Now, all a bomb-carrying-person has to do is to chaff the airport so that the trace amounts coming from his bomb is the same (zero'ed) trace amount in the airport's environment.
Energy and land to generate such energy. Even with 99.9 efficiency in converting solar energy, plus whatever is left of our fossil fuels, plus our semi-renewable energy sources (methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and decomposition gases... all of which need large terrains and a lot of energy to bootstrap), we probably would have to keep our population in a more sane level than it is today to be really viable.
Linus is an engineer/tech. He dislikes theory work because it often gives nothing in practice.
Actually, I think he disklikes theory simply because he does not understand it! If Linux development becomes more based on theory than practical hacks, there will be no place for him on the top. You could at least have posted non-anonymously:-)
At least he drove his point to the ex-manager that now have a 25% unfinished project and a lone researcher that was so nerdy his co-workers didn't tell him of the switch plan. Or is the nephew of Nuance's CEO and couldn't leave without Uncle Joe telling his dad...:-)
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but there is NO such thing in the laws where I live.
If I leave my current job for a better-paid, more enjoyable job, you bet I will try to take every well-qualified coworker I can take with me. Why? Because a company is an abstract entity. If I know of 15 better-paying-better-everything openings, it would be treason to my colleagues not telling them.
I repeat myself: if Nuance really wanted to keep everyone, it should have given everyone what Yahoo gave... and some more to boot. If Yahoo offered Heck a 50% raise, and a CTO position, and the others 25% raise, Nuance could have offered Heck a 75% raise, CTO position, company car, and the others 40% raise and bigger Xmas bonuses. Simple as that.
I was waiting for an answer of the kind "oh, my cousin's neighbour guaranteed me that the photo at page 32 of the July 3rd edition of Newsweek was doctored to show more people at such-and-such concert". So I could get to the photo, analyze it, etc. But no, it was only a troll, and a bad one.
would fall for this BS. If there is a mass exodus, if I was top brass, I would be certain that the boss is at fault. I've seen good (as good as possible) PHBs retaining a group of 20 developers, 3 months salary behind, for one year, everyone with work proposals outside doubling their wages.
Nuance had every opportunity to keep the guy (give him more control, better wages) and to keep the other guys (bump their wages, work conditions). If I had a good work relationship with my boss, and the execs were being trumping him over, and other company offered to encompass the whole team, I would go with him... especially if that meant a wage bump, and good work conditions.
Contract work is NOT slave work. Everyone can leave at the moment he/she wants. It's the frecking JOB of a company to keep workers interested in staying.
The parent poster had already said: infiltrate the cameras and some battery-operated hotspots. The cameras, policeman can see and seize and smash. The hotspots will be connected to the Net (via GPRS for instance) and will be invisible to the Man.... and even if found and seized the damage would have been done already.
It's not "simpler" not "equally effective" to have "runners" getting memory cards. Supposedly a wi-fi camera has the option to upload immediately each foto after taken.
And if there is a "source code format" (ex. database of metro stations coords, line colors/captions) that is used to generate a map such as this, you could apply the GPL saying that this database is the "preferred form for modification".
That is how it's normally interpreted. But yes, the writing is awful. There are other examples of bad writing in the text of the GPL:
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
this snippet defines a work based on the program as being the program or a derivative work under copyright law, then tries to explain what a derivative work under copyright law is, failing miserably.... I love the GPL, for what it represents (a clever way of using copyright law to ensure freedom instead of lock-in), but not for its form:-)
No, absolutely not. An organzation can have almost any membership rules. In fact, there is a very popular kind of organization, known as the "corporation", that explicitly shields its members from liability! ROTFL. You owe me a cup of tea and a new keyboard. Members (shareholders) of the corporation may have limited liability (up to their share value, that can be brought down to zero by dissolving the corporation), but they have liability. Employees of corporations have less liabilities (remission rights for the corporation), but have liability as well.
No, not "aka publishing". "Distribution" and "publishing" are entirely different words. If the GPL really meant to say "publishing", they should fix that in the new version.
Sorry, but you are wrong, in the copyright law they are the same thing.
Yes, and copyright law is on my side. It recognizes that if a big company buys a single copy of a book and hands out photocopies for all their employees to use on the job, they have infringed copyright by distributing unauthorized reproductions. If you think copyright law says something else, and that corporations have a special exception to distribute internally, then go ahead and post your source.
Sorry, but you are wrong again, and confused: for books, you are right, but for GPL'd software the corporation already has the right of making copies, modifying such copies, and installing them on all of its machines! If you are worried about the "corporation loophole", see what I said in my other comment below.
The GPL is not a "site license"
Au contraire... it is not a "personal usage only" license, it's a "public", "applied-to-all", license that specifically allows you to copy and modify GPL'd works at will, and only tries to restrict you when you try to distribute (as in copyright distribution, ie, publishing) the modified copies.
You can't just keep asserting that [distribution and publishing are the same under copyrights law]. You've got to back it up, somehow.
Come on, read 17USC106 -- those are the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (no ellipses here, this is an exaustive list):
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.
As you can see, distribution/publishing is covered by item #3. I know is asking too much from a/.er even to read the FA, but I ask you again... read 17 USC 106-120. You are relying on "plain English" definition of words that have especial meaning in "legalese English" (like "distribution", above). You are missing important legal meanings like of juridical personality of corporations and their acts. And you are trying to form a reasoning of what legal protections are -- without the legal basis.
Note that if my viewpoint is not accepted, then the GPL has been destroyed. Any other interpretations create a loophole the size of an aircraft-carrier. Want to put GPLed code into your proprietary software? Just declare that all customers are joining an "organization" when they place their order. (Such as incorporating a shell-company to for $200 in New Jersey). Then, go ahead and sell millions of copies of "Microsoft KDE", and deny customers their rights to source code because "you joined the organization, so this is all internal use".
Yes. They can. Except that there is no "automatic join organization". They would have to require that each "customer"/"partner" sign a legally-valid, notarized document, that would make each customer/partner liable (up to his personal quota) for any of the organization's liabilities (and this is serious stuff).
This loophole is not only in the GPL, but in any copyright license: I am associated with a videoclub. We have 5000 DVDs, we pay a monthly fee (to buy new DVDs and pay for the four employees) and stay with 5 DVDs all the time if we want, without paying rent. As I am not renting the DVDs from the videoclub, the videoclub is not distributing the DVDs, so the videoclub does not need to buy the (more expensive sometimes) "for rent" version of the DVDs. And yes, we have legal counsel and we operate inside the law.
1. tell what you think "distribution" means[...] Distribution (aka publishing) WRT copyright law is the act of making a copy and selling/donating/renting it to another (legal) person.
1a. a corporation is one type of person. In some acts, a corp is represented by some employee that has permission to execute that act. For instance, my enterprise's IT manager (who has proper permission from the rules of the corporation) goes to the MS dealer and negotiates a site license for XP Pro. Who will pay the bill, the IT manager? The IT department? No, the corporation. Who is the licensee? The corporation.
2. note that if Wal-Mart[...] You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content? (which we are discussing here) If you were talking about software, for instance, the answer would be: No, they have not distributed it (see #1 above). technically? We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution... because no other person is receiving the copies, just the same (legal) person.
3. What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? The copyright law. The person that bought/got/modified the software is the enterprise (acting according to its own internal regulations [*]), the thing starts to be distribution when an authorized person inside the enterprise says "hey, guys, you can take our rebranded OpenOffice.org home and install in your computer"... because then the "Enterprise" person is distributing to the "Employee" person a copy of the software. As opposed to an authorized person inside the Enterprise installing the software in a computer that belongs to the enterprise (no distribution there).
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations, the corporation is still liable for the actions of its employees, if others (mainly execs) take notice of said actions and do nothing about it. But this is another can of worms.
4. what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? The fact that you would then be distributing it?
5. Which is never the case. Sure it is. When your enterprise buys a site license for XP Pro (3000 seats), the enterprise is the licensee. When your IT manager downloads Apache and installs it in an enterprise's server, with permission from the enterprise's execs, the enterprise is the licensee, because the IT manager is doing that on behalf of the enterprise.
6. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's[...] Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing, only commercial, because they are commercial by nature. Anyway, even for personal use (which an enterprise can buy for an exec, for instance) XP Pro's license only permits installing in one machine.
That tries this stunt (if the code is in a website, publically accessed and has the option to download the source, then your derivative must have equal option). And you know what? It hurts (meaning it's not Free). Because if I want to take the code and make a derivative that is *not* a website, I can't make the option available.
No, the GPL never said that [the existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes]. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this. You couldn't be more wrong:
(GPLv2 clause 2) [first]You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program[/first], [second]and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)[/second]
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Not in every possible jursdiction, at least. MIT/X licensed works are in a much better/safer legal state. Besides, AFAICT there are jurisdictions where your heirs can reverse the "public domain" status of your work.
The Chairman of our House of Representatives (Câmara Federal) was kicked out for receiving a US$3000/month bribe from the guy who owns the on-site restaurant...
Slashdot Mirror
gg: search google
ggl: search google and hit "i'm feeling lucky"
fm: search freshmeat
imdb: search imdb
he, he, he
Now, all a bomb-carrying-person has to do is to chaff the airport so that the trace amounts coming from his bomb is the same (zero'ed) trace amount in the airport's environment.
Energy and land to generate such energy. Even with 99.9 efficiency in converting solar energy, plus whatever is left of our fossil fuels, plus our semi-renewable energy sources (methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and decomposition gases... all of which need large terrains and a lot of energy to bootstrap), we probably would have to keep our population in a more sane level than it is today to be really viable.
I`ll check it out.
You could at least have posted non-anonymously
At least he drove his point to the ex-manager that now have a 25% unfinished project and a lone researcher that was so nerdy his co-workers didn't tell him of the switch plan. Or is the nephew of Nuance's CEO and couldn't leave without Uncle Joe telling his dad... :-)
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but there is NO such thing in the laws where I live.
... and some more to boot. If Yahoo offered Heck a 50% raise, and a CTO position, and the others 25% raise, Nuance could have offered Heck a 75% raise, CTO position, company car, and the others 40% raise and bigger Xmas bonuses. Simple as that.
If I leave my current job for a better-paid, more enjoyable job, you bet I will try to take every well-qualified coworker I can take with me. Why? Because a company is an abstract entity. If I know of 15 better-paying-better-everything openings, it would be treason to my colleagues not telling them.
I repeat myself: if Nuance really wanted to keep everyone, it should have given everyone what Yahoo gave
I was waiting for an answer of the kind "oh, my cousin's neighbour guaranteed me that the photo at page 32 of the July 3rd edition of Newsweek was doctored to show more people at such-and-such concert". So I could get to the photo, analyze it, etc. But no, it was only a troll, and a bad one.
would fall for this BS. If there is a mass exodus, if I was top brass, I would be certain that the boss is at fault. I've seen good (as good as possible) PHBs retaining a group of 20 developers, 3 months salary behind, for one year, everyone with work proposals outside doubling their wages.
Nuance had every opportunity to keep the guy (give him more control, better wages) and to keep the other guys (bump their wages, work conditions). If I had a good work relationship with my boss, and the execs were being trumping him over, and other company offered to encompass the whole team, I would go with him... especially if that meant a wage bump, and good work conditions.
Contract work is NOT slave work. Everyone can leave at the moment he/she wants. It's the frecking JOB of a company to keep workers interested in staying.
The parent poster had already said: infiltrate the cameras and some battery-operated hotspots. The cameras, policeman can see and seize and smash. The hotspots will be connected to the Net (via GPRS for instance) and will be invisible to the Man.... and even if found and seized the damage would have been done already.
It's not "simpler" not "equally effective" to have "runners" getting memory cards. Supposedly a wi-fi camera has the option to upload immediately each foto after taken.
Do you have any recent example?
No, you have at least me for company.
And if there is a "source code format" (ex. database of metro stations coords, line colors/captions) that is used to generate a map such as this, you could apply the GPL saying that this database is the "preferred form for modification".
No, absolutely not. An organzation can have almost any membership rules. In fact, there is a very popular kind of organization, known as the "corporation", that explicitly shields its members from liability!
ROTFL. You owe me a cup of tea and a new keyboard.
Members (shareholders) of the corporation may have limited liability (up to their share value, that can be brought down to zero by dissolving the corporation), but they have liability.
Employees of corporations have less liabilities (remission rights for the corporation), but have liability as well.
Sorry, but you are wrong again, and confused: for books, you are right, but for GPL'd software the corporation already has the right of making copies, modifying such copies, and installing them on all of its machines! If you are worried about the "corporation loophole", see what I said in my other comment below.
Au contraire... it is not a "personal usage only" license, it's a "public", "applied-to-all", license that specifically allows you to copy and modify GPL'd works at will, and only tries to restrict you when you try to distribute (as in copyright distribution, ie, publishing) the modified copies.
Come on, read 17USC106 -- those are the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (no ellipses here, this is an exaustive list):
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.
As you can see, distribution/publishing is covered by item #3. I know is asking too much from a
Yes. They can. Except that there is no "automatic join organization". They would have to require that each "customer"/"partner" sign a legally-valid, notarized document, that would make each customer/partner liable (up to his personal quota) for any of the organization's liabilities (and this is serious stuff).
This loophole is not only in the GPL, but in any copyright license: I am associated with a videoclub. We have 5000 DVDs, we pay a monthly fee (to buy new DVDs and pay for the four employees) and stay with 5 DVDs all the time if we want, without paying rent. As I am not renting the DVDs from the videoclub, the videoclub is not distributing the DVDs, so the videoclub does not need to buy the (more expensive sometimes) "for rent" version of the DVDs. And yes, we have legal counsel and we operate inside the law.
1. tell what you think "distribution" means[...] Distribution (aka publishing) WRT copyright law is the act of making a copy and selling/donating/renting it to another (legal) person.
1a. a corporation is one type of person. In some acts, a corp is represented by some employee that has permission to execute that act. For instance, my enterprise's IT manager (who has proper permission from the rules of the corporation) goes to the MS dealer and negotiates a site license for XP Pro. Who will pay the bill, the IT manager? The IT department? No, the corporation. Who is the licensee? The corporation.
2. note that if Wal-Mart[...] You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content? (which we are discussing here) If you were talking about software, for instance, the answer would be: No, they have not distributed it (see #1 above). technically? We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution... because no other person is receiving the copies, just the same (legal) person.
3. What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? The copyright law. The person that bought/got/modified the software is the enterprise (acting according to its own internal regulations [*]), the thing starts to be distribution when an authorized person inside the enterprise says "hey, guys, you can take our rebranded OpenOffice.org home and install in your computer"... because then the "Enterprise" person is distributing to the "Employee" person a copy of the software. As opposed to an authorized person inside the Enterprise installing the software in a computer that belongs to the enterprise (no distribution there).
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations, the corporation is still liable for the actions of its employees, if others (mainly execs) take notice of said actions and do nothing about it. But this is another can of worms.
4. what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? The fact that you would then be distributing it?
5. Which is never the case. Sure it is. When your enterprise buys a site license for XP Pro (3000 seats), the enterprise is the licensee. When your IT manager downloads Apache and installs it in an enterprise's server, with permission from the enterprise's execs, the enterprise is the licensee, because the IT manager is doing that on behalf of the enterprise.
6. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's[...] Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing, only commercial, because they are commercial by nature. Anyway, even for personal use (which an enterprise can buy for an exec, for instance) XP Pro's license only permits installing in one machine.
better now?
That tries this stunt (if the code is in a website, publically accessed and has the option to download the source, then your derivative must have equal option). And you know what? It hurts (meaning it's not Free). Because if I want to take the code and make a derivative that is *not* a website, I can't make the option available.
You couldn't be more wrong:
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
sex scenes between a monk and a senator would be very "hot".
That you'll skip the commercials. (b/c I would)
Not in every possible jursdiction, at least. MIT/X licensed works are in a much better/safer legal state. Besides, AFAICT there are jurisdictions where your heirs can reverse the "public domain" status of your work.
The Chairman of our House of Representatives (Câmara Federal) was kicked out for receiving a US$3000/month bribe from the guy who owns the on-site restaurant...