The idea that the creator should be reimbursed for his work is reasonable, but since we have as a stated premise that I wasn't going to have paid for it then he wasn't going to get any money from me. If I can obtain a copy without causing him any material harm he has lost nothing.
If he wasn't going to get any money from you, then you should not obtain a copy of the work. This spurious argument pisses me off more than any other - if you attribute no value to the work, then you have no reason to want it. If you obtain a copy of it, you indicate that you either have a want or need of it, and therefore that you attribute a value to it. You want the moral high ground? Don't pay for it, and don't pirate it. You can't have both, that just makes you a hypocrite.
Have you actually read the damn decision? At issue is one company downloading a competitor's product so that they could copy the software (it was found that they didn't actually copy the software, but the judge stated that the jury could consider whether the defendant saved time and effort in developing their software by taking inspiration from the pirated software.
No, it's not reasonable at all to expect the company to pay him. He specifically says he asked and was told there's no budget - i.e. no money to pay for a solution, then did it anyway. If you went to McDonalds, then said no to "would you like fries with that" and they then gave you - and expected you to pay for - fries, would you not be very pissed off?
No, it's not reasonable at all to expect the company to pay him. He specifically says he asked and was told there's no budget - i.e. no money to pay for a solution, then did it anyway. If you went to McDonalds, then said no to "would you like fries with that" and they then gave you - and expected you to pay for - fries, would you not be very pissed off?
You know, the "all code was written while at work" means it's a work for hire that the company owns right? Hence they don't have to "license it" from you, they can just sue you into the ground instead right? So the expiring and all that is technically malicious destruction of their property.
Depends on your local law and your contract. Don't rely on any information you find on Slashdot unless it's suffixed with the contact details of a good local copyright lawyer.
And likely added yourself to the "fire at first opportunity" list as well. Unless you know your boss is one of the rare breed that can keep disagreements like that at a professional level and yet not affect the professional relationship, that's just a great way to get on the unemployment line.
There's a bit of a difference between asking for credit where it's due and asking for a salary for work done out of hours that the company didn't even ask for. If you want to sell them a solution, then sell them a solution. Most companies are happier to pick up a solution that way anyway. But don't go expecting to do a ton of work, then go to the company and say "I did this, and it took x hours. Pay me for those hours". Not even contractors can get away with that - if the company doesn't pre-approve work done over the contracted hours, those contracted hours aren't paid for.
Flaky? We've got Microsoft SQL Servers that have uptimes in the months (we patch them only twice a year, barring super-critical patches) and Oracle servers with uptimes in the years. If anyone's advice is worth instantly discarding, it's yours.
It doesn't quite work like that. He would actually have to pay the $63K, at which point the receivers would pay him - but if receivership is anything like over here, the highest priority creditor is the receiver itself - meaning he may lose that $63K completely.
You can't do that. CC numbers are absolutely unique, and the available pool isn't as large as you think either (the digits on the card have to pass the Luhn algorithm)
And you quite ably demonstrated my point as well. Rather than thinking, "hmm, maybe this will make my program better for my users - I should consider this", you say "pay me then maybe I will".
That, right there, is the problem with most open source project maintainers.
Nah, even IE on first run asks if you really want to stick with Bing (and offers a two click way to change to something else). Read into that whatever you like.
Precisely. They don't care how you access it, they only care that you use it - and see the ads on it (the exception of course being Apps, which doesn't have ads when a fee is stumped up).
Wrong. SMS interconnects are separately maintained from voice interconnects, SMSCs don't do anything except process SMS messages so they aren't "already on the network". Basically the only thing you can guarantee is already there is intercept infrastructure. Seriously, just get the fuck over it: SMS messages are not free to provide.
Yes, that's correct. Though I did say I wasn't defending them, since processing physical payments has a cost too (mailroom staff, accounts receivable staff, etc).
Yes. But the agreement for text messages is separate, believe it or not. Hey, at least they're equal opportunity ripoffs - they'll scam a few extra bucks out of each other just as much as their customers.
You know, rather than making Windows users jump through stupid convoluted hoops just to get your program to run, why not take a few minutes to implement the same solution you do on *nix and just ask the OS for your entropy at runtime? Why do open source developers insist on half-assing it on Windows so much?
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that the creator should be reimbursed for his work is reasonable, but since we have as a stated premise that I wasn't going to have paid for it then he wasn't going to get any money from me. If I can obtain a copy without causing him any material harm he has lost nothing.
If he wasn't going to get any money from you, then you should not obtain a copy of the work. This spurious argument pisses me off more than any other - if you attribute no value to the work, then you have no reason to want it. If you obtain a copy of it, you indicate that you either have a want or need of it, and therefore that you attribute a value to it. You want the moral high ground? Don't pay for it, and don't pirate it. You can't have both, that just makes you a hypocrite.
Have you actually read the damn decision? At issue is one company downloading a competitor's product so that they could copy the software (it was found that they didn't actually copy the software, but the judge stated that the jury could consider whether the defendant saved time and effort in developing their software by taking inspiration from the pirated software.
Yeah, not the same thing at all.
No, it's not reasonable at all to expect the company to pay him. He specifically says he asked and was told there's no budget - i.e. no money to pay for a solution, then did it anyway. If you went to McDonalds, then said no to "would you like fries with that" and they then gave you - and expected you to pay for - fries, would you not be very pissed off?
No, it's not reasonable at all to expect the company to pay him. He specifically says he asked and was told there's no budget - i.e. no money to pay for a solution, then did it anyway. If you went to McDonalds, then said no to "would you like fries with that" and they then gave you - and expected you to pay for - fries, would you not be very pissed off?
You know, the "all code was written while at work" means it's a work for hire that the company owns right? Hence they don't have to "license it" from you, they can just sue you into the ground instead right? So the expiring and all that is technically malicious destruction of their property.
Depends on your local law and your contract. Don't rely on any information you find on Slashdot unless it's suffixed with the contact details of a good local copyright lawyer.
And likely added yourself to the "fire at first opportunity" list as well. Unless you know your boss is one of the rare breed that can keep disagreements like that at a professional level and yet not affect the professional relationship, that's just a great way to get on the unemployment line.
There's a bit of a difference between asking for credit where it's due and asking for a salary for work done out of hours that the company didn't even ask for. If you want to sell them a solution, then sell them a solution. Most companies are happier to pick up a solution that way anyway. But don't go expecting to do a ton of work, then go to the company and say "I did this, and it took x hours. Pay me for those hours". Not even contractors can get away with that - if the company doesn't pre-approve work done over the contracted hours, those contracted hours aren't paid for.
SQLServer certainly doesn't, if your implementation isn't rubbish (i.e. 2 million records with no primary key).
Flaky? We've got Microsoft SQL Servers that have uptimes in the months (we patch them only twice a year, barring super-critical patches) and Oracle servers with uptimes in the years. If anyone's advice is worth instantly discarding, it's yours.
If you win, it's transferred to whatever registrar you use. You don't just get the login to the account it came from or anything.
And better yet, it's court ordered so it's illegal for GoDaddy to hinder your transfer. Pissing RightHaven AND GoDaddy off? Sounds like it's worth it!
It doesn't quite work like that. He would actually have to pay the $63K, at which point the receivers would pay him - but if receivership is anything like over here, the highest priority creditor is the receiver itself - meaning he may lose that $63K completely.
Not worthless. The rule is that if CV2 code is supplied, it must be correct. However, it is optional.
Just don't expect to have any chance of winning a chargeback if you didn't request CV2.
You can't do that. CC numbers are absolutely unique, and the available pool isn't as large as you think either (the digits on the card have to pass the Luhn algorithm)
Perhaps the company that had the domain has suddenly decided it's not such a good idea? Curious indeed.
And you quite ably demonstrated my point as well. Rather than thinking, "hmm, maybe this will make my program better for my users - I should consider this", you say "pay me then maybe I will".
That, right there, is the problem with most open source project maintainers.
More likely is that they are just trying to coast off some media attention.
Samsung Electronics is the company responsible for producing both Samsung phones and LCD panels for Apple phones. It really is the same company.
Nah, even IE on first run asks if you really want to stick with Bing (and offers a two click way to change to something else). Read into that whatever you like.
Precisely. They don't care how you access it, they only care that you use it - and see the ads on it (the exception of course being Apps, which doesn't have ads when a fee is stumped up).
Wrong. SMS interconnects are separately maintained from voice interconnects, SMSCs don't do anything except process SMS messages so they aren't "already on the network". Basically the only thing you can guarantee is already there is intercept infrastructure. Seriously, just get the fuck over it: SMS messages are not free to provide.
Yes, that's correct. Though I did say I wasn't defending them, since processing physical payments has a cost too (mailroom staff, accounts receivable staff, etc).
Yes. But the agreement for text messages is separate, believe it or not. Hey, at least they're equal opportunity ripoffs - they'll scam a few extra bucks out of each other just as much as their customers.
Ding ding, you're a winner ;)
If you want painful, check out the price of WTV.
You know, rather than making Windows users jump through stupid convoluted hoops just to get your program to run, why not take a few minutes to implement the same solution you do on *nix and just ask the OS for your entropy at runtime? Why do open source developers insist on half-assing it on Windows so much?