You can win by relicensing as GPL. If you insist on being stubborn you can't take a free ride on other people's work.
People who license their work as GPL obviously want everyone who uses their code to do the same. They believe that they can be exploited otherwise by commercial interests. You should respect that.
I think the problem is that the Windows task bar just isn't very good. What made tabbed browsing so convenient was that you could load a web page with one click of the mouse while the last one was still open. Doing the same thing with new windows in the task bar is clumsy
The prices and information itself are not copyrightable, but the actual documents and texts are. The same as no-one can sell a photo-copied phone book, copying the documents which were written by Yahoo does violate their copyright.
The only question is does US copyright law protect such use.
Confidential trade secrets are meant to handled with care to ensure that copies are tightly controlled and don't leak to unwanted parties. If one such party does obtain sensitive documents or information, apart from being difficult to trace, he needn't even make a physical copy of it to use it unlawfully. And if the copyright on the document make spying or leaking them more severe, it would mean that using them without copying would be a much lighter crime.
Overwriting should be just fine. In any case, don't think that physical "destruction" substitutes real security policies. It's entirely conceivable to read images from shards of a disc. Just drilling a hole will probably leave most information intact.
There are no clear-cut definitions for the different types of malware. "Antivirus" programs are typically software packages that patch a number of known vulnerabilities, check servers for new blacklists, and watches out for suspicious behaviour. In any case, finding trojans is probably what they're best at.
The thing about GSM is that it's easy for authorities to access, so anybody with more knowledge and something to hide is going to use more secure options which have become possible with mobile internet access.
The tactic that Nintendo eventually used had been considered by the industry earlier, but was not adopted because it was thought to be illegal.
That seems unlikely considering that it actually took a court battle to have 3rd party games deemed legal, The NES was one of the first examples of DRM technology ever.
Considering that wholesale profit is just about the only profit they can make, I'd say that it must be significant.
And you continue to avoid explaining how Pepsi's brand is damaged by such practice. Considering that's the basis for your argument you should elaborate. If anything it would benefit. "Pepsi are so good that they are the ones making the recipe for Coke"
What a red herring argument. Levi is concerned about jeans being sold under their name at budget prices. They used a peculiarity of Trademark law to protect their established distribution network.
You fail to mention how bottling Pepsi as CocaCola does any harm whatsoever to the Pepsi brand. If you really think that Coke wouldn't be able to get their drink taste exactly like Pepsi by their own you're even more delusioned than I thought.
Your comment about Pepsi not caring about wholesale profit is simply hilarious.
Your naivety is amusing. Botteling and mixing Coca-Cola is a lucrative business which companies all over the world are falling over themselves to do. You're delusioned if you think there's one monolithic "Coca Cola" factory, or Pepsi for that matter. These companies usually have their own line of drinks which they sell under their own label. But they realize that they can't compete ith the coke brand, so they're happy with the extra business their contract with Coca-Cola gets them.
If coke were to purchase large amounts of finished PEPSI, they would have paid for a profit margin of the PEPSI company and their partners, which would be significant for such a prominent brand.
If they wanted Coke to taste like PEPSI they would just alter their recipe.
Good points, but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications. Or by selling Products that do so. That doesn't seem to be tha case here.
Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software.
Apple prevents competition in hardware by leveraging their significant market power they have with their OS. Although the two products are closely related, it does not warrent a unilateraly tying.
Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware
The point is that they are shieding their hardware sales with their OS, not the other way round.
if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening
They would be absolutely delighted and ask Coke if they wish to outsource their marketing and distribution network to them too. You have no idea how business works.
Bullshit. If I have a copy of Linux on a CD, I own that copy. If I have the software on the hard drive, that is also my copy. The only thin I don't own is the copyright. If I make copies of the program and distribute it, that infringes upon the authors copyright. The GNU General Public Licence, which accompanies every copy of the software, grants me the right to copy and distribute the software to anyone. This is something that I would not be able to with a normal copy of software.
There are specific exemptions for copying programs in order for them to be useful. You only need to own a copy.
The reasoning behind this case is that Apple can decide whether or not they're selling a copy, or "licensing" the software. By doing the latter, they in theory are able to circumvent laws designed specifically to prevent what they're doing.
The thing is, as far as I see it, there is nothing to suggest this is a natural choice for businesses to make. License agreements typically take special circumstances into account such as fixed-term usage or extra commission per work, not your typical buy-and-use software.
If such circumvention is indeed lawful, it would open up a box of other ludicrous tricks. "I don't sell drugs. I licence them for personal use."
Karma-whoring is when you write something with the purpose of getting modded up and thus gaining karma.
Well, let's look at that post again:
<insert open-source application> is installed on all of our Linux PCs at home, and on the Windows PCs and VMs at work. It is one of the "must-have" applications for <insert application type>. We all use it at home, adults & kids.
The more prominent the post is, the more this technique will work
Certainly not a search engine. Google uses algorithms to index only content which they already put up for free.
They cannot prevent Google from doing this. While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.
Murdoch isn't concerned about the profitability of newspapers, he's driven many of them to ruin with his loss generating dumping prices for years.
It's no problem if it's an occaisonal question, but the learned helplessness that many people demonstrate is just insulting. When I find them a fix it usually involves a few minutes of googleing, why can't they at least do the same?
Once a freind asked me to come over for some help and I told him to do a very simple task with clear instructions which he was perfectly capable of. He couldn't be bothered to do it. Am I supposed to waste my time just because that's their easiest way out?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a major diversion of the discussion..
Your said the GPL is a bullshit license. The response was directed to your argument
You can win by relicensing as GPL. If you insist on being stubborn you can't take a free ride on other people's work.
People who license their work as GPL obviously want everyone who uses their code to do the same. They believe that they can be exploited otherwise by commercial interests. You should respect that.
Possible, but in reality most vinyl discs are a direct transfer from the digital master used for the CD, including the brick-wall mix.
I think the problem is that the Windows task bar just isn't very good. What made tabbed browsing so convenient was that you could load a web page with one click of the mouse while the last one was still open. Doing the same thing with new windows in the task bar is clumsy
The prices and information itself are not copyrightable, but the actual documents and texts are. The same as no-one can sell a photo-copied phone book, copying the documents which were written by Yahoo does violate their copyright.
The only question is does US copyright law protect such use.
Confidential trade secrets are meant to handled with care to ensure that copies are tightly controlled and don't leak to unwanted parties.
If one such party does obtain sensitive documents or information, apart from being difficult to trace, he needn't even make a physical copy of it to use it unlawfully.
And if the copyright on the document make spying or leaking them more severe, it would mean that using them without copying would be a much lighter crime.
Overwriting should be just fine. In any case, don't think that physical "destruction" substitutes real security policies. It's entirely conceivable to read images from shards of a disc. Just drilling a hole will probably leave most information intact.
There are no clear-cut definitions for the different types of malware. "Antivirus" programs are typically software packages that patch a number of known vulnerabilities, check servers for new blacklists, and watches out for suspicious behaviour.
In any case, finding trojans is probably what they're best at.
He was talking about voice calls.
The thing about GSM is that it's easy for authorities to access, so anybody with more knowledge and something to hide is going to use more secure options which have become possible with mobile internet access.
The tactic that Nintendo eventually used had been considered by the industry earlier, but was not adopted because it was thought to be illegal.
That seems unlikely considering that it actually took a court battle to have 3rd party games deemed legal, The NES was one of the first examples of DRM technology ever.
Considering that wholesale profit is just about the only profit they can make, I'd say that it must be significant.
And you continue to avoid explaining how Pepsi's brand is damaged by such practice. Considering that's the basis for your argument you should elaborate. If anything it would benefit. "Pepsi are so good that they are the ones making the recipe for Coke"
What a red herring argument. Levi is concerned about jeans being sold under their name at budget prices. They used a peculiarity of Trademark law to protect their established distribution network.
You fail to mention how bottling Pepsi as CocaCola does any harm whatsoever to the Pepsi brand. If you really think that Coke wouldn't be able to get their drink taste exactly like Pepsi by their own you're even more delusioned than I thought.
Your comment about Pepsi not caring about wholesale profit is simply hilarious.
As for modifications, that breaks copyright.
Bullcrap. If I have a lawful copy I can modify it as much as I want. Copying it afterwards is of course not permitted.
Your naivety is amusing.
Botteling and mixing Coca-Cola is a lucrative business which companies all over the world are falling over themselves to do.
You're delusioned if you think there's one monolithic "Coca Cola" factory, or Pepsi for that matter.
These companies usually have their own line of drinks which they sell under their own label.
But they realize that they can't compete ith the coke brand, so they're happy with the extra business their contract with Coca-Cola gets them.
If coke were to purchase large amounts of finished PEPSI, they would have paid for a profit margin of the PEPSI company and their partners, which would be significant for such a prominent brand.
If they wanted Coke to taste like PEPSI they would just alter their recipe.
Good points, but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications. Or by selling Products that do so.
That doesn't seem to be tha case here.
Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software.
Apple prevents competition in hardware by leveraging their significant market power they have with their OS.
Although the two products are closely related, it does not warrent a unilateraly tying.
Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware
The point is that they are shieding their hardware sales with their OS, not the other way round.
if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening
They would be absolutely delighted and ask Coke if they wish to outsource their marketing and distribution network to them too. You have no idea how business works.
Bullshit. If I have a copy of Linux on a CD, I own that copy. If I have the software on the hard drive, that is also my copy.
The only thin I don't own is the copyright.
If I make copies of the program and distribute it, that infringes upon the authors copyright. The GNU General Public Licence, which accompanies every copy of the software, grants me the right to copy and distribute the software to anyone. This is something that I would not be able to with a normal copy of software.
That's not what the law says. All it says is that copying a program in a way that's necessary to use it isn't copyright infringement.
Thus if you pirate the copy and load it into the RAM, only the former counts as infringement wheras the latter doesn't.
There are specific exemptions for copying programs in order for them to be useful. You only need to own a copy.
The reasoning behind this case is that Apple can decide whether or not they're selling a copy, or "licensing" the software. By doing the latter, they in theory are able to circumvent laws designed specifically to prevent what they're doing.
The thing is, as far as I see it, there is nothing to suggest this is a natural choice for businesses to make. License agreements typically take special circumstances into account such as fixed-term usage or extra commission per work, not your typical buy-and-use software.
If such circumvention is indeed lawful, it would open up a box of other ludicrous tricks.
"I don't sell drugs. I licence them for personal use."
Four? I beg to differ
Karma-whoring is when you write something with the purpose of getting modded up and thus gaining karma.
Well, let's look at that post again:
<insert open-source application> is installed on all of our Linux PCs at home, and on the Windows PCs and VMs at work. It is one of the "must-have" applications for <insert application type>. We all use it at home, adults & kids.
The more prominent the post is, the more this technique will work
Certainly not a search engine. Google uses algorithms to index only content which they already put up for free.
They cannot prevent Google from doing this. While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.
Murdoch isn't concerned about the profitability of newspapers, he's driven many of them to ruin with his loss generating dumping prices for years.
It's called karma-whoring.
It's no problem if it's an occaisonal question, but the learned helplessness that many people demonstrate is just insulting.
When I find them a fix it usually involves a few minutes of googleing, why can't they at least do the same?
Once a freind asked me to come over for some help and I told him to do a very simple task with clear instructions which he was perfectly capable of. He couldn't be bothered to do it.
Am I supposed to waste my time just because that's their easiest way out?
In future I'm just going to send them this link http://xkcd.com/627/