They can sue for copyright infringement for creating a derivative work without permission, as you said, but they can't sue to gain ownership of the derivative work.
I don't think it's a problem of @aol.com, the problem is people with emails like "TrumpFan2000@R4Life.com." If you have that email you need to change it.
"So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
NYC has, is, and continues to build more housing (and offices/buildings/etc.)
The problem is the only thing being built is 1) ultra luxury rentals with 2) a few token low income units.
Manhattan population is growing faster than they are building new houses, which pushes prices up. New York is in many ways an example of what not to do. You would be smart to leave there as fast as possible.
What he's actually saying is it's not bad -- compared to the state of the art three years ago. Given that the company was hyping this as the AR equivalent of Mr. Fusion, what they delivered is woefully disappointing.
Nah, what he's actually saying is, "Buy my stuff, not theirs."
I think given the Hype, money and time people have a right to demand a little more than just ok.
You have a right to demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.
Look at it this way: suppose the magic leap product improves enough to match the demos five years from now. That will be very late, but will you really complain? It will have taken a long time, but then we'll have something cool.
Almost anyone else's review would have been better here. After all his hyperbole, at the end of the article he has this to say:
"The product [magic leap] put out is reasonably solid,"
So actually what he says is it's not bad as a first iteration of a hardware/software system. Indeed, he is upset and wants to portray his competitor in a bad light.
Grsecurity has no obligations under the kernel GPL because they aren't distributing the GPL'ed kernel code. All they distribute is patches. The derivative work is created by the people who are applying the patches to the original kernel. And those people then cannot redistribute the combined work under their legal agreement with Grsecurity. This is pretty much the same when you work for a corporation and use GPL code: you may be creating derivative works from the GPL'ed software as part of your job, but you cannot redistribute that because your employment contracts forbids it, even though the GPL allows it.
Yes, this is GRSecurity's argument. GRSecurity's contract doesn't even forbid you from redistributing it (which actually would be illegal). They merely say they will punish you if you redistribute it.
Bruce points out that actually they are actively discouraging people from redistributing, and he claims it is illegal. I think he's right on that point, if it went to court I don't think GRSecurity would win (but who knows). Bruce also suggests that anyone who uses GRSecurity would be liable for infringement (by using code that GRSecurity infringed on). This second argument of his doesn't make as much sense to me, but again, if it went to court, who knows.
If a country of 6 million people has one mass shooting, of course their numbers will look higher. But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack.
Uh, why would you even want to look at the total number instead of adjusting it per capita? Adjusting it per capita seems like a reasonable thing to do........
Unlike the morons who believe every worst possible headline. There could be a headline on Slashdot, "AGW To Cause World to End Tomorrow" and people would defend it. Then there could be a headline, "AGW Caused Earth to Explode Yesterday" and there would still be people who believed it blindly.
That's what happens when science gets mixed up with politics: people choose their side and follow it without thinking. There aren't many people even here who understand how to calculate the black body temperature of the earth, though a few more do understand why it matters.
A derivative work doesn't belong to the original creator. The kernel devs can't sue grsecurity and "steal" their work, but the creator of the derivative work has obligations to the creator of the original work under the law. Grsecurity is accused of not following those obligations.
This isn't even a point grsecurity disputes: they know it is a derivative work, and their work is released under the GPL. As far as that goes, they aren't in violation. It's the "extra" terms they add in the contract that is under dispute.
In most cases, the patch would be utterly unusable, indeed wouldn't make sense, without the Linux kernel.
To understand, consider a patch that wouldn't be a derivative work: imagine NVidia writes a windows driver for their video card. It's 50,000 lines of code. Then they write a small compatibility layer to get the driver running on Linux. In that case, the driver would likely not be a derivative work, because most of it is orthogonal to the Linux kernel.
With the grsecurity patches, the entire reason they exist is to modify the Linux kernel. If the kernel didn't exist, they wouldn't either. It's hard to argue they are not a derivative work.
And then cue the confusion from all the people who think their code can't be insecure because they are using a safe language, not like C.
A while ago someone said here that "buffer overflow exploits are the low-hanging fruit of hackers, once they are gone there is plenty of other stuff." And that person was right.
There was a project in San Mateo that got rejected because the city council didn't like it. NIMBY, That's how it goes. So what's your solution? Let the suckers live somewhere else? You don't care where as long as it's not near you?
Your solutions require a market driver, 10-20 years to effectively accomplish, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
Well yes, actually, there is a market driver: people who are willing to pay billions of dollars to buy apartments. If apartments cost $500k each, then you'd need 2000 people willing to pay that amount. But there are more than 2000 people willing to pay that amount.
If it were trivial, they would do it your way.
NIMBY. People don't want to do it, it's not that there isn't a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
They can sue for copyright infringement for creating a derivative work without permission, as you said, but they can't sue to gain ownership of the derivative work.
Now maybe he'll be able to pay his lawyers.
I don't think it's a problem of @aol.com, the problem is people with emails like "TrumpFan2000@R4Life.com." If you have that email you need to change it.
"So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
Good judgment.
people are focused on whether what Trump said is true or not, where all that matters is what effect it achieves
Nicely expressed.
I had similar thoughts, but I'm not really sure why there aren't any good message queue libs. It doesn't make sense.
NYC has, is, and continues to build more housing (and offices/buildings/etc.) The problem is the only thing being built is 1) ultra luxury rentals with 2) a few token low income units.
Manhattan population is growing faster than they are building new houses, which pushes prices up. New York is in many ways an example of what not to do. You would be smart to leave there as fast as possible.
What he's actually saying is it's not bad -- compared to the state of the art three years ago. Given that the company was hyping this as the AR equivalent of Mr. Fusion, what they delivered is woefully disappointing.
Nah, what he's actually saying is, "Buy my stuff, not theirs."
I think given the Hype, money and time people have a right to demand a little more than just ok.
You have a right to demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.
Look at it this way: suppose the magic leap product improves enough to match the demos five years from now. That will be very late, but will you really complain? It will have taken a long time, but then we'll have something cool.
"The product [magic leap] put out is reasonably solid,"
So actually what he says is it's not bad as a first iteration of a hardware/software system. Indeed, he is upset and wants to portray his competitor in a bad light.
And now everyone builds their own custom message queue to do IPC. Message passing isn't a bad idea, it's a bad idea to use it for *everything*
Grsecurity has no obligations under the kernel GPL because they aren't distributing the GPL'ed kernel code. All they distribute is patches. The derivative work is created by the people who are applying the patches to the original kernel. And those people then cannot redistribute the combined work under their legal agreement with Grsecurity. This is pretty much the same when you work for a corporation and use GPL code: you may be creating derivative works from the GPL'ed software as part of your job, but you cannot redistribute that because your employment contracts forbids it, even though the GPL allows it.
Yes, this is GRSecurity's argument. GRSecurity's contract doesn't even forbid you from redistributing it (which actually would be illegal). They merely say they will punish you if you redistribute it.
Bruce points out that actually they are actively discouraging people from redistributing, and he claims it is illegal. I think he's right on that point, if it went to court I don't think GRSecurity would win (but who knows). Bruce also suggests that anyone who uses GRSecurity would be liable for infringement (by using code that GRSecurity infringed on). This second argument of his doesn't make as much sense to me, but again, if it went to court, who knows.
If a country of 6 million people has one mass shooting, of course their numbers will look higher. But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack.
Uh, why would you even want to look at the total number instead of adjusting it per capita? Adjusting it per capita seems like a reasonable thing to do........
Unlike the morons who believe every worst possible headline. There could be a headline on Slashdot, "AGW To Cause World to End Tomorrow" and people would defend it. Then there could be a headline, "AGW Caused Earth to Explode Yesterday" and there would still be people who believed it blindly.
That's what happens when science gets mixed up with politics: people choose their side and follow it without thinking. There aren't many people even here who understand how to calculate the black body temperature of the earth, though a few more do understand why it matters.
A derivative work doesn't belong to the original creator. The kernel devs can't sue grsecurity and "steal" their work, but the creator of the derivative work has obligations to the creator of the original work under the law. Grsecurity is accused of not following those obligations.
That's annoying
This isn't even a point grsecurity disputes: they know it is a derivative work, and their work is released under the GPL. As far as that goes, they aren't in violation. It's the "extra" terms they add in the contract that is under dispute.
Are you mad at me now? What are you mad about?
They might not have done anything. Say they did it, get the headlines, then when someone notices a problem say, "It's a customer service issue."
In most cases, the patch would be utterly unusable, indeed wouldn't make sense, without the Linux kernel.
To understand, consider a patch that wouldn't be a derivative work: imagine NVidia writes a windows driver for their video card. It's 50,000 lines of code. Then they write a small compatibility layer to get the driver running on Linux. In that case, the driver would likely not be a derivative work, because most of it is orthogonal to the Linux kernel.
With the grsecurity patches, the entire reason they exist is to modify the Linux kernel. If the kernel didn't exist, they wouldn't either. It's hard to argue they are not a derivative work.
And then cue the confusion from all the people who think their code can't be insecure because they are using a safe language, not like C.
A while ago someone said here that "buffer overflow exploits are the low-hanging fruit of hackers, once they are gone there is plenty of other stuff." And that person was right.
The summary I gave is completely accurate. The quoted part strips off the spin.
[Citation needed], please.
There was a project in San Mateo that got rejected because the city council didn't like it. NIMBY, That's how it goes. So what's your solution? Let the suckers live somewhere else? You don't care where as long as it's not near you?
Your solutions require a market driver, 10-20 years to effectively accomplish, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
Well yes, actually, there is a market driver: people who are willing to pay billions of dollars to buy apartments. If apartments cost $500k each, then you'd need 2000 people willing to pay that amount. But there are more than 2000 people willing to pay that amount.
If it were trivial, they would do it your way.
NIMBY. People don't want to do it, it's not that there isn't a solution.