Using BSD code isn't wrong, as you say, that's what the license was designed for. However MS using BSD code in their own operiating system, then telling the world that open source software is evil, doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure if that's what the previous poster was referring to as "ethically wrong", but that's my guess.
True, HDTV and digital broadcasting are not the same thing, however my point was that what the content providers call "digital cable" is not a digital video/audio signal. It's an analog signal digitally compressed to use less bandwidth. Once it comes out of their converter box and hits your TV, it is a 480i NTSC analog signal. It's the same resolution as regular cable, which is why you don't see much picture quality difference between "digital cable" and "regular cable". The only differences in the two services are the number of channels and the types of services they can offer.
Maybe I was being too US centric, but I was assuming that for the purposes of making that point, implying that true digital video broadcasting is analagous to HDTV, was reasonable since that's the specific standard that the providers are using for digital broadcasts.
Also, HDTV signals are actually available in a great many regions,
The only broadcasting of a true digital video signal (in the US) that I know of is HDTV over the air, or via satellite. Yes, HDTV is available in alot of places, but not over cable systems (which is what I was talking about) until very recently. Comcast announced in March 2002 that they would begin rollout of HDTV in the Eastern US this summer.
Digital cable is not broadcasting digital video signals (HDTV). Digital cable is currently used to compress analog video into smaller pieces so that they can put more channels in the same bandwidth However, once you receive the information in your digital cable box and send it to your TV, it is identical resolution/quality to an analog signal. In fact, it *is* an analog signal. The only way to get a digital video/audio signal into your TV is if you have an HDTV with a HD tuner.
HD (high definition digital) cable has just recently been announced, and is only available in very select markets (Philidelphia right now, and WashingtonDC/Baltimore later this year for Comcast).
Valid point. This is all based on the assumption by MS that not including the original software with the PC means that the software is automatically being used elsewhere.
To correct my statements: Contrary to what MS says, it's perfectly legal for a school to accept a computer without the OEM Windows OS. It's perfectly legal for a company to donate a computer without the OEM Windows OS. However, it's a violation of the license (arguable whether it's illegal or not) to donate the computer and then use the OEM OS elsewhere within your company.
My understanding of entrapment is that it means the police can't try to persuade you to do something illegal that you otherwise would not have.
I don't think them placing bait cars in prime locations could be considered entrapment. IE, they're not encouraging law abiding citizens to steal the car. If they had an undercover cop at the scene trying to talk passers-by into helping him steal the car, that would be entrapment.
It's a violation by the company who is doing the donating, not by the school.
It is not illegal for the school to accept a PC that no longer has the Windows pre-install on it. I have no idea why MS is writing this for schools. Nothing they say in there has any legal basis. If, on the other hand, they had written it as "a guide on how to donate a PC that originally included an OEM copy of Windows" and give it out to corporations, then what they're saying makes a bit more sense (aside from the argument over whether the OEM EULA makes any sense).
It was the sales people from Logicon Inc who scammed them
Or the government official who signed off on the purchase of more seat licenses than they have employees in the whole state. I don't think Logicon is solely responsible for this, you have to pin it on the California officials who agreed to the rediculous deal as well. Logicon might have given them a highly inflated (even grossly inaccurate) sales pitch, but they didn't force anybody to buy it.
This "LISCENCE" is for the documentation NOT the protocol.
True.
Hell have a friend agree to the terms, read it, then TELL you how they do what they do...
Is there some sort of non-disclosure in the license in addition to just the bits about "don't implement this in a GPL app"? I'm not legal savvy enough to understand even the quoted bits of the license in the article. Is it somehow implied that telling somebody else what the protocol is after you've read it, is a violation of the license?
Going from mp3 to ogg for most people is of no advantage.
Currently, yes. But once it's a choice between ogg (no watermarking) and mp3 (with watermarking), then there will be a big advantage. If mp3's become crippled so that people can't do the things they want with them, but they can with ogg, they'll switch.
Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done.
Yes, the GPL allows you to charge for the source, rather than offer it as a free download. But, IIRC you are only allowed to charge for your cost in producing the copy of the source. IE you can charge for the cost of burning a CD and shipping to the customer, but you can't offer the source for $500 and be compliant with the GPL.
Anyone else have more details on what he meant by this? If they're using GPL software, and then trying to charge for the source in order to make a profit off of distributing it, then the customers have a right to complain.
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system
I don't buy that argument. Sure, it may be difficult or expensive for them to remove IE from the OS, but it's NOT impossible. What sort of effort is involved is their problem, not the courts.
I've seen a couple people stating so far that because Kazaa was able to shut down the Morpheus clients, this somehow means that they have set themselves up for a Napster-like ruling.
It needs to be stressed that control of who gets on the network, and knowledge of what goes on inside the network, are two entirely different things. Napster's downfall was not that they had the ability to shut down the network, but that they knew people where trading copyrighted material, and they could also step in and limit what material people had access to inside the network. The Fasttrack network is an entirely different beast. Kazaa may be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't, but once a user is on the network they have no ability to directly monitor what material people are trading and have no ability to limit what people have access to.
Kazaa is providing a network, but have no involvement with what users do inside the network. Napster lost their case because they did have an involvement with what happened inside the network.
I don't know the names of specific games, but I swear as a kid there used to be all sorts of games at the arcades with this tech. Mostly I remember driving games that you sit in where the seat vibrates when you crash and such? Anybody else know more about this than I do, or am I dreaming?
I like the embedded Linux option in a lot of ways, but honestly, the scariest thing about it is the GPL. There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.
I'm not sure you understand the GPL entirely. Just because you are running your app on a linux device, does NOT mean you have to release source code. You can market your product to run on linux and keep it proprietary.
The only time you are forced to release your own work is if you incorporate GPL work into your own application. The idea is that if you stand on the shoulders of GPL programmers in order to create your product, you have to give your work back to the community as payment for using their development effort to jump start your own development. Merely running your proprietary app ontop of the linux OS does not mean you have to release anything to the public.
For example, maybe Maggie is just being silent to be silent, or maybe that silence could be interpreted as a social protest.
Or maybe she's silent because most babies don't talk?
Re:Question about licenses...
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As far as I understand, just using the application is no problem, and you really don't need to be concerned with the license other than knowing it exists. You DO need to pay close attention to the license if you are planning on modifying/releasing any of the source code for the GPL applications.
Then after I'm done, say after 10 minutes of manual work, and 1 hour MP3ing everything and burning the files onto a CD, I store my original CD in a corner and enjoy the convenience of my MP3s anyway
Actually, after you're done you return the CD to the store and get your money back since stores will accept returns of open "copy-protected" CDs.
When GiFT came out, Kazaa and Morpheus switched to authorizing people through a centralized sever, before accessing the peer->peer network.
Coincidentally, shortly after they implemented this filter, they were sued.
I've been wondering, what would stop everyone from just running the old (pre-central authorizing) client if FastTrack does have to shut down their central server? Is there still some fundamental involvment from the FastTrack servers with that older client?
Slashdot Mirror
Using BSD code isn't wrong, as you say, that's what the license was designed for. However MS using BSD code in their own operiating system, then telling the world that open source software is evil, doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure if that's what the previous poster was referring to as "ethically wrong", but that's my guess.
HDTV is NOT simply "broadcasting digital signals"
True, HDTV and digital broadcasting are not the same thing, however my point was that what the content providers call "digital cable" is not a digital video/audio signal. It's an analog signal digitally compressed to use less bandwidth. Once it comes out of their converter box and hits your TV, it is a 480i NTSC analog signal. It's the same resolution as regular cable, which is why you don't see much picture quality difference between "digital cable" and "regular cable". The only differences in the two services are the number of channels and the types of services they can offer.
Maybe I was being too US centric, but I was assuming that for the purposes of making that point, implying that true digital video broadcasting is analagous to HDTV, was reasonable since that's the specific standard that the providers are using for digital broadcasts.
Also, HDTV signals are actually available in a great many regions,
The only broadcasting of a true digital video signal (in the US) that I know of is HDTV over the air, or via satellite. Yes, HDTV is available in alot of places, but not over cable systems (which is what I was talking about) until very recently. Comcast announced in March 2002 that they would begin rollout of HDTV in the Eastern US this summer.
Digital cable is not broadcasting digital video signals (HDTV). Digital cable is currently used to compress analog video into smaller pieces so that they can put more channels in the same bandwidth However, once you receive the information in your digital cable box and send it to your TV, it is identical resolution/quality to an analog signal. In fact, it *is* an analog signal. The only way to get a digital video/audio signal into your TV is if you have an HDTV with a HD tuner.
HD (high definition digital) cable has just recently been announced, and is only available in very select markets (Philidelphia right now, and WashingtonDC/Baltimore later this year for Comcast).
Just thinking about that makes me chuckle. What does Mundie smoke? :)
FUD brand cigarettes. They don't give you cancer, they "audit" your internal organs.
Agree to our new license, or we'll send someone around to bust your kneecaps.
Valid point. This is all based on the assumption by MS that not including the original software with the PC means that the software is automatically being used elsewhere.
To correct my statements: Contrary to what MS says, it's perfectly legal for a school to accept a computer without the OEM Windows OS. It's perfectly legal for a company to donate a computer without the OEM Windows OS. However, it's a violation of the license (arguable whether it's illegal or not) to donate the computer and then use the OEM OS elsewhere within your company.
Thanks for the correction.
My understanding of entrapment is that it means the police can't try to persuade you to do something illegal that you otherwise would not have.
I don't think them placing bait cars in prime locations could be considered entrapment. IE, they're not encouraging law abiding citizens to steal the car. If they had an undercover cop at the scene trying to talk passers-by into helping him steal the car, that would be entrapment.
It's a violation by the company who is doing the donating, not by the school.
It is not illegal for the school to accept a PC that no longer has the Windows pre-install on it. I have no idea why MS is writing this for schools. Nothing they say in there has any legal basis. If, on the other hand, they had written it as "a guide on how to donate a PC that originally included an OEM copy of Windows" and give it out to corporations, then what they're saying makes a bit more sense (aside from the argument over whether the OEM EULA makes any sense).
It was the sales people from Logicon Inc who scammed them
Or the government official who signed off on the purchase of more seat licenses than they have employees in the whole state. I don't think Logicon is solely responsible for this, you have to pin it on the California officials who agreed to the rediculous deal as well. Logicon might have given them a highly inflated (even grossly inaccurate) sales pitch, but they didn't force anybody to buy it.
This "LISCENCE" is for the documentation NOT the protocol.
True.
Hell have a friend agree to the terms, read it, then TELL you how they do what they do...
Is there some sort of non-disclosure in the license in addition to just the bits about "don't implement this in a GPL app"? I'm not legal savvy enough to understand even the quoted bits of the license in the article. Is it somehow implied that telling somebody else what the protocol is after you've read it, is a violation of the license?
sci fi fans.... out and about partying on friday evening...
Is it just me, or does something about the above strike you as funny?
Going from mp3 to ogg for most people is of no advantage.
Currently, yes. But once it's a choice between ogg (no watermarking) and mp3 (with watermarking), then there will be a big advantage. If mp3's become crippled so that people can't do the things they want with them, but they can with ogg, they'll switch.
It was a lame attempt at humor.
It gets disqualified from the official tally because MS has a monopoly in the windows card gaming market.
Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done.
Yes, the GPL allows you to charge for the source, rather than offer it as a free download. But, IIRC you are only allowed to charge for your cost in producing the copy of the source. IE you can charge for the cost of burning a CD and shipping to the customer, but you can't offer the source for $500 and be compliant with the GPL.
Anyone else have more details on what he meant by this? If they're using GPL software, and then trying to charge for the source in order to make a profit off of distributing it, then the customers have a right to complain.
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system
I don't buy that argument. Sure, it may be difficult or expensive for them to remove IE from the OS, but it's NOT impossible. What sort of effort is involved is their problem, not the courts.
It needs to be stressed that control of who gets on the network, and knowledge of what goes on inside the network, are two entirely different things. Napster's downfall was not that they had the ability to shut down the network, but that they knew people where trading copyrighted material, and they could also step in and limit what material people had access to inside the network. The Fasttrack network is an entirely different beast. Kazaa may be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't, but once a user is on the network they have no ability to directly monitor what material people are trading and have no ability to limit what people have access to.
Kazaa is providing a network, but have no involvement with what users do inside the network. Napster lost their case because they did have an involvement with what happened inside the network.
I don't know the names of specific games, but I swear as a kid there used to be all sorts of games at the arcades with this tech. Mostly I remember driving games that you sit in where the seat vibrates when you crash and such? Anybody else know more about this than I do, or am I dreaming?
The best technical managers I've always had were ones that started out as developers themselves, and moved up into management.
I suspect the 7,000 "I hate Microsoft" comments were from slashdotters as well. So that's really 22,000 responses from here
I'm not sure you understand the GPL entirely. Just because you are running your app on a linux device, does NOT mean you have to release source code. You can market your product to run on linux and keep it proprietary.
The only time you are forced to release your own work is if you incorporate GPL work into your own application. The idea is that if you stand on the shoulders of GPL programmers in order to create your product, you have to give your work back to the community as payment for using their development effort to jump start your own development. Merely running your proprietary app ontop of the linux OS does not mean you have to release anything to the public.
Or maybe she's silent because most babies don't talk?
As far as I understand, just using the application is no problem, and you really don't need to be concerned with the license other than knowing it exists. You DO need to pay close attention to the license if you are planning on modifying/releasing any of the source code for the GPL applications.
Actually, after you're done you return the CD to the store and get your money back since stores will accept returns of open "copy-protected" CDs.
Coincidentally, shortly after they implemented this filter, they were sued.
I've been wondering, what would stop everyone from just running the old (pre-central authorizing) client if FastTrack does have to shut down their central server? Is there still some fundamental involvment from the FastTrack servers with that older client?