I wish I knew a bit more about Patents than I do.. if I understand correctly, a Patent is basically a time-limited government-protected monopoly on a particular method of doing something, in return for publishing the steps of the method.
What I am wondering though is where that protection ends. I am under the impression that if money isn't made off of using a patent-protected method, there isn't any enforcement. This means that Dolby wouldn't go after the ac3dec guy, but would go after Linux and BSD distributions in order to try to get them to pony-up licensing fees.
Also, I'm fairly certain that the LiViD people queried Dolby once before for information on implementing ac3 (was it ac3dec itself?).. there was no reply, which means they made an honest attempt, which also means that dolby couldn't sue for any sort of previous or punative damages up until this point. Thats just my understanding on patent law, but I would hope that the BSD people would get professional legal advice themselves, and make sure that they do not distribute ac3dec themselves. I cannot read japanese, so I don't know if they are including it or just linking.
How about complaining that redhat shipped a compiler that couldn't even compile the linux kernel? That they ended up shipping two compilers because of this, but expecting that people would accept that it could compile *other* code correctly?
Defend RedHat all you want, but it still turns out they shipped what basically amounted to a development snapshot as their compiler, and also didn't indicate in any way (in the initial versions) that it was not an official GCC release, and left the help indicating that the GCC team should be contacted in the case of bugs. They shipped a compiler neither compatible with 2.95.x or 3.x - they released a compiler that is not binary compatible with any release of GCC, ever.
But at least the release of 7.0 convinced me to try out Debian. Unfortunately it also pissed off a lot of people who equated RedHat to Linux, and now will end up taking a long time to give Linux another chance.
This already happens, but it isn't 'exact' this 'see-through' technology just lets you see things that would ordinariliy be blocked by the depth buffer. You can see around corners a little, but any more and there just wasn't anything drawn to start with.
I can't think of anything further from the truth. IP, whether it be written words, software, songs, etc is
the product of raw brain power, anything else requires something other than brain power./.ers claim to
be intellectual, but they can't grasp the notion that without copyright there is only material property
rights, thus the only thing with value is material property. At that point we might as well blow out our
brains because the only thing of value in them is the chemicals they are made of. Copyrights are around
to protect the smartest of our sociaty, there are problems with them but the idea of completely free IP
sickens me. I will be a very dull world the moment copyright dissapears.
As one of the 100,000 "slashdotters" you are referring to, I can't help but wonder - without IP, would people suddenly stop trying to think, because their thoughts suddenly held less value? God forbid the world slip into a coma because corporations couldn't exploit the ability to solve problems or (in some cases) apply simple logic.
There is no guarantee that TOC will remain the same either - other companies who have interfaced over TOC before have been blocked (Tribal Voice). It also has *lost* features over the last year or so, and has bad uptime compared to the OSCAR farm.
AOL has blocked third parties which used TOC as well (I believe Tribal Voice). When TOC was blocked, Tik and the TNT emacs clients instantly disappeared, and they stopped supporting the protocol. The only still-existing client which uses TOC that is officially supported is QuickBuddy (toc.oscar.aol.com)
And then they will have a bloated piece of shit, horribly out of date with the current kernel. Its not like there are a thousand people working on the Linux kernel at any one time...
Matrox's latest board is actually *slower* than their previous G400 Max card, and there still have been no announcements of the G800.
ATi has been losing their OEM market, first on the PC OEMs and now from Apple. Even their notebook line is now under pressure from nvidia's chips. Without an OEM market, they are done - even with a better chip, it would take a lot before people would believe that ATi isn't releasing a piece of crap (their drivers in the past have been.. sub-optimal)
NVidia has strong alliances with Microsoft and SGI, and now with their aquisition of 3dfx technology has blanketed the field of 3d graphics with patents.
Most of the graphics-oriented people I know are about 40/40 on which of Matrox or ATI will go under first: the remaining 20% don't acknowledge that the companies are still even competing. Last I checked, there isn't even anyone else trying to make a dent in the field.
The question is: what legal enforcement do they have of this license? Definately not copyright, and probably not contract law (no witnesses, no signature - I could have easily and often do circumvent the agreement by extracting the files from the archive manually, or getting another person to click on the magic, legally-binding button.
If they had a contract which you had to sign in order to purchase the software, this would be one thing. But there really isn't any legal way to enforce a contract that is handed to you after you purchase something - the purchase could be considered a contract in itself, with limited terms (I receive media and the right to use this program by copyright, and am obligated to give you money)
only applications run with proper permissions can access the video hardware. DRI is a purely direct rendering interface - it doesn't abstract away desctructive parts of the card (i.e. if users had access to the accelerated instructions, they could basically 'blit' a new kernel image from graphics memory, to get around the normal memory protection and security permissions).
Because of this, you must be root, or applications must be setUID root in order to get direct rendering - otherwise they will render in software.
Part of the purpose of projects like GGI/KGI have been the long-standing goal of creating a kernel API to allow as direct as possible access to the video card without allowing the user to damage the system.
back when I used a i740, there were many programs which wouldn't even draw correctly due driver ploblems. Things like ORCad, some circuit modelling tools, Protel, and every graphical Java application.
Upgrade to a TNT I bought for $6, and all problems went away.
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit, I guess now they'll find out the truth - I'm not really interested in the articles!
you wouldn't like it if I agreed with you, because the input devices would knock out FireIeee1394LinkWire out of the running.
I wish I knew a bit more about Patents than I do.. if I understand correctly, a Patent is basically a time-limited government-protected monopoly on a particular method of doing something, in return for publishing the steps of the method.
What I am wondering though is where that protection ends. I am under the impression that if money isn't made off of using a patent-protected method, there isn't any enforcement. This means that Dolby wouldn't go after the ac3dec guy, but would go after Linux and BSD distributions in order to try to get them to pony-up licensing fees.
Also, I'm fairly certain that the LiViD people queried Dolby once before for information on implementing ac3 (was it ac3dec itself?).. there was no reply, which means they made an honest attempt, which also means that dolby couldn't sue for any sort of previous or punative damages up until this point. Thats just my understanding on patent law, but I would hope that the BSD people would get professional legal advice themselves, and make sure that they do not distribute ac3dec themselves. I cannot read japanese, so I don't know if they are including it or just linking.
I resemble that remark :P
copyright != patent. Copyright says you can't use their code. You can implement it yourself no problemmo
no, the same rule always, but you can't abuse monopoly powers if you are not a monopoly.
Defend RedHat all you want, but it still turns out they shipped what basically amounted to a development snapshot as their compiler, and also didn't indicate in any way (in the initial versions) that it was not an official GCC release, and left the help indicating that the GCC team should be contacted in the case of bugs. They shipped a compiler neither compatible with 2.95.x or 3.x - they released a compiler that is not binary compatible with any release of GCC, ever.
But at least the release of 7.0 convinced me to try out Debian. Unfortunately it also pissed off a lot of people who equated RedHat to Linux, and now will end up taking a long time to give Linux another chance.
This already happens, but it isn't 'exact' this 'see-through' technology just lets you see things that would ordinariliy be blocked by the depth buffer. You can see around corners a little, but any more and there just wasn't anything drawn to start with.
some of those songs are like ten minutes long! Can I get respect just for figuring out say, a four minute segment? ;-)
I can't think of anything further from the truth. IP, whether it be written words, software, songs, etc is the product of raw brain power, anything else requires something other than brain power. /.ers claim to
be intellectual, but they can't grasp the notion that without copyright there is only material property
rights, thus the only thing with value is material property. At that point we might as well blow out our
brains because the only thing of value in them is the chemicals they are made of. Copyrights are around
to protect the smartest of our sociaty, there are problems with them but the idea of completely free IP
sickens me. I will be a very dull world the moment copyright dissapears.
As one of the 100,000 "slashdotters" you are referring to, I can't help but wonder - without IP, would people suddenly stop trying to think, because their thoughts suddenly held less value? God forbid the world slip into a coma because corporations couldn't exploit the ability to solve problems or (in some cases) apply simple logic.
...all futuristic games can only have ads from Taco Bell.
There is no guarantee that TOC will remain the same either - other companies who have interfaced over TOC before have been blocked (Tribal Voice). It also has *lost* features over the last year or so, and has bad uptime compared to the OSCAR farm.
they also blocked AOL subscribers, who do indeed pay a monthly fee
AOL has blocked third parties which used TOC as well (I believe Tribal Voice). When TOC was blocked, Tik and the TNT emacs clients instantly disappeared, and they stopped supporting the protocol. The only still-existing client which uses TOC that is officially supported is QuickBuddy (toc.oscar.aol.com)
I think the odds are about 1 in 1400 (1 in log(x))
Our name is "A", I better tell napster to stop blocking people from trading our stuff
I've had more than one cute girl sit in my lap while I did something on the computer.
Actually, that is why i *underclock*, I mean.. why rush things?
Flash Editor, he meant
And then they will have a bloated piece of shit, horribly out of date with the current kernel. Its not like there are a thousand people working on the Linux kernel at any one time...
*grin* originally, I didn't say they were a monopoly. They aren't...
:-)
...yet
ooh, viable competitors?
who?
Matrox's latest board is actually *slower* than their previous G400 Max card, and there still have been no announcements of the G800.
ATi has been losing their OEM market, first on the PC OEMs and now from Apple. Even their notebook line is now under pressure from nvidia's chips. Without an OEM market, they are done - even with a better chip, it would take a lot before people would believe that ATi isn't releasing a piece of crap (their drivers in the past have been.. sub-optimal)
NVidia has strong alliances with Microsoft and SGI, and now with their aquisition of 3dfx technology has blanketed the field of 3d graphics with patents.
Most of the graphics-oriented people I know are about 40/40 on which of Matrox or ATI will go under first: the remaining 20% don't acknowledge that the companies are still even competing. Last I checked, there isn't even anyone else trying to make a dent in the field.
The question is: what legal enforcement do they have of this license? Definately not copyright, and probably not contract law (no witnesses, no signature - I could have easily and often do circumvent the agreement by extracting the files from the archive manually, or getting another person to click on the magic, legally-binding button.
If they had a contract which you had to sign in order to purchase the software, this would be one thing. But there really isn't any legal way to enforce a contract that is handed to you after you purchase something - the purchase could be considered a contract in itself, with limited terms (I receive media and the right to use this program by copyright, and am obligated to give you money)
Umm.. you do realize that this is 2.0, right? :)
only applications run with proper permissions can access the video hardware. DRI is a purely direct rendering interface - it doesn't abstract away desctructive parts of the card (i.e. if users had access to the accelerated instructions, they could basically 'blit' a new kernel image from graphics memory, to get around the normal memory protection and security permissions).
Because of this, you must be root, or applications must be setUID root in order to get direct rendering - otherwise they will render in software.
Part of the purpose of projects like GGI/KGI have been the long-standing goal of creating a kernel API to allow as direct as possible access to the video card without allowing the user to damage the system.
back when I used a i740, there were many programs which wouldn't even draw correctly due driver ploblems. Things like ORCad, some circuit modelling tools, Protel, and every graphical Java application.
Upgrade to a TNT I bought for $6, and all problems went away.