Indeed. IANAL, so would anyone who is please explain to me why would this not be so: If there is a tax on IP, I can forsee companies asking for exclusive licensing agreements instead of having copyrights assigned to them. So their employees still own the copyrights and have to pay the copyright fees, but they can only license them to their employer by their contract. Worse, if they use any IP that the company owns, then their contract might allow them only having a license to the work while an employee. For example, a cartoonist works for Disney on a new Mickey Mouse Movie. Disney pays copyright tax on Mickey Mouse, while they license the cartoons from the cartoonist. The cartoonist pays the copyright fees since he owns the copyright, but if he leaves Disney, his own license to use Mickey Mouse in his drawings is revoked and he can't sell his IP to anyone. In effect, the company diverted some of the copyright tax to their employees. They still have to pay a tax on Mickey Mouse itself, but not for the movie.
The thing is, the Guardian of Forever that appeared in Harlan Ellison's scripts was very, very different than what appeared in the episode. Ellison's Guardian was an old man or a group of old men, and the time portal was a pillar of light. The "donut-of-time" which appeared in the episode was probably a product of either Roddenberry, Fontana, or someone else on the writing staff. Ellison's contributions to the final Guardian seemed to be vague and mostly in setting and name. I am not saying which version is superior, just that Ellison's rants about the Guardian of Forever are really exaggerated.
I have heard of Chaumian mix spam spam spam and spam or a spam spam DC-net sausage and spam. Spam. But instead I think I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam! Spam Spam Spam Spam... Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
(Sorry, the title of the article ending with "spam scan" encouraged me. Spam.)
That's very misleading. The MS licenses does put conditions on use - granting MS permission to use your patents "that you claim are infringed by the software." You don't grant MS to use your patents that are unrelated to the software. The GPL has the same restriction, that "you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." I just don't understand how you are making these claims about MS's licenses.
IANAL. I don't know why you are disappointed. The GPL contains the same usage terms that the Ms-PL and Ms-RL licenses seem to have. From the GPL:
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
Neither GPL or Ms-PL could offer this grant without being both a usage and distribution license. The Ms-PL/RL licenses don't seem to go beyond this in their terms, so I don't see how you can say it is not Free software.
Vincini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: Are you the sort of man who would install the rootkit into his own computer or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would install the rootkit into his own computer because he would know that only a great fool would install what he was given in a popup. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool - you would have counted on it - so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Westley: You've made your decision then?
Vincini: Oh not remotely! Because Blue Pill comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with copyright infringers. And copyright infringers are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Westley: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vincini: Wait 'till I get going! Where was I?
Westley: Australia.
Vincini: Yes, Australia! And you must have suspected I would've know the rootkit's origin so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of me.
Westley: You're just stalling now.
Vincini: You'd like to think that wouldn't you?!? You've beaten my giant password which means you're firewall's exceptionally strong, so you could've installed the laptop in your own computer trusting on your processing power to save you, so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must've studied - and in studying you must've learned that man is mortal, so you would've installed the rootkit as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of me.
Westley: You're trying to trick into giving away something. It won't work.
Vincini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the rootkit is!
Westley: Then make your choice!
Vincini: I will. And I choose... What in the world can that be?!?
Westley: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vincini: Oh well I... I could've sworn I saw something... No matter.
Westley: What's so funny?
Vincini: I'll tell ya in a minute. First, let's boot up. Me from my computer and you from yours.
Westley: You guessed wrong.
Vincini: You only think I guessed wrong. That's what's so funny! I switched laptops when your back was turned! Haha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when identity theft is on the line! HAHAHAHAHAhaha! aHahahahaha! aHahaha!
Very easy. However, they have said that they won't disclose which patents are being violated because:
1. The Free software community would be able to discredit the patents (e.g. provide evidence of prior art, show the code isn't infringing, etc).
2. The Free software developers would be able to remove the offending code.
Excuse my ignorance. If they don't make a good faith effort to stop the patent infringement, why doesn't that hurt Microsoft's case? I thought that if you didn't take reasonable measures to resolve your dispute before turning to a lawsuit, then that mistake could be used against your side.
I'm not so sure about this system. There must be errors in the database. What happens to the unfortunate individuals who don't match because of such an error? This also can be an easy way for the Chinese government to censor people.
If someone says something that the government doesn't like, they just insert an "error" into the database. Instant harassment that those poor individuals will have to go through before the error is fixed. Or even worse, the government could not admit to the change and simply lock the person up on fraud.
Interesting. In Quicktime it sounds different than in Winamp. Even in Winamp, it is different with the equalizer on and off (set to "laptop speaker/headphones" setting). Even then, it is different with and without the earphones on my laptop. Which settings should the test be at? Sometimes I can hear it and other times I can't. I'm only 25, BTW.
Thanks for that post. It was incredibly informative!!! I always wondered what the rules of the road for big rigs were. They aren't emphansized much in the driving book.
AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission. I think they generally do not allow people to modify the license in ways they see fit without changing its name. So if you can't just fork the GPL, you have to write a whole new one yourself. But IANAL so someone else should confirm this.
I recently derived the famous equation in my slashdot journal entry. It can be found when starting from the assumptions Einstein had when Special Relativity was first proposed. That is:
The laws of the universe are valid in all inertial reference frames.
The strength of electric and magnetic fields are each a certain constant in space.
From the second axiom, you can show that the speed of light only depends on the strength of electric and magnetic fields in space using Maxwell's equations. An interesting derivation that requires vector calculus, so I'll save the pain of it for you.;-) From the first axiom, you can show that the speed of light violated Galilean Relativity.
Knowing that Galilean Relativity is still useful, Einstein proposed another assumption:
To fix Relativity you need only a simple linear correction factor.
From that, you can derive the Lorentz Transformations. Then while examining how those transformations affect the conservation of momentum in collisions you can derive a more useful definition of momentum based on the old definition and that correction factor.
Finally using the new equations of Momentum and the Lorentz Transformations, you can redo Young's derivation of Kinetic Energy using the old definitions of velocity, force, and energy. The end result is a mass at rest still has some energy. This energy is called the rest energy and is related by the famous relation. That's what Einstein's equation says (no hokey about relativistic mass please).
Question: IANAL, so I'm confused. That seems, to me, to be a wrong conclusion by the Debian people. I agree that the license fragments listed by them indicate that:
Basically, this means that if you implement any part of the new 1.2 API or Jini API, even from scratch, Sun will "own" your implementation and you will have to pay them for the right to use it. (source)
Does the following paragraph from satisfy those concerns:
NOTICE; LIMITED LICENSE GRANTS: Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under the Sun's applicable intellectual property rights to view, download, use and reproduce the Specification only for the purpose of internal evaluation, which shall be understood to include developing applications intended to run on an implementation of the Specification provided that such applications do not themselves implement any portion(s) of the Specification.
That seems, to me, to say that you can use the documentation to write an application that uses the specs. So Sun does not "own" any application that uses the spec to Java. Note that interfaces and classes designed to be implemented or subclassed in the Java sense of those words are being used as intended, so I think that "implements a spec" is different from implements in the Java sense. That is, implemening java.util.Iterator doesn't make your code an implementation of the spec.
Implementations of the spec, it seems to me, is software that runs applications that use the spec. Like a JVM and its associated classes/interfaces for instance. In those cases, the following holds:
Sun also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or patent rights it may have in the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that:
fully implements the Spec(s) including all its required interfaces and functionality;
does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented;
passes the TCK (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification.
That basically states, to me, that you can't implement a core class that deviates from its spec. Since the entire specification is a set of specs of individual classes, you can choose which classes you support (as long as they fulfill the contract specified by the docs). So in that way you are not allowed to intentionally write incompatible software.
I don't know if that is a good thing or not, but it doesn't seem as bad to me as what you and Debian are implying. However, I am probably wrong as IANAL and often get confused by this license stuff. Can anyone help me?
When I was younger, the ability to program the robotic turtle really empowered me! The fancy shapes and colors produce amazed me, and it made me feel like I was accomplishing something. It isn't a coincidence that one of the first things I programmed in Integer BASIC (my second language) was a clone of LOGO for the IIgs (also, we couldn't afford a copy).
I still feel that way. In fact, to learn to program you really should start with simple text-only (like command line) or path-only (like turtle maps) interface stuff. Anything else requires the ability to think in terms of metaphors that are hard for newbies to grasp. It also helps new programmers learn to program in steps (i.e. design) rather than struggle with the grammar or vocabulary (i.e. one big main function).
While you are rewriting your PURL server, could you make it easy to switch individual redirects (that's not me) to 303 Founds to be compliant with HTTPRange-14? Even better, a per PURL option for 302 or 303 redirects would be nice. I don't really like the HTTPRange-14 compromise, but it is better than nothing I guess.
I agree that mainstream fusion work will be important and is probably the right track toward a practical fusion powerplant.
they shall yet be little more than a labtable source of neutrons
However, remember that Cathode Ray tubes were also once little more than a labtable source of tightly controlled electrons. New sources of materials often lead into practical applications not originally envisioned.
I agree, although I am not a lawyer nor is this legal advice. I was thinking of a different analogy though. Say you put a water fountain outside with easy access from public property. Like a sidewalk drinking well for instance.
Well, it seems you could be responsible for the water quality of the fountain, since it is assumed members of the public will injest the water. I would likewise assume that using an unencrypted wireless access point from public property would fall under the same guidelines.
If you don't want to be responsible for a public fountain, it is the owner's responsibility to fence it in. And if you don't want people using your wireless network, then encrypt it (or at least put up a sign)!
I am not from Google, but my project was accepted for the Summer of Code. My project has nothing to do with BSD or GNU/Linux. It involves a homogenizing the various interfaces for all of the semantic web frameworks around like Jena, Sesame, Redland, and others. Sort of like SAX or DOM for RDF.
Don't be sad that your project wasn't accepted. (What was it tho?) There are lots of opportunities for open source developers. Some alternatives were posted in summer-discuss.
Thank you very much Google and Semedia, by the way.
To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire. Why spoil that?
Personally, relevations and surprises in any art form are mearly one-shot deals. Afterward the initial viewing, they are never surprises again. To me, the real enjoyment of a show is in the journey to the surprise or relevation. That's one reason why I enjoy second-parts and the middle of stories. Besides I wasn't really blown away from the relevation in Empire when watching it so long ago. I had the luxury of watching Jedi immediately afterwards, so that may have colored my experience....
According to that formula on the site, RD+V)F+S)/A:
Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognizability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V), and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).
The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added, and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."
Therefore, The Dick Van Dyke Show must be the best sitcom ever (with real actors). Unsuccessful schemes: check. Differetial in social status: (barely) check. Verbal wit: check. Delusions of grandeur: check. Recognizability of Dick: check. Excessive falling over: check! Q.E.D. The only other contender, I think, would be I Love Lucy.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. IANAL, so would anyone who is please explain to me why would this not be so: If there is a tax on IP, I can forsee companies asking for exclusive licensing agreements instead of having copyrights assigned to them. So their employees still own the copyrights and have to pay the copyright fees, but they can only license them to their employer by their contract. Worse, if they use any IP that the company owns, then their contract might allow them only having a license to the work while an employee. For example, a cartoonist works for Disney on a new Mickey Mouse Movie. Disney pays copyright tax on Mickey Mouse, while they license the cartoons from the cartoonist. The cartoonist pays the copyright fees since he owns the copyright, but if he leaves Disney, his own license to use Mickey Mouse in his drawings is revoked and he can't sell his IP to anyone. In effect, the company diverted some of the copyright tax to their employees. They still have to pay a tax on Mickey Mouse itself, but not for the movie.
The thing is, the Guardian of Forever that appeared in Harlan Ellison's scripts was very, very different than what appeared in the episode. Ellison's Guardian was an old man or a group of old men, and the time portal was a pillar of light. The "donut-of-time" which appeared in the episode was probably a product of either Roddenberry, Fontana, or someone else on the writing staff. Ellison's contributions to the final Guardian seemed to be vague and mostly in setting and name. I am not saying which version is superior, just that Ellison's rants about the Guardian of Forever are really exaggerated.
I have heard of Chaumian mix spam spam spam and spam or a spam spam DC-net sausage and spam. Spam. But instead I think I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam! Spam Spam Spam Spam... Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
(Sorry, the title of the article ending with "spam scan" encouraged me. Spam.)
That's very misleading. The MS licenses does put conditions on use - granting MS permission to use your patents "that you claim are infringed by the software." You don't grant MS to use your patents that are unrelated to the software. The GPL has the same restriction, that "you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." I just don't understand how you are making these claims about MS's licenses.
IANAL. I don't know why you are disappointed. The GPL contains the same usage terms that the Ms-PL and Ms-RL licenses seem to have. From the GPL:
From the Ms-PL:
Neither GPL or Ms-PL could offer this grant without being both a usage and distribution license. The Ms-PL/RL licenses don't seem to go beyond this in their terms, so I don't see how you can say it is not Free software.
What were the titles of those books? That sounds like an interesting assignment.
Vincini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: Are you the sort of man who would install the rootkit into his own computer or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would install the rootkit into his own computer because he would know that only a great fool would install what he was given in a popup. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool - you would have counted on it - so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Westley: You've made your decision then?
Vincini: Oh not remotely! Because Blue Pill comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with copyright infringers. And copyright infringers are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Westley: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vincini: Wait 'till I get going! Where was I?
Westley: Australia.
Vincini: Yes, Australia! And you must have suspected I would've know the rootkit's origin so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of me.
Westley: You're just stalling now.
Vincini: You'd like to think that wouldn't you?!? You've beaten my giant password which means you're firewall's exceptionally strong, so you could've installed the laptop in your own computer trusting on your processing power to save you, so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must've studied - and in studying you must've learned that man is mortal, so you would've installed the rootkit as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the laptop in front of me.
Westley: You're trying to trick into giving away something. It won't work.
Vincini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the rootkit is!
Westley: Then make your choice!
Vincini: I will. And I choose... What in the world can that be?!?
Westley: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vincini: Oh well I... I could've sworn I saw something... No matter.
Westley: What's so funny?
Vincini: I'll tell ya in a minute. First, let's boot up. Me from my computer and you from yours.
Westley: You guessed wrong.
Vincini: You only think I guessed wrong. That's what's so funny! I switched laptops when your back was turned! Haha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when identity theft is on the line! HAHAHAHAHAhaha! aHahahahaha! aHahaha!
*bluescreen of death*
Excuse my ignorance. If they don't make a good faith effort to stop the patent infringement, why doesn't that hurt Microsoft's case? I thought that if you didn't take reasonable measures to resolve your dispute before turning to a lawsuit, then that mistake could be used against your side.
I moderated your post wrong. I think it is actually a very good post, so I am commenting in this story to undo my moderation. I apologize.
I'm not so sure about this system. There must be errors in the database. What happens to the unfortunate individuals who don't match because of such an error? This also can be an easy way for the Chinese government to censor people.
If someone says something that the government doesn't like, they just insert an "error" into the database. Instant harassment that those poor individuals will have to go through before the error is fixed. Or even worse, the government could not admit to the change and simply lock the person up on fraud.
Interesting. In Quicktime it sounds different than in Winamp. Even in Winamp, it is different with the equalizer on and off (set to "laptop speaker/headphones" setting). Even then, it is different with and without the earphones on my laptop. Which settings should the test be at? Sometimes I can hear it and other times I can't. I'm only 25, BTW.
Thanks for that post. It was incredibly informative!!! I always wondered what the rules of the road for big rigs were. They aren't emphansized much in the driving book.
AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission. I think they generally do not allow people to modify the license in ways they see fit without changing its name. So if you can't just fork the GPL, you have to write a whole new one yourself. But IANAL so someone else should confirm this.
I'm also running the Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 (built 2005-10-13) without any crash whatsoever on Windows XP too. Perhaps it is a profile or extension error?
I recently derived the famous equation in my slashdot journal entry. It can be found when starting from the assumptions Einstein had when Special Relativity was first proposed. That is:
From the second axiom, you can show that the speed of light only depends on the strength of electric and magnetic fields in space using Maxwell's equations. An interesting derivation that requires vector calculus, so I'll save the pain of it for you. ;-) From the first axiom, you can show that the speed of light violated Galilean Relativity.
Knowing that Galilean Relativity is still useful, Einstein proposed another assumption:
From that, you can derive the Lorentz Transformations. Then while examining how those transformations affect the conservation of momentum in collisions you can derive a more useful definition of momentum based on the old definition and that correction factor.
Finally using the new equations of Momentum and the Lorentz Transformations, you can redo Young's derivation of Kinetic Energy using the old definitions of velocity, force, and energy. The end result is a mass at rest still has some energy. This energy is called the rest energy and is related by the famous relation. That's what Einstein's equation says (no hokey about relativistic mass please).
Now you know why it was so . :-D
Question: IANAL, so I'm confused. That seems, to me, to be a wrong conclusion by the Debian people. I agree that the license fragments listed by them indicate that:
Does the following paragraph from satisfy those concerns:However, the license for the documentation of said interfaces states:
That seems, to me, to say that you can use the documentation to write an application that uses the specs. So Sun does not "own" any application that uses the spec to Java. Note that interfaces and classes designed to be implemented or subclassed in the Java sense of those words are being used as intended, so I think that "implements a spec" is different from implements in the Java sense. That is, implemening java.util.Iterator doesn't make your code an implementation of the spec.
Implementations of the spec, it seems to me, is software that runs applications that use the spec. Like a JVM and its associated classes/interfaces for instance. In those cases, the following holds:
That basically states, to me, that you can't implement a core class that deviates from its spec. Since the entire specification is a set of specs of individual classes, you can choose which classes you support (as long as they fulfill the contract specified by the docs). So in that way you are not allowed to intentionally write incompatible software.
I don't know if that is a good thing or not, but it doesn't seem as bad to me as what you and Debian are implying. However, I am probably wrong as IANAL and often get confused by this license stuff. Can anyone help me?
Are you thinking of the Core CSS Styles?
Don Box had a simular journal post about which language was best to teach his kids to program. I felt that LOGO was the best choice.
I still feel that way. In fact, to learn to program you really should start with simple text-only (like command line) or path-only (like turtle maps) interface stuff. Anything else requires the ability to think in terms of metaphors that are hard for newbies to grasp. It also helps new programmers learn to program in steps (i.e. design) rather than struggle with the grammar or vocabulary (i.e. one big main function).
While you are rewriting your PURL server, could you make it easy to switch individual redirects (that's not me) to 303 Founds to be compliant with HTTPRange-14? Even better, a per PURL option for 302 or 303 redirects would be nice. I don't really like the HTTPRange-14 compromise, but it is better than nothing I guess.
I agree that mainstream fusion work will be important and is probably the right track toward a practical fusion powerplant.
However, remember that Cathode Ray tubes were also once little more than a labtable source of tightly controlled electrons. New sources of materials often lead into practical applications not originally envisioned.
Well, it seems you could be responsible for the water quality of the fountain, since it is assumed members of the public will injest the water. I would likewise assume that using an unencrypted wireless access point from public property would fall under the same guidelines.
If you don't want to be responsible for a public fountain, it is the owner's responsibility to fence it in. And if you don't want people using your wireless network, then encrypt it (or at least put up a sign)!
I am not from Google, but my project was accepted for the Summer of Code. My project has nothing to do with BSD or GNU/Linux. It involves a homogenizing the various interfaces for all of the semantic web frameworks around like Jena, Sesame, Redland, and others. Sort of like SAX or DOM for RDF.
Don't be sad that your project wasn't accepted. (What was it tho?) There are lots of opportunities for open source developers. Some alternatives were posted in summer-discuss.
Thank you very much Google and Semedia, by the way.
Personally, relevations and surprises in any art form are mearly one-shot deals. Afterward the initial viewing, they are never surprises again. To me, the real enjoyment of a show is in the journey to the surprise or relevation. That's one reason why I enjoy second-parts and the middle of stories. Besides I wasn't really blown away from the relevation in Empire when watching it so long ago. I had the luxury of watching Jedi immediately afterwards, so that may have colored my experience....
According to that formula on the site, RD+V)F+S)/A:
Therefore, The Dick Van Dyke Show must be the best sitcom ever (with real actors). Unsuccessful schemes: check. Differetial in social status: (barely) check. Verbal wit: check. Delusions of grandeur: check. Recognizability of Dick: check. Excessive falling over: check! Q.E.D. The only other contender, I think, would be I Love Lucy.
He was a fool to leave now. You mean... Yes, premature ejection. :-o
(source)