Inaccurate. Remember that HDMI is based on shared-key encryption, with a totally public algorithm.
Unless you're arguing that shared-key encryption is security through obscurity of the private key.
If this was a GPL project, the company could still be making an identical offer.
Know why? Because part of the deal is for the dev to sign over his copyright. If he does that, the company can relicense his code to some proprietary arglblargl without the least bit of legal trouble.
Provided that the OP holds the copyright to the code in question (likely, given that the company wants to buy it in the first place), BSD versus GPL has nothing to do with this.
There's versions of MPlayer for Windows; if the program is able to use VIA opcodes it should support them either way. Or are you suggesting integration with Microsoft applications (Media Player, etc)?
Sometimes. I wasn't saying it's irrelevant to me. I was saying it's irrelevant to the Govnernment's options, as of now. However...
The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, courtesy of Marbury v. Madison. Justice Harlan's dissent in DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) gives voice to your concern. At present, this ruling still stands. Until this is overturned or an amendment to patch this decision is ratified, the federal government is permitted to behave differently in areas under its exclusive jurisdiction than in the states themselves.
Huh. Well you learn something new every day, I guess. I'll simply go on record then as disagreeing vehemently with that ruling, since I don't understand how the Congress can act outside of its definition and still be the Congress. And I'll see who else is looking to amend that mess out.
Shema Yisrael Ayn Rand Eloheynu, Ayn Rand echad.
Two dollars and Ayn Rand will get you a two dollar burrito and Ayn Rand. Any similarity between our opinions is purely coincidental.
Security is irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is "shall not", and for the Government those words drown out every other concern under the sun until they are rubbed out.
You say the border should be under the sole jurisdiction of Congress. That's all well and good. But Congress is under the jurisdiction of the people of the United States of America, who have set its boundary conditions, which include those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is thus impossible for Congress to have jurisdiction of anything without the Constitution as amended having jurisdiction of it; the Constitution as amended has jurisdiction over Congress. Since always.
Or do you argue that the border is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government entire? If so, I can accept that the rights as enumerated in the Constitution may not be protected by the anarchy present there. But then, at that moment of dissolution of the Federal Government's power, the laws of Congress cease to matter either, and your measures of security must be enforced by the barrel of a gun. At that moment, any action by the Government would be unilateral and outside its charter, and thus cease to be an act of the Government as instantiated and legitimized by the will of its citizens. At that moment, rights have nothing to do with it. Only might.
A is A. Either something is a right or it is not. And no-one should expect less privacy from an organization than the leader of that organization has deemed the minimum. Until that leader - until the people themselves - change their minds and in doing so change the charter, the Government is incapable of exceeding the boundary conditions specified there without ceasing to be the Government, ceasing to be legitimate, and sublimating back into the form of some thugs on the border, acting on their own whims, who'll let you through if you do as they tell you.
And if we find that this leaves a legitimate instantiation of the Government with insufficient power to protect us from our enemies, we must decide whether we value that protection over a bit of extra liberty on the border, and change the charter accordingly. Until then, we'll be protected only by an illegitimate Government, or illegitimate agents of the Government - and I'd rather be unsafe from outside than be guarded by false guards.
Sorry for making you read all of that. I'll shut up now. >_>
How do you "extend" the LGPL? It's just like the GPL except that you can link to the code; the open source part is still protected by an invariant license.
True, this is a good way for Microsoft to get cost-free code while being allowed to keep its secret sauce secret. But I don't think the EEE strategy is applicable here.
Yeah okay, microwaves are actually sub-visible light it seems. I was remembering them as super-visible, and then when you mentioned UV being above them I was confused that UV wasn't bordering the visible spectrum.
Opposition to genetic engineering is much harder to rationalize (irrationalize?) than opposition to stem cell research. You can't use the abortion issue as a crutch for the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I heard that story from a friend in, like, sixth grade and could only ever remember the last part. Thanks for reposting it.
Inaccurate. Remember that HDMI is based on shared-key encryption, with a totally public algorithm. Unless you're arguing that shared-key encryption is security through obscurity of the private key.
IN THIS THREAD: More proof that humor is subjective!
If this was a GPL project, the company could still be making an identical offer.
Know why? Because part of the deal is for the dev to sign over his copyright. If he does that, the company can relicense his code to some proprietary arglblargl without the least bit of legal trouble.
Provided that the OP holds the copyright to the code in question (likely, given that the company wants to buy it in the first place), BSD versus GPL has nothing to do with this.
DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM rootkit DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM Electronic Arts DRM SecuRom DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM PC gaming is dead DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM boycott DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM.
To be fair, the Channel Entity was doing exactly this until "Wise Beard Man" suggested otherwise.
There's versions of MPlayer for Windows; if the program is able to use VIA opcodes it should support them either way. Or are you suggesting integration with Microsoft applications (Media Player, etc)?
What about the alternate dimension where the ISPs actually implemented IP multicast?
Sometimes. I wasn't saying it's irrelevant to me. I was saying it's irrelevant to the Govnernment's options, as of now. However...
Huh. Well you learn something new every day, I guess. I'll simply go on record then as disagreeing vehemently with that ruling, since I don't understand how the Congress can act outside of its definition and still be the Congress. And I'll see who else is looking to amend that mess out.
Two dollars and Ayn Rand will get you a two dollar burrito and Ayn Rand. Any similarity between our opinions is purely coincidental.
Security is irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is "shall not", and for the Government those words drown out every other concern under the sun until they are rubbed out.
You say the border should be under the sole jurisdiction of Congress. That's all well and good. But Congress is under the jurisdiction of the people of the United States of America, who have set its boundary conditions, which include those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is thus impossible for Congress to have jurisdiction of anything without the Constitution as amended having jurisdiction of it; the Constitution as amended has jurisdiction over Congress. Since always.
Or do you argue that the border is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government entire? If so, I can accept that the rights as enumerated in the Constitution may not be protected by the anarchy present there. But then, at that moment of dissolution of the Federal Government's power, the laws of Congress cease to matter either, and your measures of security must be enforced by the barrel of a gun. At that moment, any action by the Government would be unilateral and outside its charter, and thus cease to be an act of the Government as instantiated and legitimized by the will of its citizens. At that moment, rights have nothing to do with it. Only might.
A is A. Either something is a right or it is not. And no-one should expect less privacy from an organization than the leader of that organization has deemed the minimum. Until that leader - until the people themselves - change their minds and in doing so change the charter, the Government is incapable of exceeding the boundary conditions specified there without ceasing to be the Government, ceasing to be legitimate, and sublimating back into the form of some thugs on the border, acting on their own whims, who'll let you through if you do as they tell you.
And if we find that this leaves a legitimate instantiation of the Government with insufficient power to protect us from our enemies, we must decide whether we value that protection over a bit of extra liberty on the border, and change the charter accordingly. Until then, we'll be protected only by an illegitimate Government, or illegitimate agents of the Government - and I'd rather be unsafe from outside than be guarded by false guards.
Sorry for making you read all of that. I'll shut up now. >_>
If you believe this you don't understand IPv6 multicast, or you don't believe that the ISPs will implement it.
You had six fingers on your right hand?
Someone is looking for you.
Special Notice to All GNAA Members:
You have new orders. I want a pro-GNAA version of this press release on my desk at 0600 hours.
Actually, make that two male prostitutes and a pro-GNAA version of this press release.
Actually, you can skip the press release if you want to.
- timecop
n/t
That's interesting, considering that you are twitter.
P.S. Capital I's look good on you. You should do that more.
How do you "extend" the LGPL? It's just like the GPL except that you can link to the code; the open source part is still protected by an invariant license.
True, this is a good way for Microsoft to get cost-free code while being allowed to keep its secret sauce secret. But I don't think the EEE strategy is applicable here.
Yeah okay, microwaves are actually sub-visible light it seems. I was remembering them as super-visible, and then when you mentioned UV being above them I was confused that UV wasn't bordering the visible spectrum.
*removes foot from mouth*
Well it looks like my elementary school science books were written by liars and cheats, then.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
I'm confused. UV is lower frequency than microwaves, isn't it?
Candle Jack hit "submit" for hi
Opposition to genetic engineering is much harder to rationalize (irrationalize?) than opposition to stem cell research. You can't use the abortion issue as a crutch for the former.
So, in other words, EULAs are enforceable now.
Brillant.
This is new within the last thirty minutes. When I posted the link, it was working.
Whoops, forgot about that. Yeah, they're gonna have some problems.
The sauce is under GFDL. E-Wikipedia is also under GFDL. I don't see the problem.