[Bar Assoc and the Medical Board] provide assurance of the credentials of the people they accept into their ranks.
Yes they do, they assure credentials... but not cost-effecive quality. Instead, they create market inefficiency leading to wasteful pricing.
While they may start out as well-meaning -- imagine the world before they existed -- they unfailingly fall prey to the forces of the "invisible hand", market economics, and selfishly become white-collar trade unions in response. In economics texts, these organizations are used as examples: they use certification as a means of erecting barriers to competition. Perfect market theory would predict the availability of a continuous spectrum of quality of medical care or legal advice, such that you could find providers who you knew weren't quite as good, but who cost less so you might rely on them for non-critical issues. However, these services would threaten the profitability of the specialists, so they use their political clout to eliminate this source of competition.
Much of the training for certification for "professionals" is not directly related to quality of service, or is overkill for many applications of a profession. The most egregious example of this is teachers' unions: now (in the US) you need a degree in "education" to be a history teacher, rather than a degree in history. The extensive certification process is designed to make sure that unemployed historians do not become teachers and threaten the continued employment of teachers who have no particular skills. In the medical field we see extensively trained doctors monopolizing healthcare when lesser skilled practitioners could provide many more narrowly focused services.
There is some positive benefit to consumers of these organizations. It's a second order effect, so I'm putting it second, so don't walk away with the impression that it somehow balances out. That is, all of the dedication of effort to achieve "unnecessary" certification does provide some (game theory) information "signals" that the practitioner is "serious" about becoming a practitioner.
Of course, what I'm advocating here is that I should be allowed to get legal advice from someone who hangs out a shingle that says IANAL. Good idea? YMMV! ha ha. Look at it this way: it would open up a whole bunch of newly desirable domain names : )
So I'm of the opinion that there is no 'one true distro.' Each distro is targeted at a specific group.
I agree. But, after reading the LinuxNewbie site I quickly come to believe that LinuxNewbie doesn't understand this. In my eyes, they are so wide of that mark I got to wondering: What are their credentials? Are we sure it's not a FUD site?
Example: Look at their Samba advice: download the source and build it... no wait, it's better than that, su root and with "blind-faith", build the rpm!. No mention of Debian or Slackware or SUSE... no mention of the samba binary that undoubtedly came with your own distro, no mention of rpmfind or pulling down a binary. This isn't newbie advice! This is screwbie advice! Anybody know if that version they encourage is compatible with the kernels found on store shelves?
So, after reading that, I went and looked at the "why I chose NT over Linux" article on their front page. The guy who wrote it started seeming a lot more sophisticated to me than the inexperienced person he makes himself out to be. And the "discussion" they've got going about that article: I might as well be reading BillG's mail folder!
OK, then I saw it in their credo: cross-platform, other OSes... their own original content, none of that "confusing" other doc that's out there... to me it says "linux-screwbie," through and through.
Example: Look at their Samba advice: download the source and build it... no wait, it's better than that, su root and with "blind-faith", build the rpm!. No mention of Debian or Slackware or SUSE... no mention of the samba binary that undoubtedly came with your own distro, no mention of rpmfind or pulling down a binary. This isn't newbie advice! This is screwbie advice! Anybody know if that version they encourage is compatible with the kernels found on store shelves?
So, after reading that, I went and looked at the "why I chose NT over Linux" article on their front page. The guy who wrote it started seeming a lot more sophisticated to me than the inexperienced person he makes himself out to be. And the "discussion" they've got going about that article: I might as well be reading BillG's mail folder!
OK, then I saw it in their credo: cross-platform, other OSes... their own original content, none of that "confusing" other doc that's out there... to me it says "linux-screwbie," through and through.
They had to include the source in their filing, DeCSS was GPLed!
"Your Honor, I present plaintiff's Exhibit A" "Objection!" "Yes, Mr. Stallman?" "DeCSS is copyleft, your Honor. "Copyleft?" "You know, it's free." "So what?" "That means the source must be made available. Here, read the GPL." "The GNU Public License?" "No, 'General'." "Please refer to me as 'Your Honor'" "Yes, Your Honor, no, I mean, yes... it's the General Public License, Your Honor." "Oh [reading]..., yes, you're right, it does say the source must be made available. Objection sustained. Plaintiffs? Where can I get the source?" "We charge for it, your honor." "But he says it's free..." "Objection!" "Yes, Mr. Raymond?" "He meant 'open', like a bazaar." "Objection!" "[wearily] Yes?" "No I didn't." "This is bizarre. 'No you didn't' what!" "No, I didn't mean 'open', I meant 'free'" "Overruled. Plaintiffs, the bailiff can't seem to get the source from this URL you gave him." "It's slashdotted, Your Honor." "What's 'slashdotted'?" "It means a bunch of people who should be working are listening to MP3s and downloading right now. They came from a free/open advocacy website called Slashdot." "Oh? Open? Can I get the source to it, too?" "Damn it, Your Honor, not for another day, now!" "Your Honor, the Bill Gate, sir, to present this amicus curiae sudsum, a friend-of-the-court [wink] free beer." "Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you. [grabbing beer] This court will stand in recess..."
The article does not say that it has a "bigger boom" as the slashdot headline implies. It says it could be, but says the crystalline form does not have the density they predicted. Researchers are still looking for the denser version.
"open" electronic, "closed" book
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
The economics of book publishing add up to a very small percentage of the total book price going to the "author". So little, that that part of the overall cost of a book (editing, binding, distributing, etc.) is likely to make no difference to a publisher's deciding whether or not to publish. But, exclusivity might play a large role in deciding whether to go ahead and create the "brand name" of the title or author.
So, how about a license that is free for electronic versions, but exclusive print rights would be auctioned off. Monies could go to various free/open software organizations. Lots of details to be worked out (rights to versioning, in print/out of print) etc.
So long as the electronic version were available, the major "community" piece would be met. When I go buy books, I don't notice any significant difference in price between public domain works and copyrighted and I don't think we would in technical works either. Why not encourage publication with exclusivity, and skim off that tiny piece of the economic value of a book that ordinarily goes to authorship?
Obviously confession is good for the mind as well as the theoretical soul, but why to a particular person?
doing bad things makes people feel bad. confession provides a way back, recognized by the community at large (no, not on Slashdot, but think back to societies where Catholicism flourished). So, a person who feels remorse can feel that they've done something to set it right.
Why to one person? No matter how much you say it to yourself, it does not feel like a confession, and as we often learn in life, doesn't work so hot to reveal sensitive issue even to friends. The answer? Game Theory: A priest has chosen a lifestyle (various inconvenient things like vow of poverty, etc.) that signals "I'm committed to this job which I will lose if I reveal your secrets, so you can trust me to hear your confession." Yes, there is a lot more to the role of a Priest, but I'm trying to explain how it works in a practical sense.
Please draw no conclusions from this about my own beliefs. It is not unusual for the Mann to have wide-ranging knowledge.
Ever since I had an alternative, I've stuck any "Intel Inside" stickers inside the rim of my wastebasket:) It gives me a good feeling whenever I'm tossing wadded paper basketballs at it.
What we need to do is: make monopolies illegal, period. Patents to recoup investment? ok, but sell the shared patent rights to several competitors, full rights not licenses. Those companies would collectively collect all of the legitimate value of the patent away from substitute technologies, but would not be able to charge monopoly rents.
thanks for clearly up my confusion, I think we mostly agree. one thing left to clear up: I wasn't proposing that we use plain English for these concepts, I was just observing that we do. I would love to see a new set of terms.
What I was criticizing was the creation of organizations named Free Software and Open Source whose mission is distracted by trying to get everyone to redefine those words. Those organizations should push their healthy agendas free from any weird "political correctness" of language.
but trying to coin yet another term will not raise the chance that we are understood correctly. personnaly i'd like to suggest 'freedom software'
this is so weird: I did not propose any new terms, I just described the way real people really use plain old English in real life. You, on the other hand, did propose a new term.... kafkaesque.
Well, my initial post did mention patents, didn't it?
With regard to trademarks, I'm not saying anything conflicts with what you said. I'm saying that it's cool that I can copy and redistribute linux and call it linux and since RedHat is based on linux I can copy and redistribute it and I should be able to call that version RedHat too.
But lemme just take the idea back, pearls before swine apparently.
I don't want to make a big deal out of it (I said a "technical" violation) but it is not an open source question. It is a question of putting no restrictions on redistibution.
I want you to try and play the game, and not say "this game sux" until the game has been explored. The game is, GPLing copyrighted sources makes those sources and derivatives always free to copy and use. Can we do this with names for those sources too? Do we want to? It's the "forking the kernel doesn't work" argument applied to names. Create a new brand name for the same OS? OK, but you have to share the name just like you shared the code.
10 different RedHats? No, 10 of the same RedHats. If you own the RedHat trademark, and release a CD with linux on it and call it RedHat 1.0, then I can copy the CD and call it RedHat 1.0 too. It's the same product, it can have the same name [...is my proposal, not the reality]
Linus said in the webcast that Transmeta made a mini Linux distribution for its licensees. However, if the licensees could not publish that GPLed software without violating their NDAs with Transmeta, then the GPL forbids Transmeta from distributing that Linux. It doesn't say anything about whether the licensee wished to publish or disclose, nor does it say that the NDA must be amended, it says "if" and "refrain". Hey, I'm not gonna call 'em on it, but what do you all think?:)
Quoting from the GPL (and careful, don't confuse the example they give with the principle):
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Re:open vs. Open, free vs Free, free vs. $$$
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 2
Hey, thanks for the pointer! I do like to keep up with what other people think they understand.
What a stupid thing to say. Go read post #127 on this topic.
I said "price" and "cost". That post is speaking about "value". These are technical terms which one learns, especially in an academic setting, are used to represent different concepts.
Then go back to school until you learn to to think.
Gee, I guess this suggestion doesn't really apply, does it? Thanks for trying, though, and I mean it.
IANAL, but if I were Linus I would be a little careful about what I said. As he himself said, intent is important, but perhaps not in the way he meant it.
Intent is important to the law, and to judges who really frown on people pretending to have intent. As an example, you can't sue someone just to test and see whether a law is valid. You must actually have "standing" to sue, as an entity who has actually been affected by a law. For trademarks, much of the purpose and the design of the remedies is to prevent economic harm. If Linus is giving the name away widely, where's the harm in other people using the name? What are the damages?
Trademarks can be legally lost, as he points out, by failure to police them. But for more reasons too, for failure to use them in actual trade, for failure to use them a way that gives them a distinct meaning, etc. I'd recommend that he come up with a meaning, something like "it's for free and open source, and that's ironclad" if that works legally, and I'd recommend that he not say, "I'm only doing this because I have to, I'd really rather give it away" because he might. IANAL, of course.
I wish the FSF and other interested parties would come up with GPL equivalents for other kinds of IP:
Patents held by the FSF and licensed only to free and open sourcers, or
Trademarks that are usable only for free and open products
combinations of IP tied together:
this copyrighted source code work is free to be copied, but may only be distributed under and free and open trademarks
You wanna call it Red Hat? OK, but I can call my copy Red Hat too, since that's what you say it's called.
I'm not who you were talking to, but I'd say it doesn't suck at all. People like you need daisy flowers and sunshine everywhere just to make yourselves feel good. Cynics like us are just s'darn sunny inside that we can take reality straight up and keep feeling good about ourselves anyway:)
Your comment, for example, was shitty, calculated to make that guy feel bad. But you failed, and you know what else? We forgive you!
We love you anyway, because we realize that you are weak. Even though you can't allow yourself to see the potentially grubby motivations behind superficial acts of charity like this doesn't mean that you are worthless.
It takes all kinds to make this little world of ours go 'round. Keep the faith, brother, and have a good cry on us!
They guy up above was exactly right when he said Linus must by law take legal action to defend the name in order to keep control of the Linux trademark. That is how trademark law is written. You start out by saying "I own this name" and you have to prove it by taking action against other people who try to use it without your permission or who use it "generically". Moderate him up.
I'm chiming in to say that, since TurboLinux is trying to sell a bunch of software that is not GPLed, I'm hoping this action means "goodbye TurboLinux, hello Turbosnu" == Turbo's not unix... wait, that's probably an gnu infringement. How about TurboLOSE: Turbo'll Open Source Everything!
this is a tricky area. in US law, free speech is protected, yes, but trademarks are protected in the same way that people are from libel and slander. you can make jokes and satires, but you cannot set up a "Coke Sucks" website whose purpose is to ruin the "good" name of Coca-Cola. You especially can't do it commercially, i.e. if you are a competitor because commercial speech is not protected speech.
In other countries the situation is different. Many free countries have very different limits on the extent of free speech in this regard: Germany bans both Nazi propaganda and all sorts of comparative advertising: it seems they prefer a more centrist course.
Re:NetCenter and the default home page
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 2
You are so naive:) I mean that in a good way, as in you are so nice you can't think of all the ways to screw people:
There are a zillion ways that "AOL" Navigator already does: they have these various "smartfind" features which scan databases on their server to find out what you "meant" to type (look in Edit Preferences Navigator SmartBrowsing for What's Related and Internet Keywords... while there, disable:) Plus, there is the "search" button which goes to their site... plus, they'll use their DNS instead of yours from time to time, I assume to spy on what you are doing or to let them know you are doing it.
If you use their email client, you can't help but get a little webpage in your mail client every time you launch. RedHat for a time was throwing up their home page, no way to click and disable, you had to go edit the script.
Look in your Windows Registry for http: and you'll see a whole bunch of ways that other apps try to send you to their websites. Then there's the bit about ISPs slowing down access to networks that are not controlled by them, requiring you to use their proxy, etc., etc.
So, people like your father-in-law, and my mother, and my brother, and.... they are lambs being led to the slaughter. And, I was bitching in another post yesterday about how Microsoft's CDROM MSDN silently takes you to their website if you are not really clever. I fear we haven't seen anything yet.
Sorry this has been so stream of consciousy, but I wanna go to dinner. PS, I liked the preceding post too.
My view (and RMS's view) is that shuffling copies around within a corporation is just like shuffling them from one hand to the other. A corporation is considered a homogenous entity under the law.
true, but individuals who are employees are also entities under the law, and they are receiving copies -- do they get a rider that says, you are not receiving a fully GPLed copy? -- for acceptance of the GPL is the only thing that allows the copies, and the GPL adheres to the copies, and no other agreement can encumber the GPLed work, including I would assume an employment contract, so instead distribution must cease...
I'm not saying that your interpretation of the GPL is not allowed under the GPL, but that the alternate interpretation seems equally valid. And, authorship of the GPL, itself not copyrightable, does not impose any binding on other licensors so it is not clear that a licensee can be secure in your interpretation unless the FSF holds the copyright. I'm not saying "GPL sux", I'm saying it could be worded better, which the GPL itself says it will, from time to time, be:)
So, I've said all I feel I need to, but I will notice if you reply again because it shows up in my user page. Thanks for taking the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it this way: people who say NOS must believe that the alternative is DOS... both wrong.
Yes they do, they assure credentials... but not cost-effecive quality. Instead, they create market inefficiency leading to wasteful pricing.
While they may start out as well-meaning -- imagine the world before they existed -- they unfailingly fall prey to the forces of the "invisible hand", market economics, and selfishly become white-collar trade unions in response. In economics texts, these organizations are used as examples: they use certification as a means of erecting barriers to competition. Perfect market theory would predict the availability of a continuous spectrum of quality of medical care or legal advice, such that you could find providers who you knew weren't quite as good, but who cost less so you might rely on them for non-critical issues. However, these services would threaten the profitability of the specialists, so they use their political clout to eliminate this source of competition.
Much of the training for certification for "professionals" is not directly related to quality of service, or is overkill for many applications of a profession. The most egregious example of this is teachers' unions: now (in the US) you need a degree in "education" to be a history teacher, rather than a degree in history. The extensive certification process is designed to make sure that unemployed historians do not become teachers and threaten the continued employment of teachers who have no particular skills. In the medical field we see extensively trained doctors monopolizing healthcare when lesser skilled practitioners could provide many more narrowly focused services.
There is some positive benefit to consumers of these organizations. It's a second order effect, so I'm putting it second, so don't walk away with the impression that it somehow balances out. That is, all of the dedication of effort to achieve "unnecessary" certification does provide some (game theory) information "signals" that the practitioner is "serious" about becoming a practitioner.
Of course, what I'm advocating here is that I should be allowed to get legal advice from someone who hangs out a shingle that says IANAL. Good idea? YMMV! ha ha. Look at it this way: it would open up a whole bunch of newly desirable domain names : )
I agree. But, after reading the LinuxNewbie site I quickly come to believe that LinuxNewbie doesn't understand this. In my eyes, they are so wide of that mark I got to wondering: What are their credentials? Are we sure it's not a FUD site?
Example: Look at their Samba advice: download the source and build it... no wait, it's better than that, su root and with "blind-faith", build the rpm!. No mention of Debian or Slackware or SUSE... no mention of the samba binary that undoubtedly came with your own distro, no mention of rpmfind or pulling down a binary. This isn't newbie advice! This is screwbie advice! Anybody know if that version they encourage is compatible with the kernels found on store shelves?
So, after reading that, I went and looked at the "why I chose NT over Linux" article on their front page. The guy who wrote it started seeming a lot more sophisticated to me than the inexperienced person he makes himself out to be. And the "discussion" they've got going about that article: I might as well be reading BillG's mail folder!
OK, then I saw it in their credo: cross-platform, other OSes... their own original content, none of that "confusing" other doc that's out there... to me it says "linux-screwbie," through and through.
I agree. But, after reading the LinuxNewbie site I quickly come to believe that LinuxNewbie doesn't understand this. In my eyes, they are so wide of that mark I got to wondering: What are their credentials? Are we sure it's not a FUD site?
Example: Look at their Samba advice: download the source and build it... no wait, it's better than that, su root and with "blind-faith", build the rpm!. No mention of Debian or Slackware or SUSE... no mention of the samba binary that undoubtedly came with your own distro, no mention of rpmfind or pulling down a binary. This isn't newbie advice! This is screwbie advice! Anybody know if that version they encourage is compatible with the kernels found on store shelves?
So, after reading that, I went and looked at the "why I chose NT over Linux" article on their front page. The guy who wrote it started seeming a lot more sophisticated to me than the inexperienced person he makes himself out to be. And the "discussion" they've got going about that article: I might as well be reading BillG's mail folder!
OK, then I saw it in their credo: cross-platform, other OSes... their own original content, none of that "confusing" other doc that's out there... to me it says "linux-screwbie," through and through.
"Your Honor, I present plaintiff's Exhibit A"
"Objection!"
"Yes, Mr. Stallman?"
"DeCSS is copyleft, your Honor.
"Copyleft?"
"You know, it's free."
"So what?"
"That means the source must be made available. Here, read the GPL."
"The GNU Public License?"
"No, 'General'."
"Please refer to me as 'Your Honor'"
"Yes, Your Honor, no, I mean, yes... it's the General Public License, Your Honor."
"Oh [reading]..., yes, you're right, it does say the source must be made available. Objection sustained. Plaintiffs? Where can I get the source?"
"We charge for it, your honor."
"But he says it's free..."
"Objection!"
"Yes, Mr. Raymond?"
"He meant 'open', like a bazaar."
"Objection!"
"[wearily] Yes?"
"No I didn't."
"This is bizarre. 'No you didn't' what!"
"No, I didn't mean 'open', I meant 'free'"
"Overruled. Plaintiffs, the bailiff can't seem to get the source from this URL you gave him."
"It's slashdotted, Your Honor."
"What's 'slashdotted'?"
"It means a bunch of people who should be working are listening to MP3s and downloading right now. They came from a free/open advocacy website called Slashdot."
"Oh? Open? Can I get the source to it, too?"
"Damn it, Your Honor, not for another day, now!"
"Your Honor, the Bill Gate, sir, to present this amicus curiae sudsum, a friend-of-the-court [wink] free beer."
"Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you. [grabbing beer] This court will stand in recess..."
The article does not say that it has a "bigger boom" as the slashdot headline implies. It says it could be, but says the crystalline form does not have the density they predicted. Researchers are still looking for the denser version.
So, how about a license that is free for electronic versions, but exclusive print rights would be auctioned off. Monies could go to various free/open software organizations. Lots of details to be worked out (rights to versioning, in print/out of print) etc.
So long as the electronic version were available, the major "community" piece would be met. When I go buy books, I don't notice any significant difference in price between public domain works and copyrighted and I don't think we would in technical works either. Why not encourage publication with exclusivity, and skim off that tiny piece of the economic value of a book that ordinarily goes to authorship?
doing bad things makes people feel bad. confession provides a way back, recognized by the community at large (no, not on Slashdot, but think back to societies where Catholicism flourished). So, a person who feels remorse can feel that they've done something to set it right.
Why to one person? No matter how much you say it to yourself, it does not feel like a confession, and as we often learn in life, doesn't work so hot to reveal sensitive issue even to friends. The answer? Game Theory: A priest has chosen a lifestyle (various inconvenient things like vow of poverty, etc.) that signals "I'm committed to this job which I will lose if I reveal your secrets, so you can trust me to hear your confession." Yes, there is a lot more to the role of a Priest, but I'm trying to explain how it works in a practical sense.
Please draw no conclusions from this about my own beliefs. It is not unusual for the Mann to have wide-ranging knowledge.
What we need to do is: make monopolies illegal, period. Patents to recoup investment? ok, but sell the shared patent rights to several competitors, full rights not licenses. Those companies would collectively collect all of the legitimate value of the patent away from substitute technologies, but would not be able to charge monopoly rents.
What I was criticizing was the creation of organizations named Free Software and Open Source whose mission is distracted by trying to get everyone to redefine those words. Those organizations should push their healthy agendas free from any weird "political correctness" of language.
see ya : )
he was quoting a bowdlerized version of the original:
this is so weird: I did not propose any new terms, I just described the way real people really use plain old English in real life. You, on the other hand, did propose a new term.... kafkaesque.
As I said above, source has nothing to do with the objection I'm raising. It has to do with putting restrictions on redistribution by your licensees.
With regard to trademarks, I'm not saying anything conflicts with what you said. I'm saying that it's cool that I can copy and redistribute linux and call it linux and since RedHat is based on linux I can copy and redistribute it and I should be able to call that version RedHat too.
But lemme just take the idea back, pearls before swine apparently.
I don't want to make a big deal out of it (I said a "technical" violation) but it is not an open source question. It is a question of putting no restrictions on redistibution.
Linus said in the webcast that Transmeta made a mini Linux distribution for its licensees. However, if the licensees could not publish that GPLed software without violating their NDAs with Transmeta, then the GPL forbids Transmeta from distributing that Linux. It doesn't say anything about whether the licensee wished to publish or disclose, nor does it say that the NDA must be amended, it says "if" and "refrain". Hey, I'm not gonna call 'em on it, but what do you all think? :)
Quoting from the GPL (and careful, don't confuse the example they give with the principle):
What a stupid thing to say. Go read post #127 on this topic.
I said "price" and "cost". That post is speaking about "value". These are technical terms which one learns, especially in an academic setting, are used to represent different concepts.
Then go back to school until you learn to to think.
Gee, I guess this suggestion doesn't really apply, does it? Thanks for trying, though, and I mean it.
Intent is important to the law, and to judges who really frown on people pretending to have intent. As an example, you can't sue someone just to test and see whether a law is valid. You must actually have "standing" to sue, as an entity who has actually been affected by a law. For trademarks, much of the purpose and the design of the remedies is to prevent economic harm. If Linus is giving the name away widely, where's the harm in other people using the name? What are the damages?
Trademarks can be legally lost, as he points out, by failure to police them. But for more reasons too, for failure to use them in actual trade, for failure to use them a way that gives them a distinct meaning, etc. I'd recommend that he come up with a meaning, something like "it's for free and open source, and that's ironclad" if that works legally, and I'd recommend that he not say, "I'm only doing this because I have to, I'd really rather give it away" because he might. IANAL, of course.
I wish the FSF and other interested parties would come up with GPL equivalents for other kinds of IP:
Your comment, for example, was shitty, calculated to make that guy feel bad. But you failed, and you know what else? We forgive you!
We love you anyway, because we realize that you are weak. Even though you can't allow yourself to see the potentially grubby motivations behind superficial acts of charity like this doesn't mean that you are worthless.
It takes all kinds to make this little world of ours go 'round. Keep the faith, brother, and have a good cry on us!
I'm chiming in to say that, since TurboLinux is trying to sell a bunch of software that is not GPLed, I'm hoping this action means "goodbye TurboLinux, hello Turbosnu" == Turbo's not unix... wait, that's probably an gnu infringement. How about TurboLOSE: Turbo'll Open Source Everything!
this is a tricky area. in US law, free speech is protected, yes, but trademarks are protected in the same way that people are from libel and slander. you can make jokes and satires, but you cannot set up a "Coke Sucks" website whose purpose is to ruin the "good" name of Coca-Cola. You especially can't do it commercially, i.e. if you are a competitor because commercial speech is not protected speech.
In other countries the situation is different. Many free countries have very different limits on the extent of free speech in this regard: Germany bans both Nazi propaganda and all sorts of comparative advertising: it seems they prefer a more centrist course.
There are a zillion ways that "AOL" Navigator already does: they have these various "smartfind" features which scan databases on their server to find out what you "meant" to type (look in Edit Preferences Navigator SmartBrowsing for What's Related and Internet Keywords... while there, disable :) Plus, there is the "search" button which goes to their site... plus, they'll use their DNS instead of yours from time to time, I assume to spy on what you are doing or to let them know you are doing it.
If you use their email client, you can't help but get a little webpage in your mail client every time you launch. RedHat for a time was throwing up their home page, no way to click and disable, you had to go edit the script.
Look in your Windows Registry for http: and you'll see a whole bunch of ways that other apps try to send you to their websites. Then there's the bit about ISPs slowing down access to networks that are not controlled by them, requiring you to use their proxy, etc., etc.
So, people like your father-in-law, and my mother, and my brother, and.... they are lambs being led to the slaughter. And, I was bitching in another post yesterday about how Microsoft's CDROM MSDN silently takes you to their website if you are not really clever. I fear we haven't seen anything yet.
Sorry this has been so stream of consciousy, but I wanna go to dinner. PS, I liked the preceding post too.
Not that I like either, just schadenfreude, my desire to see no good deed go unpunished. I think I've watched too much Simpson's.
true, but individuals who are employees are also entities under the law, and they are receiving copies -- do they get a rider that says, you are not receiving a fully GPLed copy? -- for acceptance of the GPL is the only thing that allows the copies, and the GPL adheres to the copies, and no other agreement can encumber the GPLed work, including I would assume an employment contract, so instead distribution must cease...
I'm not saying that your interpretation of the GPL is not allowed under the GPL, but that the alternate interpretation seems equally valid. And, authorship of the GPL, itself not copyrightable, does not impose any binding on other licensors so it is not clear that a licensee can be secure in your interpretation unless the FSF holds the copyright. I'm not saying "GPL sux", I'm saying it could be worded better, which the GPL itself says it will, from time to time, be :)
So, I've said all I feel I need to, but I will notice if you reply again because it shows up in my user page. Thanks for taking the time.