Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Good on MS (Score 5, Funny) 364

by noundi (#30096764) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Responsibility For GPL Violation

And I was marked troll and ridiculed for saying that this is what they are obliged to do. From the bottom of my heart, fuck you slashdot. Also just disregard the mod points on the post, look at the amount of people responding without even thinking twice about what they are writing. There is no space here for truth, only hormones of feeble minded fools. And the "mods", being us who receive mod points to classify the value of information in posts, are no better in doing the job anymore than the rest of you. Slashdot is the fundamental definition of "defective by design", and you'll come to notice that only the idiots stay longer than average. This is my last post, and I truly hope nobody cares as that would prove it being the outmost right decision to take.
 
Oh and before you respond to this in some sad attempt of ridicule such as "cry me a river" or any other internet meme which has already been done close to an infinite amount of time, know that I won't be here to read it. So knowing that you may go ahead and waste your time.

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 1) 186

by noundi (#30096710) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

You're entangling yourself in semantics. You're clearly the one who's misinterpreting me. I never said you're forced to release the code, I said obliged. And I never claimed that you could, by law, enforce somebody to release said code. I'm afraid you're making assumptions that I cannot be held responsible for.

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 1) 186

by noundi (#30063212) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.

Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source? You're obliged to follow the law, and if you don't you'll get punished for it. Am I misinterpreting the word obliged? Because that to me is a perfect usage of the word obliged. Correct me if I'm wrong but is everybody thinking I'm saying forced? Because I'm not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obliged

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 1) 186

by noundi (#30059872) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?

Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.

Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.

That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 2, Insightful) 186

by noundi (#30058946) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.

You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.

Unwilfull? You see that's where our difference is. You seem to be so naive to think that Microsoft developers are unaware of the GPL. And also, of course one can refuse to release the code, but then one would get fined. What did you think I meant? Somebody will force you to release the code with a gun pointed at your head?

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 0) 186

by noundi (#30058042) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code.

No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."

Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Comment: Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score 0, Troll) 186

by noundi (#30057648) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim

You've posted this like 3 times now, that I know of. It's getting tiresome. And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code. Your mistake, your mess. MS wouldn't be so forgiving, why should the GNU community be? You'd think that the worlds largest software producer, in 2009, would have a better understanding regarding the GPL.
 
I have no objections to proprietary software, but if you want others to follow your licenses, you are expected to follow others. It's not so fucking difficult now is it?
 
Oh and the only troll I see here Sopssa is you for posting repetetive bullshit posts like the one above.

Comment: Re:Damn. This sucks. (Score 1) 160

by noundi (#30045860) Attached to: US Supreme Court Skeptical of Business Method Patents

And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?

Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?

I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.

Quit your trolling. You can patent general easy-to-think-of ideas which would then cover any real innovations. This is constantly being done today.

"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday

Working...