It may be a sign things are wrong, or it may be a sign of different educational philosophies. Goethe, Descartes and Einstein all were educated, after all, with no computers at all.
They each knew the tools relevant for their society, which were three quite different set of tools. Todays kids needs to master a fourth set of tools.
There are commonalities in their education, they probably all knew who Homer was, and the basic structure of the Iliad. But Descartes knowledge of Calculus would be quite insufficient for Einstein to do his work (modern Calculus was formulated after Descartes (and partly building upon his work)).
From my own brief experience 20 years ago, it was far easier to teach programming to those who could not already program, than to those who thought they could program.
They seem to have their roots in The Economist, which has always been skeptical about Microsoft and other monopolies. They are Liberal in the European sense of the word.
> Nobody at CC even looks at the photo before it writes the license. For me, that's > malpractice, pure and simple... the argument that CC should be held to that standard of > care is compelling.
Wow, so anyone writing a standard license is committing malpractice, because a standard license cannot make individual concerns? Eban Moglen beware!
You lawyers must be desperate for work (and every bit as despicable as commonly depicted).
The CC does mention that model release is required in their FAQ, this was mentioned in the ninth message in the Flickr thread that probably inspired the family to sue. It was the same message that mentioned someone getting paid 15 million US$ in a similar case. That is enough to make most people lose their head.
If multiple people have independently made the same invention, none of them should be awarded a patent on it. A time limited monopoly on an invention is a good idea if, and only if, the alternative is that the invention otherwise would have been kept secret, or never made within the patent period.
If multiple people make the same independent invention within a short period, other people would likely be able to come up with it as well, and it is thus not the kind of invention where awarding a time limited monopoly will benefit the progress of science and art.
I installed Noscript on my new computer, and it seems to do everything FlashBlock did for me on my old computer. That is, replace any flash-animation with a button to start it.
> But we taser people too often, so we're worse. Seriously, fuck you.
Grand parent never claimed US was "worse" than USSR. That is pure invention on your part, because you lack the mental capabilities to read what he actually wrote. As long as you compensate for your long for your low intelligence by inventing stuff, you will never become smarter.
He claimed that in the US people are tasered for situations where more oppressive governments would not use a gun. You then counter by a Wikipedía quote, listing abuses done by USSR in situation where US police or guards would not use a taser. You don't use tasers to assassinate people, or to "subversion of foreign governments", once again demonstrating how access to Wikipedia is in no way a replacement for having a brain.
"I think it is great that you have made this software available under a free software license, but I believe you could get more and better contributions from the community if you improved this procedure."
> People probably have that idea because every $0.01 of every click in your unpaid Adsense account > was paid for, up front, by the advertisers, with real money.
That must be incredible expensive in transaction fees.
If I were to design the system, I'd require the advertisers to pre-pay for a fixed number of clicks, so there would only be one external transaction. With such a design each click would simply move money from one Google account to another, neither of which would likely pay any interest.
I just released version 421 of a scientific simulation model The model is mostly of interest to our own students and research partners, but occasionally a unrelated ph.d. student might try it out. So we distribute it from our home page. If any single version is downloaded by five people, that is unusually popular.
Should each version of this program be "judged" in order for others to run it?
There are zillions of these kinds of highly specialized scientific programs, and other branches have their own ad-hoc program with narrow but high impact utility. Vertical markets.
It seems to me that thes4e white lists must come with user specified exceptions. Which basically means "allow this program to run" pop-ups. Which we already have in abundance in Vista, and thus are being conditioned to press "yes" for.
We don't have tenure here as such, and the publication requirements for the closest equivalents aren't that harsh (approximately five papers, no time limit).
However most of the university researchers are paid by external research grants, and the unofficial "first cut" for the main source (our NSF equivalent) is purely based on publications. A new Ph.D. should have five papers, after that, it is three papers per year. If the applicants fulfill these requirements, the review committee will look at the actual application.
Three papers per year is less mad than it sounds, as you don't have to be the primary author.
Two nice things about basing their branded office package on an free software project is that
1) when "office applications" no longer are part of IBM's business strategy, users won't be entirely screwed, as they can switch to the main branch; and
2) when IBM re-re-re-adjust their vision to regain an interest in office applications, they are likely to be able to base their new offer on an updated application, rather than on technology that have been dormant since last they left it.
The only drawback for the provider (which also happens to be the biggest benefit for the customer) is that it is much harder to bind the customer to the provider than if you base your offering on proprietary technology. However, this drawback is only really significant for the market leader, for everybody else the best bet is to work together with a free software project as neutral ground.
(That is not the BSD license, but something similar in spirit)
The license grants permission from the original copyright holder. A derived work will have multiple copyright holders. In order to distribute the derived work, you need permission from all the copyright holders.
If the other copyright holder gives you permission to distribute it under the conditions described in the GPL, you must fulfill *both* those conditions, and the original conditions from the BSDL. While the original BSDL is in the file, it only represents a permission from one owner, and thus don't give you the right to ignore the conditions on the permission from the other owners.
The conditions on the GPL are much harsher than the conditions on the BSDL, so for practical purposes, a work combined from both GPL and BSDL sources can be distributed under the GPL.
The only caveat is that you can't remove the BSDL *TEXT*, even though the permisions granted are otherwise no longer relevant. But one could argue that even GPL demands that, in its attribution clause.....
Of course, the actual case was dual licensed, which normally means that a work is covered by license A *or* B (at the users choice). What I described above was the normal case where multiple licenses apply, and the user must obey license A *and* B.
For a dual license, it it up to the meta-license text to tell whether the user may physically remove the individual license text in a derived work, or of he just have the right to ignore it.
B: Some kind of log file, apparently mentioning the songs listed in A.
The complaint made no attempt whatsoever to explain what exhibit B was, just that it was a listing of songs owned by RIAA clients.
For a default judgment, I suspect all they had needed to do would be to claim that exhibit B was a log from a file transfer server not belonging the the defendant, and that the IP number in the log file at the time was associated with the client. They probably wouldn't need to prove it, as it would be uncontested by the defendant. But they didn't even made the claim it.
One would have thought RIAA could afford better lawyers.
What traditionally has happened when proprietary UNIX'en redistribute modified BSD code is that they include the BSD copyright notice, and then add their own. The users then have to obey both the restrictions imposed by the original copyright, plus the restrictions imposed by the UNIX vendor
The "correct" way for the Linux hackers would be to do the same, include the original dual license text, but make a clear notice that the derived work can only be redistributed under the GPL.
Blaming the mistakes of Russia on the "anti-intellectualism" of your president is grossly overstating your own importance. Russia is quite capable of making its own mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
They each knew the tools relevant for their society, which were three quite different set of tools. Todays kids needs to master a fourth set of tools.
There are commonalities in their education, they probably all knew who Homer was, and the basic structure of the Iliad. But Descartes knowledge of Calculus would be quite insufficient for Einstein to do his work (modern Calculus was formulated after Descartes (and partly building upon his work)).
From my own brief experience 20 years ago, it was far easier to teach programming to those who could not already program, than to those who thought they could program.
They seem to have their roots in The Economist, which has always been skeptical about Microsoft and other monopolies. They are Liberal in the European sense of the word.
> Nobody at CC even looks at the photo before it writes the license. For me, that's
> malpractice, pure and simple... the argument that CC should be held to that standard of
> care is compelling.
Wow, so anyone writing a standard license is committing malpractice, because a standard license cannot make individual concerns? Eban Moglen beware!
You lawyers must be desperate for work (and every bit as despicable as commonly depicted).
The CC does mention that model release is required in their FAQ, this was mentioned in the ninth message in the Flickr thread that probably inspired the family to sue. It was the same message that mentioned someone getting paid 15 million US$ in a similar case. That is enough to make most people lose their head.
> And what, exactly, are you basing this on? I've never seen it done worth a damn.
Worked well for us nerds. We get so much more respect since we stopped telling others to call us "socially inept people with great technical skills."
> You're right, Mattel does need China more than China needs Mattel. Excellent detective work.
China will land a man on the moon before Mattel does.
If multiple people have independently made the same invention, none of them should be awarded a patent on it. A time limited monopoly on an invention is a good idea if, and only if, the alternative is that the invention otherwise would have been kept secret, or never made within the patent period.
If multiple people make the same independent invention within a short period, other people would likely be able to come up with it as well, and it is thus not the kind of invention where awarding a time limited monopoly will benefit the progress of science and art.
I installed Noscript on my new computer, and it seems to do everything FlashBlock did for me on my old computer. That is, replace any flash-animation with a button to start it.
That is, you are gettin paid approximately four dollar an hour for watching advertising.
Personally, I can find other jobs that both pay better and are more interesting than watching advertising.
Not really, it is just you who doesn't understand the issue.
> But we taser people too often, so we're worse. Seriously, fuck you.
Grand parent never claimed US was "worse" than USSR. That is pure invention on your part, because you lack the mental capabilities to read what he actually wrote. As long as you compensate for your long for your low intelligence by inventing stuff, you will never become smarter.
He claimed that in the US people are tasered for situations where more oppressive governments would not use a gun. You then counter by a Wikipedía quote, listing abuses done by USSR in situation where US police or guards would not use a taser. You don't use tasers to assassinate people, or to "subversion of foreign governments", once again demonstrating how access to Wikipedia is in no way a replacement for having a brain.
If you actually read the link you provided, you will see that Apple gets the same amount of money from AT&T whether or not the phone is unlocked.
And AT&T doesn't even suffer, they get they subscription fee whether or not the customers use any of their service.
iPhone unlocking only have winners.
For most free software, it is the case that those who contribute most work to the project, also influence its direction the most.
"I think it is great that you have made this software available under a free software license, but I believe you could get more and better contributions from the community if you improved this procedure."
> People probably have that idea because every $0.01 of every click in your unpaid Adsense account
> was paid for, up front, by the advertisers, with real money.
That must be incredible expensive in transaction fees.
If I were to design the system, I'd require the advertisers to pre-pay for a fixed number of clicks, so there would only be one external transaction. With such a design each click would simply move money from one Google account to another, neither of which would likely pay any interest.
I just released version 421 of a scientific simulation model The model is mostly of interest to our own students and research partners, but occasionally a unrelated ph.d. student might try it out. So we distribute it from our home page. If any single version is downloaded by five people, that is unusually popular.
Should each version of this program be "judged" in order for others to run it?
There are zillions of these kinds of highly specialized scientific programs, and other branches have their own ad-hoc program with narrow but high impact utility. Vertical markets.
It seems to me that thes4e white lists must come with user specified exceptions. Which basically means "allow this program to run" pop-ups. Which we already have in abundance in Vista, and thus are being conditioned to press "yes" for.
So nothing is really gained by white lists.
We don't have tenure here as such, and the publication requirements for the closest equivalents aren't that harsh (approximately five papers, no time limit).
However most of the university researchers are paid by external research grants, and the unofficial "first cut" for the main source (our NSF equivalent) is purely based on publications. A new Ph.D. should have five papers, after that, it is three papers per year. If the applicants fulfill these requirements, the review committee will look at the actual application.
Three papers per year is less mad than it sounds, as you don't have to be the primary author.
Two nice things about basing their branded office package on an free software project is that
1) when "office applications" no longer are part of IBM's business strategy, users won't be entirely screwed, as they can switch to the main branch; and
2) when IBM re-re-re-adjust their vision to regain an interest in office applications, they are likely to be able to base their new offer on an updated application, rather than on technology that have been dormant since last they left it.
The only drawback for the provider (which also happens to be the biggest benefit for the customer) is that it is much harder to bind the customer to the provider than if you base your offering on proprietary technology. However, this drawback is only really significant for the market leader, for everybody else the best bet is to work together with a free software project as neutral ground.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
(That is not the BSD license, but something similar in spirit)
....
The license grants permission from the original copyright holder. A derived work will have multiple copyright holders. In order to distribute the derived work, you need permission from all the copyright holders.
If the other copyright holder gives you permission to distribute it under the conditions described in the GPL, you must fulfill *both* those conditions, and the original conditions from the BSDL. While the original BSDL is in the file, it only represents a permission from one owner, and thus don't give you the right to ignore the conditions on the permission from the other owners.
The conditions on the GPL are much harsher than the conditions on the BSDL, so for practical purposes, a work combined from both GPL and BSDL sources can be distributed under the GPL.
The only caveat is that you can't remove the BSDL *TEXT*, even though the permisions granted are otherwise no longer relevant. But one could argue that even GPL demands that, in its attribution clause.
Of course, the actual case was dual licensed, which normally means that a work is covered by license A *or* B (at the users choice). What I described above was the normal case where multiple licenses apply, and the user must obey license A *and* B.
For a dual license, it it up to the meta-license text to tell whether the user may physically remove the individual license text in a derived work, or of he just have the right to ignore it.
> Currency "fluctuation", a.k.a. inflation
Currency fluctuation doesn't refer to inflation, but to the low exchange rate for dollar
> may raise this by $5 tops
The dollar has dropped 10% in value compared to second largest currency (the EURO) since the announcement of the OLPC.
The original complaint had two exhibits
A: A list of copyright holders and songs
B: Some kind of log file, apparently mentioning the songs listed in A.
The complaint made no attempt whatsoever to explain what exhibit B was, just that it was a listing of songs owned by RIAA clients.
For a default judgment, I suspect all they had needed to do would be to claim that exhibit B was a log from a file transfer server not belonging the the defendant, and that the IP number in the log file at the time was associated with the client. They probably wouldn't need to prove it, as it would be uncontested by the defendant. But they didn't even made the claim it.
One would have thought RIAA could afford better lawyers.
What traditionally has happened when proprietary UNIX'en redistribute modified BSD code is that they include the BSD copyright notice, and then add their own. The users then have to obey both the restrictions imposed by the original copyright, plus the restrictions imposed by the UNIX vendor
The "correct" way for the Linux hackers would be to do the same, include the original dual license text, but make a clear notice that the derived work can only be redistributed under the GPL.
Blaming the mistakes of Russia on the "anti-intellectualism" of your president is grossly overstating your own importance. Russia is quite capable of making its own mistakes.
nt