The "baby" in this case, is useful comuting tools.
Consider a law which prohibits sending any personal information without the owner's express permission. What is personal information? Well, I have an account with Speakeasy which provides me with a static IP. That IP is leased to me and is conceivably traceable to me. It's therefore arugable that any program which is network enabled sends out personal information - my IP address. Do you want to have to personally OK every IP packet that's sent from your computer? Or click an "OK" button to install every network enabled utility the next time you install Linux?
THAT's the "baby" we don't want to throw out. Spyware is like pornography. You know it when you see it but crafting a specific legal definition that doesn't intrude on all kinds of legitimate behavior is quite difficult.
We know that lawmakers are incompetent when it comes to understanding technology. We know that when they try to write legislation controlling technology, it's almost always a bad thing. (I say "almost" but right now, I can't think of a single counter example.) We are all aware of the purported intent of the DMCA. Whether or not you support that stated intent, we're all aware that it goes much further than that - that it threatens legitimate research into encryption, that it's used by large corporations to browbeat small companies and individuals into submission, and that it's simply a Bad Thing, regardless of the intent.
So someone stands up and says "You know, Congress doesn't have much of a track record in writing technical legislation. The intent of anti-spyware legislation might be good, but I'm not sure that the actual legislation as written will accomplish the intent and it might actually have some far reaching implications that go well beyond the intent. Lets make sure that what we pass into law is the right way to do this." Why is it that that guy's a bad guy who's being accused of being a bribed shill for corporate interests?
I don't like spam, I don't like spyware, I don't like trojans or worms or viruses. But I dislike Congress' meddling in these affairs even more - they almost always bungle the attempt and cause more harm than they do good; often they cause more harm than the problem they're trying to fix. Law isn't the solution to technical issues. Let's leave the clueless lawmakers out of it.
Slashdot's core readership is significantly biased towards Linux use. We have a strong interest in the case. If you don't, another news site might be more in line with your interests. It's not like there aren't a great many to choose from.
There are more costs associated with running a business network that simply the cost of OS software. It's theoretically possible for MS to offer a more secure, more robust, easier to use product that has a lower TCO than free software.
OK, quite laughing. I said "theoretically." I don't think they have a prayer of converting this theoretical possibility into a reality, but it doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The studies which have claimed to show this have all proven to be seriously flawed. But that doesn't change the fact that thinking that Open Source is a better alternative simply because it's free-as-in-beer is missing a huge part of the picture. It ain't that simple.
Why do you assume that I spend my time trying to correct everybody? You can look up my posts if you like. You'll find that I don't correct people who use English as a second language, nor do I normally bother to correct people who use improper English. However, it's pretty apparent to me that the post to which I replied is a native English speaker who contorted his sentence in an effort to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition. To quote Winston Churchhill, "That is something up with which I will not put." It wasn't an incorrect usage that caused my comment - it was the act of going to such extremes to try to be correct that you comletely distort the sentence. That's simply silly.
This is generally true. It's certainly true if the art is being used as a background for a web site, advertising a product, etc. I'm not certain, however, that it is true if the art is being explicitly made available for download by the author with no restrictions.
I think there's a definite argument that offering the art for download constituted a permission to use that art, and with no restrictions on how it may be used, that may very well mean use for any purpose, including commercial.
TS-SCI. The problem is that I've just spent twenty years in the Navy. I don't know that I want to get out and go to work for a defense contractor. I'd like to get away from DOD.
Most of the technicly adept and smart employers know that tech certifications are pretty much a bunch of BS, but some still require it...
I hear this a lot on Slashdot and similar places. However, I hear just the opposite when talking to people in the employment field.
I'm US Navy, 19 years, and looking to retire shortly and enter the IT field. I've been repeatedly told by head hunters, employment agencies, etc. that military people who get out and have their certs have little trouble finding a job. Those who don't have their certs, despite having equivalent military training and experience, have a much tougher time. One head hunter told me that he won't even take resumes from ITs (Information Technologists) unless they have civilian certs.
I haven't made up anything, nor am I pulling words out of the air. I said the definitions supported the common legal definition. I'm using well established, well known legal definitions. Look up "contractor" and "independent contractor" at law.com.
Active duty military does not meet the legal definition of a contractor. It meets the legal definition of an employee. (Look up employee at the same site to see the difference.) And if you think the difference in those two terms are merely semantic, you've obviously never dealt with business income taxes. The IRS is quite picky about which of the two definitions a person falls under.
There's nothing illegal about an employee at lunch-break using a corporate-licensed Microsoft Office to write a personal letter.
MS Office is distributed under a completely different license. You seem to be uninformed on certain basic legal issues, but surely you're aware that what's legal under Microsoft's licensing terms has absolutely nothing to do with what's legal under the GPL! Among a great many other differences, MS licenses Office by machine (unless it's being hosted on a server, in which case it's licensed by the connection). MS doesn't care what how you use that copy of Office so long as you have a license for each copy. The GPL is quite different. You can have as many copies as you like but fall under other restrictions that are triggered when you distribute a copy of the software.
But if for the sake of argument that were true, the giant loophole still exists. Simply define the organization as a "Software of the year club" (analogous to "book of the month") and then any use of the software is covered.
Uh, the purpose of "Software or book of the month" clubs is to DISTRIBUTE software or books.
Oh really? But NMCI will change everything to Microsoft Windows, where Perl will do no good.
Uh, just what the heck have you been smoking? Are you trolling me or are you really that unaware of the state of the industry?
I'm an admin for two networks consisting of four servers, all running WinNT, and around 120 machines, most running NT with a few copies of Windows 2000. We're already all Windows. Perl runs just fine on Windows, it has for years, and I use it on a daily basis. Once we're cut over to NMCI, howver, I'll no longer have admin access. EDS will own and maintain our network. That's why I'll no longer be using Perl there, because that will no longer be my job, not because it can't be used with MS.
There is a great deal of contract law and case law that lies behind the GPL. There are a number of issues that have yet to be tested or clarified in a court of law. However, there are a number of other issues that are standard fare in contract law and aren't controversial at all. The aspects of the GPL that we've been talking about, such as what constitutes a distribution, are well known and quite well established. Anything is possible in a court of law, but if these aspects of the GPL were succesfully challenged, it would surprise a great many experts in this area of the law. I'm not pulling this out of thin air. It's well known, well discussed, and well understood. It's not an issue. You, of course, can believe what you like.
Uh, lots of things that are necessary for life, from vitamin C to salt, are harmful or toxic in large doses. You have all of Google at your disposal. Provide me one reference that shows that nicotine (and not the tar and carcinogens that you get from the cigarette) has any ill effects in the doses taken in by a tobacco user.
(I also strongly doubt your claim that the amount of nicotine absorbed by a smoker is fatal to a non-smoker. It might cause them to feel a bit ill, but it wouldn't kill them.)
Suppose that they make all of their new products with one of the more widely used memory technologies? Exactly how is this leaving the early adopters in the lurch? So long as they continue to make Memory Sticks available for purchase, the early adopters have nothing to complain about.
First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.
This may very well be true. It isn't clear to me whether or not a distribution has taken place if I hire a contractor to modify GPL'd code for me.
And the DOD being so dependent on contractors is a relatively new phenomenon. I became a part of the DOD in 1985, and while we had contractors then, it was nowhere near the extent we have them now.
I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.
It's an official FAQ posted on GNU's official web site. I'd say that's reasonable grounds to assume that it has their official sanction and has been pretty thoroughly reviewed.
If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."
No it isn't.
I see two relevant definitions at the site you quoted:
One that agrees to furnish materials or perform services at a specified price, especially for construction work.
One who contracts; one of the parties to a bargain; one who covenants to do anything for another; specifically, one who contracts to perform work on a rather large scale, at a certain price or rate, as in building houses or making a railroad.
Both of these support the concept of a contractor as an outside entity hired for a specific job, usually for a limited time frame.
If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.
Actually, you probably could do this. However, you could only use the software for purposes related to the organization. You could use a GPL'd database to track club membership, or a GPL'd web server to host the club's site. You could modify those products, and not be forced to distribute them so long as that's all you use them for. However, if you use a modified GPL'd word processor to write letters to your Aunt Tillie, that's use outside of the organization. If the organization authorizes that use, it has distributed a copy to you for personal, not organizational, use and must comply with all requirements of the GPL.
C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.
As a sys-admin, I use my Perl skills, such as they are, more than I use my C++ skills for the Navy. That, however, will soon cease as control and maintenance of our network is being turned over to EDS via the vaunted NMCI contract.
Mind you, I'm from the NL, so I'm used to a pretty liberal (as in free, not as in left-wing) view to drugs, but then again, we divide drugs into 2 categories: 1. Soft drugs, which are not or marginally harmful and not or marginally addiction inducing. 2. Hard drugs, which are harmful and make you addicted fast.
Interesting. Where do you classify alcohol? It isn't highly addictive but over indulgence is quite hard on the body, both long term and short term. How about heroin? Quite addictive but essentialy harmless. (Most of the problems with heroin addiction comes from malnutrition - it surpresses appetite and users would rather spend their money on drugs than food, from diseases spread by contaminated needles, and from overdose due to inconsistent drug quality. These are largely results of the war on drugs, not an inherent quality of the drug usage itself. Legalize it, lower the price and make a consistent quality drug available, and most heroin addicts will live productive, relatively-normal lives with few or no health effects.)
You mentioned smoking. Nicotine is highly addictive but pretty much harmless itself. The delivery system, on the other hand, is quite destructive.
While there are people who support almost any position one can come up with, there are few who believe drugs should be legally available to children. However, I know that when I was growing up, it was easier to get drugs than it was alcohol. The people selling drugs didn't care about your age. The people selling alcohol, for the most part, did. Legalize drugs, put them under age restricts as alcohol and cigarettes currently are in most countries, and you'll make it more difficult, not easier, for kids to get drugs. Those who really want them will get them, just as they manage to get alcohol now, but you won't be making the problem any worse.
Sorry, the GPL FAQ is not the GPL. It has no legal validity- the text of the GPL is all that matters. Nor does a FAQ have the authority to redefine existing terms like "distribute". That particular FAQ is just full of holes.
The GPL FAQ is written and hosted by the people who wrote the GPL and who act to enforce it. They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours. No offense.
Just to point out one of the most blatantly wrong things about that FAQ: It's actually self-contradictory. In the first sentence, it says that using multiple copies within an organization is just fine. But the last sentence states "providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution"
So what if the off-site contractors are part of the organization? Can they use it, or can't they?
This is not contradictory, nor is it particularly difficult. If they're contractors, they're not part of the organization. If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor." If you have contractors who come in and work at your site, they can use the GPL'd software without triggering a distribution. However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.
My simplest argument is that I'm part of the DoD, and know the rules around here. But I can't really prove that to you.
You know, Slashdot would be a better place if people would bother to do a bit of research before spouting off about stuff that they obviously have no clue about.
Wrong. The GPL doesn't contain any mention of "release", or "internal" or "external" use, or use inside/outside of a corporation or organization.
All it talks about is "distribution". There is no exception to allow free distribution inside one organization. If you give a modified GPL program to anyone, an employee of yours or not, you must give her permission to redistribute it freely. Otherwise, you have no right to give her a copy at all.
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
And this effectively neuters your other argument, since the DOD has no need to seize a program by eminent domain. They can simply take it and use it. The GPL allows that.
While it might be technically possible to change the law in some way so as to render the GPL unenforcable either in general or specifically in the case of DOD use of GPL'd software, the difficulty of doing so makes it so remote a possibility as to be discounted. After all, the Pentagon doesn't write laws.
If he (or you) "doubts the Pentagon will abide by GPL," I'd suggest you don't understand the GPL very well. The Pentagon is free to use GPL'd code in any way it wants. The only requirement is that if it releases the product or software using GPL'd code outside of its organization, it must release the source code too.
Free use is the whole point of free (as in speech) software. If you have Free speech, that means the racists are free to decry blacks and the anti-semites are free to rail against Jews and a whole host of thoroughly unpleasant people are free to say thoroughtly unpleasant things. If you have Free software, anyone can use it. Ths US Government can use it to track target data and plan air strikes. The Chinese government can use it for firewalls that block access to web sites they oppose. Terrorist can use it to build clusters that run physics simulations to assist in building a nuclear bombs. The only way to stop it is to stop Free software, and it's doubtful that that would be even marginally effective.
And he is blaming the tool. A knife can be used to sever someone's bonds or to kill them. A baseball bat can be used to play a sport or to bash someone's head in. Linux can be used to fight a war or to enable a poverty-striken African village. You don't blame the knife or the bat or Linux if it's used in a manner you dislike. You blame the hand that wields the tool.
Chineese totalitarianism is crumbling. It's a slow process, and there's still a great deal of resistance, but governmental control is slowly weakening. There might come a point when the populace decides the government is weak enough that the time is right for violent revolution, or it may just continue it's slow, steady slide towards openness and freedom, but either way the current political climate is dying. Much of that process is fueled by exposure to Western ideals and the influx of money from Western purchasers. If we boycott Chinese made products, we slow or halt that process.
You're right, of course. Close down all of those third world factories and companies! Those people are being exploited! Imagine, expecting those poor, pitiful people to work a job and earn money to support themselves! Quit taking advantage of them and let them starve to death as free, unexploited people!
"They're reading my email!" So? The SMTP server that delivered your email read it. The Pop3/IMAP servers that display your email read it.
Yep, exactly why I said the concerns with GMail appeared to be overblown.
"They're tracking my browsing!" Amazon ALREADY tracks your browsing. They follow you through every web page that has an Amazon graphic and they look up referrers to see what you like.
I added the emphasis to your quote. Now, look at this quote from the article:
If you install the toolbar, then all your Web browsing, as well as all your searching, is stored as well.
Bold emphasis mine here as well. Do you see anything significant between the two emphasised sections? I do. That's why I said the concerns with A9 appear to be significant. Further info may alleviate concern, but right now, I'm certainly not using A9.
Slashdot, while significant among the technorati, is a small eddy in a big pool. GMail is getting main stream hype - a senator in California is threatening legislation to prevent Google from rolling out the service. A few comments on Slashdot are not in the same league.
The concern with GMail seems to be overblown as was indicated here on/. just a couple of stories ago. The concern with A9 seems, at least at this juncture, to be quite legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
The "baby" in this case, is useful comuting tools.
Consider a law which prohibits sending any personal information without the owner's express permission. What is personal information? Well, I have an account with Speakeasy which provides me with a static IP. That IP is leased to me and is conceivably traceable to me. It's therefore arugable that any program which is network enabled sends out personal information - my IP address. Do you want to have to personally OK every IP packet that's sent from your computer? Or click an "OK" button to install every network enabled utility the next time you install Linux?
THAT's the "baby" we don't want to throw out. Spyware is like pornography. You know it when you see it but crafting a specific legal definition that doesn't intrude on all kinds of legitimate behavior is quite difficult.
We know that lawmakers are incompetent when it comes to understanding technology. We know that when they try to write legislation controlling technology, it's almost always a bad thing. (I say "almost" but right now, I can't think of a single counter example.) We are all aware of the purported intent of the DMCA. Whether or not you support that stated intent, we're all aware that it goes much further than that - that it threatens legitimate research into encryption, that it's used by large corporations to browbeat small companies and individuals into submission, and that it's simply a Bad Thing, regardless of the intent.
So someone stands up and says "You know, Congress doesn't have much of a track record in writing technical legislation. The intent of anti-spyware legislation might be good, but I'm not sure that the actual legislation as written will accomplish the intent and it might actually have some far reaching implications that go well beyond the intent. Lets make sure that what we pass into law is the right way to do this." Why is it that that guy's a bad guy who's being accused of being a bribed shill for corporate interests?
I don't like spam, I don't like spyware, I don't like trojans or worms or viruses. But I dislike Congress' meddling in these affairs even more - they almost always bungle the attempt and cause more harm than they do good; often they cause more harm than the problem they're trying to fix. Law isn't the solution to technical issues. Let's leave the clueless lawmakers out of it.
For some people. I don't understand it either but hey, it takes all kinds...
I believe grandparent was referring to SCO's claim that the GPL is unconstitutional and similar claims that they've now dropped from their filings.
Slashdot's core readership is significantly biased towards Linux use. We have a strong interest in the case. If you don't, another news site might be more in line with your interests. It's not like there aren't a great many to choose from.
There are more costs associated with running a business network that simply the cost of OS software. It's theoretically possible for MS to offer a more secure, more robust, easier to use product that has a lower TCO than free software.
OK, quite laughing. I said "theoretically." I don't think they have a prayer of converting this theoretical possibility into a reality, but it doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The studies which have claimed to show this have all proven to be seriously flawed. But that doesn't change the fact that thinking that Open Source is a better alternative simply because it's free-as-in-beer is missing a huge part of the picture. It ain't that simple.
Why do you assume that I spend my time trying to correct everybody? You can look up my posts if you like. You'll find that I don't correct people who use English as a second language, nor do I normally bother to correct people who use improper English. However, it's pretty apparent to me that the post to which I replied is a native English speaker who contorted his sentence in an effort to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition. To quote Winston Churchhill, "That is something up with which I will not put." It wasn't an incorrect usage that caused my comment - it was the act of going to such extremes to try to be correct that you comletely distort the sentence. That's simply silly.
That doesn't even make sense. If you're that opposed to ending a sentence with a preposition, why not try something like:
...it seems the idea of making it into larger appliances has not occurred to anyone.
...it seems the idea of making it into larger appliances is not highly regarded.
...it seems the idea of making it into larger appliances is seldom considered.
This is generally true. It's certainly true if the art is being used as a background for a web site, advertising a product, etc. I'm not certain, however, that it is true if the art is being explicitly made available for download by the author with no restrictions.
I think there's a definite argument that offering the art for download constituted a permission to use that art, and with no restrictions on how it may be used, that may very well mean use for any purpose, including commercial.
TS-SCI. The problem is that I've just spent twenty years in the Navy. I don't know that I want to get out and go to work for a defense contractor. I'd like to get away from DOD.
Most of the technicly adept and smart employers know that tech certifications are pretty much a bunch of BS, but some still require it...
I hear this a lot on Slashdot and similar places. However, I hear just the opposite when talking to people in the employment field.
I'm US Navy, 19 years, and looking to retire shortly and enter the IT field. I've been repeatedly told by head hunters, employment agencies, etc. that military people who get out and have their certs have little trouble finding a job. Those who don't have their certs, despite having equivalent military training and experience, have a much tougher time. One head hunter told me that he won't even take resumes from ITs (Information Technologists) unless they have civilian certs.
Wrong. You're making up words
I haven't made up anything, nor am I pulling words out of the air. I said the definitions supported the common legal definition. I'm using well established, well known legal definitions. Look up "contractor" and "independent contractor" at law.com.
Active duty military does not meet the legal definition of a contractor. It meets the legal definition of an employee. (Look up employee at the same site to see the difference.) And if you think the difference in those two terms are merely semantic, you've obviously never dealt with business income taxes. The IRS is quite picky about which of the two definitions a person falls under.
There's nothing illegal about an employee at lunch-break using a corporate-licensed Microsoft Office to write a personal letter.
MS Office is distributed under a completely different license. You seem to be uninformed on certain basic legal issues, but surely you're aware that what's legal under Microsoft's licensing terms has absolutely nothing to do with what's legal under the GPL! Among a great many other differences, MS licenses Office by machine (unless it's being hosted on a server, in which case it's licensed by the connection). MS doesn't care what how you use that copy of Office so long as you have a license for each copy. The GPL is quite different. You can have as many copies as you like but fall under other restrictions that are triggered when you distribute a copy of the software.
But if for the sake of argument that were true, the giant loophole still exists. Simply define the organization as a "Software of the year club" (analogous to "book of the month") and then any use of the software is covered.
Uh, the purpose of "Software or book of the month" clubs is to DISTRIBUTE software or books.
Oh really? But NMCI will change everything to Microsoft Windows, where Perl will do no good.
Uh, just what the heck have you been smoking? Are you trolling me or are you really that unaware of the state of the industry?
I'm an admin for two networks consisting of four servers, all running WinNT, and around 120 machines, most running NT with a few copies of Windows 2000. We're already all Windows. Perl runs just fine on Windows, it has for years, and I use it on a daily basis. Once we're cut over to NMCI, howver, I'll no longer have admin access. EDS will own and maintain our network. That's why I'll no longer be using Perl there, because that will no longer be my job, not because it can't be used with MS.
There is a great deal of contract law and case law that lies behind the GPL. There are a number of issues that have yet to be tested or clarified in a court of law. However, there are a number of other issues that are standard fare in contract law and aren't controversial at all. The aspects of the GPL that we've been talking about, such as what constitutes a distribution, are well known and quite well established. Anything is possible in a court of law, but if these aspects of the GPL were succesfully challenged, it would surprise a great many experts in this area of the law. I'm not pulling this out of thin air. It's well known, well discussed, and well understood. It's not an issue. You, of course, can believe what you like.
Uh, lots of things that are necessary for life, from vitamin C to salt, are harmful or toxic in large doses. You have all of Google at your disposal. Provide me one reference that shows that nicotine (and not the tar and carcinogens that you get from the cigarette) has any ill effects in the doses taken in by a tobacco user.
(I also strongly doubt your claim that the amount of nicotine absorbed by a smoker is fatal to a non-smoker. It might cause them to feel a bit ill, but it wouldn't kill them.)
Suppose that they make all of their new products with one of the more widely used memory technologies? Exactly how is this leaving the early adopters in the lurch? So long as they continue to make Memory Sticks available for purchase, the early adopters have nothing to complain about.
First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.
This may very well be true. It isn't clear to me whether or not a distribution has taken place if
I hire a contractor to modify GPL'd code for me.
And the DOD being so dependent on contractors is a relatively new phenomenon. I became a part of the DOD in 1985, and while we had contractors then, it was nowhere near the extent we have them now.
I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.
It's an official FAQ posted on GNU's official web site. I'd say that's reasonable grounds to assume that it has their official sanction and has been pretty thoroughly reviewed.
If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."
No it isn't.
I see two relevant definitions at the site you quoted:
One that agrees to furnish materials or perform services at a specified price, especially for construction work.
One who contracts; one of the parties to a bargain; one who covenants to do anything for another; specifically, one who contracts to perform work on a rather large scale, at a certain price or rate, as in building houses or making a railroad.
Both of these support the concept of a contractor as an outside entity hired for a specific job, usually for a limited time frame.
If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.
Actually, you probably could do this. However, you could only use the software for purposes related to the organization. You could use a GPL'd database to track club membership, or a GPL'd web server to host the club's site. You could modify those products, and not be forced to distribute them so long as that's all you use them for. However, if you use a modified GPL'd word processor to write letters to your Aunt Tillie, that's use outside of the organization. If the organization authorizes that use, it has distributed a copy to you for personal, not organizational, use and must comply with all requirements of the GPL.
C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.
As a sys-admin, I use my Perl skills, such as they are, more than I use my C++ skills for the Navy. That, however, will soon cease as control and maintenance of our network is being turned over to EDS via the vaunted NMCI contract.
Mind you, I'm from the NL, so I'm used to a pretty liberal (as in free, not as in left-wing) view to drugs, but then again, we divide drugs into 2 categories:
1. Soft drugs, which are not or marginally harmful and not or marginally addiction inducing.
2. Hard drugs, which are harmful and make you addicted fast.
Interesting. Where do you classify alcohol? It isn't highly addictive but over indulgence is quite hard on the body, both long term and short term. How about heroin? Quite addictive but essentialy harmless. (Most of the problems with heroin addiction comes from malnutrition - it surpresses appetite and users would rather spend their money on drugs than food, from diseases spread by contaminated needles, and from overdose due to inconsistent drug quality. These are largely results of the war on drugs, not an inherent quality of the drug usage itself. Legalize it, lower the price and make a consistent quality drug available, and most heroin addicts will live productive, relatively-normal lives with few or no health effects.)
You mentioned smoking. Nicotine is highly addictive but pretty much harmless itself. The delivery system, on the other hand, is quite destructive.
While there are people who support almost any position one can come up with, there are few who believe drugs should be legally available to children. However, I know that when I was growing up, it was easier to get drugs than it was alcohol. The people selling drugs didn't care about your age. The people selling alcohol, for the most part, did. Legalize drugs, put them under age restricts as alcohol and cigarettes currently are in most countries, and you'll make it more difficult, not easier, for kids to get drugs. Those who really want them will get them, just as they manage to get alcohol now, but you won't be making the problem any worse.
Sorry, the GPL FAQ is not the GPL. It has no legal validity- the text of the GPL is all that matters. Nor does a FAQ have the authority to redefine existing terms like "distribute". That particular FAQ is just full of holes.
The GPL FAQ is written and hosted by the people who wrote the GPL and who act to enforce it. They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours. No offense.
Just to point out one of the most blatantly wrong things about that FAQ: It's actually self-contradictory. In the first sentence, it says that using multiple copies within an organization is just fine. But the last sentence states "providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution"
So what if the off-site contractors are part of the organization? Can they use it, or can't they?
This is not contradictory, nor is it particularly difficult. If they're contractors, they're not part of the organization. If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor." If you have contractors who come in and work at your site, they can use the GPL'd software without triggering a distribution. However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.
My simplest argument is that I'm part of the DoD, and know the rules around here. But I can't really prove that to you.
Check my profile.
128bit encryption end to end. I'm suprised this isn't being done already.
Uh, what makes you think it isn't?
You know, Slashdot would be a better place if people would bother to do a bit of research before spouting off about stuff that they obviously have no clue about.
Wrong. The GPL doesn't contain any mention of "release", or "internal" or "external" use, or use inside/outside of a corporation or organization.
All it talks about is "distribution". There is no exception to allow free distribution inside one organization. If you give a modified GPL program to anyone, an employee of yours or not, you must give her permission to redistribute it freely. Otherwise, you have no right to give her a copy at all.
From the GPL FAQ:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
And this effectively neuters your other argument, since the DOD has no need to seize a program by eminent domain. They can simply take it and use it. The GPL allows that.
While it might be technically possible to change the law in some way so as to render the GPL unenforcable either in general or specifically in the case of DOD use of GPL'd software, the difficulty of doing so makes it so remote a possibility as to be discounted. After all, the Pentagon doesn't write laws.
If he (or you) "doubts the Pentagon will abide by GPL," I'd suggest you don't understand the GPL very well. The Pentagon is free to use GPL'd code in any way it wants. The only requirement is that if it releases the product or software using GPL'd code outside of its organization, it must release the source code too.
Free use is the whole point of free (as in speech) software. If you have Free speech, that means the racists are free to decry blacks and the anti-semites are free to rail against Jews and a whole host of thoroughly unpleasant people are free to say thoroughtly unpleasant things. If you have Free software, anyone can use it. Ths US Government can use it to track target data and plan air strikes. The Chinese government can use it for firewalls that block access to web sites they oppose. Terrorist can use it to build clusters that run physics simulations to assist in building a nuclear bombs. The only way to stop it is to stop Free software, and it's doubtful that that would be even marginally effective.
And he is blaming the tool. A knife can be used to sever someone's bonds or to kill them. A baseball bat can be used to play a sport or to bash someone's head in. Linux can be used to fight a war or to enable a poverty-striken African village. You don't blame the knife or the bat or Linux if it's used in a manner you dislike. You blame the hand that wields the tool.
Chineese totalitarianism is crumbling. It's a slow process, and there's still a great deal of resistance, but governmental control is slowly weakening. There might come a point when the populace decides the government is weak enough that the time is right for violent revolution, or it may just continue it's slow, steady slide towards openness and freedom, but either way the current political climate is dying. Much of that process is fueled by exposure to Western ideals and the influx of money from Western purchasers. If we boycott Chinese made products, we slow or halt that process.
You're right, of course. Close down all of those third world factories and companies! Those people are being exploited! Imagine, expecting those poor, pitiful people to work a job and earn money to support themselves! Quit taking advantage of them and let them starve to death as free, unexploited people!
"They're reading my email!" So? The SMTP server that delivered your email read it. The Pop3/IMAP servers that display your email read it.
Yep, exactly why I said the concerns with GMail appeared to be overblown.
"They're tracking my browsing!" Amazon ALREADY tracks your browsing. They follow you through every web page that has an Amazon graphic and they look up referrers to see what you like.
I added the emphasis to your quote. Now, look at this quote from the article:
If you install the toolbar, then all your Web browsing, as well as all your searching, is stored as well.
Bold emphasis mine here as well. Do you see anything significant between the two emphasised sections? I do. That's why I said the concerns with A9 appear to be significant. Further info may alleviate concern, but right now, I'm certainly not using A9.
Slashdot, while significant among the technorati, is a small eddy in a big pool. GMail is getting main stream hype - a senator in California is threatening legislation to prevent Google from rolling out the service. A few comments on Slashdot are not in the same league.
/. just a couple of stories ago. The concern with A9 seems, at least at this juncture, to be quite legitimate.
The concern with GMail seems to be overblown as was indicated here on