Actually, it is. I heard stories from friends about people who are buying vegetable oil from the cheapest supermarkets here in Germany. Not small packages but bottles several litres big. That's cheaper fuel than diesel, at least here...
Well, no. Copyright law restricts you to running it on one PC, unless some other license relaxes that limitation. A license can only give you more rights, not take them away. If the Windows XP license had been forgotten from a particular box, I'd still be able to use it on one and only one PC.
You're right. The GPL however, grants you the right to install your software on many computers. As many as you want, actually, as long as they belong to you, and others too (but under some restrictions)
If so, then the GPL has a giant loophole. I can put GPL code in proprietary software and then rent it out to customers for 200 year periods, and claim "Since they've got to give the programs back in 200 years, it's still corporate property and I haven't distributed anything"
Uhm, that would be distributing, at least I think. Distributing != sell. However, if they outsourced running the computer system to you, you would probably be able to do the same (the software would only be installed on your computers, but the computers would be in fact used by the company). So you're still right that "distribute" perhaps should be more clearly defined, which I would agree on.
Which is never the case. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's an buys a single copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, is "he" is really allowed to install it on 3000 PCs for "personal" use?
But the license for Windows XP specifically limits the number of PCs you can use it on! The enterprise still is the license holder, but the license doesn't grant them right to such a widescale installation base. There are other kinds of software licenses though, that doesn't have that restriction. Even non-GPL ones...
I'm not a native speaker, but I suppose in this case "distribute" in legalspeak is meant as "distribute to some one outside the license holder".
Because telemarketing costs (relatively spoken) far less than spamming. Basically you just need a computer and an internet connection instead of a whole callcenter complex.
Uhm, I'd like to see the full list, but Google doesn't seem to be able to find it. Is there an actual list of reasons from which you copied the text (and in that case, where can I find the full list?) or is it just a part of a non-existent one?
That really depends on your definition of "being in the ____ business". They are still offering Unix for sale - on the other hand, I doubt they are selling very many copies...
And obviously, you didn't consider all MS Office file formats (.ppt anyone? We're not only discussing the Word.doc format are we?) and all parts of the OpenDocument standard...
I agree on your view of text documents. However, there is also a standard for presentation documents (ie PowerPoint). These have a dual target - bigscreen projectors and paper. For the first target, video really helps. I'm not sure what is included in the standard and not, but I really see the point in being able to include a piece of video in my keynote...
If you started making clones, you would be subject of a lawsuit. And forgive me for being a tad bit neglectic about american copyright (I'm european), but at least how it works here, you still would have the copyright to the code itself. You just wouldn't be able to distribute it without permission from Nintendo (won't happen). But still, Nintendo would also be unable to distribute it without permission from you - they only have the copyright to the original game and not your implementation.
At least in Europe, when you make a derivative work (and not just a copy as the example with the books, there has to be some kind of _creative_ effort - and coding a port clearly counts, "manual" copying by typing what you read does not), the copyright is owned in part by the original author and in part of the author of the derivative work. I would be very surprised if that is different in USA, please give me a reference to a relevant source if so to prove me wrong.
What, you're upset that our governments don't assrape us for energy costs like your government does?
No, I'm upset that your governments don't assrape you for the environmental costs like our does. But I suppose it's impossible to get you to understand that concept.
1. Mouse (at least right now, not a permanent resident) 2. Cross-over CAT cable. 3. Mouse pad 4. Mini-VGA->SVHS/RCA-converter 5. A piece of micro fiber cloth to clean the screen
What I don't have in my bag:
6. My iBook (It's sitting in my lap as I'm just typing on it) 7. The powerbrick (in the wall!)
You are right that he doesn't have the original rights and therefor can't license it. He still has the rights for his implementation in Flash though, and it is clearly is a separate creative work based on the original game, making it a derivative work (he spent quite a lot of time implementing it, I suppose). Which basically only means Fuddruckers has to get permission from BOTH him and whoever has the rights from the firm that made it first (I suppose they've been sold since then).
Which really doesn't make it at all better on the side of Fuddruckers, rather worse, although it doesn't look really good for neither side (forgetting that the company that ought to protect its right to the game probably is more or less fubar).
Basically, just because he is infringing on someone's rights, it doesn't let anyone else in turn to infringe on his rights. Two wrongs never make one right...
Even though they are trademarks of Namco (and I suppose they have the copyrights for the first implementations too), he still has the copyrights for his Flash implementation of the game. If anything, it just makes it worse (Fuddruckers is then using Namco copyrighted works TOO).
He might not even be interested in selling at all. To anyone. At any price. Especially not to Fuddruckers after having been this badly treated by them before. It IS his choice to make, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is. I heard stories from friends about people who are buying vegetable oil from the cheapest supermarkets here in Germany. Not small packages but bottles several litres big. That's cheaper fuel than diesel, at least here...
Well, no. Copyright law restricts you to running it on one PC, unless some other license relaxes that limitation. A license can only give you more rights, not take them away. If the Windows XP license had been forgotten from a particular box, I'd still be able to use it on one and only one PC.
You're right. The GPL however, grants you the right to install your software on many computers. As many as you want, actually, as long as they belong to you, and others too (but under some restrictions)
If so, then the GPL has a giant loophole. I can put GPL code in proprietary software and then rent it out to customers for 200 year periods, and claim "Since they've got to give the programs back in 200 years, it's still corporate property and I haven't distributed anything"
Uhm, that would be distributing, at least I think. Distributing != sell. However, if they outsourced running the computer system to you, you would probably be able to do the same (the software would only be installed on your computers, but the computers would be in fact used by the company). So you're still right that "distribute" perhaps should be more clearly defined, which I would agree on.
Which is never the case. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's an buys a single copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, is "he" is really allowed to install it on 3000 PCs for "personal" use?
But the license for Windows XP specifically limits the number of PCs you can use it on! The enterprise still is the license holder, but the license doesn't grant them right to such a widescale installation base. There are other kinds of software licenses though, that doesn't have that restriction. Even non-GPL ones...
I'm not a native speaker, but I suppose in this case "distribute" in legalspeak is meant as "distribute to some one outside the license holder".
uhm, oops, telemarketing of course costs far more than spamming.
Because telemarketing costs (relatively spoken) far less than spamming. Basically you just need a computer and an internet connection instead of a whole callcenter complex.
Uhm, I'd like to see the full list, but Google doesn't seem to be able to find it. Is there an actual list of reasons from which you copied the text (and in that case, where can I find the full list?) or is it just a part of a non-existent one?
you haven't been listening to the crap the recording companies have been releasing lately, have you???
What you don't expect is to get there and be taught by some German TA
Uhm, I did expext that. You insensitive clod. ;-)
I should point out that I deliberatly tried to write these criteria so that the existing planets in our solar systen would all qualify
Mercury doesn't have any atmosphere...
That really depends on your definition of "being in the ____ business". They are still offering Unix for sale - on the other hand, I doubt they are selling very many copies...
Poetry
Roses are red, violettes are blue,
all my base are belong to you?
That prank works with pizzerias too, it's one of the classic pranks made in one of the shows of Swedish radio...
And obviously, you didn't consider all MS Office file formats (.ppt anyone? We're not only discussing the Word .doc format are we?) and all parts of the OpenDocument standard...
I agree on your view of text documents. However, there is also a standard for presentation documents (ie PowerPoint). These have a dual target - bigscreen projectors and paper. For the first target, video really helps. I'm not sure what is included in the standard and not, but I really see the point in being able to include a piece of video in my keynote...
Yep, MS is even a member of OASIS (Sic!). There really isn't any excuse for not implementing the "missing" functions into the standard...
If you started making clones, you would be subject of a lawsuit. And forgive me for being a tad bit neglectic about american copyright (I'm european), but at least how it works here, you still would have the copyright to the code itself. You just wouldn't be able to distribute it without permission from Nintendo (won't happen). But still, Nintendo would also be unable to distribute it without permission from you - they only have the copyright to the original game and not your implementation.
At least in Europe, when you make a derivative work (and not just a copy as the example with the books, there has to be some kind of _creative_ effort - and coding a port clearly counts, "manual" copying by typing what you read does not), the copyright is owned in part by the original author and in part of the author of the derivative work. I would be very surprised if that is different in USA, please give me a reference to a relevant source if so to prove me wrong.
What, you're upset that our governments don't assrape us for energy costs like your government does?
No, I'm upset that your governments don't assrape you for the environmental costs like our does. But I suppose it's impossible to get you to understand that concept.
Notice that USA is #143. Sweden is #155. Next argument, please.
... $3 for a gallon is nothing.
In Europe, the prices are twice as high.
(Here is the Google conversion between units and currencies.)
Content of my laptop bag:
1. Mouse (at least right now, not a permanent resident)
2. Cross-over CAT cable.
3. Mouse pad
4. Mini-VGA->SVHS/RCA-converter
5. A piece of micro fiber cloth to clean the screen
What I don't have in my bag:
6. My iBook (It's sitting in my lap as I'm just typing on it)
7. The powerbrick (in the wall!)
Yeah, his flash clone of an old video game is something to get all high and mighty about
Thanks for giving my a fully plausible example of a reason he wouldn't sell. He might think it sucks to much to put it up for sale.
You are right that he doesn't have the original rights and therefor can't license it. He still has the rights for his implementation in Flash though, and it is clearly is a separate creative work based on the original game, making it a derivative work (he spent quite a lot of time implementing it, I suppose). Which basically only means Fuddruckers has to get permission from BOTH him and whoever has the rights from the firm that made it first (I suppose they've been sold since then).
Which really doesn't make it at all better on the side of Fuddruckers, rather worse, although it doesn't look really good for neither side (forgetting that the company that ought to protect its right to the game probably is more or less fubar).
Basically, just because he is infringing on someone's rights, it doesn't let anyone else in turn to infringe on his rights. Two wrongs never make one right...
Even though they are trademarks of Namco (and I suppose they have the copyrights for the first implementations too), he still has the copyrights for his Flash implementation of the game. If anything, it just makes it worse (Fuddruckers is then using Namco copyrighted works TOO).
He might not even be interested in selling at all. To anyone. At any price. Especially not to Fuddruckers after having been this badly treated by them before. It IS his choice to make, you know.
... he might not even want to license it to anyone at all under a commercial license. And that choice is his to make...