hehe, no, of real industrial robots manufacturing other industrial robots.
It was just a joke. There is the Honda robots, which are currently the most advanced fo the robots, afaik. There was a video of one walking down stairs and dancing a few years back. Was starting to get a little bit creepy, especially so when I realized that nobody was controlling it outside of just telling it what to do.
A better solution would be for them to build their own local economies, and for the US to do the same.
Xenophobic attitudes leave you behind in the world. You think America builds it's own economy? Bullshit. It never has, and never will. Neither has any other country.
They are welcome to improve their own economy all they want. I just don't want to ruin ours.
It isn't yours, it's the American economy that goes on without possession by anybody. Stop trying to believe that it is something it isn't.
The shoes I just took off are made in the US. Converse. My Lee Pipes jeanshorts: Made in the US. Shirt was in China though. What is your point?
The global economy already exists. Nothing is getting ruined, you are just short-sighted. You do understand that a lot of people have said the same thing before you? Especially about manufacturing clothes. America will be ruined! Our economy will be destroyed! You know what happens? America still grows.
It's because of this: You are not as important as you would like to think you are. If you can understand that, your life will be much more easy and stress free.
People die, yes. People commit suicide because they think their world is crashing in on them because someone has forced them to train their replacement?
Yes, and this is a good thing. Sorry bud, you lost your job, here's a pistol. That's a severence package.
What about victims of violent crime in cities that have gone to shit because big business decided to offshore and put a few thousand workers in the red?
Uhm, crime happens. And nobody is forcing anybody to stay in that city, nor to stay unemployed. Most people are weak, and will take the easy road and claim the victim. Forgive my lack of sympathy towards them.
When suddenly 2000 jobs go under in a town, and everyone has similar qualifications, the industry isn't just going to swoop them back up again. It becomes a problem. A problem you choose to ignore and accuse people of being weak over. Whiner. "Oh, they should just SWITCH CAREERS".
Yes, because moving is so difficult. It is so damned hard to move out of a town and into another one that needs workers. I know how hard moving is, I've done it almost a dozen times in the last 9 years.
My mother was homeless for a while, I worked on a ranch to buy computer equipment when I was a kid. The reason why we weren't homeless is because my insurance payment from my Dad's death. I taught myself how to program, and business and law. Now I'm successful. I have a right to tell people they are weak.
I'm curious...how did your first computer affect your life? (assuming you aren't 13 years old and your 1Ghz PC is still affecting you).
My first computer had a tape drive. I used to play some game that had source that came with a magazine, in BASIC. I loved that thing, and didn't know how to do anything with it. I was pretty young. I then got a 286 with a 20MB hard drive and started playing with BASIC myself, doing really horrible adventure games. I also had a TRS-80 to play with, but that was just for some horrible games.
Then came the 486, where I was introduced to C and started working with Borland C 3.1, with Assembly. Damn those were the days.
It changed my life completely, and irreversibly. Watching Wargames (1986, yeah baby) over and over again, and programming. I originally wasn't going to be a programmer, because I didn't have the funds to go all the way through a 4 year degree (or graduate school to get a really good job) so I was planning on doing other things and slowly going to school. After 1995 it seemed very possible to get a job with just a 4 year.
I dropped out of college in my last semester to go work for a biotech company (1998) and have been programming since. Still waiting for a degree, but if I get one it will probably be in law.
My argument is more people benefit. Just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they aren't entitled to compete with Americans. Yes, the quality of life is different that allows them to work less. Big deal.
And they shouldn't have left america. I'm thinking about this country, and you're spouting off about global economics.
Yes, because 6 billion people are more important than 300 million.
Nice theory, but not very good reality.
Reality already has happened, dozens of times in the history of the world. Where were your clothes made? Probably not in the US.
What happens to all the jobless tech workers?
They find another job, another career, or bitch and whine and waste their life.
As for your weakness comment, I hope next time someone is weak enough to off you while they are at it. That's a real shitty attitude. Troll.
I'm a troll because I say someone who kills themselves over a job is weak. Right. People die. It's what they do. Life is a incurable, always fatal, sexually transmitted disease. The weak always die, and modern society hasn't completely destroyed survival of the fittest. You don't even see this, yet you claim I'm the one with a distorted reality.
I honestly don't see AT ALL how this benefits america. A few people get rich, but eventually no one here except those super-rich are going to be able to AFFORD any services.
Want to know why you worry about losing your job? Because you don't see.
Think with your brain next time. This isn't as simple as minimizing it to competition. There are borders involved. There are different standards of living. Think of what this could do.
Efficient global economy. You are just reciting the same arguments spewed forth through the generations on why manufacturing and textiles should have never left America. The reason why VCRs would bankrupt the MPAA.
As for people "dying" over this, if someone is so weak they need to commit suicide, than the world is better off without them.
Keep hoping. The difference between me and the whining assholes is that I have backup career options. If programming can't pay the bills, I'll become a lawyer. If that doesn't work, I'll become a car broker. See how easy that works? I innovate and adapt.
If you can't do it, I don't have sympathy. Nobody owes you a paycheck but yourself. If you can't get one, it's your problem and no one elses.
Don't forget that as the Indian standard of living starts to rise and workers get more expensive, the next cheap labor market appears to be Eastern Europe.
I would say eastern Asia, but that's just me. When India becomes to expensive, India will have purchasing power that will matter in the global economy. They will then outsource their work to other countries.
This is the way that economies work. Remember merchandizing and clothing? More jobs were lost there than the tech sector will ever lose. I don't seem to remember any massive fall-out and economy busting occurances.
As a person working much below his skill level/education in America, I say I DON'T CARE ABOUT INDIA, I come first. I really don't care Apu and his 12 children can make a buck, since I doesn't do me no good if I'm living in a cardboard box.
Your lack of innovation doesn't mean that companies are required to help you in your laziness. If you truly believe you came first, you would take care of yourself instead of relying on others to do it.
Indians have obviously worked hard to get these types of deals worked out. Americans have become complacent. It happens in all industries until the next innovative push of technology.
My only question is, if you have questions with the code, aren't you going to need a translator for the comments?
English is the international language for software development. Most companies that have overseas work, or open operations will have business-level English speakers at hand for this stuff. We have 3 Indians here, all of whom speak excellent English (although one has an accent exactly like Apu) just for that reason.
But good for IBM. I mean this, but I know it won't be popular. By IBM cutting developer jobs, they will be able to stay competitive in more markets and increase the GDP of the nations they are moving operations to. That means increased buying power for that nation, and in turn, everybody benefits from selling to that nation.
It also means that while developer positions are harder to come by, more jobs in other sectors will be created to satisfy the increased revenue IBM has available.
So, before you flame IBM try to see how this isn't a greed manuever but something that can benefit more people outside of the software development industry.
I mentioned Eben Moglen, not RMS. I don't know why you are railing against RMS here. But since you're now trying to change the subject and talk about RMS winning that award, I'll offer that he was right. Linus Torvalds contributed a piece of the puzzle--a good piece, a needed piece, but not the framework by which the rest of the pieces had been collected for years before Torvalds arrived on the scene.
No, you questioned my dislike/distrust for the FSF based on a comment I made about them. I'm not changing the topic, I responded to something you said. Hoping that the added points of clarity would help you understand my point. I don't really care if you think I'm trying to change the subject, when I'm responding to you. That's your problem.
GNU/FSF is over-rated, and is so widely recognized because of their license and not what they have accomplished. GCC is their best work, and even that is optional now. Linus has done more for Linux (and GNU) than any single member of FSF. Care to prove me wrong? Then find a total of code/documentation, submissions, and activity based on each person and see how it ads up.
The FSF was never a part of the Open Source movement, they began the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement came along.
Yes, and because of their views the Open Source movement was necessary. They are too extreme, especially RMS. They have their own views of law, life, and liberty. These do not coincide with a lot of what other people think and believe in. Hence, why Open Source has more of a foothold than the FSF does.
If either organization (FSF or OSI) is bitter about the other's success, it is probably OSI being bitter about the FSF's success.
What FSF success? FSF hasn't succeeded at anything. They've produced a few utilities and a compiler. That is hardly a success when compared to what is under the OSI umbrella.
After all, the GNU General Public License is the most widely-used license in both movements.
Widely-used by deployment or software packages? Either way, the GPL is a license that would have existed under a different name had it never been authored by the FSF. If the biggest success the FSF can claim is a license, than they are extremely lacking in what they have accomplished.
The FSF is grateful that the Open Source movement has brought so many people to using the GNU GPL and other Free Software licenses, but the FSF warns against licenses that don't defend all of the community's interests. Meanwhile some notable members in the Open Source movement offer vicious words (and I'm not the first person to notice this).
The more vocal proponents in the FSF attack the people who help them the most. They should have been praising Linus' contribution towards Open Source, instead of berating his success by bitter jealousy over him accomplishing what they couldn't (To provide an operating system that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents.)
The problem with the FSF is that they believe the most important aspect of what is "Free Software" is political and ideological. OSI understands that it's technical at the core, and political/ideological on the outside.
Because of that, the FSF will always have zealots and opponents. I personally will not follow anybody like RMS. You are free to do as you wish, but don't expect to change my mind.
On a side note, my off-handed mention of the FSF and my distaste for their philosophies has taken up your entire comment, completely changing the subject of the original discussion. It just goes into, "Software licenses can be handled under contract or copyright law." I'm not sure why it went into such a deep thread... ah well, I'll spit my venom about the FSF more if you wish.
I'm from Portland. It's true. We have a ceremony every day at 3:36PM. It gets a bit crowded, but they also provide free dinners for us all. Afterwards, if you are over 21, they buy you a beer.
All the companies know this, and revere this sacred time and let all of us get off work for it. Don't worry, it's all paid time off. Sometimes they even will allow us to use the company limo to travel down there, complete with caviar.
Specifically, I'm not saying that you're wrong, because there's nothing in findlaw either way, but I am saying that it would take a brave person to pay their mortage on the basis of the GPL being a non-revokable binding contract.
I definitely agree with you. You are entitled to more damages and an easier trial with Copyright law anyway. Copyright law is covered under a nice, big ass federal statute.
We really could do with some case law precendent on this to clear up whether the GPL binds (contract) as well as empowers (license). I hope that SCO will finally provide us with one.
This is why I'm hoping that IBM brings it up against SCO in SCO vs. IBM. Not the other way around. By having a judge interpret what is actually meant, we will gain a lot of leverage in the legal usage of the GPL. If there is actually a case Somebody Vs. Someone than there could more damaging results.
I'm guessing YANAL. Under the circumstances, I'll stick with the advice of my company's IP lawyers, and continue to view the GPL as a revokable, non perpetual, non binding, non contractual implicit license.
Feel free to view it as you wish. Purely because you don't pay for something doesn't invalidate a license, or a contract. The arguments for payment can come from anyside. "I'm paying for this software with my time, using it and testing it while reporting bugs." Easy enough counter to that argument.
Even if Mr. Volokh says that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid, doesn't mean that they will nor does it mean that is how the court will see it.
Because the software in question has no sure way of satisfying all the requisites for contract law (Only copyright law) it is easier to use copyright law.
I don't see how this is at all relevant except that it suggests you are forming opinions out of some prejudice against the FSF. I don't remember asking what you thought of the FSF but I find it telling that you would begin a response this way.
The FSF is notorious for using terms and labels for their own advantage. Even if the underlying truth is the same, they try to use their own terminology. I also can't stand RMS. I think he's a pretentious egotistical jerk.
Well, neither of us speaks for the FSF so we can't say for certain why they don't call the GNU GPL a contract. But I'm guessing they're probably not calling it a contract because (as you noted) they don't need to in order to defend its terms and because most of the time no positive assent is given, no meeting of the minds happens. Most people simply make GNU GPL-covered software available for the taking at no charge. Therefore one of the criteria for being in a contractual relationship hasn't been met
See, but it is a contract (unilateral contract) assuming that the contractual offer (GPL) has been offered (the notices while downloading, as well as the typical COPYING or LICENSE file in the package) and obviously considered and accepted due to the installation. This is still getting into shrink-wrap licensing, of sorts, which is very muttled.
I'm saying that two lawyers (one of whom--Eben Moglen--is far more familiar with relevant case law, copyright law, and the GNU GPL than either of us is likely to ever be) appear to be saying that leveraging contract law is not an option for most GPL licensors because there has been no contractual relationship established with the licensee.
He is saying it is difficult (If you read the foot-note, about the 5 prerequisites for contracts) for it to be excercised in that capacity. That is due to the way that most GPL'd software is released, however. If you install some packages it has a typical EULA with an Accept or Decline option, even if it is still the GPL that is being displayed. This would satisfy most of the requirements for it fall under contract law.
It appears to have to do with leveraging the only case that is available (copyright infringement) and avoiding the case that is out of reach (breach of contract).
Unless the software specifically prompts them, and have such proof, than it would be tremendously easier for someone to pursue copyright infringement.
But I won't be surprised to learn that he has better ways to spend his time than to talk to anyone who opens by declaring that they "very little respect for the FSF" then later saying that the FSF has "weird ideological goals" without saying what you understand their goals to be or how you think those goals are weird.
When Richard Stallman received the $25,000 IDG/Linus Torvalds award, he said, "This is like Luke Skywalker winning the Han Solo award." The Apache Group, EFF, and other parties have contributed more towards the "Open Source" movement than the FSF. I view the FSF as an outspoken critic of other peoples success bitter at a lack of their own.
The FSF, and Eben Moglen (chief counsel of the FSF), who wrote the GNU GPL and deal with GPL cases all the time disagree with you.
Good, I still have very little respect for the FSF. This is why:
Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits.
So, lets look what a contract is:
An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. The agreement can be formal, informal, written, oral or just plain understood. Some contracts are required to be in writing in order to be enforced. (2) An agreement between two or more parties which creates obligations to do or not do the specific things that are the subject of that agreement. Examples of a contract are a lease, a promissory note, or a rental agreement.
The only thing the FSF is saying is that they don't call it a contract because they don't want to. If I don't want to call my car a car, it doesn't mean it isn't.
There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.
You seem to miss what I am saying. I am saying that License enforcement can fall under copyright law, as well as contract law. Due to the nature of the GPL, it is easier to enforce copyright law than contract law. Shrink-wrap licensing (Which is still largely the closest example of using the GPL) is still very touchy. Copyright law, however, is very solid and sound and has a vast number of precedents to aid your case.
And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.
That is exactly why I put copyright in parenthesis after IP infringmenet. To specify which section I was speaking of. Because IP Infringment is a common legal term, I choose to use it. Because I think the FSF has weird ideological goals, I choose to not listen to them. They can disagree with me all they want, it's their right. Just like I have a right to disagree with them.
It doesn't change the fact that Licenses can fall under civil contract law. Another thing to note is that contract law varies between districts, unlike copyright law. Which is another advantage to pursue damages under copyright law. As for the other lawyers (the Austrialian site) paper, he is correct. However, unilateral contracts have precedence in US courts. Unilateral contracts can typically cover software licenses, as long as the license is conspicious and presented to the user for consideration with the option to accept or decline (Even if it is implied, by usage), and implied consent to abide by the terms of the license/contract.
I really have to thank you for your response though. You are the first person offering another view that actually has backed it up with some links and references. BTW, Law is just my hobby, I love programming to much to become a lawyer.
Linus for one could sue SCO for violating his copyright, slander, defamation of character, and defamation of trademark. I'm sure that if Linus wanted to sue he would have no problem getting donations to his legal defense fund or getting certain attorneys to work pro-bono.
Those with the means to sue, likely wouldn't. I suppose I should have said that differently. It's just not worth it. SCO is a dying company, with little actual assets to be aquired in a lawsuit. That and if it looked like they were losing the lawsuit, bankruptcy is an easy out. That and they would almost instantly be hit with a counter-suit, which takes more resources. It could turn into a very nasty legal battle for a private individual to handle.
Cash sales generally happen in person. The main abuse I see with this system is black market money being moved around without a trail, but this isn't a whole lot different than Western Union.
Serial numbers, OCR, easy to track. Along with cameras mounted in the ATM you lose more privacy by using this system than the US Postal service.
correct. and once some dumb criminal discovers he can use it to buy a gun (insert 1,000 $, get the card with amount on it, give to gun seller then go bang-bang) and then uses that gun to say... kill a high political figure (no insinuations there!!!) or popular person etc. BAM! instant ban or regulation.
Yes, and since you have the anonymous purchase card you don't have to register the gun or go through the other processes. "Here's my anonymous cash card!" "Right, here's your pistol and ammo." You do know that you have to register to buy a gun, right? You also know you can buy a gun with cash, right?
Anybody who accepts these cards will accept cash, and you have no benefit over them. For some reason I doubt that most private gun sellers will offer support for these cards.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe, no, of real industrial robots manufacturing other industrial robots.
It was just a joke. There is the Honda robots, which are currently the most advanced fo the robots, afaik. There was a video of one walking down stairs and dancing a few years back. Was starting to get a little bit creepy, especially so when I realized that nobody was controlling it outside of just telling it what to do.
Ive seen spooky video of Industrial-Robot manufacturing facilities in Japan with THOUSANDS of robots assembling their own.
Repeat after me: anime isn't real..
Thank you.
A better solution would be for them to build their own local economies, and for the US to do the same.
Xenophobic attitudes leave you behind in the world. You think America builds it's own economy? Bullshit. It never has, and never will. Neither has any other country.
They are welcome to improve their own economy all they want. I just don't want to ruin ours.
It isn't yours, it's the American economy that goes on without possession by anybody. Stop trying to believe that it is something it isn't.
The shoes I just took off are made in the US. Converse. My Lee Pipes jeanshorts: Made in the US. Shirt was in China though. What is your point?
The global economy already exists. Nothing is getting ruined, you are just short-sighted. You do understand that a lot of people have said the same thing before you? Especially about manufacturing clothes. America will be ruined! Our economy will be destroyed! You know what happens? America still grows.
It's because of this: You are not as important as you would like to think you are. If you can understand that, your life will be much more easy and stress free.
People die, yes. People commit suicide because they think their world is crashing in on them because someone has forced them to train their replacement?
Yes, and this is a good thing. Sorry bud, you lost your job, here's a pistol. That's a severence package.
What about victims of violent crime in cities that have gone to shit because big business decided to offshore and put a few thousand workers in the red?
Uhm, crime happens. And nobody is forcing anybody to stay in that city, nor to stay unemployed. Most people are weak, and will take the easy road and claim the victim. Forgive my lack of sympathy towards them.
When suddenly 2000 jobs go under in a town, and everyone has similar qualifications, the industry isn't just going to swoop them back up again. It becomes a problem. A problem you choose to ignore and accuse people of being weak over. Whiner. "Oh, they should just SWITCH CAREERS".
Yes, because moving is so difficult. It is so damned hard to move out of a town and into another one that needs workers. I know how hard moving is, I've done it almost a dozen times in the last 9 years.
My mother was homeless for a while, I worked on a ranch to buy computer equipment when I was a kid. The reason why we weren't homeless is because my insurance payment from my Dad's death. I taught myself how to program, and business and law. Now I'm successful. I have a right to tell people they are weak.
I'm curious...how did your first computer affect your life? (assuming you aren't 13 years old and your 1Ghz PC is still affecting you).
My first computer had a tape drive. I used to play some game that had source that came with a magazine, in BASIC. I loved that thing, and didn't know how to do anything with it. I was pretty young. I then got a 286 with a 20MB hard drive and started playing with BASIC myself, doing really horrible adventure games. I also had a TRS-80 to play with, but that was just for some horrible games.
Then came the 486, where I was introduced to C and started working with Borland C 3.1, with Assembly. Damn those were the days.
It changed my life completely, and irreversibly. Watching Wargames (1986, yeah baby) over and over again, and programming. I originally wasn't going to be a programmer, because I didn't have the funds to go all the way through a 4 year degree (or graduate school to get a really good job) so I was planning on doing other things and slowly going to school. After 1995 it seemed very possible to get a job with just a 4 year.
I dropped out of college in my last semester to go work for a biotech company (1998) and have been programming since. Still waiting for a degree, but if I get one it will probably be in law.
Hope that satisfies a bit of your curiosity.
My argument is more people benefit. Just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they aren't entitled to compete with Americans. Yes, the quality of life is different that allows them to work less. Big deal.
And they shouldn't have left america. I'm thinking about this country, and you're spouting off about global economics.
Yes, because 6 billion people are more important than 300 million.
Nice theory, but not very good reality.
Reality already has happened, dozens of times in the history of the world. Where were your clothes made? Probably not in the US.
What happens to all the jobless tech workers?
They find another job, another career, or bitch and whine and waste their life.
As for your weakness comment, I hope next time someone is weak enough to off you while they are at it. That's a real shitty attitude. Troll.
I'm a troll because I say someone who kills themselves over a job is weak. Right. People die. It's what they do. Life is a incurable, always fatal, sexually transmitted disease. The weak always die, and modern society hasn't completely destroyed survival of the fittest. You don't even see this, yet you claim I'm the one with a distorted reality.
I honestly don't see AT ALL how this benefits america. A few people get rich, but eventually no one here except those super-rich are going to be able to AFFORD any services.
Want to know why you worry about losing your job? Because you don't see.
Think with your brain next time. This isn't as simple as minimizing it to competition. There are borders involved. There are different standards of living. Think of what this could do.
Efficient global economy. You are just reciting the same arguments spewed forth through the generations on why manufacturing and textiles should have never left America. The reason why VCRs would bankrupt the MPAA.
As for people "dying" over this, if someone is so weak they need to commit suicide, than the world is better off without them.
Yeah - I hate it when the Mariners are playing the Portland Beavers and they don't broadcast the game.
That was pretty funny.
But, we do have the Winter Hawks. That's pretty close to Pro.
Part of me hopes that this happens to you.
Keep hoping. The difference between me and the whining assholes is that I have backup career options. If programming can't pay the bills, I'll become a lawyer. If that doesn't work, I'll become a car broker. See how easy that works? I innovate and adapt.
If you can't do it, I don't have sympathy. Nobody owes you a paycheck but yourself. If you can't get one, it's your problem and no one elses.
Don't forget that as the Indian standard of living starts to rise and workers get more expensive, the next cheap labor market appears to be Eastern Europe.
I would say eastern Asia, but that's just me. When India becomes to expensive, India will have purchasing power that will matter in the global economy. They will then outsource their work to other countries.
This is the way that economies work. Remember merchandizing and clothing? More jobs were lost there than the tech sector will ever lose. I don't seem to remember any massive fall-out and economy busting occurances.
I do not think that the "bottom line" should be $$. The bottom line should be the people in the company.
It is the majority of the people in the company. Just not the jobs they are relocating. Kill one to save many.
As a person working much below his skill level/education in America, I say I DON'T CARE ABOUT INDIA, I come first. I really don't care Apu and his 12 children can make a buck, since I doesn't do me no good if I'm living in a cardboard box.
Your lack of innovation doesn't mean that companies are required to help you in your laziness. If you truly believe you came first, you would take care of yourself instead of relying on others to do it.
Indians have obviously worked hard to get these types of deals worked out. Americans have become complacent. It happens in all industries until the next innovative push of technology.
Exactly how much do you think IBM is going to be paying these guys?
The going rate, which will be between $5-$10USD an hour (for India.)
They are going to amke a couple of hundred a month.
You seem to have India confused with some other country.
In a nutshell, don't piss in my face then try to tell me it is raining.
It's all in how you define rain.
My only question is, if you have questions with the code, aren't you going to need a translator for the comments?
English is the international language for software development. Most companies that have overseas work, or open operations will have business-level English speakers at hand for this stuff. We have 3 Indians here, all of whom speak excellent English (although one has an accent exactly like Apu) just for that reason.
And what's a network function variable?
But good for IBM. I mean this, but I know it won't be popular. By IBM cutting developer jobs, they will be able to stay competitive in more markets and increase the GDP of the nations they are moving operations to. That means increased buying power for that nation, and in turn, everybody benefits from selling to that nation.
It also means that while developer positions are harder to come by, more jobs in other sectors will be created to satisfy the increased revenue IBM has available.
So, before you flame IBM try to see how this isn't a greed manuever but something that can benefit more people outside of the software development industry.
Hell, I want to see a commercial that shows starving Americans that were the result of the greedy corporations moving their jobs overseas.
Greed = Saving money to expand operations.
It happens in any industry. You just find a new industry or be better. Have you thought of car sales?
I mentioned Eben Moglen, not RMS. I don't know why you are railing against RMS here. But since you're now trying to change the subject and talk about RMS winning that award, I'll offer that he was right. Linus Torvalds contributed a piece of the puzzle--a good piece, a needed piece, but not the framework by which the rest of the pieces had been collected for years before Torvalds arrived on the scene.
No, you questioned my dislike/distrust for the FSF based on a comment I made about them. I'm not changing the topic, I responded to something you said. Hoping that the added points of clarity would help you understand my point. I don't really care if you think I'm trying to change the subject, when I'm responding to you. That's your problem.
GNU/FSF is over-rated, and is so widely recognized because of their license and not what they have accomplished. GCC is their best work, and even that is optional now. Linus has done more for Linux (and GNU) than any single member of FSF. Care to prove me wrong? Then find a total of code/documentation, submissions, and activity based on each person and see how it ads up.
The FSF was never a part of the Open Source movement, they began the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement came along.
Yes, and because of their views the Open Source movement was necessary. They are too extreme, especially RMS. They have their own views of law, life, and liberty. These do not coincide with a lot of what other people think and believe in. Hence, why Open Source has more of a foothold than the FSF does.
If either organization (FSF or OSI) is bitter about the other's success, it is probably OSI being bitter about the FSF's success.
What FSF success? FSF hasn't succeeded at anything. They've produced a few utilities and a compiler. That is hardly a success when compared to what is under the OSI umbrella.
After all, the GNU General Public License is the most widely-used license in both movements.
Widely-used by deployment or software packages? Either way, the GPL is a license that would have existed under a different name had it never been authored by the FSF. If the biggest success the FSF can claim is a license, than they are extremely lacking in what they have accomplished.
The FSF is grateful that the Open Source movement has brought so many people to using the GNU GPL and other Free Software licenses, but the FSF warns against licenses that don't defend all of the community's interests. Meanwhile some notable members in the Open Source movement offer vicious words (and I'm not the first person to notice this).
The more vocal proponents in the FSF attack the people who help them the most. They should have been praising Linus' contribution towards Open Source, instead of berating his success by bitter jealousy over him accomplishing what they couldn't (To provide an operating system that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents.)
The problem with the FSF is that they believe the most important aspect of what is "Free Software" is political and ideological. OSI understands that it's technical at the core, and political/ideological on the outside.
Because of that, the FSF will always have zealots and opponents. I personally will not follow anybody like RMS. You are free to do as you wish, but don't expect to change my mind.
On a side note, my off-handed mention of the FSF and my distaste for their philosophies has taken up your entire comment, completely changing the subject of the original discussion. It just goes into, "Software licenses can be handled under contract or copyright law." I'm not sure why it went into such a deep thread... ah well, I'll spit my venom about the FSF more if you wish.
I'm from Portland. It's true. We have a ceremony every day at 3:36PM. It gets a bit crowded, but they also provide free dinners for us all. Afterwards, if you are over 21, they buy you a beer.
All the companies know this, and revere this sacred time and let all of us get off work for it. Don't worry, it's all paid time off. Sometimes they even will allow us to use the company limo to travel down there, complete with caviar.
Specifically, I'm not saying that you're wrong, because there's nothing in findlaw either way, but I am saying that it would take a brave person to pay their mortage on the basis of the GPL being a non-revokable binding contract.
I definitely agree with you. You are entitled to more damages and an easier trial with Copyright law anyway. Copyright law is covered under a nice, big ass federal statute.
We really could do with some case law precendent on this to clear up whether the GPL binds (contract) as well as empowers (license). I hope that SCO will finally provide us with one.
This is why I'm hoping that IBM brings it up against SCO in SCO vs. IBM. Not the other way around. By having a judge interpret what is actually meant, we will gain a lot of leverage in the legal usage of the GPL. If there is actually a case Somebody Vs. Someone than there could more damaging results.
I'm guessing YANAL. Under the circumstances, I'll stick with the advice of my company's IP lawyers, and continue to view the GPL as a revokable, non perpetual, non binding, non contractual implicit license.
Feel free to view it as you wish. Purely because you don't pay for something doesn't invalidate a license, or a contract. The arguments for payment can come from anyside. "I'm paying for this software with my time, using it and testing it while reporting bugs." Easy enough counter to that argument.
Even if Mr. Volokh says that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid, doesn't mean that they will nor does it mean that is how the court will see it.
Because the software in question has no sure way of satisfying all the requisites for contract law (Only copyright law) it is easier to use copyright law.
But no, I am not a lawyer. Just a hobby.
I don't see how this is at all relevant except that it suggests you are forming opinions out of some prejudice against the FSF. I don't remember asking what you thought of the FSF but I find it telling that you would begin a response this way.
The FSF is notorious for using terms and labels for their own advantage. Even if the underlying truth is the same, they try to use their own terminology. I also can't stand RMS. I think he's a pretentious egotistical jerk.
Well, neither of us speaks for the FSF so we can't say for certain why they don't call the GNU GPL a contract. But I'm guessing they're probably not calling it a contract because (as you noted) they don't need to in order to defend its terms and because most of the time no positive assent is given, no meeting of the minds happens. Most people simply make GNU GPL-covered software available for the taking at no charge. Therefore one of the criteria for being in a contractual relationship hasn't been met
See, but it is a contract (unilateral contract) assuming that the contractual offer (GPL) has been offered (the notices while downloading, as well as the typical COPYING or LICENSE file in the package) and obviously considered and accepted due to the installation. This is still getting into shrink-wrap licensing, of sorts, which is very muttled.
I'm saying that two lawyers (one of whom--Eben Moglen--is far more familiar with relevant case law, copyright law, and the GNU GPL than either of us is likely to ever be) appear to be saying that leveraging contract law is not an option for most GPL licensors because there has been no contractual relationship established with the licensee.
He is saying it is difficult (If you read the foot-note, about the 5 prerequisites for contracts) for it to be excercised in that capacity. That is due to the way that most GPL'd software is released, however. If you install some packages it has a typical EULA with an Accept or Decline option, even if it is still the GPL that is being displayed. This would satisfy most of the requirements for it fall under contract law.
It appears to have to do with leveraging the only case that is available (copyright infringement) and avoiding the case that is out of reach (breach of contract).
Unless the software specifically prompts them, and have such proof, than it would be tremendously easier for someone to pursue copyright infringement.
But I won't be surprised to learn that he has better ways to spend his time than to talk to anyone who opens by declaring that they "very little respect for the FSF" then later saying that the FSF has "weird ideological goals" without saying what you understand their goals to be or how you think those goals are weird.
When Richard Stallman received the $25,000 IDG/Linus Torvalds award, he said, "This is like Luke Skywalker winning the Han Solo award." The Apache Group, EFF, and other parties have contributed more towards the "Open Source" movement than the FSF. I view the FSF as an outspoken critic of other peoples success bitter at a lack of their own.
*IRREGARDLESS*
I'm supposed to take semantic lessons from someone who actually used "IRREGARDLESS".
Right, why don't you spend your next allowance check on a dictionary.
Good, I still have very little respect for the FSF. This is why:
So, lets look what a contract is:
The only thing the FSF is saying is that they don't call it a contract because they don't want to. If I don't want to call my car a car, it doesn't mean it isn't.
There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.
You seem to miss what I am saying. I am saying that License enforcement can fall under copyright law, as well as contract law. Due to the nature of the GPL, it is easier to enforce copyright law than contract law. Shrink-wrap licensing (Which is still largely the closest example of using the GPL) is still very touchy. Copyright law, however, is very solid and sound and has a vast number of precedents to aid your case.
And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.
That is exactly why I put copyright in parenthesis after IP infringmenet. To specify which section I was speaking of. Because IP Infringment is a common legal term, I choose to use it. Because I think the FSF has weird ideological goals, I choose to not listen to them. They can disagree with me all they want, it's their right. Just like I have a right to disagree with them.
It doesn't change the fact that Licenses can fall under civil contract law. Another thing to note is that contract law varies between districts, unlike copyright law. Which is another advantage to pursue damages under copyright law. As for the other lawyers (the Austrialian site) paper, he is correct. However, unilateral contracts have precedence in US courts. Unilateral contracts can typically cover software licenses, as long as the license is conspicious and presented to the user for consideration with the option to accept or decline (Even if it is implied, by usage), and implied consent to abide by the terms of the license/contract.
I really have to thank you for your response though. You are the first person offering another view that actually has backed it up with some links and references. BTW, Law is just my hobby, I love programming to much to become a lawyer.
Linus for one could sue SCO for violating his copyright, slander, defamation of character, and defamation of trademark. I'm sure that if Linus wanted to sue he would have no problem getting donations to his legal defense fund or getting certain attorneys to work pro-bono.
Those with the means to sue, likely wouldn't. I suppose I should have said that differently. It's just not worth it. SCO is a dying company, with little actual assets to be aquired in a lawsuit. That and if it looked like they were losing the lawsuit, bankruptcy is an easy out. That and they would almost instantly be hit with a counter-suit, which takes more resources. It could turn into a very nasty legal battle for a private individual to handle.
Have you ever actually bought a gun?
Cash sales generally happen in person. The main abuse I see with this system is black market money being moved around without a trail, but this isn't a whole lot different than Western Union.
Serial numbers, OCR, easy to track. Along with cameras mounted in the ATM you lose more privacy by using this system than the US Postal service.
correct. and once some dumb criminal discovers he can use it to buy a gun (insert 1,000 $, get the card with amount on it, give to gun seller then go bang-bang) and then uses that gun to say... kill a high political figure (no insinuations there!!!) or popular person etc. BAM! instant ban or regulation.
Yes, and since you have the anonymous purchase card you don't have to register the gun or go through the other processes. "Here's my anonymous cash card!" "Right, here's your pistol and ammo." You do know that you have to register to buy a gun, right? You also know you can buy a gun with cash, right?
Anybody who accepts these cards will accept cash, and you have no benefit over them. For some reason I doubt that most private gun sellers will offer support for these cards.