Comment Re:Not so fast (Score 1) 140
But they are constrained by where they can take off and land.
But they are constrained by where they can take off and land.
They say the Airlander 10 is capable of surviving a missile strike, but visions of the Hindenburg still loom large in our cultural memory.
It is the spector of traveling in an aircraft at 80mph that I am concerned with. If I am going to get off the ground in an aircraft I will be going a considerable distance. Eighty miles an hour is much too slow to be efficient.
And since you've never experienced all of its roundness, you can't *know* the Earth is round...
I have read the definition of "round" I have seen "round" objects such as basket balls and other balls. I have seen the moon with my own eyes. And it is similar in outlibne to the round balls I have seen. I have seen pictures from space of the Earth that look similar in outline to the outline of the moon. Therefore based on all that information I can be pretty certain that the Earth is "round".
How about you stop making baseless statements as if they were facts. You could have asked the OSI if your interpretations were correct but you chose not to and instead just went with something that made a good story. You did the worst thing possible that a "journalist" can do. You decided to write a story against an easy target and spin anything you could get your hands on to support your forgone conclusion truth and honesty be damned. That is the definition of "yellow journalism. Have a nice life.
It predicates a patent safety provision on being a
That is your interpretation. Your whole argument is based on that assumption. You have no evidence whatsoever that your interpretation is correct. Nothing backs up your assumption.
while they say it "is aimed specifically", they don't say it's aimed exclusively at that one problem.
One of the synonyms for specifically is "exclusively".
You're completely ignoring the section itself
Where in section 10 does it say and words like code, implementations, package, etc? It specifically states the license and not what the license covers.
But, hypothetically, let's say we agree that your "exclusivity" interpretation of of the section 10 annotation is correct and that you are correct that the intention trumps the wording.
You are again assuming that your interpretation of the wording is correct.
I think we'll agree that the OSI never intended to let developers call their software "open source" and reserve the right to sue people if they don't like technical choices of how they use the code.
Actually no we don't as I have no idea what is in the minds of the OSI and neither do you. In fact there are many "technical choices" that could get somone sued under open source. For example in GPL v2.0 you are required to show a copyright notice when accessing the package by command line. Make a "technical choice" not to display it and you could get sued. Open source licenses set out how people can get sued.
If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.
If it is so out of compliance with OSD then why did OSI certify them and why are they still certified? What make you more of an expert on OSD than the people who run the organization?
If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.
So you can not back up your arguments so go fall back on the "I may be wrong in the details but I am still right". Sorry we are talking about the details and you are still wrong.
You really need to look into fair use and DMCA.
Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.
True if those short excerpts are part of a bigger whole. In this case the copyright material is the whole work.
I would say a 'parody work'
Parody is not emulating the exact same game play as the original. There needs to be significant differences.
THE DEMO CREATOR CAN PUT HIS DEMO BACK UP AFTER NOTIFYING HIS HOST AND CLOUDFLARE THAT HE IN FACT OWNS THE CONTENT
The real process is as follows;
1. Someone posts material
2. A copyright holder files a DMCA take down notice.
3. The ISP takes the material down.
4. The poster files a counter claim.
5. The ISP forwards the claim to the person who filed the takedown notice.
6. The ISP will wait 10-14 days to allow the initial filer to start legal action.
7. If legal action does not occur the post goes back up. If it does the post stays down.
Nintendo will have to prove the work violated copyright law to get an order from a judge to have it taken down.
It is actually the other way around. Once a DMCA take down notice is filed and a legal action is started the material will stay down until a judge allows it up.
taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP
If the "new" work is only 3 minutes long then no it is not fair use.
The 55 pounds is the complete weight of the drone and payload.
highly autonomous drones of less than 55lbs, flying through corridors 10 miles or longer at 50mph and carrying payloads of up to 5lbs
Batteries to go 20+ miles can get very heavy. Note that the limit is 55 pounds. The actual weight of the drone may be much less.
This lack of clarity allows for ridiculous interpretations, such claiming that nothing in sections 1, 3, 6, 7 or 10 prevents developers from reserving the right to sue people who modify their "open source" software.
I never said that. I just said they said that 1,6,7 and 10 say nothing at all about modifying the code or suing people for modifying the code. Those points are all about licensing and distribution. You are making the ridiculous interpretation that those clauses have anything to do with modifying the code.
so if you pick one point and I'll respond to it.
Ok. I pick point 10 since it was in the original post.
There is absolutely no way to plan around this.
I sense sarcasm. Do you have any ideas on how to deliver packages accurately without going below 200ft?
It's a nice thing for the employee
It is also crap for anyone trying to take over the work and it leave the ex-employee feeling bad for leaving friends and co-workers holding the bag with no support.
I really don't think any US Government body cares if Amazon tests their drones in another country. The FAA may even thank them as it may solve some of their regulatory testing issues.
Considering the FAA has already banned this in their jurisdiction I don't see your point. I think the GP was talking about communities in Canada.
The end goal is to utilize what Amazon sees as a slice of virgin airspace – above 200ft, where most buildings end, and below 500ft, where general aviation begins.
Too bad they are going to spend a significant time outside of that airspace during takeoff and landing. That airspace is also occupied by buildings higher than about ten stories.
It would be interesting to know the mean time between failure of the drones they intend to use.
This is the way it's done in large enterprises where they have done risk assessments and looked at their own history of related problems.
Maybe it is their history of treating their employees like numbers that has caused the related problems in the past.
As always the un-annotated version is open to interpretation. Your interpretation just slants toward bad things happening.
Nothing in the OSD is clearly stated
Sorry but that annotation states clearly that section 10 is about the license and not code content.
we would have used 1, 6, and 7
Secion 1 is about bundling as in you can't distribute along with another package. Section 6 is about discrimination in fields of endeavor as in you can not use this code in a specific industry. Section 7 is about redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license. None of those sections have anything to do with modifying the code.
we decided two sections were sufficient to make the point that the OSD isn't supposed to approve of suing people who reuse your code.
And you were incorrect in that section 10 does not state what you represent it to state.
Those are the standards they claim to be living by, so those are the standards we judged their licensing on.
You are basing your standard on your interpretation of of the OSD instead of doing due diligence and digging further to understand what OSD really means by those few words. The fact you misinterpreted the statement is not Microsoft's issue. It is your issue. That is not what I would call journalistic entirety.
Section 3 is the only section that talks about distributing modified code. Had you stopped there we would not be having this conversation. Even then your case is weak. Microsoft is allowing the code to be modified and redistributed. Microsoft is just putting certain restrictions on it. Is there anywhere that OSD states restrictions are not allowed?
section 10 that "No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface."
They should look at the annotated definition.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.
Section 10 deals with how the license is signed and not the technology used in the code.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
