GPLv3's handling of license violations seems quite clear to me; it's quite explicit. I haven't read v2 recently, so I can't really comment on the situation there.
Since when is a company's chosen price and business plan OUR problem?
Printer manufacturers sell printers well below cost and then overcharge incredibly huge amounts for ink. There are very few who have a problem with using an alternate source for their ink.
That's assuming it actually has any content - it doesn't need to if all you want is people to type in captchas. And what makes you think they paid for the content themselves in the first place?
The summary stated that a large number of those calls were billing issues. In those cases, it's not generally the customer's fault, it's virtually always entirely the fault of the company. Are you saying that it's better to cut off customers than it is to actually get their bills right?
I might be wrong, but I think the quoted value is not the actual cost to MS, but simply what the extended licenses would have earned them had they sold every single one of them rather than giving them away.
Professional audio editing is something that linux can't quite manage - YET. A lot of people are working on that, though. If you look back in a year or so you might have most of what you need and be able to work round the remainder.
Surely if you didn't even get the chance to read it (as opposed to being able to and not doing so), it CANNOT be enforced in the slightest? Especially if the other party lied about what you were signing? Or is the relevant legal system that applies really that fucked up?
Not just implicitly legal, but explicitly as well. As I recall the GPL does specifically say that you may use the software regardless of whether you agree to the GPL.
They may have followed the license to the letter, but why is doing only that acceptable? The following sentence is exactly what Tivo did: They took code under a license intended to allow customers/users to modify and use the code themselves, and used a loophole to block such modification in hardware. The entire point of the GPL is to allow others to modify things - and they blocked it through a loophole. How is this a good thing?
I'm not saying you can't work under whichever license you see fit for your own projects. I'm just challenging one of your reasons for doing so.
Nothing forcing me to like what they do, either. If I, or you, or anyone else dislikes a company's conduct, ENTIRELY REGARDLESS of legality or not, we can express that dislike. It isn't difficult to understand, people. Legality is irrelevant here - if you do something I don't like I can complain about it.
This is not NeoOffice but another open office alternative. Actually... wrong. NeoOffice is simply a fork of OpenOffice for Mac usage. Nothing more, nothing less.
The UK version of the applicable laws, at least, specifies that "effective" pretty much means "it exists", not "it works". I can't recall the exact wording and don't particularly want to wade through legalese to find it.
This suggests to me that the Finnish precedent is one that would be impossible in the UK. I believe the DMCA has a similar definition.
Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3's handling of license violations seems quite clear to me; it's quite explicit. I haven't read v2 recently, so I can't really comment on the situation there.
Since when is a company's chosen price and business plan OUR problem?
Printer manufacturers sell printers well below cost and then overcharge incredibly huge amounts for ink. There are very few who have a problem with using an alternate source for their ink.
There's no restriction on *USE* whatsoever. There are restrictions on distribution. It's a reasonably important distinction.
As you just said yourself: it had an entire PAGE saying that angles were in radians and why.
If your maths textbook felt it needed pointing out, why should a standard - which should be pointing out every single thing possible - not state it?
I've seen plenty of bad-SEO tactics on mturk before, as well. "Comment on this blog entry using these two keywords somewhere in your comment."
That's assuming it actually has any content - it doesn't need to if all you want is people to type in captchas. And what makes you think they paid for the content themselves in the first place?
The summary stated that a large number of those calls were billing issues. In those cases, it's not generally the customer's fault, it's virtually always entirely the fault of the company. Are you saying that it's better to cut off customers than it is to actually get their bills right?
I might be wrong, but I think the quoted value is not the actual cost to MS, but simply what the extended licenses would have earned them had they sold every single one of them rather than giving them away.
Does anyone think they'd have sold them?
The GPL doesn't restrict you at all. It doesn't stop you doing anything that you couldn't already do with the program in question.
COPYRIGHT law is the restriction, and is there by default. The GPL then waives part of that restriction.
If I give you a program, unless I have said otherwise, you don't have the right to distribute it.
Professional audio editing is something that linux can't quite manage - YET. A lot of people are working on that, though. If you look back in a year or so you might have most of what you need and be able to work round the remainder.
One major problem with your plan. The lawyers win.
Surely if you didn't even get the chance to read it (as opposed to being able to and not doing so), it CANNOT be enforced in the slightest? Especially if the other party lied about what you were signing? Or is the relevant legal system that applies really that fucked up?
Not just implicitly legal, but explicitly as well. As I recall the GPL does specifically say that you may use the software regardless of whether you agree to the GPL.
Where did the GPL stop you from making money again?
Oh, wait. It specifically permits you to make money from it, as much as you want.
Regarding your bit about Tivo:
They may have followed the license to the letter, but why is doing only that acceptable? The following sentence is exactly what Tivo did: They took code under a license intended to allow customers/users to modify and use the code themselves, and used a loophole to block such modification in hardware. The entire point of the GPL is to allow others to modify things - and they blocked it through a loophole. How is this a good thing?
I'm not saying you can't work under whichever license you see fit for your own projects. I'm just challenging one of your reasons for doing so.
Wait, so I can bash the heads of the industry executives in as long as I pay them?
Sounds like a decent deal to me!
Have you read the exceptions in the Novell-MS agreements?
Not a lot of note IS covered by that particular patent license. Plenty they can screw you over with without breaching contracts in the slightest.
(Appropriately, captcha = bludgeon.)
Ah, I see. Makes sense then.
That explained a lot of things from other posts that I didn't quite understand. However...
Maybe I missed something - but if he's manually checking everything he merges, why couldn't he manually check anything he merged in CVS?
(Honest question; I'm confused!)
Nothing forcing them, maybe.
Nothing forcing me to like what they do, either. If I, or you, or anyone else dislikes a company's conduct, ENTIRELY REGARDLESS of legality or not, we can express that dislike. It isn't difficult to understand, people. Legality is irrelevant here - if you do something I don't like I can complain about it.
So in other words they shouldn't even have had the tiny logo?
The UK version of the applicable laws, at least, specifies that "effective" pretty much means "it exists", not "it works". I can't recall the exact wording and don't particularly want to wade through legalese to find it.
This suggests to me that the Finnish precedent is one that would be impossible in the UK. I believe the DMCA has a similar definition.
You, sir, are a genius.
I've never seen a right-click-disabler actually work in firefox. They create a popup, yes, but then I find the context menu appears anyway.