Patent Trolls generally prefer to attack those with more money. If Red Hat becomes wealthier, then they will be a more likely target. I see this as primarily aimed at MS.
Realistically, their's no way to armor yourself against patent trolls except to have a history of proving patents invalid. Or to get the patent laws reformed into something more nearly approaching sane or decent.
It's very sensible to not trust a company. Management changes over time, and with new management can come a drastically different set of policies. But the GPL makes the threat of Red Hat patents in code that they release under the GPL pretty minimal.
Now if you use that patent in code that isn't derived from their released code, then you are vulnerable. And if your code is derived from their code, then it must be under the GPL. This makes it fairly safe for FOSS use, and dangerous to others. (Except for non-GPL code, which must merely rely on Red Hat's promise to not sue. This is only probably not subject to change with new management.)
I believe that this happens automatically when you publish code under the GPL. It certainly does under the GPL v3, but I believe that it also does under GPL v2.
And, fortuitously, Red Hat releases all their code under a GPL license.
No. But what one could do is to get a patent issued and then "Dedicate it to the public". This would have the effect you are after. That they didn't do this indicates that it wouldn't have the effect they were after.
To be a defensive patent requires the capability to use it offensively when attacked. One can't do that with a patent that's been dedicated to the public.
(Caution: IANAL. Therefore my opinions on legal matters are NOT to be relied upon.)
Sort of. Red Hat has promised not to sue them, and they've got to either trust that promise, or not use the patent.
The benefit of the GPL is that if the owner of a patent issues the software under a GPL license, esp. GPL v3, but I believe even GPL v2, then a license to use any included patents is granted to all users of that software and any derived software. There's no way that this can be made to apply to BSD licensed code. So they just have to trust Red Hat's promise. Perhaps it would be legally binding even after a management change. (IANAL, so I can't really even guess.)
Is the code released under GPL v3? Then it's definitely defensive.
Is the code released under GPL v2? Then it's almost certainly defensive.
If the patent holder releases the code under either of the above GPL licenses, then it is either explicitly or implicitly giving permission to all who receive it to use and redistribute for use. And even the implicit is on the edge of explicit.
The main difference with the GPL v3 is that anyone who distributes or contributes to the distribution of the code is also waiving all patent claims for any patents used in the code both for that code and for all descendant code.
Coal may be finite, but there's probably enough to last for longer than any of us really expect to be around.
OTOH, "Clean Coal" is not something that's ever been demonstrated. There's no proof that pumping CO2 underground will cause it to remain there for any long period of time. Etc. (It's true that a lot of the places that they are planning on pumping it to once held various gases [including CO2] for very long periods of time, but that was before we drilled holes into it. When you take a lot of stuff out of an area that's under a lot of pressure, it shouldn't be surprising if cracks develop.)
I've got a Mac that has both PhotoShop and The Gimp on it. I've used The Gimp frequently. I've used PhotoShop exactly once.
Well, I was prejudiced against PhotoShop before it was ever installed. And I already knew how to use The Gimp. And anyway this is only one sample. But I've used it to create several short animations.
P.S.: I'm not really skilled in using The Gimp. I've only retouched a photo a couple of times. And when I use it I really miss vector drawing capabilities. My graphics program of preference on the Mac is Deneba Canvas and the original reason for this preference was the facility for combining vector graphics with bit-maps. But I definitely prefer The Gimp to PhotoShop.
That's probably not the correct answer in this case, but it sometimes is.
In this case I think that it's just that Google worked for decades to build an image of itself as a company that did no evil. And therefore anyone who attacks it must be defending evil? Perhaps.
I'm not sure the general case has a single answer. It could be a syndrome rather than a single disease. (I.e., a collection of symptoms that may have one explanation in one case, and another in another.)
Actually, the people they're REALLY targeted at also like the ads. It's just the abusive noise from the "not on target" ads that's so annoying that most people ending up wanting to block all of them...or ignore all of them.
It sounds like Google is trying to reduce the number of misses. This would be all well and good if we could be sure that this is ALL they would do with this personally identifying information. But we can't. So we're considering ways to reduce their eagerness to collect it. The suggested approach is to include so much noise in the data that they collect that it becomes essentially worthless. This definitely has it's points. Blocking their ads doesn't accomplish this same goal, because they still collect the individual profiles.
I thought it was like preaching to the converted. Why bother? They're not the ones who need to be convinced.
Yes, MS is evil. Yes, I won't work on MS systems (well, not past MSWind98) due to issues with the EULA. This isn't news, and most of Slashdot agrees, so why post about it? (Well, actually, most people on Slashdot have different major issues, but most of use have severe ones.)
It's impossible to enforce most laws as written. They require interpretation. The official intent is that police should enforce, but not interpret, the law. This, however, is totally impossible.
It has also been asserted, though I haven't seen it formally proven, that there are many situations where there is no possible choice of action that doesn't break some law or other. At one point it was illegal to use the social security number for any purpose other than social security business. And it was also a requirement that one include ones social security number on one's income tax form. That's no longer the case (they lifted the requirement that the social security number only be used for SS business), but it's a good example of what I'm talking about.
Norton hasn't as grossly abused the rights of the public as some. It still looks like they are deceitfully hiding the flaws in the good that they sell so that they can continue to collect money by selling them. To me that looks like fraud.
Yeah, and they don't want you revealing any criminal actions of theirs on their site and to their customers.
What? You say it's not a criminal action? Prove it! If it isn't, why are they hiding?
(Yeah, I'm being unfair. I've despised Norton for multiple years...into decades now.)
OTOH, if some company puts up a PUBLIC bulletin board for discussing their product, then it shouldn't be used to hide their deficiencies. If it is, then it sounds like fraud to me. And that is criminal (even if it doesn't tend to get prosecuted when committed by large corporations).
Your explanation doesn't get Verizon off the hook, it merely dilutes the blame. And it doesn't dilute it enough. I believe they would need to hold less than 20% of the stock (I forget how much less) to not be considered culpable were this a suit.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got one point. He wasn't especially given to censorship.
OTOH, I won't be "over it" until after he's been convicted of his crimes and is in jail serving several consecutive life sentences.
I'm not sure the word "fascism" applies if the government owns the corporations. I don't know what word, beyond totalitarian, does apply, however.
Fairly?
If you say so, then I guess I can accept that you believe it. Doesn't mean *I* do.
Patent Trolls generally prefer to attack those with more money. If Red Hat becomes wealthier, then they will be a more likely target. I see this as primarily aimed at MS.
Realistically, their's no way to armor yourself against patent trolls except to have a history of proving patents invalid. Or to get the patent laws reformed into something more nearly approaching sane or decent.
It's very sensible to not trust a company. Management changes over time, and with new management can come a drastically different set of policies. But the GPL makes the threat of Red Hat patents in code that they release under the GPL pretty minimal.
Now if you use that patent in code that isn't derived from their released code, then you are vulnerable. And if your code is derived from their code, then it must be under the GPL. This makes it fairly safe for FOSS use, and dangerous to others. (Except for non-GPL code, which must merely rely on Red Hat's promise to not sue. This is only probably not subject to change with new management.)
I believe that this happens automatically when you publish code under the GPL. It certainly does under the GPL v3, but I believe that it also does under GPL v2.
And, fortuitously, Red Hat releases all their code under a GPL license.
No. But what one could do is to get a patent issued and then "Dedicate it to the public". This would have the effect you are after. That they didn't do this indicates that it wouldn't have the effect they were after.
To be a defensive patent requires the capability to use it offensively when attacked. One can't do that with a patent that's been dedicated to the public.
(Caution: IANAL. Therefore my opinions on legal matters are NOT to be relied upon.)
Sort of. Red Hat has promised not to sue them, and they've got to either trust that promise, or not use the patent.
The benefit of the GPL is that if the owner of a patent issues the software under a GPL license, esp. GPL v3, but I believe even GPL v2, then a license to use any included patents is granted to all users of that software and any derived software. There's no way that this can be made to apply to BSD licensed code. So they just have to trust Red Hat's promise. Perhaps it would be legally binding even after a management change.
(IANAL, so I can't really even guess.)
Do you have any IDEA as to just how many totally obvious things have been published on SourceForge?
The problem is finding them. There's no obvious way to index for a description of something that someone hasn't written yet.
Is the code released under GPL v3? Then it's definitely defensive.
Is the code released under GPL v2? Then it's almost certainly defensive.
If the patent holder releases the code under either of the above GPL licenses, then it is either explicitly or implicitly giving permission to all who receive it to use and redistribute for use. And even the implicit is on the edge of explicit.
The main difference with the GPL v3 is that anyone who distributes or contributes to the distribution of the code is also waiving all patent claims for any patents used in the code both for that code and for all descendant code.
OTOH IANAL. But that's my understanding.
Coal may be finite, but there's probably enough to last for longer than any of us really expect to be around.
OTOH, "Clean Coal" is not something that's ever been demonstrated. There's no proof that pumping CO2 underground will cause it to remain there for any long period of time. Etc. (It's true that a lot of the places that they are planning on pumping it to once held various gases [including CO2] for very long periods of time, but that was before we drilled holes into it. When you take a lot of stuff out of an area that's under a lot of pressure, it shouldn't be surprising if cracks develop.)
I've got a Mac that has both PhotoShop and The Gimp on it. I've used The Gimp frequently. I've used PhotoShop exactly once.
Well, I was prejudiced against PhotoShop before it was ever installed. And I already knew how to use The Gimp. And anyway this is only one sample. But I've used it to create several short animations.
P.S.: I'm not really skilled in using The Gimp. I've only retouched a photo a couple of times. And when I use it I really miss vector drawing capabilities. My graphics program of preference on the Mac is Deneba Canvas and the original reason for this preference was the facility for combining vector graphics with bit-maps. But I definitely prefer The Gimp to PhotoShop.
I don't mind seeing the ads. I just don't want them to track me.
(I avoid the ads I don't want to see by not having flash installed, and by setting animations to loop exactly once.)
Astroturfer?
That's probably not the correct answer in this case, but it sometimes is.
In this case I think that it's just that Google worked for decades to build an image of itself as a company that did no evil. And therefore anyone who attacks it must be defending evil? Perhaps.
I'm not sure the general case has a single answer. It could be a syndrome rather than a single disease. (I.e., a collection of symptoms that may have one explanation in one case, and another in another.)
Actually, the people they're REALLY targeted at also like the ads. It's just the abusive noise from the "not on target" ads that's so annoying that most people ending up wanting to block all of them...or ignore all of them.
It sounds like Google is trying to reduce the number of misses. This would be all well and good if we could be sure that this is ALL they would do with this personally identifying information. But we can't. So we're considering ways to reduce their eagerness to collect it. The suggested approach is to include so much noise in the data that they collect that it becomes essentially worthless. This definitely has it's points. Blocking their ads doesn't accomplish this same goal, because they still collect the individual profiles.
OK. But it also means that I won't be buying ANY of their e-books, as I won't be buying a Kindle.
Of course, negatives are difficult to measure, so they probably ignore all people with my reaction.
I thought it was like preaching to the converted. Why bother? They're not the ones who need to be convinced.
Yes, MS is evil. Yes, I won't work on MS systems (well, not past MSWind98) due to issues with the EULA. This isn't news, and most of Slashdot agrees, so why post about it? (Well, actually, most people on Slashdot have different major issues, but most of use have severe ones.)
On behalf of Office Depot, I would like to ask you to retract that statement.
He's right, but he's also wrong.
It's impossible to enforce most laws as written. They require interpretation. The official intent is that police should enforce, but not interpret, the law. This, however, is totally impossible.
It has also been asserted, though I haven't seen it formally proven, that there are many situations where there is no possible choice of action that doesn't break some law or other. At one point it was illegal to use the social security number for any purpose other than social security business. And it was also a requirement that one include ones social security number on one's income tax form. That's no longer the case (they lifted the requirement that the social security number only be used for SS business), but it's a good example of what I'm talking about.
Somehow the people in charge never see things that way.
But they're quite willing to tell you that YOU are in charge, so it's your fault these dreadful things are happening.
see also SLAPP.
Norton hasn't as grossly abused the rights of the public as some. It still looks like they are deceitfully hiding the flaws in the good that they sell so that they can continue to collect money by selling them. To me that looks like fraud.
Yeah, and they don't want you revealing any criminal actions of theirs on their site and to their customers.
What? You say it's not a criminal action? Prove it! If it isn't, why are they hiding?
(Yeah, I'm being unfair. I've despised Norton for multiple years...into decades now.)
OTOH, if some company puts up a PUBLIC bulletin board for discussing their product, then it shouldn't be used to hide their deficiencies. If it is, then it sounds like fraud to me. And that is criminal (even if it doesn't tend to get prosecuted when committed by large corporations).
Are you limited to yes/no answers?
Why are people presuming that the program will be limited to yes/no answers?
Q: Will you answer no to this question?
A: It's rather unlikely.
(Or, "I doubt it" or any of several different answers.)
There are enough legitimate paradoxes that you don't need to construct such obvious losers.
How about:
Is "This statement is false." false?
It's still easy enough to handle (in several different ways), but at least it's a valid challenge.
Ah! So it's only HALF about Verizon.
Your explanation doesn't get Verizon off the hook, it merely dilutes the blame. And it doesn't dilute it enough. I believe they would need to hold less than 20% of the stock (I forget how much less) to not be considered culpable were this a suit.
The
technical
barrier for entry into communications is low enough that an alternative can always emerge.
Don't forget P2P. Power to the people.
The legal barriers are somewhat different.