He's taking words that relate to things he's doing conferences on, and trademarking them. The net effect is to make it harder to come up with relevent terms to describe competing conferences.
Wrong.
"Maker Faire" is the name of the event. Trademarking the name of the event gives ORM legal status as the only entity who can hold an event with that name.
If you want to hold a similar event, come up with another name.
A trademark should, in my opinion, not allow you to forbid anyone to simply _use_ the name of your product (as opposed to stick it to their own products).
What does that have to do with anything?
If the "Maker Faire" trademark goes through, my employer has the exclusive right to put on a fair called "Maker Faire". That's it.
You can get a tattoo of the phrase anywhere on your body. You can put it on a hot air balloon. You can write a dirty limerick about it and set it to music. You can draw a really freaky logo with those words, like maybe with a snake and a skull and an evil looking parrot.
Just don't expect that if you start your own fair or trade show and call it "Maker Faire" that everything's going to be okay. You'll probably have to change the name.
I'm pretty sure there weren't more than, well, zero people just dying to start their own Maker Faires, as evidenced by the fact that they, well, didn't, so I'm having a difficult time figuring out exactly what the fuss is about.
How is a "maker fair" or a "web site" a name? They are just words.
Did you read the trademark summaries? Did you think about them? Or is it the case that your knee merely jerked so hard that you typed and submitted that entire rant before understanding the applications? (That's my vote.)
So that nobody should be able to try to patent a PUBLIC, EVERYDAY word...
I realize the difference between a patent and a trademark is exceedingly subtle, but you can tell them apart because they're completely different things. (I was lying about the difference being subtle.)
Do please enlighten the entire assembled masses by pointing out precisely where by force, authority, or fraud I coerced you to give up your freedom to choose proprietary or free software. Then I will proudly admit to being a fascist who used his fearful mesmerism across fiber-optic lines (nice trick, that) to convince you to post your original question, trapping you in an inescapable call and response designed to break down the powerful barriers in your mind tieing you to proprietary software, in my hideous, twisted plot to prevent you from ever having your customer data locked up by an unresponsive parking robot! Muha. Ha. Ha.
I'm using nvidia's binary blob and whenever there's a new kernel, the nice people at livna put out a corresponding nvidia driver for it.
That assumes NVidia's current get-around-the-GPL-source-code trick compiles with that new kernel. It doesn't always. Then, the copyright infringers at Livna (and I don't say that to object to your characterization of them as "nice", merely to say that they're potentially infrinding NVidia's licence by doing more than merely unzipping compressed files and redistributing the binaries and definitely infringing upon the GPL for the Linux kernel by distributing binaries for which they cannot offer full source) have to wait on NVidia's good graces.
And upgrading X.org hasn't been a problem since 7.0 split into modules.
As I said, good luck using those old NVidia drivers with X.org 7.1. You're in for a nasty, binary-compatibility shock, at least until NVidia deems fit to throw another binary blob over the wall.
Two, if I switch processor architectures, it's a given I can't take nvidia's *hardware* with me...
Maybe to Sparc or ARM, but I was thinking of x86 to PPC, as I did a couple of years ago. Perhaps a better example would have been "Try switching to another free operating system."
Some people want to impose their definition of "free" onto me and tell me I shouldn't be allowed to choose proprietary software, the opposite of freedom.
That logical fallacy right there isn't even suitable for scaring away crows, it's such an old canard. Please pardon the pun.
What does that have to do with my freedom as a person?
Don't be obtuse. If you're really that unclear on what "freedom" means, might I suggest looking it up on the Internet?
And don't I still have the ability to just not use Nvidia's binary blob if that becomes an issue, which proves I haven't lost any freedom?
If there are working, open drivers for your hardware in that case, yes. However, if sufficient numbers of people accept binary blobs to the extent that there exist no such open drivers, they've curtailed everyone's freedom.
For a more dramatic example, consider using a proprietary application with a proprietary data format. Good luck switching away from that.
Work in gaming for at least two weeks, or even just make friends with people who make or publish games.
I know there are people who do that, but they're a tiny minority...
I think you severely overestimate the numbers and influence of hardcore gamers and dramatically underestimate the effect of the majority of other gamers.
I really recommend talking to someone who's actually sold games. The numbers might not be exactly 50% for Wal*Mart, but they'll be close and I think they'll surprise you.
Publishers, without whom it's difficult to fund game production. If a publisher doesn't think your game will sell enough copies to make its investment worthwhile, it won't invest in your game.
If your game won't make it onto Wal*Mart's shelves, cut your expected sales in half. Good luck with your publisher then.
There are other explanations for the same facts that are semantically void, veridically null, completely nonfalsifiable and thus completely unscientific. They have no predictive or explanatory power whatever. We call those "religion."
Suppose you're a developer of a Linux driver for the Bozodrive 1000. The majority of your legitimate email comes from Linux driver development mailing lists. A full 50% of those emails contain the word "IRQ." 99% of the emails contain the word "driver," and 15% contain the word "Johannsen" which is in the signature of one of your friends. And precisely 0% of the emails containing any of these terms have ever been found to be spam.
Actually, I've receieved plenty of spam in the past couple of days containing terms found on mailing lists in which I participate. I suspect that one or more spammers harvested addresses and keywords from those lists.
Not me saying this, talk to the Unreal Engine authors about it.
I can't follow your argument. You tried to write an FPS in Java and think that somehow proves that C++ is the only viable option for writing GUI applications? Exactly what do you think Chandler does anyway?
I've never used Chandler, but I've used Evolution and I've looked at some of its performance problems. Granted, it's mostly C code, but they're the same kinds of errors I would expect to see in any language -- bad caching, very poor resource usage, poor networking. Merely switching languages (to Python or to C++) wouldn't fix any of those.
Actually, I would consider who implements it *best* to be the what matters the most.
That depends on what you consider the goal. If Apple were to use Time Machine to send Virtual Desktop support back four years, I might still be their customer today. In my mind, their implementation has to be two orders of magnitude better than what I'm using now for it to be compelling enough to make up for being four years too late.
I'm not really in the target market for Mac OS X, however, so take it as just one man's opinion.
You say that doesn't matter in "an app like this" but performance always matters.
I can't imagine Chandler needing to perform FFTs, and if it does there are bindings for other languages. How fast does your "wait for user input" loop need to cycle, anyway?
For instance there is no reliable way a unit test can catch a race condition or mutex inversion.
Are there accurate ways to catch all of these in C or C++ applications at compile time or with a static tool? I'm not aware of anything with complete accuracy.
This means NO opportunity for automatic program optimisation.
Sorry, that's just wrong.
It's easy to pontificate on performance characteristics when you've done no profiling at all, but experienced programmers can and should wait for facts.
Even then, how long has Perl6 been in development? "It's ready when it's ready" is not good enough to much of the corporate world.
The corporate world can deal with it, or it can fund development. As a multi-year volunteer on Perl 6 design and implementation, I can proudly say that the corporate world's opinion doesn't matter unless it's willing to do something about it.
Perl 6 has had five or six funded man-years of development. By my estimation, Microsoft developers spend as much time on-clock reading e-mail in a week.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
"Maker Faire" is the name of the event. Trademarking the name of the event gives ORM legal status as the only entity who can hold an event with that name.
If you want to hold a similar event, come up with another name.
What's sinister and offensive about that?
What does that have to do with anything?
If the "Maker Faire" trademark goes through, my employer has the exclusive right to put on a fair called "Maker Faire". That's it.
You can get a tattoo of the phrase anywhere on your body. You can put it on a hot air balloon. You can write a dirty limerick about it and set it to music. You can draw a really freaky logo with those words, like maybe with a snake and a skull and an evil looking parrot.
Just don't expect that if you start your own fair or trade show and call it "Maker Faire" that everything's going to be okay. You'll probably have to change the name.
I'm pretty sure there weren't more than, well, zero people just dying to start their own Maker Faires, as evidenced by the fact that they, well, didn't, so I'm having a difficult time figuring out exactly what the fuss is about.
Did you read the trademark summaries? Did you think about them? Or is it the case that your knee merely jerked so hard that you typed and submitted that entire rant before understanding the applications? (That's my vote.)
I realize the difference between a patent and a trademark is exceedingly subtle, but you can tell them apart because they're completely different things. (I was lying about the difference being subtle.)
Do please enlighten the entire assembled masses by pointing out precisely where by force, authority, or fraud I coerced you to give up your freedom to choose proprietary or free software. Then I will proudly admit to being a fascist who used his fearful mesmerism across fiber-optic lines (nice trick, that) to convince you to post your original question, trapping you in an inescapable call and response designed to break down the powerful barriers in your mind tieing you to proprietary software, in my hideous, twisted plot to prevent you from ever having your customer data locked up by an unresponsive parking robot! Muha. Ha. Ha.
That assumes NVidia's current get-around-the-GPL-source-code trick compiles with that new kernel. It doesn't always. Then, the copyright infringers at Livna (and I don't say that to object to your characterization of them as "nice", merely to say that they're potentially infrinding NVidia's licence by doing more than merely unzipping compressed files and redistributing the binaries and definitely infringing upon the GPL for the Linux kernel by distributing binaries for which they cannot offer full source) have to wait on NVidia's good graces.
As I said, good luck using those old NVidia drivers with X.org 7.1. You're in for a nasty, binary-compatibility shock, at least until NVidia deems fit to throw another binary blob over the wall.
Maybe to Sparc or ARM, but I was thinking of x86 to PPC, as I did a couple of years ago. Perhaps a better example would have been "Try switching to another free operating system."
You must be exceedingly fortunate, an ace programmer, or woefully inexperienced. See the second lesson in A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software, for a recent real life example.
That logical fallacy right there isn't even suitable for scaring away crows, it's such an old canard. Please pardon the pun.
Don't be obtuse. If you're really that unclear on what "freedom" means, might I suggest looking it up on the Internet?
If there are working, open drivers for your hardware in that case, yes. However, if sufficient numbers of people accept binary blobs to the extent that there exist no such open drivers, they've curtailed everyone's freedom.
For a more dramatic example, consider using a proprietary application with a proprietary data format. Good luck switching away from that.
Good luck upgrading your kernel or X.org or switching processor architectures if you're using NVidia's binary blob.
Work in gaming for at least two weeks, or even just make friends with people who make or publish games.
I think you severely overestimate the numbers and influence of hardcore gamers and dramatically underestimate the effect of the majority of other gamers.
I really recommend talking to someone who's actually sold games. The numbers might not be exactly 50% for Wal*Mart, but they'll be close and I think they'll surprise you.
Publishers, without whom it's difficult to fund game production. If a publisher doesn't think your game will sell enough copies to make its investment worthwhile, it won't invest in your game.
If your game won't make it onto Wal*Mart's shelves, cut your expected sales in half. Good luck with your publisher then.
Does that include abiogenesis?
From the site logs.
I think you mean the redistribution of the code or any derivative works. If so, your problem is with copyright, not the GPL.
Actually, I've receieved plenty of spam in the past couple of days containing terms found on mailing lists in which I participate. I suspect that one or more spammers harvested addresses and keywords from those lists.
I can't follow your argument. You tried to write an FPS in Java and think that somehow proves that C++ is the only viable option for writing GUI applications? Exactly what do you think Chandler does anyway?
I've never used Chandler, but I've used Evolution and I've looked at some of its performance problems. Granted, it's mostly C code, but they're the same kinds of errors I would expect to see in any language -- bad caching, very poor resource usage, poor networking. Merely switching languages (to Python or to C++) wouldn't fix any of those.
That depends on what you consider the goal. If Apple were to use Time Machine to send Virtual Desktop support back four years, I might still be their customer today. In my mind, their implementation has to be two orders of magnitude better than what I'm using now for it to be compelling enough to make up for being four years too late.
I'm not really in the target market for Mac OS X, however, so take it as just one man's opinion.
I can't imagine Chandler needing to perform FFTs, and if it does there are bindings for other languages. How fast does your "wait for user input" loop need to cycle, anyway?
Are there accurate ways to catch all of these in C or C++ applications at compile time or with a static tool? I'm not aware of anything with complete accuracy.
Sorry, that's just wrong.
It's easy to pontificate on performance characteristics when you've done no profiling at all, but experienced programmers can and should wait for facts.
The OSCON 2006 presentation files are available from the second link in the second sentence on the OSCON 2006 page.
Hm, somehow I made Zonker leave my session. I don't know whether I feel proud or depressed!
OSCON Exhibit Hall passes are free.
The corporate world can deal with it, or it can fund development. As a multi-year volunteer on Perl 6 design and implementation, I can proudly say that the corporate world's opinion doesn't matter unless it's willing to do something about it.
Perl 6 has had five or six funded man-years of development. By my estimation, Microsoft developers spend as much time on-clock reading e-mail in a week.
It matters quite a bit if the jail is insecure.
The first public release of Ruby predates the first public release of Java.
I hope it's in the form of a coupon for 15% off the upgrade to the next version of the fine.