1 5 6 7 8 9 Previous Next 129 Replies Latest reply on Jan 9, 2012 3:32 PM by keithlm Go to original post
      • 90. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....
        bobstro

        flyingtoastr wrote:

        So since I paid for my Sentra, and it's capable of going 100 miles per hour, I should be able to do so without being pulled over by the cops?


        I drive a Sentra. I wouldn't recommend doing 100 in it, regardless of the police!

         

        However, since we're doing bad analogies: When I buy a car, I certainly expect to be able to drive down any road I want with it! My NT feels like it's capped at 50 MPH. :smileyhappy:

        • 91. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....

          flyingtoastr wrote:

          krier32 wrote:

          That is going to the extreme.  However, If I paid for it, and the system was fully capable of running the software, then why should I not be able to do just that.

           

          If I own the equipment, shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?



          So since I paid for my Sentra, and it's capable of going 100 miles per hour, I should be able to do so without being pulled over by the cops?

           

          Awesome!


          That's not a good analogy.  You want to do 100 mph, go right ahead, you must suffer the consequences.

           

          If something I do breaks the law, then I must suffer the consequences.  So far, other than your analogy, we haven't discussed anything that breaks the law.  However, if I run the Google Earth software on the Point of Sale terminal that we were discusiing and it causes the machine to crash, guess what, I'm out the time, money and aggravation to get it fixed, because I know that the manufacturer isn't going to coverit under warranty or give me tech support on it.

           


           

          • 92. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....
            Larryb52

            when you signed off in BN disclaimer at the begiining of starting your nook & agreed to 'their' terms you are now in violation of that agreement so yea , your breaking the law and no if you buy an galaxy that sells no content than sure have at it, but don't go into a book store & think you going to get just an android device. Its advertised and programmed as a readers tablet, perhaps because they want to sell book, duh...no these are not for you , now go with you hacked up device and have fun but don't come here and expect others to feel sorry for you...

            • 93. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....
              EXCUSE ME but who made you the nook and forum police. Now we know who turns these conversations into arguments. Its people like you. If you don't like the conversation move on to the next one you do like. I havent asked anyone to feel sorry for me. And btw, if you want to throw things like the term of service and the eula out there. B&N is in violation of them as well. I am a nook owner and I have as much right as you to be here. And my nook isn't hacked either.
              • 94. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....

                krier32 wrote:
                And btw, if you want to throw things like the term of service and the eula out there. B&N is in violation of them as well.


                Can you provide proof of your claim? ("Proof" would include something other than a personal opinion that apps should be considered as content.)

                 

                EDIT: BTW: I just spent the last hour or so searching for places the term "content" is commonly used to refer to apps. Hopefully your claim was referring to something else.)

                • 96. B&N in violation of GPL?
                  bobstro

                  keithlm wrote:
                  Can you provide proof of your claim? ("Proof" would include something other than a personal opinion that apps should be considered as content.)

                  Barnes & Noble appear to be in violation of the terms of the GPL, which is a license that controls how software B&N based the NOOKcolor and NOOKtablet on can be modified and distributed.

                   

                  B&N took licensed open source code and modified it to their benefit. They are free to do so, provided they comply with the terms of the license. They have failed to do so.

                   

                  Much of the fuss aobut 1.4.1 would be alleviated if B&N played by the convention, and indeed, the LICENSE, that has allowed the software to evolve so quickly.

                   

                  B&N agreed to the terms of the GPL when they used source code based on it in the same manner that I agreed to B&N's ToS when I used their device.

                   

                  The rules work for corporations too. Well, they used to.

                  • 97. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....

                    keithlm wrote: "'Proof' would include something other than a personal opinion that apps should be considered as content."

                    _________________

                     

                    I think it's pointless to argue about the EULA, so I am not trying to "prove" anything, but it should be noted that B&N also has considered apps to be "content." From last week's B&N press release:

                     

                    "Digital content sales also grew briskly during the same nine-week period, increasing 113% on a comparable basis. Content sales are defined to include digital books, digital newsstand, and the rapidly growing apps business."

                    • 98. Re: Regarding 1.4.1.
                      SamSpade88

                      I am of the opinion that B&N had a long time to think about and decide that side loading apps was bad for business yet they released the product allowing side loading apps. Like they hooked you in and then at the first update it squashes the capability without a word from management. If that isn't wrong then please explain. And by the way, I have not tried to root or side load anything on my NT. I did a lot of that with a Palm T|X I had but now it is so new I am still working through all my other devices I have. So I am not necessarily a proponent for what it stops doing..I am just saying...

                      • 99. Re: B&N in violation of GPL?

                        bobstro wrote:

                        keithlm wrote:
                        Can you provide proof of your claim? ("Proof" would include something other than a personal opinion that apps should be considered as content.)

                        Barnes & Noble appear to be in violation of the terms of the GPL, which is a license that controls how software can be modified and distributed.

                         




                        It appears they did release the source code; although there may be a build file or environment variable that is causing people to not be able to build the source code.

                         

                        GIven that situation it would be difficult to conclude that they are in direct violation of the GPL. (Except for people that have already decided they are guilty.)

                         

                        BTW: It also appears there might be some people that can compile. If that is true then this argument is null and void.

                        • 100. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....

                          JMTR wrote:I think it's pointless to argue about the EULA, so I am not trying to "prove" anything, but it should be noted that B&N also has considered apps to be "content." From last week's B&N press release:

                           

                          "Digital content sales also grew briskly during the same nine-week period, increasing 113% on a comparable basis. Content sales are defined to include digital books, digital newsstand, and the rapidly growing apps business."



                          If they are defining apps as "content" then they are one of the only companies in either the publishing OR software industry that is defining the term that way.

                          • 101. Re: Regarding 1.4.1.

                            SamSpade88 wrote:

                            If that isn't wrong then please explain.



                            They have the legal right for what they have done.  And since they announced early that the bug existed and that they would be fixing it; they also have the ethical right.

                             

                            (BTW: I just mention the ethical issue because I'm tired of seeing people pretend they didn't have the "right" to fix something they had announced as a bug.)

                             

                            • 102. Re: B&N in violation of GPL?
                              bobstro

                              keithlm wrote:


                              It appears they did release the source code; although there may be a build file or environment variable that is causing people to not be able to build the source code.

                               

                              GIven that situation it would be difficult to conclude that they are in direct violation of the GPL. (Except for people that have already decided they are guilty.)


                              Not sure which version of the GPL applies. I'm not a lawyer, but by my understanding, if the compiled source won't compile and run properly, they didn't meet the terms of the GPL:

                               

                              "[...] The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities."

                               

                              "[...] When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures."

                              • 103. Re: Regarding 1.4.1....

                                keithlm wrote: "If they are defining apps as 'content' then they are one of the only companies in either the publishing OR software industry that is defining the term that way."

                                ______________

                                 

                                That may be true, but it's beside the point. It's possible that B&N is imprecise (like most companies), and uses the term in slightly different ways in different contexts. But in the end, if B&N could be pinned down on an internal definition of "content" that includes apps, then it wouldn't matter how the rest of the industry used it. Moreover, the fact that B&N at least sometimes uses "content" that way indicates that's it's not absurd for its customers sometimes to do so as well.

                                 

                                • 104. Re: Regarding 1.4.1.
                                  SamSpade88

                                  Please provide reference in the 1.4.1 update log that side-loading is considered a bug and that is what is fixed by it. AFAIK it just says the update has minor enhancements.

                                  1 5 6 7 8 9 Previous Next