Wow. I didn't know the music biz was suffering so much.
Since I pretty much only listen to classic rock, I didn't either. Just about anything I hear on the radio pretty much sounds like crap to me, so maybe I should download a few songs to see if there's anything I want to buy so I can help them out.
Up until a few months ago, SCO distributed software under a license that stated the software was free for anyone to use. Now they are saying that people need to pay them in order not to be sued for using this software. Isn't there a law against this type of thing?
There is a serious issue here. The Linux branch leaders (including Linus -the governor), do not appear to have publicised a framework for testing IP issues related to incoming source code -just the compatibility with GPL.
What do you propose they do, take every submission to SCO and ask them "does this violate your IP?"
Do you propose having our unemployed middle class take factory jobs and drop down a notch? I'm sure the rich will do well by this, but the rest of us won't.
Gee, I remember when those with factory jobs were the middle class.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. We need to keep good jobs here in our own country.
I also remember when they said that very same thing. They were told to retrain if I recall.
So when they find the copyright violater/sharer, confirm it (how else are they going to get a subpeona unless it's verifiable?), and follow these legal channels, why are they in the wrong?
That's the problem...the RIAA got Congress to pass a law that says they can write their own subpeonas without first proving to a judge that they had enough evidence to do so.
If they are that worried about it, why not just budget the cost of the license and set it aside in the freak event of an SCO win instead of giving them money now to use against you later?
Among other things. Where are the damned counter-suits? IBM and other Linux copyright holders are making SCO look legitimate by just rolling over and taking it up the ass.
IBM has responded by saying SCO doesn't have a case. A fact is pretty much a simple thing, and doesn't take more than a few words to state. Fantasies on the other hand...
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them. First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
Usually it takes very few words to explain a fact, while it takes many to explain a fantasy. I find IBM's lack of noise other than the firm SCO has no case statement very comforting.
Note I'm not saying MS is or isn't cheaper when you look at the TCO, but TCO is the question that counts.
TCO is a lot simpler for company to compute than it is for a government. Every dollar sent to Microsoft is a dollar that could be spent employing locals who in turn contribute back in taxes.
LMAO. No it wouldn't, as the GPL alone has a contradictory nature all to itself, namely that the licensor doesn't have to check for IP infringement (because they can't without tainting themself) before changing the license to a freely copyable one. There's also completely lacking liability to the thing as a whole, something that courts aren't going to be prone to allowing.
I see...and of course licensors of Microsoft code have to check that Microsoft didn't infringe any IP before accepting their EULA.
The point is that you already are footing the bill of those who are uninsured with the increased prices to offset the costs incurred for providing them care when they need it, and changing insurers does nothing to decrease the price the hospitals have to charge in order to recover those costs.
Your looking at it all wrong. National health insurance would be putting the gun up to the uninsured and making them pay up by bringing them into the system.
Explain to me how a man who thinks that it is the government's job to give everyone healthcare paid for by the government from my pocket and who is an avowed socialist is GOOD for the economy.
When someone who is uninsured gets sick or injured the cost of his care is recouped with increased costs for those who are insured, so the money is coming out of your pocket anyway. With a national health plan there would be no uninsured and everyone would be paying premiums so the cost would be spread over a greater portion of the population.
I keep a copy of 4.79 just out of nostalgia. Mozilla is my regular browser. I like my browser to have everything integrated and for my purposes its performance is excellent. I hope while they work on pleasing the "fast and light" crowd they don't forget about those of us who prefer having the kitchen sink included.
Installation, training, and support are not free. The big payoff is avoiding the costly future forced upgrades. Hopefully they'll use the savings to invest in development of local government type applications that'll help other cities make the transistion too.
Slashdot Mirror
This may have more to do with the CRIA (Canadian Record Industry Association) protecting their turf than it does with the RIAA.
But then they sell your work to kingdom come and give you nothing...
A business method they learned from the Record Industry.
Give them money one day, take it back the next. Man, what a powerful way to remind them who pays their salaries.
But it doesn't send nearly as strong a message as "we have the power to giveth, and the power to taketh away."
"I refuse to pay 100 rupees."
Obviously I agree with you because that is pretty much what I was saying. Please re-read my post.
Wow. I didn't know the music biz was suffering so much.
Since I pretty much only listen to classic rock, I didn't either. Just about anything I hear on the radio pretty much sounds like crap to me, so maybe I should download a few songs to see if there's anything I want to buy so I can help them out.
Beautiful!
Here's mine:
Up until a few months ago, SCO distributed software under a license that stated the software was free for anyone to use. Now they are saying that people need to pay them in order not to be sued for using this software. Isn't there a law against this type of thing?
There is a serious issue here. The Linux branch leaders (including Linus -the governor), do not appear to have publicised a framework for testing IP issues related to incoming source code -just the compatibility with GPL.
What do you propose they do, take every submission to SCO and ask them "does this violate your IP?"
Do you propose having our unemployed middle class take factory jobs and drop down a notch? I'm sure the rich will do well by this, but the rest of us won't.
Gee, I remember when those with factory jobs were the middle class.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. We need to keep good jobs here in our own country.
I also remember when they said that very same thing. They were told to retrain if I recall.
So when they find the copyright violater/sharer, confirm it (how else are they going to get a subpeona unless it's verifiable?), and follow these legal channels, why are they in the wrong?
That's the problem...the RIAA got Congress to pass a law that says they can write their own subpeonas without first proving to a judge that they had enough evidence to do so.
If they are that worried about it, why not just budget the cost of the license and set it aside in the freak event of an SCO win instead of giving them money now to use against you later?
Erm, uh hum. We see you accept micropayments.
Among other things. Where are the damned counter-suits? IBM and other Linux copyright holders are making SCO look legitimate by just rolling over and taking it up the ass.
IBM has responded by saying SCO doesn't have a case. A fact is pretty much a simple thing, and doesn't take more than a few words to state. Fantasies on the other hand...
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
Usually it takes very few words to explain a fact, while it takes many to explain a fantasy. I find IBM's lack of noise other than the firm SCO has no case statement very comforting.
Note I'm not saying MS is or isn't cheaper when you look at the TCO, but TCO is the question that counts.
TCO is a lot simpler for company to compute than it is for a government. Every dollar sent to Microsoft is a dollar that could be spent employing locals who in turn contribute back in taxes.
Yeah...people could start by dumping all copyrighted CD's into the harbor. Just make sure the Greenpeace crowd doesn't catch you though.
LMAO. No it wouldn't, as the GPL alone has a contradictory nature all to itself, namely that the licensor doesn't have to check for IP infringement (because they can't without tainting themself) before changing the license to a freely copyable one. There's also completely lacking liability to the thing as a whole, something that courts aren't going to be prone to allowing.
I see...and of course licensors of Microsoft code have to check that Microsoft didn't infringe any IP before accepting their EULA.
The point is that you already are footing the bill of those who are uninsured with the increased prices to offset the costs incurred for providing them care when they need it, and changing insurers does nothing to decrease the price the hospitals have to charge in order to recover those costs.
Your looking at it all wrong. National health insurance would be putting the gun up to the uninsured and making them pay up by bringing them into the system.
Explain to me how a man who thinks that it is the government's job to give everyone healthcare paid for by the government from my pocket and who is an avowed socialist is GOOD for the economy.
When someone who is uninsured gets sick or injured the cost of his care is recouped with increased costs for those who are insured, so the money is coming out of your pocket anyway. With a national health plan there would be no uninsured and everyone would be paying premiums so the cost would be spread over a greater portion of the population.
please stop looking at everything microsoft does as immoral - they are a company, their purpose is to make money.
Yeah, but they don't have to be such gluttons about it. How about leaving enough so others can make money too?
I keep a copy of 4.79 just out of nostalgia. Mozilla is my regular browser. I like my browser to have everything integrated and for my purposes its performance is excellent. I hope while they work on pleasing the "fast and light" crowd they don't forget about those of us who prefer having the kitchen sink included.
Installation, training, and support are not free. The big payoff is avoiding the costly future forced upgrades. Hopefully they'll use the savings to invest in development of local government type applications that'll help other cities make the transistion too.
Don't you think Munich will want to upgrade their Linux installation in six years? Do you think that upgrade will be free?
Yes, as it matter of fact it will be. Of course they may want to continue to pay for support.
What it means is "We don't know where to attack, because we can't buy them out"
Oh, they know where to attack allright...here in the US we call it Congress.