Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Eric Schultz (Score 1) 356

Probably. What jurisdiction are you in? In the US that might fall under fair use, but probably not since you did use 100% of the original text. And I believe most of Europe though has no fair use provision at all, under which rule you most certainly have infringed.

Comment Re:It's great until they crash or get lost (Score 3, Insightful) 18

The beauty though is that consumer-grade UAVs are getting ever cheaper and more capable - for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars you can purchase a range of quite capable drones to carry your instrument package into all sorts of dangerous, difficult, or monotinous conditions. For UAVs as well - I don't know what the off-the-shelf options are, but there's some "open source" designs out there that are actually quite capable for some applications. Obviously such vehicles fall far short of the capabilities of their multi-million dollar cousins, but there's lots of research that doesn't really need all that extra capability..

Comment Re:"define" (Score 4, Insightful) 356

Indeed. And in fact you indirectly raise another issue - if the "original" author is so ignorant of copyright law that they "share" their code without any licensing information, then there's a fair chance that they have themselves incorporated other people's code into their work without regard to copyright restrictions, so you may be opening yourself up to legal liability for having GPLed, "shared source", or other restrictively licensed code incorporated into your software without realising it.

Comment Re:Licensing Doesn't fix Behaviour (Score 1) 356

More accurately a license *grants* premissions - the default in all Berne signatory countries is automatic copyright with all rights reserved (= no rights granted). Without an explicit license you have no right to even possess a copy of the code, much less redistribute it or make derivative works.

Your confusion probaby stems from things like EULAs, which often require you to contractually surrender rights you would otherwise have as a condition to receiving a usage license.

Comment Re:Eric Schultz (Score 2) 356

In that case you should license it under a permissive license or explicitly release it into the public domain. If you do neither then you're preventing anyone from legally reusing your code for at least a century unless they first contact you for a license. All creative works receive maximum copyright protection by default, it's up to *you* to explicitly grant greater permissions.

Comment Re:Eric Schultz (Score 4, Insightful) 356

I completely agree that that is a just and honorable way to act in accordance with the original author's probable intent. But it also amounts to you publicly announcing that you are committing copyright infringement. Without an explicit license you have absolutely ZERO legal right to do *anything* with anyone else's code. As such I hope you're not using such code for anything important.

Comment Re:Contact your former client. (Score 2) 480

Actually, bringing up copyright as well could help get things set right. Certainly it's not *his* copyright, but he can approach the company with "this guy is simultaneously fraudulently claiming credit for *my* work and claiming copyright on code that *you* own. Show that you have a common enemy in this developer's behavior, and suggest that they replace the fraudulent headers. Depending on the timber of the conversation maybe even volunteer to fix the problem himself.

Comment Re:version control (Score 2) 480

You are assuming github security is 100% reliable. I don't know how exactly they have it set up, but it seems likely that github employees at least would have unfettered access, plus anyone who successfully gained illegitimate access, or who happened upon it while there was a mis-configured server.

Comment Re:Not A Lie (Score 5, Interesting) 385

Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how difficult it was to come up with "scathing" questions that could be lied to with the technical truth? I seriously doubt any but the most naive in Congress are at all surprised by these events, but obviously they have to *act* surprised on camera or there might be public outcry that could damage their own boat. Meanwhile they also need to give the folks being questioned plenty of wiggle room as a professional courtesy, after all any one of them could be the next victims of some inquest or other. Plus you know, NSA. They almost certainly have career-ending dirt on every major politician in the country, you gotta be sure that in the back-room after-meeting you can make a good claim that you did everything you could to protect them or your own face may feature in the next front-page scandal.

Comment Re:Nice concept (Score 1) 154

Really? There are states whose law protect someone who, say, sells marijuana in a state where it is illegal and then retreats back to a state where it's been legalized? I find that hard to believe. I believe you're confusing that with the idea that you could go to a state where X is legal, do X there, then return without facing repurcussions even if X is illegal in your home state. Which is pretty much the default assumption - you don't have to worry about breaking Arizona law unless you are actually *in* Arizona.

Comment Re:...and device runtime with stay the same (Score 1) 322

By that measure how exactly is a battery replacement any different than a complicated system overhaul? It's all done by magic pixies behind the screen at the mechanic shop for most people. When replacing the single most expensive component of an EV I kind of doubt mechanic-hours is a big part of the expense.

Comment Re: Not-so-accurate source (Score 1) 487

Probably because that's a lot of extra infrastructure to build and maintain (both technical and beuracratic) for minimal benefit since the current system is working fine. Say a whopping 10% of people don't pay the fee, and a wopping 50% of those are dishonest jerks who just don't want to pay. That means you're *at most* going to get a 5% increase in fee revenue, so all the extra infrastructure would have to clearly cost considerably less than that to be worth considering. Plus it would be annoying for the honest users - one more online account to sign into, and maybe not everyone likes the idea of signing their name on everything they watch. Meanwhile the "please don't do this without a license" warning shoos off the honest folk just fine and reminds them what they're missing out on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real computer scientists like having a computer on their desk, else how could they read their mail?

Working...