No it's not. You can't make a contraction of a sentence by removing the operative words. In that sentence, removing "as if" changes the entire context and meaning of the sentence. You just cannot do it.
There are actual claims from a large scale consortium of patent holders that VP8 infringes their patents (they aren't clear how, but that's besides the point right now). There are no claims from anyone that H.264 infringes their patents. No one's talking about patent threats which might come later, they're talking about patent threats which have been made now. MPEG-LA says VP8 infringes their patents. Google says "no it doesn't, but we're sure as hell not putting our money where our mouth is".
Which seems like the safer bet right now? It sure as hell isn't WebM. Google, basically, is doing it wrong.
(Oh, and mods? The following options are to be used when you disagree with an opinion:. That's right, none of the moderation options are "I disagree". So stop fucking using them to mean that).
Ah, but none of them implement ODF fully. ODF is in the same boat as OOXML, which also has no fully compliant implementations (and just as many "almost there" implementations - including the ODF flagship OpenOffice.org).
Apps can see anything the user invoking them sees - even friends. If your friends can see these details, so can an app running as them. Even if the app would see less when running as you.
Doubtful seeing as the product they're pushing is free.
Price has nothing to do with it. Microsoft got in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer, a free product, and Windows Media Player, another free product.
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The problem, of course, is we don't know whether VP8 will stay royalty free either with the patent threats hanging over it. And with Google refusing to indemnify users of the spec, and refusing to take legal action to get a legal opinion (from a court - what are those called?) that it violates no patents, one can't be sure whether MPEG-LA's rumbling has any basis in fact.
Oh get over yourself. The OOXML standard is at most as indecipherable as ODF (which is equally impossible to implement 100% - even the flagship product OO.o doesn't do it right). The fact that you don't like OOXML (and you would be hard pressed to find anyone that does - especially anyone who's had to write for it) doesn't make it not open.
The ISO still plays an important role in defining standards, and I'm pretty sure that they - and the rest of the world - don't give a shit that you don't think they mean anything.
The complication is that the freedom to pass out the product to all and sundry is mutually exclusive with getting paid for your labour. No matter what he claims, he most certainly is against people making money from software.
The problem is that you can't trust any of these statistics. NetApps claims to only include 40,000 sites (admittedly they're very, very, big ones). Statcounter doesn't bother trying to collate unique visitors. W3Schools has too niche of a visitor base. Ditto for Wikimedia.
So the real solution is, never ever quote a statistic related to browser market share, because you'll always be wrong.
Firefox smushes in a new "addon bar" if addons try to add to the status bar. Guess where the addon bar is? You guessed it - the bottom of the goddamn browser chrome. All we need now is an extension to add the URL info into the "addon bar".
Ah, so option A - "up the plan pricing for everyone to accommodate the upper-end of the bell curve's massive usage" then. The battle cry of the greedy entitlement complex.
You realise that bandwidth isn't actually cheap, no? Actually, it's really expensive - if you buy it on a 1:1 contention ratio. The reason your ISP is able to sell it to you so cheap is that they actually buy it on a 1:45 or more contention ratio.
You want unlimited bandwidth (and do note that bandwidth is charged on a commit throughput basis, not data quantity basis) you better to be prepared to pay many thousands of dollars more than you currently do - just call up Level3 or Equinix and ask them how much it'll cost to run an 8Mb/s committed fibre line to your house. Then you can go lease some spectrum, and build GSM/3G/LTE towers all across the country and run fibre backhaul to your house so that you can use that pipe anywhere with a cellphone.
Or, they can just do like Microsoft does with Xbox 360. XNA - enabling Homebrew directly on the retail console with the only rule being you can't stick it on a disk and sell it. You can stick it up on XBLA and sell it I'm told, once it's been peer-reviewed (which can't hurt, really. With the sort of folks that want to do homebrew, surely this is even consistent with the model they prefer!)
Requires an inexpensive annual subscription which also allows building apps and games for Windows Phone as well (some of which can actually be relatively easily ported, since XNA is a common framework to Xboxes and Windows Phones).
Actually, I don't know if the GPL actually applies to the original author - the thought occurs to me that the GPL exists so that the author can pass along the rights that they themselves already had - if they choose to no longer provide under the GPL, that's that. In theory, the GPL provisions don't bind the actual copyright holder as they never needed a license in the first place. Which would tend to mean they had no obligations to start with, therefore they aren't violating if they refuse to distribute source to binary holders.
I'd still check with someone at the SFLC or somewhere (don't know if I'd take advice from FSF, they are biased after all) - but don't think it's as cut and dry as you all claim.
Your assertion is wrong. If they purchased the code off the original author, GPL or no, then they can relicense it however they wish, as is the right of the current author. Even the FSF does not try to say otherwise.
That's not true. If you develop or use GPL code within your organisation and never distribute it outside, the FSF holds that distribution has not occurred as the entire organisation is a single entity, therefore the requirement to distribute source never triggers. Our government relies on this very premise in their own use of GPL code (despite the fact that as a government, their interpretation of law is law).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not fair use unless you add something to it (commentary or analysis for example).
That's just a copy paste of the article with a link - that's not fair use.
No it's not. You can't make a contraction of a sentence by removing the operative words. In that sentence, removing "as if" changes the entire context and meaning of the sentence. You just cannot do it.
There are actual claims from a large scale consortium of patent holders that VP8 infringes their patents (they aren't clear how, but that's besides the point right now). There are no claims from anyone that H.264 infringes their patents. No one's talking about patent threats which might come later, they're talking about patent threats which have been made now. MPEG-LA says VP8 infringes their patents. Google says "no it doesn't, but we're sure as hell not putting our money where our mouth is".
Which seems like the safer bet right now? It sure as hell isn't WebM. Google, basically, is doing it wrong.
(Oh, and mods? The following options are to be used when you disagree with an opinion:. That's right, none of the moderation options are "I disagree". So stop fucking using them to mean that).
Ah, but none of them implement ODF fully. ODF is in the same boat as OOXML, which also has no fully compliant implementations (and just as many "almost there" implementations - including the ODF flagship OpenOffice.org).
Apps can see anything the user invoking them sees - even friends. If your friends can see these details, so can an app running as them. Even if the app would see less when running as you.
The ODF standard is equally flawed for pretty much the same reasons (except maybe point 3, which I'll concede).
Doubtful seeing as the product they're pushing is free.
Price has nothing to do with it. Microsoft got in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer, a free product, and Windows Media Player, another free product.
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The problem, of course, is we don't know whether VP8 will stay royalty free either with the patent threats hanging over it. And with Google refusing to indemnify users of the spec, and refusing to take legal action to get a legal opinion (from a court - what are those called?) that it violates no patents, one can't be sure whether MPEG-LA's rumbling has any basis in fact.
Oh get over yourself. The OOXML standard is at most as indecipherable as ODF (which is equally impossible to implement 100% - even the flagship product OO.o doesn't do it right). The fact that you don't like OOXML (and you would be hard pressed to find anyone that does - especially anyone who's had to write for it) doesn't make it not open.
The ISO still plays an important role in defining standards, and I'm pretty sure that they - and the rest of the world - don't give a shit that you don't think they mean anything.
That said, it can certainly be a solution.
The complication is that the freedom to pass out the product to all and sundry is mutually exclusive with getting paid for your labour. No matter what he claims, he most certainly is against people making money from software.
I think GP might be referring to AirPrint since he can't be referring to CUPS, but what's that got to do with Linux?
It's a police database. Pretty sure it's not an "Acceptable Use Policy" at issue here, I'm pretty sure it's a fucking law.
This is a non-story.
The problem is that you can't trust any of these statistics. NetApps claims to only include 40,000 sites (admittedly they're very, very, big ones). Statcounter doesn't bother trying to collate unique visitors. W3Schools has too niche of a visitor base. Ditto for Wikimedia.
So the real solution is, never ever quote a statistic related to browser market share, because you'll always be wrong.
NetApps says IE is 57%. Stop getting your stats from w3schools.
So 2011.
Except that he's correcting himself. That's more FTFM (Fixed That For Me).
Firefox smushes in a new "addon bar" if addons try to add to the status bar. Guess where the addon bar is? You guessed it - the bottom of the goddamn browser chrome. All we need now is an extension to add the URL info into the "addon bar".
Ah, so option A - "up the plan pricing for everyone to accommodate the upper-end of the bell curve's massive usage" then. The battle cry of the greedy entitlement complex.
You realise that bandwidth isn't actually cheap, no? Actually, it's really expensive - if you buy it on a 1:1 contention ratio. The reason your ISP is able to sell it to you so cheap is that they actually buy it on a 1:45 or more contention ratio.
You want unlimited bandwidth (and do note that bandwidth is charged on a commit throughput basis, not data quantity basis) you better to be prepared to pay many thousands of dollars more than you currently do - just call up Level3 or Equinix and ask them how much it'll cost to run an 8Mb/s committed fibre line to your house. Then you can go lease some spectrum, and build GSM/3G/LTE towers all across the country and run fibre backhaul to your house so that you can use that pipe anywhere with a cellphone.
A few billion dollars should do it.
Overpriced? OVERPRICED?
I love how Americans complain about 5GB for $40 when some of the rest of the world are paying getting 1GB for $60.
What Virgin is proposing isn't "overpriced". It's actually bloody cheap.
Or, they can just do like Microsoft does with Xbox 360. XNA - enabling Homebrew directly on the retail console with the only rule being you can't stick it on a disk and sell it. You can stick it up on XBLA and sell it I'm told, once it's been peer-reviewed (which can't hurt, really. With the sort of folks that want to do homebrew, surely this is even consistent with the model they prefer!)
Requires an inexpensive annual subscription which also allows building apps and games for Windows Phone as well (some of which can actually be relatively easily ported, since XNA is a common framework to Xboxes and Windows Phones).
Whoosh.
Actually, I don't know if the GPL actually applies to the original author - the thought occurs to me that the GPL exists so that the author can pass along the rights that they themselves already had - if they choose to no longer provide under the GPL, that's that. In theory, the GPL provisions don't bind the actual copyright holder as they never needed a license in the first place. Which would tend to mean they had no obligations to start with, therefore they aren't violating if they refuse to distribute source to binary holders.
I'd still check with someone at the SFLC or somewhere (don't know if I'd take advice from FSF, they are biased after all) - but don't think it's as cut and dry as you all claim.
Your assertion is wrong. If they purchased the code off the original author, GPL or no, then they can relicense it however they wish, as is the right of the current author. Even the FSF does not try to say otherwise.
That's not true. If you develop or use GPL code within your organisation and never distribute it outside, the FSF holds that distribution has not occurred as the entire organisation is a single entity, therefore the requirement to distribute source never triggers. Our government relies on this very premise in their own use of GPL code (despite the fact that as a government, their interpretation of law is law).