The whole problem with spam is that everyone but the spammer has to bear its costs. This only increases the costs that all the rest of us have to bear because of spam.
The point is that once Centmail gets off of the ground, spammers will have a choice--bear the costs of sending millions of messages per day (eating into their bottom line) or accepting the rejection/increased spam classification of not having Centmail-signed messages. This means that the ultimate goal will either increase the cost to spammers, or effectively eliminate spam. Unfortunately, the short-term effects are not as useful, and you end up with people thinking that it only adds a cost to legitimate mail.
Of course, that's probably why they suggest that the money go to a charity.
Copyright covers creation of derivative works, regardless of whether or not you distribute them. You'd have to argue fair use, which may or may not be applicable in the particular circumstances.
A license could grant you the right to create personal derivative works provided you agree to certain terms. If you don't agree to those terms, you may not have a right to create derivative works. Again, fair use may be a defense, but it's going to be specific to the case (and we seem to be talking about non-specific cases.)
This is really the problem with using a boilerplate license. Did the author of the GPL work know about the LGPL? What was the author's intent when they licensed it under the GPL? It's hard to say, since the author didn't write the license her/himself.
Basically, if someone makes an absurd definition of a derivative work, and I make a work that falls under this definition, am I liable? Why? I didn't ever agree to their license or definition.
In short, because if you don't agree to the license, you may not have a right to use/distribute the software at all. Because of that nifty thing called "copyright", on which the GPL is based.
He said he wouldn't accept the definition. That means that the parties don't agree on the defined term, and it's up to the judge to decide the definition. The point is that if the defendant was acting with a good faith belief that his definition was correct, then it's not a matter of "not [having] accepted the license."
To suggest that the GPL is clear would be disingenuous:
To âoemodifyâ a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a âoemodified versionâ of the earlier work or a work âoebased onâ the earlier work. A âoecovered workâ means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
In the case of linking to a GPL library, I think I'd be hard put to honestly argue that "based on the program" applies. Note that the term "derivative" doesn't appear in the GPLv3. "Derivative work" is a copyright term. Is "based on?" My lay interpretation is that "based on" is less strongly defined.
people will want their own files & data & OS to really be their own including the OS
No, people want something that works for as cheaply as they can get it. The concept of ownership isn't even noticed by most people (in the software world) until the thing that was believed to be "owned" is taken away, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to take something away from enough people to cause a ruckus.
Most people also don't know or care about software updates. If XP stops automatically downloading them in 2013 or whenever the most recent EOL extension is, people using XP will not notice. Or if they do notice, they'll think, "Yay! No more rebooting!"
You have a really high opinion of people in general. I'm guessing that you don't work in IT.
Have they fixed the problems with b-frames in playback with mplayer/VDPAU? If they haven't (and I can find no indication that they have) then it's pretty worthless for a lot of people.
It's important to note that a lot of OSS projects start out as ways to fill an unfilled (or poorly filled) gap in functionality. They're often labors of love started by one (maybe two) people with no real project management. There are, of course, high-profile exceptions, but they are indeed the exceptions.
Furthermore, I suspect that there's very little in the way of usability testing with most OSS. Many users of lower-profile OSS are enthusiasts. They don't mind adapting to the computer. Commercial software manufacturers have learned that to get more people using your products, you need to adapt to those people. Microsoft and Apple take very different approaches in this regard, but ultimately they still try to make their software more accessible and usable. If this is a goal of most OSS projects, it doesn't show. Of course, usability testing takes time and money, and isn't nearly as fun as coding.
Do thieves actually come back for these? I'd definitely expect it to be wirelessly transmitting, or to be watching for a special card to be inserted to which it would download the skimmed information.
Exactly. The problem, of course, is that someone found a vulnerability for it. Now this thing that's running at higher privileges than your OS can be subverted. And you can't remove it. By design.
They already do. High end motherboards can boot to a simple OS with basic features that let you browse the web, watch DVDs, use popular instant messaging services, and read e-mail. The boards often promote "from boot to web in 5 seconds!"
Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.
I wish I could mod you "naive".
Besides, there are still drive-by vulnerabilities to worry about. Vista+IE actually does a lot to mitigate and prevent vulnerabilities in the browser (Vista+Chrome also does a pretty good job.)
Or said another way, I'm bought groceries many times and only stolen groceries once in the last four years. That doesn't make me a thief. Anything sound odd with my rephrase?
Yeah, but he only did it when no one would sell him groceries.
That's slightly inaccurate since Apple does use many open standards. Of course, I was talking specifically about syncing.
You said:
The only Open standard Apple isn't using is mounting the iPod/iPhone as a HD.
This is equally inaccurate, because anyone could come up with a dozen open standards that Apple doesn't implement. But again, we're talking about syncing.
Apple has a standard protocol for syncing. It's not open. It uses tricks like the device ID and now the vendor ID to avoid talking to non-Apple devices. You can argue the merits of it all you like (your examples of potential bricks are reasonable, but it's quite possible to protect against this with proper engineering.) However, I still hold that if Palm can correctly talk Apple's closed protocol (through the reverse engineering that they surely did), more power to them. They know what they're doing, and I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see any bricks coming from this.
If they screw up...well frankly, that will be one massive class action lawsuit. They've got a really good incentive to get it right.
I like open standards only because it means that all of my stuff can interconnect. Apple isn't using open standards. Palm is interfacing with a closed standard, thus making more stuff interconnect.
Unfortunately, proponents of the GPL also see it as GPL = Viral = risky to use. That seems to be why they don't like the clearly apropos description. See... pretty much every reply to my post except for yours.
while claiming that somehow proprietary software is so free and righteous. You may claim all you like that up is down and that shit smells of roses but unfortunately facts don't go that way.
I had a pretty good and civil reply, which I deleted once I read that.
I never said anything about proprietary software being free or righteous or anything. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Your bias has just shown through, and your post has shown that you're unable to overcome it.
If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift.
What? That makes no sense. I don't have to accept any EULA except for the software I choose to use.
The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here?
Of course you can't create a derivative work from Word. You can with the Programmer's version of antiword, but if you do (and you distribute it), you have to license that derivative work under the GPL. Hence viral.
I really get the feeling that the connotation of the word is the problem here. Everyone jumps up against labeling the GPL as viral because it sounds bad, and once you've formed an opinion on something, it's often hard to change it.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole problem with spam is that everyone but the spammer has to bear its costs. This only increases the costs that all the rest of us have to bear because of spam.
The point is that once Centmail gets off of the ground, spammers will have a choice--bear the costs of sending millions of messages per day (eating into their bottom line) or accepting the rejection/increased spam classification of not having Centmail-signed messages. This means that the ultimate goal will either increase the cost to spammers, or effectively eliminate spam. Unfortunately, the short-term effects are not as useful, and you end up with people thinking that it only adds a cost to legitimate mail.
Of course, that's probably why they suggest that the money go to a charity.
Copyright covers creation of derivative works, regardless of whether or not you distribute them. You'd have to argue fair use, which may or may not be applicable in the particular circumstances.
A license could grant you the right to create personal derivative works provided you agree to certain terms. If you don't agree to those terms, you may not have a right to create derivative works. Again, fair use may be a defense, but it's going to be specific to the case (and we seem to be talking about non-specific cases.)
This is really the problem with using a boilerplate license. Did the author of the GPL work know about the LGPL? What was the author's intent when they licensed it under the GPL? It's hard to say, since the author didn't write the license her/himself.
Basically, if someone makes an absurd definition of a derivative work, and I make a work that falls under this definition, am I liable? Why? I didn't ever agree to their license or definition.
In short, because if you don't agree to the license, you may not have a right to use/distribute the software at all. Because of that nifty thing called "copyright", on which the GPL is based.
He said he wouldn't accept the definition. That means that the parties don't agree on the defined term, and it's up to the judge to decide the definition. The point is that if the defendant was acting with a good faith belief that his definition was correct, then it's not a matter of "not [having] accepted the license."
To suggest that the GPL is clear would be disingenuous:
To âoemodifyâ a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a âoemodified versionâ of the earlier work or a work âoebased onâ the earlier work.
A âoecovered workâ means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
In the case of linking to a GPL library, I think I'd be hard put to honestly argue that "based on the program" applies. Note that the term "derivative" doesn't appear in the GPLv3. "Derivative work" is a copyright term. Is "based on?" My lay interpretation is that "based on" is less strongly defined.
I would argue that calling system("C:\Windows\notepad.exe") does not make your work a derivative work of notepad.
people will want their own files & data & OS to really be their own including the OS
No, people want something that works for as cheaply as they can get it. The concept of ownership isn't even noticed by most people (in the software world) until the thing that was believed to be "owned" is taken away, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to take something away from enough people to cause a ruckus.
Most people also don't know or care about software updates. If XP stops automatically downloading them in 2013 or whenever the most recent EOL extension is, people using XP will not notice. Or if they do notice, they'll think, "Yay! No more rebooting!"
You have a really high opinion of people in general. I'm guessing that you don't work in IT.
Have they fixed the problems with b-frames in playback with mplayer/VDPAU? If they haven't (and I can find no indication that they have) then it's pretty worthless for a lot of people.
It's important to note that a lot of OSS projects start out as ways to fill an unfilled (or poorly filled) gap in functionality. They're often labors of love started by one (maybe two) people with no real project management. There are, of course, high-profile exceptions, but they are indeed the exceptions.
Furthermore, I suspect that there's very little in the way of usability testing with most OSS. Many users of lower-profile OSS are enthusiasts. They don't mind adapting to the computer. Commercial software manufacturers have learned that to get more people using your products, you need to adapt to those people. Microsoft and Apple take very different approaches in this regard, but ultimately they still try to make their software more accessible and usable. If this is a goal of most OSS projects, it doesn't show. Of course, usability testing takes time and money, and isn't nearly as fun as coding.
Do thieves actually come back for these? I'd definitely expect it to be wirelessly transmitting, or to be watching for a special card to be inserted to which it would download the skimmed information.
I haven't seen a switch, but I've seen jumpers on the mainboard that do it.
Is that common on laptops?
Exactly. The problem, of course, is that someone found a vulnerability for it. Now this thing that's running at higher privileges than your OS can be subverted. And you can't remove it. By design.
They already do. High end motherboards can boot to a simple OS with basic features that let you browse the web, watch DVDs, use popular instant messaging services, and read e-mail. The boards often promote "from boot to web in 5 seconds!"
Actually, a lot of code from OpenBSD ends up in FreeBSD. Look at the PF firewall, many WLAN drivers, etc.
Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.
I wish I could mod you "naive".
Besides, there are still drive-by vulnerabilities to worry about. Vista+IE actually does a lot to mitigate and prevent vulnerabilities in the browser (Vista+Chrome also does a pretty good job.)
Or said another way, I'm bought groceries many times and only stolen groceries once in the last four years. That doesn't make me a thief. Anything sound odd with my rephrase?
Yeah, but he only did it when no one would sell him groceries.
I don't think that this contest is about honor.
That's not really a comparable issue.
I said:
Apple isn't using open standards.
That's slightly inaccurate since Apple does use many open standards. Of course, I was talking specifically about syncing.
You said:
The only Open standard Apple isn't using is mounting the iPod/iPhone as a HD.
This is equally inaccurate, because anyone could come up with a dozen open standards that Apple doesn't implement. But again, we're talking about syncing.
Apple has a standard protocol for syncing. It's not open. It uses tricks like the device ID and now the vendor ID to avoid talking to non-Apple devices. You can argue the merits of it all you like (your examples of potential bricks are reasonable, but it's quite possible to protect against this with proper engineering.) However, I still hold that if Palm can correctly talk Apple's closed protocol (through the reverse engineering that they surely did), more power to them. They know what they're doing, and I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see any bricks coming from this.
If they screw up...well frankly, that will be one massive class action lawsuit. They've got a really good incentive to get it right.
I like open standards only because it means that all of my stuff can interconnect. Apple isn't using open standards. Palm is interfacing with a closed standard, thus making more stuff interconnect.
Unfortunately, proponents of the GPL also see it as GPL = Viral = risky to use. That seems to be why they don't like the clearly apropos description. See ... pretty much every reply to my post except for yours.
while claiming that somehow proprietary software is so free and righteous. You may claim all you like that up is down and that shit smells of roses but unfortunately facts don't go that way.
I had a pretty good and civil reply, which I deleted once I read that.
I never said anything about proprietary software being free or righteous or anything. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Your bias has just shown through, and your post has shown that you're unable to overcome it.
Good day to you.
If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift.
What? That makes no sense. I don't have to accept any EULA except for the software I choose to use.
The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here?
Of course you can't create a derivative work from Word. You can with the Programmer's version of antiword, but if you do (and you distribute it), you have to license that derivative work under the GPL. Hence viral.
I really get the feeling that the connotation of the word is the problem here. Everyone jumps up against labeling the GPL as viral because it sounds bad, and once you've formed an opinion on something, it's often hard to change it.
Can anyone really say with a straight face that the GPL makes it harder or riskier to use other peoples' code?
I don't know. I didn't, because that's not what viral means.