As the copyright holder, you have the right to release it under as many license as you want. Those who receive it after don't have that choice and must stick to the license they received.
So you choose your licenses and decide what is the condition to get each one. Let's say I release my code under the GPL and a commercial license which authorize the author to include it in proprietary applications which might be sold as the other want but he can't pass the license to someone else.
The condition to get the GPLed version is to download it from my website or get a copy from someone else who have one. The condition to get the commercial version is to pay me.
Now, you might wonder if you have the right to include the code develloped by J. Random Hacker who sent a patch to you in your commercial version. The answer is yes if you ask people submitting patches to turn over the copyright on their patches to you.
It is also worth pointing out if I chose that my software is no longer licensed under the GPL, people who already have a GPLed version can still distribute it under the GPL and even fork it. If they fork it, they are the copyright holders of the new code and you can't include it in your own version.
Moreover, the maintainers apparently have a good humor about the confusion over the Freespire project. Another company might have just served a subpoena to Andrew Betts, asking for trumped up damages and whatnot.
Not they could not. They already got sued by Microsoft because they used to be called Lindows and Microsoft said it confused people. If they sued someone for the same thing, it would be very bad publicity.
They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.
Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.
Which will only make patents available to big corporations and they will continue to do exactly as they are doing right now.
There is three quick fixes that would make the whole thing a lot more efficient.
First, when a company ask for a patent, there should be a public announcement and competitors would be invited to submit prior art (no matter if who created this prior art in the first place).
Second, with the time you gained with step one, check with experts if the solution is non-obvious. Usually it will be else it would generally fail step one.
Third and most important fix, introduce a time penality. Let's say 3 months. Every time you submit a stupid patent, you next application will have to wait 3 months until being put on the pile of patents to be reviewed. If you submit another stupid one, you will wait 6 months, 9 months, one year and so on. You'd lose a 3 month penality for every 6 month in which you did not submit a stupid patent.
That way, small fries can get patent, cost of checking prior art is minimal (both for the Patent Office since competitors know better than them where to look and for competitor since stupid patents are far appart with the time penalty) and the number of patent submitted to them is a lot less (since companies are afraid to submit patents that would get them penalities).
And the GPL is enormous. For stuff like web scripts, it is overkill..... I don't like to finish eating my dinner before someone else has even started theirs, and I don't like the licence to be longer than the software it refers to.
The FSF agrees with you, you know. In the GPL FAQ, it's written that if your code is shorter than the GPL, it's probably not worth it to put it under the GPL.
Obviously you didnt read the article. Tiger, ripped off features MS announced for Vista. Apple is the one copying this time.
Copied general ideas, not features. If Microsoft announced that they plan to add a feature in Vista that reads your mind and make your computer do exactly what you want but it's Apple who pulled it off, the credit would all go to Apple.
I think it is pretty easy to pass by this study. OSDL has to pay the other half of a study they are not really interested in. So this study can turn out bad or good for any party involved, but it also eats into the budget.
Indeed. And you don't even mention that we don't even know half of how much. Microsoft have a lot more money to waste on this study than OSDL do.
It's true that "GNU/Linux" is ugly, and it's true that hardly anyone uses that name, and it's even true that RMS appears to be obsessed with this minor issue well beyond the bounds of what's reasonable. But you can't deny that he has a valid point - even if, like most people, you choose to reject the conclusion he draws from it.
It's a valid point but isn't he hypocritical to say that the Linux trademark doesn't matter while making such a fuss about the GNU/Linux issue ?
It's kinda interesting. Of course, all the asking for invites on public forums breaks the system, but if it wasn't for that, this would be a good way for Google to track people who might have similar interests (people who give invites to others are probably friends).
That would be stupid of them since it's easier to establish such relationships : people who e-mail each other frequently are probably friends.
You can use Trillian and probably even use GoogleTalk without the ad words.
And you can use any e-mail client to access gmail without seeing the the ad words.
Re:Leaving this to computers will lead to traffic
on
The Future of the Car
·
· Score: 1
It would in fact be faster. Computers will give a chance to each other and hence would not get caught somewhere where it's impossible to find a small hole to pass.
I saw a really good one some time ago. It looked very official, logo, text and all. There was only one flaw as far as I am concerned but it would not be one in the inbox of ninety-something percent of the population. The first words were :
This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license.
In that case, license new version under GPL2, period and let the old versions become obsolete. The risk that the main point of the license "this software will always stay free" will change is close to zero and the "or later" clause is a safe bet to prevent license upgrade hassles.
But other free-trial software consider you cheated when you roll back your clock. They remember the latest date/hour they ever saw and expire if they see something less than that.
I really wonder how come it is news. Japan discovered that years ago (you can start in japan! jokes now). I live near the biggest fishing town in Quebec (Canada) and they are trying since years to produce chitosan pure enough to do that.
When it's not pure enough, you can use it to clean used water. You throw it in the water, pretty much everything cling to it and then you filter.
Oh, I'd seriously love to see that. Maybe if we expend the page about Slashdot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot) and make it a featured article...:)
punkbuster anti-cheat software (Quake3, battlefield2, loads more) is what needs the admin account in these games, and for good reason - cheat detection is so hard these days they need direct low level access to areas on the os and driver layer, unavailable on lower accounts, afaik.
Then explain me why I can install America's Army on Linux with punkbuster in my home directory with no root priviledge ?
So, if third party linux software was written asininely too, would you suggest everyone dump it?
If Windows wasn't giving you the admin rights by default, installing a software that needs them wouldn't work for 95% of users who have no clue about how to switch to admin. Therefore, they would be coded to work with a regular account.
Windows default choice cause sloppy coding.
P.S.: There is no such thing as "third party software" for Linux and yes, we ditch apps of poor quality.
How is the parent a troll ? The thread goes like this, the GGGP tells that he fear his messages could intercepted and read. The GGP tells him that he should encrypt his stuff. The GP tells it is an admission of guilt and the parent tells that he have to decide if he wants to hide his stuff or not.
You can't not encrypt your stuff because you fear you'll look like you are hiding something while you *are* hiding something. Either you hide your stuff or you don't.
Decide, do you want to hide that information or you don't ? If you have nothing to hide, why does it bother you that someone could intercept your communication ?
Slashdot Mirror
As the copyright holder, you have the right to release it under as many license as you want. Those who receive it after don't have that choice and must stick to the license they received.
So you choose your licenses and decide what is the condition to get each one. Let's say I release my code under the GPL and a commercial license which authorize the author to include it in proprietary applications which might be sold as the other want but he can't pass the license to someone else.
The condition to get the GPLed version is to download it from my website or get a copy from someone else who have one. The condition to get the commercial version is to pay me.
Now, you might wonder if you have the right to include the code develloped by J. Random Hacker who sent a patch to you in your commercial version. The answer is yes if you ask people submitting patches to turn over the copyright on their patches to you.
It is also worth pointing out if I chose that my software is no longer licensed under the GPL, people who already have a GPLed version can still distribute it under the GPL and even fork it. If they fork it, they are the copyright holders of the new code and you can't include it in your own version.
Meanwhile, here's the link to the torrent of the LiveCD which I think is more suitable for testing purposes : http://tracker.linspire.com/torrents/linspire_live _5.0.69.torrent
Not they could not. They already got sued by Microsoft because they used to be called Lindows and Microsoft said it confused people. If they sued someone for the same thing, it would be very bad publicity.
Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear. Which will only make patents available to big corporations and they will continue to do exactly as they are doing right now.
There is three quick fixes that would make the whole thing a lot more efficient. First, when a company ask for a patent, there should be a public announcement and competitors would be invited to submit prior art (no matter if who created this prior art in the first place).
Second, with the time you gained with step one, check with experts if the solution is non-obvious. Usually it will be else it would generally fail step one. Third and most important fix, introduce a time penality. Let's say 3 months. Every time you submit a stupid patent, you next application will have to wait 3 months until being put on the pile of patents to be reviewed. If you submit another stupid one, you will wait 6 months, 9 months, one year and so on. You'd lose a 3 month penality for every 6 month in which you did not submit a stupid patent.
That way, small fries can get patent, cost of checking prior art is minimal (both for the Patent Office since competitors know better than them where to look and for competitor since stupid patents are far appart with the time penalty) and the number of patent submitted to them is a lot less (since companies are afraid to submit patents that would get them penalities).
The FSF agrees with you, you know. In the GPL FAQ, it's written that if your code is shorter than the GPL, it's probably not worth it to put it under the GPL.
Copied general ideas, not features. If Microsoft announced that they plan to add a feature in Vista that reads your mind and make your computer do exactly what you want but it's Apple who pulled it off, the credit would all go to Apple.
Indeed. And you don't even mention that we don't even know half of how much. Microsoft have a lot more money to waste on this study than OSDL do.
I just recycled a PII 400 mhz with 64 mb of RAM. I bought 128 extra mb for $35 and installed Ubuntu 5.04 on it (Gnome Desktop). It runs very smoothly.
It's a valid point but isn't he hypocritical to say that the Linux trademark doesn't matter while making such a fuss about the GNU/Linux issue ?
Interesting.
S.L.A.S.H.D.O.T.: Synthetic Lifelike Android Skilled in Hazardous Destruction and Online Troubleshooting
That would be stupid of them since it's easier to establish such relationships : people who e-mail each other frequently are probably friends.
And you can use any e-mail client to access gmail without seeing the the ad words.
It would in fact be faster. Computers will give a chance to each other and hence would not get caught somewhere where it's impossible to find a small hole to pass.
They left the company because it would not care about the need of users. The same devs will continue to develop Mambo. Everything is fine.
I saw a really good one some time ago. It looked very official, logo, text and all. There was only one flaw as far as I am concerned but it would not be one in the inbox of ninety-something percent of the population. The first words were :
Dear Microsoft Customer,
This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license. In that case, license new version under GPL2, period and let the old versions become obsolete. The risk that the main point of the license "this software will always stay free" will change is close to zero and the "or later" clause is a safe bet to prevent license upgrade hassles.
But other free-trial software consider you cheated when you roll back your clock. They remember the latest date/hour they ever saw and expire if they see something less than that.
Maybe but if Skype is sold like Kazaa, who tells there wont be spywares ? Users will be clueless once again and won't notice it has been sold.
I really wonder how come it is news. Japan discovered that years ago (you can start in japan! jokes now). I live near the biggest fishing town in Quebec (Canada) and they are trying since years to produce chitosan pure enough to do that.
When it's not pure enough, you can use it to clean used water. You throw it in the water, pretty much everything cling to it and then you filter.
Oh, I'd seriously love to see that. Maybe if we expend the page about Slashdot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot) and make it a featured article... :)
Then explain me why I can install America's Army on Linux with punkbuster in my home directory with no root priviledge ?
If Windows wasn't giving you the admin rights by default, installing a software that needs them wouldn't work for 95% of users who have no clue about how to switch to admin. Therefore, they would be coded to work with a regular account.
Windows default choice cause sloppy coding.
P.S.: There is no such thing as "third party software" for Linux and yes, we ditch apps of poor quality.
They would add you as a buddy and write your ICQ number as the screenname.
How is the parent a troll ? The thread goes like this, the GGGP tells that he fear his messages could intercepted and read. The GGP tells him that he should encrypt his stuff. The GP tells it is an admission of guilt and the parent tells that he have to decide if he wants to hide his stuff or not.
You can't not encrypt your stuff because you fear you'll look like you are hiding something while you *are* hiding something. Either you hide your stuff or you don't.
Decide, do you want to hide that information or you don't ? If you have nothing to hide, why does it bother you that someone could intercept your communication ?