Stereoscopic vision is something which has a huge potential to screw with people's heads.
Stereoscopic vision is something which has a huge potential to screw with people's heads.
And, more importantly
This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.
This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.
You are perfectly free to not use GPL code. Just because you want to ignore the license doesn't mean a damned thing.
But if your business model is to take GPL code and then pretend you don't have to abide by the terms, that's your damned problem.
When this happens, as you say, this is someone choosing to use the GPL code and then wining about how unfair it is to have to adhere to the license.
The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it. And that is very far from reality.
It's "viral" because it takes over other licenses and spreads like a virus.
Consider this example: You modify some GPL'ed software with a bit of your own code that integrates with a BSD'ed library.
You wrote some GPL'ed code in a GPL'ed program. No biggie, you should've known what you were getting into when you did it.
Well, that's not a problem with the license.
It's the problem of people who are mixing and matching licenses and ignoring what they say.
This is a contrived example of someone doing a shitty job of combining licences. It's not an example of a failure of the license.
If you're grabbing stuff under incompatible licenses, throwing them together, and then complaining the licences are incompatible means you're doing it wrong, and that's your damned problem.
If you don't want this problem, don't be stupid and assume you're allowed to use code which mixes multiple licenses and then claim it's someone else's fault.
You're bitching about a problem which is self inflicted as a result of being too lazy to actually follow the licences. You don't have a magic right to use stuff of differing licences and pretend like it's someone else's responsibility to make them work together, and it's stupid to blame it on the GPL.
Don't like the GPL? Go steal someone else's code. But stop acting like you're entitled to it and that it's a problem for you.
Well, then the real thing here is that despite everybody claiming IPv6 is awesome and super, there's crappy and inconsistent support for it.
So why should any small company or individual be doing anything about IPv6 when the big players aren't, and most of the existing products are apparently doing a terrible job of it?
IPv6 has been coming "Real Soon Now" for what feels like an eternity. People aren't going to spend money to change when they still need to figure out how to work with the legacy stuff.
You describe both the epic failure of IPv6 to gain widespread adoption, and the reasons why people are staying the hell away from it.
Not counting paid partner's data towards datacaps? This is net neutrality in name only IMO.
Yeah, no shit.
This basically allows people to set up a competitor to something like NetFlix, and then say "well, when you use NetFlix, you pay for data, when you use our service it's free" -- which is precisely what companies have been doing.
So, with this, they can either extort money from NetFlix, or make customers pay more to use NetFlix than their own service.
It's easy to undercut the competition when you can get an uneven playing field. All this talk about free markets would be meaningful if there were any.
Did I say freedom of speech?
I will say it is not defamatory to make the factual statement you hired someone and got bad service, no batter what the business thinks.
In this particular case, the business owner believes
Bullshit. Do you have facts to support this? Or are you just asserting it?
Me, I'm as likely to think this is a bullshit SLAPP lawsuit designed to intimidate people from making negative reviews.
If those people actually did hire this company, and if they are giving actual negative reviews, this lawsuit is nothing but intimidation tactics by assholes.
If you think CS grads only marketable skill is programming - than you have a far more serious problem.
Honestly, if CS grads can't program, WTF is the use of them?
Yes, CS encompasses a broad range of stuff, but if you haven't learned the fundamental skill of programming
Look up systems analyst.
So some kid straight out of school with no actual experience and has a purely theoretical understanding of CS is someone you'd hire as a System Analyst?
Really? Because to me that sounds like hiring someone to fly an airplane who rad a book about it once.
Some snot nosed kid who has never coded or built anything is not who you want doing much of anything.
If CS grads are coming out without the actual skill of programming, that seems kind of pointless.
Once it was deemed to interfere with commercial activity it got trumped.
Somewhere along the line it became illegal to say "I hired this company and they gave shitty service".
It's all about mens rea- or an intent to do evil , so isn't' using the court or police or prosecutor's office to induce people of good faith to achieve an evil result itself the much more serious crime?
But isn't the defense against that simply that the plaintiff is a self-confessed, shamelessly self-entitled douchebag who was acting in good faith as a clueless idiot who believed his huge ego entitled him to the domain?
Now, I'm not saying the plaintiff is, or is not, any of these things. Merely that you can step around mens rea by not so much an intent to do evil, as a legitimate belief that, as a self-entitled douchebag there was no specific malice.
Because it's exactly the say way the Copyright assholes^Wclaimants who assert they own copyright of something via the DMCA they don't can simply say "oops, we thought we did".
This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.
I think that is not completely true. A simple exchange of letters and perhaps an explicit licence for a nominal sum ($1 for example) or a memorandum of agreement that the potential infringer will not enter into the domain that the trademark coveres would probably be sufficient to defend the trademark. And significantly less expensive.
This type of behaviour is stupid if they are merely trying to defend their trademark.
Honestly, that was why Apple Corps wanted Apple Computers to stay the hell out of the music industry.
When one entity starts to bleed into what another does, then it gets much more into lawyers and all sorts of stuff.
You'll notice that the resolution of this was Apple Computers bought Apple Corps and then licensed back the trademark.
Most entities don't have the luxury of splashing out $500 million to fix that kind of situation.
But my concrete and balloon animals example still holds.
Well, here's the problem with that:
Trade Marks and Service Marks are only meaningful in the area of business. It is not exclusive across all possible kinds of business. That's not how they work.
You can't simply look up a domain name and check it against trademarks and decide who owns it. You and I can Trademark the same thing, and as long as you're making concrete and I'm making balloon animals, we can both keep it, because we're doing different things which won't reasonably be confused.
So, unless the original registrant is in the same kind of business as the assholes^Wplaintiff in this case, it simply doesn't matter.
I'm of the opinion the people suing don't have a leg to stand on. This guy had registered this domain a long time ago, and renewed it before this Service Mark was applied for.
Which means unless they're in the same area of business and the Service Mark/Trade Mark then trumps prior ownership
I sincerely hope the court basically tosses this and says "you can't cybersquat if you do it 15 years before the whiny plaintiff".
Well, if's only viral if you're stupid and self entitled enough to think you can use it and not abide by the terms.
Yes, BSD is completely free, and has its place in the world. I've worked on commercial software based on BSD licensed code.
But when people who weren't forced to use GPLd code bitch about it being viral, they're essentially being childish idiots.
Its screams "waaah, the bad man won't let me take his code and change the license and use it how I see fit". Nobody promised you the code, nobody owes you the code. That someone then decides they should be able to take the code and use it anyway just says they think they're special, and the rules are too cumbersome.
So, "viral" in this context means the person saying it's viral has acted like an idiot, an decided after the fact they don't like the terms of the license.
It sure as hell isn't a "problem" with GPL code. It's a problem with people who don't want to abide by the license on code and somehow think using someone else's code is a right.
Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.
And this is what we see with Apple's OSX, sure they haven't released all the source code for the operating system but since many of its parts are built on permissive open source licenses rather than restrictive ones those parts can be used in the closed source operating system but also released as source for other people to use.
For example Safari is not open source but we sure get a lot of contributions to WebKit which is used in lots of places.
If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.