Oh, you still haven't addressed my original point regarding taking open source code and using it against the license.
That sure does look like a point. Would you care to address it? I suppose you'll just take this reply as more "pro-corporate ranting" and subsequently fail to answer the question at hand once again.
I wasn't talking about the rule of law in the first place. Idiot. Oh, you still haven't addressed my original point regarding taking open source code and using it against the license.
So when the copyright expires someone has stolen it from you?
Bravo! In the first sentence of your reply, you managed to derail your entire argument. Upon the expiration of copyright, the public is (and rightfully should be) free to do whatever they damn well please with the work in question. It is due to the rule of law that we have the system of copyright in place, and as a society we obey the rule of law. That is the social norm.
I should note that I support very limited copyright terms. Sadly, you seem to have read volumes into what I didn't say in the first place. That's truly a shame, as it shows a distinct lack of ability to intelligently discuss matters like these.
I never said it wasn't copyright infringement. You're obviously incapable of reading, and you haven't addressed my original inquiry. Do you believe it is acceptable for someone to copy GPL licensed source code into a commercial product and sell it without following the GPL? If so, you support stealing and copyright infringement. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, and I'm not arguing the legal definition. I'm pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that you support taking the work of others against the terms of their license if you don't find the practice discussed in this story extraordinarily objectionable.
You're an idiot. I'm not arguing the definition of copyright infringement. Like so many others, you're ignoring the fact that taking the work of others is wrong. Now, be nice and pay attention to what I actually wrote. Thanks for burning the mod points; the community is better of without the influence of someone who can't be bothered to read.
Your entire response is thinly veiled justification, albeit in terms of attempting to marginalize those who would speak up for their rights. It's both laughable and sad, and honestly not worth wasting the time to compose a full reply to.
I certainly hope you're never in the position of having to defend the rights to your own creations against those who would attempt to minimize their economic value. I'll add one note in closing: your definition of "compensated for your labor" (something vaguely assumed to be the satisfaction of writing it or a one-time payment) is most assuredly not the limit of compensation possible under the GPL, something you should ponder for awhile until you bloody well "get it."
I'm sorry, taking other peoples' work against their wishes is stealing. You're the one being obtuse. Please don't pollute the issue with meaningless diatribe; this is the entire foundation upon which the open source community is built (sharing according to agreed upon terms). I do, however, agree with you that copyright terms are ridiculous. In the end, you and I both know that a survey of the populace would consider the matter at hand "stealing."
I am well versed in the legal definition and rather large volumes of case study surrounding copyright. I also refuse to allow that to justify abusing the rights of another person under the veil of legal jargon. I'm calling a spade a spade.
Clarification: I misread your original note about "people around you stealing etc." That said, I earn a good salary from my job, and enjoy considerable side revenue from various projects I work on in my spare time. Who are you claiming is stealing my life and livelihood away?
I didn't say it isn't copyright infringement. I said it's stealing. Taking something you don't have any rights to is stealing, regardless of whether it's a physical object, source code, a movie, or a song. Are you more interested in justifying stealing via quibbles over legal terminology, or are you interested in stating your opinion on whether it's right or wrong to do such a thing? Would you be okay with someone lifting GPL licensed code, changing it for their own purposes, and then selling the code without disclosing the source? If so, you support stealing the work of others.
As an AC noted, I was very careful to avoid the term "theft." This should gladden you, as you seem to be more interested in splitting hairs over legal terminology than standing up for what is right. Would you be okay with someone lifting code from the Linux kernel and incorporating it into their own commercial product without releasing the source? Let's talk about respect for rights.
I see you can't manage to address the specific case I mentioned. Would you, or would you not, feel it is wrong to take code covered under the GPL and incorporate it into a closed-source product in violation of the license?
By the way, where precisely am I bitching about my livelihood being stolen away? Another strawman attempt that fails terribly.
Your analogy fails miserably. Please try to come up with one that actually fits the context of this discussion. Additionally, I'd like to note that you've managed to bring privacy and defamation strawmen into the discussion, which is worse than disingenuous; it's downright idiotic. How about attempting to address the specific case I cited?
I'm sorry to see you were modded as "Insightful." Let me explain this in terms you can (hopefully) understand: "stealing" is the act of depriving someone of the economic value of a thing. Note that the "thing" doesn't have to be a physical object. See that link in my sig? It's the home page for a program I license under the Artistic License. Under the law, I've granted the public the right to use that program without paying me any money, but only under the terms I, as the copyright holder, have allowed. If you violate the license, you've stolen from me. What would you think about people taking code licensed under the GPL and incorporating it into a commercial, closed-source program? That would be stealing, too.
In other words, guess what: rights work both ways.
A peck is a measure of volume associated with dry goods. It is rarely, if ever, used to measure liquids. It is equal to 16 dry pints, which is about 0.311 cubic foot. Note the word dry. A dry pint is not the same as a liquid pint. Four pecks equal a bushel.
Now, I'm not sure how many papers (are these US letter, A4, what?) fit into either a pint (are they flat or folded, have they been shredded, if so how finely, what?) or a bushel, but there's a starting point for your calculations.
The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights.
Forcibly silencing opposition media works against international cooperation by preventing citizens from hearing about anything perceived as "negative" from other nations. As for human rights, what exactly do you consider a human right, if you don't believe that should include the right to speak your views openly without fear of imprisonment?
Here's the problem: Ubuntu is a large organization that many people have come to know and trust (to a greater or lesser degree). While it's certainly true that anyone can fork open source code and do it "their way," they're not going to get the same attention paid to their version. This is fine for the user in question, except of course for the fact that he now has to maintain his own thing separately.
This is a fine illustration of a situation where something can "by definition" work a certain way on paper, but doesn't correlate with the real world when carried through to its logical conclusion. I suppose you could say the guy who forked could get as big as Ubuntu, but that's rather unlikely for the vast majority of cases. Thus, the outcome is anything but democratic in practice. I'm not passing a value judgment on that, just calling it like it is.
As far as the moderation bit goes, that's why we have "-1 Overrated", and it's perfectly legitimate. The cenorship note is BS, as you're more than welcome to read Slashdot at -1 if you like. The comment would still be there.
As for the DMCA, you can easily lose that nifty safe harbor protection if it can be proven that you knew about (or even encouraged) specific cases of infringement and did nothing about it. It does not grant ISPs blanket immunity, as you seem to believe. As for fair use, have you actually read the article?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you still haven't addressed my original point regarding taking open source code and using it against the license.
That sure does look like a point. Would you care to address it? I suppose you'll just take this reply as more "pro-corporate ranting" and subsequently fail to answer the question at hand once again.
The Earth is 4,000 years old. I'm three years old.
Hint: I'm also 29 years old.
Have fun pirating something that's already free. You've just won an Idiot Award.
I wasn't talking about the rule of law in the first place. Idiot. Oh, you still haven't addressed my original point regarding taking open source code and using it against the license.
So when the copyright expires someone has stolen it from you?
Bravo! In the first sentence of your reply, you managed to derail your entire argument. Upon the expiration of copyright, the public is (and rightfully should be) free to do whatever they damn well please with the work in question. It is due to the rule of law that we have the system of copyright in place, and as a society we obey the rule of law. That is the social norm.
I should note that I support very limited copyright terms. Sadly, you seem to have read volumes into what I didn't say in the first place. That's truly a shame, as it shows a distinct lack of ability to intelligently discuss matters like these.
Indeed, your ability to think critically is obviously impaired. Indeed, it's better that we don't continue; good day, sir.
I never said it wasn't copyright infringement. You're obviously incapable of reading, and you haven't addressed my original inquiry. Do you believe it is acceptable for someone to copy GPL licensed source code into a commercial product and sell it without following the GPL? If so, you support stealing and copyright infringement. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, and I'm not arguing the legal definition. I'm pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that you support taking the work of others against the terms of their license if you don't find the practice discussed in this story extraordinarily objectionable.
You're an idiot. I'm not arguing the definition of copyright infringement. Like so many others, you're ignoring the fact that taking the work of others is wrong. Now, be nice and pay attention to what I actually wrote. Thanks for burning the mod points; the community is better of without the influence of someone who can't be bothered to read.
I'm not selling anything. Obviously you're unaware of the fact that the Artistic License is an OSI approved, free and open source license.
I'm sure you feel brilliant now.
Thank you. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Your entire response is thinly veiled justification, albeit in terms of attempting to marginalize those who would speak up for their rights. It's both laughable and sad, and honestly not worth wasting the time to compose a full reply to.
I certainly hope you're never in the position of having to defend the rights to your own creations against those who would attempt to minimize their economic value. I'll add one note in closing: your definition of "compensated for your labor" (something vaguely assumed to be the satisfaction of writing it or a one-time payment) is most assuredly not the limit of compensation possible under the GPL, something you should ponder for awhile until you bloody well "get it."
I'm sorry, taking other peoples' work against their wishes is stealing. You're the one being obtuse. Please don't pollute the issue with meaningless diatribe; this is the entire foundation upon which the open source community is built (sharing according to agreed upon terms). I do, however, agree with you that copyright terms are ridiculous. In the end, you and I both know that a survey of the populace would consider the matter at hand "stealing."
I am well versed in the legal definition and rather large volumes of case study surrounding copyright. I also refuse to allow that to justify abusing the rights of another person under the veil of legal jargon. I'm calling a spade a spade.
Clarification: I misread your original note about "people around you stealing etc." That said, I earn a good salary from my job, and enjoy considerable side revenue from various projects I work on in my spare time. Who are you claiming is stealing my life and livelihood away?
I didn't say it isn't copyright infringement. I said it's stealing. Taking something you don't have any rights to is stealing, regardless of whether it's a physical object, source code, a movie, or a song. Are you more interested in justifying stealing via quibbles over legal terminology, or are you interested in stating your opinion on whether it's right or wrong to do such a thing? Would you be okay with someone lifting GPL licensed code, changing it for their own purposes, and then selling the code without disclosing the source? If so, you support stealing the work of others.
As an AC noted, I was very careful to avoid the term "theft." This should gladden you, as you seem to be more interested in splitting hairs over legal terminology than standing up for what is right. Would you be okay with someone lifting code from the Linux kernel and incorporating it into their own commercial product without releasing the source? Let's talk about respect for rights.
I see you can't manage to address the specific case I mentioned. Would you, or would you not, feel it is wrong to take code covered under the GPL and incorporate it into a closed-source product in violation of the license?
By the way, where precisely am I bitching about my livelihood being stolen away? Another strawman attempt that fails terribly.
Your analogy fails miserably. Please try to come up with one that actually fits the context of this discussion. Additionally, I'd like to note that you've managed to bring privacy and defamation strawmen into the discussion, which is worse than disingenuous; it's downright idiotic. How about attempting to address the specific case I cited?
I'm sorry to see you were modded as "Insightful." Let me explain this in terms you can (hopefully) understand: "stealing" is the act of depriving someone of the economic value of a thing. Note that the "thing" doesn't have to be a physical object. See that link in my sig? It's the home page for a program I license under the Artistic License. Under the law, I've granted the public the right to use that program without paying me any money, but only under the terms I, as the copyright holder, have allowed. If you violate the license, you've stolen from me. What would you think about people taking code licensed under the GPL and incorporating it into a commercial, closed-source program? That would be stealing, too.
In other words, guess what: rights work both ways.
The marsupial whispers at dawn. Pass the word.
A peck is a measure of volume associated with dry goods. It is rarely, if ever, used to measure liquids. It is equal to 16 dry pints, which is about 0.311 cubic foot. Note the word dry. A dry pint is not the same as a liquid pint. Four pecks equal a bushel.
Now, I'm not sure how many papers (are these US letter, A4, what?) fit into either a pint (are they flat or folded, have they been shredded, if so how finely, what?) or a bushel, but there's a starting point for your calculations.
This is not a good life by any measure.
Precisely who the hell are you to make that call? You're certainly not him.
The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights.
Forcibly silencing opposition media works against international cooperation by preventing citizens from hearing about anything perceived as "negative" from other nations. As for human rights, what exactly do you consider a human right, if you don't believe that should include the right to speak your views openly without fear of imprisonment?
Here's the problem: Ubuntu is a large organization that many people have come to know and trust (to a greater or lesser degree). While it's certainly true that anyone can fork open source code and do it "their way," they're not going to get the same attention paid to their version. This is fine for the user in question, except of course for the fact that he now has to maintain his own thing separately.
This is a fine illustration of a situation where something can "by definition" work a certain way on paper, but doesn't correlate with the real world when carried through to its logical conclusion. I suppose you could say the guy who forked could get as big as Ubuntu, but that's rather unlikely for the vast majority of cases. Thus, the outcome is anything but democratic in practice. I'm not passing a value judgment on that, just calling it like it is.
You're absolutely wrong. -1 Overrated.
As far as the moderation bit goes, that's why we have "-1 Overrated", and it's perfectly legitimate. The cenorship note is BS, as you're more than welcome to read Slashdot at -1 if you like. The comment would still be there.
As for the DMCA, you can easily lose that nifty safe harbor protection if it can be proven that you knew about (or even encouraged) specific cases of infringement and did nothing about it. It does not grant ISPs blanket immunity, as you seem to believe. As for fair use, have you actually read the article?