Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Increasing Size Of The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by coder543 View Post
    Doesn't matter. It's still copyright infringement. Illegal.
    It makes it illegal only if (consecutive):
    1) owner cares about it (if he does not, it cancels automatical copyright)
    2) trespasser denies or ignores
    3) owner takes legal action

    [ignore this]
    I guess its time for script update, Michael
    "hosted at Phoronix" should be sufficient, I think
    [/ignore this]

    there is no copyright infridgement.
    "copyright phoronix" refers for content of site.
    phoronix watermark is for phoronix-hosted images.
    there is no "copyright phoronix" labeled on image itself.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 11-12-2011, 03:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
      It makes it illegal only if (consecutive):
      1) owner cares about it (if he does not, it cancels automatical copyright)
      2) trespasser denies
      3) owner takes legal action

      I guess its time for script update, Michael
      "hosted at Phoronix" should be sufficient, I think
      It's illegal whether the owner cares or not, unless the owner specifies a license or public domain. Whether anyone gets sued is whether the owner cares or not.

      It isn't a three step process. The owner can sue after step one, steps two and three are just a courtesy gesture by the owner that is extended sometimes... but usually the suit will fail if the owner immediately complies, but yes, hosted at Phoronix should be sufficient. Not very many of the images posted in that manner are owned by Phoronix.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by coder543 View Post
        It's illegal whether the owner cares or not, unless the owner specifies a license or public domain. Whether anyone gets sued is whether the owner cares or not
        If owner refuses or does not care about protecting own automatical copyright, the copyright is automatically withdrawn from him and work is placed in public domain.
        /update: the above is incorrect, although Im pretty sure got that from lawyer...
        The trade mark has to be protected and otherwise is withdrawn; the copyright not.
        Last edited by crazycheese; 11-12-2011, 03:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #14
          Why are you taking this so personally?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by natewiebe13 View Post
            Why are you taking this so personally?
            Who? The ones defending or attacking Phoronix's policy of watermarking all images?

            Personally, I'm annoyed at watermarks, especially ones that hinder perception.

            Comment


            • #16
              I agree that the watermark is annoying, but to constantly post about how it's illegal and such, I'm sure they'll fix it so the watermark doesn't cut off the picture. (At least I hope so). Also they weren't claiming a copyright on the picture. It's just a generic footer put at the bottom of all Phoronix's pages to put a copyright on the written content.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by natewiebe13 View Post
                Why are you taking this so personally?
                Whatever side I am on, I am on it because I have been convinced it is correct. In this case, I think it's ridiculous that someone would automate the copyrighting of other people's property. I am not taking this personally, but I do believe I am right in saying this script needs to be deleted. It does several things wrong:
                1. An opaque watermark
                2. Watermarks on other people's images
                3. Copyrighting images that aren't phoronix's
                4. Making that graph unreadable


                so it's a personal vendetta against awful watermarks, against claiming other people's property, and against posting tiny thumbnails with a link to the full-size only to realize the full-size is worse than the small one because now you can't read the axis. Several things annoyed me, and I don't see any reason for this script to do what it does when the images in proximity to the one this discussion is about (using next and previous buttons) are not phoronix's either! which made me realize, they don't post very many images that are their own except for benchmarks.

                (And no, it's not about the written content. The copyright is on the page with the image, not the page with the written content.)

                Comment


                • #18
                  I see both sides. Personally, I'd like to see it a bit smaller, have it monochromatic and ~50% opacity kind of like how it's done on television (TV Network's watermark). You make some good arguments, I just don't see the point in being so overbearing. But once again, they aren't claiming copyright on the picture, just on their written content.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by natewiebe13 View Post
                    I see both sides. Personally, I'd like to see it a bit smaller, have it monochromatic and ~50% opacity kind of like how it's done on television (TV Network's watermark). You make some good arguments, I just don't see the point in being so overbearing. But once again, they aren't claiming copyright on the picture, just on their written content.
                    How are they claiming copyright on their written content when the notice I'm talking about is nowhere to be found on the article's page, and only to be found in direct correspondence to the full size image? Look at this link: http://awesomescreenshot.com/0a5o74yea
                    That screenshot was not taken of the article's page. Quit just saying they aren't claiming copyright on the picture when there is nothing else on the page to be copyrighted! it doesn't make sense. This footer is not the footer found on article pages.
                    But yes, what you're suggesting for the water mark would be nice. The only other thing I'd like to see as far as that goes is a little 'hosted by' somewhere near the word Phoronix, so that people know it isn't necessarily made by Phoronix, and of course the removal of the copyright claim at the bottom.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      back on topic

                      I'd heard some earlier suggestions that legacy code (like ISA) be removed from the kernel going forward. I assume DRM1 code will eventually be removed (if there is any) as the focus seems to be on KMS, Gallium3D and DRM2 now. If they haven't already been removed the old SATA and Firewire drivers could probably be axed too.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X