I'm wondering if that page I quoted is out of date, since it refers to SCO as Caldera. If so this guy may not longer have these competing affiliations.
But the US dollar then was worth 1.61x the Canadian dollar and is now worth only 1.31x.
CBC did a story last week on how the Canadian consumer price index has risen by 2% or some such, despite the massive gains in the loonie over the past year.
So, despite the fact that the Canadian dollar is so high (which is of course only because the American dollar is so low), we're paying about the same amount for goods, adjusted for inflation. This despite the fact that most of our consumer goods are imported from the States.
Well, that's a pretty wide net. For example, take one from the middle of the list: Ralph J. Yarro III.
A google search turns up this, which mentions all these associations:
Ralph also servers as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Angel Partners, a 501(c)3 support organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is also a Trustee for the Noorda Family Trust, the Scenic View Center, and the Worth of a Soul Foundation. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Altiris, AP Software, Caldera Systems, Center 7, Coresoft, and Helius. He sits on the Board of Directors for: the Canopy Group, 2NetFX, Arcanvs, Cogito, DataCrystal, Expressware, Global Prime, The Guy Store, HomePipeLine, iBase Systems, Interworks, Lineo, MTI, ManageMyMoney, Nombas, Profit Pro, Recruit Search, Troll Tech and TugNut.
Of course it's easy to avoid giving money to the Mormon church (well, unless you're Mormon, I suppose) but who knows what subsidiary of one of these other companies you might be dealing with.
Still, I suppose you can avoid dealing directly with these people and still produce a tangible effect.
Calling copyright infringement an unethical activity does [make you a capitalist], though.
There's a reason copyright legislation was created, apart from the ridiculous abuses it's been twisted into justifying these days.
I'm not particularly convinced we need copyright, and the abuses it's put to make me even less sure. But I agree with Stallman that it has its purpose now.
Intellectual property has tangible value; if we wish to create a feasible alternative to capitalism, we must take this into account. People do not contribute to free software projects with absolutely no expectation of return: in the long term, they may expect money or fame, or they may simply wish to promote an ideology (free software).
What's funny is he said "If I tried to then sell my work," then you present 3 options; one involves selling the work and including his source, the other 2 involve not selling his work.
I interpreted "his work" as meaning his own work, not including the GPL'ed stuff. I read the original post as describing a scenario wherein the author had already begun selling his work (meaning the combined proprietary/GPLed code), then discovered the GPLed code, then felt that compelled to distribute it all under the GPL.
However, you can also interpret the OP's use of "my work" to mean all the code, including the GPL'ed stuff, at the time the GPL'ed stuff was found. Then the OP was right: if you want to sell it in that form, you have to use the GPL.
However, you're right: my point #3 was pretty dumb, given that the OP had said "if I try to sell my work".
And then you still could be sued. You can't breach the GPL, and then stop breaching it, and get away with it, if the copyright holder decides to sue. Generally, they won't. In fact, there's never been a case where they have.
Of course. The situation is the same as if any organization distributed another's intellectual property without that person's consent. The right to sue should still be an option.
The only recent this FUD sticks is that people are not used to the idea of actually having the source code, while still being restricted in manner in which they incorporate it in in a product. In the proprietary world, there are two extreme: you have the code and you do whatever you want with it, or you don't and you can do nothing except run the binaries.
Spoken like a true capitalist. You've been taught well.
Ahem? Saying that a company ought to face the possibility of going out of business for engaging, intentionally or not, in unethical activities hardly makes me a capitalist.
Sometimes the invisible hand really does work. Though I must confess that in almost every argument I've been in on the subject, I've been the one arguing against free-market determinism.
That said, the capitalist model is what we're talking about here, as the OP mentioned 'selling' software.
You are obligated to release your source. If you fail to comply you will be sued.
You can also opt to stop distributing your product entirely, without releasing the source to it.
I'm not sure what exactly a company can do to avoid a lawsuit entirely: clearly, whether the infringer stops distribution or releases stuff under the GPL, damage has already been done (i.e. the compiled binaries have already been sold).
In any case, stopping distribution doesn't necessarily mean that you have to scrap all the code you've written: you can find or write non-GPLed code to replace the troublesome GPLed code.
If this is too big a problem for a company to solve in reasonable enough time to stay in business, then tough: they should've looked at the licences of their components more closely.
If I tried to then sell my work, I would also have to release my source.
No. Assuming you discovered that GPL'ed code was included after the fact, you would have a choice:
1) Starting selling your project under the GPL licence, 2) Stop selling the product until the GPLed code was replaced with proprietary code, and re-release it, 3) Stop selling your product entirely.
You are never required to release your proprietary code. It is always an option, and is obviously the least-effort option once your discover the GPL'ed code has been included, but it is by no means mandatory.
Re:They'll let anybody into the club these days
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 1
All this means is that there is more evident stratification in geekdom. Once upon a time, you were either a geek or you weren't. Now, there are levels of geeks.
No, no, no! Not geeks, nerds. Didn't you read the headline?
Expecting an emergency call that could get you fired/dumped/etc? DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES.
And if you're in some profession that requires you to be on call all the time, e.g. emergency room physicians?
Before cellphones and pagers, these people would have simply not been able to go to the movies, or anywhere away from a phone where they could be reached. But now that the technology exists, and can be used responsibly (by using text-messages, pagers with vibrate, or other non-intrusive forms of communication) it seems excessive to deny these people the right to go to the movies.
And to believe that the media claimed that Gore seriously thought he could take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is likewise silly.
Hardly. It was Wired which made a big ideal out of all this. This article by Declan McCullaugh, which I understand is the first instance of the use of the word "invent", strongly suggests that Gore thought he could take credit for the invention:
The safe thing to do is to hide all knowledge of these technologies from everyone who isn't a corporation based in the U.S.. That way, these tools can only be used for the good of the human race.
The most truly insane thing about this comment is that, judging from your previous remarks, you probably even meant it seriously.
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent. Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds, Kai-Shek ensured that everyone worked, and everyone had a purpose.
Describing Kai-Shek as a benevolent dictator is a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying he was any worse than Mao or the communists, but it's on the record that he also engaged in the darker sides of dictatorship: torturing enemy soldiers, disappearing political dissidents, etc.
An example from this Guardian story details how his wife suggested at a dinner with the Roosevelts that her husband would deal with a wartime strike of coalminers by executing the strikers.
Perhaps these measures were necessary for him and the Kuomintang to retain power, and perhaps it was for the best that they did (well, in Taiwan anyway). But I don't think you can call him 'benevolent'.
In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.
It's the same in Canada: well, in the province of Ontario, anyway. Universities giving out engineering degrees must satisfy a fairly rigid set of criteria imposed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and no one is allowed to use the word "Engineer" otherwise.
Engineers can even act as the guarantor on a passport.
I know in Calgary we were down to -29 one night. Not typical, but it certainly wasn't a record low or anything.
Wow; I guess we Ontarians really do live a sheltered life. I've been out west a lot (my family's from there), but always in the summer, so the depth of prairie winter still surprises me.
In my brand new Honda Accord, I came out to the cold Canadian air last week, pressed the button on my key to open the door, and All I heard was a faint thudding click. It seemed the locking mechanism was a tad frozen ( it was -26c that night).
Where were you in Canada that it was -26C last week? Nunavut?
Eco misses the whole point. The great advantage of online content is searchability. He describes using an encyclopedia in an "advanced way" to find out if Napoleon ever met Kant.
What are you talking about? What in Eco's article made you believe he didn't realize this advantage of hypertext? What point did he miss?
In fact, he makes essentially your point in the article, which leads me to believe you must only have skimmed through it:
In order to confirm this I would probably need to consult a biography of Kant, or of Napoleon, but in a short biography of Napoleon, who met so many persons in his life, a possible meeting with Kant can be disregarded, while in a biography of Kant a meeting with Napoleon would be recorded. In brief, I must leaf through many books on many shelves of my library; I must take notes in order to compare later all the data I have collected. All this will cost me painful physical labour.
Yet, with hypertext instead I can navigate through the whole net-cyclopaedia. I can connect an event registered at the beginning with a series of similar events disseminated throughout the text; I can compare the beginning with the end; I can ask for a list of all words beginning by A; I can ask for all the cases in which the name of Napoleon is linked with the one of Kant; I can compare the dates of their births and deaths -- in short, I can do my job in a few seconds or a few minutes.
This is rather offtopic, but I'm just curious abour your userid (peter_gzowski): is it a tribute of some sort, or is it actually your name and thus just a coincidence?
And, for the last goddamn blessed time (see what I mean about the yellow part of the journalism?), it was not someplace a person could actually wager real money on events. That was just the statistical model.
Well, in that case, my argument still applies, but for a different reason: instead of of guilt interfering with the normal incentive for acquisition, there is no incentive for acquisition at all, because acquisition is simply impossible.
As some guy said in this Wired article, the whole of the predictive power of futures markets is the fact that money or reputation is on the line. If it isn't, the predictive power of the system is greatly diminished, if not gone entirely.
When I told them I knew one of the guys who did some early work on the idea, and that it was just a tool to try and predict the ever elusive human threats, they simply would not listen. Everyone just followed their ideological bias, and the truth be damned, as usual.
As I understand it, the plan here was to use the fact that the stock market has a phenomenally good record at predicting sudden acts, even sudden individual acts. We've all heard of the blip on the stock markets on Sept. 10th, etc., etc.
The problem I see with actually betting on terrorism is that the exploitation is too obvious for people to behave normally. The stock market serves best as a predictive tool when the players are concerned about only one thing: profit.
As other posters have mentioned, one is potentially creating or abetting all kinds of human suffering across the globe when one plays the stock market. However, though I can deal with eating a burger, I don't particularly want to see the dead cow. Similarly, investors as a group are likely to feel a little uncomfortable betting on the next bombing on Israel, and this discomfort is going to interfere with their game.
There are two solutions: take the events being bet on and abstract them away to the point where investors don't really know what the hell they're betting on, or make investors more amoral.
Thought association
on
News at a Glance
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Another thing to notice is that pictures of human faces seem to keep the lead over pie charts and battlefields... they are a good clue to figure what an article is about.
The first thing this reminded me of was this quote by George Orwell:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."
Slashdot Mirror
The original K&R C didn't have a void type.
Not only that, but even in modern C main can't be void. Methinks we have a C++ programmer here.
Isn't that a conflict of interest?
I'm wondering if that page I quoted is out of date, since it refers to SCO as Caldera. If so this guy may not longer have these competing affiliations.
But the US dollar then was worth 1.61x the Canadian dollar and is now worth only 1.31x.
CBC did a story last week on how the Canadian consumer price index has risen by 2% or some such, despite the massive gains in the loonie over the past year.
So, despite the fact that the Canadian dollar is so high (which is of course only because the American dollar is so low), we're paying about the same amount for goods, adjusted for inflation. This despite the fact that most of our consumer goods are imported from the States.
Well, that's a pretty wide net. For example, take one from the middle of the list: Ralph J. Yarro III.
A google search turns up this, which mentions all these associations:
Ralph also servers as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Angel Partners, a 501(c)3 support organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is also a Trustee for the Noorda Family Trust, the Scenic View Center, and the Worth of a Soul Foundation. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Altiris, AP Software, Caldera Systems, Center 7, Coresoft, and Helius. He sits on the Board of Directors for: the Canopy Group, 2NetFX, Arcanvs, Cogito, DataCrystal, Expressware, Global Prime, The Guy Store, HomePipeLine, iBase Systems, Interworks, Lineo, MTI, ManageMyMoney, Nombas, Profit Pro, Recruit Search, Troll Tech and TugNut.
Of course it's easy to avoid giving money to the Mormon church (well, unless you're Mormon, I suppose) but who knows what subsidiary of one of these other companies you might be dealing with.
Still, I suppose you can avoid dealing directly with these people and still produce a tangible effect.
Calling copyright infringement an unethical activity does [make you a capitalist], though.
There's a reason copyright legislation was created, apart from the ridiculous abuses it's been twisted into justifying these days.
I'm not particularly convinced we need copyright, and the abuses it's put to make me even less sure. But I agree with Stallman that it has its purpose now.
Intellectual property has tangible value; if we wish to create a feasible alternative to capitalism, we must take this into account. People do not contribute to free software projects with absolutely no expectation of return: in the long term, they may expect money or fame, or they may simply wish to promote an ideology (free software).
What's funny is he said "If I tried to then sell my work," then you present 3 options; one involves selling the work and including his source, the other 2 involve not selling his work.
I interpreted "his work" as meaning his own work, not including the GPL'ed stuff. I read the original post as describing a scenario wherein the author had already begun selling his work (meaning the combined proprietary/GPLed code), then discovered the GPLed code, then felt that compelled to distribute it all under the GPL.
However, you can also interpret the OP's use of "my work" to mean all the code, including the GPL'ed stuff, at the time the GPL'ed stuff was found. Then the OP was right: if you want to sell it in that form, you have to use the GPL.
However, you're right: my point #3 was pretty dumb, given that the OP had said "if I try to sell my work".
And then you still could be sued. You can't breach the GPL, and then stop breaching it, and get away with it, if the copyright holder decides to sue. Generally, they won't. In fact, there's never been a case where they have.
Of course. The situation is the same as if any organization distributed another's intellectual property without that person's consent. The right to sue should still be an option.
The only recent this FUD sticks is that people are not used to the idea of actually having the source code, while still being restricted in manner in which they incorporate it in in a product. In the proprietary world, there are two extreme: you have the code and you do whatever you want with it, or you don't and you can do nothing except run the binaries.
Spoken like a true capitalist. You've been taught well.
Ahem? Saying that a company ought to face the possibility of going out of business for engaging, intentionally or not, in unethical activities hardly makes me a capitalist.
Sometimes the invisible hand really does work. Though I must confess that in almost every argument I've been in on the subject, I've been the one arguing against free-market determinism.
That said, the capitalist model is what we're talking about here, as the OP mentioned 'selling' software.
You are obligated to release your source. If you fail to comply you will be sued.
You can also opt to stop distributing your product entirely, without releasing the source to it.
I'm not sure what exactly a company can do to avoid a lawsuit entirely: clearly, whether the infringer stops distribution or releases stuff under the GPL, damage has already been done (i.e. the compiled binaries have already been sold).
In any case, stopping distribution doesn't necessarily mean that you have to scrap all the code you've written: you can find or write non-GPLed code to replace the troublesome GPLed code.
If this is too big a problem for a company to solve in reasonable enough time to stay in business, then tough: they should've looked at the licences of their components more closely.
If I tried to then sell my work, I would also have to release my source.
No. Assuming you discovered that GPL'ed code was included after the fact, you would have a choice:
1) Starting selling your project under the GPL licence,
2) Stop selling the product until the GPLed code was replaced with proprietary code, and re-release it,
3) Stop selling your product entirely.
You are never required to release your proprietary code. It is always an option, and is obviously the least-effort option once your discover the GPL'ed code has been included, but it is by no means mandatory.
Ooo! Ooo! How about Frank Herbert's most esoteric back-of-an-envelope scribbling, lovingly -- and profitably -- edited by his hack son?
Or, start an entirely new series, which sells entirely based on name recognition of your dead relatives.
Love that penny arcade, by the way.
All this means is that there is more evident stratification in geekdom. Once upon a time, you were either a geek or you weren't. Now, there are levels of geeks.
No, no, no! Not geeks, nerds. Didn't you read the headline?
Expecting an emergency call that could get you fired/dumped/etc? DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES.
And if you're in some profession that requires you to be on call all the time, e.g. emergency room physicians?
Before cellphones and pagers, these people would have simply not been able to go to the movies, or anywhere away from a phone where they could be reached. But now that the technology exists, and can be used responsibly (by using text-messages, pagers with vibrate, or other non-intrusive forms of communication) it seems excessive to deny these people the right to go to the movies.
And to believe that the media claimed that Gore seriously thought he could take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is likewise silly.
0 .html
Hardly. It was Wired which made a big ideal out of all this. This article by Declan McCullaugh, which I understand is the first instance of the use of the word "invent", strongly suggests that Gore thought he could take credit for the invention:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18655,0
The safe thing to do is to hide all knowledge of these technologies from everyone who isn't a corporation based in the U.S.. That way, these tools can only be used for the good of the human race.
The most truly insane thing about this comment is that, judging from your previous remarks, you probably even meant it seriously.
Please tell me you didn't.
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent. Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds, Kai-Shek ensured that everyone worked, and everyone had a purpose.
Describing Kai-Shek as a benevolent dictator is a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying he was any worse than Mao or the communists, but it's on the record that he also engaged in the darker sides of dictatorship: torturing enemy soldiers, disappearing political dissidents, etc.
An example from this Guardian story details how his wife suggested at a dinner with the Roosevelts that her husband would deal with a wartime strike of coalminers by executing the strikers.
Perhaps these measures were necessary for him and the Kuomintang to retain power, and perhaps it was for the best that they did (well, in Taiwan anyway). But I don't think you can call him 'benevolent'.
In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.
It's the same in Canada: well, in the province of Ontario, anyway. Universities giving out engineering degrees must satisfy a fairly rigid set of criteria imposed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and no one is allowed to use the word "Engineer" otherwise.
Engineers can even act as the guarantor on a passport.
I know in Calgary we were down to -29 one night. Not typical, but it certainly wasn't a record low or anything.
Wow; I guess we Ontarians really do live a sheltered life. I've been out west a lot (my family's from there), but always in the summer, so the depth of prairie winter still surprises me.
In my brand new Honda Accord, I came out to the cold Canadian air last week, pressed the button on my key to open the door, and All I heard was a faint thudding click. It seemed the locking mechanism was a tad frozen ( it was -26c that night).
Where were you in Canada that it was -26C last week? Nunavut?
Eco misses the whole point. The great advantage of online content is searchability. He describes using an encyclopedia in an "advanced way" to find out if Napoleon ever met Kant.
What are you talking about? What in Eco's article made you believe he didn't realize this advantage of hypertext? What point did he miss?
In fact, he makes essentially your point in the article, which leads me to believe you must only have skimmed through it:
In order to confirm this I would probably need to consult a biography of Kant, or of Napoleon, but in a short biography of Napoleon, who met so many persons in his life, a possible meeting with Kant can be disregarded, while in a biography of Kant a meeting with Napoleon would be recorded. In brief, I must leaf through many books on many shelves of my library; I must take notes in order to compare later all the data I have collected. All this will cost me painful physical labour.
Yet, with hypertext instead I can navigate through the whole net-cyclopaedia. I can connect an event registered at the beginning with a series of similar events disseminated throughout the text; I can compare the beginning with the end; I can ask for a list of all words beginning by A; I can ask for all the cases in which the name of Napoleon is linked with the one of Kant; I can compare the dates of their births and deaths -- in short, I can do my job in a few seconds or a few minutes.
This is rather offtopic, but I'm just curious abour your userid (peter_gzowski): is it a tribute of some sort, or is it actually your name and thus just a coincidence?
I'm just waiting to see these babies [xs4all.nl] to hit the shops.
Um, you realize that's a Dutch site, and thus the power cord won't work in a North American outlet, right?
I wonder: would 110 220 power adapters actually preserve the data signal?
Canada... you mean that country that harbors terrorists intent on killing americans?
Been watching Fox News, I see.
And, for the last goddamn blessed time (see what I mean about the yellow part of the journalism?), it was not someplace a person could actually wager real money on events. That was just the statistical model.
Well, in that case, my argument still applies, but for a different reason: instead of of guilt interfering with the normal incentive for acquisition, there is no incentive for acquisition at all, because acquisition is simply impossible.
As some guy said in this Wired article, the whole of the predictive power of futures markets is the fact that money or reputation is on the line. If it isn't, the predictive power of the system is greatly diminished, if not gone entirely.
When I told them I knew one of the guys who did some early work on the idea, and that it was just a tool to try and predict the ever elusive human threats, they simply would not listen. Everyone just followed their ideological bias, and the truth be damned, as usual.
As I understand it, the plan here was to use the fact that the stock market has a phenomenally good record at predicting sudden acts, even sudden individual acts. We've all heard of the blip on the stock markets on Sept. 10th, etc., etc.
The problem I see with actually betting on terrorism is that the exploitation is too obvious for people to behave normally. The stock market serves best as a predictive tool when the players are concerned about only one thing: profit.
As other posters have mentioned, one is potentially creating or abetting all kinds of human suffering across the globe when one plays the stock market. However, though I can deal with eating a burger, I don't particularly want to see the dead cow. Similarly, investors as a group are likely to feel a little uncomfortable betting on the next bombing on Israel, and this discomfort is going to interfere with their game.
There are two solutions: take the events being bet on and abstract them away to the point where investors don't really know what the hell they're betting on, or make investors more amoral.
Another thing to notice is that pictures of human faces seem to keep the lead over pie charts and battlefields... they are a good clue to figure what an article is about.
The first thing this reminded me of was this quote by George Orwell:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face
forever."