Comment Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score 1) 442
Authors and Inventors
That means it makes no sense for copyright to extend beyond death.
Authors and Inventors
That means it makes no sense for copyright to extend beyond death.
Yeah, but if copyright expires on death, then the book completed by the author's family is half uncopyrighted, half copyrighted by whomever completed it.
Since noone know which half is which, it's essentially the same as being fully copyrighted by the family.
No, that's unusual.
Most of the people that don't add a license don't add it to their software because don't want to restrict it's usage. They just want to share the code.
People that WANT complex licenses with plenty of restrictions will be explicit about them.
I must be dreaming. Not only does this first post NOT say "first", but it's actually really informative!
Did I mistype "slashdot" today?
If he gave you a license to reuse his code, he can't sue you for reusing his code; that's how it helps.
Well, if a folk placed stuff without a license, I'm guessing he cares little what happens to his code, so he won't want it as locked down as the GPL locks it down - if he wanted all those restrictions, he'd have specified them.
Google is like George R R Martin:
It completely impossible to know who'll die next, but you can always be sure someone's about to die really soon!
Yeah, you need a lawyer to understand something like the BSD license:
Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
No. Its github, where hosting those repos like that requires you concede to freeing the code.
Yeah, but there's no list of accepted licenses, so I could just wait for someone to reuse my code, and then sue them "yeah, that was released under MCFSL (My Crappy Free Software License), which requires you to [insert really annoying requirement that you want to avoid here]".
But what happens when some troll comes around, saying you used their code without permission, and violated his rights as an author?
I mean, troll like that are bound to start appearing, that's why we should specify licenses in the first place. To make others certain we're not that sort of troll.
Obfuscation pretty much never has a place in security.
Unless "pretty much never has a place in security" actually means "has a critical place in security", please tell me your usernames, passwords, crypto keys, host addresses, VPN token parameters, etc. Also your bank account numbers as well as your bank routing number.
Secrets == obfuscation. Crypto == obfuscation.
I think he's talking about the source code, and security by obscurity, NOT keeping his passwords secret.
Github needs to specify a "default license". If no license is specified, then XXX license applies (for example: BSD/MIT).
That may sound like imposing something on users, but remember that github give you a free account for public repositories for FLOSS stuff. If you specify no license, it's not legally propietary, so, it would make sense for them to do so.
So?
There's no practical gaming use for a kinect on a PC, yet hundreds of developers still use it for research, etc. Why can't I used my PS3 to research and try new stuff on my shiny cell processor?
Until you purchase a game that requires an updated OS. As if that didn't ever happen on a Sony console.
Or, until you want to play online.
What keeps Sony from changing that in a few years? I mean, does anyone remember the "Other OS" feature?
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"