now available on DVD: Buy it today!
"It" is the physical DVD, not the movie.
These images were not posted solely for the purpose of viewing in a browser. His posts explicitly invite others to download the images for other uses, in particular, desktop backgrounds.
A squatter is someone who buys a domain containing somebody else's trademark - who had the trademark on "mp3"? Hint: nobody.
However, you *did* post this artwork to a site whose sole known purpose is to allow downloads of the artwork you posted, and you explicitly invite people to download it, and you appear to have placed no restrictions on its usage.
So, what would be the basis for any complaint against Lindows/Linspire? Why is there no issue with kde-look.org (another commercial entity - they accept money for ad placement) for unauthorized distribution of your copyrighted material?
So what was the intention of posting the images in the first place?
I use Mandrake 9 myself, and I'm no marketing genius, but I have to say this was not exactly the best way to build any confidence in the future of the distribution.
....except that according to the filing, Lindows has not taken any venture capital whatsoever - they are totally running off of Michael Robertson's personal money.
We also don't see Rhapsody shipping from Apple, Chrome shipping from Microsoft, or any number of other projects announced with great fanfare but never released.
If you required companies to actually ship what (and when) they say they're going to ship, Microsoft would probably have the most to lose.
What the click and play thing is for is other applications which don't come preinstalled, and unlike Microsoft's recent experiment with subscriptions, you're not required to maintain a subscription to continue to use the products you've acquired.
Since it's a Debian-based distribution, you can probably just use apt-get if you don't want to subscribe to their service.
Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public. I agree it's not perfect, but it's better than letting the investment bankers and large institutional investors be the only ones able to get the opening price.
Despite that, the United States managed to legally keep people in slavery for a long time, and even once they were freed, abused the democratic system to keep them from voting for another hundred years.
SCO has been claiming the GPL is in violation of the US Constitution, so a single court ruling in Germany probably won't change their minds about that.
...we have come ta meet 'n greet ya to make sure nuthin' bad happens ta yer pretty newspaper.
I guess we'll get to see if Robertson is correct that Microsoft is really just using the trademark thing to come after his company by their reaction to the product name change. Given their recent absurdity over claiming that "Lin----" somehow infringes, they may just claim that Linspire also infringes and drag Lindows through court just to make an example of them.
Yes - that image was used as an example in the original paper describing the REYES algorithm.
This is no different than metering lights on freeway onramps that control traffic flow. This one just happens to pay attention to speeders.
If he had instead pointed out a security problem in Linux, like, say, in the help system or the email client, comparable to the one in Windows, then I'd be the first to agree with him. Perhaps you know of one?
The notion that Pixar would use OpenGL for final rendering if only it were fast enough comes up every time a new video card or GL enhancement comes along just indicates how little people understand how Pixar actually makes their films. Oddly, Pixar really doesn't make this information much of a secret, and they'll even sell you the same software they use.
If Linux can't run a particular game out of the box, it doesn't hurt anyone. If Windows has a massive security hole, it costs businesses millions of dollars, clogs up the Internet with traffic, creates opportunities for spammers to make spam zombies, and exposes sensitive private data.
I just don't see how you can compare those two types of problems.
They're written in a compatible subset of Smalltalk called "Slang" which is translated to C, which is then compiled and linked to produce a new virtual machine.
The advantage is that you can modify and run the Smalltalk code to simulate the virtual machine in order to test it, and kick out the C code when you're done. There are a few platform-specific files, of course, that are written in pure C.
When only one side gets to present evidence, I don't think you can claim that the ruling is fair.
The key point of the case is that Lindows.com claims, as you have said, that the term "windows" had a generic meaning in the field of computers prior to Microsoft's usage and that the trademark grant was in error. Microsoft, on the other hand, absurdly claims that that "windows" did not have a prior generic meaning, and even if it did, then that prior meaning should not be considered. because they have since created a secondary meaning related solely to their product. Lindows.com counters that any secondary meaning is a natural and direct result of the exclusive use that Microsoft was incorrectly granted and is therefore irrelevant.