"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
The copy on the hard drive is clearly an adaptated copy "created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", and the restore CD is "for archival purposes only", to allow restoration of the functioning version of the software to the machine. Both adapted copies of the software are transferred to the purchaser of the original, Apple-authorized copy of OS X. The chain of custody in a few cases a little odd, but "authorize the making" arguably contemplates somebody else making the copies and/or adaptations for you and thus having the copies as necessary to fulfill that function.
Now, the Apple updates transmission?/There's/ a vulnerability for Psystar. But first sale doctrine would normally allow the resale of the original boxed OS X, and copyright law at least appears to me to allow making copies and adaptations of OS X in order to use OS X with a machine.
Copies of Mac OS X are clearly sold through the retail channel. The Software Copyright Act of 1980 explicitly says that "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided . . . that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine[.]"
Apple is accordingly trying to subvert the explicitly established legal rights of users by claiming copies of Mac OS X are "licensed" instead of sold. Even if they are technically able to get a judge to twist and abuse copyright law to that end, it is clear that they are twisting and abusing copyright law and the legal rights of users to do it. Abuse of the rights of users is immoral even if done under the bare cover of law.
Would you be saying "good for them" if the news article was about someone breaking the GPL?
The GPL, any version, does not try to stop you from exercising your normal rights under copyright law. It only applies restrictions when you wish to do something normally prohibited by copyright law. There is no attempt to twist or abuse of the rights of users of the software, and so no justice in ignoring the license.
"There are 400 billion stars out there in our galaxy alone. Now if only one out of a million of those stars had planets. Alright? And if just one out of a million of those had life. And if just one out of a million of those had intelligent lifeâ¦there would be literally millions of civilizations out there."
400 billion stars * 100 billion galaxies equals 4*10^22 stars. One out of a million of those stars is 4*10^16 stars-with-planets. One out of a million of those is 4*10^10 stars-with-planets-with-life. One out of a million of those is 40,000 civilizations in the entire universe.
Moral of the story: nuclear weapons keep your ass safe. This is a terrible message to send but only a fool could miss it.
Yeah, only a fool . . . or someone who knows the first thing about military strategy.
Kuwait was willing to allow the U.S. to invade Iraq from its territory. South Korea, China, and Russia are unwilling to allow the U.S. to invade North Korea from any of their territories. You are invited to design a plan by which the U.S. can successfully invade North Korea entirely using airdrops and amphibious landings from Japan; submit it to the Joint Chiefs and you'll soon find graduate degrees from all the U.S. war colleges in your mailbox, plus an offer of a huge salary as a civilian consultant to the Pentagon.
Oh, but South Korea would let us invade except for the nukes? Sure, because the North Korean artillery in range of Seoul that would cut South Korea's largest city and capital to mincemeat in a matter of minutes, that doesn't have any deterrent effect.
Nah, they'll complain about, for example, printer installation.
I recently got a Dell 530n (Hardy Heron), and I decided to try to hook it up to the printer on the Windows machine. I was able to work out how to do it relatively easy, but not nearly as easily as adding a network printer on a Windows box is. Further, the only way I learned it was impossible to set up this particular printer on Linux was to note the lack of a suggested PPD on the list, then search the web fruitlessly for a PPD for the printer.
(This went on longer than discovering there was no Linux driver because of the Curse of a Little Knowledge. I knew I didn't need a "real" driver that would run the hardware, because the printer was going to be operated by the Windows machine. So "all" I needed was the text file PPD, right? And there's a Mac driver, and Macs use CUPS, so the PPD would have to be in the Mac driver.dmg, and I had a Mac handy, and . . . turns out that the Mac driver doesn't use a CUPS-PPD.)
It wasn't forgotten. The reason Columbus had so much trouble getting funding was that the royal courts of the time hadn't forgotten; they used Eratosthenes' old number (confirmed by the astrolabe), and then accepted Ptolemy's assessment that it was 180 degrees from one end of Europe to the opposite end of Asia. They knew there was no way that Columbus could reach Japan from the Canaries, 12,000 miles away, without running out of water (no ship of the era was big enough to carry enough for a trip of that length). So advised against giving him money, no matter how much Columbus insisted it was only 2,300. As it was, the reason why the terms of his contract with Fredinand & Isabella was so generous is that everyone expected him to die on the trip rather than make landfall.
And Columbus wasn't ignorant of Eratosthenes' number and Ptolemy's estimate; it was simply that he reached his error based on a different set of authorities:
1) That of Marinus of Tyre (from the first century AD), who thought that Eurasia was 235 degrees in width instead of about 180. 2) The measurement of Alfraganus that underestimated the size of a degree somewhat. 3) His own mistake of assuming that Alfraganus's mile was the same length as an Italian mile (which were 2/3rd the size).
Based on those numbers, it was perfectly reasonable to believe he'd reached Asia.
System Libraries (I use the capitals to specifically indicate a reference to the capitalized term in the GPL 3) don't have to implement a Standard Interface. They can instead serve as the interface to allow the use of the work with a Major Component. Which simply means Microsoft would have to make the non-Free extension code part of or highly dependent on code in a Major Component, called via a System Library.
As long as the GPL allows covered software to be run on non-Free platforms, the owners of the non-Free platforms will be able to embrace and extend the GPL software with non-Free code. You can set up some hoops, if you like, but they can always tilt the platform to serve as a ramp through the hoops.
In that case, what, exactly, would change with this scenario?
The contribution to the Apache Foundation would have the same PR effect, so that wouldn't have been affected at all.
The ability to embrace-and-extend would be slightly differentiated, but not all that much. Microsoft would integrate some new System Libraries into Windows Server, and any Microsoft-only extensions of Apache would be made dependent on them. The calls to the Windows System Libraries would be GPL, but the code in the libraries would remain closed, and adding their features to the GPL version of Apache would require a WINE- or Mono-like project.
And, um. What else is there? Well, Microsoft would logically be contradicting its GPL statements, but Interix/Services for Windows/SUA/whatever it is this week already did so.
Oh, yeah, really ethical. India had money to spend on developing nuclear weapons, but had nothing to spare to even partially, symbolically, compensate the discoverers of lifesaving medicine.
Mmmmh. It probably would be easier to start with Vista, take a hatchet to it, and then patch things up to a clone of Windows 2000, than to finish ReactOS.
I imagine most things are bigger deals on the Web than DIN 66253-2. You might have somewhat more credibility on the issue if you correctly spelled the name of Larry Wall's language.
Went into CompUSA just the other day, and they're selling USB-to-Parallel and USB-to-Serial converters. So there's clearly still some commerical demand for serial and parallel ports.
It's foreign enough for portuguese people to speak about "contamination" of Portuguese by the so-called Brazilian language (due to those shows).
American English is foreign enough for British people to speak about "contamination" of British English by American (due to U.S. media). I've even seen Pakistanis complain about Americanization of proper English.
Are the units going to just be shrunk P54Cs? Almost certainly not. But it strikes me as plausible that they started with the P54C design and revised it, instead of starting with a clean sheet of paper.
After all, the Yonah Core was a refinement of the Pentium-M, a refinement of the P-III, a refinement of the P-II, a refinement of the Pentium Pro. So 0.065 micron Yonah-based Core processors were in significant part derived from a 0.50 micron BiCMOS processor. This isn't much more of a stretch.
Now, whether it was worth deriving from the P54C instead of building something new from scratch, who knows? But the P5 line was Intel's last non-OoOE x86 core, and the P54C had (basic) support for multiprocessing. Maybe you'd start with the P55C instead, but the no-MMX design is arguably a cleaner base to work from. If you were going to design a non-OoOE x86 execution unit for Larrabee from an existing design instead of from a blank sheet, the P45C seems to be a logical choice.
Yes, incompatibility. OS X 10.5, Leopard, has been the current version for eight months now, and it has exactly zero support for Classic, even on the PPC.
In contrast, Windows Vista (32-bit), as currently shipping from Microsoft, runs the very same VisiCalc binaries that shipped for the IBM PC and DOS 1.0 in 1981.
Comest, not asteroids. Assuming 10-mile diameter comets that are about two-thirds frozen ammonia, a dozen or so should give you a surface atmospheric pressure of about half Earth's. It'll bleed off over just a few million years, but the cosmological short run is, on a human scale, long enough.
Entering a business because you think you can make money doing it sensible. Entering a business just to attack another company is idiocy. The only reasons anybody's giving for Google to do anything with OpenOffice.org is to attack Microsoft.
My examples were all of companies who competed in a market for no more reason than "somebody else is in those markets, and we need to fight that somebody else". Your examples were mostly of companies who entered a market to make money. Sony didn't start selling Playstations for no more reason than to crush Sega; Apple was not trying to destroy Creative; and Google was not motivated by a desire to destroy DEC.
The IBM PC, on the other hand, was motivated by an attempt to destroy potential competition from microcomputer companies. And the long-run result was IBM losing money and selling off its PC business. Did it crush Apple? Well, Apple seems to be in okay shape today. Did it stop a flood of rival microcomputer companies? No. Did it preserve IBM's dominance of the IT world? No, it midwifed the dominance of Microsoft. Yeah, that worked out well.
"Google can make a lot of money selling OpenOffice.org support contracts" is a good reason for Google to do it. "Google can knock out Microsoft" is not.
Seriously, why should Google want to focus on delivering a knockout to Microsoft? Google doesn't need to do an office suite, and Google doesn't need to do an OS. Google's doing just fine being Google.
Were there a lot of people running around in 1980 saying Apple Computer had to start building mainframes in order to knock out IBM? I mean, that would make just as much sense.
IBM tried to knock out Microsoft with OS/2. How'd that work out?
Novell tried to knock out Microsoft with its purchases of Unix, Digital Research, and WordPerfect. How'd that work out?
Sun has been trying to out Microsoft with Java and StarOffice and whatnot. How's that working out?
And now, Microsoft's been obsessively focused with trying to knock out Google, pouring billions more into MSN. How's that working out?
If electricity from wind turbines were free it still wouldn't compete with oil for powering vehicles. Battery capacity per dollar and per pound just isn't up to it yet. The oil companies have nothing to fear from the makers of wind turbines; they only have to worry about companies developing batteries.
(Yes, the northeastern U.S. uses diesel for heating their homes. And it's managing to hang on despite competition from electricity already, mostly because nobody has the sense to change public policy to discourage it. Instead of taxing the hell out of it and subsidizing conversions, we put together a national "Home Heating Oil Reserve" and give poor people subsidies to buy the stuff. Hey, I know, let's put a $5000 federal subsidy good for the purchase of SUVs while we're at it . . ..)
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but my reading of the law is:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
The copy on the hard drive is clearly an adaptated copy "created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", and the restore CD is "for archival purposes only", to allow restoration of the functioning version of the software to the machine. Both adapted copies of the software are transferred to the purchaser of the original, Apple-authorized copy of OS X. The chain of custody in a few cases a little odd, but "authorize the making" arguably contemplates somebody else making the copies and/or adaptations for you and thus having the copies as necessary to fulfill that function.
Now, the Apple updates transmission? /There's/ a vulnerability for Psystar. But first sale doctrine would normally allow the resale of the original boxed OS X, and copyright law at least appears to me to allow making copies and adaptations of OS X in order to use OS X with a machine.
Why is it OK to break Apple's license?
Copies of Mac OS X are clearly sold through the retail channel. The Software Copyright Act of 1980 explicitly says that "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided . . . that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine[.]"
Apple is accordingly trying to subvert the explicitly established legal rights of users by claiming copies of Mac OS X are "licensed" instead of sold. Even if they are technically able to get a judge to twist and abuse copyright law to that end, it is clear that they are twisting and abusing copyright law and the legal rights of users to do it. Abuse of the rights of users is immoral even if done under the bare cover of law.
Would you be saying "good for them" if the news article was about someone breaking the GPL?
The GPL, any version, does not try to stop you from exercising your normal rights under copyright law. It only applies restrictions when you wish to do something normally prohibited by copyright law. There is no attempt to twist or abuse of the rights of users of the software, and so no justice in ignoring the license.
"There are 400 billion stars out there in our galaxy alone. Now if only one out of a million of those stars had planets. Alright? And if just one out of a million of those had life. And if just one out of a million of those had intelligent lifeâ¦there would be literally millions of civilizations out there."
400 billion stars * 100 billion galaxies equals 4*10^22 stars. One out of a million of those stars is 4*10^16 stars-with-planets. One out of a million of those is 4*10^10 stars-with-planets-with-life. One out of a million of those is 40,000 civilizations in the entire universe.
Never, ever rely on Hollywood for math.
Moral of the story: nuclear weapons keep your ass safe. This is a terrible message to send but only a fool could miss it.
Yeah, only a fool . . . or someone who knows the first thing about military strategy.
Kuwait was willing to allow the U.S. to invade Iraq from its territory. South Korea, China, and Russia are unwilling to allow the U.S. to invade North Korea from any of their territories. You are invited to design a plan by which the U.S. can successfully invade North Korea entirely using airdrops and amphibious landings from Japan; submit it to the Joint Chiefs and you'll soon find graduate degrees from all the U.S. war colleges in your mailbox, plus an offer of a huge salary as a civilian consultant to the Pentagon.
Oh, but South Korea would let us invade except for the nukes? Sure, because the North Korean artillery in range of Seoul that would cut South Korea's largest city and capital to mincemeat in a matter of minutes, that doesn't have any deterrent effect.
Or, NATO (Denmark), NATO (Iceland), NATO (Norway), NATO (Canada), NATO (USA), and Russia.
Nah, they'll complain about, for example, printer installation.
I recently got a Dell 530n (Hardy Heron), and I decided to try to hook it up to the printer on the Windows machine. I was able to work out how to do it relatively easy, but not nearly as easily as adding a network printer on a Windows box is. Further, the only way I learned it was impossible to set up this particular printer on Linux was to note the lack of a suggested PPD on the list, then search the web fruitlessly for a PPD for the printer.
(This went on longer than discovering there was no Linux driver because of the Curse of a Little Knowledge. I knew I didn't need a "real" driver that would run the hardware, because the printer was going to be operated by the Windows machine. So "all" I needed was the text file PPD, right? And there's a Mac driver, and Macs use CUPS, so the PPD would have to be in the Mac driver .dmg, and I had a Mac handy, and . . . turns out that the Mac driver doesn't use a CUPS-PPD.)
It wasn't forgotten. The reason Columbus had so much trouble getting funding was that the royal courts of the time hadn't forgotten; they used Eratosthenes' old number (confirmed by the astrolabe), and then accepted Ptolemy's assessment that it was 180 degrees from one end of Europe to the opposite end of Asia. They knew there was no way that Columbus could reach Japan from the Canaries, 12,000 miles away, without running out of water (no ship of the era was big enough to carry enough for a trip of that length). So advised against giving him money, no matter how much Columbus insisted it was only 2,300. As it was, the reason why the terms of his contract with Fredinand & Isabella was so generous is that everyone expected him to die on the trip rather than make landfall.
And Columbus wasn't ignorant of Eratosthenes' number and Ptolemy's estimate; it was simply that he reached his error based on a different set of authorities:
1) That of Marinus of Tyre (from the first century AD), who thought that Eurasia was 235 degrees in width instead of about 180.
2) The measurement of Alfraganus that underestimated the size of a degree somewhat.
3) His own mistake of assuming that Alfraganus's mile was the same length as an Italian mile (which were 2/3rd the size).
Based on those numbers, it was perfectly reasonable to believe he'd reached Asia.
System Libraries (I use the capitals to specifically indicate a reference to the capitalized term in the GPL 3) don't have to implement a Standard Interface. They can instead serve as the interface to allow the use of the work with a Major Component. Which simply means Microsoft would have to make the non-Free extension code part of or highly dependent on code in a Major Component, called via a System Library.
As long as the GPL allows covered software to be run on non-Free platforms, the owners of the non-Free platforms will be able to embrace and extend the GPL software with non-Free code. You can set up some hoops, if you like, but they can always tilt the platform to serve as a ramp through the hoops.
In that case, what, exactly, would change with this scenario?
The contribution to the Apache Foundation would have the same PR effect, so that wouldn't have been affected at all.
The ability to embrace-and-extend would be slightly differentiated, but not all that much. Microsoft would integrate some new System Libraries into Windows Server, and any Microsoft-only extensions of Apache would be made dependent on them. The calls to the Windows System Libraries would be GPL, but the code in the libraries would remain closed, and adding their features to the GPL version of Apache would require a WINE- or Mono-like project.
And, um. What else is there? Well, Microsoft would logically be contradicting its GPL statements, but Interix/Services for Windows/SUA/whatever it is this week already did so.
Oh, yeah, really ethical. India had money to spend on developing nuclear weapons, but had nothing to spare to even partially, symbolically, compensate the discoverers of lifesaving medicine.
Mmmmh. It probably would be easier to start with Vista, take a hatchet to it, and then patch things up to a clone of Windows 2000, than to finish ReactOS.
I imagine most things are bigger deals on the Web than DIN 66253-2. You might have somewhat more credibility on the issue if you correctly spelled the name of Larry Wall's language.
Some of us are waiting for Web 2.7.18. It's promised that it'll be quite natural to code for; as easy as falling off a log.
Went into CompUSA just the other day, and they're selling USB-to-Parallel and USB-to-Serial converters. So there's clearly still some commerical demand for serial and parallel ports.
It's foreign enough for portuguese people to speak about "contamination" of Portuguese by the so-called Brazilian language (due to those shows).
American English is foreign enough for British people to speak about "contamination" of British English by American (due to U.S. media). I've even seen Pakistanis complain about Americanization of proper English.
So, your point is?
Are the units going to just be shrunk P54Cs? Almost certainly not. But it strikes me as plausible that they started with the P54C design and revised it, instead of starting with a clean sheet of paper.
After all, the Yonah Core was a refinement of the Pentium-M, a refinement of the P-III, a refinement of the P-II, a refinement of the Pentium Pro. So 0.065 micron Yonah-based Core processors were in significant part derived from a 0.50 micron BiCMOS processor. This isn't much more of a stretch.
Now, whether it was worth deriving from the P54C instead of building something new from scratch, who knows? But the P5 line was Intel's last non-OoOE x86 core, and the P54C had (basic) support for multiprocessing. Maybe you'd start with the P55C instead, but the no-MMX design is arguably a cleaner base to work from. If you were going to design a non-OoOE x86 execution unit for Larrabee from an existing design instead of from a blank sheet, the P45C seems to be a logical choice.
Hell, who needs options dialogs? about:config options would be good enough.
If anyone doesn't get the Borg reference, they should get off of my lawn.
Time between first episode of Star Trek and first episode of TNG: 21 years, 3 weeks
Years since first episode of TNG: 20 years, 8 months.
Yes, incompatibility. OS X 10.5, Leopard, has been the current version for eight months now, and it has exactly zero support for Classic, even on the PPC.
In contrast, Windows Vista (32-bit), as currently shipping from Microsoft, runs the very same VisiCalc binaries that shipped for the IBM PC and DOS 1.0 in 1981.
You don't need to wonder. The license has been out for eight years now. Read it for yourself.
Comest, not asteroids. Assuming 10-mile diameter comets that are about two-thirds frozen ammonia, a dozen or so should give you a surface atmospheric pressure of about half Earth's. It'll bleed off over just a few million years, but the cosmological short run is, on a human scale, long enough.
Are five-digit users . . . no, this is too much like work.
Just get offa my lawn.
Entering a business because you think you can make money doing it sensible. Entering a business just to attack another company is idiocy. The only reasons anybody's giving for Google to do anything with OpenOffice.org is to attack Microsoft.
My examples were all of companies who competed in a market for no more reason than "somebody else is in those markets, and we need to fight that somebody else". Your examples were mostly of companies who entered a market to make money. Sony didn't start selling Playstations for no more reason than to crush Sega; Apple was not trying to destroy Creative; and Google was not motivated by a desire to destroy DEC.
The IBM PC, on the other hand, was motivated by an attempt to destroy potential competition from microcomputer companies. And the long-run result was IBM losing money and selling off its PC business. Did it crush Apple? Well, Apple seems to be in okay shape today. Did it stop a flood of rival microcomputer companies? No. Did it preserve IBM's dominance of the IT world? No, it midwifed the dominance of Microsoft. Yeah, that worked out well.
"Google can make a lot of money selling OpenOffice.org support contracts" is a good reason for Google to do it. "Google can knock out Microsoft" is not.
Seriously, why should Google want to focus on delivering a knockout to Microsoft? Google doesn't need to do an office suite, and Google doesn't need to do an OS. Google's doing just fine being Google.
Were there a lot of people running around in 1980 saying Apple Computer had to start building mainframes in order to knock out IBM? I mean, that would make just as much sense.
IBM tried to knock out Microsoft with OS/2. How'd that work out?
Novell tried to knock out Microsoft with its purchases of Unix, Digital Research, and WordPerfect. How'd that work out?
Sun has been trying to out Microsoft with Java and StarOffice and whatnot. How's that working out?
And now, Microsoft's been obsessively focused with trying to knock out Google, pouring billions more into MSN. How's that working out?
If electricity from wind turbines were free it still wouldn't compete with oil for powering vehicles. Battery capacity per dollar and per pound just isn't up to it yet. The oil companies have nothing to fear from the makers of wind turbines; they only have to worry about companies developing batteries.
.)
(Yes, the northeastern U.S. uses diesel for heating their homes. And it's managing to hang on despite competition from electricity already, mostly because nobody has the sense to change public policy to discourage it. Instead of taxing the hell out of it and subsidizing conversions, we put together a national "Home Heating Oil Reserve" and give poor people subsidies to buy the stuff. Hey, I know, let's put a $5000 federal subsidy good for the purchase of SUVs while we're at it . . .