Yes, but they would have to establish and intent to open your neighbour's mail.
Therefore you would have to know it was meant for them, easy with paper mail, just look at the address. With email, it is not usually possible to see if the message is meant for you until you read it as the "To:" address is arbituary (cf BeOS mailer, spam messges often have incorrect "To:" addresses).
They dont need "Void where prohibited" to be voided. The courts, if it got that far would just declare it void. The only reason agreements sometimes have similar clauses is to say something like, "the prohibited bits of the agreement are void, but the rest still stands", because otherwise the complete agreement would be voided on one prohibited clause, and if it is a long and complicated agreement, that would be quite possible.
I think the ESA did want to get 'Mars Express', the orbiter that was Beagle's 'Mothership' to Mars before the NASA probes, but the launch date was already set before work on Beagle started. This meant that the Beagle team had a very tight and final deadline, so they did not have time to test everything fully.
Am I the only one who can't believe they didn't think of this before?
And you would be right to not believe that they did not think of it. They did. They took it out to some desert and did a test drop. It failed. They damaged the parachute. Time constraints meant that they just had to use the untested spare parachute. This was all on a BBC documentary about the project.
I agree. A few weeks before the launch, there was a doumentary on the BBC about the probe. It was basically a one-man struggle to get the thing there, despite tight deadlines. I also noticed that some of the critical equiptment, I think including the parachute that they used, remained untested. (The one they tested broke during testing!) It was amazing that it even got into space, but there were definately worries about wether it would work or not before it was launched.
There is a point here somewhere... When somebody starts litigation for patent infringement, they are suing for damages. Therefore, they would be awarded a portion of the profits made from infringement. In the case of OSS, who would they sue?
End-users? Maybe possible, but only if they use the software to make profit and even then, hard, as SCO have proved.
Distributors? No, the GNU GPL(and others) make it clear that they are NOT selling the actual software, therefore not making a profit from it.
Developers? No, they have given it away, no profit there.
So who would they sue??? Anybody? Can anybody sue the OSS community successfully?
IANAL but I'm sure things aren't copyrighted unless they specifically say so. That is why I dont see how they can sue you for downloading copyrighted music, no visible copyright notice, no case?
Errm... Customers do most of the advertising already. They tell their friends how good any product is, they carry bags with shop names on, they wear branded clothes, branded bags, etc. I dont think we need to do any more advertising for them, do we?
I am NOT an idiot, yet my Windows XP partition still got infected with MyDoom, despite having Outlook on the highest security settings, having the windows updater thingy switched on and anti-virus software installed. On the other hand, my Linux partition has none of those things, except an automatic updater, and has never been infected with a virus (do linux viruses actually exist?) Windows should just allow the user to have complete control over which ports are accessable from the internet, and better yet, require the user to explicitly open any server ports on their machine. (ie. ports below 1024 and any other fixed ones).
Install has got to be one of Linux's biggest strengths! I am running Fedora Core 1 right now, and it tool very little time to get it to work.
Graphical install, 1 reboot, log in, set desktop prefs. No manual modifacation of anything. I don't know which linux distro you were using (if any), but it cetianly wasn't anything post-2000. I do connect to the internet via a NAT enabled broadband modem/router though, so I have no experiance of modem/dial up on this system, but I have on other linux systems, even with partially software modems. (Intel HaM anyone?)
I have used every! version of windows since 3.0, expect 2003 and NT3.1 (ie. 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT3.51, 95, NT4, 98, ME, 2000, XP(Home & Pro))
I have used linux since 1999, starting with SuSE 5.2. I am using Fedora now. I must say that (moden versions of) linux is MUCH easier to set up than windows. I mean:
Desktop:
Windows: Slow, crashes, stupid folder protection and hidden system files.
Linux: Fast, never crashes, no folder protection, files protected by user security.
Apps:
Windows: Seperate install for each, incompatabilities, unstated requirements, crashes.
Linux: Loads of apps installed with OS, all requirements checked during RPM install, rarely crashes.
(As another note, the only thing that I've seen completely crash linux was running Windows apps via WINE, so they can crash anything!)
He said Windows NT 3.1. If you dont know what that is, do a google or MSKB search. And his point was that Windows 2003 does not have 90% the same codebase. (i.e. = 10% the same)
It is extreamly unlikely that a software EULA would stand up in court anyway.
As said, they simply cannot prove that you accepted it, a condition that is required for any suit under contract law.
(It is possible to get windows installed without even seeing it! Just delete/rename/edit the file containing the EULA.)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you mean FC2? I'm running FC1 and it uses XFree86, I just checked...
But it does have that annoying dog (whats his name?) 'seach assistant'.
Yes, but they would have to establish and intent to open your neighbour's mail.
Therefore you would have to know it was meant for them, easy with paper mail, just look at the address. With email, it is not usually possible to see if the message is meant for you until you read it as the "To:" address is arbituary (cf BeOS mailer, spam messges often have incorrect "To:" addresses).
They dont need "Void where prohibited" to be voided. The courts, if it got that far would just declare it void. The only reason agreements sometimes have similar clauses is to say something like, "the prohibited bits of the agreement are void, but the rest still stands", because otherwise the complete agreement would be voided on one prohibited clause, and if it is a long and complicated agreement, that would be quite possible.
I think the ESA did want to get 'Mars Express', the orbiter that was Beagle's 'Mothership' to Mars before the NASA probes, but the launch date was already set before work on Beagle started. This meant that the Beagle team had a very tight and final deadline, so they did not have time to test everything fully.
Am I the only one who can't believe they didn't think of this before?
And you would be right to not believe that they did not think of it. They did. They took it out to some desert and did a test drop. It failed. They damaged the parachute. Time constraints meant that they just had to use the untested spare parachute. This was all on a BBC documentary about the project.
I agree.
A few weeks before the launch, there was a doumentary on the BBC about the probe. It was basically a one-man struggle to get the thing there, despite tight deadlines. I also noticed that some of the critical equiptment, I think including the parachute that they used, remained untested. (The one they tested broke during testing!) It was amazing that it even got into space, but there were definately worries about wether it would work or not before it was launched.
I think that would be herbiality...
There is a point here somewhere... When somebody starts litigation for patent infringement, they are suing for damages. Therefore, they would be awarded a portion of the profits made from infringement. In the case of OSS, who would they sue?
End-users? Maybe possible, but only if they use the software to make profit and even then, hard, as SCO have proved.
Distributors? No, the GNU GPL(and others) make it clear that they are NOT selling the actual software, therefore not making a profit from it.
Developers? No, they have given it away, no profit there.
So who would they sue??? Anybody? Can anybody sue the OSS community successfully?
Some distros ship MPlayer... that plays wma just fine, I'm not sure if it even checks the Draconian Rights Malware.
IANAL but I'm sure things aren't copyrighted unless they specifically say so.
That is why I dont see how they can sue you for downloading copyrighted music, no visible copyright notice, no case?
Actually... Even Windows 3.11 had tiny bits of 32-bit code in... (Im talking Wfw3.11 here..)
It had 32-bit disk access, 32-bit TCP stack, and a few other things. Of course with the Win32s (remember those?) it had a whole lot of 32-bit code.
Not that I am nitpicking here...
Errm... Customers do most of the advertising already. They tell their friends how good any product is, they carry bags with shop names on, they wear branded clothes, branded bags, etc. I dont think we need to do any more advertising for them, do we?
I am NOT an idiot, yet my Windows XP partition still got infected with MyDoom, despite having Outlook on the highest security settings, having the windows updater thingy switched on and anti-virus software installed. On the other hand, my Linux partition has none of those things, except an automatic updater, and has never been infected with a virus (do linux viruses actually exist?) Windows should just allow the user to have complete control over which ports are accessable from the internet, and better yet, require the user to explicitly open any server ports on their machine. (ie. ports below 1024 and any other fixed ones).
Install has got to be one of Linux's biggest strengths! I am running Fedora Core 1 right now, and it tool very little time to get it to work.
Graphical install, 1 reboot, log in, set desktop prefs. No manual modifacation of anything. I don't know which linux distro you were using (if any), but it cetianly wasn't anything post-2000. I do connect to the internet via a NAT enabled broadband modem/router though, so I have no experiance of modem/dial up on this system, but I have on other linux systems, even with partially software modems. (Intel HaM anyone?)
I have used every! version of windows since 3.0, expect 2003 and NT3.1 (ie. 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT3.51, 95, NT4, 98, ME, 2000, XP(Home & Pro)) I have used linux since 1999, starting with SuSE 5.2. I am using Fedora now. I must say that (moden versions of) linux is MUCH easier to set up than windows. I mean:
Install:
Windows: Text-based preinstall 3-5 reboots. Drivers required afterwards.
Linux: Fully graphical. 1 reboot. Drivers rarely required.
Desktop:
Windows: Slow, crashes, stupid folder protection and hidden system files.
Linux: Fast, never crashes, no folder protection, files protected by user security.
Apps:
Windows: Seperate install for each, incompatabilities, unstated requirements, crashes.
Linux: Loads of apps installed with OS, all requirements checked during RPM install, rarely crashes.
(As another note, the only thing that I've seen completely crash linux was running Windows apps via WINE, so they can crash anything!)
He said Windows NT 3.1. If you dont know what that is, do a google or MSKB search. And his point was that Windows 2003 does not have 90% the same codebase. (i.e. = 10% the same)
It is extreamly unlikely that a software EULA would stand up in court anyway. As said, they simply cannot prove that you accepted it, a condition that is required for any suit under contract law. (It is possible to get windows installed without even seeing it! Just delete/rename/edit the file containing the EULA.)