Did you bother to read what I wrote? No? didnt think so.
I dont mind that I cannot sell their invention, of course not. But I do mind having to give up for free any improvements I make unless *they too* give up this right.
This is what "Open Source" is all about, freedom of information not "free beer".
With BSD or GPL style licenses you are actually allowed to use the copyrighted work in an commercial setting, just not to sell it. For instance a commercial company might run their web server using GPL licensed software.
With this not only do they retain the exclusive commercial rights, but the license might in fact be read as an attempt to force you to turn over any improvements on their design.
So if you make an improvement, does this mean that you have implicitely granted the University of Muenster the rights for commercial exploitation of your own improvment by accepting their license in the first place?
This does not sound "open source-ish" to me, it sounds like out right theft.
PS: Please ignore any bad spellings/grammar in my english or at least be polite when telling me;-)
I dont need to, the original poster stated that this was part of the purpose behind his suggestion.
>Not only will we all gain a few bucks from SCO >but we may drive the share price down.
of course it might not work, and it might be impossible to prove.
But impossible to prove != legal
IANAL, and I dont know US laws. But at least here in Norway that could be seen as stock price manipulation, which is illegal. Would get you a nice and long vacation in prison.
You would not be able to "pick a time" with such a device.
The whole point with those glasses was that light used several years to pass through from one side to the other beacause the nanotubes was in effect several light years long. (a light year is a measure of distance not time)
If you created say a "one year glass" then it would be completly dark the first year because no light would have had time to pass through it yet. After that it would start to show things on the other side with a one year delay. It's nothing more than a fancy video recorder and even if such a thing was possible to make it would change nothing about how we understand time and space.
In fact this is nothing new, anytime you look at a star your looking at the past. If the star your looking at is say 100 lightyears away then your seeing the star as it was 100 years ago simply beacause thats the time light used to reach you from that star. The hubble space telescope which is capable of seeing things billions of lightyears away is in essence seeing the universe as it looked a long time in the past.
You might be right about determinism anyway, we simply just dont know yet, and perhaps we never will. But modern physics seems to suggest that the universe is not deterministic, of course it might be wrong, it has been before.
With an hydroelectric plant storing energy is quite easy. You just pump water back uphill into the dam thus converting electric energy into potential energy.
However they might take you to court even if they have a weak case and it might cost you a lot of money to win the case. Perhaps money you dont have.
There is lot of examples of ordinary people folding very quickly when getting a cease or desist letter from an corporate lawyer just because defending yourself in a court of law can be very expensive even if you win.
Very strange indeed.
I have the opposite case here, Linux is responsive and fast but windows is sluggish and pretty much locks up for a long time if I try copying a large file.
It turns out I was wrong, it's not legal to download unlicensed software from the Internet in Norway, only music and movies.
12 gives you explicit rights to make single copies for private noncomercial use of publicly available copyrighted material. The law does not require the process of making the material publicly available to be lawful. But 12 makes an excemption for computer programs and states that its not legal to copy those.
Btw, this is also the same paragraph that gives you the right to tape TV-shows on your VHS recorder at home.
You should also be aware that økokrim (norwegian economical crime unit) is not a very reliable source for what is illegal or not. They are infamous for claming this and that as illegal and then loosing big time in the courts (not only in IT-cases but also regarding economic cases). Latest famous case was against DVD Jon where the courts basicly tould økokrim that the things they were accusing Jon for were not illegal in Norway.
Where did I hear the claim avout downloading obvious illegally distributed software:
Well it's quite a time ago (3-4 months) in an newspaper article (unable to find any online version) discussing implications for the scandinavian countries if we accept the european directive implementing a sort of european DMCA. The article quite clearly stated that Norway and Sweeden had exactly the same problem with their laws that made only the sharing/distribution/uploading part illegal. Of course the article was probably talking about music and movies not software.
BTW Seeden have now accepted the european directive and it will be active law very soon.
>Nothing permits you to download the software from Kazaa.
Well perhaps where you live this is so.
(IANAL) Here (Norway) you can download whatever you want from Kazaa, its uploading (distributing) copyrighted material thats illegal not downloading.
But I think our parliament is in the process of changing this, so our laws are more in line with the rest of Europe and the US.
However if I already own a valid license to use this software I think M$ would have a hard time telling our courts why I cannot use the copy I downloaded from the Internet. Perhaps if there was a significant difference between the downloaded version and the version I have licensed. But lets face it, the only difference between the OEM CD and the boxed version is the marketing scheme. I dont think our courts will agree that this makes the software any different.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you bother to read what I wrote? No? didnt think so.
I dont mind that I cannot sell their invention, of course not. But I do mind having to give up for free any improvements I make unless *they too* give up this right.
This is what "Open Source" is all about, freedom of information not "free beer".
I dont think so
;-)
With BSD or GPL style licenses you are actually allowed to use the copyrighted work in an commercial setting, just not to sell it. For instance a commercial company might run their web server using GPL licensed software.
With this not only do they retain the exclusive commercial rights, but the license might in fact be read as an attempt to force you to turn over any improvements on their design.
So if you make an improvement, does this mean that you have implicitely granted the University of Muenster the rights for commercial exploitation of your own improvment by accepting their license in the first place?
This does not sound "open source-ish" to me, it sounds like out right theft.
PS: Please ignore any bad spellings/grammar in my english or at least be polite when telling me
I dont need to, the original poster stated that this was part of the purpose behind his suggestion. >Not only will we all gain a few bucks from SCO >but we may drive the share price down. of course it might not work, and it might be impossible to prove. But impossible to prove != legal
IANAL, and I dont know US laws. But at least here in Norway that could be seen as stock price manipulation, which is illegal. Would get you a nice and long vacation in prison.
nope
You would not be able to "pick a time" with such a device.
The whole point with those glasses was that light used several years to pass through from one side to the other beacause the nanotubes was in effect several light years long. (a light year is a measure of distance not time)
If you created say a "one year glass" then it would be completly dark the first year because no light would have had time to pass through it yet. After that it would start to show things on the other side with a one year delay. It's nothing more than a fancy video recorder and even if such a thing was possible to make it would change nothing about how we understand time and space.
In fact this is nothing new, anytime you look at a star your looking at the past. If the star your looking at is say 100 lightyears away then your seeing the star as it was 100 years ago simply beacause thats the time light used to reach you from that star. The hubble space telescope which is capable of seeing things billions of lightyears away is in essence seeing the universe as it looked a long time in the past.
You might be right about determinism anyway, we simply just dont know yet, and perhaps we never will. But modern physics seems to suggest that the universe is not deterministic, of course it might be wrong, it has been before.
>If the universe expands forever then the
:-)
>temperature will be very very low, not a "heat
>death" exactly.
More like the "death of heat" I would say
With an hydroelectric plant storing energy is quite easy. You just pump water back uphill into the dam thus converting electric energy into potential energy.
Then I suppose SCO is Chaotic Evil?
Very true.
However they might take you to court even if they have a weak case and it might cost you a lot of money to win the case. Perhaps money you dont have.
There is lot of examples of ordinary people folding very quickly when getting a cease or desist letter from an corporate lawyer just because defending yourself in a court of law can be very expensive even if you win.
Well this stuff is not easy.
2 02093325 _hb_33266651
I found this interesting article when googling today:
http://www.digi.no/digi98.nsf/pub/md20021
Very strange indeed. I have the opposite case here, Linux is responsive and fast but windows is sluggish and pretty much locks up for a long time if I try copying a large file.
OK, i read up some on the law in question.
:-)
It turns out I was wrong, it's not legal to download unlicensed software from the Internet in Norway, only music and movies.
12 gives you explicit rights to make single copies for private noncomercial use of publicly available copyrighted material. The law does not require the process of making the material publicly available to be lawful. But 12 makes an excemption for computer programs and states that its not legal to copy those.
Sorry my error
12 norwegian copyright laws
Btw, this is also the same paragraph that gives you the right to tape TV-shows on your VHS recorder at home.
You should also be aware that økokrim (norwegian economical crime unit) is not a very reliable source for what is illegal or not. They are infamous for claming this and that as illegal and then loosing big time in the courts (not only in IT-cases but also regarding economic cases). Latest famous case was against DVD Jon where the courts basicly tould økokrim that the things they were accusing Jon for were not illegal in Norway.
Where did I hear the claim avout downloading obvious illegally distributed software:
Well it's quite a time ago (3-4 months) in an newspaper article (unable to find any online version) discussing implications for the scandinavian countries if we accept the european directive implementing a sort of european DMCA. The article quite clearly stated that Norway and Sweeden had exactly the same problem with their laws that made only the sharing/distribution/uploading part illegal. Of course the article was probably talking about music and movies not software.
BTW Seeden have now accepted the european directive and it will be active law very soon.
And exactly how does that law relate to my claim?
I used to buy books on the Internet in 1996. I'm quite sure there is plenty of prior art out there to squash this patent.
>Nothing permits you to download the software from Kazaa. Well perhaps where you live this is so. (IANAL) Here (Norway) you can download whatever you want from Kazaa, its uploading (distributing) copyrighted material thats illegal not downloading. But I think our parliament is in the process of changing this, so our laws are more in line with the rest of Europe and the US. However if I already own a valid license to use this software I think M$ would have a hard time telling our courts why I cannot use the copy I downloaded from the Internet. Perhaps if there was a significant difference between the downloaded version and the version I have licensed. But lets face it, the only difference between the OEM CD and the boxed version is the marketing scheme. I dont think our courts will agree that this makes the software any different.