Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.
And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.
Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL.
So then you're accusing them of flat-out copyright violation then? Fine.
It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them. That part where they "made thousands of copies" is criminal copyright infringement, with statutory damages that can reach the billions, unless they had first come to an agreement with the original copyright holder. That agreement is the GPL. If they didn't consent to it, then they're just a bunch of warez d00ds.
People are allowed to make a small number of copies of software for Fair Use purposes, but those cannot be resold (except as bundled with the original, licensed copy). I can backup Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP onto my tape drive, but can't sell that tape independtly of the original install media.
You have no right to make an independently redistributable copy of GPLed software without agreeing to the GPL.
Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used? Do you read the comment banner for every.c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
No, I haven't done those things.
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.
I can get away with it because I'm not republishing copyrighted materials. I'm not doing anything that I wasn't already given permission to do when I recieved the software.
An EULA is not a contract and is not binding. The comment banners? I read them sometimes, but they're still not contracts. (Or, if you consider those things to be contracts, there not ones an end-user has any reason to join. The performance of an action can only be interpreted as acsenting to a contract if the individual would not have been allowed to perform said action without permission from the other party)
Unless software is public domain, it's not completely "free."
In the captialistic nations of the developed world, the most common, legally binding definition of "free" is "zero dollars".
Many companies (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Google, Adobe, etc) offer "free" programs on their websites, where "free" is plainly understood to mean "Don't bother reaching for your credit card". Yet they're not public domain, and it would be illegal to redistribute them. (Simple redistribution is unlikely to bother the companies enough to do anything, but passing around a modified version would rapidly get you sued. See "Kazaa Lite")
The term "public domain" means, obviously, "owned by the public". That is not equivalent to "free".
Even if you just *use* it in a commercial setting, you still have to provide a mirror of the code.
That is untrue. Where can you get such an idea?
There's a lot of common misconceptions about the GPL, but that's not even one of them! (I can't even find a mention of this concept in the FSF faq, because it's so outlandish)
I can name more than 60 companies which use GPL software in commercial settings without providing a mirror of the code (Microsoft, for example, has used GPL programs, but I'm quite sure they don't have them for download!)
I just wish that everyone who wanted to spout a "fact" about the GPL consider reading it first. Just once, please? It's not all that complicated!
Alright, who wants to copy the Forbes article and change it into an anti-Microsoft parody? Delete the first 3 paragraphs, then search & replace these key words:
Unless you need to have your files encrypted during copying, you may want to reconsider using SCP for everyday copying of files.
If file aren't encrypted for transit, then they can be intercepted by other users of the network. If your LAN has 2 Unix systems and 1 Windows box that's been 0wnzed with BackOrifice, the hacker can glimpse files the Unix systems are sharing on SMB/NFS, even though he's unable to log into the shares.
but if you ever try to copy large amounts of data, it slows the process considerably
Prehaps most of the time, but not always. In fact, the reverse has been observed (rarely). Because SMB is a file sharing protocol rather than a transfer one, it provides more granular access (allowing the possibility of nonlinear seeking and writing) instead of just blasting the bits as quickly as possible. If that becomes a true slowdown depends on the implementation of the client-side program you use to make the copy.
No, SMB is and always has been a very published spec.
Are you intentionally lying? Or just ignorant?
SMB is not an officially published spec. Notice how that informative page you linked is not provided by Microsoft, and in fact describes the fruits of external reverse-engineering efforts.
(In recent years, pressure from successful reverse engineering projects has pushed Microsoft to reveal partial protocol details. But they're not complete, and it wasn't "always" published as you claimed)
By claiming that SMB is a published spec, you denigrate the enormous effort put in by Trigdell, Allison & cohorts to puzzle out how it works, often dropping down to the level of sniffing ethernet packets.
In order to add, it would first have to meet, then somehow exceed the current offerings.
That sentence makes no sense at all. I guess it's just a weird reach for some clever rhetorical hook. If I join a football squad, but can't beat the current striker, I'm still an addition to the team.
Maybe if the squad was already at full capacity, adding me doesn't supply anything new, but that's exactly what the poster was suggesting.
And when there's a question of if a new contender is good enough to be considered, it should be held up not against the best of the others, but the worst- for that's the one who'd be displaced first.
introduced into genre ruled by Battlefield 1942
BF1942 currently has 9000 players online, a huge chunk of them in the non-WWII Desert Combat scenario*. Meanwhile, the Activision's Quake-engine games (forked throughout several variants) have 16000 players total.
*It's really funny how the success of Desert Combat has undercut EA's future plans for the "Battlefield" franchise. They were plainly intending to step through 20th century wars in a commercial series, starting with Vietnam, and now a free mod to their own game is becoming suffocating competition to their new releases.
Every UI study I've ever read has concluded that the keyboard FELT faster, but that if you timed things, using a mouse was faster.
And where do you read these studies from?? Please cite at least one. I'd be very suspicious of them- it's not as if "mouse on/off?" is a truly independent variable that can be toggled without changing anything else in the environment.
Normally when an application is updated to the WIMP system, many other usability enhancements are bundled in at the same time.
Here's a study for you: find a professional whose job depends on extremely rapid and accurate computer operation. It could be the clerk at your grocery, it could be the navigator of a US Navy hovercraft. Inspect his computer. Is there a mouse installed?
I did read a study that concluded having one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse was the most efficent method....
Time for you to find an elementary English teacher for a lesson on "sarcasm" and "irony".
They are rhetorical techniques and in no way equivalent to "stooping" or even emulating the source material. By blatantly imitating the superficial structure of a passage, a message of an entirely different nature can be sent.
(I will note that Roblimo is by no means a master of the satirical form, but his intent was painfully clear to anyone understanding the background of the situation- that is, people who've used KDE, read English for more than 3 years, and have IQs above 75)
That pronunciation is uninformative and humorously ambiguous. Although the animal "gnu" is pronounced "new", the software project needed a different interpretation to allow sensible communication.
"Sorry chief, the support guy said I'd need a new compiler to build it." "But you just installed the latest compiler yesterday!" "It's an old program, so it depends on new extensions." "Because it's old, it only works with the new??" "Right, so instead of the new program, we'll just use the new program! Oh, and the new new 3.2 is too strict, so we'll go back to the old new 2.9."
So we can see why the pronunciation had to be changed. I believe it was a real mistake to pick the name "GNU"- the confusion your friends have is indicative of a larger problem facing the FSF's GNU project: new users reading the word can't guess how to say it, while someone who hear's the word can't guess how to type it (regardless of which pronunciation she heard).
That mistake in naming is why RMS got into trouble for complaining that the word Linux was used when "GNU" would be better. If "GNU" was a less cumbersome word, people would be more willing to use it of their own free will. CNN anchors can spout "Linux" two dozen times a day, but I can hardly imagine what they'd do with "GNU".
Next you will say it's "Ka-noppix" and "K-Nuth"
It's not the same. There is no word in the dictionary for "noppicks" or "nuth", so leaving the first consonant silent doesn't reduce the information-content of oral communication.
(You probably know this, but for the benefit of others): It's already happened. A well-known developer called RMS got the MacArthur grant 13 years ago.
Today, there's enough $$$ coming into OS from corps like IBM that the charitable committees will look for something less outwardly profitable to fund.
If not wait for the.deb to become available or subscribe to RedHat network etc.
It was not long ago that the mplayer developers absolutely forbid anyone from making a binary distribution of their software. The non-GPL license allowed copying as source code ONLY.
Flames leftover from that time may have valid bases, as they represented a true obstacle towards a non-expert installing the program.
Just look at the balance sheet and start shutting down divisions that done and have never made profit
But then you may be ignoring the reasons WHY those divisions were unprofitable. Where they inherently bad? Or where their activities constrained by unified corporate direction.
For example, we might imagine that Sun's chip and hardware business might be more profitable if they weren't tied to Solaris, and could get on the Linux server-applications bandwagon. Or conversely, suppose that the software business has been hampered by the hardware, and that Solaris would be a bigger seller if the x86 version was considered a properly-supported option.
We can't know now if either of those possibilities is true, but they demonstrate why the profitablity of a division doesn't predict how it could do as a separate company.
But Sun can be a commodity parts supplier without being a commodity systems manufacturer.
Taking that role is a difficult balancing act. How do you sell components to system manufacturers, while also selling full systems yourself? That kind of conflict of interest will make other OEMs reluctant to depend on your parts, since you're also competing them. (We've frequently seen technology companies get hurt by going down this road- Novell, for example, saw that it's resellers were profitable and started to compete with them, driving them away and losing customer relationships to their platform)
Sun could also introduce components into the Opteron family that would make scaling the chip difficult for competetors (by clever use of patents, etc.).
That kind of artificial price disparity is dangerous. It leads to an internally-conflicted corporation. The ex-AMD employees wouldn't be happy to see their chips getting less market-penetration (and less revenue) because Sun wants to keep the good ones for themselves.
Is it smart for a company to subsidize a weak operation by forcing a profitable division to supply it product at below market-driven costs? Only if they trust that the weak project will be profitable enough in the future to be worth preserving. And I don't see how that change would happen.
Will future customers like to be locked into a Sun+AMD solution for their Big Iron needs? Or will be they go with IBM+Intel, knowing that HP, Dell, or others will be able to jump in and take over support if IBM starts jacking up prices? (Beware vendor lock-in)
Also, the more high-end AMD chips are taken off the general market, the more Intel will be able to charge for competiting products. Then there will be even more incentive for the AMD branch to compete with Intel for some of those sales. Knowing this, I can't see how AMD would assent to a Sun merger (or how Sun could afford to buy them out)
No they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so at this time. That's what, your 34th repetition of that today? And once again, no justificiation.
I suppose if you take a generous definition of "LEGALLY REQUIRED", then nobody is required to do anything. But there's a level of disclosure they'd have to make in negotiations with the defendant to prevent the judge from laughing at them when they finally hit the courtroom. And SCO hasn't achieved it.
I went to NYU law. Graduated in 1995. How about you?
I'd never waste my time with something like that. But the lawyer who interpreted SCO's claims for me is Yale class of 85.
Doubtful - the leaker and the people hosting the source on their servers will be in trouble, but those downloading probably won't.
In a copyright violation case, anyone who knowingly helped commit the offense is culpable. This includes not only the giver, but also the recipient (if he performed some affirmative action to get the files, not if they merely showed up in his email)
The MPAA so far has only sued distributors of their files, but they could go after leeches if they wished.
Since the estimated market value of the HL2 source code is almost one million dollars, anyone who has it could find himself the target of a dangerous lawsuit.
I was able to view the lectures under Linux with the latest Mplayer. However, I could not seek, so if the stream is interrupted, you have to watch it all again.
As a workaround, mplayer's included utilities can re-encode streams into a tractable local format. For example, you can stream an RPM video into "mencoder" (included with mplayer) and save that as a local divx;) AVI, which will be seekable when you view it later.
Most interesting thing though, is the presence of a linux/, *gets his hopes up*
Unfortunately, that's probably only there for the Linux dedicated server. We already knew there would be one of those.
It's looking very unlikely Valve will release a Linux HalfLife2 client. They never released Linux versions of the original HalfLife, even though the game engine they used supported Linux. And today they're working tightly with Microsoft (such as for the X-Box port), so there's no reason to expect they'll step out of the Redmond shadow.
You've just publically confessed to a rather serious crime. Valve could easily find your identity, either by tracing that immortal-lumen.com URL, or by DMCA request to slashdot.org. If they wished, they could obliterate any possibility of your working in the game industry, or even have you sent to prison for 3 years.
Copyright infringement is a pasttime on the internet, but "piracy" of $60 game CDs or Led Zepplin tunes don't compare to this. The police might be willing to agressively prosecute something like this.
SCO has no such obligations, but you keep saying it. I don't know where you went to law school.
SCO has many obligations, but you keep saying they don't. And you provide no explanation why. Just where did YOU go to law school?
The evidence will be presented when it makes sense to do so, at the proper time
The time they're REQUIRED to tell what code is THEIRS was back when they started offering $699 licenses to that code. They can't sell licenses to something without telling the customer what they're selling!
For that reason, broadcast rights are strictly limited by the FCC
You need to realize where this is coming from. As I've already pointed out in another comment, this petition is addressed to the FTC, not the FCC. The whole argument "regulation is permitted because they're exploiting a public resource" just doesn't apply.
The petition, if successful, would apply to non-broadcast TV shows as well (HBO).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.
And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.
Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL.
So then you're accusing them of flat-out copyright violation then? Fine.
It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them. That part where they "made thousands of copies" is criminal copyright infringement, with statutory damages that can reach the billions, unless they had first come to an agreement with the original copyright holder. That agreement is the GPL. If they didn't consent to it, then they're just a bunch of warez d00ds.
People are allowed to make a small number of copies of software for Fair Use purposes, but those cannot be resold (except as bundled with the original, licensed copy). I can backup Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP onto my tape drive, but can't sell that tape independtly of the original install media.
You have no right to make an independently redistributable copy of GPLed software without agreeing to the GPL.
Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used? .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
Do you read the comment banner for every
No, I haven't done those things.
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.
I can get away with it because I'm not republishing copyrighted materials. I'm not doing anything that I wasn't already given permission to do when I recieved the software.
An EULA is not a contract and is not binding. The comment banners? I read them sometimes, but they're still not contracts. (Or, if you consider those things to be contracts, there not ones an end-user has any reason to join. The performance of an action can only be interpreted as acsenting to a contract if the individual would not have been allowed to perform said action without permission from the other party)
Unless software is public domain, it's not completely "free."
In the captialistic nations of the developed world, the most common, legally binding definition of "free" is "zero dollars".
Many companies (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Google, Adobe, etc) offer "free" programs on their websites, where "free" is plainly understood to mean "Don't bother reaching for your credit card". Yet they're not public domain, and it would be illegal to redistribute them. (Simple redistribution is unlikely to bother the companies enough to do anything, but passing around a modified version would rapidly get you sued. See "Kazaa Lite")
The term "public domain" means, obviously, "owned by the public". That is not equivalent to "free".
Even if you just *use* it in a commercial setting, you still have to provide a mirror of the code.
That is untrue. Where can you get such an idea?
There's a lot of common misconceptions about the GPL, but that's not even one of them! (I can't even find a mention of this concept in the FSF faq, because it's so outlandish)
I can name more than 60 companies which use GPL software in commercial settings without providing a mirror of the code (Microsoft, for example, has used GPL programs, but I'm quite sure they don't have them for download!)
I just wish that everyone who wanted to spout a "fact" about the GPL consider reading it first. Just once, please? It's not all that complicated!
Alright, who wants to copy the Forbes article and change it into an anti-Microsoft parody? Delete the first 3 paragraphs, then search & replace these key words:
s/Linux/Microsoft/g
s/Boston/Washington, DC/g
s/FSF/BSA/g
s/Cisco Systems/public schools/g
etc...
Unless you need to have your files encrypted during copying, you may want to reconsider using SCP for everyday copying of files.
If file aren't encrypted for transit, then they can be intercepted by other users of the network. If your LAN has 2 Unix systems and 1 Windows box that's been 0wnzed with BackOrifice, the hacker can glimpse files the Unix systems are sharing on SMB/NFS, even though he's unable to log into the shares.
but if you ever try to copy large amounts of data, it slows the process considerably
Prehaps most of the time, but not always. In fact, the reverse has been observed (rarely). Because SMB is a file sharing protocol rather than a transfer one, it provides more granular access (allowing the possibility of nonlinear seeking and writing) instead of just blasting the bits as quickly as possible. If that becomes a true slowdown depends on the implementation of the client-side program you use to make the copy.
If you're willing to patch Linux, the line between user & kernel space can be easily blurred.
With FUSD, a program can appear to be a kernel module, although it's running in user-space, for more safety and ease of development.
With KML, a user program can be run in kernel space, for more performance and risk of catastrophy.
No, SMB is and always has been a very published spec.
Are you intentionally lying? Or just ignorant?
SMB is not an officially published spec. Notice how that informative page you linked is not provided by Microsoft, and in fact describes the fruits of external reverse-engineering efforts.
(In recent years, pressure from successful reverse engineering projects has pushed Microsoft to reveal partial protocol details. But they're not complete, and it wasn't "always" published as you claimed)
By claiming that SMB is a published spec, you denigrate the enormous effort put in by Trigdell, Allison & cohorts to puzzle out how it works, often dropping down to the level of sniffing ethernet packets.
For further verification that "reverse engineering" is a COMPLETELY VALID description of Samba's development history, see any article, interview with one of the authors, including one conducted on Slashdot. Or just read their own mailing list even.
"Times faster" would imply "in addition to the baseline"
It implies no such thing. "Three times faster" means in exactly one third of the original time needed. There is no ambiguity.
This is the usage found in all English writing, including scientific literature and networked file-sharing benchmarks.
In order to add, it would first have to meet, then somehow exceed the current offerings.
That sentence makes no sense at all. I guess it's just a weird reach for some clever rhetorical hook. If I join a football squad, but can't beat the current striker, I'm still an addition to the team.
Maybe if the squad was already at full capacity, adding me doesn't supply anything new, but that's exactly what the poster was suggesting.
And when there's a question of if a new contender is good enough to be considered, it should be held up not against the best of the others, but the worst- for that's the one who'd be displaced first.
introduced into genre ruled by Battlefield 1942
BF1942 currently has 9000 players online, a huge chunk of them in the non-WWII Desert Combat scenario*. Meanwhile, the Activision's Quake-engine games (forked throughout several variants) have 16000 players total.
*It's really funny how the success of Desert Combat has undercut EA's future plans for the "Battlefield" franchise. They were plainly intending to step through 20th century wars in a commercial series, starting with Vietnam, and now a free mod to their own game is becoming suffocating competition to their new releases.
Every UI study I've ever read has concluded that the keyboard FELT faster, but that if you timed things, using a mouse was faster.
And where do you read these studies from?? Please cite at least one. I'd be very suspicious of them- it's not as if "mouse on/off?" is a truly independent variable that can be toggled without changing anything else in the environment.
Normally when an application is updated to the WIMP system, many other usability enhancements are bundled in at the same time.
Here's a study for you: find a professional whose job depends on extremely rapid and accurate computer operation. It could be the clerk at your grocery, it could be the navigator of a US Navy hovercraft. Inspect his computer. Is there a mouse installed?
I did read a study that concluded having one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse was the most efficent method....
That's definately better than two-handed mousing!
Stooping to 'their' level doesn't help anyone.
Time for you to find an elementary English teacher for a lesson on "sarcasm" and "irony".
They are rhetorical techniques and in no way equivalent to "stooping" or even emulating the source material. By blatantly imitating the superficial structure of a passage, a message of an entirely different nature can be sent.
(I will note that Roblimo is by no means a master of the satirical form, but his intent was painfully clear to anyone understanding the background of the situation- that is, people who've used KDE, read English for more than 3 years, and have IQs above 75)
That pronunciation is uninformative and humorously ambiguous. Although the animal "gnu" is pronounced "new", the software project needed a different interpretation to allow sensible communication.
Otherwise, you'd get into a virtual Abbott & Costello routine:
- "Is the application running yet?"
So we can see why the pronunciation had to be changed. I believe it was a real mistake to pick the name "GNU"- the confusion your friends have is indicative of a larger problem facing the FSF's GNU project: new users reading the word can't guess how to say it, while someone who hear's the word can't guess how to type it (regardless of which pronunciation she heard)."Sorry chief, the support guy said I'd need a new compiler to build it."
"But you just installed the latest compiler yesterday!"
"It's an old program, so it depends on new extensions."
"Because it's old, it only works with the new??"
"Right, so instead of the new program, we'll just use the new program! Oh, and the new new 3.2 is too strict, so we'll go back to the old new 2.9."
That mistake in naming is why RMS got into trouble for complaining that the word Linux was used when "GNU" would be better. If "GNU" was a less cumbersome word, people would be more willing to use it of their own free will. CNN anchors can spout "Linux" two dozen times a day, but I can hardly imagine what they'd do with "GNU".
Next you will say it's "Ka-noppix" and "K-Nuth"
It's not the same. There is no word in the dictionary for "noppicks" or "nuth", so leaving the first consonant silent doesn't reduce the information-content of oral communication.
And why not an open source programmer?
(You probably know this, but for the benefit of others): It's already happened. A well-known developer called RMS got the MacArthur grant 13 years ago.
Today, there's enough $$$ coming into OS from corps like IBM that the charitable committees will look for something less outwardly profitable to fund.
If not wait for the .deb to become available or subscribe to RedHat network etc.
It was not long ago that the mplayer developers absolutely forbid anyone from making a binary distribution of their software. The non-GPL license allowed copying as source code ONLY.
Flames leftover from that time may have valid bases, as they represented a true obstacle towards a non-expert installing the program.
Just look at the balance sheet and start shutting down divisions that done and have never made profit
But then you may be ignoring the reasons WHY those divisions were unprofitable. Where they inherently bad? Or where their activities constrained by unified corporate direction.
For example, we might imagine that Sun's chip and hardware business might be more profitable if they weren't tied to Solaris, and could get on the Linux server-applications bandwagon. Or conversely, suppose that the software business has been hampered by the hardware, and that Solaris would be a bigger seller if the x86 version was considered a properly-supported option.
We can't know now if either of those possibilities is true, but they demonstrate why the profitablity of a division doesn't predict how it could do as a separate company.
But Sun can be a commodity parts supplier without being a commodity systems manufacturer.
Taking that role is a difficult balancing act. How do you sell components to system manufacturers, while also selling full systems yourself? That kind of conflict of interest will make other OEMs reluctant to depend on your parts, since you're also competing them. (We've frequently seen technology companies get hurt by going down this road- Novell, for example, saw that it's resellers were profitable and started to compete with them, driving them away and losing customer relationships to their platform)
Sun could also introduce components into the Opteron family that would make scaling the chip difficult for competetors (by clever use of patents, etc.).
That kind of artificial price disparity is dangerous. It leads to an internally-conflicted corporation. The ex-AMD employees wouldn't be happy to see their chips getting less market-penetration (and less revenue) because Sun wants to keep the good ones for themselves.
Is it smart for a company to subsidize a weak operation by forcing a profitable division to supply it product at below market-driven costs? Only if they trust that the weak project will be profitable enough in the future to be worth preserving. And I don't see how that change would happen.
Will future customers like to be locked into a Sun+AMD solution for their Big Iron needs? Or will be they go with IBM+Intel, knowing that HP, Dell, or others will be able to jump in and take over support if IBM starts jacking up prices? (Beware vendor lock-in)
Also, the more high-end AMD chips are taken off the general market, the more Intel will be able to charge for competiting products. Then there will be even more incentive for the AMD branch to compete with Intel for some of those sales. Knowing this, I can't see how AMD would assent to a Sun merger (or how Sun could afford to buy them out)
No they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so at this time.
That's what, your 34th repetition of that today? And once again, no justificiation.
I suppose if you take a generous definition of "LEGALLY REQUIRED", then nobody is required to do anything. But there's a level of disclosure they'd have to make in negotiations with the defendant to prevent the judge from laughing at them when they finally hit the courtroom. And SCO hasn't achieved it.
I went to NYU law. Graduated in 1995. How about you?
I'd never waste my time with something like that. But the lawyer who interpreted SCO's claims for me is Yale class of 85.
Doubtful - the leaker and the people hosting the source on their servers will be in trouble, but those downloading probably won't.
In a copyright violation case, anyone who knowingly helped commit the offense is culpable. This includes not only the giver, but also the recipient (if he performed some affirmative action to get the files, not if they merely showed up in his email)
The MPAA so far has only sued distributors of their files, but they could go after leeches if they wished.
Since the estimated market value of the HL2 source code is almost one million dollars, anyone who has it could find himself the target of a dangerous lawsuit.
I was able to view the lectures under Linux with the latest Mplayer. However, I could not seek, so if the stream is interrupted, you have to watch it all again.
As a workaround, mplayer's included utilities can re-encode streams into a tractable local format. For example, you can stream an RPM video into "mencoder" (included with mplayer) and save that as a local divx;) AVI, which will be seekable when you view it later.
Type "man mplayer" for details.
Most interesting thing though, is the presence of a linux/, *gets his hopes up*
Unfortunately, that's probably only there for the Linux dedicated server. We already knew there would be one of those.
It's looking very unlikely Valve will release a Linux HalfLife2 client. They never released Linux versions of the original HalfLife, even though the game engine they used supported Linux. And today they're working tightly with Microsoft (such as for the X-Box port), so there's no reason to expect they'll step out of the Redmond shadow.
I'm just about done d/l'ing it to have a peek.
You've just publically confessed to a rather serious crime. Valve could easily find your identity, either by tracing that immortal-lumen.com URL, or by DMCA request to slashdot.org. If they wished, they could obliterate any possibility of your working in the game industry, or even have you sent to prison for 3 years.
Copyright infringement is a pasttime on the internet, but "piracy" of $60 game CDs or Led Zepplin tunes don't compare to this. The police might be willing to agressively prosecute something like this.
SCO has no such obligations, but you keep saying it. I don't know where you went to law school.
SCO has many obligations, but you keep saying they don't. And you provide no explanation why. Just where did YOU go to law school?
The evidence will be presented when it makes sense to do so, at the proper time
The time they're REQUIRED to tell what code is THEIRS was back when they started offering $699 licenses to that code. They can't sell licenses to something without telling the customer what they're selling!
just ready to check it in to CVS.
As has been widely reported in the news, Linux does not use CVS.
For that reason, broadcast rights are strictly limited by the FCC
You need to realize where this is coming from. As I've already pointed out in another comment, this petition is addressed to the FTC, not the FCC. The whole argument "regulation is permitted because they're exploiting a public resource" just doesn't apply.
The petition, if successful, would apply to non-broadcast TV shows as well (HBO).