I just looked back over the past few days on digg.com, and could find no evidence of this HD-DVD keyposting. Have digg said 'we won't censor any more posts', and then censored all the posts, or what?
The twin towers had as one of their design parameters the ability to resist the impact of aircraft. To say skyscrapers are not designed to resist aircraft impact shows your ignorance, not the original posters.
After owning a Samsung 'Blade' A900 for a short time, I can't imagine this phone has any redeeming features whatsoever.
The A900's battery life was appallingly bad, you couldn't add words to the T9 dictionary, mp3 ringtones we limited to those you had to pay for (converting mp3 to AAC video was a hack, but i resent having to 'hack' this simple functionality) , interface was abyssmally bad, call quality was poor and the connectors were fiddly and poorly designed.
Basically, the worst piece of crap cellphone i've ever had the misfortune to use. I would recommend testing any samsung cellphone thoroughly before buying, as they certainly know how to build a lemon.
Its clear the old Captain America doesn't really symbolise what America stands for any more.
I'm picturing a Baron Harkonnen from the Lynch Dune movie, drenched in blood and oil. His superpower would be the ability to fly at 50,000 feet in an invisible plane, and destroy his enemies (along with anyone else who happened to get in the way), with radioactive munitions.
His weakness, which all superheroes have, would be his incredible stupidity.
Why, its almost as if people who license Windows find themselves with an undisclosed balance sheet liability - the cost of an audit, and the risk that even legally purchased copies of Microsoft software will need to be re-purchased because of a lack of documentation.
Every time MS announces a product, they say theyre 'betting the farm' on it - and then proceed to either lose billions on it (e.g. XBox, XBox 360) or deliver hopelessly late and with a tiny fraction of the promised features (Windows Vista).
Theres no risk with the XBox, theres no risk with MS Vista, theres no risk here - Ray Ozzie could flush 50 billion dollars down the toilet following a flawed and unfeasible business plan over the next 10 years, and MS could fire him, write the whole thing off and still be just fine financially.
So why not talk up 'software as a service', its as meaningful as them talking up tablet computing or voice recognition and how theyre 'betting the farm' on these things - they'll fail to deliver and instead give the world yet another 'Windows 95' in a long series of 'Windows 95's - I don't know why anyone is interested any more.
People will pay the MS tax on computer systems for the foreseeable future, and this gives them the ability to be completely insulated from any 'risk' whatsoever with new products or services. How are you going to access an online application without a PC, and when you buy your PC, youre paying MS for the privilege.
Innovation is completely dead at Microsoft, they arent in the business of shipping new products, they're in the business of shipping old ones. There is no core business outside of that, because they managed to destroy any competition, and thus the perception in the mind of the users that there is anything different - they are their own worst enemy in this respect.
Nobody likes or trusts MS - they just put up with them in order to take the easiest/cheapest path.
So come on, lets hear press release after press release claiming lower TCO, increased productivity, a revolutionary paradigm, how 'Ray Ozzie is turning the company around' etc. etc. etc. parroted by the mainstream computer media because they honestly have nothing else to write about - followed by - Another 'Windows 95'. I just can't wait.
Come on, seriously - wheres the Reason, Cubase or Pro Tools equivalents under Linux? And don't bother saying 'Ardour', because theres no way its ready to take on any of those 3 mentioned apps. I'm not saying its bad, its just not done yet, and when it is, it'll still be less polished and accessible than those apps.
Youre focussing on the letter of my suggestion, and completely ignoring it's intent.
The danger with GE crops is that large corporations will have the means to completely control the supply of these crops. Personally, i think in the case of GE foods, a ban on patents or forced sterilisation would act as a suitable check and balance to ensure that companies who trade in GE foodstuffs must do so because their GE modifications have some useful advantage over the alternatives, while ensuring that a diverse gene pool is maintained going forward.
Copyright law is intended to promote progress in the arts and sciences, its got nothing to do with GE corn, or cats. This isn't a copyright issue.
Or do you think that, for example, if some mega-corporation sells you drugs that bind to your DNA, that your kids should be considered their derivative work? Cos i sure don't.
Perhaps you could suggest an alternative set of limitations on GE foods to avoid the risks I have pointed out, if mine are unpalatable, instead of making analogies that are completely inapplicable.
Well, they wouldn't. Nobody would spend a million dollars GE-ing a corn if the corn they produced had no obvious benefits over existing corn varieties unless they could lock the farmer in.
And thats the whole point. Look, how many farmers do you know that collect and replant their seeds? Only if you are desparately poor and can't afford any other alternative would you bother with this. If the seeds produce good corn, and don't cost much more than non-GE varieties, then they'll sell. It's that simple.
I mean, when was the last time you say the CEO of a giant agricultural conglomerate begging for change on the street because joe shitkicker grew some potatoes from the leftovers of last years crop? With or without GE, these people profit obscenely while trying their best to eliminate the viability of the independent farmer.
I personally, don't think they need any more leverage against 'the little guy'. Can you honestly come up with a case for this based on real economics?
If your scenario was accurate, please explain how we have the wheat, rice and maize varieties that we do - your logic dictates that these foodstuffs wouldn't exist because of the abscence of patents.
Notwithstanding any of that, we grow enough food to feed everybody on the planet, easily. Where do you get the idea that more efficient crops will reduce the number of starving people?
GE crops are patented and trademarked. You can't independently grow these foods, prices are completely insulated from traditional agricultural pricing mechanisms and the danger of these corporations dumping vast amounts of GE crops at a loss only to make it up by raising prices and exploiting the monopoly they just gained later on is obvious, and very real.
Not to mention the terrible weakness and loss of variety that will result from basing entire food chains only on the single strain that provides the biggest profits for the corporation who holds the patent on the crop.
Basically, it comes down to an issue of trust. And no, i don't trust Monsanto to act ethically, fairly or honestly, and I have no trust in the governments that supposedly provide the checks and balances on these companies either.
GE food would probably be fine under the following conditions:
No patents on genetic sequences.
No forced sterilisation of seeds.
If these GE foods really are that good, why can't they compete on their merits with other foodstuffs instead of having all these additional 'GRM' - genetic rights management mechanisms added.
Thats my big beef with GE foods, its got nothing to do with productivity or efficiency. People have been growing their own food for thousands of years - widespread GE foods would essentially criminalize that activity.
Oh, theres no way in hell i would ever consider suing anyone for listening to my music. The point is that the head of the BPI is advocating illegal activities.
Also, where DRM is concerned, breaking a DRM method in order to copy the music - Lets say i release a CSS-encrypted DVD and joe blow rips it to his video iPod, then there are specific criminal penalties under the EUCD.
I'm not threatening anyone with anything, just pointing out that the head of the BPI has no standing to make his claims, and that current UK law is ridiculous.
Heres a nice succint quote from 'the horse's mouth':
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
Take a look at the legislation, specifically the 1988 copyright legislation as amended by the 2003 EUCD directive, and you'll find you're living in exactly the same fascistic dimension as I am.
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.
Have you read the law? It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
And yes, there was certainly legal controversy over whether VCRs etc. were legal, and the only reason these devices do exist is because have been found to have substantial non-infringing uses.
Theres nothing illegal to use an mp3 player to play back your own material, material legally supplied to you in the mp3 format, material you have a license to 'format-shift' or public domain materials, and also to play material where 'fair use' applies (this does not apply to personal use). Using an mp3 player or other device to play copyrighted content supplied on CD that you do not have permission to format-shift is illegal.
Where did you get the idea your initial assertion was true?
I mean, its nice for this guy to say that BPI won't sue - but whats to stop other copyright holders using the statutes of law, as they are written, to prosecute those who are quite clearly breaking it by making personal copies.
The BPI doesnt own copyright on all music, and so they have absolutely no standing to make any general claims around what UK citizens do and do not have to fear when copying music to their iPods.
For example, if I publish a piece of music on a CD and sell it to joe blow at a gig, and joe blow ends up with it on their iPod, then they have broken the law. I would be well within my rights to bring a case against them, under UK law, and the BPI has nothing to do with it.
The BPI, by spreading this misconception that all music in the UK is free of personal use restrictions is effectively advocating the piracy of works over which it has no rights whatsoever.
I mean, maybe these corporations and institutes figure that because they bought the laws initially they should be free to interpret them any way they like, but in my view they need to make it very clear that this waiver only applies to BPI-licensed materials, and that other content is still protected by the statutes as written.
You are *not* free to copy any music you like, for personal use.
I don't need Blu-Ray or any DRM-encumbered video interface, but give me a Linux OS with good OSS OpenGL drivers for the Cell GPU and PS2/PS3 game compatibility and i'll buy 3 of them.
I have written a mostly complete isometric adventure game framework, I have yet to release any actual games, due to the lack of anything but a vague idea of the story i want, and amount of work needed to create the graphics, but i have a decent renderer, lua scripting, sound and a pretty functional editor for the levels.
A lot of unpolished graphics on there, but the chess shot is kind of more where i want to go graphics-wise (i'm also doing a battle-chess type remake).
I'm undecided on licensing (e.g. whether/which parts to GPL etc.), and i'm not sure what my plans really are - it has been a totally solo project up till this point, and has been fun and very educational. However, if it looks like something you would be interested in collaborating on, or using to run a parallel project, get in touch via email (address on site.)
Please, show me how the nvidia driver is substantially similar to any portion of the Linux kernel.
Copyright law covers your 'storyline' scenario with a test as to whether the works are 'substantially similar'.
Look, if this theory held any water when it came to software, then SCO probably should triumph with its claims that Linux is unlawfully derived from UNIX.
Methods and Concepts are not protectable under copyright law, and it is only the expressions themselves that are tested for substantial similarity.
You can't sue someone for copyright infringement and win where you cannot show that their work is substantially similar to yours, and where 'Methods and Concepts' are publically known, such as with pretty much all of UNIX, as shown in the SCO case, in the absence of literal copying you have zero chance of prevailing on this.
If you literally cut and paste code from Linux, or code from Linux gets included during the process of linking, you could certainly show derivation and substantial similarity, but where you cannot, i'm afraid you can't use this argument.
If this is true, why does Linux not infringe on the copyright of various UNIX systems. They way they work - their 'storylines' are very similar indeed.
Surely all manufacturers whose peripherals Linux supports would have standing to sue the OSS driver developers because the OSS drivers work in a substantially similar way?
This is what SCO contends, in part of their case against IBM and it is very clear the only legal leg they have (and it is very shaky indeed) is a contract clause.
The nvidia binary driver doesn't contain anything included in the Linux kernel. It is a completely separate work, that interfaces purely with it's 'shim'.
The 'shim' is a different matter the 'shim' links to the kernel - the source code to the 'shim' must be made available to comply with the GPL, and it is available.
Putting the driver binary on the same CD as other GPLed software is not an infringement. It is mere aggregation and is explicity allowed under the GPL, as well being an activity that simply does not fall under the scope of the GPL.
The GPL reaches only as far as copyright law - the GPL is not a contract. If you do not violate copyright law, you do not violate the GPL, and putting the nvidia binary on the same CD as a GPLed component does not violate copyright law.
Put DVD disc in drive... wait... sit through copyright warning.. wait.. watch stupid asinine 'pirating dvds is an evil thought crime' mini-feature....wait... watch previews of upcoming releases... wait...studio credits scroll...wait... wait while stupid pointless menu displays... wait.. finally start feature (what you wanted to happen when disc was inserted).. wait while the same stupid studio credits scroll.. wait... try to fast forward and your player tells you the 'operation is prohibited'?? wtf? its *my* player, and its *my* disc.
The DVD experience is just so bad, and its guaranteed to only get worse with HD formats since all the stupid, cheesy ideas the studios have to 'add value' by ramming advertising, previews and propaganda down your throat as well as 'rich media' navigation screens will simply mean it takes even longer to just watch the f**king movie you wanted to.
Since I have experienced the simplicity and ease of just choosing video files to play off a Freevo menu, I dont think i'll ever buy any kind of video disc player again, unless it comes bundled with a computer which I can use to extract the content that I actually find relevant or desirable, and archive for convenient viewing.
If the MPAA/RIAA dont like the idea that I will choose to spend my time watching only content I find relevant or desirable (for which I am happy to pay for), they can go f**k themselves.
I mean, if the effects are so well understood, and its so safe, why don't we just plow the nuclear waste into the fields? Theres trillions of tons of topsoil, a little extra radioactive waste can't hurt anybody, right?
Theres no evidence that plowing it into the fields is a bad idea, since nobody has done it and measured the effects, so it must be a good idea, right?
The solution is simply to make bullets and bombs out of it, give it a catchy name like 'Depleted Uranium' instead of 'Radioactive Waste', start an illegal war under false pretences, and dump thousands of tons of it indiscriminately wherever fighting occurs, ensuring large amounts are vaporised and scattered through the atmosphere.
And, since its much easier to supress research into the carcinogenic, mutagenic and heavy-metal toxicity of the radioactive waste when it is part of a military programme, both the enemy, innocent civilians and friendly troops struck by friendly fire or on reconstruction duties can be sacrificed to slow (or rapid, depending on exposure) deaths due to radioactive and toxic particles ingested through exposure to battlegrounds where radioactive munitions have been used, or even the air, water and food chain in contaminated areas, with a clear conscience and plausible deniability.
I think the most easily recognisable warning of radioactive danger for future generations will be the US Flag.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked back over the past few days on digg.com, and could find no evidence of this HD-DVD keyposting. Have digg said 'we won't censor any more posts', and then censored all the posts, or what?
That makes it useless to me, at least.
The twin towers had as one of their design parameters the ability to resist the impact of aircraft. To say skyscrapers are not designed to resist aircraft impact shows your ignorance, not the original posters.
After owning a Samsung 'Blade' A900 for a short time, I can't imagine this phone has any redeeming features whatsoever.
The A900's battery life was appallingly bad, you couldn't add words to the T9 dictionary, mp3 ringtones we limited to those you had to pay for (converting mp3 to AAC video was a hack, but i resent having to 'hack' this simple functionality) , interface was abyssmally bad, call quality was poor and the connectors were fiddly and poorly designed.
Basically, the worst piece of crap cellphone i've ever had the misfortune to use. I would recommend testing any samsung cellphone thoroughly before buying, as they certainly know how to build a lemon.
Its clear the old Captain America doesn't really symbolise what America stands for any more.
I'm picturing a Baron Harkonnen from the Lynch Dune movie, drenched in blood and oil. His superpower would be the ability to fly at 50,000 feet in an invisible plane, and destroy his enemies (along with anyone else who happened to get in the way), with radioactive munitions.
His weakness, which all superheroes have, would be his incredible stupidity.
Why, its almost as if people who license Windows find themselves with an undisclosed balance sheet liability - the cost of an audit, and the risk that even legally purchased copies of Microsoft software will need to be re-purchased because of a lack of documentation.
Every time MS announces a product, they say theyre 'betting the farm' on it - and then proceed to either lose billions on it (e.g. XBox, XBox 360) or deliver hopelessly late and with a tiny fraction of the promised features (Windows Vista).
Theres no risk with the XBox, theres no risk with MS Vista, theres no risk here - Ray Ozzie could flush 50 billion dollars down the toilet following a flawed and unfeasible business plan over the next 10 years, and MS could fire him, write the whole thing off and still be just fine financially.
So why not talk up 'software as a service', its as meaningful as them talking up tablet computing or voice recognition and how theyre 'betting the farm' on these things - they'll fail to deliver and instead give the world yet another 'Windows 95' in a long series of 'Windows 95's - I don't know why anyone is interested any more.
People will pay the MS tax on computer systems for the foreseeable future, and this gives them the ability to be completely insulated from any 'risk' whatsoever with new products or services. How are you going to access an online application without a PC, and when you buy your PC, youre paying MS for the privilege.
Innovation is completely dead at Microsoft, they arent in the business of shipping new products, they're in the business of shipping old ones. There is no core business outside of that, because they managed to destroy any competition, and thus the perception in the mind of the users that there is anything different - they are their own worst enemy in this respect.
Nobody likes or trusts MS - they just put up with them in order to take the easiest/cheapest path.
So come on, lets hear press release after press release claiming lower TCO, increased productivity, a revolutionary paradigm, how 'Ray Ozzie is turning the company around' etc. etc. etc. parroted by the mainstream computer media because they honestly have nothing else to write about - followed by - Another 'Windows 95'. I just can't wait.
Because there arent any good ones?
Come on, seriously - wheres the Reason, Cubase or Pro Tools equivalents under Linux? And don't bother saying 'Ardour', because theres no way its ready to take on any of those 3 mentioned apps. I'm not saying its bad, its just not done yet, and when it is, it'll still be less polished and accessible than those apps.
Youre focussing on the letter of my suggestion, and completely ignoring it's intent.
The danger with GE crops is that large corporations will have the means to completely control the supply of these crops. Personally, i think in the case of GE foods, a ban on patents or forced sterilisation would act as a suitable check and balance to ensure that companies who trade in GE foodstuffs must do so because their GE modifications have some useful advantage over the alternatives, while ensuring that a diverse gene pool is maintained going forward.
Copyright law is intended to promote progress in the arts and sciences, its got nothing to do with GE corn, or cats. This isn't a copyright issue.
Or do you think that, for example, if some mega-corporation sells you drugs that bind to your DNA, that your kids should be considered their derivative work? Cos i sure don't.
Perhaps you could suggest an alternative set of limitations on GE foods to avoid the risks I have pointed out, if mine are unpalatable, instead of making analogies that are completely inapplicable.
Well, they wouldn't. Nobody would spend a million dollars GE-ing a corn if the corn they produced had no obvious benefits over existing corn varieties unless they could lock the farmer in.
And thats the whole point. Look, how many farmers do you know that collect and replant their seeds? Only if you are desparately poor and can't afford any other alternative would you bother with this. If the seeds produce good corn, and don't cost much more than non-GE varieties, then they'll sell. It's that simple.
I mean, when was the last time you say the CEO of a giant agricultural conglomerate begging for change on the street because joe shitkicker grew some potatoes from the leftovers of last years crop? With or without GE, these people profit obscenely while trying their best to eliminate the viability of the independent farmer.
I personally, don't think they need any more leverage against 'the little guy'. Can you honestly come up with a case for this based on real economics?
If your scenario was accurate, please explain how we have the wheat, rice and maize varieties that we do - your logic dictates that these foodstuffs wouldn't exist because of the abscence of patents.
Notwithstanding any of that, we grow enough food to feed everybody on the planet, easily. Where do you get the idea that more efficient crops will reduce the number of starving people?
GE crops are patented and trademarked. You can't independently grow these foods, prices are completely insulated from traditional agricultural pricing mechanisms and the danger of these corporations dumping vast amounts of GE crops at a loss only to make it up by raising prices and exploiting the monopoly they just gained later on is obvious, and very real.
Not to mention the terrible weakness and loss of variety that will result from basing entire food chains only on the single strain that provides the biggest profits for the corporation who holds the patent on the crop.
Basically, it comes down to an issue of trust. And no, i don't trust Monsanto to act ethically, fairly or honestly, and I have no trust in the governments that supposedly provide the checks and balances on these companies either.
GE food would probably be fine under the following conditions:
No patents on genetic sequences.
No forced sterilisation of seeds.
If these GE foods really are that good, why can't they compete on their merits with other foodstuffs instead of having all these additional 'GRM' - genetic rights management mechanisms added.
Thats my big beef with GE foods, its got nothing to do with productivity or efficiency. People have been growing their own food for thousands of years - widespread GE foods would essentially criminalize that activity.
Does this mean they will ship an actual product, without any of the features talked about here, in 4 or 5 years time?
I feel pretty scared that Bender really is going to 'Kill All Humans'..
Oh, theres no way in hell i would ever consider suing anyone for listening to my music. The point is that the head of the BPI is advocating illegal activities.
Also, where DRM is concerned, breaking a DRM method in order to copy the music - Lets say i release a CSS-encrypted DVD and joe blow rips it to his video iPod, then there are specific criminal penalties under the EUCD.
I'm not threatening anyone with anything, just pointing out that the head of the BPI has no standing to make his claims, and that current UK law is ridiculous.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm
Heres a nice succint quote from 'the horse's mouth':
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
Take a look at the legislation, specifically the 1988 copyright legislation as amended by the 2003 EUCD directive, and you'll find you're living in exactly the same fascistic dimension as I am.
In fact, take a look at this page:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm
i quote:
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.
Have you read the law? It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
And yes, there was certainly legal controversy over whether VCRs etc. were legal, and the only reason these devices do exist is because have been found to have substantial non-infringing uses.
Theres nothing illegal to use an mp3 player to play back your own material, material legally supplied to you in the mp3 format, material you have a license to 'format-shift' or public domain materials, and also to play material where 'fair use' applies (this does not apply to personal use). Using an mp3 player or other device to play copyrighted content supplied on CD that you do not have permission to format-shift is illegal.
Where did you get the idea your initial assertion was true?
I mean, its nice for this guy to say that BPI won't sue - but whats to stop other copyright holders using the statutes of law, as they are written, to prosecute those who are quite clearly breaking it by making personal copies.
The BPI doesnt own copyright on all music, and so they have absolutely no standing to make any general claims around what UK citizens do and do not have to fear when copying music to their iPods.
For example, if I publish a piece of music on a CD and sell it to joe blow at a gig, and joe blow ends up with it on their iPod, then they have broken the law. I would be well within my rights to bring a case against them, under UK law, and the BPI has nothing to do with it.
The BPI, by spreading this misconception that all music in the UK is free of personal use restrictions is effectively advocating the piracy of works over which it has no rights whatsoever.
I mean, maybe these corporations and institutes figure that because they bought the laws initially they should be free to interpret them any way they like, but in my view they need to make it very clear that this waiver only applies to BPI-licensed materials, and that other content is still protected by the statutes as written.
You are *not* free to copy any music you like, for personal use.
I don't need Blu-Ray or any DRM-encumbered video interface, but give me a Linux OS with good OSS OpenGL drivers for the Cell GPU and PS2/PS3 game compatibility and i'll buy 3 of them.
I have written a mostly complete isometric adventure game framework, I have yet to release any actual games, due to the lack of anything but a vague idea of the story i want, and amount of work needed to create the graphics, but i have a decent renderer, lua scripting, sound and a pretty functional editor for the levels.
http://marchingcubes.com/games.html
A lot of unpolished graphics on there, but the chess shot is kind of more where i want to go graphics-wise (i'm also doing a battle-chess type remake).
I'm undecided on licensing (e.g. whether/which parts to GPL etc.), and i'm not sure what my plans really are - it has been a totally solo project up till this point, and has been fun and very educational. However, if it looks like something you would be interested in collaborating on, or using to run a parallel project, get in touch via email (address on site.)
Please, show me how the nvidia driver is substantially similar to any portion of the Linux kernel.
Copyright law covers your 'storyline' scenario with a test as to whether the works are 'substantially similar'.
Look, if this theory held any water when it came to software, then SCO probably should triumph with its claims that Linux is unlawfully derived from UNIX.
Methods and Concepts are not protectable under copyright law, and it is only the expressions themselves that are tested for substantial similarity.
You can't sue someone for copyright infringement and win where you cannot show that their work is substantially similar to yours, and where 'Methods and Concepts' are publically known, such as with pretty much all of UNIX, as shown in the SCO case, in the absence of literal copying you have zero chance of prevailing on this.
If you literally cut and paste code from Linux, or code from Linux gets included during the process of linking, you could certainly show derivation and substantial similarity, but where you cannot, i'm afraid you can't use this argument.
If this is true, why does Linux not infringe on the copyright of various UNIX systems. They way they work - their 'storylines' are very similar indeed.
Surely all manufacturers whose peripherals Linux supports would have standing to sue the OSS driver developers because the OSS drivers work in a substantially similar way?
This is what SCO contends, in part of their case against IBM and it is very clear the only legal leg they have (and it is very shaky indeed) is a contract clause.
The nvidia binary driver doesn't contain anything included in the Linux kernel. It is a completely separate work, that interfaces purely with it's 'shim'.
The 'shim' is a different matter the 'shim' links to the kernel - the source code to the 'shim' must be made available to comply with the GPL, and it is available.
Putting the driver binary on the same CD as other GPLed software is not an infringement. It is mere aggregation and is explicity allowed under the GPL, as well being an activity that simply does not fall under the scope of the GPL.
The GPL reaches only as far as copyright law - the GPL is not a contract. If you do not violate copyright law, you do not violate the GPL, and putting the nvidia binary on the same CD as a GPLed component does not violate copyright law.
Come on, somebody poke a hole in that.
Put DVD disc in drive... wait... sit through copyright warning.. wait.. watch stupid asinine 'pirating dvds is an evil thought crime' mini-feature....wait... watch previews of upcoming releases... wait...studio credits scroll...wait... wait while stupid pointless menu displays... wait.. finally start feature (what you wanted to happen when disc was inserted).. wait while the same stupid studio credits scroll.. wait... try to fast forward and your player tells you the 'operation is prohibited'?? wtf? its *my* player, and its *my* disc.
The DVD experience is just so bad, and its guaranteed to only get worse with HD formats since all the stupid, cheesy ideas the studios have to 'add value' by ramming advertising, previews and propaganda down your throat as well as 'rich media' navigation screens will simply mean it takes even longer to just watch the f**king movie you wanted to.
Since I have experienced the simplicity and ease of just choosing video files to play off a Freevo menu, I dont think i'll ever buy any kind of video disc player again, unless it comes bundled with a computer which I can use to extract the content that I actually find relevant or desirable, and archive for convenient viewing.
If the MPAA/RIAA dont like the idea that I will choose to spend my time watching only content I find relevant or desirable (for which I am happy to pay for), they can go f**k themselves.
I mean, if the effects are so well understood, and its so safe, why don't we just plow the nuclear waste into the fields? Theres trillions of tons of topsoil, a little extra radioactive waste can't hurt anybody, right?
Theres no evidence that plowing it into the fields is a bad idea, since nobody has done it and measured the effects, so it must be a good idea, right?
The solution is simply to make bullets and bombs out of it, give it a catchy name like 'Depleted Uranium' instead of 'Radioactive Waste', start an illegal war under false pretences, and dump thousands of tons of it indiscriminately wherever fighting occurs, ensuring large amounts are vaporised and scattered through the atmosphere.
And, since its much easier to supress research into the carcinogenic, mutagenic and heavy-metal toxicity of the radioactive waste when it is part of a military programme, both the enemy, innocent civilians and friendly troops struck by friendly fire or on reconstruction duties can be sacrificed to slow (or rapid, depending on exposure) deaths due to radioactive and toxic particles ingested through exposure to battlegrounds where radioactive munitions have been used, or even the air, water and food chain in contaminated areas, with a clear conscience and plausible deniability.
I think the most easily recognisable warning of radioactive danger for future generations will be the US Flag.