No. Firefox extensions are data that gets interpreted by Firefox's Javascript engine, not compiled, assembled, and linked code that gets executed. It's kind of a silly distinction technically, but it makes a legal difference.
Also, that's one reason why a revision to the GPL was necessary: merely modifying your own copy of the program (if we ignored item #1 and assumed that loading extensions qualified as "modifying"), without distributing it, shouldn't cause the GPL to kick in anyway.
The GPL explicitly permits the user license to RUN the software.
You need to look up the difference between "affirm" and "permit."
This is also an excerpt from the GPL (version 3, to be exact):
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
The text you cited only exists to remind you of rights that you already have. That, if you didn't look it up like I told you, is what "affirm" means!
The big deal is that you can't impose additional restrictions on the code, and the Firefox EULA imposes additional restrictions on the trademarks without making it clear that those restrictions do not apply to the code.
So show the trademark notice (not the actual GPL text) during install with a specific message that tells the user they do not have to agree to it unless they're actually thinking of redistributing it. Don't have "Accept" and "Reject" buttons, just an "OK" one. Done, end of story.
You've got it backwards: the GPL should be shown with the message that the user doesn't have to agree to it; the trademark license should be shown with the message that the user does have to agree to it.
Or better yet, the installer ought to allow the user to reject the trademark license, but install the browser with the alternative (i.e., non-trademarked) icons and names.
Or even better than that, Mozilla could give up this stupid trademark bullshit, and just distribute the whole damn thing solely under the GPL(/LGPL/MPL) like it's supposed to!
A fair comparison might make you feel all fuzzy inside but those of who might actually consider buying a vehicle need a REAL WORLD comparison. A better comparison is the VW vs a Hyundai. Both have reliable and efficient vehicles but they have dramatically different price tags.
WTF? That makes absolutely no sense. It's interesting that you picked those particular brands, because my girlfriend and I actually have one of each: a 2003 Accent (1.6L gasoline engine) and a 1998 Beetle (1.9L TDI diesel). They're not even slightly comparable, because the Beetle has a lot of engineering differences (outside of the engine) that make it more expensive. For example, it's a lot more complex electrically. And, of course, you pay a lot more because VW has a better reputation than Hyundai (god knows why...) and because it's "cute."
Now, you could compare my Accent to the diesel Accent that's available in Europe, or you could compare the Beetle to a 2.0L gasoline or 1.8L turbo gasoline model. But you can't compare the Beetle to the Accent!
It took me for-fucking-ever to dig up the MSRP of the 1998 Beetle (I'd use model year 2008 numbers, but there was no 2008 Beetle TDI), but I finally found it here. If we assume the high end of the range was for the TDI, then the difference was a ($16475 - $15200 =) $1275 premium for a (loaded) TDI versus a (stripped) gasoline version. Price differences for the CRDi Accent vs. the 1.6L gas (or even maybe the 1.4L gas) would be similar, if I could find a damn website that had them!
Oh, by the way: look at the used prices for that 1998 Beetle: you'd find that you would have gotten every cent of that price premium back when you sold the car. In fact, you'd probably even get more, because the actual market value of TDIs greatly exceeds their book value.
I know I have copies of software packages being licensed for $500,000+ to my previous employer.
Yeah, but where do you keep these copies? Are they just on your home PC, or did you take them with you to your new job and show them off to your new boss?
If I want a Pepsi, I buy them. Coke, I buy them. (I'm one of those weird people that drinks both.)
It's not weird to drink both; what's weird is drinking both while actually caring about the difference. I, for example, don't care: I just drink whichever happens to be cheaper at the moment.
Both DirectX and OpenGL are entirely dedicated to the "Here is a triangle-based polygon mesh, some textures, and a few shaders- go draw me a pretty picture won't you?"
That's not entirely true: OpenGL can also handle quad-based meshes. ; )
No, not even slightly. Just do some simple math: 1 core, running at (say) 2GHz, vs. 64 (or more!) cores running at 500-1000MHz. Which seems faster now?
Have you ever seen an audio chip integrated into the CPU? Most of them are done by onboard chips, not on the CPU.
That's because it's not performance-critical enough to need to be in the CPU. It has been integrated, though: into the southbridge, along with the disk controllers, USB controllers, modems, ethernet, and all the other random crap.
Well, according to TFA, the problem is that Ford would have to build a new factory to do so--at a cost of about $350 million. They'd have to sell 350,000 a year in the US for it to be profitable.
What Ford should do is build the factory here and use it for European production too -- i.e., not build any in Britain at all. Then it gets a favorable exchange rate instead of an unfavorable one.
And the article itself makes the point that that $350 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1 billion per month Ford is hemorrhaging anyway.
Finally, it's not an issue of selling 350,000 engines per year in the US, it's an issue of selling 350,000 in the entirety of North and South America.
Unfortunately the Diesel fuel sold in the US has a much higher sulphur content than Diesel sold in Euorope.... Hopefully US mandates a change to the cleaner and better Diesel variety...
Diesel fuel is more expensive, wiping out much or all of the fuel cost savings.
This has only been true for the last year, since ultra low sulfur diesel was mandated. And even then, it only reduces some of the fuel cost savings, not "most" and certainly not "all!"
Because the 65mpg diesel will run you $20k+ the 30mpg gas car will run about $8k+.
That's a lie. For the same car, the diesel engine only costs $2-4K more than the gasoline version. A gasoline version of that Ford, made in Europe (so that the exchange-rate-related economics would be the same) would still cost at least $20K here (compared to the $25,700 for the diesel version).
Ah, but the rub is most people just look at their fill-up cost...mpg and $/gal is all fine and nice to know but most don't care. A full tank at $50 vs $100 is a problem.
Then "most people" are complete fucking morons, because filling up a (15 MPG) SUV four times for $50 each is much worse than filling up a (30 MPG) car once for $100 to go the same number of miles.
Granted, most cars tend to have fuel tanks sized inversely proportional to their fuel efficiency, but tank size doesn't inherently mean a damn thing. For example, my GF's TDI Beetle has a relatively large tank, so each fill-up costs ~$60. But she only has to fill it up once a month, whereas an SUV driver might be putting $50 in the tank every week. So what causes the difference? The fucking MPG rating!
In my neck of the woods, we have enough traffic where the passing lane really is the fast lane, because if you're in it then you're passing people constantly!
Like I say though, if you're really desperate (although this only really works for single player games) you can try TinyLauncher.
It's not really a matter of being worried about being able to play my games; I have complete faith that the hacker community will create a solution (especially for games as popular as Half Life, etc.). The problem is that the issue should never have come up in the first place!
Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.
Why not? If I pirate then I gain utility then the creators' utility stays the same. If I don't pirate then both our utility stays the same. Pirating has a greater net increase in utility than not pirating, so -- from a utility perspective, since that's what you were trying to argue -- what's wrong with it?
Slashdot Mirror
I wholeheartedly agree! The question is, though, would the government consent to be sued?
You need to look up the difference between "affirm" and "permit."
This is also an excerpt from the GPL (version 3, to be exact):
The text you cited only exists to remind you of rights that you already have. That, if you didn't look it up like I told you, is what "affirm" means!
You and I may know that, but Joe Blow installing OpenOffice for the first time doesn't. That, in my opinion, makes it a big issue.
...and all those things are wrong.
Presenting the GPL improperly as if it were an EULA doesn't make it one, any more than driving a car off a cliff makes it an airplane!
The big deal is that you can't impose additional restrictions on the code, and the Firefox EULA imposes additional restrictions on the trademarks without making it clear that those restrictions do not apply to the code.
You've got it backwards: the GPL should be shown with the message that the user doesn't have to agree to it; the trademark license should be shown with the message that the user does have to agree to it.
Or better yet, the installer ought to allow the user to reject the trademark license, but install the browser with the alternative (i.e., non-trademarked) icons and names.
Or even better than that, Mozilla could give up this stupid trademark bullshit, and just distribute the whole damn thing solely under the GPL(/LGPL/MPL) like it's supposed to!
The person you got the software from gave you the right to use it, because he accepted the terms of the GPL (or was the copyright holder).
WTF? That makes absolutely no sense. It's interesting that you picked those particular brands, because my girlfriend and I actually have one of each: a 2003 Accent (1.6L gasoline engine) and a 1998 Beetle (1.9L TDI diesel). They're not even slightly comparable, because the Beetle has a lot of engineering differences (outside of the engine) that make it more expensive. For example, it's a lot more complex electrically. And, of course, you pay a lot more because VW has a better reputation than Hyundai (god knows why...) and because it's "cute."
Now, you could compare my Accent to the diesel Accent that's available in Europe, or you could compare the Beetle to a 2.0L gasoline or 1.8L turbo gasoline model. But you can't compare the Beetle to the Accent!
It took me for-fucking-ever to dig up the MSRP of the 1998 Beetle (I'd use model year 2008 numbers, but there was no 2008 Beetle TDI), but I finally found it here. If we assume the high end of the range was for the TDI, then the difference was a ($16475 - $15200 =) $1275 premium for a (loaded) TDI versus a (stripped) gasoline version. Price differences for the CRDi Accent vs. the 1.6L gas (or even maybe the 1.4L gas) would be similar, if I could find a damn website that had them!
Oh, by the way: look at the used prices for that 1998 Beetle: you'd find that you would have gotten every cent of that price premium back when you sold the car. In fact, you'd probably even get more, because the actual market value of TDIs greatly exceeds their book value.
Yeah, but where do you keep these copies? Are they just on your home PC, or did you take them with you to your new job and show them off to your new boss?
It's not weird to drink both; what's weird is drinking both while actually caring about the difference. I, for example, don't care: I just drink whichever happens to be cheaper at the moment.
That's not entirely true: OpenGL can also handle quad-based meshes. ; )
No, not even slightly. Just do some simple math: 1 core, running at (say) 2GHz, vs. 64 (or more!) cores running at 500-1000MHz. Which seems faster now?
That's because it's not performance-critical enough to need to be in the CPU. It has been integrated, though: into the southbridge, along with the disk controllers, USB controllers, modems, ethernet, and all the other random crap.
What Ford should do is build the factory here and use it for European production too -- i.e., not build any in Britain at all. Then it gets a favorable exchange rate instead of an unfavorable one.
And the article itself makes the point that that $350 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1 billion per month Ford is hemorrhaging anyway.
Finally, it's not an issue of selling 350,000 engines per year in the US, it's an issue of selling 350,000 in the entirety of North and South America.
Welcome to LAST YEAR!
This has only been true for the last year, since ultra low sulfur diesel was mandated. And even then, it only reduces some of the fuel cost savings, not "most" and certainly not "all!"
You mean that it had too much sulfur in it. ULSD has been mandated by law for about a year now.
Carrying more fuel also has one big positive: fewer pit stops.
That's a lie. For the same car, the diesel engine only costs $2-4K more than the gasoline version. A gasoline version of that Ford, made in Europe (so that the exchange-rate-related economics would be the same) would still cost at least $20K here (compared to the $25,700 for the diesel version).
Then "most people" are complete fucking morons, because filling up a (15 MPG) SUV four times for $50 each is much worse than filling up a (30 MPG) car once for $100 to go the same number of miles.
Granted, most cars tend to have fuel tanks sized inversely proportional to their fuel efficiency, but tank size doesn't inherently mean a damn thing. For example, my GF's TDI Beetle has a relatively large tank, so each fill-up costs ~$60. But she only has to fill it up once a month, whereas an SUV driver might be putting $50 in the tank every week. So what causes the difference? The fucking MPG rating!
I would guess that if they put in yield signs instead, then people would fly by them at 30+ MPH.
In my neck of the woods, we have enough traffic where the passing lane really is the fast lane, because if you're in it then you're passing people constantly!
It's not really a matter of being worried about being able to play my games; I have complete faith that the hacker community will create a solution (especially for games as popular as Half Life, etc.). The problem is that the issue should never have come up in the first place!
If and only if the people pirating would otherwise have bought a copy. This is not necessarily the case.
Why not? If I pirate then I gain utility then the creators' utility stays the same. If I don't pirate then both our utility stays the same. Pirating has a greater net increase in utility than not pirating, so -- from a utility perspective, since that's what you were trying to argue -- what's wrong with it?