You're really showing your ignorance when you jab at "modern judges". Judges today are some of the brightest, most dedicated people in any profession. This is especially true at the federal level (where it matters most) and less so for elected judicial seats. I used to work for the judge that shut down logging in most of the Pacific Northwest in order to require the EPA to undertake an EIS. Talk about cutting to the heart of the problem. There are a million other examples. What if someone sat you in a federal judge's chair and asked you to run a day of trial/orders/sentencings/settlement hearings/etc.? Think you could do as well? Think again.
If you don't like what the federal judiciary is doing, you can blame the Congress. And guess what? You vote for the Congress.
Aside from all that, have you ever read a legal opinion from the 19th century? I suspect you'd be squirming in your Aeron during all the pomp and circumstance.
Your friends told you what you wanted to hear. Nevertheless, the GPL remains malleable to a fault.
What if the "preferred form of the work for making modifications" is an encoded document that requires a special interpreter to re-compile? Is that "machine-readable"? Technically, it is. Do "interface definition files" include the interpreter? Maybe - maybe not.
Notice how the GPL fails to require that the source code be presented in a form that can be compiled with readily-available tools? That's what I'd call a giant oversight.
BTW, the fact that your two lawyer friends don't agree with me does not mean that "no other lawyers" do. It's this kind of logic that separates my "type" from your "type".
Your clarifying language...
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yes, that would be one test for "preferred form", but there are others and the other side of any dispute will present them. The point is that the standard that you propose does not necessarily follow from the language of the GPL. In other words, your standard is more suitable than the GPL language. Of course, at trial, the credibility of your engineers and/or anyone testifying about their procedures will be at issue.
There might be a more airtight alternative public license. I don't know. One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one.
You are not anal enough either. (IAAL)
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First of all, IAAL. Second, the GPL's definitional distinction between source and object/executable form relies on two key terms that cannot be objectively measured: "preferred" and "normally". I defy you to provide me with objective metrics for measuring what is "normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system on which the executable runs." Equally imnpossible is a definitive response to the question "what is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it?"
In order to impart meaning to the GPL distinction between source vs. object/executable, one must go on a fact-finding parade to measure industry practice, and other wishy-washy standards. In the context of a dispute over a GPL'd bit of code, you can be damn sure that the GPL will collapse under the weight of this fact-finding process, and that the party with more patience and money will win that battle.
There are some things that lawyers understand better than geeks, believe it or not. We are (generally) excellent at spotting weakness in prospective arguments. In the case of the GPL, there are drafting holes big enough to drive a Trident submarine through. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the GPL won't hold water in a dispute. The reason no one has given you any precedent (as per your request) is that the GPL has not been truly tested in court. Since the GPL eschews the lessons that lawyers have learned about drafting in the past (largely in order to score points with geeks by being colloquial in manner and sounding un-lawerly), it cripples itself with imprecision and ambiguities. The weakness in its core definition of source vs. object/executable is merely one of many fatal flaws in the document. To be perfectly frank, the GPL is a POS contract and I would arguably be liable for malpractice if I advised a client to use it for reason other than their unbending adherence to open source dogma.
In conclusion, you are likely to see many companies "abusing" the GPL. Rather than use the loaded term "abusing", I would prefer to characterize this behavior as "exploiting" the unsophisticated and niave drafting of the GPL's language.
Since I said "IAAL", I must also say that the above does not represent a formal legal opinion, that I do not represent you (the reader) as your lawyer, and that you should not treat this message as my legal advice to you. Laugh all you want -- I'm just sticking to my ethical directives, kids.
I would assume that, unlike the krack readme, books and manuals and tutorials on Maya are actually in whole sentences that relate to reality. I might be wrong about that, though. I guess that's what happens when PC guys are in charge of the kracking.
Can someone post a coherent version of the instructions on how to implement the Maya krack? The damn readme that comes with that krack are so poorly drafted. I mean, where the hell do I put that silly "AW.DAT" file?
/me awaits visit from BSA. (I'm only kidding, sorta).
I agree wholeheartedly, and would add that most games journalists (if you can call them that) are missing the dark underbelly of Nintendo. Sure, it all seems cute at first glance, but there is a sinister aspect to most Nintendo games. Just try a round of Super Smash Bros. Melee with Jigglypuff vs. Picachu, and you'll see what I mean!
You euros regulate your commercial sector so that you can claim a higher standard of human rights, but you hamstring your businesses and your regulations tolerate (and ecourage) laziness and apathy in the private sector. How useful will your human rights regime be when you come under the power of a much larger, more successful economic power? Oh wait...you already are under the thumb of just such a power -- namely the USA!! Have a nice trip to the bottom.
You think the USA doesn't know about fighting for freedom? Odds are we fought for the freedom in whatever country you come from.
As for your argument that we forfeited our rights -- I don't think anyone should expect to have privacy once they set foot in an airport.
Air travel is not a right. And finally, no country has more dudes suing on constitutional issues than we do, so I'm not sure why you are gloating about that.
Why would you need a lawyer? Are you incapable of understanding the license terms without a lawyer? Are you incapable of refusing to agree to those terms by yourself?
Any sophisticated business person would know that boilerplate makes its way into corporate contracts (esp. end user license forms) because some moron executive (possibly the company's general counsel) decreed that there are certain terms that always have to appear in every contract. Those of us in private practice know that 8 out of 10 in-house lawyers are lazy, sloppy and often hog-tied by overbearing business people suffering from omniscience fantasies.
Your jab at "lawyers" reveals that you don't know much about how business really works.
You need to use an application that shows invisible files. In OS X, use TinkerTool. In OS 9, use Greg's Browser or something like that.
Once you've got invisible files/folders showing, use the following path:
"iPod_Control/Music"
Inside this folder are a series of other folders named "F01, F02, F03,...etc."
Your music files are grouped in there in their original MP3 glory. I don't pretend to have parsed out the rationale/pattern for placement of songs in the "F" series of subdirectories.
Another way to do it is posted on Macworld.com here.
Disclaimer: The above is from memory and hastily prepared. Feel free to correct me, but no need to get pissy!
wouldn't it be cool to be the guy that opened up iPod to a vast new platform? Am I missing something? That seems damn cool to me. I'd do it myself, but I'm just another damn lawyer.
You've given a fairly accurate account of the consumer end user layer, but the parent comment was addressing the corporate purchasing layer. The purchasing departments of big companies only buy one thing from vendors -- accountability. The open source community is deluding itself if it thinks that it can establish an equivalency with the software giants without absorbing post-sale/license accountability for their products. Let me repeat: vendor accountability is the number one criterion for corporate procurement. Any product that isn't supported (or at least APPEARS to be supported) by the vendor is not going to work in a corporate environment, because the last thing that CIO's want is to in-source support for functions. Doing so would make them accountable for failures, and would preclude them from going to the Board of Directors and arguing that Microsoft (or any other IT vendor) sucks.
It's curious that you are so certain that shrink-wrap or click through agreements are not enforceable under "basic contract law." Here's some basic contract law for you: many judges in many jurisdictions have upheld the validity of shrink-wraps. While UCITA explicitly makes them enforceable, it does so on the condition that the consumer is permitted to reject the software once they've had a chance to review the full license terms. So, UCITA is actually more pro-consumer than the common law in many jurisdictions. How many jurisdictions have rejected the validity of shrink/click agreements? None that I know of. So much for your assertion that they violate "basic contract law." As for your claim that judges are bought and sold by corporations, you clearly don't know any judges personally. They must not visit your mountain retreat in Idaho much, I guess. And finally, yes, you have a license to the content of a book. Do you think you own the publishing rights when you buy a copy? You need to get the whole "bundle of rights" concept straight, buddy. Your ignorance of the law is totally inexcusable. It's people like you that drag this world down through Quixote-esque antagonism of the very social mechanisms designed to permit you to open the gaping hole in your head. Begone, fool!
Slashdot Mirror
You're really showing your ignorance when you jab at "modern judges". Judges today are some of the brightest, most dedicated people in any profession. This is especially true at the federal level (where it matters most) and less so for elected judicial seats. I used to work for the judge that shut down logging in most of the Pacific Northwest in order to require the EPA to undertake an EIS. Talk about cutting to the heart of the problem. There are a million other examples. What if someone sat you in a federal judge's chair and asked you to run a day of trial/orders/sentencings/settlement hearings/etc.? Think you could do as well? Think again.
If you don't like what the federal judiciary is doing, you can blame the Congress. And guess what? You vote for the Congress.
Aside from all that, have you ever read a legal opinion from the 19th century? I suspect you'd be squirming in your Aeron during all the pomp and circumstance.
Your friends told you what you wanted to hear. Nevertheless, the GPL remains malleable to a fault.
What if the "preferred form of the work for making modifications" is an encoded document that requires a special interpreter to re-compile? Is that "machine-readable"? Technically, it is. Do "interface definition files" include the interpreter? Maybe - maybe not.
Notice how the GPL fails to require that the source code be presented in a form that can be compiled with readily-available tools? That's what I'd call a giant oversight.
BTW, the fact that your two lawyer friends don't agree with me does not mean that "no other lawyers" do. It's this kind of logic that separates my "type" from your "type".
Yes, that would be one test for "preferred form", but there are others and the other side of any dispute will present them. The point is that the standard that you propose does not necessarily follow from the language of the GPL. In other words, your standard is more suitable than the GPL language. Of course, at trial, the credibility of your engineers and/or anyone testifying about their procedures will be at issue.
There might be a more airtight alternative public license. I don't know. One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one.
First of all, IAAL. Second, the GPL's definitional distinction between source and object/executable form relies on two key terms that cannot be objectively measured: "preferred" and "normally". I defy you to provide me with objective metrics for measuring what is "normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system on which the executable runs." Equally imnpossible is a definitive response to the question "what is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it?"
In order to impart meaning to the GPL distinction between source vs. object/executable, one must go on a fact-finding parade to measure industry practice, and other wishy-washy standards. In the context of a dispute over a GPL'd bit of code, you can be damn sure that the GPL will collapse under the weight of this fact-finding process, and that the party with more patience and money will win that battle.
There are some things that lawyers understand better than geeks, believe it or not. We are (generally) excellent at spotting weakness in prospective arguments. In the case of the GPL, there are drafting holes big enough to drive a Trident submarine through. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the GPL won't hold water in a dispute. The reason no one has given you any precedent (as per your request) is that the GPL has not been truly tested in court. Since the GPL eschews the lessons that lawyers have learned about drafting in the past (largely in order to score points with geeks by being colloquial in manner and sounding un-lawerly), it cripples itself with imprecision and ambiguities. The weakness in its core definition of source vs. object/executable is merely one of many fatal flaws in the document. To be perfectly frank, the GPL is a POS contract and I would arguably be liable for malpractice if I advised a client to use it for reason other than their unbending adherence to open source dogma.
In conclusion, you are likely to see many companies "abusing" the GPL. Rather than use the loaded term "abusing", I would prefer to characterize this behavior as "exploiting" the unsophisticated and niave drafting of the GPL's language.
Since I said "IAAL", I must also say that the above does not represent a formal legal opinion, that I do not represent you (the reader) as your lawyer, and that you should not treat this message as my legal advice to you. Laugh all you want -- I'm just sticking to my ethical directives, kids.
I would assume that, unlike the krack readme, books and manuals and tutorials on Maya are actually in whole sentences that relate to reality. I might be wrong about that, though. I guess that's what happens when PC guys are in charge of the kracking.
Now you slashdotted netstat!! (J/k, obviously).
Can someone post a coherent version of the instructions on how to implement the Maya krack? The damn readme that comes with that krack are so poorly drafted. I mean, where the hell do I put that silly "AW.DAT" file?
/me awaits visit from BSA. (I'm only kidding, sorta).
Mmmmmm...rolls.
Maybe you should post the name of that ISP, in case someone wants to un-block them.
I'm not too smart, but isn't it hundredths of a penny, thousandths of a dollar?
I agree wholeheartedly, and would add that most games journalists (if you can call them that) are missing the dark underbelly of Nintendo. Sure, it all seems cute at first glance, but there is a sinister aspect to most Nintendo games. Just try a round of Super Smash Bros. Melee with Jigglypuff vs. Picachu, and you'll see what I mean!
You euros regulate your commercial sector so that you can claim a higher standard of human rights, but you hamstring your businesses and your regulations tolerate (and ecourage) laziness and apathy in the private sector. How useful will your human rights regime be when you come under the power of a much larger, more successful economic power? Oh wait...you already are under the thumb of just such a power -- namely the USA!! Have a nice trip to the bottom.
You think the USA doesn't know about fighting for freedom? Odds are we fought for the freedom in whatever country you come from.
As for your argument that we forfeited our rights -- I don't think anyone should expect to have privacy once they set foot in an airport.
Air travel is not a right. And finally, no country has more dudes suing on constitutional issues than we do, so I'm not sure why you are gloating about that.
Seeing as Microsoft and USPS are two monopolies that excel in crappy service, why would anyone be surprised to see them picking each other's noses?
Why would you need a lawyer? Are you incapable of understanding the license terms without a lawyer? Are you incapable of refusing to agree to those terms by yourself?
Can't be understood by who? You?
Any sophisticated business person would know that boilerplate makes its way into corporate contracts (esp. end user license forms) because some moron executive (possibly the company's general counsel) decreed that there are certain terms that always have to appear in every contract. Those of us in private practice know that 8 out of 10 in-house lawyers are lazy, sloppy and often hog-tied by overbearing business people suffering from omniscience fantasies.
Your jab at "lawyers" reveals that you don't know much about how business really works.
You need to use an application that shows invisible files. In OS X, use TinkerTool. In OS 9, use Greg's Browser or something like that.
Once you've got invisible files/folders showing, use the following path:
"iPod_Control/Music"
Inside this folder are a series of other folders named "F01, F02, F03,...etc."
Your music files are grouped in there in their original MP3 glory. I don't pretend to have parsed out the rationale/pattern for placement of songs in the "F" series of subdirectories.
Another way to do it is posted on Macworld.com here.
Disclaimer: The above is from memory and hastily prepared. Feel free to correct me, but no need to get pissy!
I guess you've never had to sort by song title or artist or bit rate or album name or...
Just imagine if the Woz had held public meetings immediately after he built the Apple I to show people how he did it. Wait a minute...!
wouldn't it be cool to be the guy that opened up iPod to a vast new platform? Am I missing something? That seems damn cool to me. I'd do it myself, but I'm just another damn lawyer.
You've given a fairly accurate account of the consumer end user layer, but the parent comment was addressing the corporate purchasing layer. The purchasing departments of big companies only buy one thing from vendors -- accountability. The open source community is deluding itself if it thinks that it can establish an equivalency with the software giants without absorbing post-sale/license accountability for their products. Let me repeat: vendor accountability is the number one criterion for corporate procurement. Any product that isn't supported (or at least APPEARS to be supported) by the vendor is not going to work in a corporate environment, because the last thing that CIO's want is to in-source support for functions. Doing so would make them accountable for failures, and would preclude them from going to the Board of Directors and arguing that Microsoft (or any other IT vendor) sucks.
...did you fix the cable, or what?
It's curious that you are so certain that shrink-wrap or click through agreements are not enforceable under "basic contract law." Here's some basic contract law for you: many judges in many jurisdictions have upheld the validity of shrink-wraps. While UCITA explicitly makes them enforceable, it does so on the condition that the consumer is permitted to reject the software once they've had a chance to review the full license terms. So, UCITA is actually more pro-consumer than the common law in many jurisdictions. How many jurisdictions have rejected the validity of shrink/click agreements? None that I know of. So much for your assertion that they violate "basic contract law." As for your claim that judges are bought and sold by corporations, you clearly don't know any judges personally. They must not visit your mountain retreat in Idaho much, I guess. And finally, yes, you have a license to the content of a book. Do you think you own the publishing rights when you buy a copy? You need to get the whole "bundle of rights" concept straight, buddy. Your ignorance of the law is totally inexcusable. It's people like you that drag this world down through Quixote-esque antagonism of the very social mechanisms designed to permit you to open the gaping hole in your head. Begone, fool!