The FSF does have a beef with Sun, IBM and Red Hat. They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution. So, from the FSF's point of view, it is not any more complicated than that.
No, it says that one must exist. It doesn't say anything about your ability to get a read-aloud version, only that not "all" versions can have read-aloud disabled.
...when
all [emph. added] existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function...
So, if they make an ebook available for $5 without read-aloud, but make a special edition available for $200,000, this exemption does not apply.
In fact, the exemption says nothing of the availability of a read-aloud edition. If a publisher were to create one single edition and sell the only license to his nephew, then it will no longer be the case that "all" existing ebook editions have read-aloud disabled and you would not be able to circumvent the access controls. Even though no read-aloud version is available to you, one does exist so you are SOL.
Why would anyone in their right mind sign over a license to anyone that was not revocable?
Namely because there are other ways of enforcing your contracts. I haven't seen all of the SGI contracts, but here is Ammentment X to the IBM contract and it clearly states IBM has an "irrevocable" and "perpetual" contract. It also says that SCO is not otherwise limited from enjoining or prohibiting IBM in other ways.
Did you RTFA? The association DID have patent law on their side.
However, the whoile point of article was that suing the entire population will not win you any favors in Congress. Already there are rumblings about turning back some of the DMCA as a direct result of the outrage of RIAA's subpoena-a-thon. If the RIAA makes themselves less popular than telemarketers, no amount of money will be able to keep laws like the DMCA on the books.
Not that we should be telling them this. I see the RIAA's actions the best chance we have to get the DMCA rolled back and I would encourage them to sue more 12 year old girls.
In virtually every county in the U.S., the local governments grant the cable companies a monopoly to lay the cable. The governments do not allow a competing firm to build their own network.
I'd be interested to see what those obligations were.
Read the entire letter, not just the last sentence:
These inconsistencies include violation of the Code of Conduct and equal access provisions, failure to comply with the obligation to act as a neutral registry service provider, failure to comply with the Registry Registrar Protocol, failure to comply with domain registration provisions, and provision of an unauthorized Registry Service.
> I prefer to get a recommendation... over a random link from google...
There's nothing really "random" about google. There's a logic to it. When enough people find something useful, they link to it and google groks all these crazy relationships and gives you the best link.
Many spammers fake domain names. Spam filters check to see if the domain is real and will reject bogus emails. VeriSign broke that by making all domains valid.
In addition to web traffic, they are also intercept email traffic. So if you mistype an email address, they will get the email and keep it and you won't get a bounce.
The problem is that ALL traffic should be encrypted, even if it is not important.
We all know that the encrypted communication is the hardest part to break. An attacker would instead either install key sniffers or hope your passphrase was stored on a network with a weak passphrase (you do keep your private key on removeable media, don't you?).
With only "important" communications encrypted, an attacker can easily identify whose communications he should target.
and you can drive in the HOV lanes in Virginia without a second passenger.
First, you must also purchase a Virginia "Clean Fuel" plate (i.e. MD/DC registered hybrids can't use VA HOV lanes).
Second, there is reason to believe that this is not permanent. The Federal Government never authorized VA to do this, and has been threatening to take VA to court. See VDOT's HOV FAQ for more, including the following:
However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) could step in and nullify the state law by declaring it is in conflict with federal requirements. We have reason to believe that FHWA will not act until after Congress has acted on the Reauthorization Bill for federal transportation funds sometime this fall. If that Congressional legislation does not address this issue, then the FHWA would most likely be compelled to act. They are willing to give us until July 1, 2004 to continue allowing hybrid vehicles to use the HOV lanes in a "pilot" status.
We'd still have a second family car, so I worried that I'd never get used to switching between the two cars. It would have been less of an issue it would have been the only car I ever drove.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I'd describe the brakes as "grabby", but "jumpy" as I initially said. I just couldn't come to a full stop without feeling like the brakes were repeatedly grabbing and releasing.
Anti-lock breaks feel "mushy" but they still allow smooth deceleration (and I'd rather have anti-lock breaks even if they do feel mushy).
I test drove a Prius during their first year and I didn't like one thing: the brakes try and capture that extra kinetic energy, but the result was very jumpy breaking.
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF does have a beef with Sun, IBM and Red Hat. They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution. So, from the FSF's point of view, it is not any more complicated than that.
He's basically promising an "above average" income for everyone...
> if you can't get a copy of an ebook ...
No, it says that one must exist. It doesn't say anything about your ability to get a read-aloud version, only that not "all" versions can have read-aloud disabled.
So, if they make an ebook available for $5 without read-aloud, but make a special edition available for $200,000, this exemption does not apply.
In fact, the exemption says nothing of the availability of a read-aloud edition. If a publisher were to create one single edition and sell the only license to his nephew, then it will no longer be the case that "all" existing ebook editions have read-aloud disabled and you would not be able to circumvent the access controls. Even though no read-aloud version is available to you, one does exist so you are SOL.
> That sort of latency is acceptable to the publishers. What Amazon is doing isn't.
Au contraire. The publishers have already consented to Amazon's search plans. It is the authors who are now complaining.
> why buy the whole book?
I just check recipe books out of the library...
> You can always edit /etc/passwd
Why not use the command designed for this sort of thing, "chsh"?
If you add Fox News and Republicans together, you come out in #3 (ahead of the Democrats)...
In German and English
I know how to count down
And I'm learning Chinese
Says Werner von Braun
-- Tom Leher
Namely because there are other ways of enforcing your contracts. I haven't seen all of the SGI contracts, but here is Ammentment X to the IBM contract and it clearly states IBM has an "irrevocable" and "perpetual" contract. It also says that SCO is not otherwise limited from enjoining or prohibiting IBM in other ways.
Did you RTFA? The association DID have patent law on their side.
However, the whoile point of article was that suing the entire population will not win you any favors in Congress. Already there are rumblings about turning back some of the DMCA as a direct result of the outrage of RIAA's subpoena-a-thon. If the RIAA makes themselves less popular than telemarketers, no amount of money will be able to keep laws like the DMCA on the books.
Not that we should be telling them this. I see the RIAA's actions the best chance we have to get the DMCA rolled back and I would encourage them to sue more 12 year old girls.
In virtually every county in the U.S., the local governments grant the cable companies a monopoly to lay the cable. The governments do not allow a competing firm to build their own network.
> Does this guy really think that everyone in the world is very ill
The MRI, like the X-ray, is not reserved for very ill people.
Without so much as a hearing, Verisign added the wildcard...
Read the entire letter, not just the last sentence:
> I prefer to get a recommendation ... over a random link from google ...
/. users, however, can be truly random.
There's nothing really "random" about google. There's a logic to it. When enough people find something useful, they link to it and google groks all these crazy relationships and gives you the best link.
Links from
Bingo. See the comments from LWN (the comment titled "Money trail from Media Transparency").
CAGW gets money from the same folks ("John M. Olin Foundation" and "The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.".
> they probably wouldn't vote for a movie they haven't seen.
This is where the argument breaks down.
Many spammers fake domain names. Spam filters check to see if the domain is real and will reject bogus emails. VeriSign broke that by making all domains valid.
In addition to web traffic, they are also intercept email traffic. So if you mistype an email address, they will get the email and keep it and you won't get a bounce.
The Register has an article about how VeriSign Broke My Printer.
The Register also reported that VeriSign is using Web Bugs.
> Anyone notice the fact that this guy leaves some pretty shitty tips?
What? He's tipping over 20%.
No receipts or proof are required if you are claiming less than $100.
The problem is that ALL traffic should be encrypted, even if it is not important.
We all know that the encrypted communication is the hardest part to break. An attacker would instead either install key sniffers or hope your passphrase was stored on a network with a weak passphrase (you do keep your private key on removeable media, don't you?).
With only "important" communications encrypted, an attacker can easily identify whose communications he should target.
First, you must also purchase a Virginia "Clean Fuel" plate (i.e. MD/DC registered hybrids can't use VA HOV lanes).
Second, there is reason to believe that this is not permanent. The Federal Government never authorized VA to do this, and has been threatening to take VA to court. See VDOT's HOV FAQ for more, including the following:
We'd still have a second family car, so I worried that I'd never get used to switching between the two cars. It would have been less of an issue it would have been the only car I ever drove.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I'd describe the brakes as "grabby", but "jumpy" as I initially said. I just couldn't come to a full stop without feeling like the brakes were repeatedly grabbing and releasing.
Anti-lock breaks feel "mushy" but they still allow smooth deceleration (and I'd rather have anti-lock breaks even if they do feel mushy).
I test drove a Prius during their first year and I didn't like one thing: the brakes try and capture that extra kinetic energy, but the result was very jumpy breaking.