No, you are wrong. A sceptical attitude towards this sort of sensationalism is very healthy, the true insult to the people who really are mentally ill is that every little depression is now being classified as a mental illness.
And I suppose classifying a cold as an illness is insulting to someone who has terminal pneumonia or classifying a cut as an injury is insulting to someone who has a severed limb. There are severe and minor mental illnesses, just as there are severe and minor physical illnesses. And, like physical illnesses, there are mental illnesses which are self treatable or get better "on their own."
Calling something a mental illness is simply a way to say that there is a mental process which hampers the individual's ability to function and is hopefully treatable. If anything, reducing the stigma of seeking attention for minor mental illnesses will help those with major mental illnesses since they will be less stigmatized as well.
My EE prof worked as a researcher for Southern California Edison for 20 years and he said that the reason they used DC for that power link was to avoid phase synchronization problems. --
No less a political philosopher than Thomas Jefferson had serious questions about patents and copyrights.
It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.
Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.
No of course you wouldn't be ok. That's like saying if you copy a book and sell it, but retain the copyright notice everything is peachy keen. You can't, that's the whole point of copyright, to protect investment in things that are easy to duplicate. While it seems onerous at times, and certainly the length of copyrights in the US are out of all proportion, it sure beats having to sign a EULA in order to view or purchase creative material. --
Its not quite like MP3: for one, the image quality is terrible. More importantly, its not quite as blatantly illegal as ripping a song off a CD.
Not to quibble, but at least here in the States ripping an MP3 off a copywrited CD is perfectly legal. Having your friends over and playing the MP3 is perfectly legal. Giving the MP3 to a friend is of questionable legality. Selling the MP3 without a licensing agreement or putting it on a public server is almost certanly illegal. --
Actually the satellites can now broadcast local affiliates, but they pay for the rebroadcast rights. The previous prohibition of satellites broadcasting local stations was more a result of the cable lobby than the affiliates.
Incidentally if you want to get national network feeds (which is still hard) just say that your dish is for an RV. --
While your hypothetical is correct, GPLed code has the feature (or failure depending on your POV) that it forces derived code to be GPLed.
The code in question was not GPLed. Therefore the point is moot. In fact it was originally based on Sun code which was licensed with the requirement that changes became the property of Sun. Sun apparently used this to their advantage, as one might expect a business to do. You may argue the political sagacity of their move, but it seems perfectly legal to this non-lawyer. --
I can't make an exact copy of myself (although my cells can make exact copies of themselves pretty much). A salt crystal in a supersaturated medium can can make copies of itself as well.
I think that life, like pornography and art is one of those things that is difficult to define objectively. --
IANAL, but previous patent discussions have raised the point that it is usually better to wait be sued in court and then seek to have the patent invalidated than to ask the patent office for an administrative review, because the administrative review process is much more biased in favor of the patent holder, and a positive administrative review process can be used in further court cases. --
I don't think it should have been marked down as a troll, but when you make an argument it pays to use as little vitriole as possible. Otherwise other people, including moderators are likely to dismiss the argument out of hand. --
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License"
This is a bit ambiguous, I agree. But I think "all third parties" means all third parties to whom you have distributed the derivative program, any other meaning is too onerous.
Hold on, either Corel can add any restriction (like you said), or they can't. What if one of the restrictions was "You may not redistribute any of the enclosed software." Would you still regard that as legal?
Hold on, yourself. I said they could do most any restriction except preventing their customers from redistributing GPLed software. This obviously puts severe practical restrictions on their power, but it does not preclude them from restricting primary access. --
This, however, is a catch-22 (or paradox) when talking about minors. The GPL requires that I give it to anyone who asks; however, I cannot give it to a minor, since I cannot insure that they abide by the contract (indeed, I have foreknowledge that they CANNOT), which is a further condition of the GPL.
I see nothing in the GPL that requires me to give software to anyone that asks. I just can't restrict further redistribution.
As for a danger in giving the software to a minor, the GPL states:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
It seems to me that a minor would simply not be able to redistribute GPLed software, since they can't agree to a contract.
This, however, is a catch-22 (or paradox) when talking about minors. The GPL requires that I give it to anyone who asks; however, I cannot give it to a minor, since I cannot insure that they abide by the contract (indeed, I have foreknowledge that they CANNOT), which is a further condition of the GPL.
I see nothing in the GPL that requires me to give software to anyone that asks. I just can't restrict further redistribution.
As for a danger in giving the software to a minor, the GPL states:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
It seems to me that a minor would simply not be able to redistribute GPLed software, since they can't agree to a contract.
IANAL, but it seems to me that any restriction Corel places on the original download of their distribution is legal. The GPL allows me to distribute software for money or with a warranty, and AFAIKT, any further restrictions that do not restrict the ability of my customers to redistributing the binary and source.
Corel could refuse to sell their software to anyone other than Tibetan monks between the ages of 65 and 70. They just can't keep those monks from redistributing the GPLed portions.
So in short, Corel's actions may not be in keeping with the spirit of Free Software, but I see nothing in the GPL to prevent them. --
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are wrong. A sceptical attitude towards this sort of sensationalism is very healthy, the true insult to the people who really are mentally ill is that every little depression is now being classified as a mental illness.
And I suppose classifying a cold as an illness is insulting to someone who has terminal pneumonia or classifying a cut as an injury is insulting to someone who has a severed limb. There are severe and minor mental illnesses, just as there are severe and minor physical illnesses. And, like physical illnesses, there are mental illnesses which are self treatable or get better "on their own."
Calling something a mental illness is simply a way to say that there is a mental process which hampers the individual's ability to function and is hopefully treatable. If anything, reducing the stigma of seeking attention for minor mental illnesses will help those with major mental illnesses since they will be less stigmatized as well.
--
My EE prof worked as a researcher for Southern California Edison for 20 years and he said that the reason they used DC for that power link was to avoid phase synchronization problems.
--
From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.
Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.
--
If I give a friend a Rio player with an MP3 I made stored on it, I believe that this would be fair use, but then again, IANAL.
--
Is it an obscure errno, or a facist salute, you decide.
--
No of course you wouldn't be ok. That's like saying if you copy a book and sell it, but retain the copyright notice everything is peachy keen. You can't, that's the whole point of copyright, to protect investment in things that are easy to duplicate. While it seems onerous at times, and certainly the length of copyrights in the US are out of all proportion, it sure beats having to sign a EULA in order to view or purchase creative material.
--
Its not quite like MP3: for one, the image quality is terrible. More importantly, its not quite as blatantly illegal as ripping a song off a CD.
Not to quibble, but at least here in the States ripping an MP3 off a copywrited CD is perfectly legal. Having your friends over and playing the MP3 is perfectly legal. Giving the MP3 to a friend is of questionable legality. Selling the MP3 without a licensing agreement or putting it on a public server is almost certanly illegal.
--
Actually the satellites can now broadcast local affiliates, but they pay for the rebroadcast rights. The previous prohibition of satellites broadcasting local stations was more a result of the cable lobby than the affiliates.
Incidentally if you want to get national network feeds (which is still hard) just say that your dish is for an RV.
--
While your hypothetical is correct, GPLed code has the feature (or failure depending on your POV) that it forces derived code to be GPLed.
The code in question was not GPLed. Therefore the point is moot. In fact it was originally based on Sun code which was licensed with the requirement that changes became the property of Sun. Sun apparently used this to their advantage, as one might expect a business to do. You may argue the political sagacity of their move, but it seems perfectly legal to this non-lawyer.
--
I can't make an exact copy of myself (although my cells can make exact copies of themselves pretty much). A salt crystal in a supersaturated medium can can make copies of itself as well.
I think that life, like pornography and art is one of those things that is difficult to define objectively.
--
You mean like a refrigerator?
--
Not that I know of, but there are many linux distros and I only have used two, RedHat and Debian.
--
IANAL, but previous patent discussions have raised the point that it is usually better to wait be sued in court and then seek to have the patent invalidated than to ask the patent office for an administrative review, because the administrative review process is much more biased in favor of the patent holder, and a positive administrative review process can be used in further court cases.
--
Don't forget
enterprise
intranet
enabling
nth generation (where n = 3 to 7 depending on industry)
best of breed
featureful
--
Which buzzword irks you the most?
--
I don't think it should have been marked down as a troll, but when you make an argument it pays to use as little vitriole as possible. Otherwise other people, including moderators are likely to dismiss the argument out of hand.
--
#include
It seems to me that the loss of business to Amazon could be seen as an irreparable harm if the injunction weren't enforced.
It still seems like a lousy decision, in my untrained opinion, since the original patent is so obviously flawed.
--
less or most are two nice unbraindead mores. Less is standard on most Linux distros.
--
Of course there is. People pay for porn and other premium content like certain investment research.
--
This is a bit ambiguous, I agree. But I think "all third parties" means all third parties to whom you have distributed the derivative program, any other meaning is too onerous.
Hold on, yourself. I said they could do most any restriction except preventing their customers from redistributing GPLed software. This obviously puts severe practical restrictions on their power, but it does not preclude them from restricting primary access.
--
I see nothing in the GPL that requires me to give software to anyone that asks. I just can't restrict further redistribution.
As for a danger in giving the software to a minor, the GPL states:
It seems to me that a minor would simply not be able to redistribute GPLed software, since they can't agree to a contract.
--
IANAL, but it seems to me that any restriction Corel places on the original download of their distribution is legal. The GPL allows me to distribute software for money or with a warranty, and AFAIKT, any further restrictions that do not restrict the ability of my customers to redistributing the binary and source.
Corel could refuse to sell their software to anyone other than Tibetan monks between the ages of 65 and 70. They just can't keep those monks from redistributing the GPLed portions.
So in short, Corel's actions may not be in keeping with the spirit of Free Software, but I see nothing in the GPL to prevent them.
--
The Telestrator (although only Madden seems to be able to use it well)
The yellow first down line.
--
Even better than that, Andy Kaufmann created a character, Tony Clifton, that everyone knew was Andy, but was played in many cases by Bob Zmuda.
--