Interesting. Could you provide a reference for that?
I admit it's been a while since I've read the thing but I do recall that laws to kill first born children were handed down by pharoes and kings when their power was threatened.
The DMCA is BAD law and since I'm replying to the guy himself I'm going to us a bad analogy. According to "The Bible" killing first born children was a law at one time too.
No point is being missed. The ruling correctly states the GPL fosters, not hinders, competition and innovation contrary to the claim of the plaintiff. Microsoft and IBM can not possibly use it to freeze out other operating systems because nothing in the GPL prohibits other operating systems from being created.
If Judge Tinder were really that astute, he would have made this more clear in his order, and left out the dicta about the GPL.
No the Judge was correct, The GPL has nothing to do with price fixing because it does not prevent you from charging someone for software that you create.
He's not necessarily wrong. It's not that there is anything wrong with the GPL, but if competitors got together and agreed that they would all GPL their stuff, it's no different than if they got together and agreed to sell their stuff for $x. Whether that would constitute a crime is a different question that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL.
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
The GPL doesn't need to be vindicated because it has nothing to do with how much software costs, you can charge as much as you want.
"First, while Mr. Wallace contends that the GPL is "foreclosing competition in the market for computer operating systems" (id.), his problem appears to be that GPL generates too much competition, free of charge. The court's understanding from the GPL itself2 is that it is a software licensing agreement through which the GNU/Linux operating system may be licensed and distributed to individual users so long as those users "cause any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (GPL 3.) The GPL purportedly functions to "guarantee [users'] freedom to share and change free software." (GPL Preamble.) As alleged, the GPL in no way forecloses other operating systems from entering the market. Instead, it merely acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."
This Judge Tinder is an amazingly astute jurist. He just summed up what people have been trying to explain to the anti-GPL crowd for ages now.
Then what do you propose as a way the companies that deliver the websites you visit and block ads from should cover the costs they have for serving their content to you, plus a little profit ?
I don't know about others but I was never really bothered by static banners and occasionally even purchased a relevant advertised product. As a matter of fact I never even considered blocking ads until "Spank the Monkey" appeared.
I really think you are on to something here. Obscenity, from what I understand, is defined as something that arouses the prurient intereests of a person. The problem is it is not the material itself that arouses purient intterest, it is how the individual encountering it interprets the material that arouses purient interest. For example, the goats.cx man image does nothing for me. No matter how many times I have been suckered into viewing that picture I have never experienced arousak and to be honest I find myself truly disgusted by the gaping hole. This, to my mind at least, obviously means the image is not obscene since it has not raised my purient interests.
Would any who find the goats.cx image obscene care to respond?
I don't know what the problem was with the.xxx domain idea. if you want to, search google with site:.xxx and if you don't, then block.xxx! simple and effective
Because it is the opposite of the obvious answer which is to create ".censored" domains for the squimish. There are just too many sites in too many countries with too many views of what is obscene to try to force everything that anybody would find offensive into one domain. I propose the following instead:
>.burkas for those who are sickened by sighting females at all >.emasculated for those who are sickened by male genitalia
Do you really feel that waiting between 1-2 years for essential surgery is acceptable? That kind of shit would never fly in the US. We do not sit around here for 1-2 years with busted knees. We get them fixed.
We get them fixed if we have insurance, otherwise we go on disability.
If you invent or create something you deserve to have rights to it.
Of course if you invent or create something you deserve the right to it. The problem is that the government only gives that right to one person which deprives everyone else of their right to invent or create the same thing.
I'd argue that requiring a user to specifically login as root to screw up his system is no more dangerous than alowing him to do it from his own shell. Hell, Ubuntu doesn't even default to requiring a seperate root password to muck things up, you can use your own.
If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.
Where did you ever get the idea that it wasn't okay to take hardware you own apart and build something new from it? People here do it all the time with computers.
Really, this will make law firms all over the world filthy rich. Tons of laws will have to be passed and debated to deal with this. After all, from what I can imagine, this would in fact render DMCA useless in France.
The DMCA is already useless in many more countries than just France.
It's a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech to abridge political speech, and NO supreme court, conservative or liberal, would interpret otherwise.
I don't know if you watched any part of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings are not but one of the main themes was that judges who overturned laws were "legislating" from the bench.
Ok, so lets say that the next door neighbor's kid starts downloading tons of copyrighted music with your connection; How would you prove that it wasn't you? Maybe you keep your router / WAP logs indefinitely, but even still I doubt the RIAA would care much.
I really think that very few people care anymore about the RIAA anymore.
It used to be that nobody actually owned their telephone hardware.
You used to pay a monthly equipment rental fee (like Cable) for your pho
Actually I find it both funny and sad that so many people understand why AT&T was, and Microsoft should be, broken up. Monopolies are the antithesis of capitalism.
1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked. 2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story. 3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.
As much as you hate government eminent domain may be the only way to stop those greedy shitbag ISPs from interfering with interstate commerce on the information superhighway.
If you're worried about emergencies DON'T WATCH MOVIES OR GO TO CONCERTS.
So let's see...we now add people who worry about emergencies to list of those banned from theaters along with those with kids, tiny bladders, thirst, and the hundred other things that might interfere with your movie going experience. It's no wonder the industry is in trouble, there's no one left to go.
Seriously, the only reason to do a stage 1 install is if you are building a system on an architecture for which gentoo has not been built before or if you want to try out some realy odd compile options (believe me, you don't unless you're a gentoo developer or terminaly curious). How do you think the stage 3 files are produced? might it be by running the exact same scripts that you run when you do a stage 1 install?
Well the thing is a lot of people who choose Gentoo like to play with new software and compile options and saying that only Gentoo Developers are intelligent enough to do so reeks of elitism. Let me ask you this...why is Gentoo still defaulting to gcc-3.4.* and what do you think happens when a bug is filed against a package that doesn't compile with gcc-4.0.*? If users aren't encouraged to test things things don't get tested.
this is what pisses me off about slashdot as well. 90% of posters bitch about microsoft being shit and then when confronted about it they have no real reasons. I understand that there are some issues but you can't just jump on the bandwagon and bitch, especially when it's not something that's microsoft's fault.
Microsoft's EULAs are Microsoft's fault and provide more than enough reasons for people to bitch about Microsoft.
I know that I could get a minor speed improvements compiling by hand, but I have fast enough hardware these days that I'm willing to trade some speed for not having to wait around while Gnome compiles.
I guess it's all in how you look at it. I see it as my hardware compiles most things fast enough that the time involved is really a non-issue. By using parallel emerges and building my kernel while portage went about its work I had a usable xfce4 desktop up and running in just a couple of hours on my dual opteron machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Could you provide a reference for that?
I admit it's been a while since I've read the thing but I do recall that laws to kill first born children were handed down by pharoes and kings when their power was threatened.
The DMCA is law.
The DMCA is BAD law and since I'm replying to the guy himself I'm going to us a bad analogy. According to "The Bible" killing first born children was a law at one time too.
No point is being missed. The ruling correctly states the GPL fosters, not hinders, competition and innovation contrary to the claim of the plaintiff. Microsoft and IBM can not possibly use it to freeze out other operating systems because nothing in the GPL prohibits other operating systems from being created.
If Judge Tinder were really that astute, he would have made this more clear in his order, and left out the dicta about the GPL.
No the Judge was correct, The GPL has nothing to do with price fixing because it does not prevent you from charging someone for software that you create.
He's not necessarily wrong. It's not that there is anything wrong with the GPL, but if competitors got together and agreed that they would all GPL their stuff, it's no different than if they got together and agreed to sell their stuff for $x. Whether that would constitute a crime is a different question that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL.
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
The GPL doesn't need to be vindicated because it has nothing to do with how much software costs, you can charge as much as you want.
Excerpt:
"First, while Mr. Wallace contends that the GPL is "foreclosing competition in the market for computer operating systems" (id.), his problem appears to be that GPL generates too much competition, free of charge. The court's understanding from the GPL itself2 is that it is a software licensing agreement through which the GNU/Linux operating system may be licensed and distributed to individual users so long as those users "cause any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (GPL 3.) The GPL purportedly functions to "guarantee [users'] freedom to share and change free software." (GPL Preamble.) As alleged, the GPL in no way forecloses other operating systems from entering the market. Instead, it merely acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."
This Judge Tinder is an amazingly astute jurist. He just summed up what people have been trying to explain to the anti-GPL crowd for ages now.
Then what do you propose as a way the companies that deliver the websites you visit and block ads from should cover the costs they have for serving their content to you, plus a little profit ?
I don't know about others but I was never really bothered by static banners and occasionally even purchased a relevant advertised product. As a matter of fact I never even considered blocking ads until "Spank the Monkey" appeared.
I really think you are on to something here. Obscenity, from what I understand, is defined as something that arouses the prurient intereests of a person. The problem is it is not the material itself that arouses purient intterest, it is how the individual encountering it interprets the material that arouses purient interest. For example, the goats.cx man image does nothing for me. No matter how many times I have been suckered into viewing that picture I have never experienced arousak and to be honest I find myself truly disgusted by the gaping hole. This, to my mind at least, obviously means the image is not obscene since it has not raised my purient interests.
Would any who find the goats.cx image obscene care to respond?
I don't know what the problem was with the
if you want to, search google with site:.xxx and if you don't, then block
simple and effective
Because it is the opposite of the obvious answer which is to create ".censored" domains for the squimish. There are just too many sites in too many countries with too many views of what is obscene to try to force everything that anybody would find offensive into one domain. I propose the following instead:
>.burkas for those who are sickened by sighting females at all
>.emasculated for those who are sickened by male genitalia
Do you really feel that waiting between 1-2 years for essential surgery is acceptable? That kind of shit would never fly in the US. We do not sit around here for 1-2 years with busted knees. We get them fixed.
We get them fixed if we have insurance, otherwise we go on disability.
If you invent or create something you deserve to have rights to it.
Of course if you invent or create something you deserve the right to it. The problem is that the government only gives that right to one person which deprives everyone else of their right to invent or create the same thing.
I'd argue that requiring a user to specifically login as root to screw up his system is no more dangerous than alowing him to do it from his own shell. Hell, Ubuntu doesn't even default to requiring a seperate root password to muck things up, you can use your own.
I don't understand why people expect blatant support of and dependence on illegal activity to be legal.
Probably because they don't believe having sex, smoking weed, or sharing files should be illegal activities.
If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.
Where did you ever get the idea that it wasn't okay to take hardware you own apart and build something new from it? People here do it all the time with computers.
Really, this will make law firms all over the world filthy rich. Tons of laws will have to be passed and debated to deal with this. After all, from what I can imagine, this would in fact render DMCA useless in France.
The DMCA is already useless in many more countries than just France.
It's a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech to abridge political speech, and NO supreme court, conservative or liberal, would interpret otherwise.
I don't know if you watched any part of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings are not but one of the main themes was that judges who overturned laws were "legislating" from the bench.
Evolution by its very nature favors those with a selfish point of view.
Of course, your post will get you mod points from the anti-Bush
Yes, we can't have anybody questioning the motives of the great American shepherd "Dubya" now can we.
Ok, so lets say that the next door neighbor's kid starts downloading tons of copyrighted music with your connection; How would you prove that it wasn't you? Maybe you keep your router / WAP logs indefinitely, but even still I doubt the RIAA would care much.
I really think that very few people care anymore about the RIAA anymore.
Ah. A young one.
It used to be that nobody actually owned their telephone hardware.
You used to pay a monthly equipment rental fee (like Cable) for your pho
Actually I find it both funny and sad that so many people understand why AT&T was, and Microsoft should be, broken up. Monopolies are the antithesis of capitalism.
1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked. 2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story. 3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.
As much as you hate government eminent domain may be the only way to stop those greedy shitbag ISPs from interfering with interstate commerce on the information superhighway.
If you're worried about emergencies DON'T WATCH MOVIES OR GO TO CONCERTS.
So let's see...we now add people who worry about emergencies to list of those banned from theaters along with those with kids, tiny bladders, thirst, and the hundred other things that might interfere with your movie going experience. It's no wonder the industry is in trouble, there's no one left to go.
2. Stage1 does not make you more l337
Seriously, the only reason to do a stage 1 install is if you are building a system on an architecture for which gentoo has not been built before or if you want to try out some realy odd compile options (believe me, you don't unless you're a gentoo developer or terminaly curious). How do you think the stage 3 files are produced? might it be by running the exact same scripts that you run when you do a stage 1 install?
Well the thing is a lot of people who choose Gentoo like to play with new software and compile options and saying that only Gentoo Developers are intelligent enough to do so reeks of elitism. Let me ask you this...why is Gentoo still defaulting to gcc-3.4.* and what do you think happens when a bug is filed against a package that doesn't compile with gcc-4.0.*? If users aren't encouraged to test things things don't get tested.
this is what pisses me off about slashdot as well. 90% of posters bitch about microsoft being shit and then when confronted about it they have no real reasons. I understand that there are some issues but you can't just jump on the bandwagon and bitch, especially when it's not something that's microsoft's fault.
Microsoft's EULAs are Microsoft's fault and provide more than enough reasons for people to bitch about Microsoft.
I know that I could get a minor speed improvements compiling by hand, but I have fast enough hardware these days that I'm willing to trade some speed for not having to wait around while Gnome compiles.
I guess it's all in how you look at it. I see it as my hardware compiles most things fast enough that the time involved is really a non-issue. By using parallel emerges and building my kernel while portage went about its work I had a usable xfce4 desktop up and running in just a couple of hours on my dual opteron machine.