The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.
So does this mean we can resell GPLed software without distributing the source code?
The judge has given a roadmap for getting around his ruling: subscriptions. In his judgement a subscription would clearly be a license, not a sale, thus no "first sale" doctrine would apply.
At least this will make things more explicit. The agreement would have to be available before the purchase, and presumably would have to be signed. Advertising would have to explicitly state that the item was not for sale, but for lease, and the physical CD would have to be returned after the lease period was over.
Notice all the stuff you buy that says "This item part of a package. Not for resale" or something there-abouts.
Unless you agree to that at the time of the sale, it's completely unenforcible. Just because writing on a package says something doesn't always make it true.
But how about the software market for proprietary software? Each state has very specific requirements for municipal accounting software. Quickbooks or GNU Cash isn't going to cut it. On top of that, the software must do point of sale, generate tax bills and handle property assessment. It must be turnkey ready, and must be easy to use and modify (those bozo's keep changing the law, grr).
Sounds to me like the perfect place for free software. Any software which is only useful to a handful of clients can easily be made on a contractual basis. The clients need the software, not exclusive rights to the software. And to the extent that the software is paid by taxpayer dollars, it certainly should be released freely to those taxpayers who paid for it.
Its not practical. The costs are too high - basically this type of software isn't a hobby- its a career
Whoever said that you can't get paid for writing free software?
His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.
Not so. Stallman believes that a software distributor of a derivitive work must release his/her source code. In the absense of copyright law there would be no such requirement. If you imagine such a world, absent copyright law, we would likely have fewer software products distributing source code, not more.
You can argue that his model promotes freedom, but it does not promote freedom from copyright law.
Depends. If my neighbor's one device is used by a downloading fiend who keeps his bandwidth maxed as much as he possibly can, while my 5 devices use barely any bandwidth (a daily Tivo download, a couple peolpe checking email and browsing web pages), then it could hardly be argued that my 5 devices merit a higher monthly charge than my neighbor's one device.
Depends. If your neighbor's one device download frenzies come in the middle of weekdays, when very few others are using cablemodems, while your small use of bandwidth to check email occurs during peak times when bandwidth is maxxed out, there is a justification for a higher charge.
If they're that worried about recouping expenses, they should charge extra when certain bandwidth "landmarks" are reached in a month.
And what happens when the user is mailbombed and the bandwidth goes through the roof? Tough luck, you owe $1000 this month? People want to be in control of their own charges, and they want to know what those charges are ahead of time.
In any case, I never stated my opinion as to which charges are more fair. Like I said, I need my static IP and incoming connections, so cablemodems aren't even a consideration for me. Obviously those who use multiple IPs are going to be against a scheme which makes them pay more. The only way you're going to have fairness is to break the monopoly and let the free market decide who should pay how much for what.
So the interesting question to me is, why does my service provider deserve more $$$s because I own three computers, a net-connected TiVo, and an internet enabled toaster or stoplight?
Actually, the cable companies are going to demand the same amount of profit no matter what. So the question really is, should you with your 5 devices pay $40/month, and your neighbor with his/her 1 device pay $40/month, or should you maybe pay $50/month and your neighbor pay $30?
Either way it doesn't really make all that much difference to me. I know I want a static IP and the ability to run linux and a home network with incoming connections, so I chose Directvdsl, which lets me have all of that. If the cable companies were forced to open up their networks at least as much as the phone companies (preferably more), you'd probably have such choices for cablemodem service as well.
I haven't looked into the details very much, but my intention is to eventually set up my own analog PBXish system. I'd imagine that a regular modem isn't going to be able to handle things such as sending a 90-volt AC wave at 20 hertz in order to ring the phones when a digital call comes in over the internet connection.
I did not want The Tick to say "bitch" in the first episode. That I was not given the power to remove it as I saw fit offers some insight into the range of my control over this massive undertaking.
It's funny to hear about the networks wanting to make the language more harsh, and the creator wanting to "censor" it. Usually I would think it's the opposite.
...and rely on them not to change their policy, go bankrupt or whatsoever to make you change your URL on all your documents. Lifetime-E-Mail-address or -URL is only possible with something you own, i.e. your own domain name!
I hate to break it to you, but you can't get "your own domain name". From the stories I've been reading, it seems a lot more likely to lose your domain name because of ICANN than because of DHS.org.
As for changing your documents, you shouldn't be writing the names of machines on your documents. When you pick a webforwarding service, you should certainly be picking one which is likely to stay in business forever. The problem with webforwarding is that it relies on the domain name system in the first place. This is what I'm talking about when I say that the DNS system is broken.
But why is religion included? Religion has no physical connecdtion to one's birth circumstances or DNA, and is simply a set of beliefs and activities one _chooses_ to accept or practice. And since adhering to these precepts IS a personal choice, why _can't_ we hold the individual responsible?
IANASCJ (supreme court justice), but I would think that "religion" in this law would only apply to private home worship practices. Even with disabilities, you can still discriminate as long as your discrimination is based on ability to perform the job requirements.
In any case, as far as I'm concerned companies should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason they choose. As long as the government cannot discriminate, there will still be jobs available, and as long as all people have a right to life, freedom, and education, those companies which do the discrimination will be the only losers in the long run. I agree with you that it's immoral to discriminate based on national origin, race, color, sex, and even religion (and disability if it doesn't make the job nearly impossible), but I don't think it should be illegal, mainly because it is pretty much impossible to enforce.
This doesn't go toward answering your question, but be sure to use an Audio-only CD if you're burning music which you have no legal right to burn. The Audio Home Recording Act will then protect you from any possible charges of copyright infringement for the noncommercial use and creation of that CD.
The very fact that an individual worked at a porn site proves the individual believes their action is morally acceptable.
My questions wasn't if the individual believes their action is morally acceptable, it was why.
I am under no obligation to provide any justification of my beliefs/morals what so ever and if I was I believe several pieces of civil rights legislation would prove otherwise.
And likewise I am under no obligation to employ you as long as my reasons are not related to disability, religion, national origin, race, color, or sex.
If I were a possible employer of this person, I would most probably look quite highly on the skills they posses. The individual is obviously used to working in a "for profit" business environment. In short, the kind of person I want working for me.
Skills are an important factor, for sure, but I want to hire someone who is going to to be reliable and consistent. I want someone who is likely to follow his/her terms of employment, regardless of whether or not s/he is likely to get caught, and that means that 1) the person is morally opposed to breaking contractual agreements and 2) the person is not likely to break his/her morality whenever it is convenient or profitable. These questions go to 2).
And just how does one determine the "net effect" on society??????
It obviously isn't a mathematical formula, it is a guess, but it is a guess that many people make all the time. When the FSF decides whether to release a library under the GPL or the LGPL, it is making an educated guess about which will have a more positive "net effect" on society. Either will have both positive and negative effects, but in each case the FSF has made an educated guess about that.
The only difference between the Taliban and the puritanical rightwing moralists in the United States is the day of the week they pray on.
I'm not sure the relevance of that comment. Are you accusing me of being a puritanical rightwing moralist? Moralist perhaps, if you meant "One who follows a system of moral principle" (dictionary.com), but according to your comment at the top, everyone always follows a system of moral principle, so everyone would be a moralist. As for right-wing, I voted for Nader in the last election (and wanted Gore to win). As for what day of the week I pray on, I don't. And as for your comparison, I'd say you missed a few differences (such as harboring suspected terrorists).
Moreso, this is almost certainly a question which will come up in future interviews. If I were hiring someone who had worked for a porn site, I would want to know why s/he thought that was morally acceptable. I'd certainly give more leeway to someone who had a somewhat reasonable justification (even if I didn't personally agree with that justification), rather than someone who ignored morality and did it "just for the money".
If you personally do not believe porn should be accessed by minors, what is your company doing to stop minors from accessing it? Does your company treat its porn actors properly? What is the net effect of your company on society? Positive? Negative? Neutral/Chaotic? If you believe the net effect is negative, I suggest you look for a different job.
Writing your own I/O library doesn't really complicated the code, as long as the library is well separated from the rest of the code. Do you dispute DJB's claim that "qmail is vastly smaller than any other Internet MTA"? In any case, I've never looked at the qmail code, but I do love tinydns and the tinydns code.
I'll take your word for it that qmail is not useful for large applications. But most users don't fall into that category, so as I argued before I think it's a moot point. Even for large applications, you have to consider security as mandatory (not just a feature), and I have a good deal of respect for DJB's coding wrt security (not just because of his unclaimed $500 security guarantee, although that is one reason).
I've just moved over to my new static IP DSL line, so I'll be picking my MTA shortly. I've already picked my DNS server, tinydns, and qmail is one of the finalists for MTA (sendmail being absolutely out of the question). Performance is pretty much not a factor, access to source is mandatory, security is the number one factor, ease of installation and maintenance is the number two factor, and license issues (besides access to source) is a minor factor.
Qmail is written pretty poorly. If you look through the code you'll find an amazing number of poor choices that adversely affect performance.
I'm not sure what choices you're referring to, but I'd definately trade performance for code simplicity or security, for an MTA. If it takes 30 seconds extra to receive each email (which is a rediculously high exaggeration), I won't even notice the difference.
You can patch the program, just not release the patches applied.
I am under the opinion that anyone can patch any program for any non-DMCA covered purpose without permission from the copyright holder (under fair use). DJB is also of that same opinion.
In any case, you can release the patches applied, you just can't release the patches applied along with the software itself. As mentioned in the link above, see "Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992). and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989)."
Qmail is not "free software" only because you do not have permission to create and distribute a patched programs. (Also I believe you are not permitted to distribute unmodified copies electronically, though distributing them as CDs that you have burned directly from your download would be legal under first sale). As for being able to change the license at any time, this is only true for new downloads, once you have obtained a copy legally, your fair use and first sale rights apply.
The main reason I prefer "free software", as defined by RMS, is because I want the ability to create patches and be assured that the patched program is always available to third parties. This would require me to either download and burn a few million CDs with the current version, or rely on DJB to always offer the original free for download to those third parties.
I wonder if he's had the opportunity to tackle Dan J. Bernstein [cr.yp.to] yet. Although his terms seem to meet the Free Software criteria for me, I hear all the time that Qmail isn't free software.
According to RMS, free software must have "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." DJB doesn't give that freedom, and that is why Qmail isn't considered "free software".
Personally, I still use tinydns, despite the fact that it is not free software, but I wish there was a comparible alternative to bind which was free software.
It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX, and yet in Stallman's view, this would be an example of GNOME falling short of its goals
I agree with Stallman on that point.
Is it possible to reach such users with free software ideals, and is it necessary to divorce free software from proprietary in order to accomplish that goal?"
Stallman knows that divorcing free software from proprietary is not always the right choice. This is why he created the LGPL.
I think it is mandatory that free software not be divorced from proprietary in order to accomplish RMS's goals. But I'm not talking about OS X, I'm talking about Windows. OS X has very little market share, and can safely be ignored, but Gnome must work on Windows and work well, if a GNU system is to have any chance of replacing Windows. Perhaps if the Windows port is GPLed (Gnome is LGPLed) that would encourage free software even more.
After thinking about it, maybe that is the solution with Mac OS X. Release the OS X port of Gnome under the GPL. Then the displacement of users from GNU systems to OSX will almost surely be outshadowed by the displacement of proprietary software (which possibly runs only on OSX) to GPLed software (which can possibly be easily ported to GNU systems).
Just how many companies are there called Acme? Several...and they're all in different types of businesses. I don't know how the laws work in Germany, but in the U.S., trademark dilution applies to disputes within the same industry.
I don't know Germany either, but:
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which protects famous marks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition, became effective on January 16, 1996. -
LADAS & PARRY
If you recall the whole Diablo game dispute, Blizzard had to register the trademark for not only the game but for the movie as well.
You're talking about a different trademark law. Perhaps the mark used by Blizzard was not "famous", or perhaps the lawyers just screwed them over by giving them bad advice to make more money. Under the FTDA of 1995, you don't even have to register your trademark at all.
The domain name system is broken. The only way things like this are going to stop is to stop using the domain name system for websites. That's not what it was meant to be used for anyway.
The.us allowing SLD names is just going to make matters worse. The way it stands, people generally use.us names to point to machines, not web sites, and even when they do use them for web sites, it's a fairly non-ambiguous name (serv1.shell.nyc.ny.us). The internet may be free, but big business has taken over the domain name system. If you don't want to play by their rules, get a nice third level domain for free from one of the many places offering them, such as dhs.org, and say the extra 4 characters next time you tell someone your website. Or perhaps even better (until we fix browsers to properly use DNS records), use a web forwarding service. dhs.org has one of those too.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.
So does this mean we can resell GPLed software without distributing the source code?
The judge has given a roadmap for getting around his ruling: subscriptions. In his judgement a subscription would clearly be a license, not a sale, thus no "first sale" doctrine would apply.
At least this will make things more explicit. The agreement would have to be available before the purchase, and presumably would have to be signed. Advertising would have to explicitly state that the item was not for sale, but for lease, and the physical CD would have to be returned after the lease period was over.
Notice all the stuff you buy that says "This item part of a package. Not for resale" or something there-abouts.
Unless you agree to that at the time of the sale, it's completely unenforcible. Just because writing on a package says something doesn't always make it true.
But how about the software market for proprietary software? Each state has very specific requirements for municipal accounting software. Quickbooks or GNU Cash isn't going to cut it. On top of that, the software must do point of sale, generate tax bills and handle property assessment. It must be turnkey ready, and must be easy to use and modify (those bozo's keep changing the law, grr).
Sounds to me like the perfect place for free software. Any software which is only useful to a handful of clients can easily be made on a contractual basis. The clients need the software, not exclusive rights to the software. And to the extent that the software is paid by taxpayer dollars, it certainly should be released freely to those taxpayers who paid for it.
Its not practical. The costs are too high - basically this type of software isn't a hobby- its a career
Whoever said that you can't get paid for writing free software?
His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.
Not so. Stallman believes that a software distributor of a derivitive work must release his/her source code. In the absense of copyright law there would be no such requirement. If you imagine such a world, absent copyright law, we would likely have fewer software products distributing source code, not more.
You can argue that his model promotes freedom, but it does not promote freedom from copyright law.
Depends. If my neighbor's one device is used by a downloading fiend who keeps his bandwidth maxed as much as he possibly can, while my 5 devices use barely any bandwidth (a daily Tivo download, a couple peolpe checking email and browsing web pages), then it could hardly be argued that my 5 devices merit a higher monthly charge than my neighbor's one device.
Depends. If your neighbor's one device download frenzies come in the middle of weekdays, when very few others are using cablemodems, while your small use of bandwidth to check email occurs during peak times when bandwidth is maxxed out, there is a justification for a higher charge.
If they're that worried about recouping expenses, they should charge extra when certain bandwidth "landmarks" are reached in a month.
And what happens when the user is mailbombed and the bandwidth goes through the roof? Tough luck, you owe $1000 this month? People want to be in control of their own charges, and they want to know what those charges are ahead of time.
In any case, I never stated my opinion as to which charges are more fair. Like I said, I need my static IP and incoming connections, so cablemodems aren't even a consideration for me. Obviously those who use multiple IPs are going to be against a scheme which makes them pay more. The only way you're going to have fairness is to break the monopoly and let the free market decide who should pay how much for what.
hence the use of the quotation marks around the word "censor", and the question mark at the end of the title.
So the interesting question to me is, why does my service provider deserve more $$$s because I own three computers, a net-connected TiVo, and an internet enabled toaster or stoplight?
Actually, the cable companies are going to demand the same amount of profit no matter what. So the question really is, should you with your 5 devices pay $40/month, and your neighbor with his/her 1 device pay $40/month, or should you maybe pay $50/month and your neighbor pay $30?
Either way it doesn't really make all that much difference to me. I know I want a static IP and the ability to run linux and a home network with incoming connections, so I chose Directvdsl, which lets me have all of that. If the cable companies were forced to open up their networks at least as much as the phone companies (preferably more), you'd probably have such choices for cablemodem service as well.
Sorry, but internet technology is NOT regulated by the FCC.
802.11 networks are, though.
I haven't looked into the details very much, but my intention is to eventually set up my own analog PBXish system. I'd imagine that a regular modem isn't going to be able to handle things such as sending a 90-volt AC wave at 20 hertz in order to ring the phones when a digital call comes in over the internet connection.
I guess the "finder flags" menu is an illegal circumvention device. :)
I did not want The Tick to say "bitch" in the first episode. That I was not given the power to remove it as I saw fit offers some insight into the range of my control over this massive undertaking.
It's funny to hear about the networks wanting to make the language more harsh, and the creator wanting to "censor" it. Usually I would think it's the opposite.
In theory a winmodem could process the caller ID signal, right? Has anyone actually done this, or at least started to work on it?
I hate to break it to you, but you can't get "your own domain name". From the stories I've been reading, it seems a lot more likely to lose your domain name because of ICANN than because of DHS.org.
As for changing your documents, you shouldn't be writing the names of machines on your documents. When you pick a webforwarding service, you should certainly be picking one which is likely to stay in business forever. The problem with webforwarding is that it relies on the domain name system in the first place. This is what I'm talking about when I say that the DNS system is broken.
But why is religion included? Religion has no physical connecdtion to one's birth circumstances or DNA, and is simply a set of beliefs and activities one _chooses_ to accept or practice. And since adhering to these precepts IS a personal choice, why _can't_ we hold the individual responsible?
IANASCJ (supreme court justice), but I would think that "religion" in this law would only apply to private home worship practices. Even with disabilities, you can still discriminate as long as your discrimination is based on ability to perform the job requirements.
In any case, as far as I'm concerned companies should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason they choose. As long as the government cannot discriminate, there will still be jobs available, and as long as all people have a right to life, freedom, and education, those companies which do the discrimination will be the only losers in the long run. I agree with you that it's immoral to discriminate based on national origin, race, color, sex, and even religion (and disability if it doesn't make the job nearly impossible), but I don't think it should be illegal, mainly because it is pretty much impossible to enforce.
This doesn't go toward answering your question, but be sure to use an Audio-only CD if you're burning music which you have no legal right to burn. The Audio Home Recording Act will then protect you from any possible charges of copyright infringement for the noncommercial use and creation of that CD.
The very fact that an individual worked at a porn site proves the individual believes their action is morally acceptable.
My questions wasn't if the individual believes their action is morally acceptable, it was why.
I am under no obligation to provide any justification of my beliefs/morals what so ever and if I was I believe several pieces of civil rights legislation would prove otherwise.
And likewise I am under no obligation to employ you as long as my reasons are not related to disability, religion, national origin, race, color, or sex.
If I were a possible employer of this person, I would most probably look quite highly on the skills they posses. The individual is obviously used to working in a "for profit" business environment. In short, the kind of person I want working for me.
Skills are an important factor, for sure, but I want to hire someone who is going to to be reliable and consistent. I want someone who is likely to follow his/her terms of employment, regardless of whether or not s/he is likely to get caught, and that means that 1) the person is morally opposed to breaking contractual agreements and 2) the person is not likely to break his/her morality whenever it is convenient or profitable. These questions go to 2).
And just how does one determine the "net effect" on society??????
It obviously isn't a mathematical formula, it is a guess, but it is a guess that many people make all the time. When the FSF decides whether to release a library under the GPL or the LGPL, it is making an educated guess about which will have a more positive "net effect" on society. Either will have both positive and negative effects, but in each case the FSF has made an educated guess about that.
The only difference between the Taliban and the puritanical rightwing moralists in the United States is the day of the week they pray on.
I'm not sure the relevance of that comment. Are you accusing me of being a puritanical rightwing moralist? Moralist perhaps, if you meant "One who follows a system of moral principle" (dictionary.com), but according to your comment at the top, everyone always follows a system of moral principle, so everyone would be a moralist. As for right-wing, I voted for Nader in the last election (and wanted Gore to win). As for what day of the week I pray on, I don't. And as for your comparison, I'd say you missed a few differences (such as harboring suspected terrorists).
Moreso, this is almost certainly a question which will come up in future interviews. If I were hiring someone who had worked for a porn site, I would want to know why s/he thought that was morally acceptable. I'd certainly give more leeway to someone who had a somewhat reasonable justification (even if I didn't personally agree with that justification), rather than someone who ignored morality and did it "just for the money".
If you personally do not believe porn should be accessed by minors, what is your company doing to stop minors from accessing it? Does your company treat its porn actors properly? What is the net effect of your company on society? Positive? Negative? Neutral/Chaotic? If you believe the net effect is negative, I suggest you look for a different job.
Writing your own I/O library doesn't really complicated the code, as long as the library is well separated from the rest of the code. Do you dispute DJB's claim that "qmail is vastly smaller than any other Internet MTA"? In any case, I've never looked at the qmail code, but I do love tinydns and the tinydns code.
I'll take your word for it that qmail is not useful for large applications. But most users don't fall into that category, so as I argued before I think it's a moot point. Even for large applications, you have to consider security as mandatory (not just a feature), and I have a good deal of respect for DJB's coding wrt security (not just because of his unclaimed $500 security guarantee, although that is one reason).
I've just moved over to my new static IP DSL line, so I'll be picking my MTA shortly. I've already picked my DNS server, tinydns, and qmail is one of the finalists for MTA (sendmail being absolutely out of the question). Performance is pretty much not a factor, access to source is mandatory, security is the number one factor, ease of installation and maintenance is the number two factor, and license issues (besides access to source) is a minor factor.
Qmail is written pretty poorly. If you look through the code you'll find an amazing number of poor choices that adversely affect performance.
I'm not sure what choices you're referring to, but I'd definately trade performance for code simplicity or security, for an MTA. If it takes 30 seconds extra to receive each email (which is a rediculously high exaggeration), I won't even notice the difference.
You can patch the program, just not release the patches applied.
I am under the opinion that anyone can patch any program for any non-DMCA covered purpose without permission from the copyright holder (under fair use). DJB is also of that same opinion.
In any case, you can release the patches applied, you just can't release the patches applied along with the software itself. As mentioned in the link above, see "Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992). and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989)."
Qmail is not "free software" only because you do not have permission to create and distribute a patched programs. (Also I believe you are not permitted to distribute unmodified copies electronically, though distributing them as CDs that you have burned directly from your download would be legal under first sale). As for being able to change the license at any time, this is only true for new downloads, once you have obtained a copy legally, your fair use and first sale rights apply.
The main reason I prefer "free software", as defined by RMS, is because I want the ability to create patches and be assured that the patched program is always available to third parties. This would require me to either download and burn a few million CDs with the current version, or rely on DJB to always offer the original free for download to those third parties.
I wonder if he's had the opportunity to tackle Dan J. Bernstein [cr.yp.to] yet. Although his terms seem to meet the Free Software criteria for me, I hear all the time that Qmail isn't free software.
According to RMS, free software must have "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." DJB doesn't give that freedom, and that is why Qmail isn't considered "free software".
Personally, I still use tinydns, despite the fact that it is not free software, but I wish there was a comparible alternative to bind which was free software.
It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX, and yet in Stallman's view, this would be an example of GNOME falling short of its goals
I agree with Stallman on that point.
Is it possible to reach such users with free software ideals, and is it necessary to divorce free software from proprietary in order to accomplish that goal?"
Stallman knows that divorcing free software from proprietary is not always the right choice. This is why he created the LGPL.
I think it is mandatory that free software not be divorced from proprietary in order to accomplish RMS's goals. But I'm not talking about OS X, I'm talking about Windows. OS X has very little market share, and can safely be ignored, but Gnome must work on Windows and work well, if a GNU system is to have any chance of replacing Windows. Perhaps if the Windows port is GPLed (Gnome is LGPLed) that would encourage free software even more.
After thinking about it, maybe that is the solution with Mac OS X. Release the OS X port of Gnome under the GPL. Then the displacement of users from GNU systems to OSX will almost surely be outshadowed by the displacement of proprietary software (which possibly runs only on OSX) to GPLed software (which can possibly be easily ported to GNU systems).
Just how many companies are there called Acme? Several...and they're all in different types of businesses. I don't know how the laws work in Germany, but in the U.S., trademark dilution applies to disputes within the same industry.
I don't know Germany either, but:
If you recall the whole Diablo game dispute, Blizzard had to register the trademark for not only the game but for the movie as well.
You're talking about a different trademark law. Perhaps the mark used by Blizzard was not "famous", or perhaps the lawyers just screwed them over by giving them bad advice to make more money. Under the FTDA of 1995, you don't even have to register your trademark at all.
The domain name system is broken. The only way things like this are going to stop is to stop using the domain name system for websites. That's not what it was meant to be used for anyway.
The .us allowing SLD names is just going to make matters worse. The way it stands, people generally use .us names to point to machines, not web sites, and even when they do use them for web sites, it's a fairly non-ambiguous name (serv1.shell.nyc.ny.us). The internet may be free, but big business has taken over the domain name system. If you don't want to play by their rules, get a nice third level domain for free from one of the many places offering them, such as dhs.org, and say the extra 4 characters next time you tell someone your website. Or perhaps even better (until we fix browsers to properly use DNS records), use a web forwarding service. dhs.org has one of those too.