The app knows who they are, where they are, and how much they owe, but it doesn't know if they're pushing around a cart full of chickens and paying in chickens to avoid a paper trail.
As it says in the summary, the primary purpose of telling you is so that you can shame them when they walk by. And it also gives you some information about them and their debt, and you can report them if it appears they could pay it.
The goal is to cause people with debt to get in trouble for any conspicuous consumption they engage in.
OTOH, if you build a composite color TV hardware driver using 3 or 4 ATTINY microcontrollers, you have one providing the clock signal to the others and the propagation delays are small enough not to matter. And that is without even having a motherboard that exactly matches the wire lengths.
In an FPGA it is typical to create multiple clock signals to synchronize different parts. A lot of the time that's the whole reason for using an FPGA; to implement synchronous modules in an isolated environment that is more conducive to synchronization than a modern CISC CPU with all its non-deterministic emphasis on throughput.
I totally agree about debugging. The computer does what the code told it to do, consistently. Think you have a bug? Look at the code, asking, "what is this code actually telling the computer to do?" Understanding the code is usually the quickest way to understanding what the false assumption was. "What instructions other than the ones I think I gave would cause this output?" is another great step before resorting to the debugger.
That said, debuggers are very useful when the bug is in a library. Understanding all the libraries would be infinite yaks to shave. Luckily though, the bug is usually in the application, because unit tests.
I fucking write Verilog at work. When I said it wasn't a programming language, it was because I know what the fucking difference is between describing a circuit using hardware description language, and writing software (firmware) in a programming language.
It is absolute bullshit to claim that Verilog "can" do anything any other programming language can do. You're just standing next to a keyword waving your hands, claiming that some theory is involved. Doubtless. And yet.
And the guys in the story always do talk to the FBI, and without even having a lawyer present. They confuse "not talking" with "not telling the truth" because of all their stupid Godfather quotes, and because only nerds use language literally. If they were going to tell the truth they'd bring a lawyer, but since they're planning to lie they just wing it.
Roger Stone is stupid enough to make "Shouting MAGA Guy" at the rally look reasoned and wise.
A lot of stupid things are done purely, IMO, because the person doing it already spent years using loose language, and the brain doesn't work the way they want it to, so all the garbage turns out to come back as their new ideas.
The 10th Amendment says exactly that the States can do this.
Supremacy clause always has let States make stricter rules, additional rules. There has to be a Federal Statute that directly contradicts the State law in the first place, you can't just wave your hands and say that something isn't allowed in Federal courts and have that mean it isn't allowed in State courts. Supremacy clause resolves conflicts between State and Federal law, it doesn't contradict the 10th Amendment.
Don't forget about the emails. He had emails!!! LOCK `IM UP!!!
Fucking morons. "Perhaps the computer isn't testifying honestly."
Yes, it makes sense; you started with smaller lies, then events caused you to double down, and now you're running in circles batshit crazy merely because you were wrong and dishonest at the same time, and are constitutionally unable to confess and return to sane thoughts.
Time to buy a cabin and start working on your manifesto. There is no other way this can end for you.
Not to slashdot MAGA neckbeards. They're not sure what is on the surface these days, but they really hope somebody makes it Great before they get there. And builds a wall to keep out the aliens. Because they never learned to speak Romulan.
Yeah, innocent people always quote The Godfather to imply threats against your family, and explicitly threaten your dog. To try to get you to not testify. Because, Tuesday?
None of what you said means that you can enforce a claim where you granted a license, though. Revoking the license does not revoke the contract that created the license.
If you grant a permanent license, that grant is a contract. If you revoke the license without a new agreement, you've placed yourself in violation of the original contract; you'll be required to return the license in the end. And you may be formally found to have been naughty, even.
The stuff about being irrevocable is for a related purpose. When they use copyright assignment as a means to be in control, rather than licensing, their only contract is revocable by statute! They can't go back in time and get a permanent license before getting the assignment, and once the assignment happens they can't get a separate use license directly. So they make the license that they give out irrevocable, so if their own license ever got revoked both they and their users would be protected.
The situation doesn't even apply when the authors keep their copyright and everybody just agrees on a license. Then there is nothing that was ever revocable! It is just a special situation where the software is published under assigned copyright, and without a contract separate from the assignment contract.
My advice, keep your copyright, publish under Apache 2 license, everybody can copy, GPL, BSD, proprietary, doesn't matter. If you don't want it get copied, don't release it. If you do want it to get copied, don't restrict it.
Then they'll have to start digging into the question: Since writing a client that uses a whole API is clearly a copyright violation, what percent of an API can you use within the confines of "fair use?"
If google loses, a whole shitstorm of fights about the boundaries of fair use will be mandated.
Anything that uses a whole API will obviously be out. The future will be giant bloated APIs so that people can fairly use a large enough portion to end up with a useful program. Or mixing a few calls each to a bunch of different libraries that do the same thing differently.
Oracle might not be that big a loser; their database has worst-of-class integration, and java isn't worth that much.
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
There is literally only one word that is non-functional in that. So yes, it is exactly the same as copyrighting the name of a song.
We're talking purely about the interface definition. We're not talking about writing a new API, we're talking about being allowed to write a new API with the same interface, and in this case, simply to use the API. Use of the API is a copyright violation according to Oracle, because you're using the same method names and arguments.
I like beer too, but in fairness, both sides are corporate interests.
At least with Gorsuch, so far he's pretty consistent. Last summer he wrote a dissent wanting to get rid of the whole third-party doctrine! He might be the most willing of anybody on the bench to give copyright a constitutional smack-down!
This could easily end up with a 6-3 decision that slashdot would love.
Slashdot Mirror
Will his/her family be shamed as well?
Only if they're ever seen in public together.
If it ever happens, I guess we're supposed to try to shame them.
I don't think it would work in my country. Nobody feels any shame.
The app knows who they are, where they are, and how much they owe, but it doesn't know if they're pushing around a cart full of chickens and paying in chickens to avoid a paper trail.
That's your job, Citizen!
As it says in the summary, the primary purpose of telling you is so that you can shame them when they walk by. And it also gives you some information about them and their debt, and you can report them if it appears they could pay it.
The goal is to cause people with debt to get in trouble for any conspicuous consumption they engage in.
OTOH, if you build a composite color TV hardware driver using 3 or 4 ATTINY microcontrollers, you have one providing the clock signal to the others and the propagation delays are small enough not to matter. And that is without even having a motherboard that exactly matches the wire lengths.
In an FPGA it is typical to create multiple clock signals to synchronize different parts. A lot of the time that's the whole reason for using an FPGA; to implement synchronous modules in an isolated environment that is more conducive to synchronization than a modern CISC CPU with all its non-deterministic emphasis on throughput.
I totally agree about debugging. The computer does what the code told it to do, consistently. Think you have a bug? Look at the code, asking, "what is this code actually telling the computer to do?" Understanding the code is usually the quickest way to understanding what the false assumption was. "What instructions other than the ones I think I gave would cause this output?" is another great step before resorting to the debugger.
That said, debuggers are very useful when the bug is in a library. Understanding all the libraries would be infinite yaks to shave. Luckily though, the bug is usually in the application, because unit tests.
I fucking write Verilog at work. When I said it wasn't a programming language, it was because I know what the fucking difference is between describing a circuit using hardware description language, and writing software (firmware) in a programming language.
It is absolute bullshit to claim that Verilog "can" do anything any other programming language can do. You're just standing next to a keyword waving your hands, claiming that some theory is involved. Doubtless. And yet.
Russia's flag is red, white, and blue. Or if you want an easy way to remember it in the field, "mostly cloudy over a sea of blood." (white-blue-red)
Don't listen to so much propaganda; Freedom bleeds red. Scots Wah Hae, you could always ask them if you get confused about Uncle Sam.
And the guys in the story always do talk to the FBI, and without even having a lawyer present. They confuse "not talking" with "not telling the truth" because of all their stupid Godfather quotes, and because only nerds use language literally. If they were going to tell the truth they'd bring a lawyer, but since they're planning to lie they just wing it.
Roger Stone is stupid enough to make "Shouting MAGA Guy" at the rally look reasoned and wise.
A lot of stupid things are done purely, IMO, because the person doing it already spent years using loose language, and the brain doesn't work the way they want it to, so all the garbage turns out to come back as their new ideas.
it just looks and sounds ridiculous.
Do you know who I am?! ed-gruberman.whoswho
The 10th Amendment says exactly that the States can do this.
Supremacy clause always has let States make stricter rules, additional rules. There has to be a Federal Statute that directly contradicts the State law in the first place, you can't just wave your hands and say that something isn't allowed in Federal courts and have that mean it isn't allowed in State courts. Supremacy clause resolves conflicts between State and Federal law, it doesn't contradict the 10th Amendment.
Don't forget about the emails. He had emails!!! LOCK `IM UP!!!
Fucking morons. "Perhaps the computer isn't testifying honestly."
Yes, it makes sense; you started with smaller lies, then events caused you to double down, and now you're running in circles batshit crazy merely because you were wrong and dishonest at the same time, and are constitutionally unable to confess and return to sane thoughts.
Time to buy a cabin and start working on your manifesto. There is no other way this can end for you.
Not to slashdot MAGA neckbeards. They're not sure what is on the surface these days, but they really hope somebody makes it Great before they get there. And builds a wall to keep out the aliens. Because they never learned to speak Romulan.
Yeah, innocent people always quote The Godfather to imply threats against your family, and explicitly threaten your dog. To try to get you to not testify. Because, Tuesday?
LOL
Apple wouldn't even exist without being part of Microsoft's evil.
Bill saved Apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oracle wants to ban forwards engineering too! That's the main difference.
We wouldn't even be able to use the CPU features in ASM without a new license from the vendor.
The whole world would have to switch to RISC-V! /s
ARM already has CMSIS though. So not really.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
None of what you said means that you can enforce a claim where you granted a license, though. Revoking the license does not revoke the contract that created the license.
If you grant a permanent license, that grant is a contract. If you revoke the license without a new agreement, you've placed yourself in violation of the original contract; you'll be required to return the license in the end. And you may be formally found to have been naughty, even.
The stuff about being irrevocable is for a related purpose. When they use copyright assignment as a means to be in control, rather than licensing, their only contract is revocable by statute! They can't go back in time and get a permanent license before getting the assignment, and once the assignment happens they can't get a separate use license directly. So they make the license that they give out irrevocable, so if their own license ever got revoked both they and their users would be protected.
The situation doesn't even apply when the authors keep their copyright and everybody just agrees on a license. Then there is nothing that was ever revocable! It is just a special situation where the software is published under assigned copyright, and without a contract separate from the assignment contract.
My advice, keep your copyright, publish under Apache 2 license, everybody can copy, GPL, BSD, proprietary, doesn't matter. If you don't want it get copied, don't release it. If you do want it to get copied, don't restrict it.
Then they'll have to start digging into the question: Since writing a client that uses a whole API is clearly a copyright violation, what percent of an API can you use within the confines of "fair use?"
If google loses, a whole shitstorm of fights about the boundaries of fair use will be mandated.
Anything that uses a whole API will obviously be out. The future will be giant bloated APIs so that people can fairly use a large enough portion to end up with a useful program. Or mixing a few calls each to a bunch of different libraries that do the same thing differently.
Oracle might not be that big a loser; their database has worst-of-class integration, and java isn't worth that much.
You don't understand their claims. At all.
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
There is literally only one word that is non-functional in that. So yes, it is exactly the same as copyrighting the name of a song.
We're talking purely about the interface definition. We're not talking about writing a new API, we're talking about being allowed to write a new API with the same interface, and in this case, simply to use the API. Use of the API is a copyright violation according to Oracle, because you're using the same method names and arguments.
You've got some santorum between your teeth.
"Raising a stink" when the R's would win the vote wouldn't have achieved anything except making the R's happy.
Your comment would be painfully ignorant if it was in good faith. But it wasn't.
I like beer too, but in fairness, both sides are corporate interests.
At least with Gorsuch, so far he's pretty consistent. Last summer he wrote a dissent wanting to get rid of the whole third-party doctrine! He might be the most willing of anybody on the bench to give copyright a constitutional smack-down!
This could easily end up with a 6-3 decision that slashdot would love.
But if Oracle wins too big, they might have to give their whole company over to K&R!
Some CAD designers get more work done with a programmatic system like openscad, so it isn't universal.
and proceeds living life with a screwdriver as his only tool.
If he's not a carpenter and has to carry it around in his pocket, I'm thinking, good call! A hammer is easy to improvise, but a screwdriver isn't.