![]() ![]()
The average person who follows any “how to” information gets little to no result, and these references are example purposes only. We have the advantage of doing online marketing for 6+ years, and have the expertise to achieve these outcomes as a result. Understand these results are not typical, and in no way shape or form are we implying that you’ll replicate them. The sales figures stated above are our personal sales figures and/or students of previous programs that all worked extremely hard and stayed focused through the duration of the program and beyond. We can in NO way guarantee you will get similar results. The results on this page are OUR results and from years of testing. These results are not typical and results will vary. Free trial dvd snap license#The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.Įven the most contorted interpretations of this passage would not considered a content produced by applications running on a GPL’d system a covered work.Earnings and income representations made by VideoSnap and their advertisers/sponsors are aspirational statements only of your earnings potential. ![]() UPDATE: John Koenig pointed me to this passage in the draft 3 that states: I applaud the author to promote the cause of his supporters and come to their defense, but this is a case where the demons simply do not exist. ![]() Free trial dvd snap software#A quick scan of the supporters of “Progress Freedom Foundation’ include NBC Universal, Time Warner, NCTA, and Entertainment Software Assocation, Comcast, ClearChannel and other content-rich entities. Whenever I see smart knowledgeable people make statements that are true, but not accurate, I suspect that there is a broader agenda at work. The potential threat that the author imagines was explicitly struck from the draft rationale.įor instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. Free trial dvd snap code#Section 6 of Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in a defined class of â?User Products.â? In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Free trial dvd snap movie#He goes on to suggest a possible scenario under GPLv3:Ĭan you imagine an IT company that risks having to inform the maker of a $100 million movie that it just gave away the creator’s right to protect the work–solely out of dedication to the open-source community or because of the legal advice offered in a blog post?įrom the very document the author himself cites: Anyone that has followed the drafting process knows that these drafts are as different as night and day when it comes to DRM.įurthermore, the intent of the DRM language in v3 was to address the Tivo-ization of GPL’d code and not to extend copyleft into areas beyond the scope GPL’d code. The author cites the FSF being ‘hostile’ toward DRM in Draft 1 of v3, then goes on to infer that Bruce Perens has flip-flopped on his interpretation of the GPLv3 and DRM by conveniently omitting that the references he cites are comments on two separate documents: Draft 2 and Draft 3. Neither the GPLv3 draft version 3, nor the GPLv2 ever contemplate asserting copyleft provisions on application level programs (i.e. His rhetorical redirection is transparent to everyone familiar with the issue and serves only to whip up controversy where there is none. I read the “So much for ‘new and improved’ GPL” Perspective on CNET today and was stunned by the level of hysteria portrayed by the author about the risk to content creators. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |