Sending the mail out early is good psychology. People will get into an uproar over it now, but it will die down. They'll think, "We'll cancel our accounts on August 31!" but by the time that that date rolls around, even if they remember the issue, they'll probably have resigned themselves to it and will keep the service.
We share a two-disc plan with two profiles. We switched away from Blockbuster Online in part because of the profiles that Netflix offers. Without that, we're at least dropping down to a 1 disc plan, and we may drop the service altogether.
The GPL is not that confusing... it says if you make changes and distribute the software, you have to make the source available. I hope you weren't giving legal advice.
IANAL, and this is not legal advice. That said, the requirements of the GPL go quite a bit beyond that. You must include a copy of the GPL with any GPL software you redistribute. If you distribute object code without the source, you must make the source code available to anyone who requests it for three years (which amounts to having to make it available for three years after you stop distributing that object code.) And there are other very important terms, too.
The GPLv3 is really even harder. And all of it is in the same legalese that commercial licenses have.
The GPL is probably easier than most commercial licenses, but that does not make it easy. The fact that it's extremely commonly misunderstood should speak to that.
EULAs tend to have terms which mimic copyrights. They tend to outline the rights granted by the licensor. There are rarely clauses which don't make sense--though such clauses do pop up occasionally.
The GPL has very little in common with an EULA. Except that they're both distributed with the software. And they're both licenses. They both enumerate the rights of the person receiving the software.
They do not even operate under the same body of law. The GPL applies specifically to copyright, where as EULAs typically claim to be contracts. What they claim to be and what they are differ.
The GPL and most EULAs are more closely related than you think.
Linksys had their hand forced. Even after discovering the issue in 2003, and releasing the source code for object code run by the then-current devices, they still (apparently) didn't get the point. In 2005, this posting to gpl-violations indicated that Linksys released a product using GPL code and wasn't prepared to release the source for at least four months.
I have to believe that their routers are some of the most popular ones out there, primarily because a buyer, if they so choose, and easily upgrade to a different OS (which is what I did with my WRT54GL, which now has dd-wrt - I love it!) You can bet that Cisco, who bought Linksys shortly before the debacle, wasn't happy. Being able to get high-end device features on a low-end device is not part of most businesses plans. I'm sure that Linksys devices were extremely popular due to this, but one has to wonder if Cisco lost any sales to small-to-medium businesses over it.
Right, so instead of a company paying some money to license the software, their entire business potentially gets destroyed. Erm. That seems unlikely.
Maybe they shouldn't have used it in the first place, but the OSS community should stop using the world free to represent something that obviously isn't. I generally dislike the GPL for similar reasons. But keep in mind that almost no one outside of the free software community (FSC) recognizes the definition of free that the FSC uses. Just because a work is available for "free" does not mean that it can be copyed freely.
I think that the company should have read the GPL, and if they didn't understand it, talked to their lawyers. If the lawyers didn't understand it, they should have negotiated with the creators of Busybox. This is how they would handle any other software
Again, I'd say this isn't a problem with the GPL. It's a problem which, amongst downloadable software, is somewhat unique to the GPL. Most software which is downloaded or purchased off the shelf has a EULA which, while typically overly-verbose, makes sense. Don't copy the software to more than one computer. Don't give people a copy of the software. Don't disassemble the software. Don't expect us to cover your losses if the software fails.
[And, in Microsoft's case, do not disparage the software.]
Most software licenses don't cover redistribution at all, except inasmuch as they say that it is forbidden. If redistribution is allowed somehow, it's almost always a part of a negotiated license rather than a boilerplate EULA. The GPL, a boilerplate license, does. It's unusual. Its provisions are unusual.
It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, though that doesn't stop all of the misconceptions from spreading. But it's so unusual, and people are so used to not bothering to read the license which accompanies software, that I can see where it would be very easy to overlook the requirements.
Does that make it a problem with the GPL? Well, that depends upon your perspective. A company may want to avoid GPL software because of its unusual nature. Then again, they'll certainly have their legal department go over any licenses they agree to with other software.
What about when the source is from another country?
I'm not defending this decision, just playing Devil's Advocate. Ultimately, we all know that child porn was an excuse for Verizon to stop offering all binaries access.
Thank you for the correction (fetus vs zygotes), though I think that to many Christians, the difference is irrelevant. Remember, many of these same people are against the morning after pill.
Personally, I identify as a Christian, but I find most of the things that outspoken, conservative Christians say to be abhorrent. There's even a scriptural basis for research. Proverbs 25:2:
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
Well, this is a 10 year old car. It got better gas mileage at first, but simply hasn't worn very well.
Also, as others have pointed out, safety features tend to add weight, which reduces gas mileage. And 10 years ago, oil was a cheap and plentiful resource in America--cars weren't being designed specifically for mileage.
If I'm a godist, I might believe that God cures all ills, and never take my pneumonia-ridden son to the hospital. Bummer for my son but it was God's choice if he died. And your son won't grow up to pass those beliefs on to his children.
The answer to ignorance of science or ignorance of faith is always going to be education - school, word of mouth, whatever. We need to talk it out, show why science is useful, and why the community of religion and other aspects can also be useful, and why either can be detrimental (sure the A-bomb was neat, but geez...). Maybe I'm too cynical, but I just don't see this working on most creationists. Or hell, most religious people (stem-cell research is a great example of a scientific area which doesn't conflict with religion in any way, shape, or form, but which many religious people still protest.)
You've made assumptions on how much gas we use and how much utility is lost when losing the truck. You've also discounted the trade-in or resale values of our respective vehicles, you arrogant asshole.
Yeah, when I went back and looked, I saw that the newer hybrid SUVs get much better gas mileage than the ones from just a few years ago. That said...
the Civic Hybrid only gets like 10% better fuel economy then the most efficient non-hybrid model and it costs 50% more. The Civic Hybrid gets about 47 mpg real world. Which model are you looking at that gets 42-43mpg? And here's something else to chew on--if it's not a similar sized, similar capacity model, it's not a fair comparison.
I think it speaks to what's on everyone's minds lately.
We discuss mileage a lot because we want to trade in one of our vehicles for a more efficient car. The specific discussion which lead to me finding out what kind of mileage she got was when we were discussing which vehicle to trade in. Since I'm not hauling nearly as much stuff as I used to, I assumed that my truck would be the thing to trade in. Not so, as it turns out.
Giant SUV hybrids tend to get 2-3mpg more than their non-hybrid counterparts. They're a joke. And lots of midsize cars don't get much better gas mileage than SUVs. I drive a pickup truck which gets 15mpg. My wife drives a midsized GM car (I forget the model.) She gets 3mpg more than my truck.
The options for efficient cars really are pretty limited, and those which do exist are pretty highly sought after these days. There are waiting lists at all of the major dealerships within a 50 mile radius of me for any car which exceeds 30mpg.
If I were to march into a crowded lobby tomorrow morning and spontaneously open fire on random civilians, I'd be a terrorist. No, actually, your intent matters. If you were politically motivated (i.e. you're trying to instigate change by scaring people into complying with your wishes) then you'd be a terrorist. If you just opened fire for no apparent reason, you're just a mass murderer.
I've used a Windows Mobile phone for the past 2.5 years. I started tracking my usage of the features. e-mail and web browsing are the two features I use the most. Both are horribly flawed on Windows Mobile.
Pocket Outlook is great, as long as you're only connecting to Exchange servers. Switch to IMAP, and the server configuration determines the usability, because Pocket Outlook does not support IMAP namespaces properly. The mail server from which I get my mail uses namespaces, and Pocket Outlook locks up when I try to get mail there. I had to do stupid hacks (forwarding mail off, at first, and later using a proxy to re-write requests.)
Pocket Internet Explorer (PIE) is a different beast. It's crap, even for a mobile browser. Simple pages will render fine, but anything even moderately complex will not work. When I first started using my phone, I just did everything through Google's gateway. That's really not how I want to use the web. Later on, I started using my phone to copy down interesting URLs for perusal at home. The browser on my phone became little more than a portal to IMDB and Wikipedia.
Opera Mobile is a bit better, but you pay for it, and it's still got rendering issues with some sites.
What's great about the iPhone, in my opinion, is the support. Even though it has a real web browser, popular websites fall all over themselves trying to put together a version of the site optimized for iPhone's screen. When there isn't an optimized version, you can view the full version (albeit slowly--hopefully 3G will help address that) and zoom specific portions of the page that you want to look at. For me, since what I really want is a data device (I could do without the phone part, honestly), the better the browser and mail client, the better the device. I've tried all the major phone operating systems, and by far, Apple blows them away. RIM does come closest, no doubt, but the web browsing experience just can't compete.
It depends upon whether you also want a device to make phone calls, send text messages, check e-mail, and use the web. If so, $1638.76 for two years of connectivity and an iPod is not all that expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Sending the mail out early is good psychology. People will get into an uproar over it now, but it will die down. They'll think, "We'll cancel our accounts on August 31!" but by the time that that date rolls around, even if they remember the issue, they'll probably have resigned themselves to it and will keep the service.
That's pretty disappointing.
We share a two-disc plan with two profiles. We switched away from Blockbuster Online in part because of the profiles that Netflix offers. Without that, we're at least dropping down to a 1 disc plan, and we may drop the service altogether.
Since we were talking about software, I assumed that people would understand that I was talking about uses regarding works.
I clearly underestimated either the intelligence, the ability to infer, or the pedantry which runs rampant on Slashdot.
IANAL, and this is not legal advice. That said, the requirements of the GPL go quite a bit beyond that. You must include a copy of the GPL with any GPL software you redistribute. If you distribute object code without the source, you must make the source code available to anyone who requests it for three years (which amounts to having to make it available for three years after you stop distributing that object code.) And there are other very important terms, too.
The GPLv3 is really even harder. And all of it is in the same legalese that commercial licenses have.
The GPL is probably easier than most commercial licenses, but that does not make it easy. The fact that it's extremely commonly misunderstood should speak to that.
The GPL and most EULAs are more closely related than you think.
I think that the company should have read the GPL, and if they didn't understand it, talked to their lawyers. If the lawyers didn't understand it, they should have negotiated with the creators of Busybox. This is how they would handle any other software
[And, in Microsoft's case, do not disparage the software.]
Most software licenses don't cover redistribution at all, except inasmuch as they say that it is forbidden. If redistribution is allowed somehow, it's almost always a part of a negotiated license rather than a boilerplate EULA. The GPL, a boilerplate license, does. It's unusual. Its provisions are unusual.
It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, though that doesn't stop all of the misconceptions from spreading. But it's so unusual, and people are so used to not bothering to read the license which accompanies software, that I can see where it would be very easy to overlook the requirements.
Does that make it a problem with the GPL? Well, that depends upon your perspective. A company may want to avoid GPL software because of its unusual nature. Then again, they'll certainly have their legal department go over any licenses they agree to with other software.
It's all pretty messy.
What about when the source is from another country?
I'm not defending this decision, just playing Devil's Advocate. Ultimately, we all know that child porn was an excuse for Verizon to stop offering all binaries access.
Personally, I identify as a Christian, but I find most of the things that outspoken, conservative Christians say to be abhorrent. There's even a scriptural basis for research.
Proverbs 25:2: [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
Good point. I guess I was trolling.
Well, this is a 10 year old car. It got better gas mileage at first, but simply hasn't worn very well.
Also, as others have pointed out, safety features tend to add weight, which reduces gas mileage. And 10 years ago, oil was a cheap and plentiful resource in America--cars weren't being designed specifically for mileage.
Because stem cells can be harvested without aborting babies.
Because even if you use aborted fetus tissue, people aren't going to go around having abortions just for the tissue.
Depends upon the community. Some self-identified Christians are downright mean people.
See: godhatesfags.com for examples.
You've made assumptions on how much gas we use and how much utility is lost when losing the truck. You've also discounted the trade-in or resale values of our respective vehicles, you arrogant asshole.
I think it speaks to what's on everyone's minds lately.
We discuss mileage a lot because we want to trade in one of our vehicles for a more efficient car. The specific discussion which lead to me finding out what kind of mileage she got was when we were discussing which vehicle to trade in. Since I'm not hauling nearly as much stuff as I used to, I assumed that my truck would be the thing to trade in. Not so, as it turns out.
This made me laugh.
Giant SUV hybrids tend to get 2-3mpg more than their non-hybrid counterparts. They're a joke. And lots of midsize cars don't get much better gas mileage than SUVs. I drive a pickup truck which gets 15mpg. My wife drives a midsized GM car (I forget the model.) She gets 3mpg more than my truck.
The options for efficient cars really are pretty limited, and those which do exist are pretty highly sought after these days. There are waiting lists at all of the major dealerships within a 50 mile radius of me for any car which exceeds 30mpg.
Two cymbals and a snare fall off of a cliff.
That's great for you. Most of the places where I'd want to use data on my phone, there isn't wifi.
It certainly is just preference.
I've used a Windows Mobile phone for the past 2.5 years. I started tracking my usage of the features. e-mail and web browsing are the two features I use the most. Both are horribly flawed on Windows Mobile.
Pocket Outlook is great, as long as you're only connecting to Exchange servers. Switch to IMAP, and the server configuration determines the usability, because Pocket Outlook does not support IMAP namespaces properly. The mail server from which I get my mail uses namespaces, and Pocket Outlook locks up when I try to get mail there. I had to do stupid hacks (forwarding mail off, at first, and later using a proxy to re-write requests.)
Pocket Internet Explorer (PIE) is a different beast. It's crap, even for a mobile browser. Simple pages will render fine, but anything even moderately complex will not work. When I first started using my phone, I just did everything through Google's gateway. That's really not how I want to use the web. Later on, I started using my phone to copy down interesting URLs for perusal at home. The browser on my phone became little more than a portal to IMDB and Wikipedia.
Opera Mobile is a bit better, but you pay for it, and it's still got rendering issues with some sites.
What's great about the iPhone, in my opinion, is the support. Even though it has a real web browser, popular websites fall all over themselves trying to put together a version of the site optimized for iPhone's screen. When there isn't an optimized version, you can view the full version (albeit slowly--hopefully 3G will help address that) and zoom specific portions of the page that you want to look at. For me, since what I really want is a data device (I could do without the phone part, honestly), the better the browser and mail client, the better the device. I've tried all the major phone operating systems, and by far, Apple blows them away. RIM does come closest, no doubt, but the web browsing experience just can't compete.
It depends upon whether you also want a device to make phone calls, send text messages, check e-mail, and use the web. If so, $1638.76 for two years of connectivity and an iPod is not all that expensive.