Actually, it all depends on WHICH DaimlerChrysler you're talking about.;)
If I'm not mistaken, I do believe that the only member of the board of DaimlerChrysler AG who is an American is Earl Graves. The rest are all German citizens.
DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, L.L.C, (DCMC, LLC) which is the Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler AG, is a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG). It's headquarters (along with DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the U.S. subsidiary) are in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
DCMC, LLC also has two other subsidiaries, DaimlerChrysler Canada, Inc., and DaimlerChrysler de Mexico S.A. de C.V. DaimlerChrysler Motors Company and DaimlerChrysler are American companies, while DC Mexico and DC Canada are Mexican and Canadian companies, respectively. DCAG, on the other hand, has it's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
So, if you're talking about DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG), yes, it's a German company. IF you're talkign about DaimlerChrysler Corporation or DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, L.L.C., these are American companies.
So it's more complicated than EITHER of you thought.;)
The only possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up even if anyone wills to do it (e.g. some fundamental human right), while it is cetrainly not the case with the GPL.
Or, if, as SCO is claiming, the author didn't have the rights to give up in the first place (i.e., the author didn't have any right to the code in the first place).
While I agree 1000% with your opinion (I'm a big supporter of the GPL, and I have code released under its terms), it is still the case that GPL has never been tested in a court of law, and therefore, whether or not it is enforceable by a court is a variable who's value is still undetermined. It is this fact that gives people the wiggle room to criticize the GPL as being untested and possibly legally unenforceable. It is not the legal opinion of you or me that matters -- it is the legal opinion of a court of law that matters.
Hmmmm...so if I get a landline phone service that charges for incoming calls (these *do* exist, at least here in Michigan), then it is ILLEGAL for telemarketers to call me? heheheh...I *like* that...
Tax dollars per capita is a strawman argument. Many services *aren't* based per-capita, because not everyone needs every service. Roads and infrastructure, for instance, don't scale proprortionate to the number of people. Military spending, in particular, has nothing to do with the number of people in the country. The size of the military budget depends on what you want to do with it, not on the number of people in the country. Many services aren't paid exclusively through tax dollars. Some services, like the postal system, aren't paid *at all* through tax dollars. Also, most European countries have a higher *density* of population than most areas in the U.S., which translates in some aspects to *higher* spending per capita in Europe, particularly on roads.
The U.S. has *plenty* of tax revenue to provide *all* of the needed services, if that's what you really want. They just don't spend the revenue they have efficiently -- at all -- and it's all thanks to the general populace who elects the same morons year after year after year.
Although many Americans give the impression that they think all taxes are evil, over here in Europe we quite like having things like free health care for everyone, tidy streets etc. We think that it makes for a fairer and more civilized society, even if it means that we are all a little poorer (in monetary terms) than you guys. Many of us find the attitude of some Americans - that taxes and social government are 'evil' - frankly a bit bizzare.
I find it frankly a bit bizarre that Europeans constantly use this argument. The fact is that the U.S. government pulls in FAR more money in tax revenue than ANY country in Europe, and we *should* be getting the services you guys get, but we *don't*. That's because our government is so corrupt as to waste billions and billions of dollars on things such as paying $10,000 for a perfectly ordinary toilet seat.
Paying more in taxes will only *exacerbate* the problem. Throwing money at a problem seldom solves it, and often makes it worse. Look at it this way: if your wife was spending WAYYY to much money on clothes due to shopaholic syndrome, to the point that the both of you could barely afford to eat, would you solve the problem by giving her MORE money?
IANAL, but you're right ot say that the only thing that allows you to distribute a GPL program is the GPL. From the license:
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.
However, in contract law, if *part* of a contract is held to be invalid, the court does not have to make the WHOLE contract invalid. The court can say "this part doesn't fly" and the rest does. Having the GPL tested in court is important, because a court *can* say: "Well, you can certainly waive your right to control distribution of this product, but this part about the GPL being a viral license doesn't fly with this court."
I'm not saying a court *will* say that, but anything's possible. Anyway, that's the part a lot of people spreading FUD about the GPL are saying wouldn't fly in court -- the viral nature of the license. I'm, in fact, betting that court will say "of course the GPL is totally enforceable in whole," in which case the FUD mongerers will have to just shut their mouth.
Interestingly enough, paragraph 81 in particular is also complete FUD:
 In addition, the GPL provides that, unlike SCOâ(TM)s UNIX operating system or IBMâ(TM)s AIX operating system or Sunâ(TM)s Solaris operating system, no warranty whatsoever runs with its software. The GPL includes the following language:
NO WARRANTY
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWâ¦THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
These limitations of liability are no different that those included in Sun's Solaris BCL, despite SCO's claim above the contrary:
3. LIMITED WARRANTY. Sun warrants to you that for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of purchase, as evidenced by a copy of the receipt, the media on which Software is furnished (if any) will be free of defects in materials and workmanship under normal use. Except for the foregoing, Software is provided "AS IS". Your exclusive remedy and Sun's entire liability under this limited warranty will be at Sun's option to replace Software media or refund the fee paid for Software.
4. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT, ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE DISCLAIMERS ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY INVALID.
5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event will Sun's liability to you, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise, exceed the amount paid by you for Software under this Agreement. The foregoing limitations will apply even if the above stated warranty fails of its essential purpose.
All Sun's guaranteeing is that the media is good and that they'll replace your media if defective. All current Linux distributions that distribute on physical media will, of course, do the same. Sun is essentially saying that they'll give you your money back for the license fee paid if and only if a court determines that it's limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of all liability) are held to be invalid under the law. And the only reason they're saying that is so that their whole limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of liability) doesn't wholesale get tossed out on the basis that it violates contract law. (IANAL, but I did have a business law class;)
This is the same for Linux, except, in all cases regarding the licensing of the kernel, there is no license fee paid, hence, you get no money back. Duh.
Of course. I'm hoping someone who knows something about the Linux kernel code can get a look at this code. Maybe *we* (as in FSF or Linus Torvalds or maybe even IBM) should be suing *them*. This could be the case that tests the GPL. We *need* this and should embrace it. It will put to the death once and for all the FUD that Open Source licenses won't pass legal muster.
I have a *patent* on making money through patenting inventions that I have no intention of inventing! I'm gonna SUE BIG TIME now! Where's David Boies when you need him?;)
True enough....but it still remains that the only means of transmitting these large archives to these particular people (who are NOT readers of Slashdot, stop modding my post flamebait, it is NOT;) is a tarball or a *several* ZIP files. These people have never heard of PKZIP, they think that the ZIP format was invented by Nico Mak Computing (or WinZip Computing or whatever they're calling themselves this week) the makers of WinZip.
* Disclaimer to avoid flames: I do NOT mean to imply that all Windows users are lame. Windows is *perfectly* capable of untarring large tarballs using Cygwin (or possibly other software), but the people in question, who ARE quite lame, don't even know what Cygwin is, let alone how to install and use it.
Um, I've hit those limits before and I am neither. I've had to move *large* amounts of CAD data over FTP, and ZIPping or tarballing all the files down is the only practical way. Tarballing is fine until some you have to send it to some lame Windows user who complains he can't open it because WinZip insists on ungzipping a tarball to a tar file in a temporary directory first, rather than streaming it as happens on *nix with 'gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | tar xvf -'
WinZip and PKZip are ALREADY incompatible in some areas.
From Pkware's web store: # Virtually Unlimited.ZIP File Size allows for.ZIP files exceeding 4-gigabyte archive limitation of other.ZIP products; create archives in excess of a terabyte in size! # More Files-per-archive allows a practically unlimited number of files files per.ZIP file â" greatly exceeding the 65,535 compressed files limit of other.ZIP products.
These two limitations used to appear in old versions of PKZip (2.04G and earlier), and still appear in the open-source (BSD license) Info-ZIP utilities, upon which WinZip is based. Thus for large zip files, WinZip and PKZip are already incompatible (i.e., WinZip doesn't support anything larger than 4GB, and supports a max of 65,535 files inside a Zip file -- WinZip will NOT read these files). I think there's also a mention of new compression methods not supported by WinZip as well, but I couldn't seem find it again.
Sure they do. The EULA is only thing that allows you to install and use the software, as far as Microsoft is concerned. If you don't agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA, per the click-wrap agreement, you aren't allowed to install or use the software.
Exactly. Non-OEM version. Unless you're building machines for re-sale, you are NOT entitled to buy the OEM version of the software. You have obtained your software through fraudulent means, and are in violation of the Microsoft EULA, and probably several other laws, as the AC mentioned above, the Theft Act of 1968 in the U.K.
There are two kinds of software users -- corporate and home users (hence the reason you typically see two kinds of software, such as Windows XP Professional vs. Windows XP Home, Red Hat Advanced Server vs. Red Hat Standard, Microsoft Office vs. Microsoft Works, etc.)
Home users don't read the warranty provisions of software products and don't care. Most software, including OSS, right now has an exclusion of warranty right in the click-wrap.
Corporate users, OTOH, tend to negotiate some sort of warranty provisions into their purchase agreements. This bypasses click-wrap and UCITA altogether.
The only people TRULY affected by UCITA are consumers and small businesses (SOHO) with no negotiating power. And all but the most educated consumers don't care. That's why they stick with Windows. How many Windows users have actually *READ* the EULA? I'd wager almost none. If they had and if they had understood it, many of them probably wouldn't have installed Windows or allowed it to be on their computer at all.
Example: My aunt was having a garage sale and was going to sell some of her old software she wasn't using, including Windows 95. I told her, "No, you can't legally sell your copy of Windows 95."
She said, "Sure I can."
I said, "No, you can't. Have you READ the EULA?"
"EULA? What's that?" she inquired.
"The End-User License Agreement. The thing you agreed to when you installed Windows. It says you can't sell or transfer the license to the software," I replied.
"No, it doesn't say that!"
"Yes it *does* say that."
Consumers are very clueless when it comes to what's in the EULA, including exclusion of warranty. They think that they can sue Microsoft is something goes wrong, and with UCITA they won't be able to for sure. But they won't know and won't care because most software consumers have never even heard of UCITA. That's the scary part.
I think cursive is a solution for a problem that is going away. I know cursive.. most of it. Actually, I'm not really sure what a capitla 'Q' looks like. If I had to figure it out, I'd probably go get a cursive font and type 'Q' and see what it did.
Most script ("cursive") fonts don't contain proper cursive characters. They're typically highly stylized versions of cursive characters, and not really representive of handwriting at all.
I used to work as a graphic designer and I still do freelance work on occasions. I know fonts well -- I was raised in a sign shop that was one of the first shops to computerize its production and office operations.
Ok, whatever, I'm a troll, and you're posting personal attacks as an AC. Trolls are calling me a troll. Now *that's* funny. I'd give you all my mod points and mod you up +5 funny if I had any.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it all depends on WHICH DaimlerChrysler you're talking about. ;)
;)
If I'm not mistaken, I do believe that the only member of the board of DaimlerChrysler AG who is an American is Earl Graves. The rest are all German citizens.
DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, L.L.C, (DCMC, LLC) which is the Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler AG, is a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG). It's headquarters (along with DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the U.S. subsidiary) are in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
DCMC, LLC also has two other subsidiaries, DaimlerChrysler Canada, Inc., and DaimlerChrysler de Mexico S.A. de C.V. DaimlerChrysler Motors Company and DaimlerChrysler are American companies, while DC Mexico and DC Canada are Mexican and Canadian companies, respectively. DCAG, on the other hand, has it's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
So, if you're talking about DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG), yes, it's a German company. IF you're talkign about DaimlerChrysler Corporation or DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, L.L.C., these are American companies.
So it's more complicated than EITHER of you thought.
The only possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up even if anyone wills to do it (e.g. some fundamental human right), while it is cetrainly not the case with the GPL.
Or, if, as SCO is claiming, the author didn't have the rights to give up in the first place (i.e., the author didn't have any right to the code in the first place).
While I agree 1000% with your opinion (I'm a big supporter of the GPL, and I have code released under its terms), it is still the case that GPL has never been tested in a court of law, and therefore, whether or not it is enforceable by a court is a variable who's value is still undetermined. It is this fact that gives people the wiggle room to criticize the GPL as being untested and possibly legally unenforceable. It is not the legal opinion of you or me that matters -- it is the legal opinion of a court of law that matters.
Hmmmm...so if I get a landline phone service that charges for incoming calls (these *do* exist, at least here in Michigan), then it is ILLEGAL for telemarketers to call me? heheheh...I *like* that...
Actually, StarOffice 6.0 (*not* OpenOffice, AFAIK) includes such an animal -- it's basically a reworked Adabase component.
Tax dollars per capita is a strawman argument. Many services *aren't* based per-capita, because not everyone needs every service. Roads and infrastructure, for instance, don't scale proprortionate to the number of people. Military spending, in particular, has nothing to do with the number of people in the country. The size of the military budget depends on what you want to do with it, not on the number of people in the country. Many services aren't paid exclusively through tax dollars. Some services, like the postal system, aren't paid *at all* through tax dollars. Also, most European countries have a higher *density* of population than most areas in the U.S., which translates in some aspects to *higher* spending per capita in Europe, particularly on roads.
The U.S. has *plenty* of tax revenue to provide *all* of the needed services, if that's what you really want. They just don't spend the revenue they have efficiently -- at all -- and it's all thanks to the general populace who elects the same morons year after year after year.
Although many Americans give the impression that they think all taxes are evil, over here in Europe we quite like having things like free health care for everyone, tidy streets etc. We think that it makes for a fairer and more civilized society, even if it means that we are all a little poorer (in monetary terms) than you guys. Many of us find the attitude of some Americans - that taxes and social government are 'evil' - frankly a bit bizzare.
I find it frankly a bit bizarre that Europeans constantly use this argument. The fact is that the U.S. government pulls in FAR more money in tax revenue than ANY country in Europe, and we *should* be getting the services you guys get, but we *don't*. That's because our government is so corrupt as to waste billions and billions of dollars on things such as paying $10,000 for a perfectly ordinary toilet seat.
Paying more in taxes will only *exacerbate* the problem. Throwing money at a problem seldom solves it, and often makes it worse. Look at it this way: if your wife was spending WAYYY to much money on clothes due to shopaholic syndrome, to the point that the both of you could barely afford to eat, would you solve the problem by giving her MORE money?
IANAL, but you're right ot say that the only thing that allows you to distribute a GPL program is the GPL. From the license:
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.
However, in contract law, if *part* of a contract is held to be invalid, the court does not have to make the WHOLE contract invalid. The court can say "this part doesn't fly" and the rest does. Having the GPL tested in court is important, because a court *can* say: "Well, you can certainly waive your right to control distribution of this product, but this part about the GPL being a viral license doesn't fly with this court."
I'm not saying a court *will* say that, but anything's possible. Anyway, that's the part a lot of people spreading FUD about the GPL are saying wouldn't fly in court -- the viral nature of the license. I'm, in fact, betting that court will say "of course the GPL is totally enforceable in whole," in which case the FUD mongerers will have to just shut their mouth.
Yep. None other than Bill Gates' daddy is one of the founders of PG&E (the law firm, not the utility ;).
Is anyone surprised by this?
These limitations of liability are no different that those included in Sun's Solaris BCL, despite SCO's claim above the contrary:
All Sun's guaranteeing is that the media is good and that they'll replace your media if defective. All current Linux distributions that distribute on physical media will, of course, do the same. Sun is essentially saying that they'll give you your money back for the license fee paid if and only if a court determines that it's limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of all liability) are held to be invalid under the law. And the only reason they're saying that is so that their whole limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of liability) doesn't wholesale get tossed out on the basis that it violates contract law. (IANAL, but I did have a business law class
This is the same for Linux, except, in all cases regarding the licensing of the kernel, there is no license fee paid, hence, you get no money back. Duh.
Of course. I'm hoping someone who knows something about the Linux kernel code can get a look at this code. Maybe *we* (as in FSF or Linus Torvalds or maybe even IBM) should be suing *them*. This could be the case that tests the GPL. We *need* this and should embrace it. It will put to the death once and for all the FUD that Open Source licenses won't pass legal muster.
I have a *patent* on making money through patenting inventions that I have no intention of inventing! I'm gonna SUE BIG TIME now! Where's David Boies when you need him? ;)
True enough....but it still remains that the only means of transmitting these large archives to these particular people (who are NOT readers of Slashdot, stop modding my post flamebait, it is NOT ;) is a tarball or a *several* ZIP files. These people have never heard of PKZIP, they think that the ZIP format was invented by Nico Mak Computing (or WinZip Computing or whatever they're calling themselves this week) the makers of WinZip.
I think this flash of the original would allow people to get "caught-up" on the story enough to enjoy the new story...
;)
Flash of the original? I don't think I could sit through THAT much Flash animation. No thanks.
* Disclaimer to avoid flames: I do NOT mean to imply that all Windows users are lame. Windows is *perfectly* capable of untarring large tarballs using Cygwin (or possibly other software), but the people in question, who ARE quite lame, don't even know what Cygwin is, let alone how to install and use it.
Um, I've hit those limits before and I am neither. I've had to move *large* amounts of CAD data over FTP, and ZIPping or tarballing all the files down is the only practical way. Tarballing is fine until some you have to send it to some lame Windows user who complains he can't open it because WinZip insists on ungzipping a tarball to a tar file in a temporary directory first, rather than streaming it as happens on *nix with 'gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | tar xvf -'
WinZip and PKZip are ALREADY incompatible in some areas.
.ZIP File Size allows for .ZIP files exceeding 4-gigabyte archive limitation of other .ZIP products; create archives in excess of a terabyte in size! .ZIP file â" greatly exceeding the 65,535 compressed files limit of other .ZIP products.
From Pkware's web store:
# Virtually Unlimited
# More Files-per-archive allows a practically unlimited number of files files per
These two limitations used to appear in old versions of PKZip (2.04G and earlier), and still appear in the open-source (BSD license) Info-ZIP utilities, upon which WinZip is based. Thus for large zip files, WinZip and PKZip are already incompatible (i.e., WinZip doesn't support anything larger than 4GB, and supports a max of 65,535 files inside a Zip file -- WinZip will NOT read these files). I think there's also a mention of new compression methods not supported by WinZip as well, but I couldn't seem find it again.
Copyright law gives you the right to use the software, assuming it was legally transferred to you.
;)
And there you are.
Sure they do. The EULA is only thing that allows you to install and use the software, as far as Microsoft is concerned. If you don't agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA, per the click-wrap agreement, you aren't allowed to install or use the software.
I should have "and probably several laws" rather than other. Freudian slip there ;)
Exactly. Non-OEM version. Unless you're building machines for re-sale, you are NOT entitled to buy the OEM version of the software. You have obtained your software through fraudulent means, and are in violation of the Microsoft EULA, and probably several other laws, as the AC mentioned above, the Theft Act of 1968 in the U.K.
'nearly free'? I suppose if you don't count the service... ;)
For a second there, I thought it said "Mobile Phones Disrupt Ashcroft." And I was ALL SET take my cell phone down to the White House! :-P
There are two kinds of software users -- corporate and home users (hence the reason you typically see two kinds of software, such as Windows XP Professional vs. Windows XP Home, Red Hat Advanced Server vs. Red Hat Standard, Microsoft Office vs. Microsoft Works, etc.)
Home users don't read the warranty provisions of software products and don't care. Most software, including OSS, right now has an exclusion of warranty right in the click-wrap.
Corporate users, OTOH, tend to negotiate some sort of warranty provisions into their purchase agreements. This bypasses click-wrap and UCITA altogether.
The only people TRULY affected by UCITA are consumers and small businesses (SOHO) with no negotiating power. And all but the most educated consumers don't care. That's why they stick with Windows. How many Windows users have actually *READ* the EULA? I'd wager almost none. If they had and if they had understood it, many of them probably wouldn't have installed Windows or allowed it to be on their computer at all.
Example: My aunt was having a garage sale and was going to sell some of her old software she wasn't using, including Windows 95. I told her, "No, you can't legally sell your copy of Windows 95."
She said, "Sure I can."
I said, "No, you can't. Have you READ the EULA?"
"EULA? What's that?" she inquired.
"The End-User License Agreement. The thing you agreed to when you installed Windows. It says you can't sell or transfer the license to the software," I replied.
"No, it doesn't say that!"
"Yes it *does* say that."
Consumers are very clueless when it comes to what's in the EULA, including exclusion of warranty. They think that they can sue Microsoft is something goes wrong, and with UCITA they won't be able to for sure. But they won't know and won't care because most software consumers have never even heard of UCITA. That's the scary part.
I think cursive is a solution for a problem that is going away. I know cursive.. most of it. Actually, I'm not really sure what a capitla 'Q' looks like. If I had to figure it out, I'd probably go get a cursive font and type 'Q' and see what it did.
Most script ("cursive") fonts don't contain proper cursive characters. They're typically highly stylized versions of cursive characters, and not really representive of handwriting at all.
I used to work as a graphic designer and I still do freelance work on occasions. I know fonts well -- I was raised in a sign shop that was one of the first shops to computerize its production and office operations.
Ok, whatever, I'm a troll, and you're posting personal attacks as an AC. Trolls are calling me a troll. Now *that's* funny. I'd give you all my mod points and mod you up +5 funny if I had any.