Of course does the list contain duplicates. Patents are usually limited to specific jurisdictions. Patents granted by the US patent office are only valid in the US. That is why companies file the same patent in many jurisdictions. That does not make the list less intimidating, because for VP8 to be free they still need to be invalidated individually in many courts around the world. Just take a look at the recent case of Microsoft vs Motorola for how tricky this is. A US judge agrees with Microsoft, while a German judge agrees with Motorola.
I never said the difference in price is due to taxes and other costs of doing business. Just that if costs increase, so do prices. So if costs of doing business in Australia are higher, you would expect to see higher prices. And this is perfectly acceptable. However if companies think they can jack up prices simply because people will pay anyway that is another question.
In case of Adobe and Microsoft it certainly does not. And they both admitted as much.
With regards of Apple it isn't as simple. Their hardware isn't much more expensive as in the US and the difference can be explain fairly easy by taxes and increased costs of doing business.
The iTunes store is a while different matter. Apple has to license the content from local copyright holders and prices are set by those local companies.
For example take a song created by an American artists. The American record company holds all rights to the song, but exclusively sub-licenses it to a local Australian company for distribution in their local market. If Apple wants to sell that song, it has to deal with the American record company for distribution in the U.S. and deal with the Australian company if they want to sell it in Australia. And the Australian company wants more money from Apple which leads to higher prices.
Most likely the Australian company is owned by the American record company, so guess where all the profits go to...
Longer warranties, import taxes and sales taxes are just costs of doing business. And costs of doing business are passed along to the customer. Did you really expect a commercial company to let higher costs eat into their profit margin? If taxes are being raised, prices go up. If legislation is passed that makes it more expensive for companies to operate, prices go up.
OK, so let me see if I understand this correctly. An X "server" isn't a server in the traditional (UT2K3) sense, but rather a piece of software which controls the display. An X "client", then, is the software which tells the server what to draw.
Correct. It is pretty confusing, because you have to look at it in a different way than what you are used to it. So, it is pretty easy to get these roles reversed.
Think of it like this: The side which is initiating the conversation is the client (just like a webbrowser). The one responding is the server (just like a webserver).
When an application wants to draw something on the screen, it will initiate the conversation, so this is the client. The display is just quietly waiting for somebody to give him something to do.
The GPL is not about the pricetag of the software. It's about freedom.
When I write software and release it under the GPL license, I choose that particular license to ensure that the source code can be improved upon by anybody, and that those improvements can be used by anybody. That is the reason I chose the GPL. If I didn't care about this particular issue I would have chosen a different license.
Just because an application is distributed free - as in price - does not mean it is a less serious violation than when the software is distributed for a fee.
--
I'm not the author of any of the code used by X-Chat. However, when somebody did use my code in a closed source application I would definately object to it.
Finally, who killed off the greatest PDA to have ever existed? Steve. That's why news of a tech company's CEO will typically make slashdot.
I think you meant 'largest PDA to have ever existed'.
Just joking. Although I hated dragging a brick with me around, I loved the Newton.
Re:15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1
on
Groklaw Turns One
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
After reading this rant I can only come to one conclusion. You must be seriously offended that PJ deleted one of your posts on Groklaw. And considering your writing style here on slashdot I am pretty sure I know why it was deleted.
Don't let the door hit you... No wait, DO let the door hit you on your way out.
About 8 hours ago I was downloading the files at over 80 KB/s, then the story appeared on Groklaw and it dropped to about 4 KB/s. Despite several attempts I stil haven't been able to download the zip of the copyright registrations... Finally the speed was getting a bit better and then the site receives a proper/.ing... Thank you very much:)
I was a bit too quick when I originally posted this summary on Groklaw. I really should have proofread... There are also some really awful spelling mistakes in there.
No, you can't do that. You either have to ask the original copyright holder of the contributions permission or re-create the contributed code. Otherwise you would be violating the copyrights of the creator of the contributions. What you do with your own code is of course your own business.
If you look at MySQL for example, they ask every contributor to sign the copyright of the contributions over to MySQL AB. That way they can offer commercial non-GPL licenses and a GPLed version.
No, you can't simply change your mind and pull the code. If you licensed source code under the GPL it will be GPLed forever.
What SCO is saying is that IBM improperly licensed something under they GPL. They GPLed source code for which they did not have the right to license under the GPL. And this might have worked. If I pirated the source code for Windows XP and relicensed it under the GPL, no court would accept it. You can only license stuff that you have rights to.
There are a couple of things that might make it a little more difficult for SCO.
The first thing is that they do not own rights to the contributions that IBM made. They actually told the courts that IBM owns it. So, IBM may have, according to SCO, broke a contract. If that is the case, IBM should pay, but that doesn't mean that SCO can 'double-dip' and ask for money from Linux users too.
The second problem for SCO is that they distributed the code under the GPL too. They gave permission to use the code under the GPL. Wether or not it was improperly contributed by IBM in the first place does not matter anymore. By distributing the code under the GPL they gave permission. And they can change their minds now.
Of course they can claim they did not know they distributed it under the GPL, but I doubt any judge or jury would accept ignorance or stupidity as an excuse. In fact, employees of SCO helped improve the contribution made by IBM. They even promoted their products by saying their products included the contributions made by IBM. So they can't even claim ignorance... Just stupidity.
The extra warning will only be displayed if you use a Flash banner from a different server. The warning won't be shown if the tag used to display the Flash banner is dynamically created by Javascript.
Most ad servers already use JavaScript for Flash player detection and simply won't display Flash banners if Javascript is disabled. Most ad servers also use Javascript to dynamically write the tag if a Flash banner is shown.
Compared to all the 'Thank you!', 'Wicked screensaver' and 'My details' messages I hardly notice the SPAM I get. Since I get a new virus e-mail about every 2 minutes at 100 kb a piece, I only how I won't go over the monthly 5 Gigabyte transfer limit of my internet connection:-/
What I don't understand is all the 'Disallowed attachment', 'Mail delivery failed' and 'Failure notice' mails I get. Almost every virus spoofs the sender. Why would anti-virus software even bother to try to send a message back?
So... basically you are saying he stole his real name from you... That bastard!
Re:Who did the special FX (graphics) for Firefly?
on
Firefly Coming to DVD
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Zoic Studios does the CG for Firefly, Angel and Buffy (all Mutant Enemy shows).
Zoic was started in 2002 by Loni Peristere who previously worked for Radium and Digital Magic. Mutant Enemy already worked with Loni when he worked for Digital Magic and moved at the same time as Loni to Radium, so it is not a coincedence ME decided to move to Zoic after Loni left Radium.
Orange is a telecommunications company in Europe. They sell a cell phone that uses Microsoft software.
Apple Telecommunications is a telecommunications company in Australia. They were named Apple to emphasize they are competing against Orange. Apple Computers has scared Apple Telecommunications into changing their name to Green.......
It happens, but there is only so much you can do to make it easier for the users to explain things and point them to the right direction.
For example, my own project has a very extensive user manual, which some people say is the best they ever saw for a open source project. It's over 150 pages long and clearly explains everything you can do with our software. From installing, upgrading, configuration and how to actually use the application. It even has a section on how to use the user interface. It's not written for programmers, but for the everyday user, who don't want to know what makes our software tick, but how to make it tick. Still we get a lot of questions about the simplest things, which are explained in detail. The user just has to open the manual, look in the index for the right chapter and start reading.
The same thing applies to filing bug reports. There is an explaination on the submit form which clearly lists what information we need to solve the problem. Still we get bug reports just saying 'X not work, fix please'. I'm just a programmer, not a mind reader!
Also I started rewriting the titles of the bugreport to make it more clear for the users and nowadays I add the status of the bug in the title, so users can see what is fixed and what is not even before reading the report. Would you submit a report for a bug which is marked as 'FIXED:' and listed on the first page a user sees when he wants to submit a bug? Again people don't read.
Of course we do get useful and understandable reports about real problems. If this is the case I try my best to solve the problem as quickly as possible. But unfortunately there are still too many users who are either too lazy to read or think it's easier to ask than try to find the answer yourself. It not only makes me cranky, but steals time away I could otherwise spend on fixing other peoples problems or spend on creating that new feature everybody is waiting for.
(Yes, I am the AC you replied to, didn't have my login information on me at the time)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course does the list contain duplicates. Patents are usually limited to specific jurisdictions. Patents granted by the US patent office are only valid in the US. That is why companies file the same patent in many jurisdictions. That does not make the list less intimidating, because for VP8 to be free they still need to be invalidated individually in many courts around the world. Just take a look at the recent case of Microsoft vs Motorola for how tricky this is. A US judge agrees with Microsoft, while a German judge agrees with Motorola.
I never said the difference in price is due to taxes and other costs of doing business. Just that if costs increase, so do prices. So if costs of doing business in Australia are higher, you would expect to see higher prices. And this is perfectly acceptable. However if companies think they can jack up prices simply because people will pay anyway that is another question.
In case of Adobe and Microsoft it certainly does not. And they both admitted as much.
With regards of Apple it isn't as simple. Their hardware isn't much more expensive as in the US and the difference can be explain fairly easy by taxes and increased costs of doing business.
The iTunes store is a while different matter. Apple has to license the content from local copyright holders and prices are set by those local companies.
For example take a song created by an American artists. The American record company holds all rights to the song, but exclusively sub-licenses it to a local Australian company for distribution in their local market. If Apple wants to sell that song, it has to deal with the American record company for distribution in the U.S. and deal with the Australian company if they want to sell it in Australia. And the Australian company wants more money from Apple which leads to higher prices.
Most likely the Australian company is owned by the American record company, so guess where all the profits go to...
Longer warranties, import taxes and sales taxes are just costs of doing business. And costs of doing business are passed along to the customer. Did you really expect a commercial company to let higher costs eat into their profit margin? If taxes are being raised, prices go up. If legislation is passed that makes it more expensive for companies to operate, prices go up.
Think of it like this: The side which is initiating the conversation is the client (just like a webbrowser). The one responding is the server (just like a webserver). When an application wants to draw something on the screen, it will initiate the conversation, so this is the client. The display is just quietly waiting for somebody to give him something to do.
When I write software and release it under the GPL license, I choose that particular license to ensure that the source code can be improved upon by anybody, and that those improvements can be used by anybody. That is the reason I chose the GPL. If I didn't care about this particular issue I would have chosen a different license.
Just because an application is distributed free - as in price - does not mean it is a less serious violation than when the software is distributed for a fee.
--
I'm not the author of any of the code used by X-Chat. However, when somebody did use my code in a closed source application I would definately object to it.
Just joking. Although I hated dragging a brick with me around, I loved the Newton.
After reading this rant I can only come to one conclusion. You must be seriously offended that PJ deleted one of your posts on Groklaw. And considering your writing style here on slashdot I am pretty sure I know why it was deleted.
Don't let the door hit you... No wait, DO let the door hit you on your way out.
The Asset Purchase Agreement has been available on Groklaw for a while now. It was used by SCO as Exhibit in their original complaint.
Links to APA related documents (from Groklaw.net)
APA, APA Amendment 1, APA Amendment 2. TLA
About 8 hours ago I was downloading the files at over 80 KB/s, then the story appeared on Groklaw and it dropped to about 4 KB/s. Despite several attempts I stil haven't been able to download the zip of the copyright registrations... Finally the speed was getting a bit better and then the site receives a proper /.ing... Thank you very much :)
I was a bit too quick when I originally posted this summary on Groklaw. I really should have proofread... There are also some really awful spelling mistakes in there.
No, you can't do that. You either have to ask the original copyright holder of the contributions permission or re-create the contributed code. Otherwise you would be violating the copyrights of the creator of the contributions. What you do with your own code is of course your own business.
If you look at MySQL for example, they ask every contributor to sign the copyright of the contributions over to MySQL AB. That way they can offer commercial non-GPL licenses and a GPLed version.
No, you can't simply change your mind and pull the code. If you licensed source code under the GPL it will be GPLed forever.
What SCO is saying is that IBM improperly licensed something under they GPL. They GPLed source code for which they did not have the right to license under the GPL. And this might have worked. If I pirated the source code for Windows XP and relicensed it under the GPL, no court would accept it. You can only license stuff that you have rights to.
There are a couple of things that might make it a little more difficult for SCO.
The first thing is that they do not own rights to the contributions that IBM made. They actually told the courts that IBM owns it. So, IBM may have, according to SCO, broke a contract. If that is the case, IBM should pay, but that doesn't mean that SCO can 'double-dip' and ask for money from Linux users too.
The second problem for SCO is that they distributed the code under the GPL too. They gave permission to use the code under the GPL. Wether or not it was improperly contributed by IBM in the first place does not matter anymore. By distributing the code under the GPL they gave permission. And they can change their minds now.
Of course they can claim they did not know they distributed it under the GPL, but I doubt any judge or jury would accept ignorance or stupidity as an excuse. In fact, employees of SCO helped improve the contribution made by IBM. They even promoted their products by saying their products included the contributions made by IBM. So they can't even claim ignorance... Just stupidity.
Actually, it won't affect advertising much.
The extra warning will only be displayed if you use a Flash banner from a different server. The warning won't be shown if the tag used to display the Flash banner is dynamically created by Javascript.
Most ad servers already use JavaScript for Flash player detection and simply won't display Flash banners if Javascript is disabled. Most ad servers also use Javascript to dynamically write the tag if a Flash banner is shown.
Compared to all the 'Thank you!', 'Wicked screensaver' and 'My details' messages I hardly notice the SPAM I get. Since I get a new virus e-mail about every 2 minutes at 100 kb a piece, I only how I won't go over the monthly 5 Gigabyte transfer limit of my internet connection :-/
What I don't understand is all the 'Disallowed attachment', 'Mail delivery failed' and 'Failure notice' mails I get. Almost every virus spoofs the sender. Why would anti-virus software even bother to try to send a message back?
So... basically you are saying he stole his real name from you... That bastard!
Zoic Studios does the CG for Firefly, Angel and Buffy (all Mutant Enemy shows).
Zoic was started in 2002 by Loni Peristere who previously worked for Radium and Digital Magic. Mutant Enemy already worked with Loni when he worked for Digital Magic and moved at the same time as Loni to Radium, so it is not a coincedence ME decided to move to Zoic after Loni left Radium.
More information about Firefly CG
Orange is a telecommunications company in Europe. They sell a cell phone that uses Microsoft software.
Apple Telecommunications is a telecommunications company in Australia. They were named Apple to emphasize they are competing against Orange. Apple Computers has scared Apple Telecommunications into changing their name to Green.......
It happens, but there is only so much you can do to make it easier for the users to explain things and point them to the right direction.
For example, my own project has a very extensive user manual, which some people say is the best they ever saw for a open source project. It's over 150 pages long and clearly explains everything you can do with our software. From installing, upgrading, configuration and how to actually use the application. It even has a section on how to use the user interface. It's not written for programmers, but for the everyday user, who don't want to know what makes our software tick, but how to make it tick. Still we get a lot of questions about the simplest things, which are explained in detail. The user just has to open the manual, look in the index for the right chapter and start reading.
The same thing applies to filing bug reports. There is an explaination on the submit form which clearly lists what information we need to solve the problem. Still we get bug reports just saying 'X not work, fix please'. I'm just a programmer, not a mind reader!
Also I started rewriting the titles of the bugreport to make it more clear for the users and nowadays I add the status of the bug in the title, so users can see what is fixed and what is not even before reading the report. Would you submit a report for a bug which is marked as 'FIXED:' and listed on the first page a user sees when he wants to submit a bug? Again people don't read.
Of course we do get useful and understandable reports about real problems. If this is the case I try my best to solve the problem as quickly as possible. But unfortunately there are still too many users who are either too lazy to read or think it's easier to ask than try to find the answer yourself. It not only makes me cranky, but steals time away I could otherwise spend on fixing other peoples problems or spend on creating that new feature everybody is waiting for.
(Yes, I am the AC you replied to, didn't have my login information on me at the time)