NetBSD on the Macintosh SE/30 requires a little MacOS-based loader program to be run on MacOS to boot NetBSD on the SE/30 from. Does this mean that NetBSD is part of MacOS?
There are methods of launching Linux from a Windows/Dos Prompt (i.e. loadlin). Does this mean Linux is part of MS-DOS?
Do MacOS or DOS continue running after NetBSD or Linux load?
Then you had a poor-quality instructor. Every VMware instructor I've had has been crystal clear that the Service Console runs a heavily modified version Red Hat, but that the vmkernel - the OS that's bootloaded by the SC, which handles virtualization and hardware access, or in other words the underlying platform - is a completely proprietary OS.
The article linked way up top actually notes that the SC is a heavily modified Red Hat version.
The problem is, as the article also notes, vmkernel itself is loaded as a Linux kernel module using insmod. This could very well subject it to the GPLv2 as it requires the Linux kernel to operate.
In case you didn't see it because it's one level down, as realdodgeman noted, Google pays Mozilla Corp. to make Google the default search engine in both Firefox's integrated search dropdown as well as start page. In fact, the start page redirects to a page hosted on Google's servers.
(Side note: Opera also gets paid by Google for its search box)
In addition to that, DVD players were a recent thing
I call BS. The DVD format was standardized 5 years before the PS2 launched in Japan. I know that I got a 16x DVD-ROM around the same time frame (it shipped with WinDVD 2000, the second release of WinDVD, which ironically didn't work with Windows 2000 when I moved to it early the next year (2001)).
I got it because DVDs were already in wide release by then. I don't know, maybe it took longer to catch on in Japan, but DVDs were definitely around and popular before the PS2 launch in North America in 2001.
(Side note: I still have the same DVD-ROM drive in my home computer. It's been my longest-lived optical drive ever, although I also have a fairly new external DVD+-RW drive connected to the same machine.)
Of course, the GPL also allows another developer who has legally obtained the source to make a minor change and distribute the new version for free. While this may not have been a reasonable alternative when Emacs first came out ("Internet? Oh, mean you that network that links various universities?"), that has changed in the last 20 years.
Some corporations are smart enough to see this, some are not.
What's happening here is that Bittorrent (the company) has become fully decoupled from bittorrent (the protocol). They have very little leverage over the latter; about all they have is the rights to the name "Bittorrent," and the 'reference implementation,' which won't be worth its weight in electrons once they start messing with it.
They have the rights to the name "Bittorrent," the 'reference implementation,' and uTorrent, which they purchased late last year.
Chances are that they will attempt to use uTorrent to further their agenda.
P.S./. apparently blocks the lowercase mu character. Pretend the u in uTorrent is a lowercase mu.
When making statements involving numbers, evidence to back it up is a good thing. Otherwise, I'll just continue to assume that they really work 40-hour weeks, including Nerf Fridays.
Indirect distribution is covered in GPL2 and recognized by the courts (eg: "materially contribute to infringement" - Napster). The FSF made this even more explicit in GPL3 by using the concept of conveyance. Microsoft vouchers aren't a get-out from contributory infringement, therefore they must adhere (or permit the directly distributing party to adhere) to terms contained within a copyright license. Microsoft wouldn't want it to fly any other way in court, their own business model would be in jeopardy.
The point you're missing then is that Microsoft punched themselves in the balls - hard.
IANAL
US Title 17 Section 109 says that reselling a legitimately made copy doesn't require additional rights from a copyright owner. In other words, they don't have to agree to the license to resell copies of software containing GPLv3 code.
Of course, Microsoft bringing this up in a court of law would shine a big light onto their Office and Windows licenses, which they really don't want. It would bring to light that Microsoft's activation scheme is in itself illegal by sections 109 and 117 of US Title 17.
IANAL... but the GPLv3 is a LICENSE not a CONTRACT.
If Microsoft does not follow the LICENSE then Microsoft cannot LEGALLY re-distribute the software. Doing so would put Microsoft in violation of basic copyright laws.
Which is why Microsoft quickly distanced itself from the GPLv3.
As much as I hate saying IANAL at the beginning of every post I make dealing with law, the last time I didn't, some smartass made a commant about it, so here it is.
A license gives you additional rights not given to you by a law. In this case, copyright law.
However, if copyright law says I can do something and a license says I can't... copyright law wins, because it's the law.
The doctrine of first sale is a good example of this point. If Redhat, for example, makes a new Linux distribution with GPLv3 software in it, I can buy a bunch of copies of it and then sell them without ever agreeing to the license. In the US, this is codified in Title 17 Section 109.
The wording of that section and Section 117 say that, if I destroy all copies I've made of that distribution, or give the new owner any copies I've made, I can also sell a used copy without GPLv3 provisions going into effect. Once I give a copy I made to someone else (without also giving them the original and all other copies I've made), or distribute any changes I've made, then I'm bound by the terms of the GPLv3.
P.S. As far as I can tell, EULAs are illegal in the US. You don't need a license to install and use a copy of a software product you legitimately bought, thanks to Title 17 Section 117. Also, as I pointed out earlier, a license is used to grant additional rights, not take them away. To be honest, I believe that this is the actual reason Microsoft backed off, as involvement in a software license suit might bring more scrutiny to their own "licenses."
If they didn't give it to alliance, they'd probably just give them another hero class.
Since they seem to be using an existing Warcraft hero for the Horde (Death Knight, which was Arthas's hero type after the end of Warcraft 3's first scenario), it would make sense that they'd draw from the 8 Human and Night Elf heroes. Those are Paladin, Archmage, Mountain King, Blood Mage, Demon Hunter, Keeper of the Grove, Priestess of the Moon, and Warden.
At least a few of these are unique: Mountain King, Demon Hunter, and Warden for example.
What would be neat though is if they created both Death Knight and Knight heroes and made both be able to attack while mounted, maybe even have a few special charging attacks.
There's a difference between a reporter not saying "I'm a reporter," and saying "I'm not a reporter." The first is OK, the second would most likely be a form of fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
A pet store.
You walked right into that one.
Aw, too bad I already replied elsewhere in this story. This deserves at least a Funny mod.
I propose we coin a new term, "hatters." However, that might make them mad.
Do MacOS or DOS continue running after NetBSD or Linux load?
The article linked way up top actually notes that the SC is a heavily modified Red Hat version.
The problem is, as the article also notes, vmkernel itself is loaded as a Linux kernel module using insmod. This could very well subject it to the GPLv2 as it requires the Linux kernel to operate.
You could go use OpenSolaris, though. Tell me how it works out for you.
Of course they won't. They'll partially implement it, then extend it so that their version doesn't work with everyone else's.
Just like they do with standards not written by them.
In case you didn't see it because it's one level down, as realdodgeman noted, Google pays Mozilla Corp. to make Google the default search engine in both Firefox's integrated search dropdown as well as start page. In fact, the start page redirects to a page hosted on Google's servers.
(Side note: Opera also gets paid by Google for its search box)
Well, now that this is over, it will undoubtably used in SCO v. IBM, the other (more well known) case SCO is involved with.
Oh, and SCO will appeal it a few times, I'm sure.
I got it because DVDs were already in wide release by then. I don't know, maybe it took longer to catch on in Japan, but DVDs were definitely around and popular before the PS2 launch in North America in 2001.
(Side note: I still have the same DVD-ROM drive in my home computer. It's been my longest-lived optical drive ever, although I also have a fairly new external DVD+-RW drive connected to the same machine.)
Of course, the GPL also allows another developer who has legally obtained the source to make a minor change and distribute the new version for free. While this may not have been a reasonable alternative when Emacs first came out ("Internet? Oh, mean you that network that links various universities?"), that has changed in the last 20 years.
Some corporations are smart enough to see this, some are not.
Maybe he really meant Python. ;)
Chances are that they will attempt to use uTorrent to further their agenda.
P.S.
You are aware that <div class="main texty stuff">...</div> belong to the classes main, texty, and stuff, right?
To explain this further, in Warcraft II, Death Knights were the Horde equivalent to the Alliance Mages.
I take it that you haven't played Warcraft II?
When making statements involving numbers, evidence to back it up is a good thing. Otherwise, I'll just continue to assume that they really work 40-hour weeks, including Nerf Fridays.
OK, I made up Nerf Fridays, but you get the idea.
IANAL
US Title 17 Section 109 says that reselling a legitimately made copy doesn't require additional rights from a copyright owner. In other words, they don't have to agree to the license to resell copies of software containing GPLv3 code.
Of course, Microsoft bringing this up in a court of law would shine a big light onto their Office and Windows licenses, which they really don't want. It would bring to light that Microsoft's activation scheme is in itself illegal by sections 109 and 117 of US Title 17.
As much as I hate saying IANAL at the beginning of every post I make dealing with law, the last time I didn't, some smartass made a commant about it, so here it is.
A license gives you additional rights not given to you by a law. In this case, copyright law.
However, if copyright law says I can do something and a license says I can't... copyright law wins, because it's the law.
The doctrine of first sale is a good example of this point. If Redhat, for example, makes a new Linux distribution with GPLv3 software in it, I can buy a bunch of copies of it and then sell them without ever agreeing to the license. In the US, this is codified in Title 17 Section 109.
The wording of that section and Section 117 say that, if I destroy all copies I've made of that distribution, or give the new owner any copies I've made, I can also sell a used copy without GPLv3 provisions going into effect. Once I give a copy I made to someone else (without also giving them the original and all other copies I've made), or distribute any changes I've made, then I'm bound by the terms of the GPLv3.
P.S. As far as I can tell, EULAs are illegal in the US. You don't need a license to install and use a copy of a software product you legitimately bought, thanks to Title 17 Section 117. Also, as I pointed out earlier, a license is used to grant additional rights, not take them away. To be honest, I believe that this is the actual reason Microsoft backed off, as involvement in a software license suit might bring more scrutiny to their own "licenses."
...because this makes a lot of sense.
As a side note to that, this would be the US's first Federal sales tax, or at least that I'm aware of.
I'm not sure why they didn't just create a regular sales tax if they wanted money...
Yes, unfortunately developers are lazy.
If they didn't give it to alliance, they'd probably just give them another hero class.
Since they seem to be using an existing Warcraft hero for the Horde (Death Knight, which was Arthas's hero type after the end of Warcraft 3's first scenario), it would make sense that they'd draw from the 8 Human and Night Elf heroes. Those are Paladin, Archmage, Mountain King, Blood Mage, Demon Hunter, Keeper of the Grove, Priestess of the Moon, and Warden.
At least a few of these are unique: Mountain King, Demon Hunter, and Warden for example.
What would be neat though is if they created both Death Knight and Knight heroes and made both be able to attack while mounted, maybe even have a few special charging attacks.
This would be a good time to bring this up...
There's a difference between a reporter not saying "I'm a reporter," and saying "I'm not a reporter." The first is OK, the second would most likely be a form of fraud.