I don't think this is going to make people switch. People don't automatically use stuff because a company has more money or we'd all be using OS/2 right now. It takes a mix of good marketing and good enough product quality to do that. Neither altavista or yahoo offer the latter anymore, so I'm not at all worried.
>My question is how do we form these opinions? I have yet to hear a convincing argument about this question...
Try this one on for size (XXXL).
Back before the 20th century, being fat (I'm am fat so that's not an insult!) was a sign of good health, wealth, and prosperity. One can see this in the paintings of the time -- the most choice ladies were always painted in a voluptuous way.
Now, back in the 10's and 20's things started to change. The "flapper" slowly became a stereotype for what men wanted in ladies, and being fat became a stereotype for mafia bosses and other people living "high on the hog". This change was effected because, for the first time in history, everyone had enough food on their plates (yes, I'm know I'm ignoring a large portion of the world). This means that no longer was the fattest person the one doing the most work. Society noticed this fact and changed its ideals accordingly. Being that now _not_ being fat is more work than getting so, fat people are scorned for a lack of effort in staying thin, and thin people are praised for the fact that their being thin shows that they are hard workers.
That being said, it's still a silly way to judge someone, on a par really with sexual preferences and racial hertiage.
>You were wasting your time in School. >It's Colombia.
You're right! -- Although I do blame it on my school. School being the most uninspiring and uninteresting time of my life; I spent it reading the tags on my jacket's zipper, such as YKK, or Columbia.
That should explain my poor spelling of that country.
Now, what is unexplained, though, is your poor use of grammar. Exactly what school has the proper name or fully qualified place "School"? When you capitalize it and it's not the first word of a sentence, that's what it is.
See, isn't being picky fun for the whole family? Why not join in and keep the laughs going!
Yes, there's a lot of crappy PIN security out there. Best to avoid it.
Check if your card has crappy PIN security! Next time you swipe it through a POS debit machine at your local small store (which doesn't have a full-time linkup to the bank) enter the wrong PIN. If it tells you it's wrong without dialing out, and your bank is like mine and only supports PIN sizes between 4 and 6 digits, there's less than 1 million combinations to try. That shouldn't take a good computer more than a couple of minutes, and unless the debit machine has a demagnetizer, I don't think it can hurt your card. Of course, a smart person wouldn't take chances and would clone it first. Oh, look, now I can't enter the US. Oh well.
I think I'm going to buy the used POS debit machine I saw at the local junkshop. Could be piles of fun. I'll charge myself a dollar on it and see what happens...
You might want to check my journal... Just FYI. I was wondering exactly who that it was that the stalking was actually meant for. I guess he took my link to your site in my user info page to mean it was my site. Ho hum.
BTW: Handy webpage.:-) It's my only real claim to fame.
>What is wrong with what? The fact that the original 4 clause license won't let you take my code and GPL it?
Nothing wrong with it. I'm just having difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that a developer would have no problems with a commercial entity copying your code verbatim and selling it as their own (code used by Microsoft was covered by the extra clause, however they still say it is theirs, they simply make sure that embedded deep withing the executable there is a cryptic copyright message that doesn't even include the term "BSD") but would not want another group to use the software for free, distribute it for free, and make sure all patches are free (and available to the developer), and keep the developer's name on it anyways. But that might just be GPL tunnel-vision again. If you'd care to explain to me what I'm missing, I'd be happy to hear it!:-)
>I don't care if you sell my code or not. And BTW, I can take your GPL'ed code and sell it just fine as long as I include the source to any binaries... I can charge $1,000 for GCC if I want.
Yep. But only once (Assuming it's the first copy of something. Otherwise I'd say not at all, in general. That is, unless it's DRM protected, which is a problem RMS missed when writing the GPL the first time). Anybody buying a GPL program twice either hasn't read their license (ie: Is stupid) or is buying whatever comes with it instead (like a TiVo, for example).
Whereas, with the BSD license, I can sell the software to someone for $1,000 as much as they'll keep buying it, since I can add clauses that prevent them from making copies of the software. That is, unless there's something I've been missing in the BSD license all this time...
>Unless someone is stupid, it's not the hard to just rip off ANY code that has source available and just file off the serial numbers (ie change function names, rewrite comments, etc, etc,). The bulk of the code is the same, just the identifing marks have been removed. Unless your code is VERY hard to come by, you'll never know it.
I don't think provenance of code isn't as difficult to spot as you'd suggest, but since I'm not a hardcore coder, I have no hard proof. But there's been more than enough examples of stolen GPL code posted to slashdot to convince me that it can't be all that difficult. The "look and feel" of a program is a dead giveaway to be suspicious of it to start with (that's how I found out about the BSD code in MS Windows to start with -- the look and feel of ftp was just not very "Microsoft", so I did some research).
>Huh??? I'm not worried about commericial entities taking my code (if I was I would not be using the BSDL). What I don't like is some jerk forking my code just to put it under the GPL instead of contribing back to the original project. If your not willing to use the original license then don't use my code... simple.
Doesn't that last sentence preclude commercial entities from using your code -- that is, assuming the commercial entities decide to use your code in a proprietary fashion? Would they not be using a different license?
If you'd just explain why you have a problem with your software being relicensed as GPL, but no problem with it being relicensed under, for example, the Microsoft Windows license, I'd understand more. As it stands right now, I'm not seeing the distinction.
>Different than standard? I just happen to use the original 4 clause instead of the 3 clause BSDL. They are both standard. And again, fractured? There are only two of them...
I'm referring to the fact that BSD programs have been relicensed under so many different terms, that while they are still BSD programs, the licensing model itself condones a fractured set of licensing terms. ie: An infinite set.
If that's not a problem for the developer, well, then that that's A-OK, I guess. I just don't understand why. Sorry.
>Normally (unless they are following the FSF standard of GNU/Linux, in which case Linux means just the kernel) when someone mentions Linux they are talking about the Operating System, not just the kernel. If this is NOT the case, then you need to try and convince the media of this. And yes, there is way more distributions (ie operating systems) of Linux (the OS) than there is of BSD.
I have no problem with there being lots of distributions of Linux, but they all use the same underlying kernel. Any modifications done to the underlying kernel have been (by virtual requirement of any public GPL project) submitted back to the community and, therefore, any linux distribution can run any linux software, and will run it identically to any other linux distribution, assuming one has added any necessary patches (very few of which exist, except to maintain proprietary software).
I understand that with BSD ports, any BSD software should run on any BSD system, however, with the fractured state of the basic BSD kernel (multiple different competing kernels) there is no guarantee that this software will run identically on every BSD system, or that it will necessarialy be available for any BSD system.
>Plus, on any of the BSDs systems (even old ones like SunOS Nope, not unless you count the knockoffs. Which you seem to do...
There's GPL knockoffs? I've seen different licenses with totally different lineages that happen to be similar to the GPL, but I always thought the GPL protected itself against willy-nilly modification.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Of course, if your software is completely written from scratch, yes, you could modify the GPL to suit your tastes. However, you wouldn't be able to include any GPL software, and that would make it very difficult to develop it to interoperate with a GPL environment without adding more freedoms (ie: Freedom to change the license, such as the BSD license) than the GPL already provides, or black-boxing an entire rewrite of the GPL-affected code.
This ensures that the licensing of programs is relatively similar in the GPL world, but AFAIK, there's no such impetus in the BSD world, apart from being neighbourly.:-)
>The most common misunderstanding is the idea that the BSD license allows people to "steal" the code and make it proprietary. That's false -- they are in the same position that you are. They can only make proprietary their changes and additions to the code. The original is as freely available as it ever was, as are all changes released under the original license.
Clearly, one cannot retroactively change the license. Again, I'll clarify my meaning:
If I am creating a proprietary, closed source, operating system, and I'm too lazy to write my own IP stack and IP utilities, is it legal for my to lift, verbatim, the code for that from another project, assuming that code is licensed under the standard BSD license, and integrate a significant amount of it into my product? If so, am I allowed to sell that product, including that code? And, again, if so, do I, in any obvious to a normal user way, have to state that the product contains any non-proprietary code or any code not specifically created by myself?
If so, doesn't that strongly smack of authorized plagarism? A lot of people (including myself) do consider plagarism (of all forms) stealing.
That's the way I feel about it. With the BSD license, I'm free to take anything I like, make minor (or no) improvements, and release said software as my own. Perhaps people using the BSD license have no problems with this, I don't know. I know it would make me feel uncomfortable, at best.
Considering the fact that even direct forks with just a name change are very successful (vis. a vis. NeoAudio) it seems to me the original authors could easily languish in obscurity while someone who is simply better at marketing enjoys all the glory.
What fractured mess is linux? I only see one official tree avilable at ftp.kernel.org. Am I missing something? Is there another official Linux available that I can choose? Is there another GPL license, apart from the GPL and LGPL that I can choose from? If so, I'm clearly misinformed about linux. Sorry.
>So, you just want the ability to take the code and not give back to the project? Sounds just like the compliants the GPL guys use aginst the commericial people... hummmm....
Yup. And its just an example of what's wrong with the original, normal, BSD license. Not one of it's hacked up variants.
Of course, unlike the commercial people, I'm nice and wouldn't sell my newly GPLed BSD-based software. But I don't have to be that nice -- I could be like MS and rip off the hard efforts of the BSD team!
>And people wonder why I use the 4 clause BSDL...
And if people are stupid enough to not to protect themselves against commercial entities taking their code with recompense then they deserve what they get. As a businessman, I don't feel bad at all for someone who forces their own raw deal on themselves.
Kudos to you for using a different than standard BSD license. Just like BSD model itself, even the licensing is a fractured mess.
ANY BSD source that touches my system is automatically GPLd, 'cause that what I like (Go ahead and call me a zealot if you like, it doesn't change that fact:-). Sorry, I didn't think of binaries. I guess I just never touch stuff like that unless I have to, and when I have to, it's because it's usually proprietary, and in that case I'm spending my time looking for alternatives.
There. That should clear it up. Sorry, I guess I just didn't think about binaries (GNU tunnel vision!:-)
Sooo... you'd feel just fine about running the network cables and power cables outside and just leaving the server on the downtown streetcorner by the $10 hookers?
The fact that only 1000 people have access means it's somewhat secured physically already. That is, unless you're like me and your entire town has less than 1000 people in it.:-)
I can only imagine what would happen to the college's servers if they were installed in a computer lab instead of the server room.
All BSD code is also GPL code (or any other license, by definition). Simply insta-fork it every time it comes out. Problem solved. Everyone wins, especially the GPL guys if they make improvements, since they can't be back-ported to the BSD version.
I see this is a great way to ensure BSD people win, proprietary vendors win, and GPL people win.
I thought the US was one of the few countries to uphold the idea of click through licenses. If your country doesn't have these and software decides to purposely trash your boot area, do you not have the right to legal recompense for your wasted time repairing it? Isn't that just plain negligence?
I mean, if click-through licenses aren't legal, then the software makers must be liable for some sort of basic damages occurring due to this, right? It isn't like this is just a programming mistake. This is purposeful destruction of my personal property without my permission, assuming the shrinkwrapped-click-through license doesn't apply to me.
Print Screen calls a specific software interrupt (or at least it did in DOS). I assume that if you wanted that ability, but for non-printing functions, you would use the SysRq key instead (which was part of Print Screen, and probably generated its own interrupt.)
But it's been a while since I tried that. The interrupt was handy for using graphics.com to print stuff out in my programs instead of writing my own print driver.
>Hey IBM, if you make either of these things can you please give me a big fat check?
IBM, space saver, Model M. Enjoy. Although remapping all the keys on the space saver might be a little difficult, with the full size model, the caps are removeable.
>There's an argument in several models of jurisprudence (notably realism and Dworkinism) that fraud, when it causes economic loss, is no different from theft.
I guess I'd counter that with a question: What types of fraud are there that don't cause some form of economic loss? And, if you have to grasp at straws to answer that, why even have the word at all if it's devoid of meaning?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is going to make people switch. People don't automatically use stuff because a company has more money or we'd all be using OS/2 right now. It takes a mix of good marketing and good enough product quality to do that. Neither altavista or yahoo offer the latter anymore, so I'm not at all worried.
>My question is how do we form these opinions? I have yet to hear a convincing argument about this question...
Try this one on for size (XXXL).
Back before the 20th century, being fat (I'm am fat so that's not an insult!) was a sign of good health, wealth, and prosperity. One can see this in the paintings of the time -- the most choice ladies were always painted in a voluptuous way.
Now, back in the 10's and 20's things started to change. The "flapper" slowly became a stereotype for what men wanted in ladies, and being fat became a stereotype for mafia bosses and other people living "high on the hog". This change was effected because, for the first time in history, everyone had enough food on their plates (yes, I'm know I'm ignoring a large portion of the world). This means that no longer was the fattest person the one doing the most work. Society noticed this fact and changed its ideals accordingly. Being that now _not_ being fat is more work than getting so, fat people are scorned for a lack of effort in staying thin, and thin people are praised for the fact that their being thin shows that they are hard workers.
That being said, it's still a silly way to judge someone, on a par really with sexual preferences and racial hertiage.
In Canada they'd have to pay a tax for their CD-Rs. Taxing your own productions, isn't that a strange form of masochism. :-)
>You were wasting your time in School.
>It's Colombia.
You're right! -- Although I do blame it on my school. School being the most uninspiring and uninteresting time of my life; I spent it reading the tags on my jacket's zipper, such as YKK, or Columbia.
That should explain my poor spelling of that country.
Now, what is unexplained, though, is your poor use of grammar. Exactly what school has the proper name or fully qualified place "School"? When you capitalize it and it's not the first word of a sentence, that's what it is.
See, isn't being picky fun for the whole family? Why not join in and keep the laughs going!
[Mocking laughter]
>btw, haven't gotten around to updating the spider anytime soon. maybe in a week or so. wanna help out?
I can try, but my coding skills are still green. I'll drop ya a line...
Too bad that isn't so secure after all. 1 in 150 of those cards can be guessed by simply testing them in ATM terminals.
So, if it didn't require an ATM terminal... wow. We're talking microseconds here?
" We found it astonishing that our MCI and AT&T calling cards had the PIN number stored in the magnetic stripe WITH NO ENCRYPTION! "
Yes, there's a lot of crappy PIN security out there. Best to avoid it.
Check if your card has crappy PIN security! Next time you swipe it through a POS debit machine at your local small store (which doesn't have a full-time linkup to the bank) enter the wrong PIN. If it tells you it's wrong without dialing out, and your bank is like mine and only supports PIN sizes between 4 and 6 digits, there's less than 1 million combinations to try. That shouldn't take a good computer more than a couple of minutes, and unless the debit machine has a demagnetizer, I don't think it can hurt your card. Of course, a smart person wouldn't take chances and would clone it first. Oh, look, now I can't enter the US. Oh well.
I think I'm going to buy the used POS debit machine I saw at the local junkshop. Could be piles of fun. I'll charge myself a dollar on it and see what happens...
You might want to check my journal... Just FYI. I was wondering exactly who that it was that the stalking was actually meant for. I guess he took my link to your site in my user info page to mean it was my site. Ho hum.
:-) It's my only real claim to fame.
BTW: Handy webpage.
>During the Breen assault on Earth, I'd imagine.
:-)
How embarassing. I actually didn't remember that part of Star Trek and had to look it up.
Don't say sorry.
When did Columbia change from a (banana?) Republic to a Dominion? I must have missed that!
>What is wrong with what? The fact that the original 4 clause license won't let you take my code and GPL it?
:-)
Nothing wrong with it. I'm just having difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that a developer would have no problems with a commercial entity copying your code verbatim and selling it as their own (code used by Microsoft was covered by the extra clause, however they still say it is theirs, they simply make sure that embedded deep withing the executable there is a cryptic copyright message that doesn't even include the term "BSD") but would not want another group to use the software for free, distribute it for free, and make sure all patches are free (and available to the developer), and keep the developer's name on it anyways. But that might just be GPL tunnel-vision again. If you'd care to explain to me what I'm missing, I'd be happy to hear it!
>I don't care if you sell my code or not. And BTW, I can take your GPL'ed code and sell it just fine as long as I include the source to any binaries... I can charge $1,000 for GCC if I want.
Yep. But only once (Assuming it's the first copy of something. Otherwise I'd say not at all, in general. That is, unless it's DRM protected, which is a problem RMS missed when writing the GPL the first time). Anybody buying a GPL program twice either hasn't read their license (ie: Is stupid) or is buying whatever comes with it instead (like a TiVo, for example).
Whereas, with the BSD license, I can sell the software to someone for $1,000 as much as they'll keep buying it, since I can add clauses that prevent them from making copies of the software. That is, unless there's something I've been missing in the BSD license all this time...
>Unless someone is stupid, it's not the hard to just rip off ANY code that has source available and just file off the serial numbers (ie change function names, rewrite comments, etc, etc,). The bulk of the code is the same, just the identifing marks have been removed. Unless your code is VERY hard to come by, you'll never know it.
I don't think provenance of code isn't as difficult to spot as you'd suggest, but since I'm not a hardcore coder, I have no hard proof. But there's been more than enough examples of stolen GPL code posted to slashdot to convince me that it can't be all that difficult. The "look and feel" of a program is a dead giveaway to be suspicious of it to start with (that's how I found out about the BSD code in MS Windows to start with -- the look and feel of ftp was just not very "Microsoft", so I did some research).
>Huh??? I'm not worried about commericial entities taking my code (if I was I would not be using the BSDL). What I don't like is some jerk forking my code just to put it under the GPL instead of contribing back to the original project. If your not willing to use the original license then don't use my code... simple.
Doesn't that last sentence preclude commercial entities from using your code -- that is, assuming the commercial entities decide to use your code in a proprietary fashion? Would they not be using a different license?
If you'd just explain why you have a problem with your software being relicensed as GPL, but no problem with it being relicensed under, for example, the Microsoft Windows license, I'd understand more. As it stands right now, I'm not seeing the distinction.
>Different than standard? I just happen to use the original 4 clause instead of the 3 clause BSDL. They are both standard. And again, fractured? There are only two of them...
I'm referring to the fact that BSD programs have been relicensed under so many different terms, that while they are still BSD programs, the licensing model itself condones a fractured set of licensing terms. ie: An infinite set.
If that's not a problem for the developer, well, then that that's A-OK, I guess. I just don't understand why. Sorry.
I have no problem with there being lots of distributions of Linux, but they all use the same underlying kernel. Any modifications done to the underlying kernel have been (by virtual requirement of any public GPL project) submitted back to the community and, therefore, any linux distribution can run any linux software, and will run it identically to any other linux distribution, assuming one has added any necessary patches (very few of which exist, except to maintain proprietary software).
I understand that with BSD ports, any BSD software should run on any BSD system, however, with the fractured state of the basic BSD kernel (multiple different competing kernels) there is no guarantee that this software will run identically on every BSD system, or that it will necessarialy be available for any BSD system.
>Plus, on any of the BSDs systems (even old ones like SunOS Nope, not unless you count the knockoffs. Which you seem to do...
There's GPL knockoffs? I've seen different licenses with totally different lineages that happen to be similar to the GPL, but I always thought the GPL protected itself against willy-nilly modification.
Of course, if your software is completely written from scratch, yes, you could modify the GPL to suit your tastes. However, you wouldn't be able to include any GPL software, and that would make it very difficult to develop it to interoperate with a GPL environment without adding more freedoms (ie: Freedom to change the license, such as the BSD license) than the GPL already provides, or black-boxing an entire rewrite of the GPL-affected code.
This ensures that the licensing of programs is relatively similar in the GPL world, but AFAIK, there's no such impetus in the BSD world, apart from being neighbourly.
>The most common misunderstanding is the idea that the BSD license allows people to "steal" the code and make it proprietary. That's false -- they are in the same position that you are. They can only make proprietary their changes and additions to the code. The original is as freely available as it ever was, as are all changes released under the original license.
Clearly, one cannot retroactively change the license. Again, I'll clarify my meaning:
If I am creating a proprietary, closed source, operating system, and I'm too lazy to write my own IP stack and IP utilities, is it legal for my to lift, verbatim, the code for that from another project, assuming that code is licensed under the standard BSD license, and integrate a significant amount of it into my product? If so, am I allowed to sell that product, including that code? And, again, if so, do I, in any obvious to a normal user way, have to state that the product contains any non-proprietary code or any code not specifically created by myself?
If so, doesn't that strongly smack of authorized plagarism? A lot of people (including myself) do consider plagarism (of all forms) stealing.
That's the way I feel about it. With the BSD license, I'm free to take anything I like, make minor (or no) improvements, and release said software as my own. Perhaps people using the BSD license have no problems with this, I don't know. I know it would make me feel uncomfortable, at best.
Considering the fact that even direct forks with just a name change are very successful (vis. a vis. NeoAudio) it seems to me the original authors could easily languish in obscurity while someone who is simply better at marketing enjoys all the glory.
What fractured mess is linux? I only see one official tree avilable at ftp.kernel.org. Am I missing something? Is there another official Linux available that I can choose? Is there another GPL license, apart from the GPL and LGPL that I can choose from?
If so, I'm clearly misinformed about linux. Sorry.
>So, you just want the ability to take the code and not give back to the project? Sounds just like the compliants the GPL guys use aginst the commericial people... hummmm....
Yup. And its just an example of what's wrong with the original, normal, BSD license. Not one of it's hacked up variants.
Of course, unlike the commercial people, I'm nice and wouldn't sell my newly GPLed BSD-based software. But I don't have to be that nice -- I could be like MS and rip off the hard efforts of the BSD team!
>And people wonder why I use the 4 clause BSDL...
And if people are stupid enough to not to protect themselves against commercial entities taking their code with recompense then they deserve what they get. As a businessman, I don't feel bad at all for someone who forces their own raw deal on themselves.
Kudos to you for using a different than standard BSD license. Just like BSD model itself, even the licensing is a fractured mess.
Okay, allow me to be more detailed:
:-). Sorry, I didn't think of binaries. I guess I just never touch stuff like that unless I have to, and when I have to, it's because it's usually proprietary, and in that case I'm spending my time looking for alternatives.
:-)
ANY BSD source that touches my system is automatically GPLd, 'cause that what I like (Go ahead and call me a zealot if you like, it doesn't change that fact
There. That should clear it up. Sorry, I guess I just didn't think about binaries (GNU tunnel vision!
Sooo... you'd feel just fine about running the network cables and power cables outside and just leaving the server on the downtown streetcorner by the $10 hookers?
:-)
The fact that only 1000 people have access means it's somewhat secured physically already. That is, unless you're like me and your entire town has less than 1000 people in it.
I can only imagine what would happen to the college's servers if they were installed in a computer lab instead of the server room.
All BSD code is also GPL code (or any other license, by definition). Simply insta-fork it every time it comes out. Problem solved. Everyone wins, especially the GPL guys if they make improvements, since they can't be back-ported to the BSD version.
I see this is a great way to ensure BSD people win, proprietary vendors win, and GPL people win.
I thought the US was one of the few countries to uphold the idea of click through licenses. If your country doesn't have these and software decides to purposely trash your boot area, do you not have the right to legal recompense for your wasted time repairing it? Isn't that just plain negligence?
I mean, if click-through licenses aren't legal, then the software makers must be liable for some sort of basic damages occurring due to this, right? It isn't like this is just a programming mistake. This is purposeful destruction of my personal property without my permission, assuming the shrinkwrapped-click-through license doesn't apply to me.
What if the key is stored on a smartcard, copies of which are only given to authorized users?
:-)
How does one steal the info from the HDD then?
Print Screen calls a specific software interrupt (or at least it did in DOS). I assume that if you wanted that ability, but for non-printing functions, you would use the SysRq key instead (which was part of Print Screen, and probably generated its own interrupt.)
But it's been a while since I tried that. The interrupt was handy for using graphics.com to print stuff out in my programs instead of writing my own print driver.
>Hey IBM, if you make either of these things can you please give me a big fat check?
IBM, space saver, Model M. Enjoy. Although remapping all the keys on the space saver might be a little difficult, with the full size model, the caps are removeable.
Enjoy.
>Well if the majority votes for voting to be compulsory is that not democracy ?
Yep, but only if they vote for it. And they must still be able to vote it down, too.
>From where I sit , I think you have the wrong end of the stick, in a democracy voting is not a right its a responsibility and should be compulsory
If anything whatsoever is mandatory in a democracy that cannot be stuck down by a majority vote, then it ceases to be a democracy.
>There's an argument in several models of jurisprudence (notably realism and Dworkinism) that fraud, when it causes economic loss, is no different from theft.
:-)
I guess I'd counter that with a question: What types of fraud are there that don't cause some form of economic loss? And, if you have to grasp at straws to answer that, why even have the word at all if it's devoid of meaning?
Seems much more like fraud to me... I hope the charge sticks, even if it is a little off.