Fawes will not be the new Bill Gates whether he wants it or not. I think you were the first to frame the question that way, and frankly, it's a very awkward framing.
The problem is that he may cause distributors a lot of hassle with demanding acknowledgements in different places, and that it's not very transparent what they should actually do. An important strength of free and open source is that you know that there'll be no legal wrangling if you just follow a few simple rules, and the new license might very well destroy that advantage.
This might seem as wasteful political quibbling to you (and a lot of it can apparently really be written off to bad "person skills") but licensing is not to be taken lightly - it might save a LOT of hassle in the future. Consider the code that SCO donated to Linux back when they were Caldera. I for one am happy right now that it's crystal clear that it was contributed under the GPL. (Which is a very well-thought-out and clear license).
-1, wrong: They're changing their license, even though XFree contains GPL code.
Where? Find one snippet, I challenge you! Incorporating GPL'ed code into Xfree86 under the Xfree86 licenses. (both 1.0 and 1.1) would be illegal. Thus speaks the GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
That would be copyright infringement. You cannot release other peoples GPL'ed code even under the original X license. (In fact you can only release it under the GPL). People may have contributed their own code that they released under GPL elsewhere, but they have then also granted it to the Xfree86 project under their license.
"I assume" is the mother of all f***-ups. How do you know that a copy will diminish value? Many times the person copying would not have been willing to pay the price set by the copyright holder - in this case the copyright holder loses no value while the copier gains some. No matter how you count it this action benefits society, infringement or not - a strong moral argument for copying. It is often (ab)used by overstating it in a rather self-serving way, but that doesn't invalidate it.
The fact is that these laws (now enacted by the US, EU and other countries) are the result of the WIPO Internet Copyright Treaties
No, the laws go much further than the treaty demands. The relevant article is
art. 11:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures [...] which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.
(My emphasis)
These last four words are crucial. They mean that the anti-circumvention rules need only apply where you circumvent in order to do something already illegal. In that way the treaty is toothless. The problem is that US/EU and now Australia has been lobbied into outlawing circumvention under much broader circumstances, and even outlawing "circumvention tools" as well.
I've been following SCO stock for a while, and it's basically random fluctuations around ~15. SCOs conduct (or lack thereof) in court doesn't seem to influence it. It was equally low in mid-november and has now gone up and down again. It'll probably continue like that for a while.
Tiscali tried this in Denmark two weeks ago. They added a "fair use" clause to the ToS saying that they could kick users using "disproportionate" amounts of bandwidth. After protests from the Consumer Council (among others) they withdrew it within a couple of days. AFAIK they were the first danish provider to try, so this topic will hopefully stay silent for a good long while.
Bandwidth caps are fine with me, but I want to know where they are. If consumers can't know what they're paying for the free market is worthless.
The article seems to highly stress the practical application of this new form of matter.
That is to say the least. It talks about superconductors for maglev trains etc. but in reality the new form of matter is a small blob of gas hanging trapped by lasers in a vacuum chamber. The only connection is that these studies may help us develop better theories about how superconductors work. (The current theories on high-temp superconductors are quite weak).
A less popular introduction to Jins work is
here, but it's not quite recent.
What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?
None. There are no practical applications yet, and when you look at the experiment it's just a submillimeter blob of potassium. The moment someone disturbs the experiment it will disintegrate and fill the vacuum chamber with very dilute potassium gas. Potassium can be dangerous, but there's a thousand times more in the bin they take it from, and I'm not worried about that at all.
- so how about reusing the Spirit/Opportunity platform for further robotic missions to Mars? They seem to work (somewhat) and the remaining problems will probably be ironed out. Has the time come for commodity Mars probes?
What's all you space geeks saying? Is there something we would really miss by using slightly modified versions of these landers that would justify development costs? Or is the question moot since Bush wants manned missions anyway?
Nevertheless, I'm always impressed by how flowery the language was in the old days, considering how time-consuming it was to actually pen something.
Today we're constantly on the verge of information overload. If your comment is too long-winding I'll skip it - there's 243 other comments to read.
The same tendency can be seen in scientific journals. I just looked at a 1914 paper on X-ray spectra. It goes on and on about grooves, joints, varnishing and what have you. Today it would be rejected. With all the reports coming out no one has the time to read it unless they're specifically trying to repeat the experiment - and then they'll e-mail the author.
Do you really need authorization to publish pictures of a car?? If so, then american copyright has truly stooped to new levels.
OTOH, it might be that they didn't want to do photos by themselves and couldn't get permission to use one of Fords. In that case it's simply lazy journalism. Google images has thousands of latter-day Broncos, and securing permission for one of them wouldn't have been that hard.
On that note, I doubt most rocket scientists know much about programming.
Insightful?? Rather troll. You forget that there's software onboard that probe. Software where a single glitch may send a multi-million-dollar project to it's sudden death. Software that can only be updated by sending commands from radio telescopes - you won't know whether the update worked for at least 20 minutes. And no physical reboots, mind you. I have an inkling that some of those "rocket scientists" could rightfully doubt whether you knew much about programming.
To me, this sounds more like some team members getting this going in their spare time just for cool. I think it's cool - much more so than had it all been done in software.
IANAL, but the danish law is one of the most extreme in the world. Read for yourself. (I'm ashamed)
I'm not sure if the MPlayer team will be able to force KissTech to open their code (should they be convicted), but some monetary damages would probably be awarded.
Anyway, if they're serious about pursuing this in danish courts this organization might provide "seed money". If KissTech really is guilty of this, please accept my apologies on behalf of Denmark:-/
At the University of Aalborg, Denmark, there's a long tradition of having the students do projects on OSes for the mindstorm RCX computers. There's a lot of stuff floating around there,
let Google show you the way.
Digital?? Thieves they are, thieves I say! Quick, pass some legislation to outlaw recievers (or at least make sure they cant *shudder*record anyting!)
Sincerely,
Your recording industry representative
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I could destroy the planet, erase every life here and every achievement that humanity has ever made, yet it would not cause anything that mattered to happen.
Well it matters to me. Defining what "matters" means must in the end be subjective. So there you go.
Since you're declared "unreligious" no reasoning should be able to stop you from destroying the planet if so be the desire of your soul. On the other hand I have found that many "unreligious" people have souls that share my desire for the protection of Earth and Humanity. In that case nothing will stop us from acting out that desire either - I subjectively find that much funnier.
Slashdot Mirror
It is quite possible that one could download the media, check it out, and delete it in disgust.
I sometimes feel that's exactly one of the reasons record companies are so scared of P2P. It might hurt their sales quite a bit.
Fawes will not be the new Bill Gates whether he wants it or not. I think you were the first to frame the question that way, and frankly, it's a very awkward framing.
The problem is that he may cause distributors a lot of hassle with demanding acknowledgements in different places, and that it's not very transparent what they should actually do. An important strength of free and open source is that you know that there'll be no legal wrangling if you just follow a few simple rules, and the new license might very well destroy that advantage.
This might seem as wasteful political quibbling to you (and a lot of it can apparently really be written off to bad "person skills") but licensing is not to be taken lightly - it might save a LOT of hassle in the future. Consider the code that SCO donated to Linux back when they were Caldera. I for one am happy right now that it's crystal clear that it was contributed under the GPL. (Which is a very well-thought-out and clear license).
-1, wrong:
They're changing their license, even though XFree contains GPL code.
Where? Find one snippet, I challenge you! Incorporating GPL'ed code into Xfree86 under the Xfree86 licenses. (both 1.0 and 1.1) would be illegal.
Thus speaks the GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
there's probably GPL-ed code in XFree86
That would be copyright infringement. You cannot release other peoples GPL'ed code even under the original X license. (In fact you can only release it under the GPL). People may have contributed their own code that they released under GPL elsewhere, but they have then also granted it to the Xfree86 project under their license.
But when you steal market share, it has to be subtracted somewhere.
No, the market may grow. I'd personally rather have 10% of a $10B market than 90% of a $1000 one - even if you "steal" $9B market share along the way.
You steal value (by diminishing it with a copy).
"I assume" is the mother of all f***-ups. How do you know that a copy will diminish value? Many times the person copying would not have been willing to pay the price set by the copyright holder - in this case the copyright holder loses no value while the copier gains some. No matter how you count it this action benefits society, infringement or not - a strong moral argument for copying. It is often (ab)used by overstating it in a rather self-serving way, but that doesn't invalidate it.
Yes, we have a lot of other laws not worth copying. No, it won't solve everything. OTOH, it will go quite a long way.
The fact is that these laws (now enacted by the US, EU and other countries) are the result of the WIPO Internet Copyright Treaties
No, the laws go much further than the treaty demands. The relevant article is art. 11:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures [...] which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.
(My emphasis)
These last four words are crucial. They mean that the anti-circumvention rules need only apply where you circumvent in order to do something already illegal. In that way the treaty is toothless. The problem is that US/EU and now Australia has been lobbied into outlawing circumvention under much broader circumstances, and even outlawing "circumvention tools" as well.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I've been following SCO stock for a while, and it's basically random fluctuations around ~15. SCOs conduct (or lack thereof) in court doesn't seem to influence it. It was equally low in mid-november and has now gone up and down again. It'll probably continue like that for a while.
...some guerillas cut the fiber-optic line...
Tiscali tried this in Denmark two weeks ago. They added a "fair use" clause to the ToS saying that they could kick users using "disproportionate" amounts of bandwidth. After protests from the Consumer Council (among others) they withdrew it within a couple of days. AFAIK they were the first danish provider to try, so this topic will hopefully stay silent for a good long while.
Bandwidth caps are fine with me, but I want to know where they are. If consumers can't know what they're paying for the free market is worthless.
I just metamodded as unfair the abusing bastich. Thought you'd be happy to know ;-)
The article seems to highly stress the practical application of this new form of matter.
That is to say the least. It talks about superconductors for maglev trains etc. but in reality the new form of matter is a small blob of gas hanging trapped by lasers in a vacuum chamber. The only connection is that these studies may help us develop better theories about how superconductors work. (The current theories on high-temp superconductors are quite weak). A less popular introduction to Jins work is here, but it's not quite recent.
What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?
None. There are no practical applications yet, and when you look at the experiment it's just a submillimeter blob of potassium. The moment someone disturbs the experiment it will disintegrate and fill the vacuum chamber with very dilute potassium gas. Potassium can be dangerous, but there's a thousand times more in the bin they take it from, and I'm not worried about that at all.
- so how about reusing the Spirit/Opportunity platform for further robotic missions to Mars? They seem to work (somewhat) and the remaining problems will probably be ironed out. Has the time come for commodity Mars probes?
What's all you space geeks saying? Is there something we would really miss by using slightly modified versions of these landers that would justify development costs? Or is the question moot since Bush wants manned missions anyway?
Nevertheless, I'm always impressed by how flowery the language was in the old days, considering how time-consuming it was to actually pen something.
Today we're constantly on the verge of information overload. If your comment is too long-winding I'll skip it - there's 243 other comments to read.
The same tendency can be seen in scientific journals. I just looked at a 1914 paper on X-ray spectra. It goes on and on about grooves, joints, varnishing and what have you. Today it would be rejected. With all the reports coming out no one has the time to read it unless they're specifically trying to repeat the experiment - and then they'll e-mail the author.
OTOH, it might be that they didn't want to do photos by themselves and couldn't get permission to use one of Fords. In that case it's simply lazy journalism. Google images has thousands of latter-day Broncos, and securing permission for one of them wouldn't have been that hard.
The british Beagle team use SuSE/KDE on the desktops a lot. The beagle probe itself use(d) an ADA run-time kernel. Read all about it.
...interesting for Weta to have during production of RotK. They used many many terabytes of data.
Peanuts. The Large Hadron Collider (the newest particle physics toy at CERN) is expected to generate 5 PByte/yr, 100 PByte in total. That's 100,000 Tbyte.
On that note, I doubt most rocket scientists know much about programming.
Insightful?? Rather troll. You forget that there's software onboard that probe. Software where a single glitch may send a multi-million-dollar project to it's sudden death. Software that can only be updated by sending commands from radio telescopes - you won't know whether the update worked for at least 20 minutes. And no physical reboots, mind you. I have an inkling that some of those "rocket scientists" could rightfully doubt whether you knew much about programming.
To me, this sounds more like some team members getting this going in their spare time just for cool. I think it's cool - much more so than had it all been done in software.
Is the time controlling hardware on a PC board or PDA as accurate as an actual hard crafted caesium clock?
It's called Network Time Protocol Get the time here
IANAL, but the danish law is one of the most extreme in the world. Read for yourself. (I'm ashamed)
:-/
I'm not sure if the MPlayer team will be able to force KissTech to open their code (should they be convicted), but some monetary damages would probably be awarded.
Anyway, if they're serious about pursuing this in danish courts this organization might provide "seed money". If KissTech really is guilty of this, please accept my apologies on behalf of Denmark
...Have it be controllable via Linux
At the University of Aalborg, Denmark, there's a long tradition of having the students do projects on OSes for the mindstorm RCX computers. There's a lot of stuff floating around there, let Google show you the way.
His explanations for the rise of Apache:
Digital?? Thieves they are, thieves I say! Quick, pass some legislation to outlaw recievers (or at least make sure they cant *shudder* record anyting!)
Sincerely,
Your recording industry representative
I could destroy the planet, erase every life here and every achievement that humanity has ever made, yet it would not cause anything that mattered to happen.
Well it matters to me. Defining what "matters" means must in the end be subjective. So there you go.
Since you're declared "unreligious" no reasoning should be able to stop you from destroying the planet if so be the desire of your soul. On the other hand I have found that many "unreligious" people have souls that share my desire for the protection of Earth and Humanity. In that case nothing will stop us from acting out that desire either - I subjectively find that much funnier.