It's a shame somewhat that you can't revoke the gpl from asshole companies like SCO, then you could use the DMCA to shut them down since they are still distributing gpl software.
Red Hat is too poor to be getting into a legal slug fest with a company that has literally transformed themselves into a litigation firm. IBM has the money to fight, while Red Hat might end up getting dragged through the proverbial legal-mud, and never really get anywhere.
If you'd been following this whole thing as much as half of the people around here, you'd realize that redhats assets are quite a bit larger than SCO's to the point that redhat could probably purchase SCO outright.
I agree, although gamers in japan must be particularly stupid or trustworthy.. you'd never seen an American kid in a large city leave their cellphone sitting on a table out of view.
That is a pretty great summary of what's wrong with copyright laws as they currently stand. If you know anyone that just doesn't understand the issue, I'd point them to this article.
I agree with you that the PDA technically belongs to the company. However, every place I've ever worked has let prizes of this sort go to the employee. Your company pays for you to go to a trade show and you drop your card in someone's fishbowl, winning a DVD player/PDA/Microsoft Inflatable Girlfriend/whatever. I've never known a company that tried to take that away from the employee. Ditto for this sort of thing. The company doesn't need the PDA, else they would have gone out and bought it (unless they have *SERIOUS* cash-flow problems). It's just plain good for morale to let the employees keep the extras.
Actually, I doubt they even technically belong to the company, if you look at the microsoft site, its pretty clear that they intend for the developers to have have them, not the company that purchased the site license. To claim them, the individual users have to send away for them, the company can't just send it in for all of them and distribute them as it sees fit.
Its a giveaway to the users of the software, not the purchaser of the software. Microsoft owned something and gave that something to the developers because use their software. This isn't really just like a buy one get one free type of thing. Its a free gift for the developers because their registered with microsofts developer program.
Q. My company or organization has multiple licenses for an eligible product via an Open, Select or Enterprise Agreement. Can I (or someone else) enter multiple registrations to take advantage of this offer?
A. No, this offer is for individual end-users only. If your company or organization has multiple licenses for an eligible product, please ask your end-users to register their product individually through this site. You cannot register someone else on his or her behalf.
seriously, ask microsoft.. they are usually pretty clear on what they think the rules governing their give-aways are... although what MS wants to think and what the law is isn't always the same thing. when they came to my school and gave away a bunch of copies of windows xp and visual studio, they sent everyone an email saying it was wrong for us to ebay them.. didn't stop me from making a quick $100 though.. but their word might convince your boss.
I haven't used blender and have only dabbled with other 3d programs, so maybe this is obvious, but why does a 3d program need audio sequencing capabilities?
This looks like a job for the FSF. How far are the binaries being distributed? Since they contain GPL code, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a case for source code release, which would open the whole app to peer review (and, if the article is even halfway right, hilarity).
Since they are distributed to the state, the source code should be available via the freedom to information act or similar laws.
When they were first annoucing that the Chinese would be producing the dragon chip, there was a lot of speculation here and other places that it would just be a reverse engineered version of something else.. guess that's what happened.
It can't be that big of a deal.. the water has to go someplace.. water doesn't really leave the water cycle it just moves around.. I'm sure an ocean someplace just got 1/16 of an inch deeper or something.
Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).
One could argue that since copyright is effectively broken (ie: it doesn't push anything into the public domain due to the fact that its been constantly extended every few years for the last hundred years) that there is no obligation for the populus to obey copyright laws as they gain no benefit.
Social contracts only work if both sides hold up their end of the bargain, and in this case, the RIAA and associated industries have failed to do so. Once they start releasing material into the public domain after a relatively short amount of time, I (and I imagine many others) will start rewarding them by paying for some of the material they have copyright on.
irregardless, it has never been modded down. If you click on the comment number you can see all of the moderation that the comment has had, it hasn't had any down modding.
Every dollar they lose, the phone company (and via "trickle down" theory, me) saves by not shouldering the cost of their business.
Uh...I'm pretty sure they pay the phone company for the calls...
Yes, but telemarketing costs the phone company and everyone money because of the strain it puts on the infrastructure of the phone system. The same way spam costs money because it puts a strain on the internet requiring expense server upgrades more often than if it weren't around.
It's not really two million jobs anyway.. the same industry that does outbound telemarketing also does inbound telemarketing, and they count all of them employees when they figure up how many jobs it is. Realistically, most of the people they are counting do inbound service and wouldn't be effected anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame somewhat that you can't revoke the gpl from asshole companies like SCO, then you could use the DMCA to shut them down since they are still distributing gpl software.
Red Hat is too poor to be getting into a legal slug fest with a company that has literally transformed themselves into a litigation firm. IBM has the money to fight, while Red Hat might end up getting dragged through the proverbial legal-mud, and never really get anywhere.
If you'd been following this whole thing as much as half of the people around here, you'd realize that redhats assets are quite a bit larger than SCO's to the point that redhat could probably purchase SCO outright.
Well, Americans must be pretty stupid if they think that Hong Kong is in Japan.
Good catch..
Apparently interesting has now come to mean troll.
People are stupid
I agree, although gamers in japan must be particularly stupid or trustworthy.. you'd never seen an American kid in a large city leave their cellphone sitting on a table out of view.
That is a pretty great summary of what's wrong with copyright laws as they currently stand. If you know anyone that just doesn't understand the issue, I'd point them to this article.
Or did /. just get bought out by Kuro5hin?
One can hope..
Karma: Trading Spaces (Mostly affected by While You Were Out).
Thats awesome.. made me laugh.
I agree with you that the PDA technically belongs to the company. However, every place I've ever worked has let prizes of this sort go to the employee. Your company pays for you to go to a trade show and you drop your card in someone's fishbowl, winning a DVD player/PDA/Microsoft Inflatable Girlfriend/whatever. I've never known a company that tried to take that away from the employee. Ditto for this sort of thing. The company doesn't need the PDA, else they would have gone out and bought it (unless they have *SERIOUS* cash-flow problems). It's just plain good for morale to let the employees keep the extras.
Actually, I doubt they even technically belong to the company, if you look at the microsoft site, its pretty clear that they intend for the developers to have have them, not the company that purchased the site license. To claim them, the individual users have to send away for them, the company can't just send it in for all of them and distribute them as it sees fit.
Its a giveaway to the users of the software, not the purchaser of the software. Microsoft owned something and gave that something to the developers because use their software. This isn't really just like a buy one get one free type of thing. Its a free gift for the developers because their registered with microsofts developer program.
from https://vstudio.joleschgroup.com/faq.aspx
Q. My company or organization has multiple licenses for an eligible product via an Open, Select or Enterprise Agreement. Can I (or someone else) enter multiple registrations to take advantage of this offer?
A. No, this offer is for individual end-users only. If your company or organization has multiple licenses for an eligible product, please ask your end-users to register their product individually through this site. You cannot register someone else on his or her behalf.
seriously, ask microsoft.. they are usually pretty clear on what they think the rules governing their give-aways are... although what MS wants to think and what the law is isn't always the same thing. when they came to my school and gave away a bunch of copies of windows xp and visual studio, they sent everyone an email saying it was wrong for us to ebay them.. didn't stop me from making a quick $100 though.. but their word might convince your boss.
Just don't give any money to SCO and eventually if everyone pitches in and ignores them together, they will have to go away.
I haven't used blender and have only dabbled with other 3d programs, so maybe this is obvious, but why does a 3d program need audio sequencing capabilities?
This looks like a job for the FSF. How far are the binaries being distributed? Since they contain GPL code, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a case for source code release, which would open the whole app to peer review (and, if the article is even halfway right, hilarity).
Since they are distributed to the state, the source code should be available via the freedom to information act or similar laws.
Setting up wifi in an insecure way hardly qualifies as an expensive skill.
whats funny is that the real article says nothing about Wi-fi it just says the districts policy is that only employees can touch the computers now.
When they were first annoucing that the Chinese would be producing the dragon chip, there was a lot of speculation here and other places that it would just be a reverse engineered version of something else.. guess that's what happened.
It can't be that big of a deal.. the water has to go someplace.. water doesn't really leave the water cycle it just moves around.. I'm sure an ocean someplace just got 1/16 of an inch deeper or something.
But who are they targeting with this product?
I think they're aiming to cut into Nokia's market for their upcoming N-Gage
Unfortunately, its hard to cut into nothing.
Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).
One could argue that since copyright is effectively broken (ie: it doesn't push anything into the public domain due to the fact that its been constantly extended every few years for the last hundred years) that there is no obligation for the populus to obey copyright laws as they gain no benefit.
Social contracts only work if both sides hold up their end of the bargain, and in this case, the RIAA and associated industries have failed to do so. Once they start releasing material into the public domain after a relatively short amount of time, I (and I imagine many others) will start rewarding them by paying for some of the material they have copyright on.
irregardless, it has never been modded down. If you click on the comment number you can see all of the moderation that the comment has had, it hasn't had any down modding.
Why does the rubyforge site have an apple ripoff look about it. Is a lot of ruby work done in macos?
Every dollar they lose, the phone company (and via "trickle down" theory, me) saves by not shouldering the cost of their business.
Uh...I'm pretty sure they pay the phone company for the calls...
Yes, but telemarketing costs the phone company and everyone money because of the strain it puts on the infrastructure of the phone system. The same way spam costs money because it puts a strain on the internet requiring expense server upgrades more often than if it weren't around.
But how would you ever learn about money laundering if not for the door-to-door Vibe magazine salesman?
Great office space reference.
It's not really two million jobs anyway.. the same industry that does outbound telemarketing also does inbound telemarketing, and they count all of them employees when they figure up how many jobs it is. Realistically, most of the people they are counting do inbound service and wouldn't be effected anyway.
why did this get modded down? just because it was anonymous? It IS a good point
You must be new here.. anonymous comments start out at 0, it hasn't been modded down at all.