A classic application for the "Overrated" mod
on
Jet3d Game Engine
·
· Score: 1
I'd hazard a guess that it's on sourceforge because it is open source, according to the Open Source Definition (That's a link, by the way, fuckers, so moderate this "Informative").
"Must show logo" is a condition which was applied to Slash up until not so long ago, and is substantially no different from requiring credits to be included in the source
3.2 a) is just the copyright owner's right to produce non-free versions, which exists in the GPL, unless you assign copyright to the FSF.
3.2 b) is effectively a requirement that modifications be made under a less restrictive license than the Jet one, another characteristic of the GPL (this is non-obvious, but follows from the definition of a "Modification"; a Modification is of necessity a modification to their code)
and "when we release new versions, you must update your clients" is specifically excepted as a permissible restriction, under clause 4 of the OSD -- "Integrity of the Author's Source Code".
They're pushing the OSD pretty hard, it must be admitted, but not doing anything so restrictive as to merit being chucked off sourceforge. Look, you got the code, don't you? Stop whining already!
Well, come on, man. It's more analogous to handing out lockpicking tools to people on the street. The vast majority of whom will use them when they accidentally lock themselves out of their houses, but a predictable and significant minority of whom will use them to break into other peoples' houses.
Pretending that DeCSS can't be used for piracy is silly. If code is protected, it's protected whatever it can be used for, and trying to put a cherry on top damages your argument. (I'm a lawyer and the worst thing on earth that can happen to you is when the opposition manage to knock down a little piece of your argument that isn't crucial to your case, but its destruction damages your credibility. It's the worst feeling in the world).
Furthermore, to deny that DeCSS enables illegal copying of DVDs is effectively tantamount to conceding that the manufacturers of DVDs have the right to stop other people from copying them -- that bits can literally be owned. This lets through an important principle, and makes it harder to argue against DMCA and UCITA.
Bottom line; if you want your information to remain proprietary, encrypt it properly, or provide services with licensed copies that people want to have. Don't come fucken whining to the courts when your copy protection gets broken.
This is the case we need to make, and your false claim only weakens it.
"The origins of democracy do not spring from the late 18th century. It was a first practical adaptation by a modern nation state. It is indoubtable flawed, but at least it is." -Me
Oh fuck me red, how wonderful, a defender of free speech with nothing to say. Have you ever considered exercising the Constitutional right to fucken silence, if this ungrammatical, politically naive shit is the best that you can come up with? The "right to free speech" should be retitled the "right to free expression". People with nothing to express should be encouraged to shut the fuck up.
Obviously you will respond "who is to decide who has something to express". Which is fair enough, and that's why we have to compromise and accept "free speech" for all, no matter how stupid, instead of free ideas for those capable of having them, which is what we want. You can't jail someone who appears to be an idiot, because they might actually be a genius.
However, while it's true that they all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round, they also laughed at Reuben Tines, when he said that he could remove the wrinkles from prunes by injecting them with high-pressure steam. And they were right to. The fucking idiot was fatally burned when the boiler on his prune-smoothening machine exploded. There are far more Tines in the world than fucken Columbi. And the Columbuses tend to win through no matter what.
So I guess that laughter is a failry safe and democratic social sanciton to use against those who have nothign to say, but persist in abusing their right to free speech. And so it is I say to you, my fellow Americans: The Anonymous Coward. What a fucken dumbass.
People who've seen Java running faster than equivalent C++ code are like aging rock stars with convincing explanations for the collection of Brazilian child p0rn on their hard drive -- there's fucking millions of them, and nobody believes any of them.
Hence the phrase "in general". But what percentage of the data on any company's systems, even a biotech company, is of such importance? Not twenty per cent, I'd bet.
For a start, any file with the extension ".ppt" should have a sunset period of no more than two weeks, unless there are powerful reasons not to destroy.
People often say that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you have to admit that most sysadmins take the attitude that you shouldn't throw out the bathwater either. Which is why so many corporate archiving systems stink of piss.
Look on the bright side; Pinkertons has a long and ugly history of having people beaten up, from its days providing strike-breaking goons to Ford and Rockefeller. If Katz pisses them off sufficiently, there's an outside chance that they may decide to work him over.
Fair enough, a book on backups, but where's the book on the opposite problem -- safely ensuring that data which you don't want any more is actually destroyed. The Microsoft case showed us pretty good that thoughtless backing up of email systems can come back to haunt you when your hard disks and backup tapes get subpoena'd.
Speaking as a lawyer, my view of the IT profession in general is that they are, for some weird psychological reason, obsessed with preserving all sorts of data of any sort forever, without any thought to whether keeping it is useful, or even downright destructive. In general, anything which really needs to be kept should be printed out and archived in duplicate (this also has the advantage of settling once and for all what time a document was created, unlike electronic formats), while "backups" of most user information should be more focused on deleting the useless and incriminating crap which most users clog up their hard drives with. Although I suppose that nobody's going to get rich selling new database programs or "enterprise level" record management systems that way.
The current form of the Apple-created high-speed peripheral interface (known as the IEEE 1394 industry standard and dubbed i.Link by Sony) is limited to distances of 4.5 meters at that speed, its present top speed, unless a repeater device is used. Oh fucking wonderful. Would some Japanese researchers care to tell me what I'm meant to do with the container-load of repeaters I just bought? I was gonna raise $6bn to cover the entire United states with a network of repeaters, placed in a grid of 4.5 meter squares. (Hey, they funded Iridium).
Oh, if I copy this DVD instead of buying it, I'm only hurting the fat cats at Disney, not the guy who stayed up 72 hours straight in the editing room getting this film ready to go!" "Microsoft has enough money, they don't need mine."
Not wanting to be a dick about this (which appears to be my catchphrase these days), but I happen to know you're not a troll. You're just wrong, which is much less glamorous.
Your statement, meant to be satirical, is actually the truth about the economics of the matter. So what if someone stayed up all night in the edit suite for a Disney movie? He doesn't get any of the money. Disney gets it all.
Microsoft does have enough money. And the fact that there are B2B sales out there to pointy haired bosses with compliance departments means that they will always have enough money to survive and produce software. Making a few copies does not hurt society at all. The lesson of economics is that only marginal things matter. Copying copyrighted material doesn't matter. It doesn't effect things at the margin, because the marginal cost of producing an extra unit is literally zero.
Copyright and intellectual property is not a fact of nature. What it is, is a restriction on free speech, put in place at the behest of producers of information, to create an artificial scarcity which allows them to sell ideas as if they were things. Patents have only been around for a short while, and historically have been recognised as "gifts from the state", which is what they are. Copyright on works of art in its modern form is less than a hundred years old.
Nobody knows what model we should have for promoting creative works. But nobody will be able to develop that model if we pass an act early on in the process, which will stunt development and create a powerful interest group. The DMCA is an act of violence by the vested interest, attempting to seize by force something which we currently regard as common property. We're in a situation analagous to the American Indians when they met up with people who (unlike them) had the concept of private property. We should thank our lucky stars that the property-in-speech lobby can grab our property without also massacring us.
Obviously, this is out of tune with the ideology of my employer, and of myself as a corporate blackletter practitioner (with some involvement in IP). Equally obviously, neither this account nor the yahoo email address attached to it can be traced to me. So fuck you, The Man.
It isn't laughing at a misused word; I don't think the word *is* misused. It's laughing at a)linguistics, the subject (Chomsky is *not* a fraud, either, I know, before the flamers come in on that) and b) the fact that "linguistics" has two meanings.
It's just a pun. Lighten up. Which I agree is a sensitive thing to say to a Norwegian during winter, but hey, the spring's coming through. Oslo's fjord is lovely in the summer.
Offtopic, I know, but this is set to become the next "Gnu/Linux", isn't it? If Linux goes mainstream, we're fundamentally going to have to get used to people pronouncing the word "Lye-nucks". Nobody's going to care; they're just going to give you the sort of funny look that Stallman gets these days for "Gnu/Linux".
Obviously, this is going to get annoying for the Sainted Finn, as it means that he will be addressed as if he were that Peanuts character, but I would guess that after years of living in America, he's got used to that by now.
Sadly, the battle which would be necessary to preserve the integrity of "Lee-nooks" isn't worth fighting. I happen to know that the head man at Glenmorangie puts the stress on the second syllable, but if you want to get your whisky without asking twice for it, you'll put the stress on the third.
Slashdot Mirror
"Must show logo" is a condition which was applied to Slash up until not so long ago, and is substantially no different from requiring credits to be included in the source
3.2 a) is just the copyright owner's right to produce non-free versions, which exists in the GPL, unless you assign copyright to the FSF.
3.2 b) is effectively a requirement that modifications be made under a less restrictive license than the Jet one, another characteristic of the GPL (this is non-obvious, but follows from the definition of a "Modification"; a Modification is of necessity a modification to their code)
and "when we release new versions, you must update your clients" is specifically excepted as a permissible restriction, under clause 4 of the OSD -- "Integrity of the Author's Source Code".
They're pushing the OSD pretty hard, it must be admitted, but not doing anything so restrictive as to merit being chucked off sourceforge. Look, you got the code, don't you? Stop whining already!
montoya
Pretending that DeCSS can't be used for piracy is silly. If code is protected, it's protected whatever it can be used for, and trying to put a cherry on top damages your argument. (I'm a lawyer and the worst thing on earth that can happen to you is when the opposition manage to knock down a little piece of your argument that isn't crucial to your case, but its destruction damages your credibility. It's the worst feeling in the world).
Furthermore, to deny that DeCSS enables illegal copying of DVDs is effectively tantamount to conceding that the manufacturers of DVDs have the right to stop other people from copying them -- that bits can literally be owned. This lets through an important principle, and makes it harder to argue against DMCA and UCITA.
Bottom line; if you want your information to remain proprietary, encrypt it properly, or provide services with licensed copies that people want to have. Don't come fucken whining to the courts when your copy protection gets broken.
This is the case we need to make, and your false claim only weakens it.
Oh fuck me red, how wonderful, a defender of free speech with nothing to say. Have you ever considered exercising the Constitutional right to fucken silence, if this ungrammatical, politically naive shit is the best that you can come up with? The "right to free speech" should be retitled the "right to free expression". People with nothing to express should be encouraged to shut the fuck up.
Obviously you will respond "who is to decide who has something to express". Which is fair enough, and that's why we have to compromise and accept "free speech" for all, no matter how stupid, instead of free ideas for those capable of having them, which is what we want. You can't jail someone who appears to be an idiot, because they might actually be a genius.
However, while it's true that they all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round, they also laughed at Reuben Tines, when he said that he could remove the wrinkles from prunes by injecting them with high-pressure steam. And they were right to. The fucking idiot was fatally burned when the boiler on his prune-smoothening machine exploded. There are far more Tines in the world than fucken Columbi. And the Columbuses tend to win through no matter what.
So I guess that laughter is a failry safe and democratic social sanciton to use against those who have nothign to say, but persist in abusing their right to free speech. And so it is I say to you, my fellow Americans: The Anonymous Coward. What a fucken dumbass.
John Montoya, elitist and proud to be so.
People who've seen Java running faster than equivalent C++ code are like aging rock stars with convincing explanations for the collection of Brazilian child p0rn on their hard drive -- there's fucking millions of them, and nobody believes any of them.
That's my analogy for the day.
They came first for the Communists...but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews... but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Unionists...but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Unionist.
Then they came for the Perl programmers, and I said "Well, seems that nobody's all bad".
For a start, any file with the extension ".ppt" should have a sunset period of no more than two weeks, unless there are powerful reasons not to destroy.
People often say that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you have to admit that most sysadmins take the attitude that you shouldn't throw out the bathwater either. Which is why so many corporate archiving systems stink of piss.
Look on the bright side; Pinkertons has a long and ugly history of having people beaten up, from its days providing strike-breaking goons to Ford and Rockefeller. If Katz pisses them off sufficiently, there's an outside chance that they may decide to work him over.
Speaking as a lawyer, my view of the IT profession in general is that they are, for some weird psychological reason, obsessed with preserving all sorts of data of any sort forever, without any thought to whether keeping it is useful, or even downright destructive. In general, anything which really needs to be kept should be printed out and archived in duplicate (this also has the advantage of settling once and for all what time a document was created, unlike electronic formats), while "backups" of most user information should be more focused on deleting the useless and incriminating crap which most users clog up their hard drives with. Although I suppose that nobody's going to get rich selling new database programs or "enterprise level" record management systems that way.
just my opinion
John Saul Montoya
The current form of the Apple-created high-speed peripheral interface (known as the IEEE 1394 industry standard and dubbed i.Link by Sony) is limited to distances of 4.5 meters at that speed, its present top speed, unless a repeater device is used. Oh fucking wonderful. Would some Japanese researchers care to tell me what I'm meant to do with the container-load of repeaters I just bought? I was gonna raise $6bn to cover the entire United states with a network of repeaters, placed in a grid of 4.5 meter squares. (Hey, they funded Iridium).
Not wanting to be a dick about this (which appears to be my catchphrase these days), but I happen to know you're not a troll. You're just wrong, which is much less glamorous.
Your statement, meant to be satirical, is actually the truth about the economics of the matter. So what if someone stayed up all night in the edit suite for a Disney movie? He doesn't get any of the money. Disney gets it all.
Microsoft does have enough money. And the fact that there are B2B sales out there to pointy haired bosses with compliance departments means that they will always have enough money to survive and produce software. Making a few copies does not hurt society at all. The lesson of economics is that only marginal things matter. Copying copyrighted material doesn't matter. It doesn't effect things at the margin, because the marginal cost of producing an extra unit is literally zero.
Copyright and intellectual property is not a fact of nature. What it is, is a restriction on free speech, put in place at the behest of producers of information, to create an artificial scarcity which allows them to sell ideas as if they were things. Patents have only been around for a short while, and historically have been recognised as "gifts from the state", which is what they are. Copyright on works of art in its modern form is less than a hundred years old.
Nobody knows what model we should have for promoting creative works. But nobody will be able to develop that model if we pass an act early on in the process, which will stunt development and create a powerful interest group. The DMCA is an act of violence by the vested interest, attempting to seize by force something which we currently regard as common property. We're in a situation analagous to the American Indians when they met up with people who (unlike them) had the concept of private property. We should thank our lucky stars that the property-in-speech lobby can grab our property without also massacring us.
Obviously, this is out of tune with the ideology of my employer, and of myself as a corporate blackletter practitioner (with some involvement in IP). Equally obviously, neither this account nor the yahoo email address attached to it can be traced to me. So fuck you, The Man.
It isn't laughing at a misused word; I don't think the word *is* misused. It's laughing at a)linguistics, the subject (Chomsky is *not* a fraud, either, I know, before the flamers come in on that) and b) the fact that "linguistics" has two meanings.
It's just a pun. Lighten up. Which I agree is a sensitive thing to say to a Norwegian during winter, but hey, the spring's coming through. Oslo's fjord is lovely in the summer.
Jeez, even the Soviet Union weren't this quick in coming out with official denials :-)
Offtopic, I know, but this is set to become the next "Gnu/Linux", isn't it? If Linux goes mainstream, we're fundamentally going to have to get used to people pronouncing the word "Lye-nucks". Nobody's going to care; they're just going to give you the sort of funny look that Stallman gets these days for "Gnu/Linux".
Obviously, this is going to get annoying for the Sainted Finn, as it means that he will be addressed as if he were that Peanuts character, but I would guess that after years of living in America, he's got used to that by now.
Sadly, the battle which would be necessary to preserve the integrity of "Lee-nooks" isn't worth fighting. I happen to know that the head man at Glenmorangie puts the stress on the second syllable, but if you want to get your whisky without asking twice for it, you'll put the stress on the third.