You're describing Microsoft Windows XP.

XP came with an automatic update function. A few years into XP's life, Windows Genuine Advantage was automatically rolled out in a service pack, and once installed it will degrade your computer if Microsoft decides you might be a pirate.

Your nightmare scenario is everyday reality for most people. Pleasant dreams.

I don't follow you. How are either of those two factors relate to the matter of the quality of the official versus unofficial matchmaking servers for Starcraft? Was blizzard's policy 10 years ago to turn battle.net into a retard-infested shithole, but they changed policy 5 years later in time for WoW? Are the people who set up unofficial servers for RTS games somehow a nobler, gentler breed than the unofficial MMO server makers?

The fact I can't follow your non-sequitur logic is hardly surprising, though, because your slashdot ID is divisible by 3.

Surprisingly it's not true of Starcraft, where the iccup server is a more pleasant place to be than battle.net. The players have more skill, newbies like me are far less likely to be stomped on by fairly good players, or worse, hackers, creating '1v1 noobs only' games, there's a ratings system which does, roughly, tell you how good your opponent is likely to be (although the lowest two rankings covers a huge skill range), and it comes with an anti-hack. I'm also led to believe that the admin does act to boot cheats from the ladder, but I've no first-hand experience of that.

And your 'glitch' problem doesn't apply to SC at all of course, since it's a player-hosted RTS, not an MMO.

Big Name Game Studios of course, silly!

Hah, this just shows how EFFICIENT Linux is. Until recently, Windows achieved their local privilege escalation vulnerability rollout by having almost every home user running as fully privileged administrator accounts all the time. Linux achieves all this through a small tweak to the kernel build system, thus getting this feature to 100% of Linux users without any manual intervention at all.

Surely this is the same story, from 2 months ago.

Errr, IW aren't providing a network to play on. The network is just a matchmaking service.
There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it shouldn't be the only option for a game like CoD.

Instead of the server admins, you're at the mercy of whichever user happens to click the 'host' button instead of the 'join' button. If they disconnect in a hissy fit because you fragged them, game over. If they've got a shit connection, or their roommate fires up bittorrent, expect big pings as 32 players flood this poor sap's connection past breaking point. Oh, and say goodbye to mods too, and by extension, the next TF2 or Counterstrike.

In short, the convenience you think you're getting in exchange for your freedom and the existence of a gaming community just isn't there at all.

"mostly when the few servers out there have PunkBuster turned off so you know that's where all the aimbot/wallhack noobs go"

Not to mention those of us who made cod4 go on Linux w/ wine, alas. Cod4's PB doesn't work, since it checks the integrity of various Windows API calls.

Because the EFF acts primarily through legal activity in the US, and in the TI case, it's threatening to defend hobbyists against a tsunami of bogus DMCA takedowns.

Whereas the other instances you cite are using technological methods to prevent modders. Nintendo did take down a homebrew device in Japan, but not in the US. Apple just kicks out anyone it doesn't like from the App store. Obnoxious DRM isn't actually illegal, unfortunately, so the EFF doesn't really have the tools to fight it. When the device makers start firing off lawsuits and/or wrongheaded DMCA takedowns, then the EFF might be able to take an interest.

If you need lawyers to fight lawsuits relating to Your Rights Online, then you might call in the EFF. If you just need technical workarounds for all the DRM in your devices, then it's a job for DVD Jon...

...your certificate is proof you hold copyright.

No, your certificate is proof that you claim copyright, and it's also necessary if you want to sue someone for a copyright breach.

For a current example, just after they tried suing IBM for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in 2003, SCO registered the copyrights to the Unix codebase, despite Novell, the copyright holders (or previous copyright holders) claiming that SCO didn't own any such thing. A judge did rule in Novell's favour, but SCO has won an appeal that grants them a trial (although this appeal is being appealed).

Regardless of the current state of the case, the fact that SCO had registered the copyrights wasn't proof of anything other than that they registered the copyrights.

Half-written website.
Vague, supposedly, heart-rending story with absolutely no verifiable details.
Unverifiable quotes on the front.
Big buttons asking for donations for the cause, whatever that is.

And...

The owner of the domain is one Joe Kaiser, who in his previous role as a 'foreclosure consultant', was found guilty of violating the Consumer Protection Act.

Conclusion:
Obvious scam. Avoid.

Svrl wls ago my '' ky brok, and to b honst, it's not causd any problms. I know som popl think that th 'Paus' ky or the 'Print Scrn' ky ar mor uslss, but you nvr know whn you might nd to stop scrolling your consol buffrs, or tak a scrnshot. It's much simplr and asir to larn to liv without your '' ky.

Tak it from m, I'v nvr looked back sinc I lost it.

Aim Hr

The only analogy I've been able to come up with that paints a good picture about why it's such a flawed model is what I call the Coca-Cola Principle....

No good! Don't understand! Your analogy has no cars!

I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.

The futility is in the fact that you don't understand (or are pretending not to understand) that some things you can do with Linux or Windows code are outwith the scope of both Windows and Linux licenses because the copyright holder does not have the right to stop you doing those things. It doesn't matter at all what a copyright license contains, if you don't need the copyright holder's permission to do whatever act you were attempting to do. Writing a program that happens to run on someone else's OS is one of those acts.

Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.

Well the real distinctions between what those three concepts are is fairly obvious to a programmer. I suggest enrolling in a programming course if you don't know.

If you're talking about the legal distinctions between those, as far as derived works of software is concerned, the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work. And the consensus regarding dynamic and static linking seems to be that it's a big vague messy legal can of worms, and that nobody really knows where the boundary lies. The specification of derivative works, such as it is, is in statute and case law. Look up 17 USC for the American copyright statutes, and, well, there's reams and reams of case law, a lot of it very inconclusive. Knock yourself out using the Lexis database or your local university law library. There's no simple and correct answer, because simple and correct answers tend to put lawyers out of work.

And no, I don't know what this thread is about. You keep coming up with new, and only tangentially related, subjects every post (this post mentions dynamic versus static linking regarding derivative works, which is a subject that can keep GPL-related trolls happy for weeks). Presumably that's your tactic for pushing my buttons.

Sigh.