Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Disputes, Clones, Audio
Needed: One referee. Quixotic1 writes "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"
I bet there's money to be made if someone can come up with cheaper means of settling such disputes.
Store in the ammunition box. leonbrooks writes "Recently, images from a presentation by Microsoft Belgium were published on the web. The presentation made some startling (for Microsoft) concessions to Open Source, then set about FUDding the GPL into the ground. I whacked together a point-by-point answer to the anti-GPL FUD. Happy linking ..."
Tithe 10 percent. Luke Francl writes "Inspired by Lawrence Lessig's OSCON remarks, Lessig's Challenge is a way for people concerned by the attempts by the entertainment industry to close off the net to fight back. The challenge is to spend more on those who fight for the open network than you do on its enemies. Since it appeared on Slashdot last month, 10 people have joined me and we've raised over $2300 for good causes (organizations like the EFF, the ACLU, the FSF, along with free software/open source programmers and online artists). And that's just the ones I know about! Cory Doctorow wrote to tell me that many people were inspired by the challenge to join the EFF. ... Check out the list of suggested recipients."
Like obsidian, and coal, and dirt ... salimfadhley writes "Today BBC Radio 4 began serialising Phillip Pullman's popular "Dark Materials" trilogy. The beeb will be broadcasting one episode per week, with a RA stream of the latest episode that can be found on the promotional site. You can find "The Golden Compass" (called "Northern Lights" in Europe) on the website now. This stream will be replaced with episode 2 next Saturday.
The Dark Materials series was originally intended as children's fiction, however owing to excellent storytelling and a significantly darker theme than Harry Potter, has done rather well in U.S. and UK adult market.
The central premise of the series is that God is evil, a celestial impostor who pretends to have created the universe and who so intensely hates flesh and blood that he wants people to live a repressed, joyless existence. Unsurprisingly this theme has upset fundamentalist Christians."
Unfamiliar? Read the Slashdot review of the trilogy.
The clones I meet are mostly in pairs. PizzaFace writes "The Washington Post reports that the Raelian clone claim echoes a hoax of 25 years ago. And while we have better technology now for testing the claim quickly, there is still room for deception, and some people don't trust the science (and pseudoscience) reporter the Raelians appointed to test their claim."
The domain name is not a trademark registry. You have no moral claim to the domain name. Your only hope is throwing $1000 at ICANN, who will happily rule in your favor.
It's located here.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
the more obvious it will become to the courts that the Internet is what it is...a large TCP/IP network. Hopefully, this will happen before they pass so many anti-networking laws that there's no point in trying to preserve the present Internet anymore.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
> "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"
Here's a cheap, effective solution: deal with it. The current owner has as much right to it as you do (or more, since ownership is 9/10 of the law).
Try
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
something else I figure is worth posting in Slaskback. But anyways, holy crap, who else saw the banner ad on slashdot for the opening of unix sys. admin. at Blizzard? I wonder who in their HR department gets a bonus for thinking of posting here, nearly guaranteeing getting the best possible applicant.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
That's the image they project, at least IMO. Never mind the crackpot spiel. They might as well sell tinfoil mind protectors.
The premise of the Dark Materials triology sounds a LOT like the root of the Gnostic Heresey (where new age "gnosticism" comes from, actually.)
In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics. The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.") The Christians were the to-the-lions folks we all know and love, and the Gnostics--well, the gnostics are why the strong central church formed, and why the Inquisition was so harsh.
The Gnostic Heresy, as I understand it:
There was a God, and Jesus Christ was his living son--but God_the_Creator is not God-the-burning-bush-that-spoke-to-moses. Sometime after creation, a spirit called the Demiurge usurped control over creation, lied to the jews, and pretty much acted the way Christians might imagine "Satan" acting.
The Demiurge created flesh, and so flesh is flawed, and all of humanity is doomed to damnation, save for the accidental banishment from heaven of the goddess/archangel Sophia, who apparantly had no small part in Jesus Christ showing up and mascarading as a person for so many years.
The Gnosic Heresy, btw, was propagated by a series of "revelations" about the faith, sort of like the popular image of how a witch's coven is organized. It was stamped out rather freverently in the early days of Christianity, and hasn't been a going concern as a religion for a great many years.
[from the link:] > Known in the OSS community as a "viral" licence.
As the author points out, and as others of us have stated repeatedly: the GPL isn't viral, it's recursive. I've got lots of non-GPL software on my home system, and none of it has ever "caught" the GPL.
The simple rule is: if A is GPL'd and B is derived from A, then B is GPL'd. The rule is "recursive" or "transitive", but not "viral". The OSS community would do itself a favor to quit calling it "viral". (Though in fact the term seems to be more common among complainers than among GPLers, despite what the quoted MS document says.)
Hint to Microsoft: if you don't want to GPL your software, don't derive it from GPL'd software. It's as simple as that -- at least for people who aren't being obtuse willfully.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The guy they asked to do the independant tests wasn't allowed access to the clone, so he has stated it is quite possibly a hoax. More can be found at google news
That is interesting. I had declined to get Pullman's books for my ten-year-old daughter because I had mistaken them for the same kind of thinly-veiled Christian allegory one finds in C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle. (Both of whom are excellent writers, but I'm too old to be suckered into their self-destructive superstitions.) I will have to stop at the bookstore on the way home and pick them up for her.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I'm not sure what frustrates me more: the fact that the media has been hyping the Raelians' claim of a human clone without any evidence whatsoever, or the fact that the media even seems to realize that they're being silly reporting this BUT DO IT ANYHOW! If the media had any self-respect, they would have learned from the previous hoax and not be covering this new Raelian claim so much. However, they seem perfectly content to give this UFO cult a world stage to prance around on. It's almost as though the media is a semi-willing participant in this (what I assume will be a) clone fraud. Oh sure, they claim they're just reporting "important news". But let's face it: it's really just a bunch of UFO nuts who have made an incredible claim without any evidence whatsoever. This is news? I think the media is just happy to cover this because they know they can milk this for awhile regardless of whether the story is true or not. So sad that our media is willing to whore themselves like this just to entertain the masses.
GMD
watch this
Ok folks I have my asbestos suit on, and here I go....
The GPL has some serious issues. While Linux has been progressing nicely and people have been making money, who is paying the developer?
At the beginning of 2002 I had a BOF at a conference and the topic was Open Source. It was well attended about 40 people, considering it was late at night. But we discussed the issue for a couple of hours. And the conclusion we came on is that Open Source is good for everybody, but the developer.
Open Source is good for the consultant, good for the book author of "professional" books, good for hardware manufacturers, etc. But licenses like the GPL are not good for the developers who actually write the code. Those people cannot get paid what they are due. This is what closed source did.
And we concluded that Open Source can continue so long as as investment is made into the Open Source. But when people cut corners they so easily say, "Ah let the other person take care of that". Basically Open Source promotes takers and not givers. The original Open Source die hards are givers. But the Open Sourcers today are takers. Look at Mandrake, for an example of the problems...
While I hate to admit it, an Open Source tax should be introduced. Without a base investment long term OSS will have issues.....
Ok I am optmistic and think it will work out....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I saw that too. I doubt that the ad guarantees much out of this crowd because:
a.) Probably half of the visitors here use ad blockers (or... subscribe).
b.) A decent portion of the other half are probably underage or don't have the experience asked for by the job requirements (they really aren't requiring *that* much).
c.) Everyone that's left likes working on BNETD too much or thinks Blizzard 'jumped the shark' or something like that... OR realizes that times are tough and quitting your already not terrible job to go work for a videogame company may not be the best decision you make this year.
But I dunno. It might be worth it to see what kind of wacky race they decide to include in Warcraft 4.
Relevant link
Register all trademarks in Turkmenistan... that way, they'll end in ".tm"; you'll be happy that your trademark has been "exported to cyberspace", and we'll be happy that we can ignore you.
-- Terry
I find it said that increasingly stories labelled as "news" are obviously editorialized descriptions of recent events. Take for a few quotes from the article about the Dark Materials triology:
and
How can this kind of stuff even pretend to be "news"? Is it just because the story is talking about Christians that it gets away with this kind of writing around here?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
I bet there's money to be made if someone can come up with cheaper means of settling such disputes.
How damnably ironic can Timothy be (without trying to be)? The whole point of the $1000 fee is that there's money to be made. You know how much money? Right about $1000, minus expenses. *sigh*
The reality is, the $1000 fee goes towards two main purposes, neither of which is profit. The first is to cover a relatively expensive process (yes, flame on, I know that you would arbitrate and manage claims for free). The second reason is to provide a barrier to entry. "Barrier to entry" sounds evil to most knee-jerk thinkers, but this one is a good barrier. Trust me, I would file claims against every company I didn't like in the world if the fee was only $1. I would have fun with the system. So would everyone else. The $1000 price tag makes me think a bit more before I challenge for a domain name that is "rightfully" mine.
Once one of the free music bands out there makes a serious hit song I can guarantee they'll get themselves a nice RIAA approved record contract before their next release.
I'll settle any such disputes for $500. Each party agrees to abide by the decision and hold me blameless.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Its not as if you are going to lose custom over it as you said you are a small business.
For what it's worth, CNN.com's next-to-top story is about Michael Guillen's statements that it may be a hoax and that his team cannot get access to the baby to test. So it's not just sitting there.
All you have to do is: don't be hung up on your domain name being identical to your trademark name. Almost nobody's is.
If your trademark is non-descriptive (e.g. nothing about the name "Levi" indicates they sell jeans) then it might really collide with someone else somewhere else in this big world. At best, it might be ambiguous and vague. Maybe combine your trademark with something descriptive, and you could even end up with a better domain name than your vague trademark. (e.g. Which is a better domain name: levi.com or levijeans.com?)
Or if it absolutely must be the same, then use a different TLD. You probably don't have a TLD in your 20-year-old trademark (e.g. that company in Redmond is not named "Microsoft Dot Com") so you had little hope of getting an exact match on the whole string anyway. The original purposes for many of the TLDs are long forgotten and unenforced, so just pick any of 'em, whatever looks pretty. Whatever. You might be surprised at how many websites are not actually hosted in Tuvala.
If there's no dispute, then there's no expense. You can't get more inexpensive than that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I hereby clone this First Post and claim it as my own!
Actually, why not abandon the internet? I am working on a replacement after all... I would like to have been able to keep the internet for myself and those like me, but it was stolen from all of us years ago. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be living on an internet "reservation" (apologies to native americans) which just happens to be only those parts no corporations wanted.
Oh, and since I never made this obvious... I not only don't mind the idea of alternate Meta's, I think it would be good to have several distinct/seperate Meta's in existence. So if you think you have what it takes, build your own!
If you want worldwide you should use .INT that is what it was set aside for.
The top-level domain for international organizations is .ORG. The .INT TLD is designed for international treaty organizations such as ISO, WTO, WIPO, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
COM refers to .com.us domains.
www.netscape.com.us could not be found. Please check the name and try again.
vs.
Netscape Network
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm all in favor of abandoning it. do tell more.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And costs a lot less. Company A wants a website - www.widgets.com, so they get a hosting company just as they do now and publish.
Now Company B argues that they have a claim on www.widgets.com. Ok, now ICANN puts their foot down and states that a domain name is NOT a trademark, and offers to host www.widgets.com for both companies, with links to their main web pages, and possibly some descriptive text indicating what the different possibilities are. Company B's $1000 can go towards relocating company A's pages onto another server.
so www.mcdonalds.com could end up as:
_macdonalds_ the burger chain
_macdonalds_ the Scottish kilt maker
_macdonalds_ the cafe in Lower Aldershot.
Each pays a minimal hosting fee to ICANN (because they're not hosting a vast amount of stuff - just a stack of hyperlinks)) and hosts their pages off somewhere else. It's always struck me as daft that someone thinks up a perfectly good name for a website, then some company comes along and stamps all over them just because there's a name clash.
I'm an athiest. Well, more honestly I suppose you could call me an "apathetic agnostic"; I don't know if there's a God, and I really can't be troubled to care. None the less, shite like this served up as if it were a news story makes me want to vomit.
If it were clearly marked as an editorial piece, then fine; flame on. This, however, was clearly listed under "News". Reprehensable.
A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute.
People like you worry me. You didn't say they had any kind of a web site, only that they registered the domain.
I hope you meant that "they had a web site up that might confuse our customers" or "we have a famous mark and they are diluting it" or something like that. Not just that your trademark is stored on some hard drive at the domain registrar database and you really would like it for yourself.
I have a couple domains with short non-word names that I registered many years ago. For a while I had a stupid "hello, here are links to my friends' home page" kind of thing, but decided I would just use them for email, which I do.
And I occasionally wonder if some low-life that wants the name is going sue me (or even worst, arbitrate me) just because he wants the domain, and not because I'm actually affecting his business. In court that would be easy to win, but in arbitration I would probably lose.
Heck, that low-life might be YOU (though I doubt it since my contact info is up-to-date and I haven't seen any messages about them).
Please, register your domain in .biz or something for now and don't sue this guy unless he is actually *infringing on your trademark* or he bought the domain *in bad faith*. I don't know how generic the term in question is, but if it's something generic like "ProComputers.com", I doubt it's bad faith.
Story I put on kuro5hin, but started as a comment here. *sigh*.
Okay, I propose a real-world test. Let's release one system under GPL, and call it "GNU/Linux". Let's release another under BSD license, and call it "BSD". Then stand back and see if anyone develops for either.
Oh wait, that test has been done. And what do we see? Lots of people are working on Linux and the GNU stuff, even though it is licensed under GPL! (Also, people are working on BSD. Several flavors of BSD, even.)
Look at all the progress GNOME and GNOME apps have made just in the past year. GPL-licensed software is not just surviving, it is thriving.
an Open Source tax should be introduced
Good grief! Who will decide how much this tax will be? Who will decide who gets paid? How much will the tax authority skim for their own purposes? What regulations will exist to regulate what projects may be funded and what projects may not be? What will happen when companies like Microsoft start lobbying the government?
If this happens, it will waste a huge amount of money, add a whole lot of red tape, and attract people interested in milking the system for money, as opposed to people who want to develop software. Bad, bad, bad idea.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
If you take ten million lines of GPL code and add a
single line of proprietary code, the result is GPL.
If you take ten million lines of proprietary code and
add a single line of GPL code, the result is still GPL.
Utilizing GPL code is thermodynamically irreversable,
just like utilizing fire. Sometimes it makes economic
sense to do so, sometimes not.
>;k
That would only be the case for binaries that have been linked to the GPL libraries. Binaries linked to the MS libraries would be governed by the terms and conditions attached to those.
The fact the source in question can be linked to either is irrelevant. The GPL is intended to prevent the distribution of closed binaries that need GPLed components to run. The GPL would only cover a binary from that code that is linked to the GPL library. It would not cover a binary linked to the MS library. However, If it was the other way around and the code in question was GPLed at the outset and linked to the MS library the resulting binary would probably be illegal to distribute. The license to the MS library is probably incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL has no legal ability to "capture" code that has not been licensed or derived from GPL licenced code in the first place. The FSF can NOT steal MS or anybody's else code by developing a workalike to proprietary vendor's library then using that to claim ownership of source that vendor licensed under his own terms. If your scenario is true, then why couldn't MS develop say a readline workalike; license it under the most draconian terms possible and then claim ownership of every shred of code that is linked to GPL readline 99.99 percent of the time? The answer is they can't. I don't doubt that MS is looking for ways to lawyer OSS out of existence but this isn't one of them.
It is the deliberate act of putting code through a linker that makes it a derivative work of the code being linked to. The GPL has no ability to miracle code in an MS vault through a linker running on a Linux system in Stallman's office. I seriously doubt vendors of proprietary development libraries and tools are gung ho to cut the ground from under their own feet.
Actually Madeleine L'Engle's most important work, "A Wrinkle In Time" has been under fire both from those who are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of Christianity and from the more fanatic fringe of Christianity.
Really, whatever Christianity there is in that book is of a more Unitarian-Universalist bent...not only Jesus is cited as a fighter against The Shadow, but Gandhi and Buddha too. Kindly old ladies who befriend Margaret and are identified as witches doesn't help matters either. And various alien creatures for good measure.
It was one of my favorite books in childhood. Space travel, mysticism, a big gross brain running a planet...cool stuff for someone whose parents wanted to cram Nancy Drew down her throat.
That book would make a great movie...I'd love to see one of the big Anime houses like Ghibli or Gainax or the people who did Escaflowne tackle it. Actually it wouldn't be a bad bit of material for Brad Bird (director of "Iron Giant") at Pixar. Imagine an animated Ixchel! That would be great!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I'll agree in general about that. Like, remember the summer's media kidnapping phase? The story that sparked it was the hunt for Elizabeth Smart. (I had Danielle in there from the Danielle van Dam triam...) That was close to the top of CNN's page for a couple weeks, but I have no clue how it turned out, or if it's even continuing. Last I heard they got the fix-it guy for questioning.
Ok, I'll summarize. We build a new global (ok, not quite that scale, but still could be big) network. We do things right, and we protect its users. We can get rid of some of the cruft, the things that should be gone from the net, but still hand around. We keep the things that work. How?
#1 We need wires, cables, fibers. Since these cost money, and even if they didn't, they're easy to trace, I propose another option. We use VPN tunnels. The flavor isn't so important, ipsec, ptpp, OpenVPN... even all of them together.
#2 Users don't want to be second class citizens. That means a static IP. That means no restrictions on what services they can offer, and none on the services they might want to use... they want to be true peers. The 10.x.x.x offers 16 million IPs, less some overhead. More than enough room for growth, especially if we start *real* planning for IPv6 migration(instead of paying lip service).
#3 Users want privacy, they want protection. This one was tough... and I can't honestly say I've solved it. But I've come damn close, and I continue to make progress. Since it is impossible to communicate with someone without knowing their identity, and thusly holding them vulnerable. In a routed enviroment though, this changes just *slightly*.
If you communicate with only 3 hosts directly, can you know the identity of other hosts? Well, you could force one of those 3 administrators (or the feds could, anyway) to reveal identities.
Unless, those 3 administrators were in foreign countries. And if they in turn, only knew the identities of 2 other individuals besides yourself? What if we trained all new "recruits" to never reveal the identity of their 3 partners, even to close buddies/family/lovers?
Encrypted packet tunnels, with endpoints outside of any single goverment's jurisdiction. Practical, if not perfect, anonymity.
Oh, and free domain names. A network where projects like bnetd wouldn't have any troubles. A way to weed out the AOLers, and all the riffraff. Email accounts where you wouldn't get any spam.
Guys, help me figure this out... it's worth doing.
Cults have to hack a satellite to get this much media exposure.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The cat is out of the bag... Any data communication system will be subjected to the same laws.
There are things you can do right now. Have everyone use IP6/IPSec/SSH, then have a central server in Sealand, or any other country with few restrictive laws.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The flaws in this are too many to name. Sending packets to sealand will be illegal (if they don't just cut the fibers, that is). It will be impossible to hide the fact that you are doing so, and it will have only one possible meaning.
IPv6 isn't mature. Many apps don't compile well with it, if at all. It's an incredible pain to implement, have you experimented with it? I have.
No, what we need to do, is be able to hide the existence of this free network. Not perfectly, mind you. We need a routed network, where you only know the indentities of your immediate neighbors, of which you have few. And they sit across international borders, immune to any trouble you might get them into. And, in a worst case scenario, where you can claim it was only a small VPN, for private purposes.
And before anyone mentions freenet, keep in mind I like the internet because I get IP connectivity... p2p filesharing isn't enough.
If I understand the point correctly, you're pointing out that a Corporation is not a cause. That due to the nature of business and the Corporate structure, a Corporation can not be fully trusted. And that Corporate interest is not about higher causes but what bennefits the Corporation. And I agree. I guess this is the basis for the "Apple hurt me harder brigade" - criticism of those Apple customers who are willing to make any sacrifice if it "helps Apple".
Having said that - just because a Corporation is such, it doesn't mean its the same as any other. The distinctions are made on a case by case bassis. And even then, are due to change over time and worthy of constant scrutiny.
Is RedHat different than Microsoft? Sure. One can point to numerous differences between the two. They're entirely different entities with different modes of business. But, keeping with what has already been said, that doesn't mean RedHat gets off without continued scrutiny.
One of the guidelines to this scrutiny is whether a Corporation's interests coincide with one's own. If the two match, then the business relationship (and it should always remain strickly business) is a good one. But once a Corporation begins to pit its interest against those of its customers, then the customer base should take note.
It might be worth pointing out that a customer's interest can be financial as well as one's own moral code. A Corporation itself may not have morals. But it will mind the morals of its customers if it wishes to retain them.
The is a parody piece I did a few months ago, but its usefullness seems to go on and on and on...
Bush Presses for Identical Twin Ban
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Pardon me for taking the side of the enemy, but the Florida lawyer who sued to have a state-appointted guardian watch the child completely destroyed any chance of us seeing if the child was a real clone, much less seeing if the *second* alleged clone child (remember that one?) in the Netherlands is real. If said lawyer does not take his argument to completion, and convinces the court to force CloneAid to identify the child and mother, there is no way in hell they will, as the bonds between child (even a clone) and mother are quite strong and not something to underestimate or toy with.
Granted, this was a predictable move, and gives the Raelians a perfectly good excuse not to have the child DNA tested unless the court forces them to. But we only saw that once in the media, and they'll be certain *never* to say that again </sarcasm>.
...go to their websites, and search on the keyword "Hamidi". Ken Hamidi is a former Intel employee who claims to have a grievance against Intel. If he put up an "Intel-sucks" website, and Intel tried to shut him down, I'd be on his side. That's not what's happening.
Hamidi claims some "electronic pamphleteering right" to spew his grievances to Intel's current employees via Intel's email system. He sent 6 spams, between 8,000 to 35,000 employees each time before Intel got an injunction against him.
EFF supports him and the ACLU supports him.
OK, so one nutcase gets to harass a "bigcorp" that you don't like, so what. Now imagine every political, religious, etc, nutcase in the country claiming the *RIGHT* to spam everybody at your ISP with their "important message".
It's about consent not content. I don't care if someone is spamming porn, or religion to save my soul, or a "sale" to save a few bucks, or a political party to save my country. If the nutcases get a "right" to bombard you with their garbage, you can kiss email as we know it goodbye.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Then Microsoft can't touch you because you didn't have access to the original proprietary source code.
False. Mircosoft has been publishing some of their source. The Samba team is specificly avoiding seeing it.
And irrelevant even if you were right. Microsoft is free to publish their entire source in the New York Times if they wanted. Doesn't change anything.
Microsoft seems to hypothesize that...
They hypothesize. Big deal. If they want to do a clean room implementation they have to do it right. I could make the same hypothesis about Microsoft's lousy documentation. Having WRONG documentation can be WORSE then having no documentation when trying to do a clean room implementation. And Microsoft is notorious for wrong documentation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Well, if so, some other country with liberal laws can be utilized.
Who the hell is "they"? Currently, the only lines to sealand are comming from the UK, but havenco has such a vested interest, that I have no doubt that lines could be run from Holland, Belgium, and/or France if required.
IP6 is not mature? That's a good one! heh.
As for some applications not compiling with it, that's really not a big deal. There are already many apps with IPv6 support, and it doesn't take a great deal of work for developers to add support to others as the demand increases. Besides, you can still use IPv4, just make sure it's going over IPSec, same end result.
Give me a break... You really haven't thought this through.
Gee, like sealand. Besides, if everyone you communicate with was across international borders, you wouldn't have to worry about anything else, hence the sealand idea.
How is this so different from my own suggestion? You make an encrypted connection to another server over national boundaries.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Yes but when I was at a Linux conference the CEO of Redhat asked who is using Redhat 8.0. And then he asked who paid for it. All the hands lowered. And do you know what one person said why he did not buy the product? Because he did a couple of beta downloads and tests. Gee whiz, a couple of bug reports and you do not need to buy product anymore.
Yes Redhat is profitable, but I saw from the question by the CEO of Redhat that he would like people to actually start buying more product. Because it costs to develop product.
Open Source users are takers. They do not contribute back. That is the crux of the problem of OSS. Who pays back? Right now OSS is interesting and companies are doing it. But is it because of MS? And if it is a knee jerk reaction to MS then this is NOT good.
BTW I like OSS, but I am just thinking of the longer term ramifications. Eg, the day after MS falls.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I think that it's goign to depend on the domain name and the use that the current registrant is putting the name to. If it's a wierd name (lipshit-concrete.com), and he's using it to scam people for your product, then you have a really good case. If the domain is something like Arrow, You've got arrow computing and he's selling bows and arrows, then you soulc be in for a nasty fight.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
How is this so different from my own suggestion? You make an encrypted connection to another server over national boundaries.
In my scheme, there is more than 1 international destination (hopefully all of them), the desination has more than 3 citizens, and the destination isn't already associated with a criminal element (rightly or wrongly).
Gee, like sealand. Besides, if everyone you communicate with was across international borders, you wouldn't have to worry about anything else, hence the sealand idea.
In a routed network, your direct neighbors might be international, and the other hosts could be anywhere. You wouldn't, couldn't know who they are. It doesn't limit how many people you communicate with, just your knowledge of who the rest are.
Sealand, is, and always was a bad idea. Ever heard of single point of failure? Keeping a low profile? Staying away from sensationalist idiots?
Apostlic Christianity is more along the lines of what is present today. A hierarchy within a church structure. Example -- I believe (don't quote me) that Catholics have a Pope, then Cardinals, then Bishops, Deacons, etc. with power decreasing further down the line.
There are actually very few places today where Apostolic Christianity is practiced. In the early church, there were Apostles, Prophets, Evangalists, Pastors, and Teachers, the whole of which is refered to as the "five-fold ministry." The Pope -> Cardinal -> Bishop -> Priest -> Decon thing was an invention of the Roman church, after it became to oficial state religion.
Also, the hierarchy of the early church was much, much looser than is common today. The first Christians lived in an esentially communist environment, each sharing what they had with the rest. The Revelation also quotes Jesus as saying that he hates the Nicolatians; "Nicolatians" comes from the Greek words "to overthrow" and "the common people," the idea that there was a strong division between laity and clergy, and that clergy should rule over the common people, was anthema to Christ and His church.
Thomas Galvin
You have a trademark on the name in association with a particular product or service. You cannot get a trademark on just a name, word or phrase. Just beacuse he is using the same name as you does not automatically mean he's infringing on your trademark. You might not have a leg to stand on for any price.
Geez, nice spoiler on the Pullman books. Notice that the premise you refer to isn't entirely central or clear until the 3rd book.
What is it with these books and spoilers? For those of you who haven't read His Dark Materials, I highly recommend skipping Terry Brooks' introduction: in a single paragraph, it manages to spoil about 4/5ths of the surprises of the series, including all the major characters and some plot...
Except Microsoft would lose all trade secret protection
The issue was a supposed "problem" caused by the GPL. I'm saying it's FUD because it has nothing to do with whether code is GPL'd or not.
There is Microsoft code that is viewable. Microsoft's motivations for what code they make publicly viewable or keep secrect isn't really relevant.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Making code GPL does not suddenly strip every right you have to that code from you.
If you own the copyright to the code then you are free to license it anyway that you like. Remember, the GPL is just that, a license.
This means that you can't license someone else's copyrighted code (taking someone's proprietary code and adding it to a GPL'd work) unless you are given specific permission from the copyright owner.
Think about it. TrollTech both GPL's and sells licenses for Qt. They can do this because they are the copyright owners.
GPL is only a license.
Copyright is what gives the power.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.