Well that copyright text can't override local laws and our law says that we can make "a couple of" copies for our own use (and for our close friends, here's where the law becomes a little blurred) if we don't circumvent any effective anti-copying mechanism (is there any such thing?).
EULAs are a whole lot trickier. When you buy a product the seller is to tell you everything that could affect your decision to buy the product but EULA comes after you have bought the thing. So this leads to a situation where you were unable to know what EULA is going to say before you bought the product. Our consumer law on the other hand tells that seller can't change terms of the trade afterwards. So what if EULA places more restrictions? EULA becomes invalid. But then again am I allowed to use the product if I don't accept EULA? This is the tricky question. Can I just go ahead and use the product against EULA or should I take it back to shop and get refund... I don't have answer to that:)
But you are not buying music either;) You are buying that piece of plastic which contains ones and zeros and you get license to use it. You also buy the plastic cover and some paper. Also take notice that you aren't buying any artwork that is printed on that paper.
This is at least what our local copyright law says here in Finland and I'm sure the laws are almost the same in the rest of the world. I've read the law and studied it for a couple of years in business college so I'm 99,5% certain that I'm correct about this:)
Following your logic writing kernel under GPLv2 is stupid also. Anyone can take the source, modify it, distribute modifications and run it on locked hardware which refuses to run any other kernel. And this is all possible under GPLv2. Ring any bells?
No, you are wrong. Think about it. If software was sold instead of licensed then the copyrights should transfer also instead just the license to use the software. This would mean that I could buy Windows Vista from store and relicense it under any license seems fit to me. Same goes for example Linux. If I'd buy it (well it's free so I buy it with $0) I could relicense it under BSD license.
Opening the source but not allowing you to modify and run it on the hardware you purchased runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
But again, GPL doesn't concern hardware. You can take Tivo kernel, modify it and run it if you have hardware which runs it (which you propably must do your self but at least it's perfectly open then). Totally different question is that is who-ever-manufactures-tivo allowed to lock their hardware and prevent consumers from modifying it. I'm not familiar enough with US law to comment on this though. But you could say that software is free, hardware isn't. GPLv3 closes this loop-hole or at least should make it clearer but Linux kernel isn't going v3 any time soon.
And I thought that Linus doesn't care Tivo(ization)? If he or any other kernel copyright holder doesn't care what's the big deal? They are the copyright holders and they take necessary actions if they like, not FSF nor common Linux user.
Bah! I know this concerns me even less that average Linux user. I'm just bored at work with nothing to do:)
"Dear CEO, I have access to our network, databases, backup copies, to your car and to your house. Pay me $A_HUGE_AMOUNT_OF_MONEY or they all will be gone."
I've written a couple of times about this but it seems that I'm lacking credibility:)
It doesn't matter if Tivo violates "the spirit of GPL" if that spirit isn't written clearly in the license. GPL is not the law. Laws are to be interpreted by a judge and the spirit of the law is to be taken in context (a lot of times laws aren't clear and strict but they leave some wiggle space, allthough I'm not sure if this is the case in USA). In other words, you can't have a license and afterward change it's meaning with some text written in some FAQ file in some internet site.
Of course you can be angry about Tivo and you could say they found a loop hole. But to me, who doesn't care much about the idology behind licenses, that wasn't a loop hole, it was permitted by the license.
Rightly or wrongly the Free Software Foundation is not about making software that businesses can use to make money.
Where an earth did you get this? Making money of GPL code is perfectly fine. Or did you meant that FSF is not making money out of GPL code? Well, that is correct, but FSF isn't prohibiting others from making money. I think Redhat is doing just fine with their Linux distribution.
And your last sentence is somewhat curious. If a Big (Evil) Company take GPL code, modify it, use it in their product and give back the changed source, what's wrong with that? GPL allows this. In fact this is the basic point in GPL license: you can change (and hopefully improve) the code but you have to give your changes to the rest of the world. On the other hand if the Big (Evil) Company makes their own in-house implementation, no-one but the company benefits from that.
No. You are obviously confused by iPacemaker which synchronizes paces with iPaces through iComputer using iSoftware. But luckily you get them all from the same vendor! Just remember to sign a contract with AT&DT and hope your iPaces account is opened in time...
So if I take a perfectly valid XHTML document, mangle it so that it doesn't validate agains any W3C DTD, it should magically Just Work in my browser? And if it doesn't is it W3C or browser vendor to blame?
Damn! I should start writing articles if they get published no matter how many factual errors there are. I got a lot of ideas over which I could spread my wings of FUD. Do they pay much?
You are contradicting yourself. You like one browser more than other because of extensions. Then you say Lynx is better than IE. Newsflash: IE has supported extensions for about 10 years now and Lynx has... how long? Zero or am I being misinformed?
And you are incorrect about Opera and Apple comparison. Opera tends to be actually innovative. Haven't seen much innovation coming from Apple recently. Or do you call phone w/o MMS functionality an innovation? (Yes, that was the trolling part of the message)
3) Make a platform to replace the browser neutral AJAX kits and eventually bring it all home to Windows-only.
-why? AJAX is spread all over the place and businesses are migrating old apps and/or creating new apps which run on any browser/platform.
Yes! Exactly like they did to AJAX! Hey wait... They didn't do it to AJAX. Now I'm really puzzled.
I'm puzzled. I thought that Shared Source meant that the Source is Shared... And Open Source isn't always the be-all-end-all answer to everything. Take for example PHP security bugs.
Just a nitpick. You can use SQL Server Express on production environment too, not just for PoC type situations. It has some limitations though like db size, number of CPUs and so on but not any biggies for instance for a web shop.
Little offtopic but I really dislike those SHOULD and SHOULD NOT in specs. I prefer MUST and MUST NOT so that there is no space to wiggle. If you SHOULD do something and you don't do it, you are still within the specs. But if you MUST do something and you don't do it you are out of the spec and end of discussion.
Storm is often referred to as a worm, but it's technically a Trojan. It relies on social engineering, with a tempting message and link, and it's all about expanding spam and the underlying botnet behind it, notes Joe Stewart, senior security researcher for SecureWorks.
Now tell me how MS or any other software vendor should fix their stupid users.
What's so annoying in UAC? I haven't seen it for about three months now. I know it's lurking somewhere in my Vista since it asked me some admin password when I was doing admin stuff but now when I've installed every software I need I haven't seen it for a while. "Out of sight, out of mind" doesn't work these days?
You are right. Closing window doesn't free handle. Program must explicitly call CloseHandle. And take notice that closing window doesn't necessarily end the program. So poorly written program could end up chewing handles and resources. But at the moment process has ended all it's handles are released automatically.
But I wasn't aware of any global handle limit in Windows, only that it's limited to system resources mainly memory. There's a per process GDI handle limit (something between 256 and 65536, W2K defaults to 16384) which is a good thing or otherwise one thread could end up eating every resource from system. I tried to google around on this one but found nothing. Could you provide a link to a site that talks about global handle limit in Windows XP?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that copyright text can't override local laws and our law says that we can make "a couple of" copies for our own use (and for our close friends, here's where the law becomes a little blurred) if we don't circumvent any effective anti-copying mechanism (is there any such thing?).
EULAs are a whole lot trickier. When you buy a product the seller is to tell you everything that could affect your decision to buy the product but EULA comes after you have bought the thing. So this leads to a situation where you were unable to know what EULA is going to say before you bought the product. Our consumer law on the other hand tells that seller can't change terms of the trade afterwards. So what if EULA places more restrictions? EULA becomes invalid. But then again am I allowed to use the product if I don't accept EULA? This is the tricky question. Can I just go ahead and use the product against EULA or should I take it back to shop and get refund... I don't have answer to that :)
I'm currently holding Yngwie Malmsteen - Eclipse CD in my hand. In the back cover at the bottom I can clearly see following text.
BTW it's all in caps but Slashdot prevents me writing it that way.
BTW2 great album! I've enjoyed so much listening this album that 12 euros which I paid for this seems almost too little :)
But you are not buying music either ;) You are buying that piece of plastic which contains ones and zeros and you get license to use it. You also buy the plastic cover and some paper. Also take notice that you aren't buying any artwork that is printed on that paper.
This is at least what our local copyright law says here in Finland and I'm sure the laws are almost the same in the rest of the world. I've read the law and studied it for a couple of years in business college so I'm 99,5% certain that I'm correct about this :)
Following your logic writing kernel under GPLv2 is stupid also. Anyone can take the source, modify it, distribute modifications and run it on locked hardware which refuses to run any other kernel. And this is all possible under GPLv2. Ring any bells?
No, you are wrong. Think about it. If software was sold instead of licensed then the copyrights should transfer also instead just the license to use the software. This would mean that I could buy Windows Vista from store and relicense it under any license seems fit to me. Same goes for example Linux. If I'd buy it (well it's free so I buy it with $0) I could relicense it under BSD license.
Ill-tempered mutated sea bass.
News at eleven: non-non-profitable company wants to make money. Kent Brockman reporting.
But again, GPL doesn't concern hardware. You can take Tivo kernel, modify it and run it if you have hardware which runs it (which you propably must do your self but at least it's perfectly open then). Totally different question is that is who-ever-manufactures-tivo allowed to lock their hardware and prevent consumers from modifying it. I'm not familiar enough with US law to comment on this though. But you could say that software is free, hardware isn't. GPLv3 closes this loop-hole or at least should make it clearer but Linux kernel isn't going v3 any time soon.
And I thought that Linus doesn't care Tivo(ization)? If he or any other kernel copyright holder doesn't care what's the big deal? They are the copyright holders and they take necessary actions if they like, not FSF nor common Linux user.
Bah! I know this concerns me even less that average Linux user. I'm just bored at work with nothing to do :)
What's the difference between that and this:
"Dear CEO, I have access to our network, databases, backup copies, to your car and to your house. Pay me $A_HUGE_AMOUNT_OF_MONEY or they all will be gone."
I've written a couple of times about this but it seems that I'm lacking credibility :)
It doesn't matter if Tivo violates "the spirit of GPL" if that spirit isn't written clearly in the license. GPL is not the law. Laws are to be interpreted by a judge and the spirit of the law is to be taken in context (a lot of times laws aren't clear and strict but they leave some wiggle space, allthough I'm not sure if this is the case in USA). In other words, you can't have a license and afterward change it's meaning with some text written in some FAQ file in some internet site.
Of course you can be angry about Tivo and you could say they found a loop hole. But to me, who doesn't care much about the idology behind licenses, that wasn't a loop hole, it was permitted by the license.
Where an earth did you get this? Making money of GPL code is perfectly fine. Or did you meant that FSF is not making money out of GPL code? Well, that is correct, but FSF isn't prohibiting others from making money. I think Redhat is doing just fine with their Linux distribution.
And your last sentence is somewhat curious. If a Big (Evil) Company take GPL code, modify it, use it in their product and give back the changed source, what's wrong with that? GPL allows this. In fact this is the basic point in GPL license: you can change (and hopefully improve) the code but you have to give your changes to the rest of the world. On the other hand if the Big (Evil) Company makes their own in-house implementation, no-one but the company benefits from that.
No. You are obviously confused by iPacemaker which synchronizes paces with iPaces through iComputer using iSoftware. But luckily you get them all from the same vendor! Just remember to sign a contract with AT&DT and hope your iPaces account is opened in time...
So if I take a perfectly valid XHTML document, mangle it so that it doesn't validate agains any W3C DTD, it should magically Just Work in my browser? And if it doesn't is it W3C or browser vendor to blame?
Damn! I should start writing articles if they get published no matter how many factual errors there are. I got a lot of ideas over which I could spread my wings of FUD. Do they pay much?
And for reason. I sure wouldn't want third party apps to read my passwords and such.
You are contradicting yourself. You like one browser more than other because of extensions. Then you say Lynx is better than IE. Newsflash: IE has supported extensions for about 10 years now and Lynx has... how long? Zero or am I being misinformed?
And you are incorrect about Opera and Apple comparison. Opera tends to be actually innovative. Haven't seen much innovation coming from Apple recently. Or do you call phone w/o MMS functionality an innovation? (Yes, that was the trolling part of the message)
Yes! Exactly like they did to AJAX! Hey wait ... They didn't do it to AJAX. Now I'm really puzzled.
Well then you could provide us a list of wrongdoing from the past, let's say, a year?
I'm puzzled. I thought that Shared Source meant that the Source is Shared... And Open Source isn't always the be-all-end-all answer to everything. Take for example PHP security bugs.
Just a nitpick. You can use SQL Server Express on production environment too, not just for PoC type situations. It has some limitations though like db size, number of CPUs and so on but not any biggies for instance for a web shop.
In VS2005:
Now tell me again why it is so hard to rename in VS.
Ding, and we have a loser. Check for example this.
Little offtopic but I really dislike those SHOULD and SHOULD NOT in specs. I prefer MUST and MUST NOT so that there is no space to wiggle. If you SHOULD do something and you don't do it, you are still within the specs. But if you MUST do something and you don't do it you are out of the spec and end of discussion.
For a second I thought it said midichlorian...
Yes, you obviously don't get it. From TFA:
Now tell me how MS or any other software vendor should fix their stupid users.
What's so annoying in UAC? I haven't seen it for about three months now. I know it's lurking somewhere in my Vista since it asked me some admin password when I was doing admin stuff but now when I've installed every software I need I haven't seen it for a while. "Out of sight, out of mind" doesn't work these days?
You are right. Closing window doesn't free handle. Program must explicitly call CloseHandle. And take notice that closing window doesn't necessarily end the program. So poorly written program could end up chewing handles and resources. But at the moment process has ended all it's handles are released automatically.
But I wasn't aware of any global handle limit in Windows, only that it's limited to system resources mainly memory. There's a per process GDI handle limit (something between 256 and 65536, W2K defaults to 16384) which is a good thing or otherwise one thread could end up eating every resource from system. I tried to google around on this one but found nothing. Could you provide a link to a site that talks about global handle limit in Windows XP?