Unless you're in a protected class that would cause rejection to constitute a civil rights violation (sex, race, religion, etc), people can refuse to hire you for any fucking reason they see fit, even if that reason has nothing to do with the job you're applying for. It's called "at will employment".
Hell, I could refuse to hire you because you're a harry potter fan and I'm a mormon. Or if your son has blue hair. Or if you voted for obama, or even if you happen to be a vegetarian. Or maybe I just flat out hate your guts and wanna be a jerk by making sure you don't get a job with me. I don't even NEED a reason, it's MY fucking company whose bank account your paycheck would come out of, so don't be all high and mighty thinking I owe you a god-damned thing. I'll hire whoever I please. I am the boss.
Yes this is a dramatization, but it's also the cold hard truth of how the world of employment works. Politics and the whims of whoever is in charge matter a hell of a lot more than how good you'd actually be at the job.
Btw, it's a good thing you posted as AC or quite a few bosses would love to add you to their personal HR blacklists for being a litigious applicant. People don't like being sued, even if they deserve it, and being sue-happy is one of the fastest ways to get ostracized.
All of the above said, I would agree that it's not fair or proper to get shafted by the system.
I write a media library and release it under GPLv3.
And you come along, with a hot new device that can do video things, like record and playback among other things.
Now, since you're probably going to have to get in bed with Big Media to get favorable treatment, you'll probably be required to get a patent license which requires, among other things, for you to implement some horrendous DRM scheme that cockblocks a bunch of things they don't like, but which are quite reasonable for the end user to want to do.
Normally, you could just slap a firmware hash on the chips to prevent the end user from running homebrew versions.
However, the GPLv3 prevents you from using my media library in your product if you plan to prevent your consumers from changing things, even if they have my source code.
In theory, having BSD licensed code on the device would allow the user to change things, however the firmware hash will prevent the user from applying his own changes to the firmware, and the DMCA makes it a crime to bypass the firmware hash.
If the code is GPL, however, legally you can't use a firmware hash to prevent changes to begin with.
This "firmware hash" loophole is actually what caused the GPL to be updated to v3 in the first place.
If you're telling the end user that they'll be raped by the DMCA if they try to tweak your proprietary product which was based on my open source project, don't you think I'd be kinda pissed?
This is exactly the sort of thing that the GPL prevents. It keeps you from using my code to be a dick.
My open soruce GPL code is mine just as arguably as your proprietary product is yours.
So how is your freedom to lock out your users and competitors any different from my freedom to not let you use my code to do it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want the freedom to be proprietary, I should also have the freedom not to cooperate.
Does anyone remember the adage "your right to swing your arm stops at your neighbor's nose"?
BSD is that you can swing your arms however you like and if you wanna punch someone's nose, go for it GPL says that you can swing your arms as long as you don't punch anyone in the nose
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
So lay off the false dichotomies and admit that freedom is not an all or nothing proposition.
Another example, btw, is having the freedom to drink beer but not having the freedom to rob a liquor store.
Which only begs the question of how the court managed to get jurisdiction over the defendants in the first place. I'd like to know if they even got served properly.
Almost the very definition of a lost sale since it means money going into someone else's pockets that would have gone just as easily into the right ones.
My definition of a sale gained or lost is very much based on how much money is diverted either to or from the pockets of the company with the original product. If money goes in that otherwise would not have, it's a gain. If money ducks out that otherwise would have gone in, it's a loss.
The key point is the effect on the sales of the original product.
As little as doing what your told and catering to the potentially irrational whims of your boss may have to do with actually helping the company out, obeying orders and not pissing off your superiors is an inherent part of everyone's job for the simple fact that barring a contractual obligation to the contrary your boss can fire you for any or indeed no reason whenever he feels like it, and if there's ever a battle of wills, you will lose because your boss has your career by the balls.
To put bluntly, even if you're stuck serving on the titanic and the captain's about to run the ship into an iceberg and sink the damn thing, you still get forced to walk the plank if you are seen as prone to mutiny.
How about a lot of them just get dismissed (fired) period just because the guy above them in the totem pole is an egomaniac that won't tolerate dissent and is more concerned with milking the company of enough gold to make a parachute out of than the company's long term health.
When you have the power, being a greedy cutthroat in a position to loot the company blind and get away with it is quite profitable.
If you have a solid case, charities will be much more likely to give you legal aid if they can always bill the corporation for a "refund", so to speak.
Besides that, a lawyer may be much more apt to take your solid case if they can get their pound of flesh out of the corporation's pockets instead of yours. It's similiar to taking a case on contingency.
Loser pays makes it harder for the little guy to lose on economics instead of the merits.
And to be blunt, if nobody is willing to step in for the little guy, either he's unpopular as hell or he has a bum case to begin with.
Actually, loser pays might well *keep* the other side from running out of money in the first place if it causes potential donations from the EFF, FSF, ACLU, SFLC, and so on to turn into reusable loans instead of one time expenditures.
Presently, little guy gets bullshit lawsuit thrown at him, he either caves or prays to get one of a few precious slots in a white knight's charity budget, and hopes for the best or prays to avoid the worst.
With loser pays, little guy gets bullshit lawsuit thrown at him, white knight steps in with a fat charity budget, little guy wins, and *white knight gets its money back and can use it again* and is only out for as long as it takes them to collect their legal expenses back from the plaintiff.
With loser pays, charities that extend their legal defense funds around oppressed defendants can stretch such budgets much further when supplemented with indemnification collections from renegade plaintiffs.
The strong have exploited, outgunned, and coerced the weak since time immemorial, and no silly little piece of paper is going to change that.
Until they implement loser pays so that the winners can get their lawyer bills reimbursed, court fights will always be won based on who has bigger legal muscles, and not on the merits of the case.
Defending the Bleem! lawsuit is an example. They had to go bankrupt to set a precedent for us, and I respect their martyrdom.
Sonic blue didn't even make it that far, and they went bankrupt before they could even win.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash, numb nuts.
Unless you're in a protected class that would cause rejection to constitute a civil rights violation (sex, race, religion, etc), people can refuse to hire you for any fucking reason they see fit, even if that reason has nothing to do with the job you're applying for. It's called "at will employment".
Hell, I could refuse to hire you because you're a harry potter fan and I'm a mormon. Or if your son has blue hair. Or if you voted for obama, or even if you happen to be a vegetarian. Or maybe I just flat out hate your guts and wanna be a jerk by making sure you don't get a job with me. I don't even NEED a reason, it's MY fucking company whose bank account your paycheck would come out of, so don't be all high and mighty thinking I owe you a god-damned thing. I'll hire whoever I please. I am the boss.
Yes this is a dramatization, but it's also the cold hard truth of how the world of employment works. Politics and the whims of whoever is in charge matter a hell of a lot more than how good you'd actually be at the job.
Btw, it's a good thing you posted as AC or quite a few bosses would love to add you to their personal HR blacklists for being a litigious applicant. People don't like being sued, even if they deserve it, and being sue-happy is one of the fastest ways to get ostracized.
All of the above said, I would agree that it's not fair or proper to get shafted by the system.
May he rest in peace.
September 1, 2008
I think the supremacy clause would prevent california from making it illegal for the feds to enforce their own laws.
Case in point: Tivoization.
I write a media library and release it under GPLv3.
And you come along, with a hot new device that can do video things, like record and playback among other things.
Now, since you're probably going to have to get in bed with Big Media to get favorable treatment, you'll probably be required to get a patent license which requires, among other things, for you to implement some horrendous DRM scheme that cockblocks a bunch of things they don't like, but which are quite reasonable for the end user to want to do.
Normally, you could just slap a firmware hash on the chips to prevent the end user from running homebrew versions.
However, the GPLv3 prevents you from using my media library in your product if you plan to prevent your consumers from changing things, even if they have my source code.
In theory, having BSD licensed code on the device would allow the user to change things, however the firmware hash will prevent the user from applying his own changes to the firmware, and the DMCA makes it a crime to bypass the firmware hash.
If the code is GPL, however, legally you can't use a firmware hash to prevent changes to begin with.
This "firmware hash" loophole is actually what caused the GPL to be updated to v3 in the first place.
Which isn't much of a problem on a local level because if they fuck up we can have a recall election and yank them out.
If you're telling the end user that they'll be raped by the DMCA if they try to tweak your proprietary product which was based on my open source project, don't you think I'd be kinda pissed?
This is exactly the sort of thing that the GPL prevents. It keeps you from using my code to be a dick.
My open soruce GPL code is mine just as arguably as your proprietary product is yours.
So how is your freedom to lock out your users and competitors any different from my freedom to not let you use my code to do it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want the freedom to be proprietary, I should also have the freedom not to cooperate.
Does anyone remember the adage "your right to swing your arm stops at your neighbor's nose"?
BSD is that you can swing your arms however you like and if you wanna punch someone's nose, go for it
GPL says that you can swing your arms as long as you don't punch anyone in the nose
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
So lay off the false dichotomies and admit that freedom is not an all or nothing proposition.
Another example, btw, is having the freedom to drink beer but not having the freedom to rob a liquor store.
Just make sure they aren't manufactured by Diebold or anyone else who may be tempted to accept bribes from fine starved police or insurance companies,
Not in cases where you suebomb someone in 25 different countries.
Which only begs the question of how the court managed to get jurisdiction over the defendants in the first place. I'd like to know if they even got served properly.
He contrasted sold copies vs free copies.
Almost the very definition of a lost sale since it means money going into someone else's pockets that would have gone just as easily into the right ones.
My definition of a sale gained or lost is very much based on how much money is diverted either to or from the pockets of the company with the original product. If money goes in that otherwise would not have, it's a gain. If money ducks out that otherwise would have gone in, it's a loss.
The key point is the effect on the sales of the original product.
Which just by itself is bullshit.
Being forced to show up on a meritless lawsuit when you don't even get reimbursed for your legal expenses is baloney.
At the very least you should be required to establish a prima facie case before you get a default.
Or e360 v. spamhaus
Come to think of it though I think that one should have more hurdles to climb before getting a default judgement.
My point is that negligence on my part doesn't excuse negligence on your part if you made the situation more hazardous than I was prepared to accept.
And I suppose that if someone slips radioactive waste in the pool and I fall in it it's all my fault too?
Yet another case of someone winning just by being a big bully instead of on the merits.
As little as doing what your told and catering to the potentially irrational whims of your boss may have to do with actually helping the company out, obeying orders and not pissing off your superiors is an inherent part of everyone's job for the simple fact that barring a contractual obligation to the contrary your boss can fire you for any or indeed no reason whenever he feels like it, and if there's ever a battle of wills, you will lose because your boss has your career by the balls.
To put bluntly, even if you're stuck serving on the titanic and the captain's about to run the ship into an iceberg and sink the damn thing, you still get forced to walk the plank if you are seen as prone to mutiny.
How about a lot of them just get dismissed (fired) period just because the guy above them in the totem pole is an egomaniac that won't tolerate dissent and is more concerned with milking the company of enough gold to make a parachute out of than the company's long term health.
When you have the power, being a greedy cutthroat in a position to loot the company blind and get away with it is quite profitable.
You missed my point in the other post.
If you have a solid case, charities will be much more likely to give you legal aid if they can always bill the corporation for a "refund", so to speak.
Besides that, a lawyer may be much more apt to take your solid case if they can get their pound of flesh out of the corporation's pockets instead of yours. It's similiar to taking a case on contingency.
Loser pays makes it harder for the little guy to lose on economics instead of the merits.
And to be blunt, if nobody is willing to step in for the little guy, either he's unpopular as hell or he has a bum case to begin with.
Actually, loser pays might well *keep* the other side from running out of money in the first place if it causes potential donations from the EFF, FSF, ACLU, SFLC, and so on to turn into reusable loans instead of one time expenditures.
Presently, little guy gets bullshit lawsuit thrown at him, he either caves or prays to get one of a few precious slots in a white knight's charity budget, and hopes for the best or prays to avoid the worst.
With loser pays, little guy gets bullshit lawsuit thrown at him, white knight steps in with a fat charity budget, little guy wins, and *white knight gets its money back and can use it again* and is only out for as long as it takes them to collect their legal expenses back from the plaintiff.
With loser pays, charities that extend their legal defense funds around oppressed defendants can stretch such budgets much further when supplemented with indemnification collections from renegade plaintiffs.
The strong have exploited, outgunned, and coerced the weak since time immemorial, and no silly little piece of paper is going to change that.
Until they implement loser pays so that the winners can get their lawyer bills reimbursed, court fights will always be won based on who has bigger legal muscles, and not on the merits of the case.
Defending the Bleem! lawsuit is an example. They had to go bankrupt to set a precedent for us, and I respect their martyrdom.
Sonic blue didn't even make it that far, and they went bankrupt before they could even win.
The person who thinks he can trust the world is simply naive.
It's basic human nature to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to get what we want.
If it wasn't, we wouldn't need police.
Seriously, what other incentive could someone have NOT to sign a piece of paper promising not to stab you in the back?
We didn't let them have power.
It was taken away from us by force and deception.
Only if we can mine unobtanium without getting our asses kicked by blue aliens.
Depends on whether you are more afraid of telepathy or hypnosis.