Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 1) 154

by Kjella (#49192237) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

You obviously do no understand the GPL. What you say here has specifically been addressed by the Affero GPL

That's not what I'm talking about, because it lacks the "distribution" part. What I'm talking about is what level of detachment is necessary to say that these bits of software depend on each other, but they're not derivative of each other. And thus the GPL wouldn't apply, even if you distribute them together.

Comment: Re:Apple (Score 1) 47

My Hackintosh would disagree. NUCs make great iMacs... just velcro them to the back of a display of your choice. Combined with a nice VISA mount, provides a very clean setup with acceptable performance, for 1/4 the cost of 'real' Apple hardware.

Haven't you heard that NFC is now the hip, cool thing? That is so last year.

Comment: Re:The poison pin ... (Score 1) 317

Somewhere else, maybe... at the border crossing they have near infinite power to mess with you by insisting on an extended identity, security and luggage check and usually to detain you for a short while too for almost no pretext at all. In fact your "defective phone" is now a possible terrorist bomb, let's just put you in a holding cell until we can determine it's not.

Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 1) 154

by Kjella (#49190929) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

The controversial part, as I understand it, is the difference in interpretation of a license's conditions. For example, the difference between an "aggregation" and a "combined work" in the GPLv2 confused at least one Slashdot user.

Actually the ugliest part of the GPL which is clear as ink in law is what - if anything - makes inter-module communication derivative. The theory of derivative works mainly involve sections or elements reappearing in the derivative, like a composite made from a photo. It doesn't cover interfaces where independently developed code calls each other at all. If I wrap a GPL library into a web service, is calling it derivative? If the answer is yes, the GPL is extremely viral. If the answer is no, the GPL is in big trouble. Which is why you never get a straight answer.

This directly links in with the "mere aggregation" clause, if you can for example distribute a distro that has an application that sends mail and a mail server without those being derivative, can you also distribute proprietary software and this web service? Your software needs it, this software happens to provide it but it could in theory be provided by a different implementation. I'm sure Stallman says no, but it's entirely unclear to me if a judge would agree.

Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 1) 154

by bmo (#49190883) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

the GPL is largely untested in court.

No it isn't. It's been tested at the federal level.

Daniel Wallace tried to get the GPL declared invalid through stretching of legal concepts, and was thusly shown how stupid /that/ is.

Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws. Daniel Wallace, a United States citizen, sued the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for price fixing. In a later lawsuit, he unsuccessfully sued IBM, Novell, and Red Hat. Wallace claimed that free Linux prevented him from making a profit from selling his own operating system.[1]

And this quote from the decision shows that the courts completely understand the values behind the GPL and copyleft.

From the 7'th Circuit decision of the Wallace vs. IBM appeal:

http://www.internetlibrary.com...
  People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result âoecopyleft.â

And notice the subsequent utter silence from Darl and the lawyers at SCO, who were jumping up and down about the so-called unconstitutionality of the GPL. Among other things.

The validity of the GPL is now settled law.

but any element of it that is reasonably subject to interpretation can be interpreted any way you like

This is why you aren't a lawyer.

--
BMO - not a lawyer, but someone who doesn't agree with people who think that lawyers perform magic. They don't.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 342

by Kjella (#49190145) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

It's worth noting that there is one piece of automation in cars already that does give a different kind of driving license in a lot of places: automatic gear change. If you get a driving license in a car that has an automatic transmission then you can't drive manual cars with it, though the converse is allowed.

And it's silly. You can give an 18yo (around here) that just got his license a Ferrari, that's legal. You can give him a 3500 kg van + 750 kg trailer, that's legal. Of course you shouldn't drive a car you can't handle, but learning it on your own would be no worse than a lot of the other "self-learning" on the road.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 342

by Kjella (#49189795) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Even if you can account for such things, how will your autonomous vehicle handle malfunctioning sensors? Aerospace has been working at this for decades and still hasn't figured it all out.

The main reason to have pilots is that you have someone with "skin in the game", not because they're actually good backups. Like in your linked case there's several major pilot errors that were only possible because the safety systems were disabled due to a 30 second glitch in the sensor. After the sensor recovered the pilots were given multiple warnings about what was happening but instead caused such a massive stall that the computer refused to believe the sensors, going silent as the pilots slammed the planed into the ocean killing all on board.

If the computer had taken a HAL 9000 with "I can't let you do that, Dave" and taken the plane out of the stall once it recovered they'd be alive. If the computer had been forced to carry on despite the faulty sensor, it would still have engine power and altitude to infer that air speed is wrong and keep the plane flying and it would almost certainly have done a better job. They died because the default was in any out of the ordinary operation to let the humans take over. It's a better poster child for a self-flying plane than against it. But since the pilots paid with their own lives they become the lightning rod for the anger, while a self-flying plane crashing would be become a corporate nightmare.

Comment: Re:IANAL, but my answer would be no (Score 4, Insightful) 317

IANAL, but my answer would be no

And probably just as important in this case is YJMV - Your Jurisdiction May Vary. The UK is fascist country where I know it's illegal, I wouldn't bring any device I wouldn't unlock - I'd just make sure it's clean and I can download what I want once inside the country. The US is a fairly safe country thanks to the fifth amendment. The rest of the world? Dunno. Don't really care to research it either. If I was doing anything naughty I'd send it online or even in the mail. At least then they can't refuse me entry or any of that shit.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 342

by cayenne8 (#49188541) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?
I'm a little puzzled at the ascertains to begin with, with reference to actives you would require a self driving car for....?

Per the article:

"Self-driving cars promise a future where you can watch television, sip cocktails, or snooze all the way home"

I mean....geez, aside from the sleeping part, that's not that uncommon now for REGULAR cars. The console screens are pretty easily bypassed to allow watching video anytime, and well...it isn't that big a deal to pour a cocktail for the road, hell, that's why folks try to catch as many of the plastic Mardi Gras cups here during carnival season, so that you have a sturdy disposable "to-go" cup to make a beverage for the road with when leaving the house......

Comment: Re:You keep using that word.... (Score 1) 421

by Kjella (#49183731) Attached to: Microsoft Convinced That Windows 10 Will Be Its Smartphone Breakthrough

Apple now has 20% of the market and 90% of the profits. Measuring units is a bit like counting songs published on Spotify while ignoring the number of plays. For both those numbers to be true Apple must be making about 40 times more profit per sale than Android.

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.

Working...