In terms of long-term software freedom, it's better if we focus on getting market share now so more people will bother writing open source drivers for Linux in a decade.
Millions of workers have willingly made the transition and when they shared their stories millions more did the same. So I imagine it is a step up for them.
2) Indirect sales (A sells to B who sells into the US)
Your only choices are to prevent the company from doing anything (impossible due to jurisdiction issues) and to block all imports (the economy can survive that for about a week).
Sorry, but removing $1 per hour jobs will NOT cause $8 per hour jobs to suddenly pop up everywhere. Instead, it will no longer be profitable to hire Chinese workers so the poor employees working for $1 an hour will go back to subsistence farming, which is even worse.
I hate large, inefficient institutions as much as anyone but these large corporations are just as large and inefficient as the government, plus a profit motive. I say bring on government health care.
The code that Microsoft used was GPL code. They could BSD their code but they can't BSD the GPL code that they're including. So if they went the BSD route you would have a tool that is 80% BSD and 20% GPL but the GPL's requirements would assert themselves over the entire tool.
You don't need a copyright loophole to do that. Person A can buy something legitimately, move it across the border legitimately and hand it off to B legitimately. If A is aware of B's intent then A could be charged with aiding copyright infringement either way.
If we stick with the idea that you're responsible for everyone down the line, people could be paid many times for the same offense, which is many times worse than the problem you described.
The real big fallacy is that he's responsible for not just those he uploaded to but everyone down the line. if A uploads to B who then uploads to C who then uploads to D, with that argument the RIAA can get C on uploading to D, B for uploading to C and by extension D and A for uploading to B and by extension C and D. Essentially, they're collecting the same damages 3 times. Statistically, if you download something once you upload it once (even if at first everyone downloads to 5 people, at the end there's four fifths who upload to no one, balancing it out). This way they can get much more than that.
I agree, no OS can hope to be secure from user stupidity. I'm just pointing out that command line commands are the big Linux vulnerability in this area.
You can always download software from elsewhere. Also, the Ubuntu repositories really aren't like the iPhone App Store - the approval process isn't nearly as evil, for one.
A confusing command line instruction which most people would Ctrl-C and Ctrl-Shift-V into their terminal is actually a pretty good way to get a virus onto a Linux newbie's computer.
I've said this countless times but people keep repeating this fallacy. Personal home piracy is downloading. You downloading something has no consequences that reach beyond your computer - if 5 trillion aliens decide to pirate Call of Duty, the game will still be just as successful.
Now, let's take the case of GPL violation. An author who distributes a GPL program has to have some motive to give it away for free. It could be the satisfaction of having lots of people use your program, it could be you wanting to sell services, there could be lots of reasons for it. If you distribute a program based on GPL software without distributing source, you're competing with compliant distributors and (assuming actual distribution occurs) people are using your program instead of a legitimate one, and you're causing the author to lose out on customers that could otherwise be benefitting him.
For example, imagine OSS startup A released a GPL commercial software product, X, which they intend to support for money. Evil Company B releases a derivative, X++, which includes their proprietary technologies and does not have public source code. People switch to X++. Company A tries to support X++ but can't because of all the proprietary additions. Company A withers and dies.
It's called "you spending 5 extra seconds of typing it out fully is better than the audience collectively spending 20 hours looking it up on Wikipedia"
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of long-term software freedom, it's better if we focus on getting market share now so more people will bother writing open source drivers for Linux in a decade.
I believe you mean:
iIt's the Year Of the Linux DesktopESCc7hNetbook!
Heretic.
And if you don't feel like being useless on the subway/airplane/vacation / at your non-wifi-owning friend's house / during a power outage?
The name came from a different alphabet, so you can transliterate it whatever way you want.
But GNU/Gnome/Linux now?
They were denied the ability to get a cheaper one.
Nobody expects the Spanish Maine!
Millions of workers have willingly made the transition and when they shared their stories millions more did the same. So I imagine it is a step up for them.
1) Subsidiaries
If you're smart enough to close that loophole,
2) Indirect sales (A sells to B who sells into the US)
Your only choices are to prevent the company from doing anything (impossible due to jurisdiction issues) and to block all imports (the economy can survive that for about a week).
Sorry, but removing $1 per hour jobs will NOT cause $8 per hour jobs to suddenly pop up everywhere. Instead, it will no longer be profitable to hire Chinese workers so the poor employees working for $1 an hour will go back to subsistence farming, which is even worse.
In the realm of health care, Cuba does outperform the United States.
I hate large, inefficient institutions as much as anyone but these large corporations are just as large and inefficient as the government, plus a profit motive. I say bring on government health care.
The code that Microsoft used was GPL code. They could BSD their code but they can't BSD the GPL code that they're including. So if they went the BSD route you would have a tool that is 80% BSD and 20% GPL but the GPL's requirements would assert themselves over the entire tool.
having sex with Tiger should be the first result
Ok, I totally had the wrong idea in my head that first time I read that. It sounded painful...
You don't need a copyright loophole to do that. Person A can buy something legitimately, move it across the border legitimately and hand it off to B legitimately. If A is aware of B's intent then A could be charged with aiding copyright infringement either way.
If we stick with the idea that you're responsible for everyone down the line, people could be paid many times for the same offense, which is many times worse than the problem you described.
Fixed that for you for that fixed
Fixed that for you for that fixed
The real big fallacy is that he's responsible for not just those he uploaded to but everyone down the line. if A uploads to B who then uploads to C who then uploads to D, with that argument the RIAA can get C on uploading to D, B for uploading to C and by extension D and A for uploading to B and by extension C and D. Essentially, they're collecting the same damages 3 times. Statistically, if you download something once you upload it once (even if at first everyone downloads to 5 people, at the end there's four fifths who upload to no one, balancing it out). This way they can get much more than that.
I agree, no OS can hope to be secure from user stupidity. I'm just pointing out that command line commands are the big Linux vulnerability in this area.
Actually, no the vast majority of objects that are in the air and have not yet been identified originated from the ground, not space.
Just "leak" Windows XP into space and hopefully they'll have a malware-compatible infrastructure in no time!
You can always download software from elsewhere. Also, the Ubuntu repositories really aren't like the iPhone App Store - the approval process isn't nearly as evil, for one.
A confusing command line instruction which most people would Ctrl-C and Ctrl-Shift-V into their terminal is actually a pretty good way to get a virus onto a Linux newbie's computer.
I've said this countless times but people keep repeating this fallacy. Personal home piracy is downloading. You downloading something has no consequences that reach beyond your computer - if 5 trillion aliens decide to pirate Call of Duty, the game will still be just as successful.
Now, let's take the case of GPL violation. An author who distributes a GPL program has to have some motive to give it away for free. It could be the satisfaction of having lots of people use your program, it could be you wanting to sell services, there could be lots of reasons for it. If you distribute a program based on GPL software without distributing source, you're competing with compliant distributors and (assuming actual distribution occurs) people are using your program instead of a legitimate one, and you're causing the author to lose out on customers that could otherwise be benefitting him.
For example, imagine OSS startup A released a GPL commercial software product, X, which they intend to support for money. Evil Company B releases a derivative, X++, which includes their proprietary technologies and does not have public source code. People switch to X++. Company A tries to support X++ but can't because of all the proprietary additions. Company A withers and dies.
It's called "you spending 5 extra seconds of typing it out fully is better than the audience collectively spending 20 hours looking it up on Wikipedia"
Smart call center:
"Hi, I'm calling about malware on my PC"
"Ok, install this weird Linux distro from the 1990s"
(the next day) "Tried the Linux, but the internet isn't working"
"Good, that means your computer is secure now"