Actually, they don't really modify the code on your web page so much as send some "extra" content to the client at the end of the request.... kinda like this:
Client requests connection to port 80 Server answers Client requests your web page Server sends your web page to the client Server sends Geocities watermark code Server closes connection
Theoretically, someone told me in the past that you could get around their code by putting this HTML code at the bottom of your page (It doesn't come out correctly, so just make sure you form the tags properly:
All they're trying to do is pull the wool over our eyes. I mean, come on! I know some of you Yahoo people are reading this. Do you think we're stupid or something? All Yahoo did was add some non-legal jargon that means absolutely nothing. Let's take a look at it, shall we?
Yahoo does not own Content you submit, unless we specifically tell you otherwise before you submit it.
Sorry guys. You don't own content I submit even if you say this when I submit it. You don't have any ownership rights whatsoever unless I explicitly give them. This statement is just to pacify the reactionists who thought that the later parts gave Yahoo ownership of the content, which they never did. Discard useless sentence number one.
You license the Content to Yahoo as set forth below for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network of properties and for the promotion and marketing of our services.
Oh wow. Looks like Yahoo's limiting how they can use your content, just like Tripod does, right? (And I looked at Tripod's TOS... it's really not that unreasonable) Nope. Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. They never used the word limited or exclusive, so all this is is another empty promise. If they had said limited purposes or exclusive purposes then this statement would be legally binding and you'd have every right to go after them if they used your content for something other than promoting you or the service. Scratch statement number two, but kudos to your lawyers for coming up with something suitably obfuscated that would fool some of the people.
By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.
And here's the first of the original statements. Let's look at it in light of Yahoo adding the first two statements. Well, let's see... we're still giving Yahoo the right to use the content, and although they stated what the purposes are above, they didn't limit them. So the meaning remains the same. They also still have the right to modify and create derivative works. And here's the kicker. They still have the right to distribute and sub-license the content. Which means even IF the second statement about the purposes held any water, they could still sell it to someone else to do with as they please. And just to add insult to injury, they haven't limited the term of the license to the term of your account (like Tripod has).
Wow. It's so nice that Yahoo backed down. It's so nice that they're not the giant corporation that doesn't care about their customers that we thought they were. Nice try guys, but we're not the mindless sheep you seem to think we are.
I love Apache server and the whole idea, but now it makes me wonder if they are up to something to fit their new "Incorporated" status, like IPO *yucks*. Although after prisons started considering their prisoners as customers, I am no longer surprised to read about these things.
Calm down. Everyone has customers, and it's very nice to see that the Apache folks realize who their customers are despite the fact that we don't give them any money. It's always good to see a group like this, that has given so much to the community and not asked for anything in return, and see that they understand that once you start a project like this (Apache) it takes on a life of its own and you need to keep supporting it, not drop it on the floor because it's not making you any money.
Who are your customers? Everyone's got 'em. It's obvious if you're selling something, but that doesn't mean that just because you're not taking someone's money, that you don't have customers. If you're working on a help desk in a large organization, it might be the people that you support. If you maintain a web site (even a small one), it might be the people who view it.
Know who your customers are. It lets you do your job better.
It's similar to the electronic paper in Diamond Age, however all we're talking about here is a display. To be truly useful, you need to attach a "brain" to it.
Which is why I thought that the book in Diamond Age was pretty slick. They were able to use the electronic paper for the display and embed the power supply and the actual computer in the binding. It ended up solving the problem of where the computer would go. Now I know that they also had sheets of electronic paper that had computers built into them, but we're not that far away from that either.
Think about it.... take one of these gyricon displays, then layer a sheet of plastic behind it that has a printed circuit on it that is the computer. The silicon wafers for microchips are very thin and could be right on the plastic (as we see with some very thin devices now). Want it to have wireless net access? Just print a trasnsceiver onto that sheet. 8.5x11" makes a really nice antenna, even if it is paper thin. Now all you have to worry about is the power supply, and I don't think that that is really that difficult to work in. So we've got a piece of smart paper that's a little bit thicker than this electronic paper, and nearly as flexible.
We can even go further with this. I think I remember reading not too long back about IBM developing microchips with a plastic base. If that wasn't just a memory glitch on my part, then we now have semiconductors that are thinner and more durable than silicon wafers. And who says we only have to have one sheet for the computer part of this? We're really not that far off from having smart paper that's performing the functions of a full size computer.
Pretty neat stuff. It's a good time to be a geek:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they don't really modify the code on your web page so much as send some "extra" content to the client at the end of the request.... kinda like this:
Client requests connection to port 80
Server answers
Client requests your web page
Server sends your web page to the client
Server sends Geocities watermark code
Server closes connection
Theoretically, someone told me in the past that you could get around their code by putting this HTML code at the bottom of your page (It doesn't come out correctly, so just make sure you form the tags properly:
</HTML><NOSCRIPT><!--
I don't know if that still holds true, however.
---
Sorry guys. You don't own content I submit even if you say this when I submit it. You don't have any ownership rights whatsoever unless I explicitly give them. This statement is just to pacify the reactionists who thought that the later parts gave Yahoo ownership of the content, which they never did. Discard useless sentence number one.
Oh wow. Looks like Yahoo's limiting how they can use your content, just like Tripod does, right? (And I looked at Tripod's TOS... it's really not that unreasonable) Nope. Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. They never used the word limited or exclusive, so all this is is another empty promise. If they had said limited purposes or exclusive purposes then this statement would be legally binding and you'd have every right to go after them if they used your content for something other than promoting you or the service. Scratch statement number two, but kudos to your lawyers for coming up with something suitably obfuscated that would fool some of the people.
And here's the first of the original statements. Let's look at it in light of Yahoo adding the first two statements. Well, let's see... we're still giving Yahoo the right to use the content, and although they stated what the purposes are above, they didn't limit them. So the meaning remains the same. They also still have the right to modify and create derivative works. And here's the kicker. They still have the right to distribute and sub-license the content. Which means even IF the second statement about the purposes held any water, they could still sell it to someone else to do with as they please. And just to add insult to injury, they haven't limited the term of the license to the term of your account (like Tripod has).
Wow. It's so nice that Yahoo backed down. It's so nice that they're not the giant corporation that doesn't care about their customers that we thought they were. Nice try guys, but we're not the mindless sheep you seem to think we are.
---
I love Apache server and the whole idea, but now it makes me wonder if they are up to something to fit their new "Incorporated" status, like IPO *yucks*. Although after prisons started considering their prisoners as customers, I am no longer surprised to read about these things.
Calm down. Everyone has customers, and it's very nice to see that the Apache folks realize who their customers are despite the fact that we don't give them any money. It's always good to see a group like this, that has given so much to the community and not asked for anything in return, and see that they understand that once you start a project like this (Apache) it takes on a life of its own and you need to keep supporting it, not drop it on the floor because it's not making you any money.
Who are your customers? Everyone's got 'em. It's obvious if you're selling something, but that doesn't mean that just because you're not taking someone's money, that you don't have customers. If you're working on a help desk in a large organization, it might be the people that you support. If you maintain a web site (even a small one), it might be the people who view it.
Know who your customers are. It lets you do your job better.
---
It's similar to the electronic paper in Diamond Age, however all we're talking about here is a display. To be truly useful, you need to attach a "brain" to it.
:)
Which is why I thought that the book in Diamond Age was pretty slick. They were able to use the electronic paper for the display and embed the power supply and the actual computer in the binding. It ended up solving the problem of where the computer would go. Now I know that they also had sheets of electronic paper that had computers built into them, but we're not that far away from that either.
Think about it.... take one of these gyricon displays, then layer a sheet of plastic behind it that has a printed circuit on it that is the computer. The silicon wafers for microchips are very thin and could be right on the plastic (as we see with some very thin devices now). Want it to have wireless net access? Just print a trasnsceiver onto that sheet. 8.5x11" makes a really nice antenna, even if it is paper thin. Now all you have to worry about is the power supply, and I don't think that that is really that difficult to work in. So we've got a piece of smart paper that's a little bit thicker than this electronic paper, and nearly as flexible.
We can even go further with this. I think I remember reading not too long back about IBM developing microchips with a plastic base. If that wasn't just a memory glitch on my part, then we now have semiconductors that are thinner and more durable than silicon wafers. And who says we only have to have one sheet for the computer part of this? We're really not that far off from having smart paper that's performing the functions of a full size computer.
Pretty neat stuff. It's a good time to be a geek
---