Except they don't exist except on a Windows platform. In a Linux/FOSS office, that doesn't work.
I can't find any tools that parse a DOCX and will output a DOC (or other usable) file format on Linux, and I can't even find a back-converter for Windows (admittedly, I didn't look very hard, but I still can't find one).
But the likelihood of this is tiny. It simply doesn't happen often. So why bring it up?
(Mind you, it should be happening every fucking time a GPL developer uses BSD code, because it's the right thing to do. But, see, the GPL isn't about fairness, it's about keepin' dat code FREE!)
The thing you're trying to sell is an idea, which is inherently impossible to contain and free for everyone.
No. The idea is free. Someone's perfectly free to make a game mimicking mine, and I won't complain (I might find it in poor taste, but that doesn't mean it's not their right).
I am selling my implementation of an idea.
What's your point? Maybe novels fail the test too!
In your mind, perhaps. In mine, no. Perhaps you are getting upset over an issue that doesn't require theatrics of any sort.
First, it means that the work has even less value to the copyright holder than one of a different kind,
No. It has less value to you. If I create something, whether the platform is obsolete or not doesn't bother me.
Now, when someone refuses entirely to keep it even remotely up to date--at that point I could consider obsoletion to be a fair and equitable reason to revoke a copyright. But given that they are, indeed, the creators of the work, I would also see it as equitable that someone who wished to bring the game or product to newer platforms to require the consent of the original creator.
"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista." (Set aside, for a moment, the screaming why would you do that?!) "Okay, Jim. $500." *money and code transfer* *Jim releases Program X for Windows Vista*
Of course, if the original copyright holder wants to be a jerk about it--go around him.
"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista." "Nah, don't want it to happen." *Jim releases Program Y, a clone of Program X, without Bob's code and name*
What you would like to do and what society should be reasonably expected to subsidize for you are two very different things.
There is no subsidization going on. I make a product. I sell it for what I consider to be a reasonable price. People buy it or they don't. If they don't, I find a new line of business or improve the old to the point where I make sales.
Remember, copyright law isn't about helping you, the creator, out. It's about benefiting society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," and I'm not entirely convinced that protecting "games in particular" does that enough to be worth it.
A game is a creative work in much the same way as a novel. Simply because it does not scratch your itch does not make it any less of a creative work. If a novel promotes the "useful arts," then so would a game.
And I'm damn well certain that games don't need 95 years of it, since they go obsolete so quickly!
If a novel gets it, why not a game? Obsoletion is a poor reason.
For computer programs, I'd say the term length should be 10 years maximum, and would ideally be half that.
Ten years would be fine with me. Resting on one's laurels that long may even be somewhat excessive.
However, I remain with a deep distrust of those who would, given the opportunity, dictate what I am allowed to do with what I create. Thus my severe dislike of most GPL fanatics.
Even from software money could be made without copyright by the provision of services to users (technical support, online services etc), or by the provision of other materials (physical media, manuals, packaged sets including media/manuals and/or other items).
Yes and no; let's be realistic here.
I am a HUGE supporter of open-source; I participated this summer in the Google Summer of Code project and enjoyed it immensely. But I also would like to actually make money from writing software.
I'd like to be able to write games for a living, or at least a decent chunk of my living. The problem with what you say is that for games in particular it simply doesn't work. A game that requires technical support is a game nobody will buy, and while online services is viable, without copyright others will simply do it for free if they like the game enough. Not a good way to go. And while physical media is helpful (FreeBSD's habit is something I like, and I've bought more than one set from them), I can't see it being profitable for games.
I don't mean to troll, but Stallman's philosophy is great for baseline stuff line operating systems, things that everyone needs. It breaks down when you apply it to the software equivalent of leisure items.
This guy wasn't hit by a taser at full power by any means. I don't care who you are, you won't be INTELLIGIBLE after being zapped with a taser, at least not for a few minutes.
You're not an educator any more than the cafeteria ladies are.
Not true at all. In most schools, technical support personnel are often the ones teaching kids (and teachers) how to actually use the shiny happy gadgets that our taxes pay for.
Perhaps I'm missing something (and I'm sure I am), but perhaps this is something of a blessing?
Leave Endeavour in orbit. Compared to the big-mother boosters, the shuttle itself does not require a lot of fuel, and given the smaller size of the next-generation craft we're looking at, I could see a use for a "space truck" the size of Endeavour, even after the shuttle program does out the door.
Slashdot Mirror
Except they don't exist except on a Windows platform. In a Linux/FOSS office, that doesn't work.
I can't find any tools that parse a DOCX and will output a DOC (or other usable) file format on Linux, and I can't even find a back-converter for Windows (admittedly, I didn't look very hard, but I still can't find one).
Suikoden kicked FFVII's ass up and down the street. An RPG with a real story! Hot damn!
But no. It wasn't THREE DEE, so it tanked.
But the likelihood of this is tiny. It simply doesn't happen often. So why bring it up?
(Mind you, it should be happening every fucking time a GPL developer uses BSD code, because it's the right thing to do. But, see, the GPL isn't about fairness, it's about keepin' dat code FREE!)
NWN is not an MMORPG, though.
Pretty fucking good compared to 'em, but beaten hard by MUSHes.
I made my own magnet out of piss and vinegar.
Fucking newbs.
You are either a troll or a moron.
The GPL devs are not "giving it back" to the BSD devs, because the BSD devs can't use it in their projects
I know it's tasty and makes you feel good, but step back from the RMS Kool-Aid.
Now this, children, is what we call "elitist fuckery."
I'd bet ANYTHING that you cannot differentiate between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC.
Any MMO where there is an ounce of roleplay would have a total of twelve players, max.
Go play a MU* if you want roleplay.
Perl!
Oh, god. I feel dirty for saying that...
Hah. Typosquatting a great phisher's domain.
The thing you're trying to sell is an idea, which is inherently impossible to contain and free for everyone.
No. The idea is free. Someone's perfectly free to make a game mimicking mine, and I won't complain (I might find it in poor taste, but that doesn't mean it's not their right).
I am selling my implementation of an idea.
What's your point? Maybe novels fail the test too!
In your mind, perhaps. In mine, no. Perhaps you are getting upset over an issue that doesn't require theatrics of any sort.
First, it means that the work has even less value to the copyright holder than one of a different kind,
No. It has less value to you. If I create something, whether the platform is obsolete or not doesn't bother me.
Now, when someone refuses entirely to keep it even remotely up to date--at that point I could consider obsoletion to be a fair and equitable reason to revoke a copyright. But given that they are, indeed, the creators of the work, I would also see it as equitable that someone who wished to bring the game or product to newer platforms to require the consent of the original creator.
"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista." (Set aside, for a moment, the screaming why would you do that?!)
"Okay, Jim. $500."
*money and code transfer*
*Jim releases Program X for Windows Vista*
Of course, if the original copyright holder wants to be a jerk about it--go around him.
"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista."
"Nah, don't want it to happen."
*Jim releases Program Y, a clone of Program X, without Bob's code and name*
It's not that hard.
What you would like to do and what society should be reasonably expected to subsidize for you are two very different things.
There is no subsidization going on. I make a product. I sell it for what I consider to be a reasonable price. People buy it or they don't. If they don't, I find a new line of business or improve the old to the point where I make sales.
Remember, copyright law isn't about helping you, the creator, out. It's about benefiting society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," and I'm not entirely convinced that protecting "games in particular" does that enough to be worth it.
A game is a creative work in much the same way as a novel. Simply because it does not scratch your itch does not make it any less of a creative work. If a novel promotes the "useful arts," then so would a game.
And I'm damn well certain that games don't need 95 years of it, since they go obsolete so quickly!
If a novel gets it, why not a game? Obsoletion is a poor reason.
For computer programs, I'd say the term length should be 10 years maximum, and would ideally be half that.
Ten years would be fine with me. Resting on one's laurels that long may even be somewhat excessive.
However, I remain with a deep distrust of those who would, given the opportunity, dictate what I am allowed to do with what I create. Thus my severe dislike of most GPL fanatics.
Even from software money could be made without copyright by the provision of services to users (technical support, online services etc), or by the provision of other materials (physical media, manuals, packaged sets including media/manuals and/or other items).
Yes and no; let's be realistic here.
I am a HUGE supporter of open-source; I participated this summer in the Google Summer of Code project and enjoyed it immensely. But I also would like to actually make money from writing software.
I'd like to be able to write games for a living, or at least a decent chunk of my living. The problem with what you say is that for games in particular it simply doesn't work. A game that requires technical support is a game nobody will buy, and while online services is viable, without copyright others will simply do it for free if they like the game enough. Not a good way to go. And while physical media is helpful (FreeBSD's habit is something I like, and I've bought more than one set from them), I can't see it being profitable for games.
I don't mean to troll, but Stallman's philosophy is great for baseline stuff line operating systems, things that everyone needs. It breaks down when you apply it to the software equivalent of leisure items.
This guy wasn't hit by a taser at full power by any means. I don't care who you are, you won't be INTELLIGIBLE after being zapped with a taser, at least not for a few minutes.
Compiz says hi.
It's pretty, but it makes my laptop a campfire atop my nuts.
Christopher Eccleston was far, far better than Tennant. Too bad we can't go backwards.
Face-down lawyers, I trust.
You're not an educator any more than the cafeteria ladies are.
Not true at all. In most schools, technical support personnel are often the ones teaching kids (and teachers) how to actually use the shiny happy gadgets that our taxes pay for.
Perhaps I'm missing something (and I'm sure I am), but perhaps this is something of a blessing?
Leave Endeavour in orbit. Compared to the big-mother boosters, the shuttle itself does not require a lot of fuel, and given the smaller size of the next-generation craft we're looking at, I could see a use for a "space truck" the size of Endeavour, even after the shuttle program does out the door.
Just send up something else to bring them home.
rms doesn't use Hurd, though. He uses Linux.
The thing now is this.
The version of DOSBox packaged with the iD games is modified. It is linked to steam.dll.
Since DOSBox is GPL, Valve is required to release the steam.dll code under the GPL.
Armageddon is a player-hostile shitpit with MUD conventions that were old ten years ago and never improved hence.
Any MUD that calls itself an RPI is immediately suspect.
Under Linux especially, Eclipse feels terribly slow and piggish. It's a decent IDE on Windows, but...you've got Visual Studio there, for free.
Apparently his home-schooling curriculum had a customized program on proper shift key usage, though.