Napster fell afoul of copyright laws in part because, rather than uploading the individual's copies of songs, they copied the song from another instance.
You're thinking MP3.com, and it's an entirely different situation for different reasons. They didn't have any distribution license, but wanted to be akin to modern music lockers. Instead of uploading anything the users just validated that they had the CD. Copies weren't even involved.
The license attaches to the copy you receive. Section 6 is VERY clear on that.
It does not, you want it to explicitly say "permanently", but grasp at straws. It's the recipient who receives a license "subject to these terms and conditions". It doesn't explicitly say that the license is a new one, by your logic that means it isn't.
A previous violation terminates the license for the previous copy only. It cannot terminate future rights to a license granted afterwards.
"This License" is the GPLv2, not some mythical, untraceable instance thereof.
But paragraph 6 is pretty clear, Each time you redistribute the Program (...), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor so I can download it five times and I have five licenses.
You have one license, the GPLv2 "will automatically terminate your rights under this License". That means that clause 6 doesn't apply no matter where you get that GPLv2 licensed code from, your GPLv2 license is what was terminated. Even if somehow it did, you left out the part of 6 that states "subject to these terms and conditions", which puts you at square one, the termination being part of "these terms and conditions".
"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
Thing is, even getting it from someone else, your rights for the code in question under the GPLv2 have been terminated, no where does it mention instances. You get it from someone else, but the GPLv2 still doesn't apply to you.
The code you lost the rights to distribute is the same in the new version. You probably have the right to distribute whatever relatively independent bits where added, but you are in default on the code you fucked up with. "will automatically terminate your rights under this License", this license, not this instance of the license. This code under this license (GPLv2) is now off limits to you, at least technically.
Please show where, in the terms of the license, it says that there is any additional requirement, over and above the actual terms of the license, to distribute, or that licenses are terminated in perpetuity, even if you come back into compliance.
Since since the termination is part of the license, it can't possible add requirements over and above the license. Furthermore, once your license is terminated your precious "no additional restrictions" is null and void for the licensee anyway. No amount of absurd mental gymnastics will make a terminated license apply to you.
There is no such thing, anywhere in the license, that states you lose the right to redistribute forever.
There is no such thing that states that you regain them and that is all that is needed. Your copy might be new, but the licence is still GPLv2 and the code is still the code you infringed copyrights upon. Same as with "no additional restrictions" you don't receive the rights granted in the license again since that clause, or any other clause, no longer applies to you. Your license for that code has been terminated, what would otherwise give you permission no longer can.
As he said, it "better matches our community's expectations and normal compliance strategy". Yes, what you describe is common, it's just that v3 makes it formal. E.g. someone distributes GPL code in violation by accident, they catch it themselves after, say, a month, pull the affected versions and correct the violation. Under GPLv2 a copyright holder could technically still not only sue them for the past violation but all distribution since the correction as well, since their rights have been terminated. With GPLv3 they are fine after the expiry period. It's the one thing companies (well, any distributor really) should really like about it, you know exactly where you stand.
More tethered than strapped, not for long, mostly on the forearm and certainly not wild. There's also a thick leather glove involved, so falconry would involve tethering a trained animal to a glove covering the hand and forearm.
Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it [..] or adult derived stem cells.
It's not that hard to write a logically consistent sentence. Also, why is destroying the embryos to get rid of them (the alternative unless they want to outlaw in vitro fertilisation) any worse than doing it for Franken-research?
This is why I think Mozilla has given up being customer driven and is selfishly being developer driven. Ie, they do what is convenient for developers.
That is only the case if you position yourself as the target customer.
You don't need to back-port features, you only need to back-port bug fixes.
You need to back-port them if you are going if you are going to have any feature releases within a major release and base development on trunk. Otherwise you have to forward-port. The good
Not everyone needs these new useless features.
It seems that anyone who wants to capture all of Mozilla's customers is maintaining old Firefox releases. Good news, anyone is free to do it. Just get it from this new, customer driven entity that is bound to fill this huge hole in the market.
If people want the new features than can upgrade.
And if they don't, web developers should support them for eternity, just like they are planning to support IE6 for eternity.
If they're happy with the current product then they should not be pressured to upgrade except to get patch releases for security.
Does Microsoft pressuring people to upgrade from IE6 (or EOLing W2K) makes them not customer driven? Does Apple stopping support for the 3G make them not customer driven
Furthermore, it lets them publish new features as they go because there is no expectation of perfect compatibility (and I say expectation, because things still broke) with everything sharing the same major version number over several years. This means that less development time is wasted on back- and forward-porting. Usable features get into web-developer hands, better browsers into user hands. People expecting Mozilla to be their private IT department are not as important as they think they are.
Not one of those other photographs is a proper face-to-face comparison showing the rather stark difference in size. Looking at significant angles masks this, the closest is on page 39, but it still is less than obvious. Of course none of this excuses the doctoring of any one of the pictures.
Or maybe YOU are the minority that should pay through the nose to get their particular needs implemented, since you don't seem give a fuck about what developers think (i.e. don't deserve their consideration when not a paying client).
Despite what the commentards are saying here, there are plenty of pictures in that filing showing the different aspect ratios. The picture called out here (page 28) has scaled the two tablets to be the same height, though this results in the Galaxy Tab 10.0 being narrower in both the screen and total device width -- it's just not obvious unless you line them up vertically.
It just so happens that page 28 has the only full frontal that isn't at an angle. It seems whoever put this together was very careful to avoid comparisons that showed any differences. The closest we get to a picture showing how different the aspect ratio makes them appear is on page 39, even there, the angle makes it less obvious. The picture on page 28 isn't just scaled vertically, the aspect ratio of the screen is 1.5 in this doctored picture, the actual aspect ratio is 1.6. In a proper comparison the width difference is clearly evident.
Unfortunately, the translation loses something... I don't know how literal this is supposed to be. It could mean any icons, or it could be saying that the icons are laid out almost identically.
(vi) Hasn't lost anything in the translation, it really does say: "When the product is turned on, color icons on the display".
(vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays
"Your honour, here we have a computer using colored icons! Everyone knows that before he release of the iPhone in 2007 computers used either black and white icons or text based interfaces. We demand hangings."
That secondary launcher does look way too much like iOS' launcher, after all.
And everything else ever that used icon grids. The iOS version is only iconic (har-har) because of the marketing machine, not because it's something new.
Only if it was, indeed, something used for marketing as opposed to internal. I still don't see how not using a more similar design for the final product would be worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking MP3.com, and it's an entirely different situation for different reasons. They didn't have any distribution license, but wanted to be akin to modern music lockers. Instead of uploading anything the users just validated that they had the CD. Copies weren't even involved.
It does not, you want it to explicitly say "permanently", but grasp at straws. It's the recipient who receives a license "subject to these terms and conditions". It doesn't explicitly say that the license is a new one, by your logic that means it isn't.
"This License" is the GPLv2, not some mythical, untraceable instance thereof.
Your License to the Program is terminated. The License doesn't apply to you anymore, none of it.
You have one license, the GPLv2 "will automatically terminate your rights under this License". That means that clause 6 doesn't apply no matter where you get that GPLv2 licensed code from, your GPLv2 license is what was terminated. Even if somehow it did, you left out the part of 6 that states "subject to these terms and conditions", which puts you at square one, the termination being part of "these terms and conditions".
Including the termination.
Thing is, even getting it from someone else, your rights for the code in question under the GPLv2 have been terminated, no where does it mention instances. You get it from someone else, but the GPLv2 still doesn't apply to you.
Since since the termination is part of the license, it can't possible add requirements over and above the license. Furthermore, once your license is terminated your precious "no additional restrictions" is null and void for the licensee anyway. No amount of absurd mental gymnastics will make a terminated license apply to you.
There is no such thing that states that you regain them and that is all that is needed. Your copy might be new, but the licence is still GPLv2 and the code is still the code you infringed copyrights upon. Same as with "no additional restrictions" you don't receive the rights granted in the license again since that clause, or any other clause, no longer applies to you. Your license for that code has been terminated, what would otherwise give you permission no longer can.
As he said, it "better matches our community's expectations and normal compliance strategy". Yes, what you describe is common, it's just that v3 makes it formal. E.g. someone distributes GPL code in violation by accident, they catch it themselves after, say, a month, pull the affected versions and correct the violation. Under GPLv2 a copyright holder could technically still not only sue them for the past violation but all distribution since the correction as well, since their rights have been terminated. With GPLv3 they are fine after the expiry period. It's the one thing companies (well, any distributor really) should really like about it, you know exactly where you stand.
More tethered than strapped, not for long, mostly on the forearm and certainly not wild. There's also a thick leather glove involved, so falconry would involve tethering a trained animal to a glove covering the hand and forearm.
Good effort nonetheless, I didn't think of that.
It's not that hard to write a logically consistent sentence. Also, why is destroying the embryos to get rid of them (the alternative unless they want to outlaw in vitro fertilisation) any worse than doing it for Franken-research?
Somehow I doubt it went like this: "Hey, want do this as well? We have no idea what it will do..."
You've obviously never strapped a wild animal onto your wrist.
Adding a background to icons is great lengths?
That is only the case if you position yourself as the target customer.
You need to back-port them if you are going if you are going to have any feature releases within a major release and base development on trunk. Otherwise you have to forward-port. The good
It seems that anyone who wants to capture all of Mozilla's customers is maintaining old Firefox releases. Good news, anyone is free to do it. Just get it from this new, customer driven entity that is bound to fill this huge hole in the market.
And if they don't, web developers should support them for eternity, just like they are planning to support IE6 for eternity.
Does Microsoft pressuring people to upgrade from IE6 (or EOLing W2K) makes them not customer driven? Does Apple stopping support for the 3G make them not customer driven
Furthermore, it lets them publish new features as they go because there is no expectation of perfect compatibility (and I say expectation, because things still broke) with everything sharing the same major version number over several years. This means that less development time is wasted on back- and forward-porting. Usable features get into web-developer hands, better browsers into user hands. People expecting Mozilla to be their private IT department are not as important as they think they are.
Then get the source and do whatever the hell you want. YOU don't get to dictate what THEY do.
The best way to find my SanDisk Sansa Clip+ is to follow the cord, it is not a good idea to leave it unplugged.
Anyone who is comfy installing all applications and back porting security fixes for them that is. The packages are less than stable on FreeBSD.
Not one of those other photographs is a proper face-to-face comparison showing the rather stark difference in size. Looking at significant angles masks this, the closest is on page 39, but it still is less than obvious. Of course none of this excuses the doctoring of any one of the pictures.
Or maybe YOU are the minority that should pay through the nose to get their particular needs implemented, since you don't seem give a fuck about what developers think (i.e. don't deserve their consideration when not a paying client).
It just so happens that page 28 has the only full frontal that isn't at an angle. It seems whoever put this together was very careful to avoid comparisons that showed any differences. The closest we get to a picture showing how different the aspect ratio makes them appear is on page 39, even there, the angle makes it less obvious. The picture on page 28 isn't just scaled vertically, the aspect ratio of the screen is 1.5 in this doctored picture, the actual aspect ratio is 1.6. In a proper comparison the width difference is clearly evident.
(vi) Hasn't lost anything in the translation, it really does say: "When the product is turned on, color icons on the display".
"Your honour, here we have a computer using colored icons! Everyone knows that before he release of the iPhone in 2007 computers used either black and white icons or text based interfaces. We demand hangings."
And everything else ever that used icon grids. The iOS version is only iconic (har-har) because of the marketing machine, not because it's something new.
Only if it was, indeed, something used for marketing as opposed to internal. I still don't see how not using a more similar design for the final product would be worse.
Why would a non-release version be relevant to design patent and trade dress concerns?