Unfortunately, the author does not seem to have understood the concept of entanglement. Correlations between particles (even perfect ones) are also found in classical physics as the example with the socks implies. Quantum entanglement, however, is much more subtle, and distinguishing between useful entanglement and useless classical correlations is typically a highly nontrivial tasks.
I've got four words for you: patents, patents, patents, patents.
These patents are pretty useless as by distribution under GPLv2 everyone and his dog have already received licenses for them. The only thing that's left is to go after those implementations not derived of Sun's codebase (read: Google). But I somehow doubt that such a patent racketeering will bring in enough money to make the Sun acquisition a smart investment.
Mozilla DOES HAVE a non-browser project - their Thunderbird email client. It is mildly popular, decently functional, and absolutely not the kind of market shakeup being advocated here.
That could be also related to the fact that it is much more difficult to measure market shares for mail clients than it is for web browsers. A lot of these "studies" simply monitor the download of web bugs included in mass mailings, however since Thunderbird by default does not access remote content for obvious reasons, Thunderbird's market share will not even be remotely correct with this method.
As others have pointed out already you can surely do this with Asterisk, but I think in your case the question is whether your 3G network operator allows SIP traffic on their unlimited data plans.
If you're paid by publish-or-perish and your undergraduate classes count for little, who is surprised if teaching suffers? It's amazing how many professors put effort into their classes even though it does nothing for them financially.
Actually, that's not entirely true. As you mention, most of the research that brings in the money is done by or together with grad students. So scouting for bright future grad students in the undergrad classes is something that pays off in the long run. And yeah, you better don't scare them away by delivering a shitty class.
Red Hat, as the copyright holder, is not held to the license terms regarding their own software. If they are not the copyright holder of a substantial part of jBoss, another copyright holder could sue them.
From looking at the code it seems that Red Hat does not hold the copyright to all parts of it. So you basically claim that Red Hat knowingly violates the copyright of others for fending of a patent suit? That's quite a strong statement, and I'd rather see proof for that.
If I was to speculate about the reason behind Red Hat's silence on the issue, I would assume that the settlement contains some NDA, so that people like you can do Acacia a favor and spread the FUD around.
Red Hat lost. They caved and paid for their own license, and everybody else has to negotiate separately.
Are you sure about that? JBoss is LGPL2.1, which contains a "liberty-or-death" clause regarding software patents. If someone got sued over distributing JBoss because of this patent, they could trivially go after Red Hat. I somehow doubt that this is the case here.
A bit of poking around indicates that the community edition is released under GPL v3 and the paid edition is released under this variation of the Mozilla PL. Someone want to dig through it and work it out?
The Pro edition is being licensed under a proprietary EULA, which even contains Bitkeeper-like non-competition clauses regarding the community edition. It that sense it is even worse than MS-EULA, which at least allows you to mess around with the few open source components Microsoft has released.
You can just as easily label what they still control as the "content" and the encrypted files on your device as the "key". Interchanging those labels is just semantics, since you still need both parts to hear the music.
It's even worse as the content distributor no longer needs to actually distribute gigabytes of data, but can merely wait for others to do it, e.g., by uploading to P2P networks. So in the end the user also pays for the distribution, leaving even more money in the pockets of the media cartels.
If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy?
This argument is severly short-sighted. We are not living alone on this planet, so unless you do not have a social life, you have to regularly communicate in some way with the "unwashed masses". Especially on the internet the methods of communication tend to be monopolized quite fast so you really need to care what others are doing. You probably remember the ugly days of IE-only websites with flashy ActiveX controls, which thanks to people like you and me educating others about alternatives have finally gone away.
These days, the most imminant threat to freedom on the internet comes from companies like Facebook or Twitter effectively owning our communication tools. I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to send messages via Facebook when contacting someone. That's why I'm putting great hope in the rise of freedom-respecting social networks like Diaspora.
So the question is, this crazy-hot schnapps you mention: does the burn stay around a shorter period of time?
Well, to know that I would have to compare it to 2cl of a 400k SCO substance dissolved in water, which I'd rather not prefer to taste voluntarily. The Kehlenschneider burns about five minutes in an almost unbearable way, then the pain gradually goes away over the course of half an hour.
If you freeze distill it, then it stops being beer in my book.
Same here, but unfortunately the EU has forced us here in Germany to lower our standards so that people may call it "beer" even if it hasn't been made according to the Reinheitsgebot. In fact, such beverages have been around for quite some time under the name Bierschnaps.
Oh, and if you're interest in fancy drinks, you should try to get a Kehlenschneider. 80% ABV and 400,000 Scoville units. Which means you won't even notice the alcohol in it.
I don't understand why the FSF would not pursue this with full vigor.
Typically, the FSF does not hold copyrights to the code that is distributed on embedded devices. Most devices ship with some variant of Linux+BusyBox, where the copyright rests with the individual authors. It might be helpful to contact Harald Welte's gpl-violations project, who might be able to provide contact to people with actual rights to the code in question.
Is it a license violation to use GPL code in a Windows program that's built with Visual Studio, given the author is unlikely to provide a copy of Visual Studio on request?
Depends. Once you #include GPL-incompatible code or link against a GPL-incompatible library (that is not a system library), you have a problem. If you don't then you probably won't have trouble building the project with gcc, possibly after converting the project files.
What if the patent holder was required to take a more active role in their patents and the applicability to proposed standards, as governed by industry and government bodies (e.g. ANSI, MILSPEC)?
Of course any standardization body may adopt the patent rules it likes. One could try to push ISO towards royalty-free licensing, but I doubt that this will get a majority among the member states. On the other hand, there are organizations like Ecma that will happily publish any standard a member wants to push through.
If a call went out looking for patents related to a specific standard, they would be required to participate in the standards body within, say, 3 months of being notified.
I am not a patent attorney (but I play one on the internet), but this might be allowed under TRIPS. After all, there is no such thing as a "right to patent ambush".
We could solve the H.264 debate if a country's legislature were to mandate that any patents that contribute to an industry-recognized standard were unenforceable in the application of that standard.
I have read until here. What you propose is unfortunately not allowed under the TRIPS agreement, which requires that once that a patent has been granted, the holder must be able to enforce it. While there can be exceptions to this rule, I highly doubt that a country trying to get rid of the H.264 patents that way will get away with it.
If a legislative body wants to fight these patents, the best thing it can do is to require the use of unencumbered technologies in the government.
Once the crappy internal web applications for managing some forms have been duct-taped together by a student worker, nodody dares to touch a single thing. You can only get burned.
It's not only student workers, but also companies who have been led to believe that there was real security support for IE6 until 2014.
While this is of course true in some sense, there is also another problem with such massive flight cancellations as we had them in Europe (and still people are struggling to get onto their flights). People will have to seek alternative ways of transportation, which are typically unsafer than flying. Probably more than a dozen people have died in additional car accidents during the European airspace closure.
No, he is not. In contrast to the cop making the arrest he was fully aware of the legal situation. He knew that if he pulled the stunt it could ruin the cop's carreer and get him lots of free media coverage. Winning such an unequal fight is hardly heroic.
I am all for civil rights, but there are situations where you better do not defend them to the end. Just show your ID, get on with your life, and respect that the cop is probably only doing his job. There is no need to use your uber-hacker skills you have been gifted with to cause unnecessary trouble for others.
Profit Margins, Revenues, Market Capitalization, Earnings, P/E Ratios, Earnings per Share, Revenues Per Share, Cash Flow, and most other measure of the "success" of a company are all significantly higher for Oracle (ORCL) than they are for Red Hat (RHT).
Chances are that such "enhancements" constitute a derivative work of the proprietary user interface. In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is. Which, of course, is very different from free and open source software, where people are encouraged to share and improve the code.
Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem. Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work. However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers. Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that the closure of limewire will cause the amount of malware in the wild to drop dramatically.
You mean, because the people wanting to download it will now have to go to "alternative" sites?
Unfortunately, the author does not seem to have understood the concept of entanglement. Correlations between particles (even perfect ones) are also found in classical physics as the example with the socks implies. Quantum entanglement, however, is much more subtle, and distinguishing between useful entanglement and useless classical correlations is typically a highly nontrivial tasks.
I've got four words for you: patents, patents, patents, patents.
These patents are pretty useless as by distribution under GPLv2 everyone and his dog have already received licenses for them. The only thing that's left is to go after those implementations not derived of Sun's codebase (read: Google). But I somehow doubt that such a patent racketeering will bring in enough money to make the Sun acquisition a smart investment.
Mozilla DOES HAVE a non-browser project - their Thunderbird email client. It is mildly popular, decently functional, and absolutely not the kind of market shakeup being advocated here.
That could be also related to the fact that it is much more difficult to measure market shares for mail clients than it is for web browsers. A lot of these "studies" simply monitor the download of web bugs included in mass mailings, however since Thunderbird by default does not access remote content for obvious reasons, Thunderbird's market share will not even be remotely correct with this method.
Plus the potential to run Android apps under MeeGo, probably even natively at some point.
As others have pointed out already you can surely do this with Asterisk, but I think in your case the question is whether your 3G network operator allows SIP traffic on their unlimited data plans.
If you're paid by publish-or-perish and your undergraduate classes count for little, who is surprised if teaching suffers? It's amazing how many professors put effort into their classes even though it does nothing for them financially.
Actually, that's not entirely true. As you mention, most of the research that brings in the money is done by or together with grad students. So scouting for bright future grad students in the undergrad classes is something that pays off in the long run. And yeah, you better don't scare them away by delivering a shitty class.
Red Hat, as the copyright holder, is not held to the license terms regarding their own software. If they are not the copyright holder of a substantial part of jBoss, another copyright holder could sue them.
From looking at the code it seems that Red Hat does not hold the copyright to all parts of it. So you basically claim that Red Hat knowingly violates the copyright of others for fending of a patent suit? That's quite a strong statement, and I'd rather see proof for that.
If I was to speculate about the reason behind Red Hat's silence on the issue, I would assume that the settlement contains some NDA, so that people like you can do Acacia a favor and spread the FUD around.
Red Hat lost. They caved and paid for their own license, and everybody else has to negotiate separately.
Are you sure about that? JBoss is LGPL2.1, which contains a "liberty-or-death" clause regarding software patents. If someone got sued over distributing JBoss because of this patent, they could trivially go after Red Hat. I somehow doubt that this is the case here.
A bit of poking around indicates that the community edition is released under GPL v3 and the paid edition is released under this variation of the Mozilla PL. Someone want to dig through it and work it out?
The Pro edition is being licensed under a proprietary EULA, which even contains Bitkeeper-like non-competition clauses regarding the community edition. It that sense it is even worse than MS-EULA, which at least allows you to mess around with the few open source components Microsoft has released.
You can just as easily label what they still control as the "content" and the encrypted files on your device as the "key". Interchanging those labels is just semantics, since you still need both parts to hear the music.
It's even worse as the content distributor no longer needs to actually distribute gigabytes of data, but can merely wait for others to do it, e.g., by uploading to P2P networks. So in the end the user also pays for the distribution, leaving even more money in the pockets of the media cartels.
If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy?
This argument is severly short-sighted. We are not living alone on this planet, so unless you do not have a social life, you have to regularly communicate in some way with the "unwashed masses". Especially on the internet the methods of communication tend to be monopolized quite fast so you really need to care what others are doing. You probably remember the ugly days of IE-only websites with flashy ActiveX controls, which thanks to people like you and me educating others about alternatives have finally gone away.
These days, the most imminant threat to freedom on the internet comes from companies like Facebook or Twitter effectively owning our communication tools. I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to send messages via Facebook when contacting someone. That's why I'm putting great hope in the rise of freedom-respecting social networks like Diaspora.
So the question is, this crazy-hot schnapps you mention: does the burn stay around a shorter period of time?
Well, to know that I would have to compare it to 2cl of a 400k SCO substance dissolved in water, which I'd rather not prefer to taste voluntarily. The Kehlenschneider burns about five minutes in an almost unbearable way, then the pain gradually goes away over the course of half an hour.
If you freeze distill it, then it stops being beer in my book.
Same here, but unfortunately the EU has forced us here in Germany to lower our standards so that people may call it "beer" even if it hasn't been made according to the Reinheitsgebot. In fact, such beverages have been around for quite some time under the name Bierschnaps.
Oh, and if you're interest in fancy drinks, you should try to get a Kehlenschneider. 80% ABV and 400,000 Scoville units. Which means you won't even notice the alcohol in it.
I don't understand why the FSF would not pursue this with full vigor.
Typically, the FSF does not hold copyrights to the code that is distributed on embedded devices. Most devices ship with some variant of Linux+BusyBox, where the copyright rests with the individual authors. It might be helpful to contact Harald Welte's gpl-violations project, who might be able to provide contact to people with actual rights to the code in question.
Is it a license violation to use GPL code in a Windows program that's built with Visual Studio, given the author is unlikely to provide a copy of Visual Studio on request?
Depends. Once you #include GPL-incompatible code or link against a GPL-incompatible library (that is not a system library), you have a problem. If you don't then you probably won't have trouble building the project with gcc, possibly after converting the project files.
What I failed to find though was anything that supported your argument of mandatory enforcement.
It's in section 5 of the actual text of the treaty.
What if the patent holder was required to take a more active role in their patents and the applicability to proposed standards, as governed by industry and government bodies (e.g. ANSI, MILSPEC)?
Of course any standardization body may adopt the patent rules it likes. One could try to push ISO towards royalty-free licensing, but I doubt that this will get a majority among the member states. On the other hand, there are organizations like Ecma that will happily publish any standard a member wants to push through.
If a call went out looking for patents related to a specific standard, they would be required to participate in the standards body within, say, 3 months of being notified.
I am not a patent attorney (but I play one on the internet), but this might be allowed under TRIPS. After all, there is no such thing as a "right to patent ambush".
We could solve the H.264 debate if a country's legislature were to mandate that any patents that contribute to an industry-recognized standard were unenforceable in the application of that standard.
I have read until here. What you propose is unfortunately not allowed under the TRIPS agreement, which requires that once that a patent has been granted, the holder must be able to enforce it. While there can be exceptions to this rule, I highly doubt that a country trying to get rid of the H.264 patents that way will get away with it.
If a legislative body wants to fight these patents, the best thing it can do is to require the use of unencumbered technologies in the government.
Once the crappy internal web applications for managing some forms have been duct-taped together by a student worker, nodody dares to touch a single thing. You can only get burned.
It's not only student workers, but also companies who have been led to believe that there was real security support for IE6 until 2014.
Ash is not good for jet engines. Period.
While this is of course true in some sense, there is also another problem with such massive flight cancellations as we had them in Europe (and still people are struggling to get onto their flights). People will have to seek alternative ways of transportation, which are typically unsafer than flying. Probably more than a dozen people have died in additional car accidents during the European airspace closure.
The guy IS a fucking hero.
No, he is not. In contrast to the cop making the arrest he was fully aware of the legal situation. He knew that if he pulled the stunt it could ruin the cop's carreer and get him lots of free media coverage. Winning such an unequal fight is hardly heroic.
I am all for civil rights, but there are situations where you better do not defend them to the end. Just show your ID, get on with your life, and respect that the cop is probably only doing his job. There is no need to use your uber-hacker skills you have been gifted with to cause unnecessary trouble for others.
... they want their exploits back.
Profit Margins, Revenues, Market Capitalization, Earnings, P/E Ratios, Earnings per Share, Revenues Per Share, Cash Flow, and most other measure of the "success" of a company are all significantly higher for Oracle (ORCL) than they are for Red Hat (RHT).
Unless you are a shareholder.
Chances are that such "enhancements" constitute a derivative work of the proprietary user interface. In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is. Which, of course, is very different from free and open source software, where people are encouraged to share and improve the code.
Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem. Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work. However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers. Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.