...no mystery instabilities or DLL hell, and I can (do) play 3D interactive games at the same time. Stock standard Mandrake Linux 9.2 kernel and k3b packages.
A friend of ours had a cable-chewing cat. It chewed through their (240V) figure-8 standard lamp cable three times (down in a corner where nobody noticed and chased him off), each time ending with a cat flung across the room by the discharge. However, he wasn't building an immunity, 'coz the third time he didn't get up and stagger away.
...and never will, because you have confused impartiality with mildness.
As, it seems, has Mr Berlind. TSG's case is fundamentally screwed, usually several layers deep, at every turn. That's not a mild statement, but it is a factually correct one. The only way you can doubt it is to treat TSG's blatherings as if they had legal weight.
If TSG had any evidence, they would have produced it pretty much instantly instead of pussyfooting around with peep shows and the marginal crap they've finally admitted to after an entire year of this.
If TSG really wanted anyone to buy a license, why have no end-users done so? I tried to buy a licence some months ago, just to see if I could, and they wouldn't sell me one, and they won't sell me one now. They won't even identify the specific "intellectual property" I'm supposed to be licencing. But they will tell me that I'm in legal jeopardy if I don't. Spot the deliberate mistake?
OS/2 was considerably more user-friendly than MS-Windows 3.1, not to mention incomparably more consistent. And set against any 3.X/9X/ME version of MS-Windows, it never crashed. It only lost points because it was different to the DOS-based abominations which had gone before.
Then we get to MS-Windows 95-ish and the advent of the "short cut" AKA symbolic link - which breaks if you move the target object - not so with OS/2's equivalent.
After that we can go on to discuss relative esoterica like efficiency and programmability (contrast REXX against COMMAND.COM, for example). MS-Windows was just so totally outclassed in technical terms that it was beyond funny - in some ways it's still outclassed even though development on OS/2 has essentially been frozen for five years.
OS/2, however, was hobbled by Microsoft and jilted by IBM for marketing reasons. Politics betrays another fine soldier. As usual.
Disclaimer: I went straight from MS-Windows For Workgroups 3.11 to Linux. I have no vested interest in supporting or promoting OS/2.
...whereas Enderle's about a minus 7 and Didio's about a -3i. And yes, I do mean "i" in the mathematical sense, since Planet Laura seems to have left the solar system. Not sure how to rate Daniel Lyons, his bias is obvious and unforgiving but mild and he hasn't said much lately. Maybe a -4.
...pile of snow at the end of the carpark and all (he says, looking out the window at approx 30degC blue skies), perhaps (and I haven't redone this for hires yet, I started with the GrokLaw one) the DoD could fix that for them at the same time as resolving any outstanding licence issues with their new Linux cluster?
They aren't allowed to ask for the money, because of why they're asking for the money.
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any. The short name for what they're doing is "fraud", and yes, it is illegal.
"One teaspoon full of pure truth on this tray... one teaspoon full of rancourous bullsheeite on this tray... good-golly-gosh, they're nearly balanced! Who can tell what the outcome will be?"
It's an easy game to play until you notice that you have to include the quality of the evidence somewhere in the equation. At which point TSG's case goes all wahoonie-shaped.
I can just about imagine the IBM legal office examining TSG's amendmended complaint (I'm pretty sure they want to nail TSG's hide to the shed, if possible, no quarter asked or given): "Amendment fourteen!" <pause> <raucous laughter> "No! Wait! Wait! Amendment eighteen! Amendment eighteen! Unnnnn-believable! <bwaaaaah-hah-har!> Get a load a'tha' second sentence! Whoooe!" <more raucous laughter>...
...when they decide the antitrust penalty Microsoft pays in Europe.
It's a pretty clear indication that Microsoft don't give a dump about the EU's opinion of their actions (this is Britain, and last I looked they were EU).
Microsoft do, after all, have this Office(tm)(sm)(R)(C) component called Word(tm)(sm)(R)(C). There is now legally no such thing as "generic Word(tm)(sm)(R)(C)s". Nor are you allowed to have an Office(tm)(sm)(R)(C) of your own, nor are your own Works(tm)(sm)(R)(C) to Excel(tm)(sm)(R)(C) in any way. And woe betide the Publisher(tm)(sm)(R)(C) who complains. Here in Australia, we can't even plug in to a Power Point(tm)(sm)(R)(C) to run our computers to email complaints; we might have to revert to Americanisms like "wall socket" in Exchange(tm)(sm)(R)(C). The Outlook(tm)(sm)(R)(C) is getting grim.
Find me a Microsoft lawyer, it's F/SWE time again! )-:
Never link to an Enderle article. The guy's a consistent loser, and driving hits his way has to be good for his employment (ie bad for the rest of the universe). Stop it, or you'll go blind!
So they don't have to remember every lie they ever told - which they have to do in order to avoid being sprung, and TSG hasn't been doing so well at this recently.
They give you 1/2 GB and years of work to do with nearly as you please for free. Should they find something interesting of yours built from this, they get to use that for free. But MS still owns their code and you still own yours
Read the license again. They own their piece of code, and grant you the right to non-commercially distribute it. If you agree to the licence, they also own any modifications you may make to it, but this ownership is not exclusive of yours. You can still do what you like with your mods, but so can they also do what they like with your mods. If you don't agree to their licence, you can't distribute their code, which is fair and fine.
If I do any work on this, I will not distribute a modified form of the original, I'll distribute a GPLed patch and the original. Both the GPL and this licence would allow you to distribute the original and patch on the same medium, but once you had applied the patch to the original there would be no legal avenue for distributing the result, or for Microsoft using it. Someone else who applied my patch would not have legal authority to transfer ownership of my work to Microsoft, and nor could they distribute the patched version without breaking the terms of Microsoft's agreement.
However, there would be nothing to stop a third party producing a diff containing my GPLed patch, their modifications (necessarily GPLed where they cross mine, else they could distribute a separate patch of just their mods, further complicating matters) but none of Microsoft's code (or mine if they didn't want to GPL theirs). You couldn't distribute a context diff (because that would contain fragments of the original) unless it squeaked in through fair-use rules.
BTW, this whole thing looks like it's riding on the goodwill of Microsoft towards the original gaming community running the current Lobby server. Well done, people!
If you want to make a brand new space sim free to the public, go right ahead
Done, and without the licence restrictions on the code.
The artwork, however, is still a different matter. If I ever get rich I'll set up a well-connected ranch somewhere and fill it with digital art geeks tasked with polishing FOSS projects.
"If any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and only to the extent authorized by law."
Handy fact: Australian law authorises us to reverse engineer stuff completely, and there's no American law against us importing the reverse-engineered pieces back into DubyaLand, as long as we do it as per the terms of Microsoft's licence.
That said, if Allegience was a DirectX testbed then porting it to OpenGL ain't for the faint of heart.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the trivia is more likely to be "de-install Norton" or "back out Service Pack 6" than something so focussed and easy to fix.
...no mystery instabilities or DLL hell, and I can (do) play 3D interactive games at the same time. Stock standard Mandrake Linux 9.2 kernel and k3b packages.
If you have a complex set of backup specs, you can save the burn project, then it's just a double-click to load it instead of the d-n-d.
No Nero, no MS-Windows, no viruses, no spyware, no cost, no funny licensing, no coasters. Have a nice day.
shockingly enough, it will.
A friend of ours had a cable-chewing cat. It chewed through their (240V) figure-8 standard lamp cable three times (down in a corner where nobody noticed and chased him off), each time ending with a cat flung across the room by the discharge. However, he wasn't building an immunity, 'coz the third time he didn't get up and stagger away.
But while Britain may not be that enthusiastic about being Europe, The City will drag them kicking and screaming into the EU.
Here's your link again without the /.-induced space in it.
...and never will, because you have confused impartiality with mildness.
As, it seems, has Mr Berlind. TSG's case is fundamentally screwed, usually several layers deep, at every turn. That's not a mild statement, but it is a factually correct one. The only way you can doubt it is to treat TSG's blatherings as if they had legal weight.
If TSG had any evidence, they would have produced it pretty much instantly instead of pussyfooting around with peep shows and the marginal crap they've finally admitted to after an entire year of this.
If TSG really wanted anyone to buy a license, why have no end-users done so? I tried to buy a licence some months ago, just to see if I could, and they wouldn't sell me one, and they won't sell me one now. They won't even identify the specific "intellectual property" I'm supposed to be licencing. But they will tell me that I'm in legal jeopardy if I don't. Spot the deliberate mistake?
PS, your journal sucks too. (-:
OS/2 was considerably more user-friendly than MS-Windows 3.1, not to mention incomparably more consistent. And set against any 3.X/9X/ME version of MS-Windows, it never crashed. It only lost points because it was different to the DOS-based abominations which had gone before.
Then we get to MS-Windows 95-ish and the advent of the "short cut" AKA symbolic link - which breaks if you move the target object - not so with OS/2's equivalent.
After that we can go on to discuss relative esoterica like efficiency and programmability (contrast REXX against COMMAND.COM, for example). MS-Windows was just so totally outclassed in technical terms that it was beyond funny - in some ways it's still outclassed even though development on OS/2 has essentially been frozen for five years.
OS/2, however, was hobbled by Microsoft and jilted by IBM for marketing reasons. Politics betrays another fine soldier. As usual.
Disclaimer: I went straight from MS-Windows For Workgroups 3.11 to Linux. I have no vested interest in supporting or promoting OS/2.
...whereas Enderle's about a minus 7 and Didio's about a -3i. And yes, I do mean "i" in the mathematical sense, since Planet Laura seems to have left the solar system. Not sure how to rate Daniel Lyons, his bias is obvious and unforgiving but mild and he hasn't said much lately. Maybe a -4.
Yes, +1 Funny. (-:
...pile of snow at the end of the carpark and all (he says, looking out the window at approx 30degC blue skies), perhaps (and I haven't redone this for hires yet, I started with the GrokLaw one) the DoD could fix that for them at the same time as resolving any outstanding licence issues with their new Linux cluster?
They aren't allowed to ask for the money, because of why they're asking for the money.
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any. The short name for what they're doing is "fraud", and yes, it is illegal.
"A Lawyer I Am Not". I guess Kiwis could use "ALIEN"... (-:
..."once you pay Danegelt, you never get rid of the Dane".
There's an idea for a new term, "thescogroupgelt"... hmm, doesn't roll of the tongue too well. How about "canopygelt"? (-:
It's an easy game to play until you notice that you have to include the quality of the evidence somewhere in the equation. At which point TSG's case goes all wahoonie-shaped.
I can just about imagine the IBM legal office examining TSG's amendmended complaint (I'm pretty sure they want to nail TSG's hide to the shed, if possible, no quarter asked or given): "Amendment fourteen!" <pause> <raucous laughter> "No! Wait! Wait! Amendment eighteen! Amendment eighteen! Unnnnn-believable! <bwaaaaah-hah-har!> Get a load a'tha' second sentence! Whoooe!" <more raucous laughter> ...
"OK, so you want to come at this the hard way? No problem." (-:
It's a pretty clear indication that Microsoft don't give a dump about the EU's opinion of their actions (this is Britain, and last I looked they were EU).
Find me a Microsoft lawyer, it's F/SWE time again! )-:
Never link to an Enderle article. The guy's a consistent loser, and driving hits his way has to be good for his employment (ie bad for the rest of the universe). Stop it, or you'll go blind!
...won't even discuss suing me, so it looks like I'll have to bring the mountain to Mohammed. If you want something done, ya gotta do it yerself. )-:
So they don't have to remember every lie they ever told - which they have to do in order to avoid being sprung, and TSG hasn't been doing so well at this recently.
Read the license again. They own their piece of code, and grant you the right to non-commercially distribute it. If you agree to the licence, they also own any modifications you may make to it, but this ownership is not exclusive of yours. You can still do what you like with your mods, but so can they also do what they like with your mods. If you don't agree to their licence, you can't distribute their code, which is fair and fine.
If I do any work on this, I will not distribute a modified form of the original, I'll distribute a GPLed patch and the original. Both the GPL and this licence would allow you to distribute the original and patch on the same medium, but once you had applied the patch to the original there would be no legal avenue for distributing the result, or for Microsoft using it. Someone else who applied my patch would not have legal authority to transfer ownership of my work to Microsoft, and nor could they distribute the patched version without breaking the terms of Microsoft's agreement.
However, there would be nothing to stop a third party producing a diff containing my GPLed patch, their modifications (necessarily GPLed where they cross mine, else they could distribute a separate patch of just their mods, further complicating matters) but none of Microsoft's code (or mine if they didn't want to GPL theirs). You couldn't distribute a context diff (because that would contain fragments of the original) unless it squeaked in through fair-use rules.
BTW, this whole thing looks like it's riding on the goodwill of Microsoft towards the original gaming community running the current Lobby server. Well done, people!
Done, and without the licence restrictions on the code.
The artwork, however, is still a different matter. If I ever get rich I'll set up a well-connected ranch somewhere and fill it with digital art geeks tasked with polishing FOSS projects.
Handy fact: Australian law authorises us to reverse engineer stuff completely, and there's no American law against us importing the reverse-engineered pieces back into DubyaLand, as long as we do it as per the terms of Microsoft's licence.
That said, if Allegience was a DirectX testbed then porting it to OpenGL ain't for the faint of heart.