The reviewer counts the battery against the Q1 when reviewing the battery, and then AGAIN on the screen. In other words, he's counted a Samsung flaw twice. He should compare the screens directly. Which one is easier to read, crisper image, etc etc.
Not necessarily, your cook-book example would likely be covered under fair use. No court in the world would award a copyright holder damages based on you jotting notes in a book. In-fact, I don't even know if that would qualify as creating a derivative work. Colleges and Universities encourage their students to do just this. If you re-typed the cook-book with your modifications included, then I could see that as creating a derivative work. Modifying a copyrighted computer program to add or remove functions is on a different level. Again, I could be wrong of course.
What section of copyright law places local modifications outside the scope of copyright law? As I stated in another comment, copyright law grants a copyright holder the "exclusive right to prepare a derivative work"...but it does not mention, in that section, distribution. I could be wrong, but I have a copy of the copyright act on my computer and looked through it and couldn't find anything supporting your position.
Ummm, the old GPL allowed you to as well. In-fact, I was talking about the GPL v2, and it was the GPL v2 that I had open in-front of me when I wrote that comment. The GPL v3 increases the restrictions, but against the patent holding companies. Could you please actually read it (both 2 and 3)?
Commercial software companies are unable to filter every single patent in the world to make sure they are not infringing any of them, what makes you think a 2 developer team would be able to? For the GPL to require anyone to do so would be impractical...hell, to require Microsoft to do so would be impractical. The patent system is broken, and it is impossible to do what you think the GPL should require developers to do. The FSF found a balance, only requiring a ceasing of distribution once the patent holder requires it.
Do you honestly think every distributor of software, both proprietary and open source, knows every single patent in the world and whether or not they infringe it? If you do, you are incredibly naive.
Section 106(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act provides a copyright holder with the exclusive right to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". It mentions nothing about distributing said derivative work, just that the exclusive right to make those works belongs to the copyright owner.
I have looked through more of the copyright act, and am unable to find a section that says that if you don't distribute that work, it is legal. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks!
Well durrr, if there was no modification then the command allowing the download of source code would still be present in the program, sherlock. By removing this command, there IS modification by that very act, and thus the GPL applies....what is so difficult to understand about that???
And where exactly did I say the GPL is defining distribution. If you would kindly re-read my comment, I am saying that it is the modication, NOT distribution, that is making the GPL kick in. In-fact, I explained pretty clearly that modifying copyrighted works is covered under copyright law, GPL or no GPL, and whether or not there is distribution. Did you finish my comment before replying?
So? Redistribution isn't the only action requiring a license under copyright law. Creation of derivative works (ie. a webmaster removing the code implementing said feature), even with no distribution, requires a license to do so, and the derivative work must comply with the license. Hence how this clause works. It isn't contingent upon public use, it is contingent upon modification of the original work, an action that has ALWAYS been covered by the GPL.
Ummm, if you would learn to bloody read, you would know that the FSF TONED BACK the anti-drm provisions to state that DRM is completely fine, as long as the DRM doesn't impede on a licensees right to access to source code. In other words, if the DRM doesn't affect a licensees rights under the GPL, the DRM is fine, even if it restricts music files, video files, etc.
As for the anti-patent stuff, please explain how YOU would word the license to allow people to distribute works covered by others' patents to all third-parties, royalty free, while giving them the right to do the same. It's simply impossible if the patent holder required royalties, the patent license and GPL would conflict.
I love when people don't RTFA, and make themselves look like idiots in the process.
Yes, you're right that copyright law doesn't cover use. However, you DO have to have a license to modify the code as well, irregardless of whether you distribute it. As soon as the webmaster modifies the code for use in his web app, he must comply with the GPL. By removing that code that implements this feature, he is modifying the code outside of the terms of the GPL, and thus in violation.
Remember, copyright law places limitations not only on distribution, but also on modification and creation of derivitive works, even if there is no distribution of those modified works. So that is how this clause works. If you made a derivitive of Windows for internal use without Microsoft's permission, you would be infringing their copyright, unless you had a license to do so.
No, not exactly. That requirement ONLY kicks in if there is a court order restricting distribution, or if the patent holder asserts their rights against the project. The simple existence of the patent doesn't mean you can't distribute the code. Section 7 of the GPL makes clear that it only kicks in "if conditions are imposed on you".
The provision in the first draft was that if a project implemented a feature that had a command to download the source code, the web service provider had to keep this in-tact, otherwise, there was no requirement. In other words, it is completely up to the OSS project devs whether this requirement is present or not. Which is reasonable.
Well, if you would take a moment to read the GPL (or any OSS license for that matter), you would know that Google could just as easily do this with a project on Sourceforge, Freshmeat or a random webserver and it would be completely legal as long as they didn't distribute it as a binary to anyone. So what exactly is your point? How is it any different in this regard using any other hosting service compared to Google?
Ah, I was not aware of this. The rest of my comment still stands however. Telus charges more than Shaw, gives you less for that money, sneaks contract terms onto you and places dumb limitations on your service. And then when you have problems and phone them, you wait on hold for sometimes an hour (Shaw has this thing where you type in your phone number and then they phone you back when it's your turn, and the wait times are far less, the longest being 25 minutes for me, normally closer to 10), and their service people don't know what the hell they are talking about. About the only superior service in my opinion that Telus has is their cell phone service.
And no, it wasn't "Telus sucks, therefore they're wrong", I was misinformed, and after what you told me (assuming it's true), I agree with Telus' actions regarding the Union.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the tip! Shaw is still nicer though, I regularily change which device is hooked into the Shaw modem, and it just works, none of this MAC address crap.
I don't see why Telus even does that...what does it matter if I have 1 computer hooked up all day or 24 computers hooked up for an hour each, I'm not using any more bandwidth either way?
I hate Telus. They always try to force hidden terms on you. The contract WAS on the Telus setup CD, I had this same issue with them. However, not only is the Telus setup CD NOT required, Telus' own customer service reps recommended that I not use it. The exact thing one guy said was "Take the CD and throw it out the window, it just messes things up". So, indirectly, a representative of Telus told me to not read the contract, yet they want to hold me to their terms.
Well, I paid the cancellation fee to cancel the internet and switched to Shaw, and I then proceeded to cancel my telephone service (Telus' big money maker) and switch it to Shaw's new VOIP service as well. Shaw has NO contracts, I could cancel my service today if I wanted. Their customer service is awesome and friendly, Telus' is far from. Telus also only allows one MAC address to connect to their service, meaning that if I unhook one computer and hook another one up, it won't work unless I phone Telus. Shaw has no such limitation whatsoever (of course a router gets rid of this problem).
I also don't like Telus because they are the company that, while their employees were on strike, blocked the Union's website so that NO Telus subscribers could even access the site. It would be nice if Shaw could put them out of business in the near-term...but that is unlikely, Telus is much bigger than Shaw:-(
Ummm...I think he is saying that the actual homepage for MSN.com is less accessible, which is true, it's a bloody mess. You don't need evidence to see that, all you need is a set of friggin eyes.
The funny thing is, he specifically said "MSN.com", not MSN's search results.
Whoops, forgot to add this at the end of my comment. You could also just wait and go with a new Intel Tower (Mac Pro...MacTower...whatever they call it????), which would give you a lot better expandability than both the Mini and the iMac.
Slashdot Mirror
I was looking at US law, not the law of my country. I assumed we were talking about US law. I don't live in the US.
The reviewer counts the battery against the Q1 when reviewing the battery, and then AGAIN on the screen. In other words, he's counted a Samsung flaw twice. He should compare the screens directly. Which one is easier to read, crisper image, etc etc.
Not necessarily, your cook-book example would likely be covered under fair use. No court in the world would award a copyright holder damages based on you jotting notes in a book. In-fact, I don't even know if that would qualify as creating a derivative work. Colleges and Universities encourage their students to do just this. If you re-typed the cook-book with your modifications included, then I could see that as creating a derivative work. Modifying a copyrighted computer program to add or remove functions is on a different level. Again, I could be wrong of course.
What section of copyright law places local modifications outside the scope of copyright law? As I stated in another comment, copyright law grants a copyright holder the "exclusive right to prepare a derivative work"...but it does not mention, in that section, distribution. I could be wrong, but I have a copy of the copyright act on my computer and looked through it and couldn't find anything supporting your position.
Ummm, the old GPL allowed you to as well. In-fact, I was talking about the GPL v2, and it was the GPL v2 that I had open in-front of me when I wrote that comment. The GPL v3 increases the restrictions, but against the patent holding companies. Could you please actually read it (both 2 and 3)?
Commercial software companies are unable to filter every single patent in the world to make sure they are not infringing any of them, what makes you think a 2 developer team would be able to? For the GPL to require anyone to do so would be impractical...hell, to require Microsoft to do so would be impractical. The patent system is broken, and it is impossible to do what you think the GPL should require developers to do. The FSF found a balance, only requiring a ceasing of distribution once the patent holder requires it.
Do you honestly think every distributor of software, both proprietary and open source, knows every single patent in the world and whether or not they infringe it? If you do, you are incredibly naive.
Section 106(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act provides a copyright holder with the exclusive right to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". It mentions nothing about distributing said derivative work, just that the exclusive right to make those works belongs to the copyright owner.
I have looked through more of the copyright act, and am unable to find a section that says that if you don't distribute that work, it is legal. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks!
The GPL has relied upon copyright law since its inception (or has applied it). If it didn't, you wouldn't have to abide by it.
No, it's when they modify the GPL'd code, not when they redistribute, that causes them to have to comply with that section of the GPL.
Well durrr, if there was no modification then the command allowing the download of source code would still be present in the program, sherlock. By removing this command, there IS modification by that very act, and thus the GPL applies....what is so difficult to understand about that???
And where exactly did I say the GPL is defining distribution. If you would kindly re-read my comment, I am saying that it is the modication, NOT distribution, that is making the GPL kick in. In-fact, I explained pretty clearly that modifying copyrighted works is covered under copyright law, GPL or no GPL, and whether or not there is distribution. Did you finish my comment before replying?
And btw: I don't really care.
So? Redistribution isn't the only action requiring a license under copyright law. Creation of derivative works (ie. a webmaster removing the code implementing said feature), even with no distribution, requires a license to do so, and the derivative work must comply with the license. Hence how this clause works. It isn't contingent upon public use, it is contingent upon modification of the original work, an action that has ALWAYS been covered by the GPL.
Ummm, if you would learn to bloody read, you would know that the FSF TONED BACK the anti-drm provisions to state that DRM is completely fine, as long as the DRM doesn't impede on a licensees right to access to source code. In other words, if the DRM doesn't affect a licensees rights under the GPL, the DRM is fine, even if it restricts music files, video files, etc.
As for the anti-patent stuff, please explain how YOU would word the license to allow people to distribute works covered by others' patents to all third-parties, royalty free, while giving them the right to do the same. It's simply impossible if the patent holder required royalties, the patent license and GPL would conflict.
I love when people don't RTFA, and make themselves look like idiots in the process.
Yes, you're right that copyright law doesn't cover use. However, you DO have to have a license to modify the code as well, irregardless of whether you distribute it. As soon as the webmaster modifies the code for use in his web app, he must comply with the GPL. By removing that code that implements this feature, he is modifying the code outside of the terms of the GPL, and thus in violation.
Remember, copyright law places limitations not only on distribution, but also on modification and creation of derivitive works, even if there is no distribution of those modified works. So that is how this clause works. If you made a derivitive of Windows for internal use without Microsoft's permission, you would be infringing their copyright, unless you had a license to do so.
No, not exactly. That requirement ONLY kicks in if there is a court order restricting distribution, or if the patent holder asserts their rights against the project. The simple existence of the patent doesn't mean you can't distribute the code. Section 7 of the GPL makes clear that it only kicks in "if conditions are imposed on you".
The provision in the first draft was that if a project implemented a feature that had a command to download the source code, the web service provider had to keep this in-tact, otherwise, there was no requirement. In other words, it is completely up to the OSS project devs whether this requirement is present or not. Which is reasonable.
Well, if you would take a moment to read the GPL (or any OSS license for that matter), you would know that Google could just as easily do this with a project on Sourceforge, Freshmeat or a random webserver and it would be completely legal as long as they didn't distribute it as a binary to anyone. So what exactly is your point? How is it any different in this regard using any other hosting service compared to Google?
Sourceforge is no longer open source....durrr
Pfff, Halo 8 is far better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Downward_Spiral
(long time NIN fan)
More like someone who is realistic and knows that all browsers have their quirks I would say personally.
Ah, I was not aware of this. The rest of my comment still stands however. Telus charges more than Shaw, gives you less for that money, sneaks contract terms onto you and places dumb limitations on your service. And then when you have problems and phone them, you wait on hold for sometimes an hour (Shaw has this thing where you type in your phone number and then they phone you back when it's your turn, and the wait times are far less, the longest being 25 minutes for me, normally closer to 10), and their service people don't know what the hell they are talking about. About the only superior service in my opinion that Telus has is their cell phone service.
And no, it wasn't "Telus sucks, therefore they're wrong", I was misinformed, and after what you told me (assuming it's true), I agree with Telus' actions regarding the Union.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the tip! Shaw is still nicer though, I regularily change which device is hooked into the Shaw modem, and it just works, none of this MAC address crap.
I don't see why Telus even does that...what does it matter if I have 1 computer hooked up all day or 24 computers hooked up for an hour each, I'm not using any more bandwidth either way?
I hate Telus. They always try to force hidden terms on you. The contract WAS on the Telus setup CD, I had this same issue with them. However, not only is the Telus setup CD NOT required, Telus' own customer service reps recommended that I not use it. The exact thing one guy said was "Take the CD and throw it out the window, it just messes things up". So, indirectly, a representative of Telus told me to not read the contract, yet they want to hold me to their terms.
:-(
Well, I paid the cancellation fee to cancel the internet and switched to Shaw, and I then proceeded to cancel my telephone service (Telus' big money maker) and switch it to Shaw's new VOIP service as well. Shaw has NO contracts, I could cancel my service today if I wanted. Their customer service is awesome and friendly, Telus' is far from. Telus also only allows one MAC address to connect to their service, meaning that if I unhook one computer and hook another one up, it won't work unless I phone Telus. Shaw has no such limitation whatsoever (of course a router gets rid of this problem).
I also don't like Telus because they are the company that, while their employees were on strike, blocked the Union's website so that NO Telus subscribers could even access the site. It would be nice if Shaw could put them out of business in the near-term...but that is unlikely, Telus is much bigger than Shaw
I'm sure most Slashdot readers would have managed to find that article just fine on their own...
And you probably will still be able to use AMD + Nvidia, much like you can run Intel + Nvidia (Intel makes their own graphics chips).
Ummm...I think he is saying that the actual homepage for MSN.com is less accessible, which is true, it's a bloody mess. You don't need evidence to see that, all you need is a set of friggin eyes.
The funny thing is, he specifically said "MSN.com", not MSN's search results.
Whoops, forgot to add this at the end of my comment. You could also just wait and go with a new Intel Tower (Mac Pro...MacTower...whatever they call it????), which would give you a lot better expandability than both the Mini and the iMac.