I don't see how the author of the article thinks this. If you look at the appropriate section of the copyright code, it says that the _license_ must be "evidenced". I.E., you must have a signed piece of paper somewhere (you or the copyright owner) saying the license exists. That's all. No transfer to the FSF or anything else seems to be required. Maybe other methods of evidence might be possible, but at least my amateur interpretation would be that an earlier non-specific license can and does override a copyright transfer.
I'm no lawyer though. Get one yourself, yada yada.
After all, there's a 620 watt halogen bulb as the heat source. With that much light I'm sure that plant growth nearby is somewhat accelerated due to a billion year old invention known as photosynthesis.
The fact that they included this bit of information is a sure sign that this is a hoax.
Besides the fact that it is impossible of course.:)
I believe that the term GNU/Linux _IS_ "a total travesty of fairness" on the part of the Free Software Foundation. Linus pioneered a bazaar style development model that the FSF could still learn a thing or two from -- GNU projects are notorious for their difficulty of developer entrance (witness XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs, or the fact that Hurd is barely to 0.3 after ten years of development).
Aside from that, the argument that Linux uses many GNU utilities and therefore should be called GNU/Linux just doesn't hold water. Perhaps I should say my Linux workstation is OpenGroup/Linux because I use X, or BSD/Linux because I use some BSD-derived system utilities. If RMS wants GNU/Linux, what argument does he have against names like GNU/BSD/OpenGroup/Linux? I think this pretty much reduces his arguments to absurdity.
Don't get me wrong -- I greatly respect RMS's coding abilities and his vision for free software. It's just that his ideas don't _always_ match with reality..:)
There's a marked difference between us and Windows NT. People are free to believe in Linux because developers everywhere can see its progress. IBM has realized their mistake -- noone knew NT was going to fail, because noone had realized just how flawed NT was at its core.
If there is something to Linux that would make it impossible to use for high-end tasks, it would be seen by all.
I'm afraid I don't buy this story. It seems rather odd that _AFTER_ talking to his lawyer, he would even be mentioning anything about counter suits or anything like that (most lawyers tell you to keep your fool mouth shut, and for good reason). Of course, he has recently "changed" his e-mail address. Bah.
Can we have something like independent verification? Things like this are too serious to screw up on here, let's see some evidence.
Also, looks like mainstream media is actually capable of looking at both sides.. See this very pro-DeCSS article at CNN.com. Interesting how they have no mention of this...
I think the best way to state your case here (supporting DVDs or any medium, we'll stick to DVDs for this message) would be to make direct use of the DMCA's wording.
First, you can attack the "effective" clause. The DMCA only prohibits circumvention of things that "effectively controls access". You can say that the DVD encryption wasn't very effective to start with, though this is not a very strong argument.
You can encourage them to add DVDs to the exemption list because circumvention is necessary in order to gain fair use priviledges of the copyrighted work without using licensed players. The absolute denial of fair use priviledges without a license (or licensed player) from the DVD consortium should not be supported by law. Nowhere in the DMCA does it restrict fair use priviledges explicitly in this way.
Note that I am not a legal expert, etc, etc. Please read as much as you can from other posters and the various advocacy howtos to make sure your message is clear and makes a real positive difference.
When I read the headline I didn't even consider that this book might be about racial inequality. I was thinking about people predicting dark futures or something like that on the Internet. Only once I read the first couple paragraphs did I realize they were talking about a "racial issue".
Guess I'm just not used to thinking about that, eh?
Excellent point (in the first paragraph). They are on the right side of the debate, so this battle we want them to win.
But I encourage Slashdotters not to read into ESR that we should support Microsoft on this issue. We should support open standards. It just happens that for now, for right now, they're on our side.
I'm from KC -- if you read the articles the kids involved were deliberately disobeying practically every single safety regulation (don't stand up, make sure your seat bar is down and locked, etc, etc, etc)
Obviously the community is not going to listen to a committee or company that attempts to impose some kind of standard on the community. In fact, such attempts can only undermine the reputation of Linux and will _cause_ splinters in the community (as this Slashdot discussion surely indicates).
If I was an LSB supporter, I would come up with your standard, and recommend it to the community (so far, I haven't seen a standard yet, just a lot of talk about why there should be one). If your idea is good, the community will adopt it and assist in making it better. If not, well, the community will tell you where you went wrong. Show the code, or in this case, show your standard. Noone in the community is likely to take you (the LSB supporter) seriously unless you provide some solid recommendations. If they make sense, then great! I'd be happy to support them.
The problem here is that an LSB standard must stand on its own merits, not on theories about what should be right for Linux. Until that is understood, no progress will be made.
Let's get out some virtual beer and toast Aegis Technologies for the first Linux game. Hey, it may be no Descent: Freespace or Wing Commander, but then again, this is a startup, people. Support them. Remember that Chris Roberts started from scratch one time, too. And if you don't know who that is, he MADE the Wing Commander universe. The fact that they are on Linux shows that this company is ready to innovate.
I ordered this one 1 minute after I saw the slashdot posting. I encourage everyone who wants to see great games on Linux to kill the flames about how it isn't Wing Commander and all that and play the game. After all, the eye candy on the rendering engine has NOTHING to do with whether it is a good game.
There _are_ standards for graphics API. They aren't "universal" per say because Linux isn't a Microsoftish development where someone high up decrees that developers must use certain things. Sound I will agree has some troubles. But with Mesa/GL as a graphics standard we have no real trouble. Games don't support specific hardware under Linux. Only specific graphics hardware supports Linux. There is a big difference. All this means is that the graphics card manufacturers need to get with the program.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how the author of the article thinks this. If you look at the appropriate section of the copyright code, it says that the _license_ must be "evidenced". I.E., you must have a signed piece of paper somewhere (you or the copyright owner) saying the license exists. That's all. No transfer to the FSF or anything else seems to be required. Maybe other methods of evidence might be possible, but at least my amateur interpretation would be that an earlier non-specific license can and does override a copyright transfer.
I'm no lawyer though. Get one yourself, yada yada.
Yeah for the NAB. I'll actually have to switch on the radio in my car now!
After all, there's a 620 watt halogen bulb as the heat source. With that much light I'm sure that plant growth nearby is somewhat accelerated due to a billion year old invention known as photosynthesis.
:)
The fact that they included this bit of information is a sure sign that this is a hoax.
Besides the fact that it is impossible of course.
Perhaps the writer of this "editorial" should do some basic research on his topic before crying wolf for the community.
I think (and hope) VA's emphasis on distribution-neutral hardware will help keep things clean.
"Open Source Credentials?" How about project lead IA-64, cluster management, SourceForge, OpenProjects....
It's obvious this person has no clue who VA even is. If he did a little research (ESR on the board for crying out loud) he would probably pipe down.
I believe that the term GNU/Linux _IS_ "a total travesty of fairness" on the part of the Free Software Foundation. Linus pioneered a bazaar style development model that the FSF could still learn a thing or two from -- GNU projects are notorious for their difficulty of developer entrance (witness XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs, or the fact that Hurd is barely to 0.3 after ten years of development).
:)
Aside from that, the argument that Linux uses many GNU utilities and therefore should be called GNU/Linux just doesn't hold water. Perhaps I should say my Linux workstation is OpenGroup/Linux because I use X, or BSD/Linux because I use some BSD-derived system utilities. If RMS wants GNU/Linux, what argument does he have against names like GNU/BSD/OpenGroup/Linux? I think this pretty much reduces his arguments to absurdity.
Don't get me wrong -- I greatly respect RMS's coding abilities and his vision for free software. It's just that his ideas don't _always_ match with reality..
There's a marked difference between us and Windows NT. People are free to believe in Linux because developers everywhere can see its progress. IBM has realized their mistake -- noone knew NT was going to fail, because noone had realized just how flawed NT was at its core.
If there is something to Linux that would make it impossible to use for high-end tasks, it would be seen by all.
Guess what. It isn't there.
We Will Bury You.
I'm afraid I don't buy this story. It seems rather odd that _AFTER_ talking to his lawyer, he would even be mentioning anything about counter suits or anything like that (most lawyers tell you to keep your fool mouth shut, and for good reason). Of course, he has recently "changed" his e-mail address. Bah.
Can we have something like independent verification? Things like this are too serious to screw up on here, let's see some evidence.
Also, looks like mainstream media is actually capable of looking at both sides.. See this very pro-DeCSS article at CNN.com. Interesting how they have no mention of this...
I think the best way to state your case here (supporting DVDs or any medium, we'll stick to DVDs for this message) would be to make direct use of the DMCA's wording.
First, you can attack the "effective" clause. The DMCA only prohibits circumvention of things that "effectively controls access". You can say that the DVD encryption wasn't very effective to start with, though this is not a very strong argument.
You can encourage them to add DVDs to the exemption list because circumvention is necessary in order to gain fair use priviledges of the copyrighted work without using licensed players. The absolute denial of fair use priviledges without a license (or licensed player) from the DVD consortium should not be supported by law. Nowhere in the DMCA does it restrict fair use priviledges explicitly in this way.
Note that I am not a legal expert, etc, etc. Please read as much as you can from other posters and the various advocacy howtos to make sure your message is clear and makes a real positive difference.
When I read the headline I didn't even consider that this book might be about racial inequality. I was thinking about people predicting dark futures or something like that on the Internet. Only once I read the first couple paragraphs did I realize they were talking about a "racial issue".
Guess I'm just not used to thinking about that, eh?
Nah, it's just like they advertised the mustang in mint condition, but when you get there you find out that it is totally disassembled :)
Well, genes may be the new and upcoming thing, but unless GCC includes a cross compiler I'm going to stay away from them.
Hmph. I guess that means Microsoft software is going for about what it's worth in China. :)
Excellent point (in the first paragraph). They are on the right side of the debate, so this battle we want them to win.
But I encourage Slashdotters not to read into ESR that we should support Microsoft on this issue. We should support open standards. It just happens that for now, for right now, they're on our side.
Probably not, until someone's head gets whacked off by a pidgeon at 300 mph or something...
I'm from KC -- if you read the articles the kids involved were deliberately disobeying practically
every single safety regulation (don't stand up,
make sure your seat bar is down and locked, etc, etc, etc)
Can't blame the company for stupid customers.
Yeah, Linux has less than 25% of the desktop market share
now too.
As for resurrecting amigas:
Check out http://www.antigravity.com
Obviously the community is not going to listen to a committee or company that attempts to impose some kind of standard on the community. In fact, such attempts can only undermine the reputation of Linux and will _cause_ splinters in the community (as this Slashdot discussion surely indicates).
If I was an LSB supporter, I would come up with your standard, and recommend it to the community (so far, I haven't seen a standard yet, just a lot of talk about why there should be one). If your idea is good, the community will adopt it and assist in making it better. If not, well, the community will tell you where you went wrong. Show the code, or in this case, show your standard. Noone in the community is likely to take you (the LSB supporter) seriously unless you provide some solid recommendations. If they make sense, then great! I'd be happy to support them.
The problem here is that an LSB standard must stand on its own merits, not on theories about what should be right for Linux. Until that is understood, no progress will be made.
Jason
Let's get out some virtual beer and toast Aegis Technologies for the first Linux game. Hey, it may be no Descent: Freespace or Wing Commander, but then again, this is a startup, people. Support them. Remember that Chris Roberts started from scratch one time, too. And if you don't know who that is, he MADE the Wing Commander universe. The fact that they are on Linux shows that this company is ready to innovate.
I ordered this one 1 minute after I saw the slashdot posting. I encourage everyone who wants to see great games on Linux to kill the flames about how it isn't Wing Commander and all that and play the game. After all, the eye candy on the rendering engine has NOTHING to do with whether it is a good game.
Jason T. Collins
There _are_ standards for graphics API. They aren't "universal" per say because Linux isn't a Microsoftish development where someone high up decrees that developers must use certain things. Sound I will agree has some troubles. But with Mesa/GL as a graphics standard we have no real trouble. Games don't support specific hardware under Linux. Only specific graphics hardware supports Linux. There is a big difference. All this means is that the graphics card manufacturers need to get with the program.