I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The second case has already gone to the appellate court, plenty of filing has been done and answered, and that's what I was referring to. As to your other argument:
I work with more than one attorney who is much more dubious about the appellate court ruling
Have those lawyers actually read the ruling? I've talked to lawyers who were dubious about it, but none of those had actually read it. If you do know a lawyer who has read it and formed a coherent argument why it is false, that would be interesting to hear (or if they've formed a coherent argument even without reading it, that would be interesting to here as well).
Well you've certainly displayed your ignorance loudly, and cheered for your team.
The bottom line remains, if you want to use an API, make sure you have a license.
The whole truth please. In 2016 a jury found that Google's use of Oracle's (newly deemed) copyrighted APIs is fair use [arstechnica.com].
The whole truth is the jury's decision hardly matters at all, as the appeal process continues.
As a result of the new finding, I do not believe that dynamic linking works as an insulator between GPL and proprietary software...I always felt that dynamic linking of proprietary and GPL was risky and never advised my customers and their attorneys to do it.
It is almost certain that dynamic linking (or any other kind of linking!) is not an insulator between GPL and proprietary software......For example, even connecting over the network will not prevent it from being infringement, if the connector is a derivative work. The was clear that the abstraction, filtration, comparison test should be used. Briefly, you filter out everything (in the accused code) that was not derived (at least conceptually) from the original code, and whatever remains is infringing (interoperability fair use can still apply).
There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not.
The appellate court ruling is high quality, clear, and logically ties together a lot of the loose ends in software copyright. It will not be overturned, and will guide software copyright for generations to come (that is, although there are still procedural ways it could be overturned, any reasonable judge is likely to be convinced of the solidness of that decision). Future litigation will revolve around what exactly should be filtered out, and what can be abstracted, thus building on the appellate court decision.
btw if Git is "completely unusable to you" on the command-line, you are either incompetent or spreading propaganda, and probably the latter. At the worst, Git is a little confusing on the command-line. If it's completely unusable, the problem is you.
I've used Mercurial from the command line for 5+ years, didn't even cross my mind to use a GUI for it
This is not the same as you saying, "I am comfortable with the command-line." It's more like, "I read a Mercurial tutorial once and know how to use that."
There are a lot of rules over what can be donated to NCAA players and what can't be
Exactly, they're treated like indentured servants.
The rest of your post is essentially propaganda trying to justify paying those players peanuts. (but hey! They get a degree, right? What are they complaining about?)
Git has very real flaws: the worst UI of any source control system I've ever used
Whenever someone says this, ask them if they are comfortable with the command-line. The answer is always no.
For hobby projects these are academic problems, but if you're working at the scale of a complete operating system then you have to confront Git's weaknesses head-on and fix them.
Nah, there are huge, professional projects already using GIT.
Microsoft had to modify Git to handle the demands of Windows development but said that it wanted to get these modifications accepted upstream and integrated into the standard Git client.
Probably not: NFL players are payed so much no one cares, and College Football players are already treated like indentured servant crap and the only ones you hear complaining about it occasionally are kind of libertarians.
Seriously, we're talking about people who are sacrificing their bodies for our entertainment (including up to death at times). People don't actually care about the players' taxes.
Trump would have still won even if there was social engineering.
No haha. He barely won even as it is. People see him for who he is: a cad. The social engineering wasn't just in the final election, his best work was done in the primaries.
It's funny how you can't admit that giving money away to corporations and compounding the debt further doesn't help anyone in the future in this country.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you reply to the wrong person?
That's optimistic. Look at the charts and data in this article, and you'll realize that we don't spend all that much on military. As a total percentage of the budget, it's been shrinking every year, and will continue to do so as healthcare is the real problem we have, with runaway spending. "Tax the rich" is unlikely to fix it, either unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
lol so if a micro-agression is serious, then a memo that gets spread around on the evening news must be horrendous beyond comprehension?
Well, your sig is a pretty clear declaration of who the "other" is for you.
The process of gift giving is as much for the giver's benefit as it is for the recipient's
I never fully trust people who give gifts for their own benefit.
When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it.
Woah, calm down on the hyperbole there, boy.
It has gone to the appellate court, and at this point what the court thinks is really all that matters.
One teaches at Boalt and I will try to engage him on it the next time I speak with him.
Yeah, that would be interesting to hear if you get a chance.
Welcome to Planet Earth, my friend.
I work with more than one attorney who is much more dubious about the appellate court ruling
Have those lawyers actually read the ruling? I've talked to lawyers who were dubious about it, but none of those had actually read it. If you do know a lawyer who has read it and formed a coherent argument why it is false, that would be interesting to hear (or if they've formed a coherent argument even without reading it, that would be interesting to here as well).
The bottom line remains, if you want to use an API, make sure you have a license.
The whole truth please. In 2016 a jury found that Google's use of Oracle's (newly deemed) copyrighted APIs is fair use [arstechnica.com].
The whole truth is the jury's decision hardly matters at all, as the appeal process continues.
As a result of the new finding, I do not believe that dynamic linking works as an insulator between GPL and proprietary software...I always felt that dynamic linking of proprietary and GPL was risky and never advised my customers and their attorneys to do it.
It is almost certain that dynamic linking (or any other kind of linking!) is not an insulator between GPL and proprietary software......For example, even connecting over the network will not prevent it from being infringement, if the connector is a derivative work. The was clear that the abstraction, filtration, comparison test should be used. Briefly, you filter out everything (in the accused code) that was not derived (at least conceptually) from the original code, and whatever remains is infringing (interoperability fair use can still apply).
There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not.
The appellate court ruling is high quality, clear, and logically ties together a lot of the loose ends in software copyright. It will not be overturned, and will guide software copyright for generations to come (that is, although there are still procedural ways it could be overturned, any reasonable judge is likely to be convinced of the solidness of that decision). Future litigation will revolve around what exactly should be filtered out, and what can be abstracted, thus building on the appellate court decision.
btw if Git is "completely unusable to you" on the command-line, you are either incompetent or spreading propaganda, and probably the latter. At the worst, Git is a little confusing on the command-line. If it's completely unusable, the problem is you.
I've used Mercurial from the command line for 5+ years, didn't even cross my mind to use a GUI for it
This is not the same as you saying, "I am comfortable with the command-line." It's more like, "I read a Mercurial tutorial once and know how to use that."
There are a lot of rules over what can be donated to NCAA players and what can't be
Exactly, they're treated like indentured servants.
The rest of your post is essentially propaganda trying to justify paying those players peanuts. (but hey! They get a degree, right? What are they complaining about?)
Git has very real flaws: the worst UI of any source control system I've ever used
Whenever someone says this, ask them if they are comfortable with the command-line. The answer is always no.
For hobby projects these are academic problems, but if you're working at the scale of a complete operating system then you have to confront Git's weaknesses head-on and fix them.
Nah, there are huge, professional projects already using GIT.
Microsoft had to modify Git to handle the demands of Windows development but said that it wanted to get these modifications accepted upstream and integrated into the standard Git client.
They're very likely doing something wrong here.
In most of these cases, it's simply incompetence - I can't get OAuth to work, let's just set it to public and hope nobody guesses the bucket name.
I want to know how people guessed the bucket name: I'm impressed that they do.
Probably not: NFL players are payed so much no one cares, and College Football players are already treated like indentured servant crap and the only ones you hear complaining about it occasionally are kind of libertarians.
Seriously, we're talking about people who are sacrificing their bodies for our entertainment (including up to death at times). People don't actually care about the players' taxes.
Publish your own ideas on your own web server at your DSL line.
We know how that turns out.
I honestly don't think government doing the research themselves would work very well, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
How do see that working out?
Very very badly for her.
Obama tried to give the US hope when it was in dire need of it,
If you are dependent on your president to give you hope, then you are hopelessly pathetic.
Trump tried to give the US fear when it least needed it, he succeeded and now the US is paying for it.
Partisans are afraid of Trump.
He didn't win the election.
Trump would have still won even if there was social engineering.
No haha. He barely won even as it is. People see him for who he is: a cad. The social engineering wasn't just in the final election, his best work was done in the primaries.
It's funny how you can't admit that giving money away to corporations and compounding the debt further doesn't help anyone in the future in this country.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you reply to the wrong person?
That's optimistic. Look at the charts and data in this article, and you'll realize that we don't spend all that much on military. As a total percentage of the budget, it's been shrinking every year, and will continue to do so as healthcare is the real problem we have, with runaway spending. "Tax the rich" is unlikely to fix it, either unfortunately.