One argument I've heard against this is that the GPL covers only what other people can do, not what the original copyright holder can do.
That's what copyright law says, not just the GPL. You the user can't redistribute copyrighted code or derivatives of copyrighted code without some kind of extra license granted by the author, directly or indirectly. With any license the author is granting you the right to redistribute the software, provided you fulfill the license requirements. The GPL just has the "unintuitive" requirement that if you distribute the software or a derivative of the software( such as by selling it as a packaged binary), that you must provide the source code.
By this argument, Oracle could distribute patented code under the GPL, but nobody else could.
If Oracle is licensing the code under the GPL then they must follow the GPL. Meaning if they add obligations to the license that would prevent "royalty-free redistribution of the Program" then they themselves are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL.The situation you describe above is closed source software and is the opposite of the GPL.
It is surprising how many/.ers keep repeating the nonsense about Goole being an Ad agency.
Are ABC, NBC (SKY, ITV and others in the UK) ad agencies?
The state of media being what it is, yes ABC, NBC, FOX, etc are ad agencies. When(if) they start doing journalism again I'll consider them more than that.
He employs Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox and Friends team; and blames the internet for the fail of Newscorp. Obviously he's an moron.
I don't care what he thinks(which is not much beyond making money). I do care what the hell he does as a non-trivial percentage of America follows his "news".
And that still says nothing about regulating speech. It's vague enough that it could be a loophole for ISP's to discriminate traffic based on perceived illegality(like bittorrent) which would then have to be complained about to the FCC by users who use bittorrent for legal reasons. And then the FCC would have to file suit against the ISP for discrimination of lawful traffic and it would be up to the ISP to prove illegality in a court of law. So to answer your question it would be up to ISPs to prove traffic is illegal, and a court of law to decide if it is.
There may be some services that need traffic prioritization, such as urgent medical services, but the approach in the proposal creates no real limits on what could be allowed as an “additional online service.” It would be much better if space for these services was addressed through waivers or other processes that put the burden on the company suggesting such services to prove that they are needed. And such processes must be fully transparent — not just consumers but the FCC must be in a position to know how these services work and what impact they are having. They must also be open to real debate and opposition. (Emphasis added)
The key point is, to whom would companies have to prove their service was worthy of a waiver? If it's the government, then basically that means the government would become the approver of all new internet businesses. Who in their right mind would want that? So, what if it was some other body, such as a standards body? Same problem. Is there any organization that we should trust to be the gatekeeper?
No. This whole notion eviscerates the very meaning of "free" in "free market".
Hmm, not quite. You've forgotten the context. It's not that they would be gatekeepers of all traffic, it's that they would be gate keepers of traffic getting a higher priority. IE company A starts prioritizing certain news sources traffic over other traffic. They would have to show that this is neccessary(for an emergency evacuation signal or something) or stop giving that traffic high priority. Not that they would have to drop that traffic entirely.
Network Neutrality says NOTHING about "regulating speech". All it says is that ISPs are common carriers like telephone, electricity, water and can't discriminate traffic based on its content.
I don't really see what's odd about it. Lobbyist involvement in lawmaking aside, two companies submitting an open letter to the FCC is how it should work. Not only is it covered under free speech, it just makes sense the the stakeholders have input into the process(FTR I don't think campaign donations by non-human entities should be considered anonymous free speech, but that's not what this is about). I would be just as worried about lawmakers trying to make decisions without involvement by technology experts.
Similarly asking why lawyers should be commenting on law is like asking why technology experts comment on what Google, Apple, and Microsoft all the time.
Really, why is this blog news? It's the same over trodden arguments.
1.) Net neutrality is not needed to be codified into law because it happens "voluntarily" now.
Except the whole reason the FCC got involved was because of the court cases against Comcast for throttling.
2.) The ISPs are like newspaper companies, and newspapers get to choose what ads they run. Basically an argument that it's better for the freedom of speech/business interests.
Except ISPs are much more similar to the telephone or electricity utility companies(which are common carriers) than newspapers. And this argument actually supports net neutrality. Websites should be able to choose what ads they want to run, without ISPs throttling non-affiliate ad-networks.
3.) ISPs are like airline companies in that they should be able to allow for "first class" passengers so that these passengers can provide lower fares for the "coach" passengers. Basically an argument that it's better for the consumer.
Except ISPs aren't going to give you a drink and a packet of peanuts with your packets. They'll just charge more for "premium content" despite the fact that it costs the exact same amount to transmit as any other packet. They're not providing any added benefit to the consumer so this argument just falls apart.
4.) Google and Verizon recently made statements regarding support of net neutrality and therefore have something to gain with it over other companies. Basically regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture is always a fear, but I fail to see what in the proposal amounts to regulatory capture. Verizon's gain out of the proposal has to do with wireless networks not being included under the regulation. This benefits all of the wireless providers equally.
It's still a matter of tactical advantage. If you know how your opponent moves, how they think, and prioritize, then you can predict what they will do next.
It's like reverse engineering a program vs. having the source code in front of you.
So while documents from WWII probably have very little usable tactical value wrt now, documents from a year ago certainly do.
Actually, he denies more FOIA requests that Bush did(slashdot article), he's expanding our de facto war with Pakistan(google UAV and Pakistan), and he's refusing to use the Bully Pulpit to do what needs to be done with Gitmo.
Without fail, he and his administration take the politically safe route over any campaign promises. Instead of proposing a clear plan for healthcare, he lets congress hash it to pieces. Instead of trying to erase the stain of Gitmo ASAP, he lets conservative talking points stall trials of Gitmo detainees he could try and erase that stain ASAP. He could have acknowledged that the provisions in the Patriots Act were used mainly for the War on Drugs(slashdot article), but instead he promotes the renewal of the Patriot Act(slashdot article).
Hell, he even campaigned on reducing the amount of lobbyist influence in Washington. Imagine if instead of letting things continue and promoting ACTA, and appointing RIAA lackeys to Judiciary positions, and influencing FBI priorities to look at copyright over missing persons and identity fraud he did something different. Imagine if he had stood up and called out every senator that had a conflict of interest with the bill they were working on and the industry money they've taken. Even if he had just called out the Republicans imagine the firestorm that would have resulted. A pipe dream, I know; it would take a third party to reach the white house for that to ever happen, but I get energized just thinking about the possibility.
So while I agree he's not made things much worse, he's not doing what he was elected by popular vote to do and made some of the abuses of the previous Bush administration standard where they should have been reversed. In some ways, that's just as bad.
I think the disparity between campaign policy and actual policy stems from two things:
1.) The Democratic Party leaders called in their favors to keep Obama more centrist so the party is likely to retain office in the executive branch.
And 2.), as you suggest, that once you know some of the secrets at the top you have fewer courses of action than appear to everyone else. Or it appears that way to you when you are in the insular bubble of Washington.
This is not excusing his behavior, merely positing likely reasons for it. I'd wager that they are more likely than secret society assassination attempts, but it's just conjecture anyway.
Being libertarian doesn't mean blaming the gov't for everything, it means blaming whoever is curtailing your freedoms, or impairing the market and rooting out those problems. Removing gov't oversight sweeps the problem under the rug, but doesn't fix it.
Hell, the SEC isn't talking about more funding or more power, it's talking about getting input from directly the people. That's a step in the right direction from a libertarian viewpoint.
For some people, like myself, it's not about veneration of the dead but sympathy for the living. It's one thing to have a grandparent die, it's another to see people dancing on his or her grave. It's not like people become untouchable when they die, I still hear Michael Jackson jokes, people might just lay off for a little while to not be assholes.
Well I can't speak for the poster you're replying to but, as for myself:(in a rough order of importance)
Expanding operations in Pakistan(continuing bad precedent IMO this is the biggest mistake)
Renewing the Patriot Act(continuing bad precedent)
Poor execution on the stimulus bill(I see tons of signs but very little actual work being done, where'd the money go?)
General lack of willingness to use "the Bully Pulpit" openly while continuing to expand/keep expanded executive powers "silently"(ie: FOIA denials)
For me it wasn't so much that the Democratic Party Powers changed things, but that they didn't change things back to where they were from before the Republican Party Powers changed things. And none of the things that I mentioned are "cat out of the bag" scenarios; Democrats certainly had the power to change them; Hell, Obama campaigned on most of those if not supported them indirectly.
When he assumed office you saw the big promises go out the window and you saw him quietly funding all of the smaller promises he can. This leads me to envision 3 scenarios of what could have happened:
1.) Democratic Party Leaders called in their favors, and are pressuring him to be moderate so they can keep control of the executive office.
2.) He never had any of the principles he campaigned on and is essentially as empty policy-wise as George W. Bush was.
3.) Everything's so FUBAR that there's really only one option for most policy when you learn everything there is to know at the "top".
I'm an optimist so I think 3 is out. Also I don't think Obama would be trying quiet as hard as he is to maintain a positive public image, he'd want to get out ASAP. I think '1' is far more likely than '2', but again, maybe that's because I'm an optimist(and also have seen the lengths entrenched powerful organizations will go to keep that power).
I've seen a lot of this "one party control" talking point recently, but the problem is not "One Party Control" it's "Two Party Control". Voting for a Republican "in order to bring some balance" is sidestepping the problem unless you really care about banning gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research. If you care more about defense, terrorism and its laws, Iraq, Afghanistan, rampant Federal spending, Federal regulation and de-regulation, increased federal power for immigration control, the war on drugs, and the slow erosion of Citizen and Non-Citizens' rights in general, then the two parties, for all intents and purposes, are identical. They'll pull the same stunts and make the same political hay in the media no matter who's in office, who's the majority leader, or who's the minority leader because it's still the same group of people in power, the same party leaders pulling the strings.
If you want a change by all means vote out your incumbent congress-critter. But please acknowledge you're not going to get a change with someone who has a D or and R next to his or her name. Try something different with an L or a G or even an I.
The thing is, if you are TRULY concerned about the environment (and must drive a car), then you would buy a used car.
That's a real sustainable solution right there, how did this get modded informative?
Environmentalists can't catch a break, you're either a Luddite abandoning all technology or you're a "poseur" for not abandoning all technology. It's ridiculous. God forbid you want to propose a middle way solution, and god forbid you do as the OP and actually support some middle way position. Then people like the above poster will be jumping all over themselves to tell you that until you abandon your car and computer and go and live with bears or something they're not going to listen to you because you're a huge hypocrite for wanting to live in society and try and improve that society.
Of course it's much easier to go tell a stranger to go live in the woods than actually take any steps to recycle/conserve energy/reduce pollution. Those hippies are just asking for it when they're trying to actually do anything that might impair my goddamn right to drive a giant truck everywhere, screw everyone else.
I think that there could be non-trivial problems that would be patent worthy; a better way to secure cables/equipment against constant motion, resistance to flooding and or wet salty air, better power management. If it's just "hay guise I put these blades on my boate, gimmie patent" then I would agree with you, but I haven't read the patent.
And then you'd only see the opinions you'd agree with which defeats the whole point of having a discussion.
Also, I fail to see how your scheme would take substantial "editorial control" away from the editors, they post the articles, not the hundreds of comments.
From what I understand, this is exactly why Net Neutrality is in the news now. The FCC tried to extend common-carrier style regulations to whatever class of provider ISP's are called now. That was slapped down by the Judicial Branch in April. So now the FCC is trying to reclassify ISP's as common carriers which is what IMO should have been done in the first place, but is now being painted as the FCC taking over the internet sneakily by congress-critters trying to get re-elected.
Funny, I look at that as a good thing. I'd rather have the engineer who checks all his/her math on a calculator rather than all in his/her head.
Of course, they should be able to do in in their head, but if you actually need a meaningful answerit makes sense to minimize the mistakes you can make.
I wasn't around when Kennedy made his speech about going to the moon so I was wondering, what was the reception of the speech at the time?
Did half the country cry pork? Did they yell that private enterprise should be the one to take this mantle? Republicans were much more of a financially conservative party then, did they balk at the cost and actually try and cut spending from it rather than reallocating it?
If the answer to these questions is that the response was more positive, was it Kennedy himself who paved the way for this plan to be accepted, or the general fear of the Soviets that got it pushed through?
Slashdot Mirror
Also your "Third Position" mission Statement:
The American Third Position exists to represent the political interests of White Americans, because no one else will.
I guess this is the logical conclusion for the minarchist and bigoted parts of the Tea Party.
One argument I've heard against this is that the GPL covers only what other people can do, not what the original copyright holder can do.
That's what copyright law says, not just the GPL. You the user can't redistribute copyrighted code or derivatives of copyrighted code without some kind of extra license granted by the author, directly or indirectly. With any license the author is granting you the right to redistribute the software, provided you fulfill the license requirements. The GPL just has the "unintuitive" requirement that if you distribute the software or a derivative of the software( such as by selling it as a packaged binary), that you must provide the source code.
By this argument, Oracle could distribute patented code under the GPL, but nobody else could.
If Oracle is licensing the code under the GPL then they must follow the GPL. Meaning if they add obligations to the license that would prevent "royalty-free redistribution of the Program" then they themselves are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL.The situation you describe above is closed source software and is the opposite of the GPL.
They should make a documentary about it. This could be the kind of thing that will pay off for years to come, despite a large up front expense.
It is surprising how many /.ers keep repeating the nonsense about Goole being an Ad agency.
Are ABC, NBC (SKY, ITV and others in the UK) ad agencies?
The state of media being what it is, yes ABC, NBC, FOX, etc are ad agencies. When(if) they start doing journalism again I'll consider them more than that.
He employs Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox and Friends team; and blames the internet for the fail of Newscorp. Obviously he's an moron.
I don't care what he thinks(which is not much beyond making money). I do care what the hell he does as a non-trivial percentage of America follows his "news".
And that still says nothing about regulating speech. It's vague enough that it could be a loophole for ISP's to discriminate traffic based on perceived illegality(like bittorrent) which would then have to be complained about to the FCC by users who use bittorrent for legal reasons. And then the FCC would have to file suit against the ISP for discrimination of lawful traffic and it would be up to the ISP to prove illegality in a court of law. So to answer your question it would be up to ISPs to prove traffic is illegal, and a court of law to decide if it is.
Watch out for that context won't you.
The key point is, to whom would companies have to prove their service was worthy of a waiver? If it's the government, then basically that means the government would become the approver of all new internet businesses. Who in their right mind would want that? So, what if it was some other body, such as a standards body? Same problem. Is there any organization that we should trust to be the gatekeeper?
No. This whole notion eviscerates the very meaning of "free" in "free market".
Hmm, not quite. You've forgotten the context. It's not that they would be gatekeepers of all traffic, it's that they would be gate keepers of traffic getting a higher priority. IE company A starts prioritizing certain news sources traffic over other traffic. They would have to show that this is neccessary(for an emergency evacuation signal or something) or stop giving that traffic high priority. Not that they would have to drop that traffic entirely.
Network Neutrality says NOTHING about "regulating speech". All it says is that ISPs are common carriers like telephone, electricity, water and can't discriminate traffic based on its content.
I don't really see what's odd about it. Lobbyist involvement in lawmaking aside, two companies submitting an open letter to the FCC is how it should work. Not only is it covered under free speech, it just makes sense the the stakeholders have input into the process(FTR I don't think campaign donations by non-human entities should be considered anonymous free speech, but that's not what this is about). I would be just as worried about lawmakers trying to make decisions without involvement by technology experts.
Similarly asking why lawyers should be commenting on law is like asking why technology experts comment on what Google, Apple, and Microsoft all the time.
Really, why is this blog news? It's the same over trodden arguments.
1.) Net neutrality is not needed to be codified into law because it happens "voluntarily" now.
Except the whole reason the FCC got involved was because of the court cases against Comcast for throttling.
2.) The ISPs are like newspaper companies, and newspapers get to choose what ads they run. Basically an argument that it's better for the freedom of speech/business interests.
Except ISPs are much more similar to the telephone or electricity utility companies(which are common carriers) than newspapers. And this argument actually supports net neutrality. Websites should be able to choose what ads they want to run, without ISPs throttling non-affiliate ad-networks.
3.) ISPs are like airline companies in that they should be able to allow for "first class" passengers so that these passengers can provide lower fares for the "coach" passengers. Basically an argument that it's better for the consumer.
Except ISPs aren't going to give you a drink and a packet of peanuts with your packets. They'll just charge more for "premium content" despite the fact that it costs the exact same amount to transmit as any other packet. They're not providing any added benefit to the consumer so this argument just falls apart.
4.) Google and Verizon recently made statements regarding support of net neutrality and therefore have something to gain with it over other companies. Basically regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture is always a fear, but I fail to see what in the proposal amounts to regulatory capture. Verizon's gain out of the proposal has to do with wireless networks not being included under the regulation. This benefits all of the wireless providers equally.
It's still a matter of tactical advantage. If you know how your opponent moves, how they think, and prioritize, then you can predict what they will do next.
It's like reverse engineering a program vs. having the source code in front of you.
So while documents from WWII probably have very little usable tactical value wrt now, documents from a year ago certainly do.
Actually, he denies more FOIA requests that Bush did(slashdot article), he's expanding our de facto war with Pakistan(google UAV and Pakistan), and he's refusing to use the Bully Pulpit to do what needs to be done with Gitmo.
Without fail, he and his administration take the politically safe route over any campaign promises. Instead of proposing a clear plan for healthcare, he lets congress hash it to pieces. Instead of trying to erase the stain of Gitmo ASAP, he lets conservative talking points stall trials of Gitmo detainees he could try and erase that stain ASAP. He could have acknowledged that the provisions in the Patriots Act were used mainly for the War on Drugs(slashdot article), but instead he promotes the renewal of the Patriot Act(slashdot article).
Hell, he even campaigned on reducing the amount of lobbyist influence in Washington. Imagine if instead of letting things continue and promoting ACTA, and appointing RIAA lackeys to Judiciary positions, and influencing FBI priorities to look at copyright over missing persons and identity fraud he did something different. Imagine if he had stood up and called out every senator that had a conflict of interest with the bill they were working on and the industry money they've taken. Even if he had just called out the Republicans imagine the firestorm that would have resulted. A pipe dream, I know; it would take a third party to reach the white house for that to ever happen, but I get energized just thinking about the possibility.
So while I agree he's not made things much worse, he's not doing what he was elected by popular vote to do and made some of the abuses of the previous Bush administration standard where they should have been reversed. In some ways, that's just as bad.
I think the disparity between campaign policy and actual policy stems from two things:
1.) The Democratic Party leaders called in their favors to keep Obama more centrist so the party is likely to retain office in the executive branch.
And 2.), as you suggest, that once you know some of the secrets at the top you have fewer courses of action than appear to everyone else. Or it appears that way to you when you are in the insular bubble of Washington.
This is not excusing his behavior, merely positing likely reasons for it. I'd wager that they are more likely than secret society assassination attempts, but it's just conjecture anyway.
Not only that but the documents contained the grid movements of troops to a highly accurate detail.
I'm pro-leak, but the gov't's of the world also have just cause, IMO, to investigate.
Being libertarian doesn't mean blaming the gov't for everything, it means blaming whoever is curtailing your freedoms, or impairing the market and rooting out those problems. Removing gov't oversight sweeps the problem under the rug, but doesn't fix it.
Hell, the SEC isn't talking about more funding or more power, it's talking about getting input from directly the people. That's a step in the right direction from a libertarian viewpoint.
For some people, like myself, it's not about veneration of the dead but sympathy for the living. It's one thing to have a grandparent die, it's another to see people dancing on his or her grave. It's not like people become untouchable when they die, I still hear Michael Jackson jokes, people might just lay off for a little while to not be assholes.
Well I can't speak for the poster you're replying to but, as for myself:(in a rough order of importance)
Expanding operations in Pakistan(continuing bad precedent IMO this is the biggest mistake)
Renewing the Patriot Act(continuing bad precedent)
Poor execution on the stimulus bill(I see tons of signs but very little actual work being done, where'd the money go?)
General lack of willingness to use "the Bully Pulpit" openly while continuing to expand/keep expanded executive powers "silently"(ie: FOIA denials)
For me it wasn't so much that the Democratic Party Powers changed things, but that they didn't change things back to where they were from before the Republican Party Powers changed things. And none of the things that I mentioned are "cat out of the bag" scenarios; Democrats certainly had the power to change them; Hell, Obama campaigned on most of those if not supported them indirectly.
When he assumed office you saw the big promises go out the window and you saw him quietly funding all of the smaller promises he can. This leads me to envision 3 scenarios of what could have happened:
1.) Democratic Party Leaders called in their favors, and are pressuring him to be moderate so they can keep control of the executive office.
2.) He never had any of the principles he campaigned on and is essentially as empty policy-wise as George W. Bush was.
3.) Everything's so FUBAR that there's really only one option for most policy when you learn everything there is to know at the "top".
I'm an optimist so I think 3 is out. Also I don't think Obama would be trying quiet as hard as he is to maintain a positive public image, he'd want to get out ASAP. I think '1' is far more likely than '2', but again, maybe that's because I'm an optimist(and also have seen the lengths entrenched powerful organizations will go to keep that power).
I've seen a lot of this "one party control" talking point recently, but the problem is not "One Party Control" it's "Two Party Control". Voting for a Republican "in order to bring some balance" is sidestepping the problem unless you really care about banning gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research. If you care more about defense, terrorism and its laws, Iraq, Afghanistan, rampant Federal spending, Federal regulation and de-regulation, increased federal power for immigration control, the war on drugs, and the slow erosion of Citizen and Non-Citizens' rights in general, then the two parties, for all intents and purposes, are identical. They'll pull the same stunts and make the same political hay in the media no matter who's in office, who's the majority leader, or who's the minority leader because it's still the same group of people in power, the same party leaders pulling the strings.
If you want a change by all means vote out your incumbent congress-critter. But please acknowledge you're not going to get a change with someone who has a D or and R next to his or her name. Try something different with an L or a G or even an I.
The thing is, if you are TRULY concerned about the environment (and must drive a car), then you would buy a used car.
That's a real sustainable solution right there, how did this get modded informative?
Environmentalists can't catch a break, you're either a Luddite abandoning all technology or you're a "poseur" for not abandoning all technology. It's ridiculous. God forbid you want to propose a middle way solution, and god forbid you do as the OP and actually support some middle way position. Then people like the above poster will be jumping all over themselves to tell you that until you abandon your car and computer and go and live with bears or something they're not going to listen to you because you're a huge hypocrite for wanting to live in society and try and improve that society.
Of course it's much easier to go tell a stranger to go live in the woods than actually take any steps to recycle/conserve energy/reduce pollution. Those hippies are just asking for it when they're trying to actually do anything that might impair my goddamn right to drive a giant truck everywhere, screw everyone else.
I think that there could be non-trivial problems that would be patent worthy; a better way to secure cables/equipment against constant motion, resistance to flooding and or wet salty air, better power management. If it's just "hay guise I put these blades on my boate, gimmie patent" then I would agree with you, but I haven't read the patent.
And then you'd only see the opinions you'd agree with which defeats the whole point of having a discussion.
Also, I fail to see how your scheme would take substantial "editorial control" away from the editors, they post the articles, not the hundreds of comments.
From what I understand, this is exactly why Net Neutrality is in the news now. The FCC tried to extend common-carrier style regulations to whatever class of provider ISP's are called now. That was slapped down by the Judicial Branch in April. So now the FCC is trying to reclassify ISP's as common carriers which is what IMO should have been done in the first place, but is now being painted as the FCC taking over the internet sneakily by congress-critters trying to get re-elected.
Funny, I look at that as a good thing. I'd rather have the engineer who checks all his/her math on a calculator rather than all in his/her head.
Of course, they should be able to do in in their head, but if you actually need a meaningful answerit makes sense to minimize the mistakes you can make.
I wasn't around when Kennedy made his speech about going to the moon so I was wondering, what was the reception of the speech at the time?
Did half the country cry pork? Did they yell that private enterprise should be the one to take this mantle? Republicans were much more of a financially conservative party then, did they balk at the cost and actually try and cut spending from it rather than reallocating it?
If the answer to these questions is that the response was more positive, was it Kennedy himself who paved the way for this plan to be accepted, or the general fear of the Soviets that got it pushed through?
Because it would cost more money to do the tests and make them less money in places where speed is bad.
If X is the cost of doing above, and Y is the cost of class action lawsuits for breach of contract, they will not do anything until Y > X .
Your proposal makes sense in the real world, but it doesn't make cents in the market.