Even if the game data did include his interaction with others, it is not illegal (AFAIK) to talk to someone in a manner that depresses them, which is about the extent of what someone could do to you via EQ.
And WRT privacy, it isn't necessarily the privacy of the dead at stake here, but the privacy of those still living. In addition, as has been pointed out, any admission that this is a reasonable case would give the appearance of liability, so if they did give out any information, then that may pave the way for others who feel harmed by EQ to demand information about players that they wouldn't normally be able to get.
It is tragic that her son died, and I might even consider the use of labels reasonable (except that I don't think they will actually affect anything in the end), but I totally disagree with suing for damages in this case.
The last sentence of paragraph 0. of the GPL reads:
Each licensee is addressed as "you".
This means that the licensee (i.e. not the original copyright holder) is the one being referenced in the section you quoted. The original copyright holder may sell the software as they please, but if doing so under the GPL, must provide the source code at nominal additional cost (i.e. for only the price of distribution). Of course, as has been mentioned previously, once the cat is out of the bag, there's nothing to prevent a purchaser from subsequently redistributing their product for free.
Um, given that RMS agreed that theKompany complies with the GPL in this case (though expressed dissatisfaction with what they are doing in general), I doubt very much that there is a problem like that which you are describing, which is an explicit (as you pointed out) violation of the GPL.
Of course, he wouldn't officially comment on this, but it did pique his curiosity, so he emailed a couple of his lawyer friends, one an IP lawyer and one who apparently is NOT an IP lawyer (not sure what his speciality is) though he apparently DOES have more litigation experience.
First, the IP guy:
His Reply:
I would think pretty slim. The standard disclaimers on the OSS say that the
developers are not liable for anything, etc.
The exception would be if the developer intentionally programmed a back door
and then lured people to use the software so that he could go in the back
and steal/corrupt the data.
IMHO.
My Friend's Question:
Wanted to get your thoughts on something. Not for a client.
A friend raised the issue and was just curious and it piqued
my curiosity. I'm sure you're familiar with open source
software. According to my friend, there is a movement to
make someone responsible for problems in open source software
that lead to security breaches and/or data loss. He was just
wondering what my thoughts were on the possibility of OSS
developers, who don't receive any compensation for the
software and put out the typical disclaimers, being sued by
someone who uses the software and is damaged as a result.
Next, the Litigation Guy:
His Reply:
Without seeing any of the documentation that changes hands (if any), it's
hard to say. Can you have an implied warranty for a product that you are
making available for free? I don't know the answer, but my hunch is probably
so if the other side can prove reasonable reliance, etc. Best advice might
be to beef up the disclaimer and create some sort of waiver that has to be
filled out before the program can be used.
My Friend's Response:
Why? I don't know. Practice, I guess. A way to test your software.
Make a name for yourself. I do know it's very common among the cyber-geek
community.
And while the issue of compensation might not affect a negligence
analysis, I would think that it would play a role in the effectiveness of
the warranty disclaimers under the UCC. I really don't know either. I
know it's not strictly speaking an assumption of risk case, but isn't some
sort of concept of "Don't trust me. Use this at your own risk." possible?
{IP Guy} thought the typical OSS disclaimers would probably protect
the software developer, but while I know he knows IP, I wasn't sure how
extensive his litigation background is.
Litigation Guy's Response:
I've never heard of it before, but it sounds like there could be some
liability. The analysis wouldn't so much whether the developer received a
benefit as whether the person who used the program suffered some harm. I'm
not really sure to tell you the truth. Why would someone do that if they
aren't making any money?
My Friend's Email:
Wanted to get your thoughts on something. Not for a client. A friend
raised the issue and was just curious and it piqued my curiosity. Dont
know if you're familiar with open source software. Open source software
is developed by freelance programmers who make the software freely
available, along with the source code, so if someone grabs it, they have
the opportunity to examine the code (or hire someone who can) for flaws
and fix them if necessary. According to my friend, there is a movement to
make someone responsible for problems in open source software that lead to
security breaches and/or data loss. He was just wondering what my thoughts
were on the possibility of OSS developers, who don't receive any
compensation for the software and put out the typical disclaimers, being
sued by someone who uses the software and is damaged as a result.
Assuming that MS runs Hotmail/Passport/MSN etc. for the same reason AOL runs AIM, i.e. for ad revenue, then allowing folks to run browsers other than IE is still going to allow them to achieve their goal, which is to generate ad revenue (adblocking software notwithstanding).
The difference in this case is that AOL allows folks who don't have an AOL account to use AIM, provided they use the right software to do so (thus enabling ad revenue). This is pretty much the same way Hotmail etc. work for MS.
...after being legally found a monopoly, accused of strongarming their way into markets and gaining marketshare by squeezing out competitors, as part of the proposed solution, Microsoft wishes to give away over a billion dollars worth of their software to the nation's poorest schools.
And Apple (or other software vendors) can compete with this how? And this avoids further penetration of the educational software market exactly how? This prevents them from pushing other software vendors out of markets how? This avoids cyclical dependencies on their software precisely how?
I want some of what the state AG's are smoking.
Now, putting on my reality cap, I understand that to have to tell your voting public that you turned down the opportunity to have a one billion dollar infusion of software and computers into the poorest schools simply because you thought it would be wrong to let a company get away with something, and that overall, the people who are making money with the company will still make a lot of money with it after you "win", is something akin to political suicide. But it is still laughable.
Not knowing what the Netscape plug-in API and the ActiveX architecture are like, is there the possibility of developing a meta-API of some sort that would allow you to develop your plugin in a somewhat neutral manner and be able to deploy it as either an ActiveX or Netscape Plug-In style component?
I know you weren't being totally serious here, but there is a point here. The right to listen to that music via your recorded MP3 ended the moment the thief made off with your CD collection. As you no longer possess the physical media, I imagine the RIAA would make the case that you no longer have anything to back up and no longer have a right to listen to your MP3s. They would require that you go buy another copy of the CDs in question (or recover the ones that were stolen, of course) and then you could restore your MP3 collection.
Sad, but probably true. ---------------------------------------
It -REQUIRES- the ninocent be blocked, because they're the ones that will get the ISP to change it's poiculy, and ot boot their spammers.
*sigh* Okay, I guess that since I live around the corner from a couple of crack houses that I should be arrested, or at least harassed, by the police so that I may take some vigilante action (or perhaps just petition the city council to raze the nearby offending buildings). Hurting the innocent along with the guilty is a non-option. Or rather, a bad one, since we appear to be doing it these days. And keep in mind that these days it is getting easier and easier for Joe Sixpack to actually buy his own domain and set up his family webpage. How the heck is he going to know about MAPS or why Grandma can't seem to get to the family webpage.
And one more thing:
you assholes who haven't been around for near as long as those of us in the fight are telling us we're wrong
Yes, we are. Don't think that just because you have been in the thick of things that you automatically have some great moral authority to dictate right and wrong. If you get into a squabble with a relative, things escalate, and then you lose your head and start reaching for a gun, don't tell me I have no right tell you that you are wrong when I pull out the water hose to cool things down.
The device they mention generates a new key every few seconds. It has an ID that is matched on a server inside the AOL corporate firewall. When the user attempts to connect to the internal AOL server, they receive the extra login prompt mentioned in the article. They have to enter their ID and the number currently being displayed on their device. This is checked against what the server thinks the number ought to be for that user at that moment. Thus, there is not only a password protection, but a physical protection involved. ---------------------------------------
Just as an FYI, Windows XP will have the ability to allow a user to logoff of their GUI session, but leave their apps running, and log onto a GUI session with a different user ID.
So this would provide exactly the functionality some folks have mentioned here. Of course, that could be overkill if you could use the RUNAS command, but it does provide an alternative. ------------------------------------ ---
To those who are claiming that no 'theft' was going on...
I assume some of you have some experience working for a living. Let's suppose you have contracted to perform a service for someone. They will pay you a certain amount of money, and let's say, you will write a program for them. Let's further suppose that your business model is such that you make money by providing this service to people who otherwise can't or won't produce it for themselves, as there is no cheaper alternative. Alternatives (albeit, not cheaper) might be to learn to program yourself (perhaps too expensive in a time-sensitive manner) or hire someone else (maybe they don't know about the cheaper contract shop down the road).
Now here comes the fun part. Let's suppose that one of two things happens. Either the client figures out how to get the service and foregoes paying you. Not really the case here, because being a client suggests there is a contract. The other case is someone who somehow manages to retrieve your program (your service) and provide it to others at a vastly reduced price. Now, you have put effort into producing this product. Someone else put effort into taking the results of your product and providing them to others. You did not say that it was right to do this. In short, your efforts have been stolen. Yes, you still have your program. But it is quite useless since the people you would have sold it to have now received a duplicate of it for much less.
Imagine if someone took a GPL'd work, made changes to it to suit their needs (these crackers obviously changed the DTV cards to suit THEIR needs), and then sold it without providing the changes. They have violated the intent of the licensing, which was to make all changes available. Likewise, in this case, the licensing intent was to make sure that people who receive the service must pay for what it takes to provide that service. It wouldn't matter in this case that the crackers did make their changes available. The DTV cards weren't under GPL.
In the end, though, it probably doesn't matter. If an explanation is required, an explanation won't really change your mind. Not in this case.
Yes, but does the Constitution give the right for
you to use my resources to communicate your message? Does this mean that if I am a book binder, that every book I print has to have a section somewhere that you are allowed to scribble whatever you want to in? So that my means of data transport is supporting your message?
Translation: When my mail server, including my bandwidth that I bought and my diskspace to cache your mail, is in subjugation to your spam email, I don't think it is any longer in the purview of Constitutional protection.
Consider instead putting up a website (where you pay for your own diskspace and bandwidth) and then putting listings to your website into popular search engines, even putting info into newsgroups intended for the purpose. But don't try to use my resources to push your message.
First, let me state my position. I think, like most everyone else here, that the RIAA is a (typical) corporation, interested in pursuing the dollar. That is what corporations do. Less short-sighted corporations realize the benefits of good PR, good customer relations, and not biting the hand that feeds you, so to speak. But that is an issue for another time.
My problem comes from hearing everyone complain that the RIAA shouldn't be able to restrict my right to trade music with others.
First, let me be plain...No such right exists! The artists are due compensation (and contractually, the RIAA and it's members are the representatives of many of the music artists out there) for each person's being able to listen to the artist's music. If I want to make a copy for my own convenience (to listen in the car, or in the office, etc.) so be it. The law provides for this. What the law does NOT provide for is my providing a copy of the music to someone else and my still keeping my copy. Lend to a friend...sure. Give it away? Fine, as long as I don't retain a copy. But if I copy the material and give it to someone else, there are now two people receiving benefit from another's labor without the artist's consent.
And that is what this is about (yes, money, too, but I'm speaking about the intellectual issue at stake)...consent.
As the injunction points out, Napster may continue business provided they are not involved in the transmission of copyrighted material for which the owner has not provided express consent to transmit. (Actually, I'm not sure if the injunction deals with consent of the owner or not, but I can't imagine the court holding Napster liable for breaking the injunction if they had permission from the copyright owner) Had they started off with that premise in mind, there would be no legal issue (and probably no business case, as I imagine the vast majority of Napster users are swapping copyrighted songs).
But as it is, everyone complains about how they have the right to swap music, even copyrighted music, without the permission of the artist. Let me ask you this. In regard to your precious GPL, what if I made some modifications to a piece of GPL'd software and then distributed only the binary. The GPL, in spite of being called a 'copyleft', will basically be legally challenged (if ever) on the basis of copyright law. In effect, it is a form of copyright. Now, if I'm breaking the GPL, I'm breaking copyright law. And I guarantee that if I made profligate use of such software, in the manner I indicated above, the wrath of the Open Source community would come down on me like the Fire of God. Yet it is this same community that seems blinded to the fact that they are hypocritically defending a company that is putting into place just such a practice, only in the music industry rather than the software industry.
I like the idea of free (speech) software. But I won't go out and steal someone's work to try to 'liberate' it, if they don't want it to be freed. Likewise for music.
Actually, I think the original post got it correct. When they said end-user, I think they meant the developers who end up receiving the modifications. Under BSD, no such modifications need ever be made available whereas under GPL, such modifications are mandatory if the binaries are distributed.
So, the GPL imposes more restrictions on a developer who wishes to modify and distribute in binary form a GPL'ed piece of code. But it provides increased access to that code by the developers who would use the modification and perhaps extend it.
BSD style licenses, on the other hand, provide more freedom to the developer who makes a modification to source code and wishes to distribute the binaries, as they may still choose to not distribute the source modifications. The developers who use/develop the original work no longer are guaranteed access to the changes made.
Quite simple, really. Of course, this comment will probably be lost in the noise... _lpp
If you are running Win98, you should be able to run a utility called msconfig. Just use your Run... launcher from the Start button. Flip through the panels and look for something AIM related. Take it out. Love life.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they obviously weren't firing on all cylinders.
Even if the game data did include his interaction with others, it is not illegal (AFAIK) to talk to someone in a manner that depresses them, which is about the extent of what someone could do to you via EQ.
And WRT privacy, it isn't necessarily the privacy of the dead at stake here, but the privacy of those still living. In addition, as has been pointed out, any admission that this is a reasonable case would give the appearance of liability, so if they did give out any information, then that may pave the way for others who feel harmed by EQ to demand information about players that they wouldn't normally be able to get.
It is tragic that her son died, and I might even consider the use of labels reasonable (except that I don't think they will actually affect anything in the end), but I totally disagree with suing for damages in this case.
This means that the licensee (i.e. not the original copyright holder) is the one being referenced in the section you quoted. The original copyright holder may sell the software as they please, but if doing so under the GPL, must provide the source code at nominal additional cost (i.e. for only the price of distribution). Of course, as has been mentioned previously, once the cat is out of the bag, there's nothing to prevent a purchaser from subsequently redistributing their product for free.
Um, given that RMS agreed that theKompany complies with the GPL in this case (though expressed dissatisfaction with what they are doing in general), I doubt very much that there is a problem like that which you are describing, which is an explicit (as you pointed out) violation of the GPL.
I Am Not A Lawyer But I Have A Friend Who Is...
Of course, he wouldn't officially comment on this, but it did pique his curiosity, so he emailed a couple of his lawyer friends, one an IP lawyer and one who apparently is NOT an IP lawyer (not sure what his speciality is) though he apparently DOES have more litigation experience.
First, the IP guy:
His Reply:
I would think pretty slim. The standard disclaimers on the OSS say that the developers are not liable for anything, etc.
The exception would be if the developer intentionally programmed a back door and then lured people to use the software so that he could go in the back and steal/corrupt the data.
IMHO.
My Friend's Question:
Wanted to get your thoughts on something. Not for a client. A friend raised the issue and was just curious and it piqued my curiosity. I'm sure you're familiar with open source software. According to my friend, there is a movement to make someone responsible for problems in open source software that lead to security breaches and/or data loss. He was just wondering what my thoughts were on the possibility of OSS developers, who don't receive any compensation for the software and put out the typical disclaimers, being sued by someone who uses the software and is damaged as a result.
Next, the Litigation Guy:
His Reply:
Without seeing any of the documentation that changes hands (if any), it's hard to say. Can you have an implied warranty for a product that you are making available for free? I don't know the answer, but my hunch is probably so if the other side can prove reasonable reliance, etc. Best advice might be to beef up the disclaimer and create some sort of waiver that has to be filled out before the program can be used.
My Friend's Response:
Why? I don't know. Practice, I guess. A way to test your software. Make a name for yourself. I do know it's very common among the cyber-geek community. And while the issue of compensation might not affect a negligence analysis, I would think that it would play a role in the effectiveness of the warranty disclaimers under the UCC. I really don't know either. I know it's not strictly speaking an assumption of risk case, but isn't some sort of concept of "Don't trust me. Use this at your own risk." possible? {IP Guy} thought the typical OSS disclaimers would probably protect the software developer, but while I know he knows IP, I wasn't sure how extensive his litigation background is.
Litigation Guy's Response:
I've never heard of it before, but it sounds like there could be some liability. The analysis wouldn't so much whether the developer received a benefit as whether the person who used the program suffered some harm. I'm not really sure to tell you the truth. Why would someone do that if they aren't making any money?
My Friend's Email:
Wanted to get your thoughts on something. Not for a client. A friend raised the issue and was just curious and it piqued my curiosity. Dont know if you're familiar with open source software. Open source software is developed by freelance programmers who make the software freely available, along with the source code, so if someone grabs it, they have the opportunity to examine the code (or hire someone who can) for flaws and fix them if necessary. According to my friend, there is a movement to make someone responsible for problems in open source software that lead to security breaches and/or data loss. He was just wondering what my thoughts were on the possibility of OSS developers, who don't receive any compensation for the software and put out the typical disclaimers, being sued by someone who uses the software and is damaged as a result.
Assuming that MS runs Hotmail/Passport/MSN etc. for the same reason AOL runs AIM, i.e. for ad revenue, then allowing folks to run browsers other than IE is still going to allow them to achieve their goal, which is to generate ad revenue (adblocking software notwithstanding).
The difference in this case is that AOL allows folks who don't have an AOL account to use AIM, provided they use the right software to do so (thus enabling ad revenue). This is pretty much the same way Hotmail etc. work for MS.
...after being legally found a monopoly, accused of strongarming their way into markets and gaining marketshare by squeezing out competitors, as part of the proposed solution, Microsoft wishes to give away over a billion dollars worth of their software to the nation's poorest schools.
And Apple (or other software vendors) can compete with this how? And this avoids further penetration of the educational software market exactly how? This prevents them from pushing other software vendors out of markets how? This avoids cyclical dependencies on their software precisely how?
I want some of what the state AG's are smoking.
Now, putting on my reality cap, I understand that to have to tell your voting public that you turned down the opportunity to have a one billion dollar infusion of software and computers into the poorest schools simply because you thought it would be wrong to let a company get away with something, and that overall, the people who are making money with the company will still make a lot of money with it after you "win", is something akin to political suicide. But it is still laughable.
But then it could be just me.
Whoops. I should check these things before I post. Not so simple. That doesn't work.
;)
Hope no one wrote a filter in the meantime.
Apparently, if you take any of their story links and tack on "?x" it takes you straight to the story, skipping the ad.
Perhaps someone could make an add-on like junkbuster that would modify any URL at a given domain via a rule (s/.*salon\.com/$1?x/) or somesuch?
Not knowing what the Netscape plug-in API and the ActiveX architecture are like, is there the possibility of developing a meta-API of some sort that would allow you to develop your plugin in a somewhat neutral manner and be able to deploy it as either an ActiveX or Netscape Plug-In style component?
_lpp
I know you weren't being totally serious here, but there is a point here. The right to listen to that music via your recorded MP3 ended the moment the thief made off with your CD collection. As you no longer possess the physical media, I imagine the RIAA would make the case that you no longer have anything to back up and no longer have a right to listen to your MP3s. They would require that you go buy another copy of the CDs in question (or recover the ones that were stolen, of course) and then you could restore your MP3 collection.
Sad, but probably true.
---------------------------------------
*sigh* Okay, I guess that since I live around the corner from a couple of crack houses that I should be arrested, or at least harassed, by the police so that I may take some vigilante action (or perhaps just petition the city council to raze the nearby offending buildings). Hurting the innocent along with the guilty is a non-option. Or rather, a bad one, since we appear to be doing it these days. And keep in mind that these days it is getting easier and easier for Joe Sixpack to actually buy his own domain and set up his family webpage. How the heck is he going to know about MAPS or why Grandma can't seem to get to the family webpage.
And one more thing:
Yes, we are. Don't think that just because you have been in the thick of things that you automatically have some great moral authority to dictate right and wrong. If you get into a squabble with a relative, things escalate, and then you lose your head and start reaching for a gun, don't tell me I have no right tell you that you are wrong when I pull out the water hose to cool things down.
_lpp
---------------------------------------
The device they mention generates a new key every few seconds. It has an ID that is matched on a server inside the AOL corporate firewall. When the user attempts to connect to the internal AOL server, they receive the extra login prompt mentioned in the article. They have to enter their ID and the number currently being displayed on their device. This is checked against what the server thinks the number ought to be for that user at that moment. Thus, there is not only a password protection, but a physical protection involved.-
--------------------------------------
So this would provide exactly the functionality some folks have mentioned here. Of course, that could be overkill if you could use the RUNAS command, but it does provide an alternative.- ---
-----------------------------------
To those who are claiming that no 'theft' was going on...
I assume some of you have some experience working for a living. Let's suppose you have contracted to perform a service for someone. They will pay you a certain amount of money, and let's say, you will write a program for them. Let's further suppose that your business model is such that you make money by providing this service to people who otherwise can't or won't produce it for themselves, as there is no cheaper alternative. Alternatives (albeit, not cheaper) might be to learn to program yourself (perhaps too expensive in a time-sensitive manner) or hire someone else (maybe they don't know about the cheaper contract shop down the road).
Now here comes the fun part. Let's suppose that one of two things happens. Either the client figures out how to get the service and foregoes paying you. Not really the case here, because being a client suggests there is a contract. The other case is someone who somehow manages to retrieve your program (your service) and provide it to others at a vastly reduced price. Now, you have put effort into producing this product. Someone else put effort into taking the results of your product and providing them to others. You did not say that it was right to do this. In short, your efforts have been stolen. Yes, you still have your program. But it is quite useless since the people you would have sold it to have now received a duplicate of it for much less.
Imagine if someone took a GPL'd work, made changes to it to suit their needs (these crackers obviously changed the DTV cards to suit THEIR needs), and then sold it without providing the changes. They have violated the intent of the licensing, which was to make all changes available. Likewise, in this case, the licensing intent was to make sure that people who receive the service must pay for what it takes to provide that service. It wouldn't matter in this case that the crackers did make their changes available. The DTV cards weren't under GPL.
In the end, though, it probably doesn't matter. If an explanation is required, an explanation won't really change your mind. Not in this case.
_lpp
Yes, but does the Constitution give the right for you to use my resources to communicate your message? Does this mean that if I am a book binder, that every book I print has to have a section somewhere that you are allowed to scribble whatever you want to in? So that my means of data transport is supporting your message?
Translation: When my mail server, including my bandwidth that I bought and my diskspace to cache your mail, is in subjugation to your spam email, I don't think it is any longer in the purview of Constitutional protection.
Consider instead putting up a website (where you pay for your own diskspace and bandwidth) and then putting listings to your website into popular search engines, even putting info into newsgroups intended for the purpose. But don't try to use my resources to push your message.
_lpp
First, let me state my position. I think, like most everyone else here, that the RIAA is a (typical) corporation, interested in pursuing the dollar. That is what corporations do. Less short-sighted corporations realize the benefits of good PR, good customer relations, and not biting the hand that feeds you, so to speak. But that is an issue for another time.
My problem comes from hearing everyone complain that the RIAA shouldn't be able to restrict my right to trade music with others.
First, let me be plain...No such right exists! The artists are due compensation (and contractually, the RIAA and it's members are the representatives of many of the music artists out there) for each person's being able to listen to the artist's music. If I want to make a copy for my own convenience (to listen in the car, or in the office, etc.) so be it. The law provides for this. What the law does NOT provide for is my providing a copy of the music to someone else and my still keeping my copy. Lend to a friend...sure. Give it away? Fine, as long as I don't retain a copy. But if I copy the material and give it to someone else, there are now two people receiving benefit from another's labor without the artist's consent.
And that is what this is about (yes, money, too, but I'm speaking about the intellectual issue at stake)...consent.
As the injunction points out, Napster may continue business provided they are not involved in the transmission of copyrighted material for which the owner has not provided express consent to transmit. (Actually, I'm not sure if the injunction deals with consent of the owner or not, but I can't imagine the court holding Napster liable for breaking the injunction if they had permission from the copyright owner) Had they started off with that premise in mind, there would be no legal issue (and probably no business case, as I imagine the vast majority of Napster users are swapping copyrighted songs).
But as it is, everyone complains about how they have the right to swap music, even copyrighted music, without the permission of the artist. Let me ask you this. In regard to your precious GPL, what if I made some modifications to a piece of GPL'd software and then distributed only the binary. The GPL, in spite of being called a 'copyleft', will basically be legally challenged (if ever) on the basis of copyright law. In effect, it is a form of copyright. Now, if I'm breaking the GPL, I'm breaking copyright law. And I guarantee that if I made profligate use of such software, in the manner I indicated above, the wrath of the Open Source community would come down on me like the Fire of God. Yet it is this same community that seems blinded to the fact that they are hypocritically defending a company that is putting into place just such a practice, only in the music industry rather than the software industry.
I like the idea of free (speech) software. But I won't go out and steal someone's work to try to 'liberate' it, if they don't want it to be freed. Likewise for music.
That's it. Over and out.
_lpp
Actually, I think the original post got it correct. When they said end-user, I think they meant the developers who end up receiving the modifications. Under BSD, no such modifications need ever be made available whereas under GPL, such modifications are mandatory if the binaries are distributed.
So, the GPL imposes more restrictions on a developer who wishes to modify and distribute in binary form a GPL'ed piece of code. But it provides increased access to that code by the developers who would use the modification and perhaps extend it.
BSD style licenses, on the other hand, provide more freedom to the developer who makes a modification to source code and wishes to distribute the binaries, as they may still choose to not distribute the source modifications. The developers who use/develop the original work no longer are guaranteed access to the changes made.
Quite simple, really. Of course, this comment will probably be lost in the noise...
_lpp
If you are running Win98, you should be able to run a utility called msconfig. Just use your Run... launcher from the Start button. Flip through the panels and look for something AIM related. Take it out. Love life.