To create a compilation, you do need rights to publish each part, but you do not need permission to modify or prepare derivative works.
This is a rather strange thing to say. If a part of the compilation is under copyright, then the compilation itself is a derivative work. That's why you need permission to publish each part that is under copyright.
And even if that weren't the case, the GPL explicitly has an exception.
Quite true, but if the compilation is considered a whole work worthy of copyright in and of itself, then the GPL must apply to the whole work. So you need to be very careful on the nature of the compilation.
So 'Climategate' gave you the excuse you needed to solidify the conclusion you'd already come to
My original "conclusion" was that modeling the Earth was a complex process (do you claim it isn't?), but I accepted the position as stated by the scientists. I didn't "conclude" a position that they were wrong in advance, and I don't even hold that position now. I just don't give them the benefit of the doubt any more.
even though the 'Climategate' scientists were ultimately found to have done absolutely nothing wrong or even shady?
At the minimum, they were slapped on the wrist for the "hide the decline" graphs being used in misleading fashion. But even so, the reports were very lenient.
They also withheld data, their data handling techniques are sloppy and nontransparent, and they have oversold the science and become highly politicized.
I am fairly sure any level of honest investigation on this subject by anyone with reason and understanding of the difference between faith and science, will find themselves yelling in favour of prevention of this experiment during their or their descendants time on earth.
At one point I was willing to trust the scientists, but after Climategate I just don't trust their integrity, data, and methodology. The science has been oversold and politicized.
The arguments against action on climate change are so specious and contradictory that they can only be intended to fool those who want to be fooled.
Showing that you haven't looked honestly at all the counter-arguments. There are specious and contradictory claims, but there are reasonable objections, too. The issue is not black and white.
it's been a very long time since professional web sites have had "Best viewed at 1024x768 in Internet Explorer" recommendations, because the old paper-based designers who wanted pixel-perfect control have retired or died, or finally evovled).
If only. They usually don't say "best viewed...", but most web sites these days are still designed to pixel dimensions and don't flow based on the screen size.
The major improvement is that most of them use style sheets instead of tables, and if you disable the style sheets you get a web page that flows properly and uses the default font.
What Apple defined restriction is this "working around"?
By Apple? Currently none, as far as I know. The restriction is being imposed by the NY Post. However, Apple may decide it's something they want to support, since they love the app model.
All these browsers use a documented WebKit control API to do their user agent spoofing.
Using documented APIs hasn't stopped Apple from banning apps before.
That they patented it for another reason other than that they may want to implement it at some point.
There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this.
Except for their history of locking down devices and patenting things before they implement them, of course. Just like if I had a history of attacking your house, you'd be suspicious and object to plans that I drew up to bomb your house.
It seems like their second core objection is that windmills will reduce the market value of the fossil fuels they own. For one, oil is not used for grid power generation. Natural gas is used for power generation, but such an argument from one group to deny another group's ability to compete like that is just silly.
That's not their argument, at least not the way you are making it out to be. It's an issue of access to minerals, not market price being affected by windmills. From the article:
"The areas being initially considered by the first two wind development companies cover approximately 30,000 acres and are located in a prime area for future oil and gas recovery," Red Eagle's statement says.
Galen Crum, chairman of the tribal Minerals Council, whose job it is to protect the mineral estate, said that the council has met with two wind companies planning on erecting about 200 turbines on the prairie.
"They are talking about using an awful lot of ground," Crum said. "They weren't thinking about the mineral estate - just about compensating landowners.
Crum said wind leases last a half-century.
"How are we supposed to know the price of oil in 50 years?" [..] Crum said the area is home to many active and plugged wells, some ripe for reopening as the price of oil rises and new technology makes extraction more efficient.
Do you really think your couple of examples of commercial successes are really entirely a contribution of commerci effort?
No strawmen, please. What I said was that, overall, the Internet has benefited enormously from commercial contributions. I didn't say they are entirely responsible for it.
The idea that the Internet would have been better off if it had never been intertwined with commercial interests is ridiculous. I was around before the commercial boom, and it was cool, but it is more useful and better off now with commercial interests.
large commercial interests have only weakened the utility of the internet.
Damn you Google for indexing the Internet and providing information at our fingertips! Damn you Amazon and other sellers for letting us comparison shop and buy things from the convenience of our homes! Damn you...etc.
I was around in the "good old days". The Internet boom has been, overall, a huge net benefit. I was skeptical at the time when it was starting to become commercialized, but it turned out all right.
Okay, but you are arguing yourself straight out of your own argument.
I looked back at the original post by CharlyFoxtrot, and he made a couple of claims that could be treated separately. I see that there's a lot of confusion caused by the mixing up of the claims. I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by lack of clarity on my part.
I was only addressing the claim about clones vs innovation with regards to specific projects: "when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
CharlyFoxtrot made another claim: "By the time any of these open source projects push out anything worthwhile the world will have moved on and nobody will be looking for their clones."
I wasn't thinking of this in my response to you. I never agreed to its sentiment and think this is clearly wrong based on the examples you gave. I happily use open source and obviously it has gained traction in a big way.
while Oracle has been essentially holding still.
I wouldn't agree with this. They've been consistently adding features over the years. It's just nothing spectacular.
Give these still very young startups some time, and if the trend continues, they will leave Oracle in the dust.
I expect this to happen, just like it did with Linux. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened sooner. Relational databases are mostly a commodity product these days, though there's always room for more features.
I've heard of "conspiracy to...". It's when it is believed that a plan someone has was formed with the intention to perform an illegal act. Care to explain how this fits with patenting some technology performing a legal function?
I was demonstrating the principle that drawing up plans without acting on them can be objectionable.
No, like too many other companies, they patent the hell out of every idea they can think of that may possibly be used either by themselves, or any competitor, at any time in the future, just in case there's money to be made from it, even in ways that may not be dreamt of currently.
Given Apple's history of locking down their devices, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. It's yet another example of the kinds of things they are interested in. They deserve any grief they get over it.
What do you advise the next person to discover security failures in [insert your favorite bÃte noire here] to do? Document them? Or scrub their mind of all such evil thoughts?
This isn't publishing an exploit so it can be fixed. This is patenting a lock-down implementation on one of their devices, so that at some point it may be implemented should they want to. Again, given their history, they don't deserve benefit of the doubt.
Are actually claiming that Oracle is driving innovation?
No, see here: That's fine, because I never claimed Oracle was especially innovative. However, PostgreSQL is still chasing them in the features department.
Have fun explaining why everything FOSS ultimately sucks and accomplishes nothing, because hey, defeatist attitudes get a lot done at the end of the day.
Clearly demonstrating you didn't read my replies in the thread, or chose to willfully ignore what they said:
Yes, exactly. PostgreSQL is just playing catchup to the big, existing databases. They aren't driving innovation. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. It's typically behind on things like replication and other features.
The question was: "Seriously, when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
Now I don't agree with that statement as a whole. I was just commenting on the specific examples given in the response.
and:
For innovation, how about NoSQL?
Sure, fine, and same for Gnome 3 or whatever. Note I never said open source can't be innovative, and in fact gave credit where I thought it was. I was only speaking to specific examples, not the class as a whole.
Note I wasn't the original poster that slammed open source as a whole (this post). But don't let facts get in the way of your strawman rant.
Considering that Apple and the iPhone are prone to locking down devices, this kind of crap is right up their alley. Claiming that they're going to use this patent to prevent others from doing this is rather silly, since they have total control over their device.
If they're going to come up with even more potential, obnoxious ways to lock people out of their own devices, all the more reason to bash them. If they don't want to be bashed over this kind of shit, they'll have to stop (which they won't, because they are making billions).
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.
It started out as a UNIX clone, but has lots of innovation going on under the hood.
Feel free to point out specific examples where Linux that has been ahead of the curve. It seems to me that much of it's time has been spent chasing after Solaris.
Note that IBM is pushing Linux. IBM used to push their own UNIX, AIX; but now they have taken all the best features from AIX and ported them to Linux. Can you think of any reason why IBM might have done that?
Because Linux was free and good enough, and it was being adopted in droves on the backend. So IBM decided to support it, rather than be left behind.
Oracle: Just a relational database, and I hear it can be a real pain to work with it. Mainly notable for being well-supported and crazy expensive. See, this sort of negative comment even works on the industry leader.
That's fine, because I never claimed Oracle was especially innovative. However, PostgreSQL is still chasing them in the features department.
For innovation, how about NoSQL?
Sure, fine, and same for Gnome 3 or whatever. Note I never said open source can't be innovative, and in fact gave credit where I thought it was. I was only speaking to specific examples, not the class as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a thought for a Super Hero film
Another vote for the Watchmen. It's what you describe.
To create a compilation, you do need rights to publish each part, but you do not need permission to modify or prepare derivative works.
This is a rather strange thing to say. If a part of the compilation is under copyright, then the compilation itself is a derivative work. That's why you need permission to publish each part that is under copyright.
And even if that weren't the case, the GPL explicitly has an exception.
Quite true, but if the compilation is considered a whole work worthy of copyright in and of itself, then the GPL must apply to the whole work. So you need to be very careful on the nature of the compilation.
So 'Climategate' gave you the excuse you needed to solidify the conclusion you'd already come to
My original "conclusion" was that modeling the Earth was a complex process (do you claim it isn't?), but I accepted the position as stated by the scientists. I didn't "conclude" a position that they were wrong in advance, and I don't even hold that position now. I just don't give them the benefit of the doubt any more.
even though the 'Climategate' scientists were ultimately found to have done absolutely nothing wrong or even shady?
At the minimum, they were slapped on the wrist for the "hide the decline" graphs being used in misleading fashion. But even so, the reports were very lenient.
They also withheld data, their data handling techniques are sloppy and nontransparent, and they have oversold the science and become highly politicized.
I am fairly sure any level of honest investigation on this subject by anyone with reason and understanding of the difference between faith and science, will find themselves yelling in favour of prevention of this experiment during their or their descendants time on earth.
At one point I was willing to trust the scientists, but after Climategate I just don't trust their integrity, data, and methodology. The science has been oversold and politicized.
The arguments against action on climate change are so specious and contradictory that they can only be intended to fool those who want to be fooled.
Showing that you haven't looked honestly at all the counter-arguments. There are specious and contradictory claims, but there are reasonable objections, too. The issue is not black and white.
it's been a very long time since professional web sites have had "Best viewed at 1024x768 in Internet Explorer" recommendations, because the old paper-based designers who wanted pixel-perfect control have retired or died, or finally evovled).
If only. They usually don't say "best viewed...", but most web sites these days are still designed to pixel dimensions and don't flow based on the screen size.
The major improvement is that most of them use style sheets instead of tables, and if you disable the style sheets you get a web page that flows properly and uses the default font.
You seem to have a problem of ignoring Apple's history: http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+banned+apps
What Apple defined restriction is this "working around"?
By Apple? Currently none, as far as I know. The restriction is being imposed by the NY Post. However, Apple may decide it's something they want to support, since they love the app model.
All these browsers use a documented WebKit control API to do their user agent spoofing.
Using documented APIs hasn't stopped Apple from banning apps before.
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
For now. Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
Benefit of *what* doubt?
That they patented it for another reason other than that they may want to implement it at some point.
There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this.
Except for their history of locking down devices and patenting things before they implement them, of course. Just like if I had a history of attacking your house, you'd be suspicious and object to plans that I drew up to bomb your house.
It seems like their second core objection is that windmills will reduce the market value of the fossil fuels they own. For one, oil is not used for grid power generation. Natural gas is used for power generation, but such an argument from one group to deny another group's ability to compete like that is just silly.
That's not their argument, at least not the way you are making it out to be. It's an issue of access to minerals, not market price being affected by windmills. From the article:
"The areas being initially considered by the first two wind development companies cover approximately 30,000 acres and are located in a prime area for future oil and gas recovery," Red Eagle's statement says.
Galen Crum, chairman of the tribal Minerals Council, whose job it is to protect the mineral estate, said that the council has met with two wind companies planning on erecting about 200 turbines on the prairie.
"They are talking about using an awful lot of ground," Crum said. "They weren't thinking about the mineral estate - just about compensating landowners.
Crum said wind leases last a half-century.
"How are we supposed to know the price of oil in 50 years?" [..] Crum said the area is home to many active and plugged wells, some ripe for reopening as the price of oil rises and new technology makes extraction more efficient.
Maybe I'm just weird or something, but I think they're beautiful.
I agree.
Do you really think your couple of examples of commercial successes are really entirely a contribution of commerci effort?
No strawmen, please. What I said was that, overall, the Internet has benefited enormously from commercial contributions. I didn't say they are entirely responsible for it.
The idea that the Internet would have been better off if it had never been intertwined with commercial interests is ridiculous. I was around before the commercial boom, and it was cool, but it is more useful and better off now with commercial interests.
large commercial interests have only weakened the utility of the internet.
Damn you Google for indexing the Internet and providing information at our fingertips! Damn you Amazon and other sellers for letting us comparison shop and buy things from the convenience of our homes! Damn you...etc.
I was around in the "good old days". The Internet boom has been, overall, a huge net benefit. I was skeptical at the time when it was starting to become commercialized, but it turned out all right.
That's *a* reason.
Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, but you are arguing yourself straight out of your own argument.
I looked back at the original post by CharlyFoxtrot, and he made a couple of claims that could be treated separately. I see that there's a lot of confusion caused by the mixing up of the claims. I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by lack of clarity on my part.
I was only addressing the claim about clones vs innovation with regards to specific projects: "when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
CharlyFoxtrot made another claim: "By the time any of these open source projects push out anything worthwhile the world will have moved on and nobody will be looking for their clones."
I wasn't thinking of this in my response to you. I never agreed to its sentiment and think this is clearly wrong based on the examples you gave. I happily use open source and obviously it has gained traction in a big way.
while Oracle has been essentially holding still.
I wouldn't agree with this. They've been consistently adding features over the years. It's just nothing spectacular.
Give these still very young startups some time, and if the trend continues, they will leave Oracle in the dust.
I expect this to happen, just like it did with Linux. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened sooner. Relational databases are mostly a commodity product these days, though there's always room for more features.
Must be something about contact sports, eh? :)
Don't be so smug:
http://www.google.com/search?q=riot+basketball+game
http://www.google.com/search?q=riot+nba+finals
I've heard of "conspiracy to...". It's when it is believed that a plan someone has was formed with the intention to perform an illegal act. Care to explain how this fits with patenting some technology performing a legal function?
I was demonstrating the principle that drawing up plans without acting on them can be objectionable.
No, like too many other companies, they patent the hell out of every idea they can think of that may possibly be used either by themselves, or any competitor, at any time in the future, just in case there's money to be made from it, even in ways that may not be dreamt of currently.
Given Apple's history of locking down their devices, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. It's yet another example of the kinds of things they are interested in. They deserve any grief they get over it.
What do you advise the next person to discover security failures in [insert your favorite bÃte noire here] to do? Document them? Or scrub their mind of all such evil thoughts?
This isn't publishing an exploit so it can be fixed. This is patenting a lock-down implementation on one of their devices, so that at some point it may be implemented should they want to. Again, given their history, they don't deserve benefit of the doubt.
Are actually claiming that Oracle is driving innovation?
No, see here: That's fine, because I never claimed Oracle was especially innovative. However, PostgreSQL is still chasing them in the features department.
Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.
They patent things because they may want to implement them. That they may never do so doesn't mean it was OK to file the patent in the first place.
If I drew up specific and actionable plans to bomb your house, you would object without me acting on it.
Have fun explaining why everything FOSS ultimately sucks and accomplishes nothing, because hey, defeatist attitudes get a lot done at the end of the day.
Clearly demonstrating you didn't read my replies in the thread, or chose to willfully ignore what they said:
Yes, exactly. PostgreSQL is just playing catchup to the big, existing databases. They aren't driving innovation. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. It's typically behind on things like replication and other features.
The question was: "Seriously, when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
Now I don't agree with that statement as a whole. I was just commenting on the specific examples given in the response.
and:
For innovation, how about NoSQL?
Sure, fine, and same for Gnome 3 or whatever. Note I never said open source can't be innovative, and in fact gave credit where I thought it was. I was only speaking to specific examples, not the class as a whole.
Note I wasn't the original poster that slammed open source as a whole (this post). But don't let facts get in the way of your strawman rant.
You'd think upholding the law would involve stopping people from overturning cars, burning them, smashing shop windows, and looting.
Considering that Apple and the iPhone are prone to locking down devices, this kind of crap is right up their alley. Claiming that they're going to use this patent to prevent others from doing this is rather silly, since they have total control over their device.
If they're going to come up with even more potential, obnoxious ways to lock people out of their own devices, all the more reason to bash them. If they don't want to be bashed over this kind of shit, they'll have to stop (which they won't, because they are making billions).
You can see my other replies in this thread. I'm tired of repeating myself.
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.
It started out as a UNIX clone, but has lots of innovation going on under the hood.
Feel free to point out specific examples where Linux that has been ahead of the curve. It seems to me that much of it's time has been spent chasing after Solaris.
Note that IBM is pushing Linux. IBM used to push their own UNIX, AIX; but now they have taken all the best features from AIX and ported them to Linux. Can you think of any reason why IBM might have done that?
Because Linux was free and good enough, and it was being adopted in droves on the backend. So IBM decided to support it, rather than be left behind.
Oracle: Just a relational database, and I hear it can be a real pain to work with it. Mainly notable for being well-supported and crazy expensive. See, this sort of negative comment even works on the industry leader.
That's fine, because I never claimed Oracle was especially innovative. However, PostgreSQL is still chasing them in the features department.
For innovation, how about NoSQL?
Sure, fine, and same for Gnome 3 or whatever. Note I never said open source can't be innovative, and in fact gave credit where I thought it was. I was only speaking to specific examples, not the class as a whole.