It seems it's more for people who just want to poke at the source of a real compiler, without having to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of GCC. I might take a look myself.
If I were in that position I'd take a look at the Plan 9 compiler.
And if you don't find any evidence by disassembly, which is awfully error-prone and complicated, don't fear. Microsoft certainly DID sabotage DOS to keep Lotus apps from working. They are inherantly evil, after all.
The BSD model still works (and would continue essentially unchanged with no copyright).
Yes, with the newer BSD license that's true, since all the clauses of the license become nonsensical in the absence of copyright. With the older BSD license you were requiring people to mention the original copyright holder in the software's documentation (the "advertising clause"), you would lose that.
Nobody seems to have cared about the advertising clause so I guess it's largely a moot point.
However, copyright does exist, and you don't need to agree to the GPL in order to get a copy of GPL software and use it. The GPL simply doesn't apply to you.
Nonsense. Distribute commercial software which includes GPLed code, use the "but I never agreed to the GPL" excuse, and see if the FSF sues you.
But then, you don't know that you are allowed to copy it, modify it and distribute it, so you are bound by simple copyright law (which is not a license, it's a law, so you don't have the choice of accepting it).
Abiding by the publisher's restrictions on how the work may be handled is part of copyright law, it's not as if they're two separate things which can be agreed to at will.
Incorrect...if copyright/EULAs were abolished there would be NO NEED for the GPL anymore.
You really haven't thought this through at all.
This is just an absurd thought experiement, but still. If software copyrights were somehow abolished, very little would change on the commercial software side as compared to today. Large software firms would protect their software with various activation schemes, like they do today. A lot of software would be copied anyhow, as it is today. Getting software from the vendor would still be a lot easier and more convenient than leaching it via ftp or something, and serial numbers and activation schemes would still be a lot more effective than fear of copyright law in preventing "illicit" software trading.
In that same hypothetical, what happens to GPLed software? Now that there is nothing to keep them from doing it, Microsoft and whoever else can take whatever GPLed code they like and use it however they like. There's no longer anything enforceable that says they need to give anything back or follow any of the GPL's restrictions. I'm guessing this is something that would make an awful lot of GPL-using software authors unhappy.
You not only need copyright, but you need to abandon this silly "I never read the EULA so its terms shouldn't bind me" mentality. By that logic one could circumvent the GPL by... not reading it. (and let's be honest, most people don't even SKIM that monstrosity all the way through, let alone read it) Is that a legal situation anyone here really wants?
They can claim that EULAs exist and are valid all they want, but it doesn't make it true.
Similarly, asserting they are not valid does not make that true, either.
Any information on it or with it is mine just like the hardware is
What made you believe that? It's so obviously false that I have to wonder. Even if that computer is full of free software, it's obviously not true. That information comes with certain legal obligations, like it or not.
because I never agreed to any kind of license at the time of purchase.
Since a few of the people who modded this idiocy up are presumably free software fans, I should point out that if this attitude were actualized as law, it would doom free software as we know it, as well as commercial software. There's a reason the FSF created a GPL which relied on copyright, rather than just releasing everything into the public domain.
All the rest of you that are in a tizzy, slow down and think about it for just a second. How did you think they were going to prevent OS X from running on non-Apple Macs? Magic? Voodoo? Asking nicely?
"Try to prevent," you should say. Do you really think whatever scheme they use will survive more than a few months of scrutiny?
But that ain't the point. The clause should be (and over here has been often) struck down not because he didn't understand it, but simply because it is not a valid contract clause. You sign a contract, it has clauses, you follow clauses - that's all fine. Now the contract ends. So does its content. No more money, no more work, no more binding agreement.
That's the argument. A contract can not bind you beyond the time it is valid.
Adult stem cell research does NOT kill anyone or anything. If only the government would support adult stem cell research and not embryonic I believe we would have seen many more advances in this area.
Microsoft gave this guy a standard 1-year non-compete clause for a reason, and being an executive, he was very well compensated for it.
1 year is pretty modest, actually. It's nothing like some of the noncompete agreements which try to basically take someone out of their field if they switch jobs.
Over here in Europe, non-compete clauses have been found to be unenforcable time and time again.
Two thoughts. First, just the way you phrased that indicates that there are still lots of lawsuits involving noncompetes. So it's not exactly a solved social problem, even in Europe. Second, the judge hasn't decided anything, he's just saying the guy can't break his noncompete yet.
Maybe the guy can convince a jury that he really didn't understand what he had signed, why he was being paid so much, and so on.
I haven't tried them yet, but they are clearly meant to be scaled down to 8.5" x 11" - it lists that as the page's dimensions in the lower left corner.
Very good points! All I ever hear from the left today is "uncomfortable bed this" and "bacon bacon that," it's all really very misguided. The main problem with the left in this country is that they're fixated on bacon and uncomfortable beds.
The solution to this problem clearly involves torture. Who needs to be tortured is anyone's guess, but I doubt it matters. Just pick anyone at random, what the heck. It works when we're picking countries to invade...
Independently of that, I sincerely and humbly fail to imagine how anyone can consider `making someone feel like they are being burned alive' not a form of torture when it is used as a deterrent (and, frankly, when it is used for any other use whatsoever).
Here in the US we've determined that any "interrogation technique" which doesn't involve chopping off limbs with a rusty implement does not qualify as "torture" and is only a harmless prank. You know, like at frat parties! Sorry you didn't get the memo.
From sandia's description of the thing: "Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam's intensity and duration."
I'm sure that frightened cops trying to control a rioting crowd, or intel goons questioning terror suspects in military prisons, are going to show a lot of restraint. And coincidentally second and third degree burns will be added to the seemingly endless list of "abuses" which don't qualify as actual torture for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read it and I can't imagine why you think it was childish. Not original or particularly insightful, but not childish.
If I were in that position I'd take a look at the Plan 9 compiler.
And if you don't find any evidence by disassembly, which is awfully error-prone and complicated, don't fear. Microsoft certainly DID sabotage DOS to keep Lotus apps from working. They are inherantly evil, after all.
Yes, with the newer BSD license that's true, since all the clauses of the license become nonsensical in the absence of copyright. With the older BSD license you were requiring people to mention the original copyright holder in the software's documentation (the "advertising clause"), you would lose that.
Nobody seems to have cared about the advertising clause so I guess it's largely a moot point.
Nonsense. Distribute commercial software which includes GPLed code, use the "but I never agreed to the GPL" excuse, and see if the FSF sues you.
Abiding by the publisher's restrictions on how the work may be handled is part of copyright law, it's not as if they're two separate things which can be agreed to at will.
You really haven't thought this through at all.
This is just an absurd thought experiement, but still. If software copyrights were somehow abolished, very little would change on the commercial software side as compared to today. Large software firms would protect their software with various activation schemes, like they do today. A lot of software would be copied anyhow, as it is today. Getting software from the vendor would still be a lot easier and more convenient than leaching it via ftp or something, and serial numbers and activation schemes would still be a lot more effective than fear of copyright law in preventing "illicit" software trading.
In that same hypothetical, what happens to GPLed software? Now that there is nothing to keep them from doing it, Microsoft and whoever else can take whatever GPLed code they like and use it however they like. There's no longer anything enforceable that says they need to give anything back or follow any of the GPL's restrictions. I'm guessing this is something that would make an awful lot of GPL-using software authors unhappy.
You not only need copyright, but you need to abandon this silly "I never read the EULA so its terms shouldn't bind me" mentality. By that logic one could circumvent the GPL by... not reading it. (and let's be honest, most people don't even SKIM that monstrosity all the way through, let alone read it) Is that a legal situation anyone here really wants?
Of course not.
You know he was kidding, right?
Similarly, asserting they are not valid does not make that true, either.
What made you believe that? It's so obviously false that I have to wonder. Even if that computer is full of free software, it's obviously not true. That information comes with certain legal obligations, like it or not.
Since a few of the people who modded this idiocy up are presumably free software fans, I should point out that if this attitude were actualized as law, it would doom free software as we know it, as well as commercial software. There's a reason the FSF created a GPL which relied on copyright, rather than just releasing everything into the public domain.
"Try to prevent," you should say. Do you really think whatever scheme they use will survive more than a few months of scrutiny?
"o wait" There's no AIX version of dban. Duh.
It wouldn't have been the same without a "Microsoft is teh evil!" post.
It doesn't work that way here.
I vote for "both."
Is it? If that is the case, how do you even know about it?
1 year is pretty modest, actually. It's nothing like some of the noncompete agreements which try to basically take someone out of their field if they switch jobs.
Two thoughts. First, just the way you phrased that indicates that there are still lots of lawsuits involving noncompetes. So it's not exactly a solved social problem, even in Europe. Second, the judge hasn't decided anything, he's just saying the guy can't break his noncompete yet.
Maybe the guy can convince a jury that he really didn't understand what he had signed, why he was being paid so much, and so on.
I would think the answer involves waste heat...
I haven't tried them yet, but they are clearly meant to be scaled down to 8.5" x 11" - it lists that as the page's dimensions in the lower left corner.
It's hard to imagine giving the finger to his employer in a very public manner was good for his long term employability.
How mature. I'm sure you'll make exactly the point you intend to make that way.
Call it "Firebird"! Sounds pretty catchy, huh?
Yeah, but I've got someone specific in mind.
Very good points! All I ever hear from the left today is "uncomfortable bed this" and "bacon bacon that," it's all really very misguided. The main problem with the left in this country is that they're fixated on bacon and uncomfortable beds.
The solution to this problem clearly involves torture. Who needs to be tortured is anyone's guess, but I doubt it matters. Just pick anyone at random, what the heck. It works when we're picking countries to invade...
What, did tear gas suddenly stop working?
Here in the US we've determined that any "interrogation technique" which doesn't involve chopping off limbs with a rusty implement does not qualify as "torture" and is only a harmless prank. You know, like at frat parties! Sorry you didn't get the memo.
From sandia's description of the thing: "Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam's intensity and duration."
I'm sure that frightened cops trying to control a rioting crowd, or intel goons questioning terror suspects in military prisons, are going to show a lot of restraint. And coincidentally second and third degree burns will be added to the seemingly endless list of "abuses" which don't qualify as actual torture for some reason.