Technically true. However, people downloading the songs are not technically breaking the law, per sae. It is the person making a copy of the song available that is the criminal. All they have to do is get onto Kazaa or something, search through their list of song names and artists, and when the get hits, record the IP, and issue a cease and desist.
I suppose one could make the case of downloaders having an equal share of activity/collusion with the sharer, but the downloader has little to no way of knowing (beyond the massive storm of lawsuits) whether a song that is out on the internet is legally being distributed or not. The distributor of the song better well know that before making it available.
Not necessarily true. Offtime (time spent unable to play or not really wanting to play within the environment) holds an interest for people to actually talk about what they've seen, what they've done and experienced, see if this meshes with others, and improve upon the game by improving their ability to play it as well as weeding out the simple little things that maybe are overlooked.
Yes, there are probably going to be a high ratio of noise in there, however a good game has quite a bit of healthy discussion about it. A bad game has nothing but complaints on the boards. Closing it because it "doesn't give an accurate representation" is bogus. Anyone with half a clue should be able to discern 'healthy discussion' from 'endless rants and flames'.
Thing is, though, to say that the person receiving and using a copy of a program that is illegal (copyright infringement) is responsible and liable for damage is a little like saying the owner of a copied book or a downloaded song is liable for damages. Thing is, the person receiving the item does in fact have the product, they could easily have been deceived into believing that it was in fact legal. That doesn't make it right, but it does put a twist on it.
Copyright law only criminalizes the act of improper copying of copyrighted material. The person that actively copies it is the criminal, not those that receive the work. Those receiving may wind up getting a 'cease and desist' or not, since the award in copyright cases is supposed to be a set value Per Infringement (hand out 5 illegal copies of a book, pay a fine x 5 for your actions). Thus, the copyright owner is paid for their work.
This whole concept of "Warrenty against infringement" is totally bogus, and has no place inside the law as it stands. It is not needed, because they law already singles out the responsible party, the one that can be sued, the person who does the infringing. In a case like this, it would be the company or developer personally responsible for contributing that code into the kernel without properly validating it's history.
Process currently to deploy cargo from the Shuttle into orbit:
- Send up Shuttle. - Do whatever you need to to prepare it for operation. - Deploy into orbit.
Process to send cargo and mission specialists seperately into orbit:
- Send up cargo. - Send up Shuttle. - Find and match orbital trajectories of the cargo. - Capture cargo. - Do whatever you need to to prepare it for operation. - Deploy into orbit.
In this, we add 3 steps. I'm not positive that this is a safer way to do it. The finding and capturing cargo portion of the second process is rather dangerous, or has the potential to be.
Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.
How is it that music is information, again? Music is a performance art, it is not precicely information like you would find in a book. A piece of music may have a message, but it is a singular message, not like plans to build a factory.
It's amazing to me that people like this get moderated insightfull. This is crap. It's such a hard concept that some people might like to be funded for their contribution to your entertainment/education, isn't it? I mean, really. Let's look at all the things that shouldn't be charged for if this 'high and mighty' ideal of freely ignoring 'immoral' laws such as copyright was put into effect.
- Copy all the books you can find. Authors sell 1 copy, but on the standard price for a book, they go hungry in a week, can't pay their bills, and have no incentive to write the book in the first place. Oh well, no more information from books.
- Music, Movies are freely available to the masses. Sure, this is great for the masses, but the artists, companies, directors, etc that make their living on these art forms now get no money at all for their work. If they can't feed themselves in today's modern society, why should they do this instead of invest their time in a farm? Oh well, we didn't really need movies or music, either.
- Software. Oh, well, the years of research and millions of dollars spent making the hardware and software that you're posting onto Slashdot are now available at $10 million to the first customer. Or are you suggesting that people spend millions from their pockets and give the fruit of their labor to you for free, out of their own good will? That works for Open Source (because the open source developers are being funded by other methods or doing alternative work in addition to programming), but that isn't the only way to do it. Oh well.
- Patents. Find an inventive way to do something? That guy watching you just copied your work, as did the guy next to him. So much for having an idea in which you can actually use to sustain yourself.
I'd ask if you get the point yet, but I know you don't. Information wants to be free! Battlecry of people who have no concept of how society works, and simple concepts of finding food for tomorrow when one isn't making any money from these businesses of 'pure ideas' elude them. If there is no method to excersize one's trade of entertainment or invention and enjoy the ability to eat and have nice things, exactally what is the purpose to do these things?
Funny thing is, though, NASA doesn't send up the shuttle with a satelite to dump into orbit, it already sends up a single shot rocket with the payload on board. It has no need of human interaction, it's launch time is flexible, it is self deploying.
What kind of Cargo the shuttle carries is more like specialized laboratories built to fit into the cargo bay, special kinds of cargo that need someone there to put it together, parts for repair, devices that were not meant to stay in orbit, or something similar. What would be the point to sending these kinds of cargo up seperately? Now, instead of one point of failure, they have two? They have to not only get both pieces into orbit, but they also have to catch it where the slightest bit of difference in velocity is usually great enough to do serious damage? This is the smart way to do it?
I don't mind the concept of a personel carrier into space, specifically for use to meet with and deal with the ISS. However, unless they plan to add problems in one area in exchange for another, seperating the kinds of cargo the Shuttle carries isn't going to be something that safely happens.
This past catastrophe wasn't caused by cargo at all, it was caused by a failure in management and noone going "Umm.. shouldn't we look at that, just to make sure?"
If you have that many tapes, why aren't they in a tape silo or cataloged? After all, if they're there for backup purposes, it does no good if the real admins can't locate the proper ones either.
It's not the files that are in question or that she is attempting to withhold from the RIAA, in so far as I am aware. Her resistance is more on the matter that, without so much as a 'just cause', the RIAA is requesting personal information from a third party without first showing and gaining a court order to do it.
The EULA is not as much a contract (or should not be) as it is a clarification of your rights to that software under copyright law. The writer of the bill of rights misses this subtle point. Sadly, the manufacturers of software also miss it, and try to include such things as 'use' of the product in their licensing agreements. Funny that no clothing manufacturer says anything about how their clothing is to be used, but software? well now..
Perhaps I'm missing something. It was my presumption that the GPL did several things.
1) Permits redistribution of the program licensed, in this case MySQL, so long as redistribution contains that same license.
2) Permits modification of the program licensed, also MySQL, so long as the source code of the new derived product is both available, and licensed to others under the GPL.
I don't recall anywhere in my readings of the GPL that it said "If you use a product based upon our work, that product must also be licensed as ours is, or you must pay us licensing fees". Consider what such a scheme would be. Any program that has auxillary hooks for other programs to interface with it that is licensed under the GPL must then be GPL'd. This includes any program written with GCC (under GPL, I believe), any program written on linux, any and all drivers, etc.
Looking up the MySQL thing, it seems to me that they are being misleading. They are releasing their program under a GPL-like license. Rather, it should read something like this:
So long as you are distributing MySQL with your non open source project, you will need to purchase a license. If you are not distributing MySQL with your product or it is open source, it is licensed to you under the GPL.
Frankly, I find that kind of suspect, as their site states:
The software from MySQL AB listed below is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and is provided "as is" and is without any warranty.
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
Translation: If MySQL is claiming that the program is released under the GPL, and the most that your aux program ever does is use library hook
sort out what is infringing and give the user (who's apparently liable, though unknowingly and unwillingly) the chance to sort the problem out to the satisfaction of both parties.
Two words: Prove it. Prove that the users are infringing, and then they might be liable, although generally, it is the person actively infringing on the copyright (ie: people who redistribute copyrighted works) that is liable, because they are the ones that broke the law.
I know this is a somewhat tired comparison, but do you sue and jail the guy who buys a stolen car, unwittingly and unknowingly, or do you sue and jail the thief who took it to begin with?
It's either bitch about worms and viruses and spam, or bitch that it took an ISP 2 days to open up a port for me.
What I am concerned about is when you request an open port from the ISP, and the ISP goes "No, sorry, we don't want you to do that at all." Simple request on your part, but the power isn't in your hands anymore (beyond ditching that company and going elsewhere, if that's even an option).
Even worse is when the ISP "knows better than you" and causes problems in your service because of their firewall settings (idle connection timeouts too low, bad filters, etc). Two days of asking for the port to be open turns into two weeks of trying to get the non-techie on the customer service side to understand that their firewall is misconfigured, and that it's causing you problems and disrupting the very reason you got service through them. Or better yet, a blanket policy of not fielding requests to open ports at all as it would add too many burdens on their Customer Service staff, since companies are so concerned about the bottom line.
Thing is, firewalls never have block spam or viruses. They barely stop hackers, and that's only when they are going after internal only services (as those services exposed to the internet are free beer for bring broken into). Firewalls are not an end all, be all solution for internet security, and it's sad that people seem to think they are.
You want to defend against worms, a firewall is probably ok.
You want to defend against viruses, antivirus software is your best bet.
You want to defend against spam, email filtering technology is ideal.
Some of these can overlap (email filtering blocking email worms/viruses), but a firewall is not the ideal way to block everything, and only curbs some of the problems on the internet currently. However, as a method to control where a person goes and what they can do on the internet, a firewall is ideal.
As long as there is no extra charge, and you can "opt-out" by 'proving' you have a secure service, I would be for ISP level firewalling of some ports.
Secure service? Isn't that a technical impossibility in the modern day Internet? After all, how do you prove you have a secure service, they try to hack into it? They take your word for it?
No, I do not want my ISP filtering jack crap for me. I don't trust their judgement, and I'm not paying for filtering and not getting it slammed down my throat because of some paranoia. Block open relays, fine. Block problem users, fine. Don't block people that aren't doing anything wrong on the possible threat of a problem. Some users are already smart enough to install and use firewalls of their own.
The thing is, though, that software under the GPL is copyrighted, it is not public domain software, per sae. What the GPL does is makes the copyrighted software under it ALMOST public domain, while retaining some rights over how you can use it (use it, modify it, but if you distribute it, distribute it and the source code).
Copyleft and the GNU GPL
The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is called "copyleft".(1)
Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it becomes a means of keeping software free.
The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions of their own. Thus, the crucial freedoms that define "free software" are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.
While it is generally atypical for most copyrighted works to contain licenses (License for how/when/why you can use a book?), software has become different in this reguard because of the ease by which copying can happen. A license isn't so much a contract as it is an extention of existing copyright law, extending or transfering some of the rights normally exclusively reserved to the copyright holder alone.
Had anyone actually seen what this guy was advocating? I assume the pages have been removed, but how far of what he said was peaceful assembly, and how much of it was planning for a criminal act?
Thing of it is, I'll bet most on Slashdot havn't a clue what it said, only that some guy who said something is going to jail.
Ya, while technically, that may be what the Bill of Rights was intending to say, rights are kind of funny beasts.
Without the Constitution forbidding me to do so, I have the right to steal, rape, pillage, cause general mayhem. However, the Constitution forbids these things, so they are no longer rights. Is that about what you're saying?
Whether or not you say "The Bill of Rights has given me the right to..." or "The Bill of Rights has expressly forbid the government from stopping me from...", effectively and practically, they are the same thing, even if the thought them is inverted. The Bill of Rights has given US Citizens the right to peaceful assembly, with the typically unspoken 'which the government cannot stop me from doing'.
While I know this is a poor argument, what is the difference between this individual, posting bomb specs and attempting to entice revolt sounds very similar to overseas, where ranking religious members advocate Jihad against governments or something similar?
As a highschooler, perhaps you'd actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment doesn't say that you have the right to advocate hate crimes, belittle or verbally abuse people, or tell people how and where and when to blow up a major government building/person.
As someone else's post pointed out, the First Amendment gives you the right to peacefully speak your mind, petition the government on grievances, gather in assembly. You cannot entice riot, civil war, or anything else that seeks to start violence.
One would think that the educated Slashdotter could actually read and tell the difference between violence and peaceful assembly. I guess not.
What exactally are you doing with your line that you're sending ~262 meg to the internet in a 35 minute span? And, you are aware that in most cases, Cable Modems and ADSL lines that are designated 'consumer' are meant for the user to receive information, not to serve it out (that is generally denoted as a business type line).
Anyway, as for your Win95 example, you are hurting their business - Win95 is the ancestor of Windows XP, they would really like you to buy XP -- but if you can get Win95 for free... then they have to compete with themselves, and while they did attempt to make improvements over previous versions, free is a hard price point to beat, especially when many applications will run on either OS
Here's the thing about Win95 and WinXP. See, in the whole course of evolution for the Windows operating system, WindowsXP is "better". It's more advanced, has more features, more compatability, and generally a product that fits more in line with today's current technology.
For example, I wouldn't run Win95 on a brand new machine. Why? Because that operating system just cannot handle the memory, processor speed, or various other pieces of hardware properly. One would use WinXP (if one used windows at all).
Windows 95 is never going to be another revenue stream for Microsoft anymore, but they get to hold the copyright for... life + 90 (how long is the life of a company?). That means, in a century or so, Microsoft could come back and go "Oh, by the way, you're running Windows 95 on that ancient PC. You owe us dollars in back licensing fees" and do so under current copyright laws.
I just want to see projections on when items will start to go into public domain with current laws. Is anything at all entering public domain? It seems to me like it wouldn't.
I am nitpicking. What's an intellectual property law? Or, better yet, what exactally is 'intellectual property'? Is it anything like an idea? As of yet, I don't think we have any laws that apply to ideas.
Copyright law is one thing. Intellectual Property seems to be the latest 'buzz word', right alongside Synergy.
It does not cost less to buy in bulk than it does to buy individually. It costs less per unit. At that time, you spend more buying in bulk than you do individually (unless you buy so much individually that you should have chosen in bulk).
Ranks right up there with ads saying that buying something saves you money. No it doesn't. You only spend less, you don't actually save money (read: put it away) in the act of buying something.
It's not whether or not the Judge has an opinion about the topic in question. I'm sure most judges have opinions about all sorts of things. The only time it can really be a mistrial is if court proceedings are not followed, or the judges decision is unfairly influenced by his own personal opinion (a guilty ruling when the trial shows a substantial ammount of evidence to decide not guilty, as an example).
Bitter much? If I recall, with the problems of Florida's voter tally, the legislature wanted to rewrite their state's rules for determining votes once the process had already begun. Don't you think this is a conflict of intrest, for a government body to attempt to legislate a change in voting proceedure in the middle of a vote?
So far as I recall, the court basically refuted the legislature and told them that it was illegal to alter the rules of voting proceedure during a vote. What is most screwed up about the voting system is not the dimpled chads or whatever garbage they were arguing about, but rather the Electoral College system is flawed, giving people the sense that their vote doesn't count (which, in a sense, it doesn't). We vote for congressmen to represent our districts, but when we vote for president, the state as a whole is taken. Mighty fine way for the majority of the people to say "Candidate A" and for Candidate B to win due to fuzzyness in the system.
Until they do so what exactly are you going to sue them for? Libel?
If SCO is going overseas and telling by word of mouth, it's slander. If they print it in book, or magazine or paper or something, it's libel. A newspaper reporting news on what someone else said isn't exactally libel, as the newspaper isn't saying it, but repeating what's spoken.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically true. However, people downloading the songs are not technically breaking the law, per sae. It is the person making a copy of the song available that is the criminal. All they have to do is get onto Kazaa or something, search through their list of song names and artists, and when the get hits, record the IP, and issue a cease and desist.
I suppose one could make the case of downloaders having an equal share of activity/collusion with the sharer, but the downloader has little to no way of knowing (beyond the massive storm of lawsuits) whether a song that is out on the internet is legally being distributed or not. The distributor of the song better well know that before making it available.
Not necessarily true. Offtime (time spent unable to play or not really wanting to play within the environment) holds an interest for people to actually talk about what they've seen, what they've done and experienced, see if this meshes with others, and improve upon the game by improving their ability to play it as well as weeding out the simple little things that maybe are overlooked.
Yes, there are probably going to be a high ratio of noise in there, however a good game has quite a bit of healthy discussion about it. A bad game has nothing but complaints on the boards. Closing it because it "doesn't give an accurate representation" is bogus. Anyone with half a clue should be able to discern 'healthy discussion' from 'endless rants and flames'.
Thing is, though, to say that the person receiving and using a copy of a program that is illegal (copyright infringement) is responsible and liable for damage is a little like saying the owner of a copied book or a downloaded song is liable for damages. Thing is, the person receiving the item does in fact have the product, they could easily have been deceived into believing that it was in fact legal. That doesn't make it right, but it does put a twist on it.
Copyright law only criminalizes the act of improper copying of copyrighted material. The person that actively copies it is the criminal, not those that receive the work. Those receiving may wind up getting a 'cease and desist' or not, since the award in copyright cases is supposed to be a set value Per Infringement (hand out 5 illegal copies of a book, pay a fine x 5 for your actions). Thus, the copyright owner is paid for their work.
This whole concept of "Warrenty against infringement" is totally bogus, and has no place inside the law as it stands. It is not needed, because they law already singles out the responsible party, the one that can be sued, the person who does the infringing. In a case like this, it would be the company or developer personally responsible for contributing that code into the kernel without properly validating it's history.
Process currently to deploy cargo from the Shuttle into orbit:
- Send up Shuttle.
- Do whatever you need to to prepare it for operation.
- Deploy into orbit.
Process to send cargo and mission specialists seperately into orbit:
- Send up cargo.
- Send up Shuttle.
- Find and match orbital trajectories of the cargo.
- Capture cargo.
- Do whatever you need to to prepare it for operation.
- Deploy into orbit.
In this, we add 3 steps. I'm not positive that this is a safer way to do it. The finding and capturing cargo portion of the second process is rather dangerous, or has the potential to be.
How is it that music is information, again? Music is a performance art, it is not precicely information like you would find in a book. A piece of music may have a message, but it is a singular message, not like plans to build a factory.
It's amazing to me that people like this get moderated insightfull. This is crap. It's such a hard concept that some people might like to be funded for their contribution to your entertainment/education, isn't it? I mean, really. Let's look at all the things that shouldn't be charged for if this 'high and mighty' ideal of freely ignoring 'immoral' laws such as copyright was put into effect.
- Copy all the books you can find. Authors sell 1 copy, but on the standard price for a book, they go hungry in a week, can't pay their bills, and have no incentive to write the book in the first place. Oh well, no more information from books.
- Music, Movies are freely available to the masses. Sure, this is great for the masses, but the artists, companies, directors, etc that make their living on these art forms now get no money at all for their work. If they can't feed themselves in today's modern society, why should they do this instead of invest their time in a farm? Oh well, we didn't really need movies or music, either.
- Software. Oh, well, the years of research and millions of dollars spent making the hardware and software that you're posting onto Slashdot are now available at $10 million to the first customer. Or are you suggesting that people spend millions from their pockets and give the fruit of their labor to you for free, out of their own good will? That works for Open Source (because the open source developers are being funded by other methods or doing alternative work in addition to programming), but that isn't the only way to do it. Oh well.
- Patents. Find an inventive way to do something? That guy watching you just copied your work, as did the guy next to him. So much for having an idea in which you can actually use to sustain yourself.
I'd ask if you get the point yet, but I know you don't. Information wants to be free! Battlecry of people who have no concept of how society works, and simple concepts of finding food for tomorrow when one isn't making any money from these businesses of 'pure ideas' elude them. If there is no method to excersize one's trade of entertainment or invention and enjoy the ability to eat and have nice things, exactally what is the purpose to do these things?
Funny thing is, though, NASA doesn't send up the shuttle with a satelite to dump into orbit, it already sends up a single shot rocket with the payload on board. It has no need of human interaction, it's launch time is flexible, it is self deploying.
What kind of Cargo the shuttle carries is more like specialized laboratories built to fit into the cargo bay, special kinds of cargo that need someone there to put it together, parts for repair, devices that were not meant to stay in orbit, or something similar. What would be the point to sending these kinds of cargo up seperately? Now, instead of one point of failure, they have two? They have to not only get both pieces into orbit, but they also have to catch it where the slightest bit of difference in velocity is usually great enough to do serious damage? This is the smart way to do it?
I don't mind the concept of a personel carrier into space, specifically for use to meet with and deal with the ISS. However, unless they plan to add problems in one area in exchange for another, seperating the kinds of cargo the Shuttle carries isn't going to be something that safely happens.
This past catastrophe wasn't caused by cargo at all, it was caused by a failure in management and noone going "Umm.. shouldn't we look at that, just to make sure?"
If you have that many tapes, why aren't they in a tape silo or cataloged? After all, if they're there for backup purposes, it does no good if the real admins can't locate the proper ones either.
It's not the files that are in question or that she is attempting to withhold from the RIAA, in so far as I am aware. Her resistance is more on the matter that, without so much as a 'just cause', the RIAA is requesting personal information from a third party without first showing and gaining a court order to do it.
The EULA is not as much a contract (or should not be) as it is a clarification of your rights to that software under copyright law. The writer of the bill of rights misses this subtle point. Sadly, the manufacturers of software also miss it, and try to include such things as 'use' of the product in their licensing agreements. Funny that no clothing manufacturer says anything about how their clothing is to be used, but software? well now..
1) Permits redistribution of the program licensed, in this case MySQL, so long as redistribution contains that same license.
2) Permits modification of the program licensed, also MySQL, so long as the source code of the new derived product is both available, and licensed to others under the GPL.
I don't recall anywhere in my readings of the GPL that it said "If you use a product based upon our work, that product must also be licensed as ours is, or you must pay us licensing fees". Consider what such a scheme would be. Any program that has auxillary hooks for other programs to interface with it that is licensed under the GPL must then be GPL'd. This includes any program written with GCC (under GPL, I believe), any program written on linux, any and all drivers, etc.
Looking up the MySQL thing, it seems to me that they are being misleading. They are releasing their program under a GPL-like license. Rather, it should read something like this:
So long as you are distributing MySQL with your non open source project, you will need to purchase a license. If you are not distributing MySQL with your product or it is open source, it is licensed to you under the GPL.
Frankly, I find that kind of suspect, as their site states:
The software from MySQL AB listed below is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and is provided "as is" and is without any warranty.
Something I found interesting from www.gnu.org's FAQ on the GPL:
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
Translation: If MySQL is claiming that the program is released under the GPL, and the most that your aux program ever does is use library hook
Two words: Prove it. Prove that the users are infringing, and then they might be liable, although generally, it is the person actively infringing on the copyright (ie: people who redistribute copyrighted works) that is liable, because they are the ones that broke the law.
I know this is a somewhat tired comparison, but do you sue and jail the guy who buys a stolen car, unwittingly and unknowingly, or do you sue and jail the thief who took it to begin with?
What I am concerned about is when you request an open port from the ISP, and the ISP goes "No, sorry, we don't want you to do that at all." Simple request on your part, but the power isn't in your hands anymore (beyond ditching that company and going elsewhere, if that's even an option).
Even worse is when the ISP "knows better than you" and causes problems in your service because of their firewall settings (idle connection timeouts too low, bad filters, etc). Two days of asking for the port to be open turns into two weeks of trying to get the non-techie on the customer service side to understand that their firewall is misconfigured, and that it's causing you problems and disrupting the very reason you got service through them. Or better yet, a blanket policy of not fielding requests to open ports at all as it would add too many burdens on their Customer Service staff, since companies are so concerned about the bottom line.
Thing is, firewalls never have block spam or viruses. They barely stop hackers, and that's only when they are going after internal only services (as those services exposed to the internet are free beer for bring broken into). Firewalls are not an end all, be all solution for internet security, and it's sad that people seem to think they are.
You want to defend against worms, a firewall is probably ok.
You want to defend against viruses, antivirus software is your best bet.
You want to defend against spam, email filtering technology is ideal.
Some of these can overlap (email filtering blocking email worms/viruses), but a firewall is not the ideal way to block everything, and only curbs some of the problems on the internet currently. However, as a method to control where a person goes and what they can do on the internet, a firewall is ideal.
Secure service? Isn't that a technical impossibility in the modern day Internet? After all, how do you prove you have a secure service, they try to hack into it? They take your word for it?
No, I do not want my ISP filtering jack crap for me. I don't trust their judgement, and I'm not paying for filtering and not getting it slammed down my throat because of some paranoia. Block open relays, fine. Block problem users, fine. Don't block people that aren't doing anything wrong on the possible threat of a problem. Some users are already smart enough to install and use firewalls of their own.
To quote GNU's website:
While it is generally atypical for most copyrighted works to contain licenses (License for how/when/why you can use a book?), software has become different in this reguard because of the ease by which copying can happen. A license isn't so much a contract as it is an extention of existing copyright law, extending or transfering some of the rights normally exclusively reserved to the copyright holder alone.Some links I found usefull:
A Software Copyright Primer
US Copyright Office Website
Had anyone actually seen what this guy was advocating? I assume the pages have been removed, but how far of what he said was peaceful assembly, and how much of it was planning for a criminal act?
Thing of it is, I'll bet most on Slashdot havn't a clue what it said, only that some guy who said something is going to jail.
Ya, while technically, that may be what the Bill of Rights was intending to say, rights are kind of funny beasts.
Without the Constitution forbidding me to do so, I have the right to steal, rape, pillage, cause general mayhem. However, the Constitution forbids these things, so they are no longer rights. Is that about what you're saying?
Whether or not you say "The Bill of Rights has given me the right to..." or "The Bill of Rights has expressly forbid the government from stopping me from...", effectively and practically, they are the same thing, even if the thought them is inverted. The Bill of Rights has given US Citizens the right to peaceful assembly, with the typically unspoken 'which the government cannot stop me from doing'.
While I know this is a poor argument, what is the difference between this individual, posting bomb specs and attempting to entice revolt sounds very similar to overseas, where ranking religious members advocate Jihad against governments or something similar?
As someone else's post pointed out, the First Amendment gives you the right to peacefully speak your mind, petition the government on grievances, gather in assembly. You cannot entice riot, civil war, or anything else that seeks to start violence.
One would think that the educated Slashdotter could actually read and tell the difference between violence and peaceful assembly. I guess not.
What exactally are you doing with your line that you're sending ~262 meg to the internet in a 35 minute span? And, you are aware that in most cases, Cable Modems and ADSL lines that are designated 'consumer' are meant for the user to receive information, not to serve it out (that is generally denoted as a business type line).
Here's the thing about Win95 and WinXP. See, in the whole course of evolution for the Windows operating system, WindowsXP is "better". It's more advanced, has more features, more compatability, and generally a product that fits more in line with today's current technology.
For example, I wouldn't run Win95 on a brand new machine. Why? Because that operating system just cannot handle the memory, processor speed, or various other pieces of hardware properly. One would use WinXP (if one used windows at all).
Windows 95 is never going to be another revenue stream for Microsoft anymore, but they get to hold the copyright for... life + 90 (how long is the life of a company?). That means, in a century or so, Microsoft could come back and go "Oh, by the way, you're running Windows 95 on that ancient PC. You owe us dollars in back licensing fees" and do so under current copyright laws.
I just want to see projections on when items will start to go into public domain with current laws. Is anything at all entering public domain? It seems to me like it wouldn't.
I am nitpicking. What's an intellectual property law? Or, better yet, what exactally is 'intellectual property'? Is it anything like an idea? As of yet, I don't think we have any laws that apply to ideas.
Copyright law is one thing. Intellectual Property seems to be the latest 'buzz word', right alongside Synergy.
It does not cost less to buy in bulk than it does to buy individually. It costs less per unit. At that time, you spend more buying in bulk than you do individually (unless you buy so much individually that you should have chosen in bulk).
Ranks right up there with ads saying that buying something saves you money. No it doesn't. You only spend less, you don't actually save money (read: put it away) in the act of buying something.
It's not whether or not the Judge has an opinion about the topic in question. I'm sure most judges have opinions about all sorts of things. The only time it can really be a mistrial is if court proceedings are not followed, or the judges decision is unfairly influenced by his own personal opinion (a guilty ruling when the trial shows a substantial ammount of evidence to decide not guilty, as an example).
So far as I recall, the court basically refuted the legislature and told them that it was illegal to alter the rules of voting proceedure during a vote. What is most screwed up about the voting system is not the dimpled chads or whatever garbage they were arguing about, but rather the Electoral College system is flawed, giving people the sense that their vote doesn't count (which, in a sense, it doesn't). We vote for congressmen to represent our districts, but when we vote for president, the state as a whole is taken. Mighty fine way for the majority of the people to say "Candidate A" and for Candidate B to win due to fuzzyness in the system.
Until they do so what exactly are you going to sue them for? Libel?
If SCO is going overseas and telling by word of mouth, it's slander. If they print it in book, or magazine or paper or something, it's libel. A newspaper reporting news on what someone else said isn't exactally libel, as the newspaper isn't saying it, but repeating what's spoken.