Wow; I don't know if I ever noticed that paragraph, but if I did, I had forgotten it since. That covers most of what I was failing to realize, and answers most of my question.
So I guess, then, that one of the key points to note is the definition of "derivative works" under the GPL and copyright law in general, and the fact that copied code constitutes such while reverse-engineered code does not?
Thanks for indulging the question; the point is greatly appreciated!
What I don't get is that as I've read the story (and I may have misunderstood), Tridge reverse-engineered BK by connecting to BK software on a BK server. I don't quite get how this doesn't qualify as 'using' it. More specifically, I think we're discussing 'use' in different contexts, but I can't pinpoint the difference between 'using' commercial software and 'using' GPL code. It's not that I can't see it as you describe it (or even that I don't agree), it's more that I can see it both ways, and it seems that I must still be missing something, although I wonder if it's the fine points of implicit acceptance (as you put it, "The use creates the licence link") that I'm having a hard time with.
Everybody is going to hate me for this, but if I get even a few thoughtful responses, it will be worth it.
When Tridge's BitKeeper reverse-engineering project came into question on slashdot, there did seem to be a general consensus that he never accepted the restrictions of BitKeeper's license, and was therefore not bound by it. That is, if I understand correctly, as the (non)LICENSEE he had the ability to refuse the terms of the license and proceed outside of its restrictions.
Now, when the offense is against GPL software, it seems that only the LICENSOR has the authority to determine when someone is bound by the terms of the license. Isn't this somewhat contradictory? Along the lines of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too?
I'm sorry for mentioning what I know will be regarded as an inflammatory topic. Believe me, I think abuse of GPL software in this manner is wrong. However, I can't help but feel that reverse-engineering proprietary software can cross the line at points, and that what Tridge did, from what little I understand, was also wrong by the same standard.
Where exactly is this line drawn? Exactly how much *more* valid is the GPL than a commercial license? How is it OK to just use commercial software against its license terms by claiming the right to reject the license, without offering people the same right with regards to the GPL?
By all means, please enlighten me; this has been bothering me for weeks now...
When people upload or download others' copyrighted works, that is, in
fact, illegal.
Ha!
Even aside from legal paid services (which/. has reported the record labels are planning to screw over by raising prices), this statement is still fraudulent.
Material downloaded from bt.etree.org *is* copyrighted and *is* legal. It is uploaded and downloaded with the artists' permission under specific restrictions, and no copyrights are relinquished. Granted, this response is from the MPAA, not the RIAA, but they made the statement universal themselves. Check their wording.
In fact, the fact that we are celebrating some legal sites speaks volumes to where BitTorrent currently stands.
As an avid fan (and failed evangelist) of bt.etree.org, I have to point out that some of us are more inclined to celebrate *awareness* of legal uses of networks such as BitTorrent. I don't think this speaks volumes of where *BitTorrent* stands so much as where the general *perception* of BitTorrent (and P2P in general) stands.
I've been worried about BitTorrent being squashed by the ??AA, not because I download illegal material, but because the *legal* material I download is still a threat to the ??AA. After all, the possibility of artists distributing superior quality material without relying on the ??AA still endangers the stranglehold the bureaucracies have on the "art" world. They're going to get away with outlawing independent distribution if the public is not aware of legal media exchange before the laws eventually pass.
Nobody really seems to care, but it's still very refreshing to see that the point has at least been made in the media.
First, 3D interfaces can ideally exploit existing 3D acceleration hardware, potentially decreasing CPU resources consumed, and increasing use of an otherwise mostly-idle graphics chipset. If a 3D UI uses GL acceleration, I would assume (yes, I know what happens when you assume) that rendering windows as textures and leaving the rest to the graphics card could make for efficient resource utilization, at least if one is already using a 3D graphics card.
Second, I've been using Metisse/Ametista for a while now and have come to rely on its ability to accurately display scaled-down windows. That is, I can *simultaneously* watch as many as a dozen windows at a time (web, e-mail, chat, openoffice, and multiple xterms), and each can instantly be brought to the foreground at full size just by moving the mouse over it for focus. It has simplified my workstation desktop immensely this way.
I'm sure there are other (perhaps better) ways to do these things, but the idea strikes me as particularly valid when implemented right...
So why, then, has every SBC rep I've spoken with for the last couple months tried to sell me DirecTV? That SBC owned the service was an assumption on my part, but now I'm really curious. Anyone know?
The best I've been able to get out of SBC customer service is that apparently SBC, Southwestern Bell Corporation, is the parent company that owns Southwestern Bell (the actual phone service provider), Cingular, DirecTV, SBC Internet (SBC Yahoo! DSL), and probably others.
So SBC an even bigger Bell than the Big Bells?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody know any services that print custom bumper stickers? That sentence sums up so much, it just has to be immortalized.
So I guess, then, that one of the key points to note is the definition of "derivative works" under the GPL and copyright law in general, and the fact that copied code constitutes such while reverse-engineered code does not?
Thanks for indulging the question; the point is greatly appreciated!
What I don't get is that as I've read the story (and I may have misunderstood), Tridge reverse-engineered BK by connecting to BK software on a BK server. I don't quite get how this doesn't qualify as 'using' it. More specifically, I think we're discussing 'use' in different contexts, but I can't pinpoint the difference between 'using' commercial software and 'using' GPL code. It's not that I can't see it as you describe it (or even that I don't agree), it's more that I can see it both ways, and it seems that I must still be missing something, although I wonder if it's the fine points of implicit acceptance (as you put it, "The use creates the licence link") that I'm having a hard time with.
Thanks again...
Everybody is going to hate me for this, but if I get even a few thoughtful responses, it will be worth it. When Tridge's BitKeeper reverse-engineering project came into question on slashdot, there did seem to be a general consensus that he never accepted the restrictions of BitKeeper's license, and was therefore not bound by it. That is, if I understand correctly, as the (non)LICENSEE he had the ability to refuse the terms of the license and proceed outside of its restrictions. Now, when the offense is against GPL software, it seems that only the LICENSOR has the authority to determine when someone is bound by the terms of the license. Isn't this somewhat contradictory? Along the lines of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too? I'm sorry for mentioning what I know will be regarded as an inflammatory topic. Believe me, I think abuse of GPL software in this manner is wrong. However, I can't help but feel that reverse-engineering proprietary software can cross the line at points, and that what Tridge did, from what little I understand, was also wrong by the same standard. Where exactly is this line drawn? Exactly how much *more* valid is the GPL than a commercial license? How is it OK to just use commercial software against its license terms by claiming the right to reject the license, without offering people the same right with regards to the GPL? By all means, please enlighten me; this has been bothering me for weeks now...
Material downloaded from bt.etree.org *is* copyrighted and *is* legal. It is uploaded and downloaded with the artists' permission under specific restrictions, and no copyrights are relinquished. Granted, this response is from the MPAA, not the RIAA, but they made the statement universal themselves. Check their wording.
Misleading FUD, plain and simple.
I've been worried about BitTorrent being squashed by the ??AA, not because I download illegal material, but because the *legal* material I download is still a threat to the ??AA. After all, the possibility of artists distributing superior quality material without relying on the ??AA still endangers the stranglehold the bureaucracies have on the "art" world. They're going to get away with outlawing independent distribution if the public is not aware of legal media exchange before the laws eventually pass.
Nobody really seems to care, but it's still very refreshing to see that the point has at least been made in the media.
First, 3D interfaces can ideally exploit existing 3D acceleration hardware, potentially decreasing CPU resources consumed, and increasing use of an otherwise mostly-idle graphics chipset. If a 3D UI uses GL acceleration, I would assume (yes, I know what happens when you assume) that rendering windows as textures and leaving the rest to the graphics card could make for efficient resource utilization, at least if one is already using a 3D graphics card.
Second, I've been using Metisse/Ametista for a while now and have come to rely on its ability to accurately display scaled-down windows. That is, I can *simultaneously* watch as many as a dozen windows at a time (web, e-mail, chat, openoffice, and multiple xterms), and each can instantly be brought to the foreground at full size just by moving the mouse over it for focus. It has simplified my workstation desktop immensely this way.
I'm sure there are other (perhaps better) ways to do these things, but the idea strikes me as particularly valid when implemented right...
So why, then, has every SBC rep I've spoken with for the last couple months tried to sell me DirecTV? That SBC owned the service was an assumption on my part, but now I'm really curious. Anyone know?
The best I've been able to get out of SBC customer service is that apparently SBC, Southwestern Bell Corporation, is the parent company that owns Southwestern Bell (the actual phone service provider), Cingular, DirecTV, SBC Internet (SBC Yahoo! DSL), and probably others. So SBC an even bigger Bell than the Big Bells?