The parent is right. Here is the complete sentence (notice that the first phrase has been omitted by the poster):
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
What I understand is that you must allow google to let them publish and modify the documents you put on their servers. For me it's to be able to backup the data, change the files formats, etc...
I think you should create a new word for free (as in speech). Free is too ambiguous and may be pejorative (as in no value).
Why not use the French word "libre". It is already well known.
Today's hobbyists are tomorrows decision makers, and they are going to choose what they are accustomed to.
I totally agree. This is the way Microsoft made its success, but using the dirty way. Many people (myself included) have been using crappy MSDos + Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 pirated copies, got used to it and now are using the last versions for their company.
But does it mean that easy availability of a product is the only way to success, better that the quality of it ?
Free Software is not a company producing softwares with a license made to piss others.
You have programmers who say this:
"I've made this software. You can use it as much as you want with this condition:
if you modify it and distribute the modified version,
I want you to distribute the modification the same way I did.
If it is too hard for you to comply, don't use the software I made."
I'm not a Sci-fi writer but here is what I suggest:
1) Fire/Execute the morons of your Homeland Security Department for not understanding the problem and suggesting such stupid ideas.
2) Fire/Execute your moronic president. Because of him and his father, your country is now the most hated country in the world.
3) Try to play nice with all the countries in the world. I know this is difficult, but it is called "Diplomacy".
Hello! We are not in a movie or a video game. We live in The Real World. People realy die, people realy suffer. We can't just rewind the movie or restart the game.
If you don't want someone to hurt you, don't be his enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
apt-get install firefox
Sure, and rename that damn OS "Doors"!
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
What I understand is that you must allow google to let them publish and modify the documents you put on their servers. For me it's to be able to backup the data, change the files formats, etc...
I think you should create a new word for free (as in speech). Free is too ambiguous and may be pejorative (as in no value).
Why not use the French word "libre". It is already well known.
Today's hobbyists are tomorrows decision makers, and they are going to choose what they are accustomed to.
I totally agree. This is the way Microsoft made its success, but using the dirty way. Many people (myself included) have been using crappy MSDos + Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 pirated copies, got used to it and now are using the last versions for their company.
But does it mean that easy availability of a product is the only way to success, better that the quality of it ?
Free Software is not a company producing softwares with a license made to piss others.
You have programmers who say this:
"I've made this software. You can use it as much as you want with this condition: if you modify it and distribute the modified version, I want you to distribute the modification the same way I did. If it is too hard for you to comply, don't use the software I made."
Is it difficult to understand ?I'm not a Sci-fi writer but here is what I suggest:
Hello! We are not in a movie or a video game. We live in The Real World. People realy die, people realy suffer. We can't just rewind the movie or restart the game.
If you don't want someone to hurt you, don't be his enemy.
Downside?
It's would be far less frustrating than the current situation:
Linux Geeks getting called out when friends and neighbors can't get their *MS Windows* Desktops working.
And you can do it remotely and securely.
Crab people world domination !
"Crab people, crab people, taste like crab, talk like people."
280 million in not that much compared to the fines from other lawsuits.