Even so, it's still about Twitter and nobody actually cares. Have you noticed we're not really talking about it and having a metadiscussion?
Of course it would scale, my point is Twitter is such a trivial application of technology. The scaling technologies used for Twitter would work for other applications. Hence, Twitter is nothing special or significant.
I can eat foods that do not taste of a herb with a knife and fork and my skin smells very strongly of the herb - even if you could not smell the herb in the food.
It does make you wonder how something so specific could evolve, the relationship between a poisonous plant and then the distribution mechanism.
I know that when I eat certain herbs, I sweat them out and smell strongly of that herb whereas other people I know are fine. I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better. Do animals that disperse poison even know it's a defensive mechanism?
How can they evolve that knowledge? Or is it aggression that is evolved too? A poisonous rat that is passive will probably not survive (it might still get eaten if it kills its predator) whereas one that is aggressive can attack its predator before it eats it.
Hence I share your sentiment, this article is here purely to increase share prices. Who do you think benefits from that? There are vested financial positions behind most articles they print. They do not print real analysis.
Remember, the value of your investments can rise or fall.
It doesn't matter if you do not click those like buttons. The scripts are loaded from Facebook servers and they're pretty much like Google Analytics. They can track you between websites and with your real name too.
Or more likely, celebrities are immune to the laws created by corporations. Especially celebrities that further a corporation's interests (TV entertainer).
If I buy hardware I should have the right to put what software on it I want. That's what I am saying. I shouldn't have to pay for that "privilege". It's an artificial limitation with the sole purpose of monetizing a deliberate limitation.
What if you worked on project at home before you had a need for it at work? You then suggest to use the project at work because a) your open sourced it and b) you are familiar with it.
Does it suddenly become "work for hire"?
It's a gray area. If I am working on something at work, then decide that some infrastructural code would be beneficial, such as a web framework or a library, I could start a project at home and open source it. The framework or library has no bearing to the domain work at home, it's just a means to an end. I cannot class that as work for hire. If a business really understood things, they wouldn't really want to maintain infrastructural code...
Work that is spurred by work for hire is not necessarily owned by it. If you ask me to fix you a car and I create a diagnosis tool in my own time that helps me do that, that 'advantage' is with *my* person. It is not part of the work. It was never specified. Especially if I did it on my weekends with my own resources.
What if we make it entirely intellectual, what if I come up with a new approach to solving a problem at home such as a design pattern that would improve the software is some large way, does that idea belong to my work if they have asked me to build an ecommerce website? What if that idea is NOT directly tied to ecommerce but to anything at all? A general programming problem?
Do you sign your OSS projects with copyrights for your own name or your employer? I find it shocking if you would have put (c) Copyright EmployerCorp at the top.
I'm guessing you are not that eager to say "Hi Guys, this is some work I have done at home in my own time that I don't get paid for." I would say the copyright belongs to you.
"...You now own it now. Please monetize it then fire me and replace me with cheap labour..."
Assuming you designed the shed yourself, the designs are under your own copyright. Being employed does not preclude you from owning the copyrights to your own creations. According to "work for hire" your employer does not own the work you produce that is not part of the work you were hired for. That's why your shed designs are yours.
I am not a lawyer though and if the above is not true, our society is screwed up. Your employer has contracted hours for a reason. If I think about something at home that is directly to do with work, that belongs to my work because it is under "work for hire". Otherwise it's mine. This is why you should probably use your personal time wisely. Thinking about work just makes you even more of a slave.
I am definitely not a lawyer, I am just applying common sense. Lawyers contribute nothing to society.
To use that contract's wording, writing software for yourself for non-business purposes cannot be considered as consulting, employment or a business activity.
This probably means you cannot have a side business of doing what you do at work for other businesses. I can see why, as that would make you a competitor.
If we interpreted it the way you do, it would be absolutely illegal to do anything outside work. Nobody could code for themselves at home. To use a car analogy it would be like a mechanic not being allowed to use his skills on his own cars.
Even distributing code online for free that you have written does not conflict with the terms you mentioned. It's still not a business activity. You are not selling it. If you started offering help to users that could be construed as consulting but that is taking it to extremes. The fact you're doing it for free means it's not a business activity. So open source programmers are in the clear. Either that or all open source programmers who work full time are breaking contract...
If the author has not given the copyright to the company and surrendering his own copyright, he still retains copyright. Notice that we're using the word author.
If he released the code he authored in his spare time as GPL, the company cannot de-GPL that. By assumption he implicitly gave the company copyrights to use the work. That does not give them the power to suppress the other copyright owner.
We can only assume there was no explicit agreement between the OP and his employer, hence he is the true copyright owner. In a joint copyright situation like this, I guess the company has the right to relicence its own GPL code as proprietary but it cannot suppress the GPL in the wild because that was under the author's copyright.
It's scary when we use the word author to describe an author who has no rights over what he has produced.
Something is massively wrong with society when what you write is not under your own copyright. It all depends on what his contract at work states.
If I took some proprietary code at work and tagged it with the GPL licence and released it, I can see that I would deserve severe legal punishment like you say. However If I wrote something in my spare time for use at work, that code is under my own copyright. This is what you seem to be failing to grasp. You are the default copyright holder of whatever you produce or write in your own time.
What do you think these were caused by? Do you think these 'benefit
You seem quite content that our monetary system is based on the firm foundations of bullshit. That everyone in the world is affected by for survival. None of these trades produce any natural value.
An Mp3 on your PC is entertainment, your internet connection is a communication medium. They have genuine value. A trader produces no genuine value except for himself. People do not invest anymore, they buy and sell on speculation. Nothing is honest. The banks are backstabbers (Goldman Sachs)
This is why you need to have commodity stocks that include the physical delivery of such a product. We're trading on lies. You can read more about this if you do a search...
"The added value I may get from the supermarket selling me cheaper vegetables is no different from the added value I may get as a result of HFT." There is a huge difference. A supermarket's logistics system of lorries and software to plan them benefits everyone. A HFT architecture benefits a bank and makes some rich people richer.
Read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Should be basic economics reading for everybody really. Prosperity comes from mutual trade and mutual value. My wellbeing and job should not be based on a trade of virtual numbers elsewhere. Money reflects a trade in labour. Please do some reading on this...
Slashdot Mirror
Even so, it's still about Twitter and nobody actually cares. Have you noticed we're not really talking about it and having a metadiscussion?
Of course it would scale, my point is Twitter is such a trivial application of technology. The scaling technologies used for Twitter would work for other applications. Hence, Twitter is nothing special or significant.
Nobody really cares about Twitter. It's a fad.
You could code a crude Twitter in one night.
Don't mind him, he's a spamming troll. Read his Homepage URL (don't click).
If you read the article, they still don't know why they don't die when they chew the bark.
Idiot.
No.
I can eat foods that do not taste of a herb with a knife and fork and my skin smells very strongly of the herb - even if you could not smell the herb in the food.
It does make you wonder how something so specific could evolve, the relationship between a poisonous plant and then the distribution mechanism.
I know that when I eat certain herbs, I sweat them out and smell strongly of that herb whereas other people I know are fine. I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better. Do animals that disperse poison even know it's a defensive mechanism?
How can they evolve that knowledge? Or is it aggression that is evolved too? A poisonous rat that is passive will probably not survive (it might still get eaten if it kills its predator) whereas one that is aggressive can attack its predator before it eats it.
What do you think?
Because he loves Apple of course!
I'll just sit frowning at you guys on the sidelines and play snake on my Nokia 1661.
...from a few years back
They're growing too:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ARM.L#symbol=arm.l;range=1y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;
Hence I share your sentiment, this article is here purely to increase share prices. Who do you think benefits from that? There are vested financial positions behind most articles they print. They do not print real analysis.
Remember, the value of your investments can rise or fall.
It doesn't matter if you do not click those like buttons. The scripts are loaded from Facebook servers and they're pretty much like Google Analytics. They can track you between websites and with your real name too.
Hopefully we can pick up some new television channels and radio stations. I'm getting pretty bored with the universe our universe offers.
Or multinet. Think of the porn!
You pay an awful lot for that privilege.
Is it though? Why would you buy an Apple server for open source software that you could install yourself?
Or more likely, celebrities are immune to the laws created by corporations. Especially celebrities that further a corporation's interests (TV entertainer).
If I buy hardware I should have the right to put what software on it I want. That's what I am saying. I shouldn't have to pay for that "privilege". It's an artificial limitation with the sole purpose of monetizing a deliberate limitation.
That should say
The framework or library has no bearing to the domain specific work at work
What if you worked on project at home before you had a need for it at work? You then suggest to use the project at work because a) your open sourced it and b) you are familiar with it.
Does it suddenly become "work for hire"?
It's a gray area. If I am working on something at work, then decide that some infrastructural code would be beneficial, such as a web framework or a library, I could start a project at home and open source it. The framework or library has no bearing to the domain work at home, it's just a means to an end. I cannot class that as work for hire. If a business really understood things, they wouldn't really want to maintain infrastructural code...
Work that is spurred by work for hire is not necessarily owned by it. If you ask me to fix you a car and I create a diagnosis tool in my own time that helps me do that, that 'advantage' is with *my* person. It is not part of the work. It was never specified. Especially if I did it on my weekends with my own resources.
What if we make it entirely intellectual, what if I come up with a new approach to solving a problem at home such as a design pattern that would improve the software is some large way, does that idea belong to my work if they have asked me to build an ecommerce website? What if that idea is NOT directly tied to ecommerce but to anything at all? A general programming problem?
Doesn't your salaried work specify working hours? If you take work home, that would definitely belong to work.
If it is not work (and outside hours), then it's not work.
Do you sign your OSS projects with copyrights for your own name or your employer? I find it shocking if you would have put (c) Copyright EmployerCorp at the top.
I'm guessing you are not that eager to say "Hi Guys, this is some work I have done at home in my own time that I don't get paid for." I would say the copyright belongs to you.
"...You now own it now. Please monetize it then fire me and replace me with cheap labour..."
Assuming you designed the shed yourself, the designs are under your own copyright. Being employed does not preclude you from owning the copyrights to your own creations. According to "work for hire" your employer does not own the work you produce that is not part of the work you were hired for. That's why your shed designs are yours.
I am not a lawyer though and if the above is not true, our society is screwed up. Your employer has contracted hours for a reason. If I think about something at home that is directly to do with work, that belongs to my work because it is under "work for hire". Otherwise it's mine. This is why you should probably use your personal time wisely. Thinking about work just makes you even more of a slave.
I am definitely not a lawyer, I am just applying common sense. Lawyers contribute nothing to society.
To use that contract's wording, writing software for yourself for non-business purposes cannot be considered as consulting, employment or a business activity.
This probably means you cannot have a side business of doing what you do at work for other businesses. I can see why, as that would make you a competitor.
If we interpreted it the way you do, it would be absolutely illegal to do anything outside work. Nobody could code for themselves at home. To use a car analogy it would be like a mechanic not being allowed to use his skills on his own cars.
Even distributing code online for free that you have written does not conflict with the terms you mentioned. It's still not a business activity. You are not selling it. If you started offering help to users that could be construed as consulting but that is taking it to extremes. The fact you're doing it for free means it's not a business activity. So open source programmers are in the clear. Either that or all open source programmers who work full time are breaking contract...
If that was a law, no businesses would ever be founded. (Look how many companies started up from ex-employees with other ex-employees.)
Many people have ideas while they're at work but they may be completely unrelated to the employer's industry.
What you say is very concerning as it reflects the break down of the individual and a person's right to free thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjMCaw4qzjg
You know talk is cheap and those rumours aren't nice? When I fall asleep I don't think I'll survive the night...
Go to your favourite search engine, type Android tablets, pick one and then buy it.
Next question?
If the author has not given the copyright to the company and surrendering his own copyright, he still retains copyright. Notice that we're using the word author.
If he released the code he authored in his spare time as GPL, the company cannot de-GPL that. By assumption he implicitly gave the company copyrights to use the work. That does not give them the power to suppress the other copyright owner.
This page talks about joint copyright ownership.
We can only assume there was no explicit agreement between the OP and his employer, hence he is the true copyright owner. In a joint copyright situation like this, I guess the company has the right to relicence its own GPL code as proprietary but it cannot suppress the GPL in the wild because that was under the author's copyright.
It's scary when we use the word author to describe an author who has no rights over what he has produced.
I have read the GPL good sir, have you?
Something is massively wrong with society when what you write is not under your own copyright. It all depends on what his contract at work states.
If I took some proprietary code at work and tagged it with the GPL licence and released it, I can see that I would deserve severe legal punishment like you say. However If I wrote something in my spare time for use at work, that code is under my own copyright. This is what you seem to be failing to grasp. You are the default copyright holder of whatever you produce or write in your own time.
What do you think these were caused by? Do you think these 'benefit
You seem quite content that our monetary system is based on the firm foundations of bullshit. That everyone in the world is affected by for survival. None of these trades produce any natural value.
An Mp3 on your PC is entertainment, your internet connection is a communication medium. They have genuine value. A trader produces no genuine value except for himself. People do not invest anymore, they buy and sell on speculation. Nothing is honest. The banks are backstabbers (Goldman Sachs)
This is why you need to have commodity stocks that include the physical delivery of such a product. We're trading on lies. You can read more about this if you do a search...
"The added value I may get from the supermarket selling me cheaper vegetables is no different from the added value I may get as a result of HFT." There is a huge difference. A supermarket's logistics system of lorries and software to plan them benefits everyone. A HFT architecture benefits a bank and makes some rich people richer.
Read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Should be basic economics reading for everybody really. Prosperity comes from mutual trade and mutual value. My wellbeing and job should not be based on a trade of virtual numbers elsewhere. Money reflects a trade in labour. Please do some reading on this...