I know of one case where a failed DRM distribution system did not result in everyone losing their stuff. You may be aware that the PC game Prey was originally released on a content delivery service known as Triton, who went out of business several months after the release. So the developers of the game sent a proper retail copy of the game to everyone who'd purchased it on Triton.
Except when the lecturer is moving through stuff so fast that the students are having to scribble things down so fast they don't have time to actually think about what they're writing. Although this tends to be with prewritten overhead slides rather than stuff on a blackboard.
I find the most effective method I've seen is some of my lecturers will make their slides available... only with bits missing, which we then have to fill in during the lecture. Keeps the students awake by copying stuff down, but doesn't require them to write at ridiculously fast speeds to keep up.
Godwin's Law means you lose the argument Not necessarily. As originally formulated it read "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one". The idea of this meaning someone loses the argument was a later addition and not part of the original law. It's "law" as in science rather than "law" as in rules.
But only in Antigua. Just because something becomes public domain in Antigua doesn't stop copyright applying everywhere else.
Also, this only applies to US copyrights, and surely some GPL code is made in other countries.
Why would Valve make a binary modifier to install Steam code in a game, when they can just recompile it? If they wanted to avoid modifying the source code, for this very reason.
While I don't necessarily agree with the idea of selling used games to be stealing, I will say that I don't understand why anyone would want to give away their copy of Half-Life 2. Yep, I'm something of a pathetic fanboy.
It should be noted that if you buy the retail version of Half-Life 2 and want to sell it on, Valve will switch the games over to the buyer's steam account if you send scans of the CD and the CD key.
To clarify, running a game in DOSbox doesn't violate the GPL any more than viewing a webpage in Firefox. The GPL only covers the programs, not the data that is input to them.
Just Internet connections? Clearly computers should be made illegal.
My own brain can remember the tunes to copyrighted songs (and indeed it does). I'm sure you'd agree that it should be confiscated from me for violating the DMCA.
May I quote from the GPL? The bit that says "...give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program." could possibly be relevant here. Also the stuff about providing source code if distributing a binary.
So yeah... the GPL is license and notice to those who use the code... but they're not following it.
From what I've heard the various DOS games that id has put on steam seem to use the DOS emulator DOSbox to work. DOSbox is GPL but it seems id has neglected any idea of following this license agreement. Do you think this could cause some problems?
SlimVirgin, the administrator accused of being a spy, has her user page here.
Interestingly, if one looks at the edit list for her talk page, any questions about whether she is a spy are being swiftly reverted. Now isn't that interesting.
It works the other way around too. People who don't respect the GPL and release code from it in a closed source product presumably wouldn't like it if people just downloaded that product instead of buying it. Thus they are hypocrites. And I was under the impression that the people supporting the GPL but are against copyright were using the logic that the GPL is a sufficient stopgap until copyright law can be reformed. If they're not using that logic, and are saying that people shouldn't violate the GPL but it's OK to torrent the latest version of Office or whatever, then yes, they are hypocrites.
You do realize that no-one is forcing you to release anything under the GPL, or use any GPL-covered software. The GPL doesn't force everyone in the world to release source code, but it does require people who release products based on GPL code to release their modifications. It's no different than any other software, if you don't like the license then tough cookies, because that's what the developer released the code under. If anything, the people complaining about how they can't use GPL code in their product are the ones who think they have the right to all the source code they can acquire.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely people who are smart enough not to fall for urban legend forwards wouldn't need Snopes at all.
Tell me where the grandparent even mentioned stealing.
Well, it certainly can't hurt to have maximum graphics effects, especially when your competitors seem to manage that just fine.
Son? I suggest you read grandparent a bit more closely.
I know of one case where a failed DRM distribution system did not result in everyone losing their stuff. You may be aware that the PC game Prey was originally released on a content delivery service known as Triton, who went out of business several months after the release. So the developers of the game sent a proper retail copy of the game to everyone who'd purchased it on Triton.
And people have already tried to delete the article for not being notable.
And that it'd be much better if Michael Bay would actually keep the camera still so we can see the gigantic robot fights properly.
Except when the lecturer is moving through stuff so fast that the students are having to scribble things down so fast they don't have time to actually think about what they're writing. Although this tends to be with prewritten overhead slides rather than stuff on a blackboard.
I find the most effective method I've seen is some of my lecturers will make their slides available... only with bits missing, which we then have to fill in during the lecture. Keeps the students awake by copying stuff down, but doesn't require them to write at ridiculously fast speeds to keep up.
But only in Antigua. Just because something becomes public domain in Antigua doesn't stop copyright applying everywhere else. Also, this only applies to US copyrights, and surely some GPL code is made in other countries.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
While I don't necessarily agree with the idea of selling used games to be stealing, I will say that I don't understand why anyone would want to give away their copy of Half-Life 2. Yep, I'm something of a pathetic fanboy. It should be noted that if you buy the retail version of Half-Life 2 and want to sell it on, Valve will switch the games over to the buyer's steam account if you send scans of the CD and the CD key.
To clarify, running a game in DOSbox doesn't violate the GPL any more than viewing a webpage in Firefox. The GPL only covers the programs, not the data that is input to them.
I believe they released an update (since my original post) that put these in. Which basically means problem solved.
Just Internet connections? Clearly computers should be made illegal.
My own brain can remember the tunes to copyrighted songs (and indeed it does). I'm sure you'd agree that it should be confiscated from me for violating the DMCA.
May I quote from the GPL? The bit that says "...give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." could possibly be relevant here. Also the stuff about providing source code if distributing a binary.
So yeah... the GPL is license and notice to those who use the code... but they're not following it.
They included DOSbox without any license information included.
From what I've heard the various DOS games that id has put on steam seem to use the DOS emulator DOSbox to work. DOSbox is GPL but it seems id has neglected any idea of following this license agreement. Do you think this could cause some problems?
Well, the way it's being covered up on Wikipedia does seem a bit worrying.
Well, she is an admin so she could permanently remove edits from the database if she wanted to.
SlimVirgin, the administrator accused of being a spy, has her user page here.
Interestingly, if one looks at the edit list for her talk page, any questions about whether she is a spy are being swiftly reverted. Now isn't that interesting.
It works the other way around too. People who don't respect the GPL and release code from it in a closed source product presumably wouldn't like it if people just downloaded that product instead of buying it. Thus they are hypocrites.
And I was under the impression that the people supporting the GPL but are against copyright were using the logic that the GPL is a sufficient stopgap until copyright law can be reformed. If they're not using that logic, and are saying that people shouldn't violate the GPL but it's OK to torrent the latest version of Office or whatever, then yes, they are hypocrites.
You do realize that no-one is forcing you to release anything under the GPL, or use any GPL-covered software.
The GPL doesn't force everyone in the world to release source code, but it does require people who release products based on GPL code to release their modifications. It's no different than any other software, if you don't like the license then tough cookies, because that's what the developer released the code under.
If anything, the people complaining about how they can't use GPL code in their product are the ones who think they have the right to all the source code they can acquire.