When you copy, modify to distribute the program, it creates the presumption of acceptance, because to do otherwise would presume a party carried out an illegal act.
Additionally because verseta stripped out the original notices and marketed to work commercially so it's potentially criminal infringement as well.
The the origninal topic we can still be assured an accidental GPL inclusion won't force a work open as the GPL specifically states "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
1. Implied - Not directly expressed.
Patent - A patent is an exclusive right to a particular invention.
License - permission to do what what otherwise be illegal.
IF a company gives you permission to do something that would otherwise violate patent law, you have a patent license for that task even if not patent was specifically mentioned. If Microsoft entered into a contract with me to manufacture android devices for their employees, that can't turn around a sue me for patent infringement of those specific enumerated devices on the purchase order. In the purchase contract it is implied Microsoft gives me permission to do those things reasonably required to fulfill the contract.
The is precedent I assume of using the principle of estoppel as a defense against patent claims. And estoppel may be implied. Ergo implications of representations made by a person may estopped patent claims against other persons.
2. The contract must be judged by it's actual language rather than ex-post-facto assertions of it's authors. It is the interpretation they would like to see in the courts, though not indicative of current law.
It may be true the FSF believes running a program is not a copyright issue, however there are precedents that claim loading a program into RAM constitutes a copying under the meaning or 106, especially if done by a licensee of a copy rather than an owner. A licensee being differentiated by having significant restrictions places on their ability to redistribute to transfer the copy of the work. The GPL does put significant limitations on this act, Section 4 specifically forbids you to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License"
But this point is irrelevant. The GPL is not a copyright grant it is a license contract giving permission under certain conditions to do certain things that would otherwise be illegal. The GPL could have said that use of the program is not restricted by this license, but is simply says not restricted.
3. Section 8. allows the Original Copyright holder to expressly exclude distribution on such jurisdictional basis, why was this not done?
Anyways that's not quite what I think section 7 implies. If you agree not to distribute or use the program outside a license agreement, you may not longer distribute under the GPL unless royalty-free licenses are granted downstream. If there is a judicial ruling that the software infringes then you may not distribute it (under this license at least).
So with section 8 available (but not taken), then it must be presumed Ximpleware's distribution really did give a full GPL license to those receivers in the U.S., without additional restrictions. Now if the programs was distributed in violation of the GPL then it could be considered and inducement to infringe.
Having transmitted the program under a license in which no restrictions are placed on use of the program, Ximpleware is estopped from asking for judicial relief that would be a restriction on the use of the program.
Even in the case of the accusation patent infringement the GPL the GPL makes no termination of right.. The GPL just clarifies that distribution under the GPL may only only happen when in full compliance with the GPL; if for some reason you are legally unable to fully comply then you must forgo distribution.
If a third party had written the parser, then Ximpleware could claim any distribution in the U.S was illegal. However Ximpleware as the patent holder needs no patent license to distribute it's parser and may give licence to whomever it wishes. And section 6 of the GPL makes it clear upon distribution the person receiving the program also receives the license under the GPL from the original licencor. Upon the third party receiving the license from Ximpleware, they to have the implied patent license from the no restrictions on use clause. To distribute under the the GPL is to represent that you are imposing no restrictions on the use of the program.
And does everyone start with Ubuntu-minimal?
In that you can get rid of the wireless-tools, wpa-supplicant, and pcmia-utils.
Other distros may just want to offer a more vm-friendly version of their standard base. (You can do everything you can with the original, except those things that wouldn't make sense to do in a VM anyways.
You should be able to perform some shortucuts in the init process.
You can also get rid of anything related to being a host to a virtual machine (who is insane enough to run a VM inside a VM?)
You can rip out a lot of hardware support, and some of the really advance network stuff.
Who needs lm-sensors on a virtual machine? hdpram? smartctl?
I'd bet their using it as Cache, as it's still much cheaper than RAM (1-2 dollars vs 10-20 dollars per GB) and is much better at random access than spinning disks.
I mean it works for a tomato company in Florida (Morning Star), it can work for just about anything, but it takes a lot of time to cultivate the culture, and you've got to have the right people initially for it to work.
Scalia in Busch v. Gore "One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
With Roe V Wade if you ever read the decision it admits there is none, but proceeds because the issue is widespread but unlikely to be addressed in any other way, though really a poor decisio, increasing it's controversy and setting it up as a decision likely to be overturned.
Dude, the case or controversy clause is black letter law, there is really nothing more fundamental to the legal process. It's not a matter of semantics, it's not a matter a failing to bring up an argument. It's a matter of failing to present sufficient factual basis to establish some loss, harm, or injury suffered by the plantiff. And keep in mind that a judge is required to accept all pleaded facts as true when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. (The standard or proof here is beyond all doubt) And if you don't have standing no amount of assuaging the details and theory of the complaint will do you any good if it's found you don't have standing.
Fuel cell + CNG, with regenerative braking into a ultracapicitor is going to be cleaner and more efficient that just about any engine. This alone will be pretty sustainable and improve air quality. It will also have all the conveniences of the current fueling infrastructure, plus home or work refueling is possible (albiet at a fairly high cost).
Using a battery won't help unless you generate the electricity from solar, wind, hyrdro, geo-thermal, or nuclear sources. In fact it makes the situation worse as you need to use resources to manufacturer the battery.
For renewable mandates, biogas is a lot easier to do than cellulostic ethanal, though is can use the exact same feedstock.
The only then you give up is the ability to refuel when you run out of gas away from a station. This might be solved with a 5-10 lbs reserve propane tank.
I think anyone dropiing a bit chunk of change on an electric will but in a 240V, 40 or 50 amp outlet for their car in the grage, so by linear conversion, charge time to full drops to 12 hours.
No, I mean the kernel,specificly a linux or BSD kernel. Yes and update would be a pain, but I really only update my kernel every 4-5 months anyways.
As for features, the netwoking stack comes to mind. It's basicly it's own little OS running under your operating system.
As for the log dump, isn't that what is bricking some of those Samsung laptops? And this is far from the only bug that shows up (some will check the string name of the payload before running it and refuse to boot anything that isn't windows or redhat) . Runtime services aren't supposed to call boot services after boot, but this doesn't always happen and this can make it hard to work with. There is a huge amount of code and specification, much of it not well understood by by more than two or three people, but not a lot of tests or formal verification to make. At least if you run UEFI/tianocore on top of coreboot, you're running and open source version that can be updated at any time without worrying about weather your hardware init will keep working.
I have one computer, my laptop which is UEFI, (2.2 i think) the rest are some sort of traditional BIOS.(award, phoenix, whatever). Oh, and I love the kernel EFI kernel stub, the fact that you can flip straight into the kernel within two seconds of turning on the power is awesome. Having it be finished loading in two second would be even awesomer.
1. It's unnecessary, just launch the kernel.
2. It's a lot a new code and not well tested.
3. It has too many features, doing thing which firmware really has no business doing.
Being the first to market has huge advantages.
Reverse engineering isn't really much cheaper than just engineering.
Being and inventor of a value product makes you skills and knowledge highly sought after. Even without direct payment an invention can pay off. (double or triple the sort of salary you can demand)
Anyways if you read their friendly book, you'll find the example and arguments therein.
The Robber Barons, benifited greatly from all sort of intervention, but especially from patronage. THe UP is a great example where executive bought coal mines for the express purpose of selling it the the UP at highly inflated prices. The overall shape of business, especially big business of the time was not what one would expect in a free market.
Anyways the rest of it isn't to far off. The overvaluation of stock is going to bite the U.S economy in the Ass, probably sooner rather than later.
What part of the magna carta, don't you understand.
"No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his
freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed, (harmed,) nor will we (the
king) proceed. against him, nor send any one against him, by force
or arms, unless according to (that is, in execution. of) the sentence
of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law
of England,"
Governments have killed nearly a quarter billion of their own citizens in the twintieth century alone. A tyranical government is far more of a danger than a handful of kooks thousands of miles away. Strict adherence to the rule of law and traditional safeguards are the best defense against tyranny.
But back to the issue of lives. The wars and operation to date have cost in the multiple trillions of dollars. How many lives could have been saved had the money been diverted into medical research, or into the revitalization of urban ghettos?
And the U.S does not have the moral high ground here. It provided, aid, arms and training to central and south american terrorist groups, for no better reason to advance some political agenda or another.
And got your law degree where? And you license number authorizing you to dispense legal advice?
There is almost always more than two options. In this case the e-mail could be ignored, or a request for clarification could be sent. Such as.
Dear Louise Kinane,
I do not have enough information currently to deny or confirm your accusations, please answer the following questions so that I may be able to better respond to your correspondence.
1. What Terms of service are you refferring to?
2. What, if anything did I knowingly do, say or sign, which would have obligated me under said Terms of Service?
3. Which specific term or terms do you alleged were violated? (Section and paragraph)
4. Which specific features do you alleged are in violations? (In your own words)
False, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, have greater rates of murder than the U.S.
Also the murder rate within the U.S varies greatly, with about a 10x difference between the highest and lowest rates. Culture, education, poverty and so on have large influences on where and when violence occurs. While disarmament might reduce some types of crime, it is absurd to think the disarmament could bring U.S. rates of crime in line with Western European rates.
Slashdot Mirror
When you copy, modify to distribute the program, it creates the presumption of acceptance, because to do otherwise would presume a party carried out an illegal act. Additionally because verseta stripped out the original notices and marketed to work commercially so it's potentially criminal infringement as well. The the origninal topic we can still be assured an accidental GPL inclusion won't force a work open as the GPL specifically states "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
1. Implied - Not directly expressed.
Patent - A patent is an exclusive right to a particular invention.
License - permission to do what what otherwise be illegal.
IF a company gives you permission to do something that would otherwise violate patent law, you have a patent license for that task even if not patent was specifically mentioned. If Microsoft entered into a contract with me to manufacture android devices for their employees, that can't turn around a sue me for patent infringement of those specific enumerated devices on the purchase order. In the purchase contract it is implied Microsoft gives me permission to do those things reasonably required to fulfill the contract.
The is precedent I assume of using the principle of estoppel as a defense against patent claims. And estoppel may be implied. Ergo implications of representations made by a person may estopped patent claims against other persons.
2. The contract must be judged by it's actual language rather than ex-post-facto assertions of it's authors. It is the interpretation they would like to see in the courts, though not indicative of current law.
It may be true the FSF believes running a program is not a copyright issue, however there are precedents that claim loading a program into RAM constitutes a copying under the meaning or 106, especially if done by a licensee of a copy rather than an owner. A licensee being differentiated by having significant restrictions places on their ability to redistribute to transfer the copy of the work. The GPL does put significant limitations on this act, Section 4 specifically forbids you to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License"
But this point is irrelevant. The GPL is not a copyright grant it is a license contract giving permission under certain conditions to do certain things that would otherwise be illegal. The GPL could have said that use of the program is not restricted by this license, but is simply says not restricted.
3. Section 8. allows the Original Copyright holder to expressly exclude distribution on such jurisdictional basis, why was this not done?
Anyways that's not quite what I think section 7 implies. If you agree not to distribute or use the program outside a license agreement, you may not longer distribute under the GPL unless royalty-free licenses are granted downstream. If there is a judicial ruling that the software infringes then you may not distribute it (under this license at least).
So with section 8 available (but not taken), then it must be presumed Ximpleware's distribution really did give a full GPL license to those receivers in the U.S., without additional restrictions. Now if the programs was distributed in violation of the GPL then it could be considered and inducement to infringe.
Having transmitted the program under a license in which no restrictions are placed on use of the program, Ximpleware is estopped from asking for judicial relief that would be a restriction on the use of the program.
Even in the case of the accusation patent infringement the GPL the GPL makes no termination of right.. The GPL just clarifies that distribution under the GPL may only only happen when in full compliance with the GPL; if for some reason you are legally unable to fully comply then you must forgo distribution.
If a third party had written the parser, then Ximpleware could claim any distribution in the U.S was illegal. However Ximpleware as the patent holder needs no patent license to distribute it's parser and may give licence to whomever it wishes. And section 6 of the GPL makes it clear upon distribution the person receiving the program also receives the license under the GPL from the original licencor. Upon the third party receiving the license from Ximpleware, they to have the implied patent license from the no restrictions on use clause. To distribute under the the GPL is to represent that you are imposing no restrictions on the use of the program.
Where did Vyatta get the source if not from a GPL version?
Sections 4+6. Shows the license is granted from the original licencor each time the work is distributed.
But they are neither durable, uniform, or evenly divisible.
And does everyone start with Ubuntu-minimal? In that you can get rid of the wireless-tools, wpa-supplicant, and pcmia-utils. Other distros may just want to offer a more vm-friendly version of their standard base. (You can do everything you can with the original, except those things that wouldn't make sense to do in a VM anyways.
You should be able to perform some shortucuts in the init process. You can also get rid of anything related to being a host to a virtual machine (who is insane enough to run a VM inside a VM?) You can rip out a lot of hardware support, and some of the really advance network stuff. Who needs lm-sensors on a virtual machine? hdpram? smartctl?
Voir Dire is french for jury-rigging.
I'd bet their using it as Cache, as it's still much cheaper than RAM (1-2 dollars vs 10-20 dollars per GB) and is much better at random access than spinning disks.
I mean it works for a tomato company in Florida (Morning Star), it can work for just about anything, but it takes a lot of time to cultivate the culture, and you've got to have the right people initially for it to work.
Scalia in Busch v. Gore "One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
With Roe V Wade if you ever read the decision it admits there is none, but proceeds because the issue is widespread but unlikely to be addressed in any other way, though really a poor decisio, increasing it's controversy and setting it up as a decision likely to be overturned.
Dude, the case or controversy clause is black letter law, there is really nothing more fundamental to the legal process. It's not a matter of semantics, it's not a matter a failing to bring up an argument. It's a matter of failing to present sufficient factual basis to establish some loss, harm, or injury suffered by the plantiff. And keep in mind that a judge is required to accept all pleaded facts as true when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. (The standard or proof here is beyond all doubt) And if you don't have standing no amount of assuaging the details and theory of the complaint will do you any good if it's found you don't have standing.
Standing is based on a specific and concrete harm alleged by the plaintiff. Read the actual ruling.
Fuel cell + CNG, with regenerative braking into a ultracapicitor is going to be cleaner and more efficient that just about any engine. This alone will be pretty sustainable and improve air quality. It will also have all the conveniences of the current fueling infrastructure, plus home or work refueling is possible (albiet at a fairly high cost).
Using a battery won't help unless you generate the electricity from solar, wind, hyrdro, geo-thermal, or nuclear sources. In fact it makes the situation worse as you need to use resources to manufacturer the battery.
For renewable mandates, biogas is a lot easier to do than cellulostic ethanal, though is can use the exact same feedstock.
The only then you give up is the ability to refuel when you run out of gas away from a station. This might be solved with a 5-10 lbs reserve propane tank.
I think anyone dropiing a bit chunk of change on an electric will but in a 240V, 40 or 50 amp outlet for their car in the grage, so by linear conversion, charge time to full drops to 12 hours.
No, I mean the kernel,specificly a linux or BSD kernel. Yes and update would be a pain, but I really only update my kernel every 4-5 months anyways.
As for features, the netwoking stack comes to mind. It's basicly it's own little OS running under your operating system.
As for the log dump, isn't that what is bricking some of those Samsung laptops? And this is far from the only bug that shows up (some will check the string name of the payload before running it and refuse to boot anything that isn't windows or redhat) . Runtime services aren't supposed to call boot services after boot, but this doesn't always happen and this can make it hard to work with. There is a huge amount of code and specification, much of it not well understood by by more than two or three people, but not a lot of tests or formal verification to make. At least if you run UEFI/tianocore on top of coreboot, you're running and open source version that can be updated at any time without worrying about weather your hardware init will keep working.
I have one computer, my laptop which is UEFI, (2.2 i think) the rest are some sort of traditional BIOS.(award, phoenix, whatever). Oh, and I love the kernel EFI kernel stub, the fact that you can flip straight into the kernel within two seconds of turning on the power is awesome. Having it be finished loading in two second would be even awesomer.
1. It's unnecessary, just launch the kernel. 2. It's a lot a new code and not well tested. 3. It has too many features, doing thing which firmware really has no business doing.
The ASRock E350M1 is supported, which contains an E-350 processor. Not a gaming rig, but still not a bad bit of hardware.
Being the first to market has huge advantages. Reverse engineering isn't really much cheaper than just engineering. Being and inventor of a value product makes you skills and knowledge highly sought after. Even without direct payment an invention can pay off. (double or triple the sort of salary you can demand) Anyways if you read their friendly book, you'll find the example and arguments therein.
The Robber Barons, benifited greatly from all sort of intervention, but especially from patronage. THe UP is a great example where executive bought coal mines for the express purpose of selling it the the UP at highly inflated prices. The overall shape of business, especially big business of the time was not what one would expect in a free market. Anyways the rest of it isn't to far off. The overvaluation of stock is going to bite the U.S economy in the Ass, probably sooner rather than later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
What part of the magna carta, don't you understand. "No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, (harmed,) nor will we (the king) proceed. against him, nor send any one against him, by force or arms, unless according to (that is, in execution. of) the sentence of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law of England," Governments have killed nearly a quarter billion of their own citizens in the twintieth century alone. A tyranical government is far more of a danger than a handful of kooks thousands of miles away. Strict adherence to the rule of law and traditional safeguards are the best defense against tyranny. But back to the issue of lives. The wars and operation to date have cost in the multiple trillions of dollars. How many lives could have been saved had the money been diverted into medical research, or into the revitalization of urban ghettos? And the U.S does not have the moral high ground here. It provided, aid, arms and training to central and south american terrorist groups, for no better reason to advance some political agenda or another.
However no copyright claims have been asserted. (yet)
And got your law degree where? And you license number authorizing you to dispense legal advice? There is almost always more than two options. In this case the e-mail could be ignored, or a request for clarification could be sent. Such as. Dear Louise Kinane, I do not have enough information currently to deny or confirm your accusations, please answer the following questions so that I may be able to better respond to your correspondence. 1. What Terms of service are you refferring to? 2. What, if anything did I knowingly do, say or sign, which would have obligated me under said Terms of Service? 3. Which specific term or terms do you alleged were violated? (Section and paragraph) 4. Which specific features do you alleged are in violations? (In your own words)
False, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, have greater rates of murder than the U.S. Also the murder rate within the U.S varies greatly, with about a 10x difference between the highest and lowest rates. Culture, education, poverty and so on have large influences on where and when violence occurs. While disarmament might reduce some types of crime, it is absurd to think the disarmament could bring U.S. rates of crime in line with Western European rates.