If your distribution occurred in the US, your use may well have been a Fair Use under US Copyright Law. Since the GPL gets it's strength from Copyright, it follows that any area not regulated by Copyright is not regulated by the GPL. Thus you may make Fair Uses
If you apply the four factor test to your distribution: you distributed a short portion of a work (tends to find in favor of fair use) verbatim (tends to find against fair use) for non-commercial purposes (tends to find in favor of fair use) and in a way that has no effect on the market for the underlying work (tends to find in favor of fair use). Most of these elements tend to find in favor of fair use.
There have been GPLed servers for many years now. I don't know why this is suddenly considered a problem.
The GPL has never encompassed usage restrictions. The restrictions of the GPL only happen on distribution. If you don't distribute, then you have no restrictions placed on you at all.
But perhaps the answer to this is "public performance" rights. If the running of a program on a server can be made a public performance right, then you may have the legal levberage necessary to prohibit it.
Recently on LKML, an opinion was expressed that Linus is an editor for the Linux kernel and holds a compilation copyright on the kernels he releases. As such, he has standing to sue any violator. I think this argument has a lot of merit.
Many questions on the applicability of the GPL to a particular distribution scheme hinge on the legal question of whether the work is a derivative of some GPLed work.
What do you consider are the key considerations in determining if a work is derivative or not?
Marshall Fields has purchased a number of catalogs formerly run to benefit Public Radio and Television: Signals and Brittania Video come to mind immediately.
Troll me once, shame on you. Troll me twice, shame on me.
I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.
On the contrary, there are a huge number of observations which could conceivably disprove evolution if they were to be observed. You mention it yourself by finding Jurassic preceeding the Cambrian. Discovering essentially modern forms hundreds of million of years before they could have evolved would put a huge dent in evolution.
But, it's also true that the evidence for evolution is so massive and compelling that quite a few observations would be needed to convince the Scientific community that evolution was no longer viable as a framework.
Distilled to its logical essence, it's practically self-obvious. Currently, electrical engineers are using "evolutionary" methods to design circuits. By making random "mutations" and "cross-breeding" test designs which are then rated on how well they meet the design goal.
A claim for a 6000 year old Earth is just not Scientifically supported. It is Religion posing as Science solely because of the First Amendment and the fact that you literally can't teach modern Biology without teaching Evolution.
Evolution is such a sucessful theory that it is a fundamental unifying principle of Biology. Prior to Evolution, Biology was a loose grouping of independant disciplines. Genetics was independant of Cladistics was independant of observations of the behaviors of organisms. Today, all the subfields of Biology are related through the principle of Evolution.
To find a useful and convincing replacement for Evolution, you are going to have to replace a whole lot of useful Biology.
So, rather than Creationism/Evolution being two equally competing philosophical underpinings for the world we live in, as you portray, they are instead a Scientific and a non-Scientific way of explaining the same things.
Whilch is all I said in the first place: Creationism is not Science, it is Religion.
I have tickets for two to a[n off-Broadway] show in NYC. Dinner, show, greeting card, a small token of my esteem (Buffy DVDs!) and I'll get off for about $150.
The problem is that the foam often picks up ice which makes the projectile much harder than the underlying substrate.
Re:30 seconds of telemetry
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are two ways for telemetry data to get from the shuttle to the ground. There are direct shuttle to Earth-based stations, but these but off as the plasma from reentry overwhelms the signal. [1]
There is a second path where data is sent from the shuttle to low orbit satellites and then onto geosynchronous satellites and back down to earth. This data was origionally automatically discarded (i.e. not passed on to mission control) as it had more than a predetermined level of static. NASA is now looking to see if any of the data that was sent is readable to see if something of those 30 cesonds can be learned. They are hoping that 50% of the data sent during that period can be read.
[1] A familiar event in Apollo splash-downs from my youth was the period that mission control lost contact with the descending command module as the plasma generated by reentry cut off radio transmissions during the actual reentry. I remember the news announcers always talking about the ablative shielding which protected the craft from the heat of reentry and that, if it ever failed, the craft would burn up as it entered the atmosphere.
Hey, some people idle and read all the conversations when they have time.
When I see someone doing that in the channel I op, I kick them with the message to come back when they are at the keyboard.
When I go into my channel, I like to find people to chat with, not a dozen or so idle connections of people who have gone out for the evening having left their connection up and want to kibitz on my conversation when they return without having contributed anything to it.
You don't know what you are talking about, so you rant.
There is nothing malformed about a.elvis DNS request. ICANN might decide to open up.elvis registrations tomorrow and program the root servers to respond to them. If every DNS server had to be reprogrammed every time a new TLD was added, it would be a maintenance problem whenever the TLDs were expanded.
The elegant part of the design was to define the protocol to look up unknown TLDs and unrecognized TLDs at the roots. It didn't anticipate a few million monkeys typing search terms into browser address lines.
The fault for the excess lookups lies in the applications programmers.
When the 80386 came out, IBM did not make any systems with it for several years. They continued to ship 80286-based IBM ATs. Compaq shipped the first 386 systems.
In '87, IBM shipped their first 386 based systems hobbled with the Microchannel Bus, but by then, the ship had sailed and Compaq and others were selling 386 besed systems.
I remember it first hand as well. I guess at our age, some memories begin to fog over.
They had an effective monopoly in computer equpiment. Sure there were competitors, but they ate the crumbs that IBM couldn't be bothered to bend over to reach. They had been the subject of a long standing antitrust investigation by the Justice Department which was dropped by the Reagan Administration.
Along comes the microcomputer which IBM names the PC. But, IBM wants to protect it's mainframe business, so they try to deliberately hobble the nacent PC so that it won't take away desktops holding a 3270 terminal. They don't build PCs with Intel's new 80386 chip.
The result, competitors fill the markets which IBM's internal politics won't let them fill. Compaq sells 386s hand over fist and IBM loses the market they made.
Now Sony makes the same mistake.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it -- Satayana
I think it was pretty inevitable that this acquittal was appealed. The judge had to make rulings of how the law applies to this kind of charge. Those type of rulings (ie.e what the prosecution has to prove to sustain a guilty verdict) are exactly the kinds of things that get appealed.
It's inportant to distinguish finding of fact from findings of law. Remember the Jackson findings in the Microsoft case? He seperated his findings of fact from his findings of how the law applied to the case. It is his legal findings which were overruled, not his findings of fact.
Had this case gone the other way, Jon's lawyers would be appealing the legal rulings the same way the prosecution is today.
As regards double jeopardy, if the appeals court finds that the judge made errors in the application of the law, then that trial was flawed and it's result is null. A retrial typically results if an appeal does not uphold the ruling of a trial court.
The "other" CTEA challange is Golan v. Ashcroft which has been on hold while Eldred v. Ashcroft was being decided.
The CTEA took some works which were previously in the Public Domain in the US and restored their Copyright. Golan, a conductor, lost the use of some compositions which were formerly in the PD in the US. This case will now procede.
The Court decided that the 1790 Copyright Act extended existing copyrights. Lessig always said that this was the biggest hurdle. The Supreme Court gives special prominance to the acts of the first Congress because the people who served in it were the same ones who wrote the Constitution so, therefore, they knew what it meant better than anyone else.
Lessig tried to make the case that the 1790 Act replaced an existing State Copyright scheme with a Federal one, but that argument was not accepted by the majority.
WHat you've conveniently snipped out in your trollish post is all of the applications benchmarks showing improvements. If you're not going to run any application code, you might as well shut the machine off and save the marginal stress on the environment.
Most of us have our computers do work and those applications, running on an OS which has *barely* slowed, will be able to do more work in the same amount of time under the HT-aware OS than under one which does not utilize the second, virtual processor.
Slashdot Mirror
...licenses without compensation are revokable.
If your distribution occurred in the US, your use may well have been a Fair Use under US Copyright Law. Since the GPL gets it's strength from Copyright, it follows that any area not regulated by Copyright is not regulated by the GPL. Thus you may make Fair Uses
If you apply the four factor test to your distribution: you distributed a short portion of a work (tends to find in favor of fair use) verbatim (tends to find against fair use) for non-commercial purposes (tends to find in favor of fair use) and in a way that has no effect on the market for the underlying work (tends to find in favor of fair use). Most of these elements tend to find in favor of fair use.
There have been GPLed servers for many years now. I don't know why this is suddenly considered a problem.
The GPL has never encompassed usage restrictions. The restrictions of the GPL only happen on distribution. If you don't distribute, then you have no restrictions placed on you at all.
But perhaps the answer to this is "public performance" rights. If the running of a program on a server can be made a public performance right, then you may have the legal levberage necessary to prohibit it.
Recently on LKML, an opinion was expressed that Linus is an editor for the Linux kernel and holds a compilation copyright on the kernels he releases. As such, he has standing to sue any violator. I think this argument has a lot of merit.
Many questions on the applicability of the GPL to a particular distribution scheme hinge on the legal question of whether the work is a derivative of some GPLed work.
What do you consider are the key considerations in determining if a work is derivative or not?
Marshall Fields has purchased a number of catalogs formerly run to benefit Public Radio and Television: Signals and Brittania Video come to mind immediately.
Troll me once, shame on you. Troll me twice, shame on me.
I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.
On the contrary, there are a huge number of observations which could conceivably disprove evolution if they were to be observed. You mention it yourself by finding Jurassic preceeding the Cambrian. Discovering essentially modern forms hundreds of million of years before they could have evolved would put a huge dent in evolution.
But, it's also true that the evidence for evolution is so massive and compelling that quite a few observations would be needed to convince the Scientific community that evolution was no longer viable as a framework.
Distilled to its logical essence, it's practically self-obvious. Currently, electrical engineers are using "evolutionary" methods to design circuits. By making random "mutations" and "cross-breeding" test designs which are then rated on how well they meet the design goal.
A claim for a 6000 year old Earth is just not Scientifically supported. It is Religion posing as Science solely because of the First Amendment and the fact that you literally can't teach modern Biology without teaching Evolution.
Evolution is such a sucessful theory that it is a fundamental unifying principle of Biology. Prior to Evolution, Biology was a loose grouping of independant disciplines. Genetics was independant of Cladistics was independant of observations of the behaviors of organisms. Today, all the subfields of Biology are related through the principle of Evolution.
To find a useful and convincing replacement for Evolution, you are going to have to replace a whole lot of useful Biology.
So, rather than Creationism/Evolution being two equally competing philosophical underpinings for the world we live in, as you portray, they are instead a Scientific and a non-Scientific way of explaining the same things.
Whilch is all I said in the first place: Creationism is not Science, it is Religion.
I have tickets for two to a[n off-Broadway] show in NYC. Dinner, show, greeting card, a small token of my esteem (Buffy DVDs!) and I'll get off for about $150.
Unfortunately, Creationists are anti-rational.(some might say that they are ir-rational, but I won't go that far.)
THe problem with Creationism is that it isn't Science, it is Religion. It isn't Science because it can't be disproved.
No, that's alright, no thanks necessary.
The problem is that the foam often picks up ice which makes the projectile much harder than the underlying substrate.
There are two ways for telemetry data to get from the shuttle to the ground. There are direct shuttle to Earth-based stations, but these but off as the plasma from reentry overwhelms the signal. [1]
There is a second path where data is sent from the shuttle to low orbit satellites and then onto geosynchronous satellites and back down to earth. This data was origionally automatically discarded (i.e. not passed on to mission control) as it had more than a predetermined level of static. NASA is now looking to see if any of the data that was sent is readable to see if something of those 30 cesonds can be learned. They are hoping that 50% of the data sent during that period can be read.
[1] A familiar event in Apollo splash-downs from my youth was the period that mission control lost contact with the descending command module as the plasma generated by reentry cut off radio transmissions during the actual reentry. I remember the news announcers always talking about the ablative shielding which protected the craft from the heat of reentry and that, if it ever failed, the craft would burn up as it entered the atmosphere.
Hey, some people idle and read all the conversations when they have time.
When I see someone doing that in the channel I op, I kick them with the message to come back when they are at the keyboard.
When I go into my channel, I like to find people to chat with, not a dozen or so idle connections of people who have gone out for the evening having left their connection up and want to kibitz on my conversation when they return without having contributed anything to it.
Frankly, I think it's a little creepy.
You don't know what you are talking about, so you rant.
.elvis DNS request. ICANN might decide to open up .elvis registrations tomorrow and program the root servers to respond to them. If every DNS server had to be reprogrammed every time a new TLD was added, it would be a maintenance problem whenever the TLDs were expanded.
There is nothing malformed about a
The elegant part of the design was to define the protocol to look up unknown TLDs and unrecognized TLDs at the roots. It didn't anticipate a few million monkeys typing search terms into browser address lines.
The fault for the excess lookups lies in the applications programmers.
When the 80386 came out, IBM did not make any systems with it for several years. They continued to ship 80286-based IBM ATs. Compaq shipped the first 386 systems.
In '87, IBM shipped their first 386 based systems hobbled with the Microchannel Bus, but by then, the ship had sailed and Compaq and others were selling 386 besed systems.
I remember it first hand as well. I guess at our age, some memories begin to fog over.
IBM used to be Microsoft.
They had an effective monopoly in computer equpiment. Sure there were competitors, but they ate the crumbs that IBM couldn't be bothered to bend over to reach. They had been the subject of a long standing antitrust investigation by the Justice Department which was dropped by the Reagan Administration.
Along comes the microcomputer which IBM names the PC. But, IBM wants to protect it's mainframe business, so they try to deliberately hobble the nacent PC so that it won't take away desktops holding a 3270 terminal. They don't build PCs with Intel's new 80386 chip.
The result, competitors fill the markets which IBM's internal politics won't let them fill. Compaq sells 386s hand over fist and IBM loses the market they made.
Now Sony makes the same mistake.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it -- Satayana
I think it was pretty inevitable that this acquittal was appealed. The judge had to make rulings of how the law applies to this kind of charge. Those type of rulings (ie.e what the prosecution has to prove to sustain a guilty verdict) are exactly the kinds of things that get appealed.
It's inportant to distinguish finding of fact from findings of law. Remember the Jackson findings in the Microsoft case? He seperated his findings of fact from his findings of how the law applied to the case. It is his legal findings which were overruled, not his findings of fact.
Had this case gone the other way, Jon's lawyers would be appealing the legal rulings the same way the prosecution is today.
As regards double jeopardy, if the appeals court finds that the judge made errors in the application of the law, then that trial was flawed and it's result is null. A retrial typically results if an appeal does not uphold the ruling of a trial court.
Becuase Bill Gates.
... heh...
/me stops to catch his breath.
Get it? Because Bill *Gates*. Ho ho ha ha ha ha... ha... heh heh heh
<whew!>
The "other" CTEA challange is Golan v. Ashcroft which has been on hold while Eldred v. Ashcroft was being decided.
The CTEA took some works which were previously in the Public Domain in the US and restored their Copyright. Golan, a conductor, lost the use of some compositions which were formerly in the PD in the US. This case will now procede.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/8/4/131935/4402
Gee, I wonder if Disney is ever going to argue that Walt never died when (and if) Mickey's copyright expires.
The Court decided that the 1790 Copyright Act extended existing copyrights. Lessig always said that this was the biggest hurdle. The Supreme Court gives special prominance to the acts of the first Congress because the people who served in it were the same ones who wrote the Constitution so, therefore, they knew what it meant better than anyone else.
Lessig tried to make the case that the 1790 Act replaced an existing State Copyright scheme with a Federal one, but that argument was not accepted by the majority.
<sigh>
WHat you've conveniently snipped out in your trollish post is all of the applications benchmarks showing improvements. If you're not going to run any application code, you might as well shut the machine off and save the marginal stress on the environment.
Most of us have our computers do work and those applications, running on an OS which has *barely* slowed, will be able to do more work in the same amount of time under the HT-aware OS than under one which does not utilize the second, virtual processor.
Will AMI pledge not to make DMCA claims against Open SOurce projects? If you do not, why should we believe a word you have to say?
Granted patents are published.