What does "...distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders" mean? If I am dsitributing the software from my own website, is it not obvious that no matter what the software says, it is not the Original Work?
No, not really. You could have downloaded the software yourself and decided to put it onto your own site with something saying like "I really liked this software since it does foo, you should try it for yourself" and pass it off as the original. People who don't know better... wouldn't know better.
You would probably have to say something like "I really liked this software, but thought it could do foo like this and bar like that, so I changed it and am giving it up for download. Please note that this is not the original, MS holds no responsibility whatsoever for anything it does (not that they would have anyway but just saying)".
What about if I label the software the same but change the colors on the logo?
I don't really think that's obvious. (Colour)? blind? Broken monitor? Note it says any confusion.
This may be the case, but seems I made the mistake in assuming people read at least the titles (and perhaps the post itself... if not OMG TFA) of submissions these days.
To my mind it's no different than a lawyer trying to get their client off because of a slight, remote chance that someone else in the known universe there might have the exact same DNA or fingerprint as the suspect.
Isn't this the idea behind reasnoble doubt. With the odd's being what they are (of two people having the same DNA fingerprint) I really don't think that it's reasnoble to think that way (taking into account any other evidence against said defendant).
No IT departments or managment of any company are excited about Vista. The cost to install, test, coordinate, and train all your processes for a new OS are prohibative. This is one time wear the time honored saying: "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" applies.
A place I contract to still runs on NT 3.51 because it does what it's sposed to do. There is no reason for the systems to be upgraded, and with approx ~900 machines, many of which have slightly different configurations (yes there is a list of what should & shouldn't be on each one and audits are done on a regular basic) it won't be the easiest job there is... and I'm not looking forward to it when the day comes.
If MS want to license XP/Vista/whatever to us for free plus cover any losses we may or may not get because of the problems the upgrade may or may not (hah!) cause, then hell, sure, I'll do it.
I've always installed everything (and by everything I mean selecting each app and choosing "Run this from my computer" or whatever its called), and never had to reboot either.
I spose some people's computers just don't like them.
What does "...distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders" mean? If I am dsitributing the software from my own website, is it not obvious that no matter what the software says, it is not the Original Work?
No, not really. You could have downloaded the software yourself and decided to put it onto your own site with something saying like "I really liked this software since it does foo, you should try it for yourself" and pass it off as the original. People who don't know better... wouldn't know better.
You would probably have to say something like "I really liked this software, but thought it could do foo like this and bar like that, so I changed it and am giving it up for download. Please note that this is not the original, MS holds no responsibility whatsoever for anything it does (not that they would have anyway but just saying)".
What about if I label the software the same but change the colors on the logo?
I don't really think that's obvious. (Colour)? blind? Broken monitor? Note it says any confusion.
26% of people know that
Oh yeah and we fixed the nbsp thing. Oops, duh! Sorry about that.
Still there for me...
This may be the case, but seems I made the mistake in assuming people read at least the titles (and perhaps the post itself... if not OMG TFA) of submissions these days.
Sorry.
To my mind it's no different than a lawyer trying to get their client off because of a slight, remote chance that someone else in the known universe there might have the exact same DNA or fingerprint as the suspect.
Isn't this the idea behind reasnoble doubt. With the odd's being what they are (of two people having the same DNA fingerprint) I really don't think that it's reasnoble to think that way (taking into account any other evidence against said defendant).
WA = Washington.
/.ers seem to forget that theirs isn't the only country on Earth.
All the US
No IT departments or managment of any company are excited about Vista. The cost to install, test, coordinate, and train all your processes for a new OS are prohibative. This is one time wear the time honored saying: "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" applies.
A place I contract to still runs on NT 3.51 because it does what it's sposed to do. There is no reason for the systems to be upgraded, and with approx ~900 machines, many of which have slightly different configurations (yes there is a list of what should & shouldn't be on each one and audits are done on a regular basic) it won't be the easiest job there is... and I'm not looking forward to it when the day comes.
If MS want to license XP/Vista/whatever to us for free plus cover any losses we may or may not get because of the problems the upgrade may or may not (hah!) cause, then hell, sure, I'll do it.
Btw, it's a government department.
I've always installed everything (and by everything I mean selecting each app and choosing "Run this from my computer" or whatever its called), and never had to reboot either. I spose some people's computers just don't like them.
If theres a way of spelling it amature in a language other than english... maybe, but amateur is right in the english I know.
note: U.S. dialect may not be included.
Some go overboard with downright deceptive speed trapping
If you don't like it, don't speed.