We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'.
This is so simple. Don't do proprietary. Simple. There is a whole awful lot you can do without trying to "intermix". Choose the right hardware. Go with free software.
And I guarantee: there is no right man, and they never do what they say they'll do. But that aside, my (original) point was: if the large black minority can't even put up a black candidate, and if women generally don't vote for a woman, they are deserving to be darwined.
It's funny. 99% of all spam I receive is from the US, not from BR (and I had my work e-mail in a public mailing list, up to harvesters) -- the other 1% is from the Far East, and in a Far East encoding.
It's MORE low-bandwidth. It caches aggressively on both ends so each side _guesses_ where is the other at that point, and only does a roundtrip to communicate when necessary.
1. no it does not. 2. we (www.almg.gov.br = Minas Gerais [3rd largest economy of Brasil] State House) just switched 700 copies of MSoffice97 for OOo1.1.2; with NO PAIN at all.
Just do it. Proper training, some care, ok, but just do it.
It's a remote graphics protocol based on X11, but with considerably less round-trips, due to aggressive caching on both sides.
Trying to be more plain:
imagine the work when you click on a button (exaggerated):
server: move your mouse position to x1, y1 client: move your mouse cursor to x1, y1 . . . server: move your mouse position to x2, y2 client: move your mouse cursor to x2, y2; highlight button(button 1) . . . server: move your mouse position to x3, y3; client: move your mouse cursor to x3, y3; server: mouse down client: display pressed button server: mouse up client: display pressed button (client will now do the ON_CLICK event)
under NX:
server: button(button 1) was clicked client: does the ON_CLICK event
Come on, discuss, do not moderate. I would rather have you prove me flamebait, but you can't. My point was: there was no black president; there was no black governor. Come on, prove me wrong, get a black guy voted in the f'ng primaries and I'll get back to you.
I will offer you one closing argument. (Score:-1, Flamebait) by hummassa (157160) on 2004.08.31 9:21 (#10116689)
Who is the black man who was elected president in the last 40 years? Better: which black person was allowed to run for president in the last 40 years? Ok, you do have/some/ black mayors. Did you have any black governors in the last 40 years? If so, how many, how many terms? If said number is > 0, divide it by 500 (number of governor terms in the last 40 years?) and give me a percentage. Now compare it with the percentage of black people in the USofA. Ok, rinse and repeat for the last 20 years (allowing a 20 year period for the racial thing to "settle"... notwithstanding the LA riots were in '92). The prosecutions rests.
Who is the black man who was elected president in the last 40 years? Better: which black person was allowed to run for president in the last 40 years? Ok, you do have/some/ black mayors. Did you have any black governors in the last 40 years? If so, how many, how many terms? If said number is > 0, divide it by 500 (number of governor terms in the last 40 years?) and give me a percentage. Now compare it with the percentage of black people in the USofA. Ok, rinse and repeat for the last 20 years (allowing a 20 year period for the racial thing to "settle"... notwithstanding the LA riots were in '92). The prosecutions rests.
$5-$25 out of the blue for a good utility is not a lot and adds up, so the developer can even make a living (or a part-time job) do continue development of the product.
It's good to notice that Trek teleportation technique involves diassembling and reassembling (with the atoms of the transported body physically transported between point-of-origin and destination), and not destroying and reconstructing (ok, it *is* destroying and reconstructing in a certain way.)
My point is that the information that couldn't be "analyzed", or "read" from the original body is transported with its original atoms, and the rest of the information is digitalized and used to re-assemble the thing.
Anyway, I'm nitpicking, ain't I? But it *is* the most-ubiquitous form of sci-fi teleportation...
everybody knows it's not as simple as pressing a button: you have to change two or three keys, then press a button, then get the three linear potenciomenters slowly up and down again.
This most absolutely never happened to me. There is no win format my machine refused to read as of the current date. The contrary happened a lot: somebody brings a disc no-one can read, I dd_rescue it, fiddle a little with the image, and voila... all works again.
I imagine that he can't demand that anyone who has exercised the rights granted under his license to retroactively remove his work from their own
Such rights were already excercised by a lot of Linux distributions, because his work was in the _pristine_, official Linus' kernel; besides, the copyright of his work is not only his: his code is a derivative work on lots of parts of the kernel, and, as such, the copyright holders of those parts are stake-holders in the copyrights of his work.
You used the expression "rescinded the license", but this is something he coud not do, event if he was the sole copyright owner: the GPL itself prevents it. When you license something under the GPL, you are granting a non-rescindable license (except in the case of section #4).
I have a bit of code I'm thinking of open-sourcing -- I've kept it closed simply because it's essentially a web-spider, and I incorporated pauses in it, to spare other people's servers, that I don't want selfish users to remove. I wish there were an established license that would allow me to open source it with conditions, like "don't remove the pauses". And I really wouldn't want anyone to, for instance, re-brand and sell my code -- as they can with the GPL, so long as they offer the source code
Please, please: read the DFSGAND the OSI Open Source Definition. What you want is _not_ open source, and _not_ Free software. You are better off, for now, not opening the code for your spider.
He can't demand back what he has already GPL-licensed. He can request it to be evicted of the kernel, and his request will probably be granted... Then someone else will take pwc and maintain it as a kernel patch. The interesting thing is that it seems not to exist any license information for pwcx.
dekeji, I tought long and hard about not answering to this because of (1) and (11) above.
But, I looked your other posts, and I don't really know what your peeve with me is, because all your recent posts -- except those in this thread -- seemed quite reasonable to me.
So, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I will start by introducing myself: nice to meet you, my name is Humberto Massa, and I have benn (among other stuff) a developer for the last 16 years. I have a Bachelor degree in Computer Science and the Brazilian equivalent to Law School. No, I have never took the bar exam: because I never wanted to. My real call is being a coder. For the last 16 years, I have had a lot of jobs as a coder and a sysadmin, here in Brasil and in Spain, but I have worked a lot of time as a paralegal in a District Attorney's office. IANAL because I never wanted to be one.
I am a distant contributor to the Debian project, especially the -legal mailing list, because of my formation (is this the right word?) and experience in law.
I think your answer to (9) is derogatory, insultuous, and gratuitous. I have not attacked you -- I was citing the source of a certain knowledge I have, first-hand. You, OTOH, attacked me. IANAL because I'm a coder. I studied law for three years, practiced it for another three, live with a lawyer every single day of my life -- my wife is a District Attorney (not an ADA, a DA, the real thing) for the last 9 years. I still do some para work for her when she is overflowing with work.
And more, this is to say: no, I don't live in a dream world. I live in a world -- more specifically, in a jurisdiction -- where the legally valid and enforceable things are tried in the right place: in court.
Now, I will try to reason with you, point by point. Sorry if my non-native English is insuficient; try to bear with me.
Point "A":
We aren't disagreeing on "sources" or "facts", we are disagreeing on their interpretation and consequences. You cite a bunch of random facts, but you draw unsupportable conclusions from them. Your problem isn't your facts, it's your reasoning from those facts.
Good. If my problem is not in my facts (and I tried to provide pointers for all of them, if any pointer is missing, I will provide it to you), it's a good start.
Yet you say my problem is in my reasoning and conclusions: but you put some conclusions in your arguments, below, that I have never written. That's the main reason I think we are having some communication problem.
Point "B":
you go on to conclude something like:
Therefore, the GPL cannot force you to do anything that does not pertain to the work itself or derivative works under copyright law
Well, now you are twisting -- in a very lawyer-like fashion:-) -- what I concluded.
The GPL is not an unconditional waiver of rights. Exactly the opposite, it's saying: to waive this rights to you, you should comply with the conditions.
But, that's the trick: there is a lot that you can do with some piece of software without infringing the copyrights. And, the part you don't seem to like, the "anti-shareware" part , is: USC17 does not regulate software use, just copy/distribution. Now, there is some caselaw that says: it does regulate the copies you must do to use a software, so that is the reason why/some/ EULA clauses (those related to these copies) are valid.
Classic example of unenforceable EULA clause, quite common in a lot of MS software: "thou shall not run this software under another operating system". You can look. MS puts this in their EULA in the hope someone will comply (their lawyers must produce something new every once in a while, too), but there is absolutely no caselaw about this, and I would not trust any possibility of this holding up in an USofAn or EUan court. Ah, and this clause specifically is forbidden by BR law, as is the "don't
Slashdot Mirror
care to lend me a hundred bucks or so? because down here, to get what you say you have, I have to spend 3 months of my (high-standards) salary.
We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'.
This is so simple. Don't do proprietary. Simple. There is a whole awful lot you can do without trying to "intermix". Choose the right hardware. Go with free software.
NOT Interesting !!
Busted: Caught breaking rules
It gets worse because NX server is an X client and NX client is an X server and vice-versa :-P
And I guarantee: there is no right man, and they never do what they say they'll do.
But that aside, my (original) point was: if the large black minority can't even put up a black candidate, and if women generally don't vote for a woman, they are deserving to be darwined.
It's funny. 99% of all spam I receive is from the US, not from BR (and I had my work e-mail in a public mailing list, up to harvesters) -- the other 1% is from the Far East, and in a Far East encoding.
NO SPAM at all from Brasil.
No black independents, too, isn't it?
FreeNX is not really Win compatible, but NoMachine's NX Server has a Win version.
And it's about time (that a woman runs for prez... even if its Hillary :)
/all/ dumped in the primaries AFAIR. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But: none of those you mentioned actually ran for president, did they? They were
It's MORE low-bandwidth. It caches aggressively on both ends so each side _guesses_ where is the other at that point, and only does a roundtrip to communicate when necessary.
1. no it does not.
2. we (www.almg.gov.br = Minas Gerais [3rd largest economy of Brasil] State House) just switched 700 copies of MSoffice97 for OOo1.1.2; with NO PAIN at all.
Just do it. Proper training, some care, ok, but just do it.
[]s
It's a remote graphics protocol based on X11, but with considerably less round-trips, due to aggressive caching on both sides.
Trying to be more plain:
imagine the work when you click on a button (exaggerated):
server: move your mouse position to x1, y1
client: move your mouse cursor to x1, y1
.
.
.
server: move your mouse position to x2, y2
client: move your mouse cursor to x2, y2; highlight button(button 1)
.
.
.
server: move your mouse position to x3, y3;
client: move your mouse cursor to x3, y3;
server: mouse down
client: display pressed button
server: mouse up
client: display pressed button (client will now do the ON_CLICK event)
under NX:
server: button(button 1) was clicked
client: does the ON_CLICK event
Come on, discuss, do not moderate.
/some/ black mayors. Did you have any black governors in the last 40 years?
I would rather have you prove me flamebait, but you can't.
My point was: there was no black president; there was no black governor.
Come on, prove me wrong, get a black guy voted in the f'ng primaries and I'll get back to you.
I will offer you one closing argument. (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by hummassa (157160) on 2004.08.31 9:21 (#10116689)
Who is the black man who was elected president in the last 40 years?
Better: which black person was allowed to run for president in the last 40 years?
Ok, you do have
If so, how many, how many terms? If said number is > 0, divide it by 500 (number of governor terms in the last 40 years?) and give me a percentage. Now compare it with the percentage of black people in the USofA.
Ok, rinse and repeat for the last 20 years (allowing a 20 year period for the racial thing to "settle"... notwithstanding the LA riots were in '92).
The prosecutions rests.
But this really can't be explained by stupidity.
Electronic voting is GOOD.
Few people looking after the elections is BAD. Lack of accountability is BAD.
Take a look at this post.
A democracy was not demonstrated to scale beyond a few thousand people. This is far different of saying it does not scale.
Who is the black man who was elected president in the last 40 years? /some/ black mayors. Did you have any black governors in the last 40 years?
Better: which black person was allowed to run for president in the last 40 years?
Ok, you do have
If so, how many, how many terms? If said number is > 0, divide it by 500 (number of governor terms in the last 40 years?) and give me a percentage. Now compare it with the percentage of black people in the USofA.
Ok, rinse and repeat for the last 20 years (allowing a 20 year period for the racial thing to "settle"... notwithstanding the LA riots were in '92).
The prosecutions rests.
$5-$25 out of the blue for a good utility is not a lot and adds up, so the developer can even make a living (or a part-time job) do continue development of the product.
Did anyone tried this or I will have to do it? :-)
It's good to notice that Trek teleportation technique involves diassembling and reassembling (with the atoms of the transported body physically transported between point-of-origin and destination), and not destroying and reconstructing (ok, it *is* destroying and reconstructing in a certain way.)
My point is that the information that couldn't be "analyzed", or "read" from the original body is transported with its original atoms, and the rest of the information is digitalized and used to re-assemble the thing.
Anyway, I'm nitpicking, ain't I? But it *is* the most-ubiquitous form of sci-fi teleportation...
everybody knows it's not as simple as pressing a button: you have to change two or three keys, then press a button, then get the three linear potenciomenters slowly up and down again.
This most absolutely never happened to me. There is no win format my machine refused to read as of the current date. The contrary happened a lot: somebody brings a disc no-one can read, I dd_rescue it, fiddle a little with the image, and voila... all works again.
I imagine that he can't demand that anyone who has exercised the rights granted under his license to retroactively remove his work from their own
Such rights were already excercised by a lot of Linux distributions, because his work was in the _pristine_, official Linus' kernel; besides, the copyright of his work is not only his: his code is a derivative work on lots of parts of the kernel, and, as such, the copyright holders of those parts are stake-holders in the copyrights of his work.
You used the expression "rescinded the license", but this is something he coud not do, event if he was the sole copyright owner: the GPL itself prevents it. When you license something under the GPL, you are granting a non-rescindable license (except in the case of section #4).
I have a bit of code I'm thinking of open-sourcing -- I've kept it closed simply because it's essentially a web-spider, and I incorporated pauses in it, to spare other people's servers, that I don't want selfish users to remove. I wish there were an established license that would allow me to open source it with conditions, like "don't remove the pauses". And I really wouldn't want anyone to, for instance, re-brand and sell my code -- as they can with the GPL, so long as they offer the source code
Please, please: read the DFSG AND the OSI Open Source Definition. What you want is _not_ open source, and _not_ Free software. You are better off, for now, not opening the code for your spider.
It *is* a tantrum.
He can't demand back what he has already GPL-licensed. He can request it to be evicted of the kernel, and his request will probably be granted... Then someone else will take pwc and maintain it as a kernel patch. The interesting thing is that it seems not to exist any license information for pwcx.
But, I looked your other posts, and I don't really know what your peeve with me is, because all your recent posts -- except those in this thread -- seemed quite reasonable to me.
So, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I will start by introducing myself: nice to meet you, my name is Humberto Massa, and I have benn (among other stuff) a developer for the last 16 years. I have a Bachelor degree in Computer Science and the Brazilian equivalent to Law School. No, I have never took the bar exam: because I never wanted to. My real call is being a coder. For the last 16 years, I have had a lot of jobs as a coder and a sysadmin, here in Brasil and in Spain, but I have worked a lot of time as a paralegal in a District Attorney's office. IANAL because I never wanted to be one.
I am a distant contributor to the Debian project, especially the -legal mailing list, because of my formation (is this the right word?) and experience in law.
I think your answer to (9) is derogatory, insultuous, and gratuitous. I have not attacked you -- I was citing the source of a certain knowledge I have, first-hand. You, OTOH, attacked me. IANAL because I'm a coder. I studied law for three years, practiced it for another three, live with a lawyer every single day of my life -- my wife is a District Attorney (not an ADA, a DA, the real thing) for the last 9 years. I still do some para work for her when she is overflowing with work.
And more, this is to say: no, I don't live in a dream world. I live in a world -- more specifically, in a jurisdiction -- where the legally valid and enforceable things are tried in the right place: in court.
Now, I will try to reason with you, point by point. Sorry if my non-native English is insuficient; try to bear with me.
Point "A":
Good. If my problem is not in my facts (and I tried to provide pointers for all of them, if any pointer is missing, I will provide it to you), it's a good start.
Yet you say my problem is in my reasoning and conclusions: but you put some conclusions in your arguments, below, that I have never written. That's the main reason I think we are having some communication problem.
Point "B":
Well, now you are twisting -- in a very lawyer-like fashion :-) -- what I concluded.
/some/ EULA clauses (those related to these copies) are valid.
The GPL is not an unconditional waiver of rights. Exactly the opposite, it's saying: to waive this rights to you, you should comply with the conditions.
But, that's the trick: there is a lot that you can do with some piece of software without infringing the copyrights. And, the part you don't seem to like, the "anti-shareware" part , is: USC17 does not regulate software use, just copy/distribution. Now, there is some caselaw that says: it does regulate the copies you must do to use a software, so that is the reason why
Classic example of unenforceable EULA clause, quite common in a lot of MS software: "thou shall not run this software under another operating system". You can look. MS puts this in their EULA in the hope someone will comply (their lawyers must produce something new every once in a while, too), but there is absolutely no caselaw about this, and I would not trust any possibility of this holding up in an USofAn or EUan court. Ah, and this clause specifically is forbidden by BR law, as is the "don't