Sure with pure VR this may be nothing more than a better mousetrap.
However you could probably use augmented reality as an alternative. Augmented reality is where an 3D image (or VR) is overlayed on the real world. Today the equipment is a bit cumbersome to carry around, but this will probably be solved in the not so distant future (if not already, been a while since I worked with this).
Surely a pair of eyeglasses that projects the fake image of your missing limb directly into your eyes beats carrying around your "mirrors in a box";-)
So this method as described in itself might just be "a better mousetrap". But it also proves that 3D/VR is a viable substitution for the old mirror trick, and that my friend is what is really interesting.
If that is what they are doing, then yes you are correct.
Assuming they do not botch the implementation as they have done before (see the Xbox boot loader for a good example). However I find the article very vague on the actual technical details.
Bullshit. If this is what you come up with by "thinking about it", one can only hope you do not work in an area where security actually matters.
There is an enormous difference between for instance an encrypted password algorithm where it is well understood (usually on a mathematic basis) *why* it will take an exceedingly long time to crack it and simply trusting on the bad guys not to discover where we hid the password.
If you define it as "would prevent black hats from finding security holes" then computer history proves you to be horribly wrong. It may in some circumstances make the job harder and slow down the attackers but it WILL NOT prevent them.
The opposite model "disclose everything" - has a much larger chance of succeeding in the long run. Simply because if the security model is well understood and scrutinized by a large number of professionals it has a much bigger chance of getting implemented correct (eventually).
The cryptographers have understood this a long long time ago, that is why no serious cryptographic systems are based on the premise that the algorithm must be kept secret.
Sure it's a crime. But what happened to the good old principle of proportional punishment. $11.3 millions for defamation seems wildly out of proportions.
How about summary executions for traffic violations? After all traffic accidents actually kills people, or perhaps a $10 billion fine for driving on red light?
Things like this makes the justice system seem like a farce.
Your absolutely correct about everything, except...
$11.3 million is more than "a bit steep", $50.000 or so would be a bit steep. $11.3 million for something like this, is so excessive one have to invent a whole new word to describe it.
An important part of any justice system (at least in the western civilization traditional meaning of the word) is that there must be some balance between the offence and the punishment.
You probably tried this to late, children develops very fast and he probably "got it" regarding this some time during the last year. If you tried this one year ago he would probably have failed.
For something interesting you could test your nephews ability for symbolic thinking. If only 2.5 year he should perform very badly.
Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)
Bullshit. Get a clue yourself and stop making up history as you go along.
A lot of nations (half of Europe for instance) very much doubted that Iraq posessed WMD's and many voiced concern in the UN over this. Even the UN inspectors themself wanted more time to investigate before the US invaded.
Wish I had mod points, this is a very interesting question to get answered. Exit strategy is always a key question when discussing business with VC people.
err... actually it is;-) Light can only be sent out and received in discreete packages called photons. This is a fundamental concept in modern physics (popularly called quantum mechanics).
Of course it makes no difference for your argument since the "sample rate" of light is almost infinite compared to the audio signal you want to decode.
>IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status >of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
Unless the audio/video library contains copyrightable parts of the GPL program it IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE GPL.
Why is it so damned hard to understand what "derived work" means.
You cannot make a non GPL library GPL merely by linking with it, because your GPL program would be the derivative work not the other way around.
I wish people would stop making stupid claims like this because it hurts the open source movement more than anything else. Why do you think some people claim the GPL is viral and dangerous. It is mostly because of people like you that dont understand copyright law or the GPL license.
I think your definition of a derived work is a bit confused.
From wikipedia: In copyright law, a derivative work is an artistic creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work. The rights of the first work's originator must be granted to the secondary work for it to be rightfully called a 'derivative work'. If no copyright permission is granted from the originator, it is instead called a 'copy'.
Wether or not the NONGPL.dll was designed to work or not with the GPL.exe program is completely irrelevant. If the NONGPL.dll however uses copyrightable parts of the GPL.exe in order to work, like datastructures, classes, methods etc it would be a derived work. You basically right with the first statement about beeing useful on its own but then you seem to confuse the issue a bit.
In techincal terms this usually indicates what component links with what. A GPL program linking with a proprietary library and using it to do something useful is OK and the GPL program might actually in legal terms be considered a derived work of the proprietary library. The other way around would violate the GPL license.
May be true, but changes absolutely nothing at all of my argument. The mechanism by which a government decide how much money they can make (physical or digital) is completely irrelevant. The rarity (scarcity) is still artificial.
For nice examples of governments that made more money as they deemed necessary you need only look at the hyperinflation article at Wikipedia. I especially like the picture of the german woman burning big piles of paper money, because they gave more warmth than the amount of firewood they could buy. Excellent demonstration of the true intrinsic value of money.
>IMHO, that means Windows API = ok, Java API = ok,.NET API = ok, own API or library = not okay.
Bullshit.
It does not matter if Microsoft, Sun, you or the neighbours cat wrote the library/API you link with. Any GPL program can link with any proprietary library, it is the reverse that is a problem.
>And that makes sense. Otherwise I could just build all of my app in my "MainApp API" and GPL my "StartMainApp()" function call...:)
There is absolutely nothing in the GPL license that would prevent you from doing so. I agree it would be a bit stupid, but that does not make it an copyright infringement (which is what an GPL violation is).
What you cannot do is write a proprietary program or libary and link this with an GPL program or library. Example: This is essentially what someone once did with VirualDub, they wrote their own close-sourced video editing program but instead of doing the hard work themself they just linked with the relevant bits of VirtualDub. It was in essence no more than a new GUI for VirtualDub and a clear violation of the GPL license.
Regarding this chess client in the article I'm not so sure since it is a bit murky on the actual details. But it sounds like someone rewrote the chess client to include audio/video chatting capabillities using a third party a/v library and now they only want to give source for the modified chess client and not the a/v library. This is most likely NOT an GPL violation but as I said the parties are a bit unclear on all the details.
I fail to see what the kernel have to do with this at all,
The question was if someone writing a GPL program linking with a non-GPL library/API (like the NVidia driver) would force the non-GPL library to be made GPL too. This would clearly be absurd.
Regarding the article: I think the important point here is if this A/V library can reasonably be seen as an independent work not derived of the chess client. I.e could it be used as a generic A/V library in any other application.
If it is then the claim that it must be made GPL is ridiculous and hopefully would be laughed out of court.
Think about it for a second, this would be like me taking this JIN client, then rewriting it with support for audio/video chat between clients using Microsofts DirectShow/DirectX library for the A/V handling and then the original copyright holder of JIN requires me or Microsoft to open-source DirectX/DirectShow because it is now used in a work derived from an GPL program. This would obviously be absurd and I dont think it will hold in any court.
Altough an open-sourced DirectX would be nice:-) perhaps someone should try this so we can have more games in Linux.
>Except for the fact that, you know.... it's not a "super-rare item". It's not an item at all. It's this tiny >little bit of data that could be replicated a million times much more easily than the monopoly money could be >replicated-- it's only the game developers who are artificially setting the rarity of that data.
Exactly the same argument can be used with real-world money like the US$ or any other modern currency. It's rarity is only decided by the amount the national treasury / government decides it can allow itself to print. In the old days the amount of money used to be linked to the amount of gold the nation owned so that the rarity was physical and very *real*. But now its entirely artifical. Perhaps some nations still use a gold based currency but I dont think any of the major ones does.
Most money today are even not physical objects anymore but just bits and bytes in bank computers that can be replicated very easily.
>And there's nothing inherently valuable about that data either. You can't justify its worth by labor alone, > >since it's entirely possible to spend 400 hours on an endeavor that has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Spending >400 hours picking your nose wouldn't make your boogers valuable
This I agree with completely, and I think you hit the nail quite well regarding the "worth" of game items/money.
Almost no online game companies honor such requests. I suppose the reason is quite easy to understand, if they did then they would quickly get flooded with such requests and it takes time and manual labor (meaning it costs real money) to verify such claims by reading log files etc.
Also, artifical scarcity is not exclusive to money/items in games, real-world money works by the same process (i.e. the national treasury prints a limited amount of them). Its been a long time since money was linked to physical scarcity like the amount of gold available.
Slashdot Mirror
Which does not disprove it either. Not everything is available as a link on the Internet you know.
Of course it might be fishy anyway. Unless he can provide some other supporting evidence I guess we'l never know.
Sure with pure VR this may be nothing more than a better mousetrap.
;-)
However you could probably use augmented reality as an alternative. Augmented reality is where an 3D image (or VR) is overlayed on the real world. Today the equipment is a bit cumbersome to carry around, but this will probably be solved in the not so distant future (if not already, been a while since I worked with this).
Surely a pair of eyeglasses that projects the fake image of your missing limb directly into your eyes beats carrying around your "mirrors in a box"
So this method as described in itself might just be "a better mousetrap". But it also proves that 3D/VR is a viable substitution for the old mirror trick, and that my friend is what is really interesting.
If that is what they are doing, then yes you are correct.
Assuming they do not botch the implementation as they have done before (see the Xbox boot loader for a good example). However I find the article very vague on the actual technical details.
Bullshit. If this is what you come up with by "thinking about it", one can only hope you do not work in an area where security actually matters.
There is an enormous difference between for instance an encrypted password algorithm where it is well understood (usually on a mathematic basis) *why* it will take an exceedingly long time to crack it and simply trusting on the bad guys not to discover where we hid the password.
Depends on how you define "it does work".
If you define it as "would prevent black hats from finding security holes" then computer history proves you to be horribly wrong. It may in some circumstances make the job harder and slow down the attackers but it WILL NOT prevent them.
The opposite model "disclose everything" - has a much larger chance of succeeding in the long run. Simply because if the security model is well understood and scrutinized by a large number of professionals it has a much bigger chance of getting implemented correct (eventually).
The cryptographers have understood this a long long time ago, that is why no serious cryptographic systems are based on the premise that the algorithm must be kept secret.
Isn't this just another variation of security by obscurity?
Which everyone by now should have learned does *not* work.
No, but it gives the naive masses the impression that the government is doing something to stop the bad guys.
It really does not matter if it works or not.
Sure it's a crime. But what happened to the good old principle of proportional punishment. $11.3 millions for defamation seems wildly out of proportions.
How about summary executions for traffic violations? After all traffic accidents actually kills people, or perhaps a $10 billion fine for driving on red light?
Things like this makes the justice system seem like a farce.
Your absolutely correct about everything, except...
$11.3 million is more than "a bit steep", $50.000 or so would be a bit steep. $11.3 million for something like this, is so excessive one have to invent a whole new word to describe it.
An important part of any justice system (at least in the western civilization traditional meaning of the word) is that there must be some balance between the offence and the punishment.
You probably tried this to late, children develops very fast and he probably "got it" regarding this some time during the last year. If you tried this one year ago he would probably have failed.
For something interesting you could test your nephews ability for symbolic thinking. If only 2.5 year he should perform very badly.
Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)
Bullshit. Get a clue yourself and stop making up history as you go along.
A lot of nations (half of Europe for instance) very much doubted that Iraq posessed WMD's and many voiced concern in the UN over this. Even the UN inspectors themself wanted more time to investigate before the US invaded.
Wish I had mod points, this is a very interesting question to get answered. Exit strategy is always a key question when discussing business with VC people.
>Light isn't a digital phenomenon, you know.
;-) Light can only be sent out and received in discreete packages called photons. This is a fundamental concept in modern physics (popularly called quantum mechanics).
err... actually it is
Of course it makes no difference for your argument since the "sample rate" of light is almost infinite compared to the audio signal you want to decode.
Well, I dont think password security is that much better here in Norway.
;-)
But I can tell you one thing; The day voice recognition gets perfected then Danish passwords will be the strongest in the world.
I guess you have to be scandinavian to understand that one...
Well said.
It was a joke dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
>IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status
>of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
Unless the audio/video library contains copyrightable parts of the GPL program it IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE GPL.
Why is it so damned hard to understand what "derived work" means.
You cannot make a non GPL library GPL merely by linking with it, because your GPL program would be the derivative work not the other way around.
I wish people would stop making stupid claims like this because it hurts the open source movement more than anything else. Why do you think some people claim the GPL is viral and dangerous. It is mostly because of people like you that dont understand copyright law or the GPL license.
I think your definition of a derived work is a bit confused.
From wikipedia: In copyright law, a derivative work is an artistic creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work. The rights of the first work's originator must be granted to the secondary work for it to be rightfully called a 'derivative work'. If no copyright permission is granted from the originator, it is instead called a 'copy'.
Wether or not the NONGPL.dll was designed to work or not with the GPL.exe program is completely irrelevant. If the NONGPL.dll however uses copyrightable parts of the GPL.exe in order to work, like datastructures, classes, methods etc it would be a derived work. You basically right with the first statement about beeing useful on its own but then you seem to confuse the issue a bit.
In techincal terms this usually indicates what component links with what. A GPL program linking with a proprietary library and using it to do something useful is OK and the GPL program might actually in legal terms be considered a derived work of the proprietary library. The other way around would violate the GPL license.
May be true, but changes absolutely nothing at all of my argument. The mechanism by which a government decide how much money they can make (physical or digital) is completely irrelevant. The rarity (scarcity) is still artificial.
For nice examples of governments that made more money as they deemed necessary you need only look at the hyperinflation article at Wikipedia. I especially like the picture of the german woman burning big piles of paper money, because they gave more warmth than the amount of firewood they could buy. Excellent demonstration of the true intrinsic value of money.
>IMHO, that means Windows API = ok, Java API = ok, .NET API = ok, own API or library = not okay.
:)
Bullshit.
It does not matter if Microsoft, Sun, you or the neighbours cat wrote the library/API you link with. Any GPL program can link with any proprietary library, it is the reverse that is a problem.
>And that makes sense. Otherwise I could just build all of my app in my "MainApp API" and GPL my "StartMainApp()" function call...
There is absolutely nothing in the GPL license that would prevent you from doing so. I agree it would be a bit stupid, but that does not make it an copyright infringement (which is what an GPL violation is).
What you cannot do is write a proprietary program or libary and link this with an GPL program or library. Example: This is essentially what someone once did with VirualDub, they wrote their own close-sourced video editing program but instead of doing the hard work themself they just linked with the relevant bits of VirtualDub. It was in essence no more than a new GUI for VirtualDub and a clear violation of the GPL license.
Regarding this chess client in the article I'm not so sure since it is a bit murky on the actual details. But it sounds like someone rewrote the chess client to include audio/video chatting capabillities using a third party a/v library and now they only want to give source for the modified chess client and not the a/v library. This is most likely NOT an GPL violation but as I said the parties are a bit unclear on all the details.
I fail to see what the kernel have to do with this at all,
:-) perhaps someone should try this so we can have more games in Linux.
The question was if someone writing a GPL program linking with a non-GPL library/API (like the NVidia driver) would force the non-GPL library to be made GPL too. This would clearly be absurd.
Regarding the article:
I think the important point here is if this A/V library can reasonably be seen as an independent work not derived of the chess client. I.e could it be used as a generic A/V library in any other application.
If it is then the claim that it must be made GPL is ridiculous and hopefully would be laughed out of court.
Think about it for a second, this would be like me taking this JIN client, then rewriting it with support for audio/video chat between clients using Microsofts DirectShow/DirectX library for the A/V handling and then the original copyright holder of JIN requires me or Microsoft to open-source DirectX/DirectShow because it is now used in a work derived from an GPL program. This would obviously be absurd and I dont think it will hold in any court.
Altough an open-sourced DirectX would be nice
FTFA: It was highly efficient, covering 100 million km in a series of looping orbits and using just 60 litres of "fuel".
I wish my car was that effective. 1,67 million km per litre fuel (3.9 million miles per gallon) would have been nice.
>Except for the fact that, you know.... it's not a "super-rare item". It's not an item at all. It's this tiny
>little bit of data that could be replicated a million times much more easily than the monopoly money could be
>replicated-- it's only the game developers who are artificially setting the rarity of that data.
Exactly the same argument can be used with real-world money like the US$ or any other modern currency. It's rarity is only decided by the amount the national treasury / government decides it can allow itself to print. In the old days the amount of money used to be linked to the amount of gold the nation owned so that the rarity was physical and very *real*. But now its entirely artifical. Perhaps some nations still use a gold based currency but I dont think any of the major ones does.
Most money today are even not physical objects anymore but just bits and bytes in bank computers that can be replicated very easily.
>And there's nothing inherently valuable about that data either. You can't justify its worth by labor alone, > >since it's entirely possible to spend 400 hours on an endeavor that has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Spending
>400 hours picking your nose wouldn't make your boogers valuable
This I agree with completely, and I think you hit the nail quite well regarding the "worth" of game items/money.
Almost no online game companies honor such requests. I suppose the reason is quite easy to understand, if they did then they would quickly get flooded with such requests and it takes time and manual labor (meaning it costs real money) to verify such claims by reading log files etc.
Also, artifical scarcity is not exclusive to money/items in games, real-world money works by the same process (i.e. the national treasury prints a limited amount of them). Its been a long time since money was linked to physical scarcity like the amount of gold available.
Sounds a bit fantastic. Why didnt you contact a lawyer or even the media?