which is for carriers to improve their coverage, doesn't even occur to them, eh.
Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?
Huh? If you slap Telstra's name on your own product without their authorization, that'll get handled as "trademark infringement."
I have no idea how the trademark laws could be used to force them to take responsibility for their own products; trademark laws basically only involve protecting a registered mark from unauthorized use.
I don't really care to spend any more time explaining very basic legal concepts to correct your interesting theories of liability. Check with a lawyer.
That's a novel theory, but I'm not aware of any legal basis for such a claim. You could just as easily claim that because the car has a Toyota logo on it, everything inside should be considered branded too.
Which paragraph in the GPL differentiates between branding and selling, anyways?
I have a realistic notion after years of business that what we consider "normal" and what the legal system considers "normal" are very disconnected. One lesson you learn early on is to try to avoid the unusual; the legal system thrives on the ordinary and mundane, and outcomes for ordinary and mundane issues are more predictable.
So, to be equivalent, it'd be like Toyota purchasing an OEM component, like oh say maybe a nav system, in-car entertainment system, or computerized stereo, from an OEM, and then selling that as part of the vehicle.
The point remains that if you buy something through an intermediary, the intermediary might not be fully aware of just what the product contains, or what sorts of encumberments the product software license attempts to impose.
It's a troubling issue. So one day I see a used DSL modem at a rummage sale. I take it home and find out it's based on BusyBox. I go back to the rummage sale and demand source code, because they sold the product... sound silly?
"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. A judge, looking at the GPL, might find that it is very different than any other sort of license he's seen, and might judge it as something other than reasonable. We can't and don't know, that's the point. Hasn't been meaningfully tested.
The Cars analogy *is* nonsensical - in the same way that holding a middleman seller is nonsensical in the other direction. Best Buy *could* notice that I was wearing a company uniform, or that I was using a company credit card. They *could* actually even warn every purchaser that the only allowed use was for personal home use. We don't expect them to do that, though, any more than we expect them to provide the (wait for it) GPL-required source code for devices they sell.
Because I know they've sold things that run Linux. So explain the illogic here.
The latter gives one form of freedom by encumbering the code; this whole topic is about that encumbering, and the obligations Telstra and/or their OEM have, so let's please not try to argue otherwise.
You can hate (typical) copyright because it requires things of you. For example, it may require you to not copy something that you'd find useful copied. Or it may require you to go to effort to distribute source, as in the GPL.
The BSD license is less onerous in that regard because its restrictions are passive in comparison, primarily requiring that you retain copyright notices and not claim the code as your own.
From that point of view, then, one could hate both (typical) copyright and GPL, because both encumber you with restrictions against activities that you might wish to engage in.
Looked at in that light, the BSD license is substantially more "free."
Of course, not everyone wants to allow nearly unrestricted use of their creative efforts. I view that as a personal choice. We should realize that the GPL only gives freedom in some senses, while taking it away in others (i.e. an OEM using GPL code is not free to distribute binaries only).
Right, but the question here is more along the lines of, can you go to the store that sold you that LD Android phone and demand that *they* provide you with that code. The GPL (v3 sec 6) would appear that it might require that. The obvious counterargument is that the seller can point you at the manufacturer's web site, but if the manufacturer isn't distributing the code or has gone out of business, that doesn't seem to work.
I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?
"The GPL is very clear about this" is not compelling. It is clear in this case that the *manufacturer* has a responsibility to distribute the code. However, whether or not such responsibility can be transferred to a third party who merely purchased and resold a product is not necessarily that clear.
Consider this the other way around. Let's say I run a kid-themed restaurant. I go out to Best Buy and buy the movie Cars, and start playing it in my restaurant. The movie contains a copyright statement that says "Licensed only for personal home viewing." Does Pixar get to sue Best Buy for my violation of that condition? Or would that be laughed out of court?
If Toyota were to slyly use GPL'd code in some part of one of their vehicles, it probably would be ridiculous to try to make the case that the local privately-owned Toyota dealership had failed to live up to its responsibilities under the GNU GPL, even though they were the one that sold you the car. In all likelihood, the dealership has no clue about where the code in the car's processors ultimately comes from, because only Toyota would have source code for the stuff.
It would be helpful to remember that Telstra might similarly have contracted out to have some Internet appliances made; if the manufacturers didn't tell Telstra that the code was legally encumbered, then you wind up in this sort of situation, with no intentional malfeasance on the part of Telstra, and lots of confusion when you start making accusations.
The idea of holding the seller responsible for a manufacturer's use of GPL code is interesting. I'm pretty sure our local retail stores sell things like generic DSL modems and wireless access points without providing access to the source code. I'm positive that the local T-Mobile reseller who rents a kiosk at the mall had no idea he was required to provide access to source code for the T-Mobile WRT54G-TM's that were being sold a year or two ago. He was selling products in a box, there are no markings on the box that would indicate encumbered GPL code was in use, etc. It would be interesting to see if a case had ever been brought against such a retailer.
The Telstra case may well lie somewhere in the middle; their engineering department was probably aware of the design of the devices at some level.
I'm sure this will be read as an anti-GPL message by some zealot with an angry mod finger, but come on people, let's at least try to be fair and openminded. Telstra can be damned if and when the facts are established that they willfully and knowingly violated the GPL.
That was true 25 years ago when we didn't have coinsurance and deductibles. These days, few people do not pay lots of their own health care out of pocket through deductibles and the like.
Some of us have been "adults" with "actual responsibility" for decades. The fact of the matter is that the United States is rapidly trending towards overweight; this is not a matter of "naturally thin" or "natural weight." I wrote a different message that you might want to read in this thread that helps shed some light on some of that.
No, it's more insidious than that. They either raise rates or go out of business. You ultimately wind up with a decision of whether or not to pay the inflated insurance premiums and annual price hike; eventually some people can't, and as a result they're not even covered for the affordable stuff either.
Try drinking a large glass of water. Most people don't get enough water; doing it once probably doesn't work too well, but I found that drinking more water consistently made me less hungry. It's the perfect no-calorie drink.
Eat something that is low-calorie. Cheap and quick? Try baby carrots, 100 calories for 8 ounces. A can of Del Monte green beans, 70 calories per can. Either one is a fair amount of food, is healthy for you, and won't ruin you for calories.
Most importantly? Stop gorging yourself at meals. If you are *used* to feeling comfortably full, rather than eating until you're bursting at the seams, it is easier to eat more reasonably.
Millions of years of evolution left us with eating desires that aren't optimally suited to the modern buffet-of-plenty. However, it also left us with a brain. You can use one evolutionary gift to balance the other.
I do not necessarily disagree with your basic idea there.
However, let's be aware of the fact that we've had a shift away from healthy foods in the last 30 or so years. There's even a school of thought that the food pyramid (USDA, 1992, from an earlier Denmark concept) itself is fundamentally wrong, and that emphasis on complex carbs has had a profound effect on public health.
Speaking for myself, I've been able to lose weight first and foremost by doing some intensive reading and thinking. I've read with skepticism things like the Atkins diet (I think the Paleo diet people make more sense but may be taking it a bit far), I've looked at major changes in the American diet, including not just the often-talked-about switch from sugar to HFCS in soft drinks, but also the switch we've seen where people are now drinking soft drinks many times per day, and other similar changes.
I used to find it difficult to lose weight. I found I had to make a number of changes, and then suddenly I was able to lose 40 pounds in 4 months. I now drink water, almost exclusively. I take a daily multivitamin and twice a day take a vitamin D and calcium supplement (Caltrate). I track calories, shooting for a reasonable daily goal. A smartphone app from Livestrong helps immensely, along with rough estimation occasionally verified through actual measurement. I usually eat one big meal a day, now, usually lunch, which takes near half my calories for the day. Some days I eat nothing more than salad or vegetables for supper. The Paleo people might look at my diet and say I'm doing their sort of thing, but poorly. I've actually taken several different strategies, combined them into something I feel is healthy, and am doing well.
I ate a bunch of candy the three days after Halloween and yet lost half a pound during that period, because I adjusted my other eating accordingly. I don't think I could get away with that all the time, but even moderation itself isn't a hard and fast rule.
I'm convinced we don't teach the right stuff to lose weight. Some of what we teach is okay, counting calories, for example, is necessary in some form, even if you just do it Weight-Watchers points style. If we don't give people the right information and the right tools, and encourage them to experiment to find what works for them, then I think we can expect that the results will resemble the "unfixable fat" you refer to.
No, that's the way it is/spun/. damburger's comment right before yours is the truth in this sort of system, there's a limited resource (money) to go around, and it makes more sense to spend the money where it will make the greatest difference. There's some sort of Star Trek "needs of the many" thing in there.
This does have the side effect that someone other than the patient makes decisions that can kill people. However, we have that situation anyways: the insurance company will not fund just any old thing you want to have done to extend your life. And if you actually/have/ money, you can always find a doctor who is willing to take it, so in the end, I see the whole "death panel" thing as ridiculous.
We have them now, they're called "insurance companies," we need to get over it.
I've used this sort of argument in the past to highlight your statement "keeping someone alive often comes with a price" as well; it's also one of the reasons that healthcare costs in the United States continue to increase.
Fifty years ago, there were a whole bunch of bad things that happened to older people that signaled they were nearing the end, and that their remaining time was limited. Many of these things have become treatable and correctable, extending life for many years, but often at a cost, not just financial, but sometimes in terms of quality-of-life.
People "know" this uncomfortable fact but many refuse to acknowledge that it's just a fact of medical advances, and instead spin it into fears such as the dreaded "Death Panels" we all heard so much about a few years ago.
I was thinking more like Intel would be likely to add PCIe to the thing by making a PCI-to-PCIe bridge chip, making everything traverse the PCI bus. That'ud show 'em.
Maybe they can just glue on dummy PCIe slots, kind of like the Chinese used to hand-paint barcodes on boxes.
Dang, I'm no good with Google today. I can't find the reference. Years ago, when barcodes were just starting to become popular on boxes/cases used for shipping, I recall a story where some American company had specified that their Chinese supplier had to begin bar-coding boxes of goods sent to the US to make warehousing here easier, and proceeded to have fits when none of the barcodes scanned. They eventually figured out that the Chinese had complied by hiring skilled artists to paint these "little symbols" on their existing box stock rather than buying bar-code printing equipment as intended. Interesting both because it demonstrated failure-to-communicate and also demonstrated how little Chinese workers were paid, even skilled artists.
Slashdot Mirror
which is for carriers to improve their coverage, doesn't even occur to them, eh.
Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?
It didn't strike me as being well-written. Perhaps there was a reason that they were borrowing content. Just a thought.
Huh? If you slap Telstra's name on your own product without their authorization, that'll get handled as "trademark infringement."
I have no idea how the trademark laws could be used to force them to take responsibility for their own products; trademark laws basically only involve protecting a registered mark from unauthorized use.
I don't really care to spend any more time explaining very basic legal concepts to correct your interesting theories of liability. Check with a lawyer.
That's a novel theory, but I'm not aware of any legal basis for such a claim. You could just as easily claim that because the car has a Toyota logo on it, everything inside should be considered branded too.
Which paragraph in the GPL differentiates between branding and selling, anyways?
I have a realistic notion after years of business that what we consider "normal" and what the legal system considers "normal" are very disconnected. One lesson you learn early on is to try to avoid the unusual; the legal system thrives on the ordinary and mundane, and outcomes for ordinary and mundane issues are more predictable.
So, to be equivalent, it'd be like Toyota purchasing an OEM component, like oh say maybe a nav system, in-car entertainment system, or computerized stereo, from an OEM, and then selling that as part of the vehicle.
The point remains that if you buy something through an intermediary, the intermediary might not be fully aware of just what the product contains, or what sorts of encumberments the product software license attempts to impose.
It's a troubling issue. So one day I see a used DSL modem at a rummage sale. I take it home and find out it's based on BusyBox. I go back to the rummage sale and demand source code, because they sold the product... sound silly?
The agreement is in a shrink-wrapped box and it also says "Returns of opened merchandise for same product only."
Welcome to the modern world.
"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. A judge, looking at the GPL, might find that it is very different than any other sort of license he's seen, and might judge it as something other than reasonable. We can't and don't know, that's the point. Hasn't been meaningfully tested.
The Cars analogy *is* nonsensical - in the same way that holding a middleman seller is nonsensical in the other direction. Best Buy *could* notice that I was wearing a company uniform, or that I was using a company credit card. They *could* actually even warn every purchaser that the only allowed use was for personal home use. We don't expect them to do that, though, any more than we expect them to provide the (wait for it) GPL-required source code for devices they sell.
Because I know they've sold things that run Linux. So explain the illogic here.
The latter gives one form of freedom by encumbering the code; this whole topic is about that encumbering, and the obligations Telstra and/or their OEM have, so let's please not try to argue otherwise.
You can hate (typical) copyright because it requires things of you. For example, it may require you to not copy something that you'd find useful copied. Or it may require you to go to effort to distribute source, as in the GPL.
The BSD license is less onerous in that regard because its restrictions are passive in comparison, primarily requiring that you retain copyright notices and not claim the code as your own.
From that point of view, then, one could hate both (typical) copyright and GPL, because both encumber you with restrictions against activities that you might wish to engage in.
Looked at in that light, the BSD license is substantially more "free."
Of course, not everyone wants to allow nearly unrestricted use of their creative efforts. I view that as a personal choice. We should realize that the GPL only gives freedom in some senses, while taking it away in others (i.e. an OEM using GPL code is not free to distribute binaries only).
Again, that's a nice theory, but has yet to see a meaningful test in the courts. That's the real world.
Right, but the question here is more along the lines of, can you go to the store that sold you that LD Android phone and demand that *they* provide you with that code. The GPL (v3 sec 6) would appear that it might require that. The obvious counterargument is that the seller can point you at the manufacturer's web site, but if the manufacturer isn't distributing the code or has gone out of business, that doesn't seem to work.
I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?
"The GPL is very clear about this" is not compelling. It is clear in this case that the *manufacturer* has a responsibility to distribute the code. However, whether or not such responsibility can be transferred to a third party who merely purchased and resold a product is not necessarily that clear.
Consider this the other way around. Let's say I run a kid-themed restaurant. I go out to Best Buy and buy the movie Cars, and start playing it in my restaurant. The movie contains a copyright statement that says "Licensed only for personal home viewing." Does Pixar get to sue Best Buy for my violation of that condition? Or would that be laughed out of court?
If Toyota were to slyly use GPL'd code in some part of one of their vehicles, it probably would be ridiculous to try to make the case that the local privately-owned Toyota dealership had failed to live up to its responsibilities under the GNU GPL, even though they were the one that sold you the car. In all likelihood, the dealership has no clue about where the code in the car's processors ultimately comes from, because only Toyota would have source code for the stuff.
It would be helpful to remember that Telstra might similarly have contracted out to have some Internet appliances made; if the manufacturers didn't tell Telstra that the code was legally encumbered, then you wind up in this sort of situation, with no intentional malfeasance on the part of Telstra, and lots of confusion when you start making accusations.
The idea of holding the seller responsible for a manufacturer's use of GPL code is interesting. I'm pretty sure our local retail stores sell things like generic DSL modems and wireless access points without providing access to the source code. I'm positive that the local T-Mobile reseller who rents a kiosk at the mall had no idea he was required to provide access to source code for the T-Mobile WRT54G-TM's that were being sold a year or two ago. He was selling products in a box, there are no markings on the box that would indicate encumbered GPL code was in use, etc. It would be interesting to see if a case had ever been brought against such a retailer.
The Telstra case may well lie somewhere in the middle; their engineering department was probably aware of the design of the devices at some level.
I'm sure this will be read as an anti-GPL message by some zealot with an angry mod finger, but come on people, let's at least try to be fair and openminded. Telstra can be damned if and when the facts are established that they willfully and knowingly violated the GPL.
Great, so you're one of the "few" I mentioned.
That was true 25 years ago when we didn't have coinsurance and deductibles. These days, few people do not pay lots of their own health care out of pocket through deductibles and the like.
Some of us have been "adults" with "actual responsibility" for decades. The fact of the matter is that the United States is rapidly trending towards overweight; this is not a matter of "naturally thin" or "natural weight." I wrote a different message that you might want to read in this thread that helps shed some light on some of that.
No, it's more insidious than that. They either raise rates or go out of business. You ultimately wind up with a decision of whether or not to pay the inflated insurance premiums and annual price hike; eventually some people can't, and as a result they're not even covered for the affordable stuff either.
Then make yourself not hungry.
Try drinking a large glass of water. Most people don't get enough water; doing it once probably doesn't work too well, but I found that drinking more water consistently made me less hungry. It's the perfect no-calorie drink.
Eat something that is low-calorie. Cheap and quick? Try baby carrots, 100 calories for 8 ounces. A can of Del Monte green beans, 70 calories per can. Either one is a fair amount of food, is healthy for you, and won't ruin you for calories.
Most importantly? Stop gorging yourself at meals. If you are *used* to feeling comfortably full, rather than eating until you're bursting at the seams, it is easier to eat more reasonably.
Millions of years of evolution left us with eating desires that aren't optimally suited to the modern buffet-of-plenty. However, it also left us with a brain. You can use one evolutionary gift to balance the other.
I do not necessarily disagree with your basic idea there.
However, let's be aware of the fact that we've had a shift away from healthy foods in the last 30 or so years. There's even a school of thought that the food pyramid (USDA, 1992, from an earlier Denmark concept) itself is fundamentally wrong, and that emphasis on complex carbs has had a profound effect on public health.
Speaking for myself, I've been able to lose weight first and foremost by doing some intensive reading and thinking. I've read with skepticism things like the Atkins diet (I think the Paleo diet people make more sense but may be taking it a bit far), I've looked at major changes in the American diet, including not just the often-talked-about switch from sugar to HFCS in soft drinks, but also the switch we've seen where people are now drinking soft drinks many times per day, and other similar changes.
I used to find it difficult to lose weight. I found I had to make a number of changes, and then suddenly I was able to lose 40 pounds in 4 months. I now drink water, almost exclusively. I take a daily multivitamin and twice a day take a vitamin D and calcium supplement (Caltrate). I track calories, shooting for a reasonable daily goal. A smartphone app from Livestrong helps immensely, along with rough estimation occasionally verified through actual measurement. I usually eat one big meal a day, now, usually lunch, which takes near half my calories for the day. Some days I eat nothing more than salad or vegetables for supper. The Paleo people might look at my diet and say I'm doing their sort of thing, but poorly. I've actually taken several different strategies, combined them into something I feel is healthy, and am doing well.
I ate a bunch of candy the three days after Halloween and yet lost half a pound during that period, because I adjusted my other eating accordingly. I don't think I could get away with that all the time, but even moderation itself isn't a hard and fast rule.
I'm convinced we don't teach the right stuff to lose weight. Some of what we teach is okay, counting calories, for example, is necessary in some form, even if you just do it Weight-Watchers points style. If we don't give people the right information and the right tools, and encourage them to experiment to find what works for them, then I think we can expect that the results will resemble the "unfixable fat" you refer to.
No, that's the way it is /spun/. damburger's comment right before yours is the truth in this sort of system, there's a limited resource (money) to go around, and it makes more sense to spend the money where it will make the greatest difference. There's some sort of Star Trek "needs of the many" thing in there.
This does have the side effect that someone other than the patient makes decisions that can kill people. However, we have that situation anyways: the insurance company will not fund just any old thing you want to have done to extend your life. And if you actually /have/ money, you can always find a doctor who is willing to take it, so in the end, I see the whole "death panel" thing as ridiculous.
We have them now, they're called "insurance companies," we need to get over it.
I've used this sort of argument in the past to highlight your statement "keeping someone alive often comes with a price" as well; it's also one of the reasons that healthcare costs in the United States continue to increase.
Fifty years ago, there were a whole bunch of bad things that happened to older people that signaled they were nearing the end, and that their remaining time was limited. Many of these things have become treatable and correctable, extending life for many years, but often at a cost, not just financial, but sometimes in terms of quality-of-life.
People "know" this uncomfortable fact but many refuse to acknowledge that it's just a fact of medical advances, and instead spin it into fears such as the dreaded "Death Panels" we all heard so much about a few years ago.
Please re-read, it's Intel, not IBM... and there's lots of useful info in the comments.
But anyone who's ever used it already knows that, of course.
I was thinking more like Intel would be likely to add PCIe to the thing by making a PCI-to-PCIe bridge chip, making everything traverse the PCI bus. That'ud show 'em.
Maybe they can just glue on dummy PCIe slots, kind of like the Chinese used to hand-paint barcodes on boxes.
Dang, I'm no good with Google today. I can't find the reference. Years ago, when barcodes were just starting to become popular on boxes/cases used for shipping, I recall a story where some American company had specified that their Chinese supplier had to begin bar-coding boxes of goods sent to the US to make warehousing here easier, and proceeded to have fits when none of the barcodes scanned. They eventually figured out that the Chinese had complied by hiring skilled artists to paint these "little symbols" on their existing box stock rather than buying bar-code printing equipment as intended. Interesting both because it demonstrated failure-to-communicate and also demonstrated how little Chinese workers were paid, even skilled artists.