If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that. The copyright holder allows the user to use the copyrighted material in exchange for the user's promise to abide with the terms of the license (i.e., the GPL).
This is not mere semantics (well, it is, but it's legally important semantics). This word-mechanism allows the licensor-developer-GPL guy to retain his or her copyright. That copyright is the muscle that empowers the GPL.
If you don't agree to the GPL, then you have NOT made a bargain with the licensor. If you have not made a bargain with the licensor, then the licensor has NOT conveyed some of his copyright to you. Without that conveyance of copyright, you can't copy and use the program!
I read it differently than you did. He's projecting a world where everything is standardized and faster (less 'bus plumbing' GPUs). In such a world you won't need APIs because you'll have libraries that you can include in the compile process.
APIs reduce code bulk at the cost of reduced code speed, don't they?
HP has the Stallmanesque "freedom" to make and sell any kind of hardware that it likes. If they make hardware Linux-friendly, that is excellent--pure and simple. At least that software will be available to HP users so that they can tinker on their machines AND other users can look at what HP has done to Linux and can build on that.
I see no downside here. Who cares if HP's Linux is difficult to move to other systems? (1) "Generic" Linux will still almost surely be portable to the HP systems; and (2) if HP's Linux fork is better, then the LINUX community will follow it.
Lastly, any kind of good open source operating system is one more bit of competitive pressure to push Microsoft to develop a leaner, cheaper, and friendlier operating system.
The First Amendment protects everybody--including spammers.
If I thought our republic was in danger, I'd spam everybody in an attempt to rouse them to protect it. That would be core protected First Amendment political speech. The GOVERNMENT should not be able to stop me--especially since I'd probably be rousing people to oust incumbents. To those who would authorize my government to shut such speech down, I despise what they say, but I would defend their right to say it with my life. But enough of that, I'd only be spamming such idiots out of necessity.
If spam that is core-protected First Amendment speech can be shut down by the government simply because it is shipped out anonymously and in bulk, then something is WAY wrong because the baby (important political speech) is being thrown out with the bathwater (vile spam). Political speech is too important to be trusted to the discretion of our elected officials.
This doesn't preclude laws prohibiting spamming in violation of a "do not spam" list. It doesn't preclude laws barring fraudulent or misleading spamming. It also doesn't prohibit private servers from refusing to store or deliver spam.
Telemarketers, bulk mail distributors, and spammers, suck. But deal with them lawfully--there are legal tools available.
Their First Amendment protection is YOUR First Amendment protection.
Yes! There should be a law about that! You should be able to sue a potential employer if that employer doesn't hire you after he learns something unfavorable about your personal life and gives you no opportunity to rebut it!
Yes! Excellent!! As a lawyer, I like that! The potential legal fee generation would be OUTSTANDING!
Back in the '80s when things were fresh and new, I remember the eagerness with which I went to Egghead/Babbage's to look at the computer games.
There was so much variety in the games. People were trying all sorts of different things. These games were not hundred-megabyte heavyweight games, they were much lighter--but they were more interesting.
Now everything is so similar. The gaming mags freak out over frame rate and animation quality. I could care less. I value freshness and cleverness much more.
My wife plays, and loves, the popcap kind of games on the internet. They are nothing special at all, but she likes them because they are novel and fun.
I think I had more fun playing the original ASCII empire game and CIV II than I get playing later, overwrought, Sid Meier games (and he designs among the best).
The massive multiplayer games could be tons of fun, but there's no way I'm putting down a subscription to play.
All the damn game publishers are trying to hit home runs all the time, like the movie industry. That sucks. I'd rather see a lot more variety out there, like in the '80s.
Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) a federal court of appeals case provides a reasonably good discussion of why statutes are not copyrightable.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that judges' opinions are not copyrightable. I can't think of any good reason to distinguish a statute from a court opinion. Neither could the Court in Veeck.
The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser.
If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either.
If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them?
A person could open a storefront and call it "Sex Movie Production, Incorporated (SMPI)." SMPI would furnish everything except the star. The star, let's call him "John," would come in off the street to make a movie. SMPI would furnish "John" everything for $50.00: (a) a set (consisting of a cheap videocamera, a tripod, and a bed); (b) a videocassette; and (c) a co-star. "John" and his co-star would then act together.
COME ON NOW!
. . . Just because the porno people are doing it doesn't necessarily mean that its legal!
I wonder whether "identity theft" is not just an utterly brilliant public relations tactic used by the credit card companies to deflect responsibility away from themselves.
In "identity theft" the thief is the bad guy and the credit card company's responsibility is ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that. The copyright holder allows the user to use the copyrighted material in exchange for the user's promise to abide with the terms of the license (i.e., the GPL).
This is not mere semantics (well, it is, but it's legally important semantics). This word-mechanism allows the licensor-developer-GPL guy to retain his or her copyright. That copyright is the muscle that empowers the GPL.
If you don't agree to the GPL, then you have NOT made a bargain with the licensor. If you have not made a bargain with the licensor, then the licensor has NOT conveyed some of his copyright to you. Without that conveyance of copyright, you can't copy and use the program!
I read it differently than you did. He's projecting a world where everything is standardized and faster (less 'bus plumbing' GPUs). In such a world you won't need APIs because you'll have libraries that you can include in the compile process.
APIs reduce code bulk at the cost of reduced code speed, don't they?
It's the Borg! I'm selling my Lehman stock now!
"A manager manages PEOPLE and not C/HTML/PHP code."
Nah, you don't mean that! You mean "An MBA manages PEOPLE and not C/HTML/PHP code."
LBJ owned Texas because he brought power to the rural people there. I can understand the change.
Stalin would have agreed with you! Coarse-grained tools are much more effective.
Power to the people!
Municipalities are the only ones who can defeat monopoly service providers. More power to Monticello!
HP has the Stallmanesque "freedom" to make and sell any kind of hardware that it likes. If they make hardware Linux-friendly, that is excellent--pure and simple. At least that software will be available to HP users so that they can tinker on their machines AND other users can look at what HP has done to Linux and can build on that.
I see no downside here. Who cares if HP's Linux is difficult to move to other systems? (1) "Generic" Linux will still almost surely be portable to the HP systems; and (2) if HP's Linux fork is better, then the LINUX community will follow it.
Lastly, any kind of good open source operating system is one more bit of competitive pressure to push Microsoft to develop a leaner, cheaper, and friendlier operating system.
I agree with you. It's just that finer-grained tools can debilitate spammers as effectively as coarse-grained tools.
The First Amendment protects everybody--including spammers.
If I thought our republic was in danger, I'd spam everybody in an attempt to rouse them to protect it. That would be core protected First Amendment political speech. The GOVERNMENT should not be able to stop me--especially since I'd probably be rousing people to oust incumbents. To those who would authorize my government to shut such speech down, I despise what they say, but I would defend their right to say it with my life. But enough of that, I'd only be spamming such idiots out of necessity.
If spam that is core-protected First Amendment speech can be shut down by the government simply because it is shipped out anonymously and in bulk, then something is WAY wrong because the baby (important political speech) is being thrown out with the bathwater (vile spam). Political speech is too important to be trusted to the discretion of our elected officials.
This doesn't preclude laws prohibiting spamming in violation of a "do not spam" list. It doesn't preclude laws barring fraudulent or misleading spamming. It also doesn't prohibit private servers from refusing to store or deliver spam.
Telemarketers, bulk mail distributors, and spammers, suck. But deal with them lawfully--there are legal tools available.
Their First Amendment protection is YOUR First Amendment protection.
Yes! There should be a law about that! You should be able to sue a potential employer if that employer doesn't hire you after he learns something unfavorable about your personal life and gives you no opportunity to rebut it!
Yes! Excellent!! As a lawyer, I like that! The potential legal fee generation would be OUTSTANDING!
Keep up the good thinking!!
"They were firing the guy, so he was no longer in the employe of the city, so his boss, was no longer his boss."
You call the parent an idiot, but the statement I quote from you is also idiotic.
All duties to your employer do not cease upon termination. To imply otherwise is misleading.
You're a funny man!
Give something away for free that people will pay money for? Ha! Ha!
Back in the '80s when things were fresh and new, I remember the eagerness with which I went to Egghead/Babbage's to look at the computer games.
There was so much variety in the games. People were trying all sorts of different things. These games were not hundred-megabyte heavyweight games, they were much lighter--but they were more interesting.
Now everything is so similar. The gaming mags freak out over frame rate and animation quality. I could care less. I value freshness and cleverness much more.
My wife plays, and loves, the popcap kind of games on the internet. They are nothing special at all, but she likes them because they are novel and fun.
I think I had more fun playing the original ASCII empire game and CIV II than I get playing later, overwrought, Sid Meier games (and he designs among the best).
The massive multiplayer games could be tons of fun, but there's no way I'm putting down a subscription to play.
All the damn game publishers are trying to hit home runs all the time, like the movie industry. That sucks. I'd rather see a lot more variety out there, like in the '80s.
Anyway--that's my gripe.
As Sam Kinison said to Rodney Dangerfield: "I like the way you think."
Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) a federal court of appeals case provides a reasonably good discussion of why statutes are not copyrightable.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that judges' opinions are not copyrightable. I can't think of any good reason to distinguish a statute from a court opinion. Neither could the Court in Veeck.
Copyright a statute? HAH!
The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser.
If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either.
If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them?
This smells bad.
The credit card company makes money off these transaction . . .
He did exploit the faults. He didn't just lurk their system; he vandalized it. Although, it appears he didn't vandalize it to any great degree.
I don't want people screwing around with the United States military. It protects me from people who would hurt me.
McKinnon shouldn't be commended; he should be punished. But if the punishment is disproportionate, I'll be angry.
Yes!! The end is near!! Microsoft is on its deathbed!!!!
Yawn . . . . .
This type of post is becoming a slashdot cliche. It should have its own cool name.
Goodwill?! From the people who RENTED analog telephones to old people well into the digital age when those phones could be purchased cheap?
Good luck to them chasing their stock price like a dog chasing its tail! They deserve what they get!
A person could open a storefront and call it "Sex Movie Production, Incorporated (SMPI)." SMPI would furnish everything except the star. The star, let's call him "John," would come in off the street to make a movie. SMPI would furnish "John" everything for $50.00: (a) a set (consisting of a cheap videocamera, a tripod, and a bed); (b) a videocassette; and (c) a co-star. "John" and his co-star would then act together.
COME ON NOW!
. . . Just because the porno people are doing it doesn't necessarily mean that its legal!
I wonder whether "identity theft" is not just an utterly brilliant public relations tactic used by the credit card companies to deflect responsibility away from themselves.
In "identity theft" the thief is the bad guy and the credit card company's responsibility is ignored.
It's different because Hugh Trevor-Roper has not authenticated the Hugo Chavez emails.
I so agree with you. High fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats are devastatingly bad. Don't buy them. Vote with your wallet!!