I'm not completely familiar with that, but the way it works seems fairly self-explanatory. Those particular copies are protected, even if they are in the public domain. The person that collected them has the right to restrict the use of that particular collection, but not other collections or the original work. It's sort of like the GPL in that case. If you fork a codebase you control that particular fork, but the original copyright owner still has all the rights. With PD works it would be the same.
But, of course, I'm not a lawyer, paralegal, or even a lawyer's secretary so for all I know I'm talking out of my ass.
Nobody owns those because the copyrights have lapsed. After the copyrights lapse on all the music that Apple offers, then you can break the encryption and fuck with the songs all you want. Until that time, you have to play by the rules that Apple, the artists, and the labels agree upon if you want to use iTunes. It's that simple.
"Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."
Talk about reading into things that aren't there.
Take a good game. Now take out all of the limits and inconsistencies and rules. What do you have? NOTHING. You have nothing. Those limits you overcome are what is FUN. That's the entire goal is to overcome those limits. They're trying to make some great existential point about videogames, but they're failing miserably.
It was the second console of this generation, but I still think it's the least powerful. The Dreamcast is part of this group, even though it died off fast (it came out too soon). I think that the DC had the horsepower to keep up with the others and probably outpace them at times.
Gambas (http://gambas.sf.net) is moving along at a nice clip. It's a VB-ish and simple enough that even a mega-lame coder wannabe like me can create some useful stuff. Currently compilation and running of programs is... iffy. Unless you have Gambas installed you're not going to be running any programs created by it on your computer, but it's a strong base for someone to jump in and add the features you're talking about.
Yes, I'm sorry that I'm not a coder. Pardon me for deciding to dedicate my life to something I like more. Excuse the fuck out of me for assuming that using free software was one of the many ways to help contribute back to its community.
No, I'm not a coder. I write documentation, do some UI design, contribute graphics, and submit bug reports. I'm fucking sick of assholes assuming I don't do a godddamn thing because I can't code. Fuck you and the idiots that think like you.
It is the case, and that's PRECISELY why the GPL is, in fact, viral.
If any piece of your code so much as looks at a piece of GPL code, EVERYTHING must be GPL'd. This is why I personally can't stand the GPL. It's fucking hypocritical to try and defend software freedom, then go and put shit like that in your license. That isn't promoting software freedom, it's simply attacking proprietary software.
True, and I'd support any effort to make a style guide. I'm not a developer, I'm an end-user, so ANYTHING that makes documentation more consistent is okay with me.
That would be nice, but I'm one of the legendary Linux end-users. I'm not a coder. I have to sit idly by and watch a bunch of nerds act like babies everytime someone says something out of place while the software they're supposedly working on stagnates. Hopefully one of the forks will do well and will get X development out of the hellhole it's been in.
Are you REALLY THAT MUCH OF A CUNT? You'll take the time to post a three page long diatribe on what a moron someone is for not going and reading a FUCKLOAD of posts, but you won't try and help someone out by giving them a quick and simple explanation of a situation? Whatever. Go lick Dave.
Flamebait? He speaks the truth. X development is COMPLETELY FUCKING STAGNANT and it's all because of the petty squablling over bullshit issues. "Brad said I wasn't a good hacker, I'm gonna fork." "I don't like BSD style licenses, I'm gonna fork." "I don't like the main developers, I'm gonna fork."
And there's nobody there so say "Fuck it, someone has to get this shit moving along. Fuck the forks, let's just work on this thing."
The whole thing is over the 'advertising clause' in te new XFree86 license. All of it is over the fact that you have to credit the author/s of XFree86 if you make something that uses XFree86 code, JUST LIKE THE BSD LICENSE. It's nothing but a bunch of whiny-ass geek bitches complaining about pedantic bullshit that doesn't fucking matter, as per usual. GPL advocates are more than happy to force their bullshit (forced source redistribution) on anyone that uses their license, but as soon as someone else uses a license that forces COMPLETLY inconsequential things on GPL users, it's somehow a bad thing.
There isn't a general Linux style guide, and probably never will be one. We're talking about a group of developers that can't even agree to use the same damn directories consistantly. How would you expect them to draw up a style guide and then get people to use it? "Well, I like most of the Linux Style Guide, but I prefer to call kernal modules 'sticky-outy bits' so I'm not going to use any of the style guide recommendations."
This is a group of people that fork free software because it's not free enough. Am I being clear enough?;-)
The GPL is a set of limited exemptions from those restrictions, granted by the copyright holder
I can't remember the last time copyright law forced me to give up any changes I made to some software. I'd say that's a pretty big restriction on the use of the source, wouldn't you?
When you buy a piece of software you don't buy the ones and zeros, you buy a license to use said ones and zeros (we're not talking about open source here). The EULA is what lays down the ground rules for use of that software. It is a group of restrictions placed on the use of said software, here's the important part, BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
The GPL is a set of restrictions placed on the redistribution of software source code. These restrictions are placed on the software, again, by the copyright holder.
I'm not understanding how one is different from the other. Yes, I know that some EULA clauses have been deemed illegal, but those are obviously a separate issue. Maybe I'm just too annoyed at the dipshits around here that run around flapping their ass screaming "EULA's aren't legal! Install all the software you buy on every computer you can!" and then in the next breath berate some router company nobody's ever heard of for using an obscure header file from the Linux kernel and not releasing all their shit afterwards.
When an EULA DOESN'T take away rights granted by standard copyright law, how is it any different than the GPL or any other FOSS license? It's still a license.
To some extent good game design can be taught. Why do you think so many games are quite a bit like other games? Some things just work right, some don't. Teaching that much is simple.
But can you teach someone how to be creative? No, you can't. People that have absolutely no artistic aptitude will still suck after 4 years of art school. At some point you have to have some innate ability.
What makes a good game is a designer that knows from the beginning what the game is supposed to feel like. From the simplest puzzle games (Tetris, Puzzle Bobble (Frozen Bubble;) )) to the most complex wargames and RPG's, if the game doesn't feel right it will not work. That isn't something you can teach. Hell, I could probably get 20 different answers from as many people as to what the 'feel' of a game is.
One of the biggest problems is that the industry is getting so large so fast that companies don't have room for risk. They only want to hire people they know can do the right things (which is why John Romero has to hire himself to get a job;) ). There isn't any room for the people that have no experience. Go look at some game-related job boards. Everyone is looking for someone with 5+ years of experience and at least two shipped titles... how many people like that are there in the industry, and how many of that subset can design games, and how many of THAT subset can design GOOD games? Until the industry at large settles down and looks outside of the known for answers, they're screwed.
The parent to my post was trying to make the point that since copyright law doesn't cover the bits and pieces an EULA does, the EULA is always invalid. The GPL is nothing but an EULA. You can't have it both ways. Either EULA's, and by extention the GPL, are valid, or neither are.
Learn some basic comprehension skills. They might help you in your future travels.
So I assume you'd be okay if MS started using fuckloads of open source code without bothering to abide by the terms of the license it was released under? How is that any different than not abiding by the terms of an iTunes license?
License to use is not a myth, dipshit. Fair use applies only to a very limited range of actions (quoting books, making copies of data, and so on). It does not apply to wholesale copying and redistribution of shit you have no rights to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not completely familiar with that, but the way it works seems fairly self-explanatory. Those particular copies are protected, even if they are in the public domain. The person that collected them has the right to restrict the use of that particular collection, but not other collections or the original work. It's sort of like the GPL in that case. If you fork a codebase you control that particular fork, but the original copyright owner still has all the rights. With PD works it would be the same. But, of course, I'm not a lawyer, paralegal, or even a lawyer's secretary so for all I know I'm talking out of my ass.
Nobody owns those because the copyrights have lapsed. After the copyrights lapse on all the music that Apple offers, then you can break the encryption and fuck with the songs all you want. Until that time, you have to play by the rules that Apple, the artists, and the labels agree upon if you want to use iTunes. It's that simple.
No, Americans don't eat cats because we have always had a steady supply of much larger animals (bison, cows, deer, etc.) to eat.
"Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."
Talk about reading into things that aren't there.
Take a good game. Now take out all of the limits and inconsistencies and rules. What do you have? NOTHING. You have nothing. Those limits you overcome are what is FUN. That's the entire goal is to overcome those limits. They're trying to make some great existential point about videogames, but they're failing miserably.
It was the second console of this generation, but I still think it's the least powerful. The Dreamcast is part of this group, even though it died off fast (it came out too soon). I think that the DC had the horsepower to keep up with the others and probably outpace them at times.
(can you smell the burning Sega fanboyism?)
Something else for doctors to use to aid in diagnosis and treatment. This isn't 'reasonably good' medical use.
Gambas (http://gambas.sf.net) is moving along at a nice clip. It's a VB-ish and simple enough that even a mega-lame coder wannabe like me can create some useful stuff. Currently compilation and running of programs is... iffy. Unless you have Gambas installed you're not going to be running any programs created by it on your computer, but it's a strong base for someone to jump in and add the features you're talking about.
Yes, I'm sorry that I'm not a coder. Pardon me for deciding to dedicate my life to something I like more. Excuse the fuck out of me for assuming that using free software was one of the many ways to help contribute back to its community.
No, I'm not a coder. I write documentation, do some UI design, contribute graphics, and submit bug reports. I'm fucking sick of assholes assuming I don't do a godddamn thing because I can't code. Fuck you and the idiots that think like you.
It is the case, and that's PRECISELY why the GPL is, in fact, viral.
If any piece of your code so much as looks at a piece of GPL code, EVERYTHING must be GPL'd. This is why I personally can't stand the GPL. It's fucking hypocritical to try and defend software freedom, then go and put shit like that in your license. That isn't promoting software freedom, it's simply attacking proprietary software.
True, and I'd support any effort to make a style guide. I'm not a developer, I'm an end-user, so ANYTHING that makes documentation more consistent is okay with me.
That would be nice, but I'm one of the legendary Linux end-users. I'm not a coder. I have to sit idly by and watch a bunch of nerds act like babies everytime someone says something out of place while the software they're supposedly working on stagnates. Hopefully one of the forks will do well and will get X development out of the hellhole it's been in.
Are you REALLY THAT MUCH OF A CUNT? You'll take the time to post a three page long diatribe on what a moron someone is for not going and reading a FUCKLOAD of posts, but you won't try and help someone out by giving them a quick and simple explanation of a situation? Whatever. Go lick Dave.
What law? The GPL isn't a law, the BSD license isn't a law. They're just licenses. Explain a little better before calling anyone a dumbass.
I guess they could always use X++.
Flamebait? He speaks the truth. X development is COMPLETELY FUCKING STAGNANT and it's all because of the petty squablling over bullshit issues. "Brad said I wasn't a good hacker, I'm gonna fork." "I don't like BSD style licenses, I'm gonna fork." "I don't like the main developers, I'm gonna fork."
And there's nobody there so say "Fuck it, someone has to get this shit moving along. Fuck the forks, let's just work on this thing."
The whole thing is over the 'advertising clause' in te new XFree86 license. All of it is over the fact that you have to credit the author/s of XFree86 if you make something that uses XFree86 code, JUST LIKE THE BSD LICENSE. It's nothing but a bunch of whiny-ass geek bitches complaining about pedantic bullshit that doesn't fucking matter, as per usual. GPL advocates are more than happy to force their bullshit (forced source redistribution) on anyone that uses their license, but as soon as someone else uses a license that forces COMPLETLY inconsequential things on GPL users, it's somehow a bad thing.
I don't suppose it occurred to you that being an asshole isn't neccesary? Post a link and shut the fuck up.
There isn't a general Linux style guide, and probably never will be one. We're talking about a group of developers that can't even agree to use the same damn directories consistantly. How would you expect them to draw up a style guide and then get people to use it? "Well, I like most of the Linux Style Guide, but I prefer to call kernal modules 'sticky-outy bits' so I'm not going to use any of the style guide recommendations."
;-)
This is a group of people that fork free software because it's not free enough. Am I being clear enough?
The GPL is a set of limited exemptions from those restrictions, granted by the copyright holder
I can't remember the last time copyright law forced me to give up any changes I made to some software. I'd say that's a pretty big restriction on the use of the source, wouldn't you?
When you buy a piece of software you don't buy the ones and zeros, you buy a license to use said ones and zeros (we're not talking about open source here). The EULA is what lays down the ground rules for use of that software. It is a group of restrictions placed on the use of said software, here's the important part, BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
The GPL is a set of restrictions placed on the redistribution of software source code. These restrictions are placed on the software, again, by the copyright holder.
I'm not understanding how one is different from the other. Yes, I know that some EULA clauses have been deemed illegal, but those are obviously a separate issue. Maybe I'm just too annoyed at the dipshits around here that run around flapping their ass screaming "EULA's aren't legal! Install all the software you buy on every computer you can!" and then in the next breath berate some router company nobody's ever heard of for using an obscure header file from the Linux kernel and not releasing all their shit afterwards.
When an EULA DOESN'T take away rights granted by standard copyright law, how is it any different than the GPL or any other FOSS license? It's still a license.
To some extent good game design can be taught. Why do you think so many games are quite a bit like other games? Some things just work right, some don't. Teaching that much is simple.
;) )) to the most complex wargames and RPG's, if the game doesn't feel right it will not work. That isn't something you can teach. Hell, I could probably get 20 different answers from as many people as to what the 'feel' of a game is.
;) ). There isn't any room for the people that have no experience. Go look at some game-related job boards. Everyone is looking for someone with 5+ years of experience and at least two shipped titles... how many people like that are there in the industry, and how many of that subset can design games, and how many of THAT subset can design GOOD games? Until the industry at large settles down and looks outside of the known for answers, they're screwed.
But can you teach someone how to be creative? No, you can't. People that have absolutely no artistic aptitude will still suck after 4 years of art school. At some point you have to have some innate ability.
What makes a good game is a designer that knows from the beginning what the game is supposed to feel like. From the simplest puzzle games (Tetris, Puzzle Bobble (Frozen Bubble
One of the biggest problems is that the industry is getting so large so fast that companies don't have room for risk. They only want to hire people they know can do the right things (which is why John Romero has to hire himself to get a job
"In Q1 2003, Trend issued 35 virus warnings. During the same period this year, it issued 232."
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Last year they issued 35 warnings in Q1, this year they issued 232 in Q1.
IIRC, head and body tags aren't absolutely neccesary. They're simply there for your convenience.
The parent to my post was trying to make the point that since copyright law doesn't cover the bits and pieces an EULA does, the EULA is always invalid. The GPL is nothing but an EULA. You can't have it both ways. Either EULA's, and by extention the GPL, are valid, or neither are.
Learn some basic comprehension skills. They might help you in your future travels.
So I assume you'd be okay if MS started using fuckloads of open source code without bothering to abide by the terms of the license it was released under? How is that any different than not abiding by the terms of an iTunes license?
License to use is not a myth, dipshit. Fair use applies only to a very limited range of actions (quoting books, making copies of data, and so on). It does not apply to wholesale copying and redistribution of shit you have no rights to.