They'd probably just tweak their existing predictors to compensate. If you have enough to play with all you need it odds above 0.5, no matter how small. It'd be a good start though.
The problem is that you're making assumptions about me. If your company sells copies of software in some form or fashion, then reinventing wheels is just about your job description. If you are going to make others reinvent the wheel it is a tad selfish to complain that they make you do so.
Oh, there sure is a lot of formerly BSD code going around, I just don't give a shit as an end user because it won't prevent the manufacturer from EOLing my device by lack of software updates. Formerlly BSD code doesn't have nearly the same advantages as actual BSD code.
If reinventing the wheel is bad, then so is hiding away the one you grafted on, if it is not bad then let then why do you expect others to provide the base for the invention of propriatary wheels that will only need to be reinvented to not be continously reinvented?
GPL attempts to preserve as much freedom as possible along the entire chain of distribution, but that doesn't sound good when trying to do character attacks...
If having the ability to modify the software you run isn't a freedom, then there's not much freedom in BSD licensed software (and software in general) to begin with. If having the ability to mofify the software you run is a sort of freedom, than it can be removed by excersing the freedom of the BSD licenses to not distribute source code. "Not extend a certain freedom" is functionally identical to removing it, all that remains is figuring wether or not one finds the freedom to do so more important than the freedom that will be optional. That has always been the balance of freedom when more than one person is involved but some people seem to believe that freedom is an absolute and ignore this.
The other is the termination clause, where if you are found to be in violation your license terminates with no mechanism for reinstating it once you return to compliance.
That's the GPLv2 to the letter, v3 reinstates you after 60 days if the copyright holders don't say otherwise. GPLv3 is a strict improvement with regards to termination, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I wouldn't trust them. And while I see why companies would worry about the patent clauses, letting a company contribute code only to be sued by them isn't really a solution either.
With, yes. Installed on a User Product (as defined in the license) that can technically be updated, license violation (which is a fast road to copyright violation).
Was that licensing FUD tasty? Deploy GPLv3 software on whatever you like, what you can't do is ship it on systems where the user can't run modified versions. As far as I'm concerned GPLv3 code is a great litmus test, I'll go out of my way to avoid any vendor who go out of their way to avoid the GPLv3. I prefer hardware that won't be obseleted just because the vendor stops caring, among other things.
Yes, the 'exact' no-dimensions-given shape, or maybe similar, to some degree, not known in advance. No it would not look 'exactly' like a macbook air, you could just about stick the ol' Sony drum hinge on it and be covered.
I don't make much sense to you because Apple would never sue a design that's more different than Samsung's "obvious ripoff"? If Nixoloco, much like you, is not aware of what Apple is doing they shouldn't loudly shout about FUD.
Where the fuck did you pull brushed nickel from, the patent describes it as "a metallic-looking surface". The feet (and half of the thing in general, but you specifically talk about feet) are drawn with dashed lines, let's see what the patent says about that:
The broken lines are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the electronic device and form no part of the claimed design.
Care to rethink what exactly the patent protects? Trademarks can deal with confusion just fine, if people can tell Coke cans and 2-liter bottles from Pepsi ones (hint, the shape's identical), then they can tell an Apple logo from, say, a little android. No, this is about keeping competition at bay with no benefit to the market at large.
The feet are not part of the patent claim, any feet will do as long as the solid lines are reasonably similar.
Does the lid and base tapper the same way?
Significant parts of the base are not specified.
SO,. now that you have been schooled, are you going to make an effort to understand patents? please?
So, you might have inferred that dashed lines aren't actually protected, this is indeed the case. Are you going to make an effort to understand just how many potential designs particular patent covers?
The details of the ornamental design in question are (a) the lid, (b) portions of the lower body. Claiming that a design patent can't be broad is like claiming that a normal patent can't be, because, you know, it only covers the claims, completely ignoring that the broadness comes from just how broad of claims can be smuggled past the examiner. Similarly here the patent is a broad or narrow as how little definite detail can be used while still getting the patent approved. Compare to the patent linked by Grond, that covers one specific, and only one specific, design.
Ah, but that's the point, whether or not the hinge is more or less obvious is irrelevant to the patent as the hinge, along with most of the back of the case, isn't defined. And no, just claiming that it's a patent of the whole design doesn't make it so, it's a patent on a few carefully selected parts... the most simple and generic ones.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd probably just tweak their existing predictors to compensate. If you have enough to play with all you need it odds above 0.5, no matter how small. It'd be a good start though.
The problem is that you're making assumptions about me. If your company sells copies of software in some form or fashion, then reinventing wheels is just about your job description. If you are going to make others reinvent the wheel it is a tad selfish to complain that they make you do so.
Nothing worse than would have happened if they were banned by mistake instead.
Yes, yes it is.
Oh, there sure is a lot of formerly BSD code going around, I just don't give a shit as an end user because it won't prevent the manufacturer from EOLing my device by lack of software updates. Formerlly BSD code doesn't have nearly the same advantages as actual BSD code.
If reinventing the wheel is bad, then so is hiding away the one you grafted on, if it is not bad then let then why do you expect others to provide the base for the invention of propriatary wheels that will only need to be reinvented to not be continously reinvented?
Care to show an example?
GPL attempts to preserve as much freedom as possible along the entire chain of distribution, but that doesn't sound good when trying to do character attacks...
If having the ability to modify the software you run isn't a freedom, then there's not much freedom in BSD licensed software (and software in general) to begin with. If having the ability to mofify the software you run is a sort of freedom, than it can be removed by excersing the freedom of the BSD licenses to not distribute source code. "Not extend a certain freedom" is functionally identical to removing it, all that remains is figuring wether or not one finds the freedom to do so more important than the freedom that will be optional. That has always been the balance of freedom when more than one person is involved but some people seem to believe that freedom is an absolute and ignore this.
That's the GPLv2 to the letter, v3 reinstates you after 60 days if the copyright holders don't say otherwise. GPLv3 is a strict improvement with regards to termination, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I wouldn't trust them. And while I see why companies would worry about the patent clauses, letting a company contribute code only to be sued by them isn't really a solution either.
With, yes. Installed on a User Product (as defined in the license) that can technically be updated, license violation (which is a fast road to copyright violation).
Was that licensing FUD tasty? Deploy GPLv3 software on whatever you like, what you can't do is ship it on systems where the user can't run modified versions. As far as I'm concerned GPLv3 code is a great litmus test, I'll go out of my way to avoid any vendor who go out of their way to avoid the GPLv3. I prefer hardware that won't be obseleted just because the vendor stops caring, among other things.
So how fluent exactly are you in machine language these days? Wouldn't want to rely on assembler or anything...
It was settled when they gave up and made Vim an OS.
Yes, the 'exact' no-dimensions-given shape, or maybe similar, to some degree, not known in advance. No it would not look 'exactly' like a macbook air, you could just about stick the ol' Sony drum hinge on it and be covered.
I don't make much sense to you because Apple would never sue a design that's more different than Samsung's "obvious ripoff"? If Nixoloco, much like you, is not aware of what Apple is doing they shouldn't loudly shout about FUD.
Yes, just like the Coke bottle... if the Coke bottle application looked somewhat like this.
Bullshit, you didn't look at the damn patent or didn't read what the dashed lines mean and don't mean.
So what does Samsung's history have to do with suing Motorola? Oh, you just assumed that they only used it against Samsung? Well, carry on I guess?
Could you please look at the design patent in question before making claims about what it does and doesn't cover?
Care to rethink what exactly the patent protects? Trademarks can deal with confusion just fine, if people can tell Coke cans and 2-liter bottles from Pepsi ones (hint, the shape's identical), then they can tell an Apple logo from, say, a little android. No, this is about keeping competition at bay with no benefit to the market at large.
It doesn't matter what design patents might or might typically be. This one is not exact, RTFP.
The feet are not part of the patent claim, any feet will do as long as the solid lines are reasonably similar.
Significant parts of the base are not specified.
So, you might have inferred that dashed lines aren't actually protected, this is indeed the case. Are you going to make an effort to understand just how many potential designs particular patent covers?
The details of the ornamental design in question are (a) the lid, (b) portions of the lower body. Claiming that a design patent can't be broad is like claiming that a normal patent can't be, because, you know, it only covers the claims, completely ignoring that the broadness comes from just how broad of claims can be smuggled past the examiner. Similarly here the patent is a broad or narrow as how little definite detail can be used while still getting the patent approved. Compare to the patent linked by Grond, that covers one specific, and only one specific, design.
Ah, but that's the point, whether or not the hinge is more or less obvious is irrelevant to the patent as the hinge, along with most of the back of the case, isn't defined. And no, just claiming that it's a patent of the whole design doesn't make it so, it's a patent on a few carefully selected parts... the most simple and generic ones.