One of the reasons for "fair use" is that consumers have a right to create a backup copy. If the original must always be around and be playable, the whole notion of "backup" is meaningless. "Oh, I lost the original... I'd better go destroy all my backups!"
However, the Audio Home Recording Act (of, I believe, 1991) guarantees you the right to make audio copies of things you own for your own use. It does NOT grant you the right to make copies of music that your friends have purchased.
As long as you're not charging your friends, the AHRA still seems to allow trading:
> Sure, if Minix had evolved into what Linus wanted he wouldn't have gotten started... but it's a mistake to claim that the conflict was in any way pivotal.
I'm afraid I don't see your logic. On the one hand, you admit that things would have turned out differently were it not for this fundamental conflict of visions, while on the other hand you deny that this was pivotal. Seems to be the very definition of a pivotal moment.
Now, I'll certainly admit that there was *more* to it than a simple flamewar or difference of opinion. But you have to admit that Linux was born out of the fire. While I never meant to imply that this *single* moment spurred the creation of Linux, it was certainly *a* significant event.
My only real point, of course, was to simply argue that flames are not a new thing in the Open Source world (nor any other, for that matter).
The ruling said that the local jurisdiction couldn't require broadband access. But the ruling also stated that it was up to the FCC to make such regulations.
The court said nothing philosophically against the regulation, but it was simply not in the jurisdiction of Portland, OR.
Politics in software: this could be the oldest story/. ever covered. This is *so* not new.
Remember, Linux was started because of political differences between Linus and Andy Tanenbaum. And I am by no means suggesting that *that* was the first flamewar. This stuff happens all the time. The biggest difference with Open Source is that we all see it.
I'll admit that there is a story here, but the story is not the fact that politics have *suddenly* broken out in the Linux kernel.
KDE has taken lots of GPLed software and have basically just created KDE-ified versions. The KDE team cannot just switch the licenses since they don't own everything.
> 2) KDE adds a clause to their license...
Same problem as 1. You can't change someone elses license.
> 3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead...
They don't need to go to such extremes. There are other changes that could be made that would make it legal for GPLed software to link to QT.
> 4) RMS rewrites the GPL...
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
But I have another solution. KDE can get behind Harmony and drop QT altogether.
I won't say much about the flamewars which are still being fanned that accuse Debian (as if it were a unified entity) of "hating" KDE except to say that such talk is both nonsense and nonproductive.
MP3 files sound cruddy, but a well-made album sounds great. And I don't care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them. They suck for what I do.
Yeah, I saw Bill's press conference. Many softball questions, but a couple of good ones he pretty much didn't answer.
The first unanswered question was if they had started seriously thinking about a split and what the other company might be called.
The second good question was something like "US Steel benefitted consumers too, but was a monopoly and was split up. How is MS different?" Bill's answer, of course, was to talk about how great MS is and how much they've innovated, and that, apparently, is the difference.
> they're not going to submit to anything willingly within the near future.
Which is precisely the reasoning Jackson gave for splitting them up.
> The post and the attached letter seem to be saying two different things.
You are correct. Usually, I chide other posters for not reading the story. This time, it seems like Taco is the one who's not reading what he's posting. Taco's question about a deb and a sources.list is most certainly answered by the letter (as well as the fact that such debs and sources.list already exist).
> How can a corporation prove that you ever receved the email in the first place?
They presume that you are in violation of their property rights. They ask you nicely in a cease & desist order. Such a letter has absolutely no legal weight. It's doesn't have to be part of the evidence in the litigation, and is in fact not required at any point. While not cheap, letter writing is not as expensive as going to court.
If you fail to respond to their letter or acknowledge any communication from them, their only other recourse is to litigate.
This is why failing to answer a letter can result in litigation. Whether or not you saw (or they sent) a cease & desist letter is irrelevant to the law. The letter is a method to settle *out* of court. If you hope to make such a settlement or any other agreement with the other party, it's best to respond to the letter. If, however, you know you are in the wrong and plan to capitulate and simply want to cost them time and money, by all means, force them to litigate and then capitulate.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but even if I were, IAN*your*L.
> Slashdot ought (although is not legally obliged) to seek permission to reuse posts.
On this, I completely agree. But the original post said things like "never want reprinted", and it was to this that I was replying. I you mean never, don't rely on a button click to save you.
First, Qt *is* available with a commercial license. So Motif is not really any better here.
Second, you think that Open Source toolkits can't "take over the world" because of "mission critical" applications. Please explain how MicroSoft has come so close to taking over the world...
Third, "mission critical" is a pretty vague term. Everyone thinks that their programs are mission critical. I would say that NASA and the airline industry require "mission critical" software. And both of those industries do almost everything in-house. They can take any Open Source package and bring it to whatever standards they desire. They can't, however, do the same with Closed applications.
NASA, for example, is pretty much responsible for why we have Beowulf clusters. They did it in-house, but they released everything Open Source.
Simple. Don't post. Seriously. If you really mean "never", don't rely on some/. preference to really keep your post from showing up on the front page of the NY Times.
> those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications
Same answer./.'s not going to go around and sue others on your behalf, and Fair Use will still apply giving others a perfectly legal right to quote at least a portion of your comments. The *only* one that I would really expect this to apply to would be/. itself. They can promise that they won't reprint your comment, but they can't make a promise for anyone else.
> those I don't care what happens to them
These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
First, any such preference ought to be loaded with all the legal disclaimers you can think of. Things like "only/. editors are obliged to honor this preference" and "the Fair Use doctrine still exists and/. will NOT enforce YOUR copyrights with outside media" (like if the NY Times decides to quote someone).
To discourage this generally anti-social discussion behavior, I think users should also have a preference to NOT see posts that the owners feel are so proprietory that they aren't meant to leave slashdot.
I don't think AC's should have this right. In fact, I think the AC submission button should declare that the submission is Public Domain. If you can't prove that you even own a post, how do you intend to enforce your copyright of it?
You could also just change the text of the "Submit" button to "I authorize this post to be posted on/. and I understand that the Fair Use doctrine may allow republication of my comments".
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you guys are reconsidering/clarifying your policy. I don't think all of the complaints were just "whining". But I think the most valid objection was that it says "comments owned by the poster," which is a kind of vague thing that somehow left others feeling that they could continue to control redistribution. My assumption is that the intention of the disclaimer was "don't sue/. for what this guy said" (and even then, it didn't seem to work).
I do think it's "cricket" of you to ask people permission to reprint, but as your lawyers have already told you, you have no legal obligation. Adding preferences, I fear, will simply give the users more confidence that they can control their posts (which they can't), and possibly even make/. liable for enforcing such un-enforcable preferences.
My prediction for the future if/. adds this preference: ZDnet or someone will publish an "unreproducable" comment and we'll have to go through this whole damn controversy again.
Oh, don't misunderstand me. I am very pleased when any software is freed. I am also happy to be discussing it with you directly.
I will say that I was displeased with the original article which seemed to fail to understand the nature of Open Source. In it, you claimed that proprietary development was "better" because a user would have a contract "guaranteeing" fixes (assuming, of course, your company survived). This is, of course, the exact opposite view that proponents of Open Source believe. We feel that the only plausible guarantee is one that lets us do it ourselves.
So if there's no change of heart, why let the customers have the source? Don't your contracts guarantee that you would do anything they wanted to do with it? That seemed to be the stance of the original article.
> I can assure you this is not being released just to please the open source community itself
Well, I still find it ironic that two weeks ago (and I realize that the interview is older, but the/. effect was recent) we were reading about how the only reason Motif doesn't get press is because it doesn't make Open Source announcements and today we see Motif making an Open Source announcement?
In the original article, you seemed to be advocating secrecy and closed source. Now your open. And you still maintain that there's been no change of heart?
Poor people spend most of their income and save less. If you look at the ratio of their income to the money they spend on sales tax, you'll see that they are paying a larger ratio than those who save or invest.
Income taxes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be progressive. The more you make, the higher percent you pay (unless it's a flat tax).
Property taxes, by their very nature, or going to be larger for the rich, whose property tends to be more valuable (except in places like CA where Prop 13 applies, but that's a whole other story).
Slashdot Mirror
One of the reasons for "fair use" is that consumers have a right to create a backup copy. If the original must always be around and be playable, the whole notion of "backup" is meaningless. "Oh, I lost the original... I'd better go destroy all my backups!"
As long as you're not charging your friends, the AHRA still seems to allow trading:
No action may be brought under this title ... based on the noncommercial use by a consumer...
While I agree that there is some new information here, I feel that it is at least relevant that this has been discussed before.
This is perhaps better suited to slashback.
http://slashdot.org/articles/00 /03/02/1236258.shtml
> I can't simply duplicate McCormick's reaper...
McCoy, n'est pas? As in "the Real McCoy".
> Sure, if Minix had evolved into what Linus wanted he wouldn't have gotten started... but it's a mistake to claim that the conflict was in any way pivotal.
I'm afraid I don't see your logic. On the one hand, you admit that things would have turned out differently were it not for this fundamental conflict of visions, while on the other hand you deny that this was pivotal. Seems to be the very definition of a pivotal moment.
Now, I'll certainly admit that there was *more* to it than a simple flamewar or difference of opinion. But you have to admit that Linux was born out of the fire. While I never meant to imply that this *single* moment spurred the creation of Linux, it was certainly *a* significant event.
My only real point, of course, was to simply argue that flames are not a new thing in the Open Source world (nor any other, for that matter).
The ruling said that the local jurisdiction couldn't require broadband access. But the ruling also stated that it was up to the FCC to make such regulations.
The court said nothing philosophically against the regulation, but it was simply not in the jurisdiction of Portland, OR.
Politics in software: this could be the oldest story /. ever covered. This is *so* not new.
Remember, Linux was started because of political differences between Linus and Andy Tanenbaum. And I am by no means suggesting that *that* was the first flamewar. This stuff happens all the time. The biggest difference with Open Source is that we all see it.
I'll admit that there is a story here, but the story is not the fact that politics have *suddenly* broken out in the Linux kernel.
As others pointed out on the above thread, that's the public beta and not the final 5.2.
Oh, great. An email server. Yeah, most people are keeping their Windows machines around because there's really no alternative to MS Exchange.
> If your answer is "because it runs on Linux",
/. for sure.
> does that mean that Slashdot will print a story
> when MY Linux software emerges from beta?
Does your software compete head-to-head with widely used software from MicroSoft? If so, I would expect it to be covered on
MS Office is often cited as the *only* reason that many users have not given up their Windows.
> 1) KDE uses the artistic license instead
...
...
...
KDE has taken lots of GPLed software and have basically just created KDE-ified versions. The KDE team cannot just switch the licenses since they don't own everything.
> 2) KDE adds a clause to their license
Same problem as 1. You can't change someone elses license.
> 3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead
They don't need to go to such extremes. There are other changes that could be made that would make it legal for GPLed software to link to QT.
> 4) RMS rewrites the GPL
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
But I have another solution. KDE can get behind Harmony and drop QT altogether.
I won't say much about the flamewars which are still being fanned that accuse Debian (as if it were a unified entity) of "hating" KDE except to say that such talk is both nonsense and nonproductive.
Actually, Courtney Love makes the distinction:
MP3 files sound cruddy, but a well-made album sounds great. And I don't care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them. They suck for what I do.
Yeah, I saw Bill's press conference. Many softball questions, but a couple of good ones he pretty much didn't answer.
The first unanswered question was if they had started seriously thinking about a split and what the other company might be called.
The second good question was something like "US Steel benefitted consumers too, but was a monopoly and was split up. How is MS different?" Bill's answer, of course, was to talk about how great MS is and how much they've innovated, and that, apparently, is the difference.
> they're not going to submit to anything willingly within the near future.
Which is precisely the reasoning Jackson gave for splitting them up.
> The post and the attached letter seem to be saying two different things.
You are correct. Usually, I chide other posters for not reading the story. This time, it seems like Taco is the one who's not reading what he's posting. Taco's question about a deb and a sources.list is most certainly answered by the letter (as well as the fact that such debs and sources.list already exist).
> How can a corporation prove that you ever receved the email in the first place?
They presume that you are in violation of their property rights. They ask you nicely in a cease & desist order. Such a letter has absolutely no legal weight. It's doesn't have to be part of the evidence in the litigation, and is in fact not required at any point. While not cheap, letter writing is not as expensive as going to court.
If you fail to respond to their letter or acknowledge any communication from them, their only other recourse is to litigate.
This is why failing to answer a letter can result in litigation. Whether or not you saw (or they sent) a cease & desist letter is irrelevant to the law. The letter is a method to settle *out* of court. If you hope to make such a settlement or any other agreement with the other party, it's best to respond to the letter. If, however, you know you are in the wrong and plan to capitulate and simply want to cost them time and money, by all means, force them to litigate and then capitulate.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but even if I were, IAN*your*L.
> Slashdot ought (although is not legally obliged) to seek permission to reuse posts.
On this, I completely agree. But the original post said things like "never want reprinted", and it was to this that I was replying. I you mean never, don't rely on a button click to save you.
First, Qt *is* available with a commercial license. So Motif is not really any better here.
Second, you think that Open Source toolkits can't "take over the world" because of "mission critical" applications. Please explain how MicroSoft has come so close to taking over the world...
Third, "mission critical" is a pretty vague term. Everyone thinks that their programs are mission critical. I would say that NASA and the airline industry require "mission critical" software. And both of those industries do almost everything in-house. They can take any Open Source package and bring it to whatever standards they desire. They can't, however, do the same with Closed applications.
NASA, for example, is pretty much responsible for why we have Beowulf clusters. They did it in-house, but they released everything Open Source.
> those I never want reprinted
/. preference to really keep your post from showing up on the front page of the NY Times.
/.'s not going to go around and sue others on your behalf, and Fair Use will still apply giving others a perfectly legal right to quote at least a portion of your comments. The *only* one that I would really expect this to apply to would be /. itself. They can promise that they won't reprint your comment, but they can't make a promise for anyone else.
Simple. Don't post. Seriously. If you really mean "never", don't rely on some
> those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications
Same answer.
> those I don't care what happens to them
These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
First, any such preference ought to be loaded with all the legal disclaimers you can think of. Things like "only /. editors are obliged to honor this preference" and "the Fair Use doctrine still exists and /. will NOT enforce YOUR copyrights with outside media" (like if the NY Times decides to quote someone).
/. and I understand that the Fair Use doctrine may allow republication of my comments".
/. for what this guy said" (and even then, it didn't seem to work).
/. liable for enforcing such un-enforcable preferences.
/. adds this preference: ZDnet or someone will publish an "unreproducable" comment and we'll have to go through this whole damn controversy again.
To discourage this generally anti-social discussion behavior, I think users should also have a preference to NOT see posts that the owners feel are so proprietory that they aren't meant to leave slashdot.
I don't think AC's should have this right. In fact, I think the AC submission button should declare that the submission is Public Domain. If you can't prove that you even own a post, how do you intend to enforce your copyright of it?
You could also just change the text of the "Submit" button to "I authorize this post to be posted on
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you guys are reconsidering/clarifying your policy. I don't think all of the complaints were just "whining". But I think the most valid objection was that it says "comments owned by the poster," which is a kind of vague thing that somehow left others feeling that they could continue to control redistribution. My assumption is that the intention of the disclaimer was "don't sue
I do think it's "cricket" of you to ask people permission to reprint, but as your lawyers have already told you, you have no legal obligation. Adding preferences, I fear, will simply give the users more confidence that they can control their posts (which they can't), and possibly even make
My prediction for the future if
> There's just no pleasing some people
/. effect was recent) we were reading about how the only reason Motif doesn't get press is because it doesn't make Open Source announcements and today we see Motif making an Open Source announcement?
Oh, don't misunderstand me. I am very pleased when any software is freed. I am also happy to be discussing it with you directly.
I will say that I was displeased with the original article which seemed to fail to understand the nature of Open Source. In it, you claimed that proprietary development was "better" because a user would have a contract "guaranteeing" fixes (assuming, of course, your company survived). This is, of course, the exact opposite view that proponents of Open Source believe. We feel that the only plausible guarantee is one that lets us do it ourselves.
So if there's no change of heart, why let the customers have the source? Don't your contracts guarantee that you would do anything they wanted to do with it? That seemed to be the stance of the original article.
> I can assure you this is not being released just to please the open source community itself
Well, I still find it ironic that two weeks ago (and I realize that the interview is older, but the
In the original article, you seemed to be advocating secrecy and closed source. Now your open. And you still maintain that there's been no change of heart?
Secrecy, intellectual property rights, and long-term, large-scale projects do not marry well with open source public announcements.
Motif is very much alive and well: it just isn't making public noise because that isn't the name of the game.
Perhaps the name of the game has changed?
> How are sales taxes the most regressive taxes?
Poor people spend most of their income and save less. If you look at the ratio of their income to the money they spend on sales tax, you'll see that they are paying a larger ratio than those who save or invest.
Income taxes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be progressive. The more you make, the higher percent you pay (unless it's a flat tax).
Property taxes, by their very nature, or going to be larger for the rich, whose property tends to be more valuable (except in places like CA where Prop 13 applies, but that's a whole other story).
> If that article isn't on the main page, where was it?
Your Rights Online:
http://slashdot.org/index.pl?section=yro
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?s id=00/05/13/201252