You are definitely right there, but as I mentioned in the video, in most cases the copyright holder has granted permission to the site that is hosting the code (GitHub, BitBucket, etc.) to publish the code. That means the site is not violating the copyright holder's rights, and you can read the code as they display it to you. It does not mean that you have any rights to copy it further, though.
When you "look" at code posted openly/freely on the internet, several copies need to be made in order to show it on your screen. The fundamental operation in digital communication is the copy, there is no such thing as non-copy viewing.
Which is why the code repositories, like github, has in their terms of service a statement that they can redistribute code posted to their site. It doesn't mean you can make further copies unless the project also give you a license to do so. And he does mention as much in the talk as well
JusticeNature If Linux ask for _royalties_ (which I'm not sure anymore), everyone (making money from it) should pay. However, suppliers used to work as _holdings_ (authorized vendors, in this case), so they may, by contract, have their licensing costs covered by the laptop's proprietary.
1:09:07, what's the point in copyrighting a software, if a translation would just ruin everything? Does a patent is necessary in order to detect camouflages? PS: what is "uni tests"?
Actually Intellectual Property and copyright originated in Venice in 1445, because their government wanted to be able to use their citizens' inventions in warfare.
True: many developers are unaware of how they work, why they are important, and how to apply them to their projects.
You are definitely right there, but as I mentioned in the video, in most cases the copyright holder has granted permission to the site that is hosting the code (GitHub, BitBucket, etc.) to publish the code. That means the site is not violating the copyright holder's rights, and you can read the code as they display it to you. It does not mean that you have any rights to copy it further, though.
When you "look" at code posted openly/freely on the internet, several copies need to be made in order to show it on your screen. The fundamental operation in digital communication is the copy, there is no such thing as non-copy viewing.
Which is why the code repositories, like github, has in their terms of service a statement that they can redistribute code posted to their site.
It doesn't mean you can make further copies unless the project also give you a license to do so. And he does mention as much in the talk as well
Only a bunch of people watching such an important matter. Wow!
hi, hope you can help. if a laptop supplier sells laptops with linux on it does the supllier need to pay Linux a licence ? thx
JusticeNature If Linux ask for _royalties_ (which I'm not sure anymore), everyone (making money from it) should pay. However, suppliers used to work as _holdings_ (authorized vendors, in this case), so they may, by contract, have their licensing costs covered by the laptop's proprietary.
MrAbrazildo
thx !
It was educational, but also interesting.
Very educational indeed
1:09:07, what's the point in copyrighting a software, if a translation would just ruin everything? Does a patent is necessary in order to detect camouflages?
PS: what is "uni tests"?
Everything you write is copyrighted by you, there is no way of "copyrighting" something.
I am not ungrateful for the video
Actually Intellectual Property and copyright originated in Venice in 1445, because their government wanted to be able to use their citizens' inventions in warfare.
Well, the obfuscated version would be better at least in 1 point: with no blank spaces, it would compile faster, hehehe.
OpenGL Math has a bullshit license like the kind he talks about at 12:18, though it's also licensed under MIT license.