The quote saying they didn't have any idea how many people accessed the files made me laugh. Could be no one did, at least for some of the crap songs;-)
like just finding the right application amongst zillions the problem (to something most I'm sure would otherwise consider doing) is finding it.
Yes you might want to save time through such reuse, but first you have to somehow find possibilities and then you have to decide which one of those suits best. And that time consuming process is why so much ends up getting written from scratch so often.
Solving that problem is itself a problem though. At the moment there is such a diversity because of that. Take away the diversity and you move toward a narrowed less populated eco system, which I think for many (hopefully) obvious reasons is best avoided.
Only problem is the lethals are banned too because they 1/ cause extreme physical pain (before and briefly before you die) 2/ cause obscene psychological pain through the intimidation and expectation you are about to die.
A great idea I saw once was to make what you have to pay if you lose a multiple of the amount you spend on your case. So when the big lot chuck $10 million at a law suit they end up paying out a minimum of say 10 times that.
I suppose you could actually get the multiple based off of the ratio between claimant and respondent's spending, plus the actually proven damages.
Interesting that he is right within the subgroup. In that the people who enter the discussion are the people that matter because without them we wouldn't be in the discussion.
I'll add to that a suspicion, which is if we members of the discussion and (meta)moderators weren't here to pick up and demolish some of these stories for being sensationalist etc the whole thing would fail. The commentary that can be sometimes scanned to see a distilled nugget of the real story, the discussion that eventually turns up as a later story refuting the earlier crap and so on.
Indeed you can go further with what you say. Failing to sue even if you disagree with the laws as they stand can be a big mistake if you want to remain in control of your own work even to a lesser extent than the law allows.
The recent and ongoing (sorry can't find the link) War Hammer 4K fan film story in Germany being itself an example.
You are also being stupid. A good method of securing things is one that they cannot break even with knowing the method. So it makes no difference if they do know it.
Having been rude enough to suggest you are being stupid I see a valid point if you meant they are attempting to get some of the methods used by bad guys out into the open, because currently they have no clue what they are as the first stage in looking for vulnerabilities.
But to me it sounds far too like a TV, genius bad guys out there that have invented encryption strategies vastly superior to anyone else. In which case they aren't so smart if they come out and let people have it instead of just sitting there watching the protected data of the banking system whilst passing around their own inside information?
Really what is the difference? A radical enough change to Javascript meaning it is in effect no longer Javascript it a new language right?
So unless they are wanting to jump away from the whole family of language that Javascript sits in the totally new language will have lots in common, probably as much as a radical revision?
It's the over all accumulation. For example so recently all the GPL Linux Kernel people are thieves milarky over the wireless driver. Does he discuss it with any experts that actually are professionals in the law and are offering to talk about it. No, just keeps shouting.
That contrasts with Linus who yes comes out and says things. But (and I'm not much for liking Linus) his tone though seemingly comparably rude (confrontational) at times sets it down as a challenge to those he is confronting and accepts them giving him the evidence to make him change his mind.
So to me the two approaches contrast to say one likes hearing their own voice the other speaks out when they consider it necessary but otherwise shuts up and gets on with things. And the shutting up and getting on with things tone seems to be the culture (to me as an observer) of the Linux kernel development high profile names.
And I'm not being hard about this, just saying that's how it seems to me. Like the approach described of Linus if I see the evidence I'll change my mind. I started of a while back liking what Theo had to say but the more I heard the less I liked and the more bored I got with his opining. He's made sense at times I happily admit.
the "more motivation" might be true when there isn't a captive market.
But you missed my point. A company like Microsoft has to talk up its features and hence is motivated to do things because it gives it something to talk up. Sometimes they are better sometimes not. They don't necessarily come from the users asking for them. Who asked for the ribbons in the latest Office? Not the majority of users.
So in the Free Software model users push for their need, if they are corporate they might sponsor someone to do it and try to get it in the main line. Individuals suggest it and if they are lucky or put the suggestion to the right audience it gets taken up by a developer. In the end the effort goes into developing toward either a perceived (evidenced preferably) need or to adding something that the developers see might be useful.
The developers live in far less isolation than the marketing driven model of corporate land. My claim why this must be evidently true is how otherwise could a smaller largely spare time group of developers keep up with and often surpass a multi billion dollar super corporation of tens of thousands of staff?
People don't strategise the direction of Free Software including Linux. They decided their need and push for it. The crowd then moves that way. That surely has to be its prime advantage over the Windows model which is the empire decides the needs of the little people and then makes it and send it forth.
That to me makes the premise of the question absurd.
I thought the Storm worm was sufficiently capable and also directed that it could lay silent. So it could just be that they are having it lay low at the moment whilst performing an upgrade?
Selling on a used book does not COPY the book. If you pop off to the photo copier and run off 200 and send each to one of your friends on a mailing list you are in breach of copyright. Just like (presuming of course that my e-mail qualifies as a sufficiently original work that took some effort to create) sending on my e-mail to 200 people.
Even forwarding the original physical letter can be a breach of copyright in the UK see
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/111.html/ (paragraph 241), and passing on a COPY of the letter is certainly a breach (given the above originality comment). In fact (I'm guessing) that is probably why open letters are labeled as such, to avoid any doubt that sharing what otherwise might be confidential information is OK.
Indeed to transfer the copyright requires a signed written document stating that is the purpose. Without that I still own the copyright of the material in the letter. And given international conventions on copyright law you can expect at least to some extent it to be true in any signatory country.
I'm not so sure you do own your (physical) mail. Copyright law etc... still apply to it. If I write you a letter I retain copyright over it. There may be additional laws and case law on it but I still own the copyright. You can't just re-use my letter. Nor does therefore Google have any claim on e-mail sent to you. Only possibly mail you send because you have agreed to their terms (which I have little idea of).
And e-mail is more like a postcard. It travels through the system open. So any analogy should really rest their or quote specific legislation that protects your e-mail from being read like a postcard and if that postcard mentions needing a new roof and the return address of the sender the post man sorting his sack to deliver happens to mention that person X at Y needs a new rood to his roofing mate.
Under EU law if a product is sold in any other member state it is deemed suitable for all markets. So purchase of unlocked ones from France has to be allowed legally. There may be other difficulties to get over of course...
It's one of those silly things really. Unless you can make sure that who ever you do buy from actually delivers less than a Lenovo one would into the foreign hands.
Plus it also misses the point that the more success capitalism has in China the less support for none democratic regimes there will be. So in the end sending the money to China through the purchase is an incentive for China to move in the direction of the rest of the world.
The current single debate is too narrow and you really need to get a view of the whole picture of ethics. I'm going to be (at least sound) slightly flippant (I do think the killing etc is bad) and say in the big picture the monks are taking less risk than I would be because they will be re-incarnated. The point of saying that is to highlight that the ethics also has a cultural element to consider.
I suppose you treat it like my limited understanding of athletes and urine samples. The A and the B sample. Basically you don't take either printed paper out with you, one drops in the box to be counted you place yours in the safe box that the nice policeman stands and watches over.
The only way the boss can verify is to breach the principle of the secret vote. I've heard from a party member in the UK who said how they met one pensioner who was about to die who had voted all their life and since being home bound helped to the polling station by the nice Labour man. They admitted they had in fact never voted for them but thanked them for the help over the years. - Unverifiable I know but true or not it makes the point.
Copyright (and licenses) are creations of the state under statute and have their power under law from that. A thing under the law does not need to be a contract to be enforceable.
A contract in some countries is still not a matter of statute it is a matter of common law based on what is equitable and just. Some countries do indeed have specific statute on contracts and even the UK has contract law heavily impacted thus these days (particularly with EU legislation).
So simply contract is different from a license and is formed between parties. Licenses are a matter of the licensor stating the terms of the license and you using the work under those licensed terms. Hence when E Moglen says your rights to use it persist only whilst you are in adherence with the terms of the license.
That does not preclude a person (legal including companies) from also entering a contractual arrangement relating to the granting of the license as one of its terms or conditions.
You are right but interestingly the license grants rights over product A. Whereas the license is actually item B. I guess you hold independent copyright etc. over your license unless you use one already written. Which makes me wonder what all the licenses out there include as a paragraph to actually allow others to use (and include) their license (copyright work) with the work of the others.
Think I've just added a curiosity to my list of things to look into.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote saying they didn't have any idea how many people accessed the files made me laugh. Could be no one did, at least for some of the crap songs;-)
like just finding the right application amongst zillions the problem (to something most I'm sure would otherwise consider doing) is finding it.
Yes you might want to save time through such reuse, but first you have to somehow find possibilities and then you have to decide which one of those suits best. And that time consuming process is why so much ends up getting written from scratch so often.
Solving that problem is itself a problem though. At the moment there is such a diversity because of that. Take away the diversity and you move toward a narrowed less populated eco system, which I think for many (hopefully) obvious reasons is best avoided.
Only problem is the lethals are banned too because they 1/ cause extreme physical pain (before and briefly before you die) 2/ cause obscene psychological pain through the intimidation and expectation you are about to die.
A great idea I saw once was to make what you have to pay if you lose a multiple of the amount you spend on your case. So when the big lot chuck $10 million at a law suit they end up paying out a minimum of say 10 times that.
I suppose you could actually get the multiple based off of the ratio between claimant and respondent's spending, plus the actually proven damages.
Interesting that he is right within the subgroup. In that the people who enter the discussion are the people that matter because without them we wouldn't be in the discussion.
I'll add to that a suspicion, which is if we members of the discussion and (meta)moderators weren't here to pick up and demolish some of these stories for being sensationalist etc the whole thing would fail. The commentary that can be sometimes scanned to see a distilled nugget of the real story, the discussion that eventually turns up as a later story refuting the earlier crap and so on.
So all in all I think it's probably true.
The USA has the grand canyon, must be one of the best naturally occurring places to use for land fill.
Indeed you can go further with what you say. Failing to sue even if you disagree with the laws as they stand can be a big mistake if you want to remain in control of your own work even to a lesser extent than the law allows.
The recent and ongoing (sorry can't find the link) War Hammer 4K fan film story in Germany being itself an example.
You are also being stupid. A good method of securing things is one that they cannot break even with knowing the method. So it makes no difference if they do know it.
Having been rude enough to suggest you are being stupid I see a valid point if you meant they are attempting to get some of the methods used by bad guys out into the open, because currently they have no clue what they are as the first stage in looking for vulnerabilities.
But to me it sounds far too like a TV, genius bad guys out there that have invented encryption strategies vastly superior to anyone else. In which case they aren't so smart if they come out and let people have it instead of just sitting there watching the protected data of the banking system whilst passing around their own inside information?
Really what is the difference? A radical enough change to Javascript meaning it is in effect no longer Javascript it a new language right?
So unless they are wanting to jump away from the whole family of language that Javascript sits in the totally new language will have lots in common, probably as much as a radical revision?
It's the over all accumulation. For example so recently all the GPL Linux Kernel people are thieves milarky over the wireless driver. Does he discuss it with any experts that actually are professionals in the law and are offering to talk about it. No, just keeps shouting.
That contrasts with Linus who yes comes out and says things. But (and I'm not much for liking Linus) his tone though seemingly comparably rude (confrontational) at times sets it down as a challenge to those he is confronting and accepts them giving him the evidence to make him change his mind.
So to me the two approaches contrast to say one likes hearing their own voice the other speaks out when they consider it necessary but otherwise shuts up and gets on with things. And the shutting up and getting on with things tone seems to be the culture (to me as an observer) of the Linux kernel development high profile names.
And I'm not being hard about this, just saying that's how it seems to me. Like the approach described of Linus if I see the evidence I'll change my mind. I started of a while back liking what Theo had to say but the more I heard the less I liked and the more bored I got with his opining. He's made sense at times I happily admit.
And I just thought if the Wolfram is so clever why didn't he produce the proof?
I'm bored of Theo. Just seems he tries hard to have his name in lights. Which means I've stopped bothering with anything associated.
the "more motivation" might be true when there isn't a captive market.
But you missed my point. A company like Microsoft has to talk up its features and hence is motivated to do things because it gives it something to talk up. Sometimes they are better sometimes not. They don't necessarily come from the users asking for them. Who asked for the ribbons in the latest Office? Not the majority of users.
So in the Free Software model users push for their need, if they are corporate they might sponsor someone to do it and try to get it in the main line. Individuals suggest it and if they are lucky or put the suggestion to the right audience it gets taken up by a developer. In the end the effort goes into developing toward either a perceived (evidenced preferably) need or to adding something that the developers see might be useful.
The developers live in far less isolation than the marketing driven model of corporate land. My claim why this must be evidently true is how otherwise could a smaller largely spare time group of developers keep up with and often surpass a multi billion dollar super corporation of tens of thousands of staff?
In short I think I am saying you are wrong:-)
People don't strategise the direction of Free Software including Linux. They decided their need and push for it. The crowd then moves that way. That surely has to be its prime advantage over the Windows model which is the empire decides the needs of the little people and then makes it and send it forth.
That to me makes the premise of the question absurd.
I thought the Storm worm was sufficiently capable and also directed that it could lay silent. So it could just be that they are having it lay low at the moment whilst performing an upgrade?
Sending my e-mail on is creating a copy.
Selling on a used book does not COPY the book. If you pop off to the photo copier and run off 200 and send each to one of your friends on a mailing list you are in breach of copyright. Just like (presuming of course that my e-mail qualifies as a sufficiently original work that took some effort to create) sending on my e-mail to 200 people.
Even forwarding the original physical letter can be a breach of copyright in the UK see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/111.html/ (paragraph 241), and passing on a COPY of the letter is certainly a breach (given the above originality comment). In fact (I'm guessing) that is probably why open letters are labeled as such, to avoid any doubt that sharing what otherwise might be confidential information is OK.
Indeed to transfer the copyright requires a signed written document stating that is the purpose. Without that I still own the copyright of the material in the letter. And given international conventions on copyright law you can expect at least to some extent it to be true in any signatory country.
I'm not so sure you do own your (physical) mail. Copyright law etc... still apply to it. If I write you a letter I retain copyright over it. There may be additional laws and case law on it but I still own the copyright. You can't just re-use my letter. Nor does therefore Google have any claim on e-mail sent to you. Only possibly mail you send because you have agreed to their terms (which I have little idea of).
And e-mail is more like a postcard. It travels through the system open. So any analogy should really rest their or quote specific legislation that protects your e-mail from being read like a postcard and if that postcard mentions needing a new roof and the return address of the sender the post man sorting his sack to deliver happens to mention that person X at Y needs a new rood to his roofing mate.
Lost track of where I actually wanted to go here.
Under EU law if a product is sold in any other member state it is deemed suitable for all markets. So purchase of unlocked ones from France has to be allowed legally. There may be other difficulties to get over of course...
Prove it. Hold on didn't someone say the lack of empirical evidence is the whole basis of the problem and Linus argument?
It's one of those silly things really. Unless you can make sure that who ever you do buy from actually delivers less than a Lenovo one would into the foreign hands.
Plus it also misses the point that the more success capitalism has in China the less support for none democratic regimes there will be. So in the end sending the money to China through the purchase is an incentive for China to move in the direction of the rest of the world.
The current single debate is too narrow and you really need to get a view of the whole picture of ethics. I'm going to be (at least sound) slightly flippant (I do think the killing etc is bad) and say in the big picture the monks are taking less risk than I would be because they will be re-incarnated. The point of saying that is to highlight that the ethics also has a cultural element to consider.
I suppose you treat it like my limited understanding of athletes and urine samples. The A and the B sample. Basically you don't take either printed paper out with you, one drops in the box to be counted you place yours in the safe box that the nice policeman stands and watches over.
The only way the boss can verify is to breach the principle of the secret vote. I've heard from a party member in the UK who said how they met one pensioner who was about to die who had voted all their life and since being home bound helped to the polling station by the nice Labour man. They admitted they had in fact never voted for them but thanked them for the help over the years. - Unverifiable I know but true or not it makes the point.
GGL
Google General License
Copyright (and licenses) are creations of the state under statute and have their power under law from that. A thing under the law does not need to be a contract to be enforceable.
A contract in some countries is still not a matter of statute it is a matter of common law based on what is equitable and just. Some countries do indeed have specific statute on contracts and even the UK has contract law heavily impacted thus these days (particularly with EU legislation).
So simply contract is different from a license and is formed between parties. Licenses are a matter of the licensor stating the terms of the license and you using the work under those licensed terms. Hence when E Moglen says your rights to use it persist only whilst you are in adherence with the terms of the license.
That does not preclude a person (legal including companies) from also entering a contractual arrangement relating to the granting of the license as one of its terms or conditions.
The Klingons already have the agoniser for the purpose.
You are right but interestingly the license grants rights over product A. Whereas the license is actually item B. I guess you hold independent copyright etc. over your license unless you use one already written. Which makes me wonder what all the licenses out there include as a paragraph to actually allow others to use (and include) their license (copyright work) with the work of the others.
Think I've just added a curiosity to my list of things to look into.