Your comments about "citizens," "freedoms," "society," etc., though important issues, are part of different discussion and unrelated to the point I was originally trying to make.
Ironically, it's not as you think. The real difference is in who is being denied, not what is being denied. NVidia will not deny themselves the freedom to modify software or distribute it in whatever form they wish, even though they may have chosen to operate under various non-disclosure and patent licenses.
Again, you are using your own definition of "freedom" - even if you create software under the GPL, you are [in your words] "denying freedom" to everyone else to create proprietary software out of it. Creating/offering/selling proprietary software is one of the "freedoms" you'd be taking away.
Yet they will deny us the power to modify (possibly sharing too) by denying us complete corresponding source code and not giving us this freedom in their program's license. They also want to keep us helpless by denying us technical information about their hardware. And they want us to pay them for this privilege.
But this is how proprietary commercial software works. You pay for the use, utility and the services that the software product provides - you don't pay for the "freedom" to modify and redistribute it. That's nothing new at all. If you don't like laws that allow proprietary software, that's a different issue altogether.
If NVidia chose to cooperate with other companies that hold relevant expertise, copyrights, etc. to make their product that's their choice - they are free to do so. They are free to sign NDAs, other agreements, trade secrets, whatever they believe it will take to offer superior products, at whatever calculated cost. It's their choice how they want to set up their model.
You may well believe that their model sucks, or their products suck, because they don't give you more "freedoms," etc.; but they are not obligated to in any way.
Nobody is ever forced to use the GNU General Public License (GPL). People and organizations choose to distribute derivative works based on GPL-covered works, so they choose to abide by the GPL's terms. Some choose to license their works under the GPL so others must choose whether they want to behave in accordance with the GPL. But nobody is forced to distribute programs under any particular license. With effort, everyone can either write their own software, hire someone to write software for them, or derive programs from something licensed under more liberal terms (including the MIT X11 and new BSD licenses).
Well, exactly what I was saying. NVidia, as everyone else, is free to use GPL, BSD, or any legal commercial license, provided they don't violate 3rd party licenses, agreements, trade secrets, copyrights, etc.
NVidia is treating their customers wrongly because they distribute non-free software and no means to make Free Software replacements. NVidia chose to do business by tying themselves down under licenses that might prohibit Free Software drivers (or so you seem to be saying). A number of other video card manufacturers shows by existence that one can still make competitive hardware without doing this.
NVidia is free to "[tie] themselves down" any way they want. That's your opinion, and that's fine.
Your example wasn't analogous to what I was saying. I recognize the new BSD license as one of many Free Software licenses, one which purposefully does nothing to preserve the freedom of the software for derivative works. I see this as something people should know so they can make an informed choice when they wield the power to license.
The example is analogous in one way - if the software, or software/hardware combination that NVidia distributes are covered by multiple copyrights, patents, trade secrets, NDAs, etc. and all those belong to multiple companies, it is highly unlikely that they will all of a sudden all agree to license their contributions under GPL's terms. I drew a comparison that it's as unlikely as, for example, Linux being provided under BSD-type license because of similar reasons.
Either you're attempting to lump together disparate things here in an attempt to make it appear that I am not giving corporations something due them, or I'm not being sufficiently clear. I'll try to be more clear to avoid misunderstanding. Issues that directly affect the user's ability to do what is natural to do with technical information, and the profit motivation for a corporation are not the same thing and should not be treated as if they are of equal importance to society. It is definately the user's concern that trade secrets and patents step on user's freedoms. Therefore we should not dismiss these issues as irrelevant because in doing so we lose valuable freedoms. The Free Software community was built on paying attention to the freedoms to share and modify software, not ignoring them because some business tells us to.
Well, I'm not talking about issues that are important to "society" - that's a different topic was not relevant to my point at all. Citizens, society's issues, developers are not users; not the way I envisioned. Users are people who simply use the software. Whether it's patents, NDAs, or GPLed kernel, the software either works, or it doesn't work. Those users don't care about anything else. This even wasn't my original point; but a side point you made.
And sometimes businesses believe the wrong thing;
[snip]
We should leave out corporations that don't work with us, like NVidia, regardless of their proprietary drivers. Or we should mention why we are telling people to buy other hardware instead.
You are advancing your own propaganda here. And that's fine. Just beware that your perception of "freedom" may be different from others'.
Within the context of this conversation, the thing that matters for citizens is software freedom. So long as businesses don't interfere with our freedoms and conduct themselves ethically, I am fine with letting businesses do what they think they need to do to make a reasonable profit. I am also fine steering people away from those that don't work with us to make mutually beneficial products.
"Citizens?" Take a slightly different view on "freedom" - none of the businesses should be forced to use GPL or any other single license for their works. They should be free to use copyrights, and other business arrangements with other companies to find the business models that they believe is most beneficial to them. Not what you believe is most beneficial for them - that would not be true "freedom" then. I think you want the laws changed more than anything else.
As for Linus Torvalds relicensing under a non-copyleft Free Software license, you are drawing a poor comparison. I never said he should do that, he doesn't have the power to do that (he's not the only copyright holder to the Linux kernal anymore),
Neither is, for example, NVidia.
and I don't agree with that logic. Preserving software freedom for all users, including those that use derivative works, is important and worthwhile. I'm glad others distribute software under the new BSD and MIT X11 licenses, because they contribute to our community. But we also need licenses that create and preserve a commons like the GNU GPL does. Businesses have far too much power to dictate copyright and patent policy (particularly in the US via the legalized bribery scheme known as campaign finance).
That's your propaganda, but I was just giving an example. Again, as an example, some people believe GPL is more restrictive than BSD-type license. The BSD license gives you more freedom to do whatever you want to do with the code/software. Can you ask Linus to release Linux under BSD? You are making a similar argument towards, for example, NVidia.
But open-sourcing the module only has relevance to copyright licensing and trade secrets and agreements; the patents are still valid and they can charge whatever royalties they like.
However, patents do have a significance in this discussion because they are incompatible with the GPL.
No, they are not. The existence of RCU (an IBM owned patented technique) in Linux is proof of that. In the case of RCU, Linus demanded and got a royalty-free perpetual license for RCU before he permitted it into the kernel. You even acknowledge this possibility:
I was disputing the claim that they could still "charge whatever royalties they like." Well, they can, but not for GPLed software. I'm not sure what legal matters would be involved with charging royalties for proprietary software in that case.
So I don't see that there is any dispute here. Nvidia doesn't release the source because they don't want to. Licenses, patents, agreements, trade secrets, these are all solvable problems. Nvidia simply doesn't want to solve them. They are happy with the current situation because the vast majority of their Linux customers don't care. Apathy is our own worst enemy.
"Solvable" meaning theoretically. Realistically, it's not going to happen. I revert to my previous example - ask Linus to offer Linux under BSD license. It's a "solvable" issue - all major and minor contributors could be contacted and code re-licensed under BSD and re-released with that license; not to say that Linus et al. would want to do so, or that the scenario is realistic at all.
Red Herring. Patents have to be on the public record. That's a requirement of getting the patent.
Software vendors bury their patents inside copyrighted code because they're greedy. They get the patent and they don't have to reveal the implementation. It's definitely against the spirit of patents even if it does fall within the letter of the law. But open-sourcing the module only has relevance to copyright licensing and trade secrets and agreements; the patents are still valid and they can charge whatever royalties they like.
You are absolutely right with respect to patents. However, patents do have a significance in this discussion because they are incompatible with the GPL. I am not a graphics expert, but if, in a hypothetical (but likely) case, NVidia licensed and used an implementation of a patented software method, or software/hardware combination in their driver that is owned and registered to ATi, then NVidia would obviously not be able to offer the driver source code under GPL. In that case, for NVidia driver source to be under GPL, it would take a consent from all parties that have interests in the software driver including through patents, NDAs, copyrights, and trade secrets to make their contributions ("IP") available under GPL compliance. Specifically, patent owners, ATi in the above case, would have to license their patents for everyone's free use, as GPL requires, and would not be able to charge royalties for its use.
No, quite the opposite. It's not user's concern what patents and trade secrets your DVD writer or video card contains. At the same time, it's not users' concern whether the OS allows or doesn't allow the binary-only drivers either. It works both ways.
It isn't the user's problem that a manufacturer chose to saddle themselves with a variety of non-disclosure agreements and licenses that don't allow Free Software drivers.
Again, you are right, but that goes both ways, like I explained above. Also, you cannot judge all companies in one pool that way. Companies base their business models on technologies that they believe are superior and/or will generate most profit. GPL compatibility may be one of the factors, but it's not the only factor. If you sell network cards for servers and want to target Linux installed server base (among others), then it's obviously of more importance. If you are selling Winmodems to prospective AOL and MSN dialup users, and want to find the cheapest way to market them, you may buy bulk from another manufacturer and maybe integrate it with your own software. In the latter case, GPL compatibility is not as much of a factor since Linux desktop market share is nowhere as significant as its server side.
This is just another reason to avoid doing business with these manufacturers and more justification to reward those companies that do the right thing and allow users to enjoy software freedom.
Yeah, well, the definition of "the right thing" is different for different people. Most of the times, it's "the money thing" that's more important for most corporations, anyway. Again, it's like saying Linus should free Linux of GPL and provide it under BSD license instead - it's the "right thing" after all - so that people enjoy freedom of doing whatever they wish with the software, including redistributing without having to provide source code. I don't think that is likely to happen; and I don't think all corporations will all of a sudden give up their patents, trade secrets, and other forms of revenue-generating IP either, just because it hit them that they have to do what some people perceive to be "the right thing."
When binary modules are allowed it doesn't help linux in any way....
In certain cases, manufacturers can provide open source modules, but many times, there simply is no viable way. Complex hardware or hardware/software combination is usually covered by multiple patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and various agreements between different parties. In such cases asking hardware manufacturers to open up their internals and provide modules open source is like asking Linus to provide Linux under license other than the GPL. In neither of those cases is a single party is in control of all of the "intellectual property" involved; and it is virtually impossible to get all parties involved to agree to such a request.
Except that Mr. McBride argues that copyrights are in effect invalid if they are not used "for profit". That's definitely not in the Supreme Court decision - nowhere that I am aware anyway. If that were the case, Disney should have been stripped of all old copyrighted material they fought so hard to defend and extend that they never intend to publish or sell ever again. What kind of profit or personal gain is that?
And of course that's not the case - RedHat (the case he presents) actually makes profit selling GPLed software and associated tech support.
Basically, he is saying - I don't like the GPL, therefore I feel free to violate it, and with it, relevant copyright laws. I said it before and I'll say it again - Mr. McBride, by continuing to distribute and sell Linux without any authorization, you are continuing to violate the same copyright laws you are "fighting" so hard to defend. That's a criminal violation these days.
Can I arbitrarily declare that I feel the Microsoft Shared Source or even regular EULA violates the U.S. Constitution and the spirit of copyright laws and start distributing bootleg Windows XP and 2003 server ISOs? Are you kidding me? I'd have FBI at my door in no time. So should SCO!
What else do the Feds need? Where are the criminal copyright prosecutors that/. interviewed few months ago? How more plainly can SCO spell it out for them?
why not also go after the firearms industry, because people get shot by guns?
Because the firearms industry is (relatively) huge, has lots of money, generates a lot of tax revenue, and has a few volunteer groups campaigning against it. In contrast, file-sharing tech is (relatively) tiny, has next to no money, is used by people to avoid paying for stuff and therefore generating tax revenue*, and has large, multinational groups with lots of money campaigning against it. Logic doesn't come into it, money does.
* Yes, I know, it has legitmate uses too, but they don't generate any tax revenue either
Replace "tax revenue" with "campaign contributions" and you are on the right path.
Excuse me, but the file swappers that the RIAA are going after are not swapping their own songs. They are violating copyright law. Although present copyright law is not fair, it isn't an excuse to break the law.
The RIAA has one simple solution. Report the copyright infringement to the US Attorney's office. I'm sure SBC would have no problem giving up the identity of their users if given a subpeona from federal prosecutors.
RIAA hasn't made mistakes in threatening people who they thoght were file swappers? They have. That's not even the big issue. The issue is that RIAA should not possess powers [over people] that even law enforcement doesn't have.
Isn't that what's at stake? You need to speak out not because you are defending convicted rapists (bad anlogy by the way), but for everyone's rights like due process. There's a big difference. The law (DMCA) is not only unfair, it's unconstitutional in that it violates everyone's due process rights. As far as SBC and its customers are concerned, RIAA subpoenas are violating the law - the U.S. constitution.
I could say the exact same thing about the repetitive rhetoric from you freeloaders.
If trolling was all you wanted to do, why take me through this whole discussion? And then simply say "bad analogy" to everything, even when explained its relevance?
The whole P2P software usage then, as it exists today, is largely an illegal activity
Hallelujah, you have seen the light.
Unfortunately, that's not true, however. P2P technology is completely legal as it stands.
We are discussing wireless access points. Do try and pay attention. Your ADD is a curse, I know, but with perseverance we can beat it... together!
I'm not sure whose ADD you are talking about since you have forgotten the P2P analogy I gave with regards to wi-fi access points; even in the post that directly replied to it.
I see no further ways I can contribute my thoughts since they are not taken seriously. Have fun!
And the payment of the hosting providers bill, of course. I'd like to see you argue that payment to a public web-hosting provider for a pubic web-hosting service didn't show intent to host a public website.
I don't see the relevance of payment to a hosting provider. Any website content could be password-protected, or otherwise secured, just like a wi-fi access.
I think the entire point is that I would blame the downloader for using the wireless access point without permission. You wouldn't.
You seem to have dodged the entire P2P analogy. So, with that logic all Kazaa [or other P2P network] users would be committing illegal acts by not assuming that the content they've found on said network must not have been meant to be shared. The whole P2P software usage then, as it exists today, is largely an illegal activity (for reasons totally unrelated to what RIAA or any similar entity might say).
I would say if you cannot determine the intent then you should assume that the default is no access without permission rather than assume the default is free bandwidth for everybody!
You are spinning the same wheel; if/. allowed a do-while structure, that's where the loop would go back to my original post; or at least few posts up in the thread.
You know, like the law requires, as opposed to your own outraged sense of technical superiority that apparently gives you the "moral right" to exploit the technically ignorant people out there.
Nonsense. No law requires me to obtain authorization to use P2P network from other P2P users. You entirely fail to understand the argument I'm making then. You are simply repeating your old statements.
There's a difference between a website, which demonstrates intent to provide a service, and an unsecured access point which does not demonstrate intent to provide free Internet access for every juvenile delinquent in the neighbourhood.
"Juvenile delinquent" aside, I think both demonstrate the same intent.
Any dolt can accidentally setup an unsecured access point - they ship that way! - but it takes real effort to register a domain, build the server, create the website content, and pay the hosting bills (most ISPs will block incoming port-80). So you don't have a good analogy; there is a clear difference in the intent between a website and an access point. The access point owner can plausibly deny they intended to provided Internet access, but a website owner will have a hard time convincing anybody (especially a judge) that they had no idea people were going to view their publicly available and registered website!
I disagree. It's just as easy, if not easier to set up a website than a wireless router. All you need is a few clicks with some hosting providers and you are set. You need to know exactly nothing about DNS, domains, HTML, or anything else. You can also argue that purchasing a router, plugging it in, setting it up for your wireless devices is just as, if not more, involved.
However if you insist on the webserver analogy, despite the obvious flaws, imagine you found a website displaying the default page, and you knew the default password for the admin area for this particular webserver software, and you exploited that admin area to host pr0n... do you think the argument is so "bad" now? Or would you agree that this hypothetical webserver owner had no intention of providing you with a service, and that your abusal of his equipment is illegal?
Cracking someone's username/password, however common the combination, is not part of the discussion, as that would be a secured network. That's a big difference.
Let's continue the webserver analogy, despite my objections. Imagine you found a company's Intranet accidentally available on the Internet. This does happen, so don't laugh. Imagine you downloaded some confidential files (eg, payslips) and were later caught. Imagine you now try and defend your actions by saying that they were on the Internet, therefore they were being made available to the public, therefore you are not guity of any crime. I know from court cases on this very matter that the judge will rule that nobody is that stupid, that of course you knew what you were doing, and that you are guilty of data theft. Yes, the judge will also reduce your punishment because the company showed a lack of due care, but you are not entirely guilt free.
In this example, you added an extra dimension, somewhat unrelated, to the original issue. The existence or discovery of [what you reasonably believe is] confidential private information, whether on the web, elsewhere on the Internet, or physically printed on the paper, is separate from this issue. Either way, in such cases, you should definitely exercise your good faith and report the error to the related party, or, at the very least, don't act on the information in any way.
This is largely unrelated to the original issue of whether you can use the provided, advertized, or broadcasted service - that's a separate matter altogether.
I agree. I'm just waiting for the class action lawsuit against Kazaa from users who weren't aware that their equipment was providing this service. Yes, I agree they're dolts for not reading about the software before installing it, but you have to admit there are a lot of dolts out there. Being ignorant doesn't forego their rights to privacy and property.
Well, here you seem to be in agreement with me. If you feel Kazaa, or router manufacturers, for that matter, did not do an adequate j
The access point is saying "hey, I'm an access point, and my name is xxxxxxxxx". It's not saying "and my owner wants you to use me to surf the Internet for free". You claim it's a "sign". You say it's an open invitation. I'm calling your bluff. I'm saying it's a statement of existence. You are the one who interprets that as an open invitation to use it. The access point only broadcasts that the access is possible, not that it is permitted. You are inventing this "permission" concept based purely on your say-so.
Statement of existence is the broadcast signal itself. Whether the access is protected or open to public is a sign of whether the said service is available to public or not. Protected/secured broadcast signals "say" that the service is not available to everyone, only to selected users. Open networks broadcast otherwise.
There was never any disagreement about their responsibility. The disagreement started when somebody (you?) claimed that their ignorance absolves the freeloader of any guilt for using somebody elses equipment without permission.
This is a bad argument. If you follow through with this, it would be illegal to access someone's website without their permission, even though port 80 is open and there's no authentication since they haven't expressly granted you access to their "equipment".
It would also be illegal to use any P2P application, especially if the owner of the "equipment" is not fully aware of what sharing means. Obviously, you would have to err on the side of the owner doesn't want to share? Even when the signal they broadcast says otherwise? That's the responsibility - are you responsible what you broadcast from your property/equipment? Yes, because I don't see many people saying P2P should be illegal in this manner too.
No. But if there is one song on an RIAA album which you claim to own, you can sue the record company. During the lawsuit, both you and the record company could continue to distribute the song unless the judge issues an injunction barring one of the parties from doing so. Once the case is decided, the infringing party could be liable for damages. But if you lose the case, I don't think you could be prosecuted criminally. That requires willful infringement, but since you were actively asserting your purported rights via the lawsuit, it looks like you acted in good faith.
Well, go back and read my posts. That's exactly what I am saying as well, just from different standpoint. SCO can distribute the disputed code until the matter is resolved in courts, but they have no rights to distribute the rest of the kernel. They are in clear violation there.
If I was disputing copyright of 1 song from RIAA, this does not give me free ride to distribute and sell the whole CD with 15 other songs included copyright RIAA.
Can you give me some examples? Specifically, when have they charged the plaintiff in a lawsuit with a crime that is factually equivalent to losing the lawsuit? If neighbors Smith and Jones are embroiled in a lawsuit over a road between their properties, do the authorities ever charge Smith or Jones with trespassing for using that road?
Look up any of the cases against "pirates". Most of them are being prosecuted first before any civil matters/actions against them. Mostly because after they have been convicted, civil lawsuits are much easier to prove.
I wonder how such an investigation actually begins. I'm guessing that it begins with a complaint from Adobe, and that a certain amount of expertise might be needed to make the complaint compelling. There are a lot of former prosecutors in private practice. It would probably cost about $200 to get some clues on the complaint process, or to be told why it won't work.
I don't know these details, but if police department heard about shooting in the news, they wouldn't wait for someone to call in for help, would they? SCO's violations are literally in the news every week. I'm sure Adobe doesn't tip off all "pirates" to the FBI either. They don't have to - FBI has its own investigative teams that have more powers than Adobe, and they do their own investigations - that's their job.
In this case, a casual read of any SCO story in the papers does not reveal any criminal actions. I think you are too close to this story to see it objectively. There are many lawsuits in the courts, and almost all of them cause great hatred. Almost everyone embroiled in a lawsuit would like to see his adversaries thrown in prison. You may be able to construct a valid theory for prosecution of SCO, but it's a reach. It should be constructed by a criminal attorney and patiently explained to the relevant authorities. I tend to think that if it can be done, IBM's lawyers will do it.
Well, that's what I'm hoping too. But I was also hoping that FBI or other law enforcement authorities would lauch their own investigations as well. I don't know why when someone infringes Adobe's copyrights it's a clear-cut case, but when SCO does the same to Linux it's a "reach". I think they are exactly the same. I also don't think IBM is the right party to file the complaint since they are in civil contractual dispute with SCO. Linus, or any other major contributor(s) unrelated to SCO or their contracts would have a perfect case for themselves. And, here I am assuming that nobody has done that already.
I share your evident desire to see McBride severely punished for his actions. And don't forget co-conspirators Ralph Yarrow and Chris Sontag. I just don't see any realistic hope for it, as the legal system has not adapted yet to handle this kind of abuse. These people are criminals in a
And my point is that his mistake does not forfeit his rights. You can't use his link simply because he doesn't know enough to secure his access point.
So, can you sue someone for trespassing for seeing a sign "open house - come in anytime" in front of your property, and entering your yard and knocking on your door, assuming that you forgot about the sign and inadvertently left it outside? Broadcasting such a signal does constitute an electronic "sign" that the network is open and available. You may say the analogies suck, but your argument places 0 responsibility on the network owner.
Should network owner be responsible for what they broadcast to public from their property? 100%, unless they get hacked by malicious attacker, or similar cuircumstance. They don't know is a good excuse (after the fact), but default responsibility is theirs with regard to their broadcast signal.
But until that happens, send PDF files. They usually work better than going from one version of Word to another anyway.
Unfortunately, PDF format is not designed to be edited very efficiently. It is designed to store formatting, but editing it presents a problem. If your intention is to send a well-formatted document and you need to make sure that's exaclty how the recipient will see it, PDF is a good way to go. But for document storage that need to be revised by multiple parties and readily, quickly and easily edited, PDF has a big disadvantage against MS Office or OpenOffice.org formats.
Re:My thoughts...
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Q: What is the single most annoying thing about the Linux community?
A: Irrational trash-talking about Microsoft. There are plenty of *rational* ways to criticize them, and people should stick to those arguments rather than ranting on and on about the same old tired issues. At some point the Bill Gates and Blue Screen jokes just lose their luster.
Interesting post up to that point. The main reason being that you can't view community as a single entity. The Linux "community" you are speaking of includes millions of Linux users worldwide. You can't judge everyone under one "community" umbrella. Obviously, by the virtue of the size of the "community", if you listen, you will hear almost all kinds of opinions - some of which you agree with, some of which you may view as disappointing or even annoying and irrational. And, in my opinion, that should be expected. What would you have otherwise? That everyone had a single voice? Only one type of opinion on everything? That's not only unrealistic, it's outright bad.
The growth of Linux users will only result in more diversity in what you refer as "community", and that's a good thing (tm). Sure, some attitudes are annoying, some opinions stupid, others are clever and reasonable; yet others flaming everyone else in sight. It's exactly the same as in every other "community" of sufficient size, Mac, Linux, Windows, or anything else.
Yeah, well you are making a good point there. My question to that reasoning is - how much responsibility does one have for broadcasting a signal from their property? Do they have 33% responsibility shared with hardware and software providers? 50%? I say, unless they have been "cracked" and intentionally compromized, they have 100% responsibility of what they broadcast. They are responsible to set up and operate the hardware and software, again, to their control, responsibly.
Compare this to P2P networks - some may claim that they installed Kazaa to download stuff but never knew they were sharing. Someone downloads an ISO off of that person's PC - who's responsible for bandwidth charge to the sharer for that download? I would say it's the person who shared, not the person who downloaded, because the "sharer" installed and advertized shared files to other connected individuals. What would you say?
Should. Could. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal to use somebody elses data link without their permission.
Well, my point was - does broadcasting an open wireless network constitute an offer to use that for internet access? As I said, you can list numerous cases when that's exactly the case, such as in airports, and various commercial or residential neighborhoods.
If you leave your front door unlocked - by accident or otherwise - it doesn't grant permission to any passerby to steal your stuff. Yes, you were stupid for leaving your door unlocked. Yes, your insurance might be voided. NO, it doesn't mean you forfeit your property rights.
Same for the wireless connection. They might be pretty dumb for not securing it. Their ISP probably won't refund their money. But the person who stole the bandwidth is NOT vindicated.
I don't quite see this analogy, however. I think a closer analogy would be, if you posted a sign saying "house for sale - open house - come in anytime", and then sued everyone for trespassing when they entered your yard and knocked on your door, would that be right?
TCP/IP is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Not a one-way transmission. The 50" TV emits light; it doesn't receive it. The person using your wireless LAN without permission is sending and receiving data. They are also initiating packet transfers that might involve a cost to you. That's very different from passively watching a television. Your analogy falls very short.
Now if your neighbour used their infra-red remote to control the 50" TV, and we lived in a universe where certain channels were charged by the minute, and your neighbour decided to change channels to the boxing match, thus racking up a $250 charge to your television bill... then we'd have a workable analogy. And I think you'd find the small-claims court would rule against the greedy neighbour.
You have a point in terms of the costs. But what I am saying is that if you are billed per minute/byte to use your Internet connection, you shouldn't be broadcasting an open invitation publically for everyone to use that service. There is a point there that people may be inadvertently broadcasting the signal, i.e. without their knowledge. That's a viable reasoning, but my belief is everyone should be responsible to what they broadcast from their property too - it's a 2-way street - make sure you don't broadcast an "open offer" to me, and I will make sure I won't "break into" your property; kind of like the "open house" sign.
Otherwise, it's a TWO WAY, but a reasonable process - owner broadcasts availability of the service to any member of public passing by; and, people passing by take advantage of that service. Again, all the above points taken into account.
The television analogy fails because TV is quite different than an internet connection. Why bother with analogies in the first place? You are using someones property if you connect to their wireless lan, which you obviously has no right to do. So don't.
You are making a good point, and I agree - sharing may be inadvertent on the part of the owner, so there's some validity to what you are saying.
The TV analogy was with respect to broadcast signal - i.e., if you broadcast a wireless signal, whether it's TV, radio, or invitation to use free Internet access, then you cannot accuse anyone of stealing that signal. Unless you consider broadcasting such an open invitation to everyone as an offer to use that service, then no, you don't have any rights to use someone else's property.
But there's another side to this too, that there are a lot of places where such signal is made available, by local businesses, people in the neighborhood, etc., for that specific purpose of sharing connection. In that case, and quite often when there's no visible posted sign, does such signal constitute an offer for that service? Could it be considered as an electonic means of boradcasting an offer for the said service? If you could post a sign saying "free wireless internet access" vs simply broadcast the equivalent, what would be the difference? You could have put up a sign inadvertently too, or you forgot about the sign you put up completely. If the physical sign and broadcast singal are offering the same, then I think the question comes down to - are you responsible for whatever you broadcast from your property? I think the answer is yes.
An opinion that will find much support at the local jail:
"If da bitch dint want me stealing her purse, she shouldn't a put money it it an wore it on dat loose strap. Dat bitch wuz askin for it.
"Whut wuz she thinkin leavin her house anyway, if she dint want no trubble?
"I'm a bein framed I tell ya."
I fail to see the analogy between stealing someone's property and using the broadcast signal. Was the [alleged] victim telling everyone who passed by, or yelling out loud (broadcasting) that anyone could have her purse if they wanted to? Then it would not be stealing if someone took her up on her offer.
Actually in that scenario the MPAA would show up at your door and start charging your neighbors royalties;)
Tell me about it, maybe they'll bring U.S. marshalls with them too a la BSA.
But seriously, what about the extension cord example I cited? If your electric stops working is it ok to plug into your neighbors house (without permission) because he doesn't have a lock on his outdoor receptacle? I fail to see the difference here.
If there's a sign saying "free electricity for neighbors" then yes. Even without the sign, when you are at a public place such as airports, you are allowed to plug in your laptop to an outlet; a lot of airports even have free wireless networks you can use for your e-mail and web access. Just because you don't have a written signed permission from an airport official, does not mean you are committing a crime when using their free wireless internet access.
There are a lot of open wireless networks like that that are meant to be used by public; some have posted signs saying so, some don't. there is no way for anyone to tell what the intention of the owner of the network is - share it publicly, or keep it private
So you err on the side of "He wants me to use this resource"? WTF kind of reasoning is that? That's like saying "My neighbor wants me to use his gas because he doesn't have a locking gas cap on his car". Sorry, but I don't go using open Wi-Fi networks unless there is some sort of hot-spot sign posted or the owners of the establishment I'm in tell me I can use the service.
You have a point that Wi-Fi sharing may be inadvertent, but also consider the following:
The reasoning is that the sharer is broadcasting free access to the internet in public. I am not stealing the TV signal - it's broadcasted to me through airwaves. I am not stealing the radio signal the same way. Those are more appropriate analogies than electricity and gas, since the latter two are not being broadcasted. It's closer to having a big sign saying "open house - come in any time" on the house - i.e., broadcasting the "signal", and charging people for trespassing if they enter the gate and knock on the door.
Again, point taken that in the Wi-Fi case the sharing may be inadvertent.
Sorry that's flawed reasoning. If I leave my door unlocked I'm not giving you permission to come into my house without knocking.
How do you know that the connection in question isn't billed on a per-use basis? Unlikely I'll admit, but possible. In any case you had no right to use it without permission and if I was the admin of said network I would have reported the security violation to the proper authorities -- of course if I was the admin you wouldn't have gotten in it in the first place.
If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public. That's what all these insecure (read: open) networks are - they are public. i.e., if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.
There are a lot of open wireless networks like that that are meant to be used by public; some have posted signs saying so, some don't. there is no way for anyone to tell what the intention of the owner of the network is - share it publicly, or keep it private - unless that network owner requires authentication or otherwise locks his network down. Only then you will have an argument that the network was "broken into" and connection "stolen".
Your argument makes sense. Unfortunately, SCO seems to be saying that GPL'd code is effectively in the public domain. If so, that would also constitute their defense against copyright infringement. So it seems to make sense to evaluate that argument just once, not in two different courts.
Well, that's not a viable defense. Can I go around and claim Windows XP is also public domain and sell bootleg ISOs legally? Can I claim all RIAA songs are public domain, and sell bootleg CDs that way? That's no "defense" - that's a crime by today's laws.
As far as courts, I also disagree. SCO vs. IBM is a civil contractual dispute - i.e. the judge in that case will rule on that subject matter - their contract. The case may be appealed numerous times or maybe even settled out of court. The judge may never rule on GPL at all - so it wouldn't make sense to wait for that trial when SCO is in criminal violation right now towards unrelated parties. Law enforcement does not usually wait for civil cases to end before charging someone with a crime; on the contrary, it's usually the other way around.
Where I completely disagree with you is your assumption that the government operates only at the behest of special interests. Some people are so politically tied-in that they could be shielded from prosecution. Darl McBride is not one of them.
That is not really an assumption but rather an observation. They can prove me otherwise by going after SCO and branding them as "pirates" too.
Prosecutors want to put people in prison. If they could put someone in prison with five minutes work, they would do it, whether that person is Linus Torvalds or Darl McBride. But if they have to devote huge resources to a conviction that carries a light sentence, they'd rather skip it and work on easier cases.
The scope of the violation or the crime also has to be considered. If they can track down few bootleg ISOs of Adobe's software and prosecute the "pirate" they should definitely investigate SCO's criminal copyright infringement on behalf of hundreds (if not thousands) of organizations and individuals.
Have any Linux authors complained to their local US attorney's office? I think that generally the victim has to take the initiative and complain, rather than waiting for the feds to magically figure out the situation.
Well, the situation being so public and so persistent, it doesn't take a magician to figure that out. Authors filing complaints would be nice but is not required. Justice department's IP lawyers would be literally blind and deaf not to have heard about SCO vs. IBM and related facts. It is their job to investigate, charge, and prosecute.
For the average person that needs to be able to plug in their digital camera without going into the terminal window, we think that the user's experience with any brand of Linux will be sub-par.
Why, oh why must it be so?
Why is it so hard to have real user-friendliness in Linux?
Szulik is spewing nonsense. What's so difficult about plugging in the USB camera: if it's mass storage, the icons shows up on the desktop - you click it and see all your pictures. Then use your favorite album/file manager to handle them. If it's not a mass storage camera, it will be automatically detected by a camera app like gtkam, digikam, etc.
He is simply saying that because RH will not be providing average user product anymore, so he has to justify that direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you are using your own definition of "freedom" - even if you create software under the GPL, you are [in your words] "denying freedom" to everyone else to create proprietary software out of it. Creating/offering/selling proprietary software is one of the "freedoms" you'd be taking away.
But this is how proprietary commercial software works. You pay for the use, utility and the services that the software product provides - you don't pay for the "freedom" to modify and redistribute it. That's nothing new at all. If you don't like laws that allow proprietary software, that's a different issue altogether.
If NVidia chose to cooperate with other companies that hold relevant expertise, copyrights, etc. to make their product that's their choice - they are free to do so. They are free to sign NDAs, other agreements, trade secrets, whatever they believe it will take to offer superior products, at whatever calculated cost. It's their choice how they want to set up their model.
You may well believe that their model sucks, or their products suck, because they don't give you more "freedoms," etc.; but they are not obligated to in any way.
Well, exactly what I was saying. NVidia, as everyone else, is free to use GPL, BSD, or any legal commercial license, provided they don't violate 3rd party licenses, agreements, trade secrets, copyrights, etc.
NVidia is free to "[tie] themselves down" any way they want. That's your opinion, and that's fine.
The example is analogous in one way - if the software, or software/hardware combination that NVidia distributes are covered by multiple copyrights, patents, trade secrets, NDAs, etc. and all those belong to multiple companies, it is highly unlikely that they will all of a sudden all agree to license their contributions under GPL's terms. I drew a comparison that it's as unlikely as, for example, Linux being provided under BSD-type license because of similar reasons.
Well, I'm not talking about issues that are important to "society" - that's a different topic was not relevant to my point at all. Citizens, society's issues, developers are not users; not the way I envisioned. Users are people who simply use the software. Whether it's patents, NDAs, or GPLed kernel, the software either works, or it doesn't work. Those users don't care about anything else. This even wasn't my original point; but a side point you made.
You are advancing your own propaganda here. And that's fine. Just beware that your perception of "freedom" may be different from others'.
"Citizens?" Take a slightly different view on "freedom" - none of the businesses should be forced to use GPL or any other single license for their works. They should be free to use copyrights, and other business arrangements with other companies to find the business models that they believe is most beneficial to them. Not what you believe is most beneficial for them - that would not be true "freedom" then. I think you want the laws changed more than anything else.
Neither is, for example, NVidia.
That's your propaganda, but I was just giving an example. Again, as an example, some people believe GPL is more restrictive than BSD-type license. The BSD license gives you more freedom to do whatever you want to do with the code/software. Can you ask Linus to release Linux under BSD? You are making a similar argument towards, for example, NVidia.
I was disputing the claim that they could still "charge whatever royalties they like." Well, they can, but not for GPLed software. I'm not sure what legal matters would be involved with charging royalties for proprietary software in that case.
"Solvable" meaning theoretically. Realistically, it's not going to happen. I revert to my previous example - ask Linus to offer Linux under BSD license. It's a "solvable" issue - all major and minor contributors could be contacted and code re-licensed under BSD and re-released with that license; not to say that Linus et al. would want to do so, or that the scenario is realistic at all.
You are absolutely right with respect to patents. However, patents do have a significance in this discussion because they are incompatible with the GPL. I am not a graphics expert, but if, in a hypothetical (but likely) case, NVidia licensed and used an implementation of a patented software method, or software/hardware combination in their driver that is owned and registered to ATi, then NVidia would obviously not be able to offer the driver source code under GPL. In that case, for NVidia driver source to be under GPL, it would take a consent from all parties that have interests in the software driver including through patents, NDAs, copyrights, and trade secrets to make their contributions ("IP") available under GPL compliance. Specifically, patent owners, ATi in the above case, would have to license their patents for everyone's free use, as GPL requires, and would not be able to charge royalties for its use.
No, quite the opposite. It's not user's concern what patents and trade secrets your DVD writer or video card contains. At the same time, it's not users' concern whether the OS allows or doesn't allow the binary-only drivers either. It works both ways.
Again, you are right, but that goes both ways, like I explained above. Also, you cannot judge all companies in one pool that way. Companies base their business models on technologies that they believe are superior and/or will generate most profit. GPL compatibility may be one of the factors, but it's not the only factor. If you sell network cards for servers and want to target Linux installed server base (among others), then it's obviously of more importance. If you are selling Winmodems to prospective AOL and MSN dialup users, and want to find the cheapest way to market them, you may buy bulk from another manufacturer and maybe integrate it with your own software. In the latter case, GPL compatibility is not as much of a factor since Linux desktop market share is nowhere as significant as its server side.
Yeah, well, the definition of "the right thing" is different for different people. Most of the times, it's "the money thing" that's more important for most corporations, anyway. Again, it's like saying Linus should free Linux of GPL and provide it under BSD license instead - it's the "right thing" after all - so that people enjoy freedom of doing whatever they wish with the software, including redistributing without having to provide source code. I don't think that is likely to happen; and I don't think all corporations will all of a sudden give up their patents, trade secrets, and other forms of revenue-generating IP either, just because it hit them that they have to do what some people perceive to be "the right thing."
In certain cases, manufacturers can provide open source modules, but many times, there simply is no viable way. Complex hardware or hardware/software combination is usually covered by multiple patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and various agreements between different parties. In such cases asking hardware manufacturers to open up their internals and provide modules open source is like asking Linus to provide Linux under license other than the GPL. In neither of those cases is a single party is in control of all of the "intellectual property" involved; and it is virtually impossible to get all parties involved to agree to such a request.
Except that Mr. McBride argues that copyrights are in effect invalid if they are not used "for profit". That's definitely not in the Supreme Court decision - nowhere that I am aware anyway. If that were the case, Disney should have been stripped of all old copyrighted material they fought so hard to defend and extend that they never intend to publish or sell ever again. What kind of profit or personal gain is that?
/. interviewed few months ago? How more plainly can SCO spell it out for them?
And of course that's not the case - RedHat (the case he presents) actually makes profit selling GPLed software and associated tech support.
Basically, he is saying - I don't like the GPL, therefore I feel free to violate it, and with it, relevant copyright laws. I said it before and I'll say it again - Mr. McBride, by continuing to distribute and sell Linux without any authorization, you are continuing to violate the same copyright laws you are "fighting" so hard to defend. That's a criminal violation these days.
Can I arbitrarily declare that I feel the Microsoft Shared Source or even regular EULA violates the U.S. Constitution and the spirit of copyright laws and start distributing bootleg Windows XP and 2003 server ISOs? Are you kidding me? I'd have FBI at my door in no time. So should SCO!
What else do the Feds need? Where are the criminal copyright prosecutors that
Replace "tax revenue" with "campaign contributions" and you are on the right path.
RIAA hasn't made mistakes in threatening people who they thoght were file swappers? They have. That's not even the big issue. The issue is that RIAA should not possess powers [over people] that even law enforcement doesn't have.
Isn't that what's at stake? You need to speak out not because you are defending convicted rapists (bad anlogy by the way), but for everyone's rights like due process. There's a big difference. The law (DMCA) is not only unfair, it's unconstitutional in that it violates everyone's due process rights. As far as SBC and its customers are concerned, RIAA subpoenas are violating the law - the U.S. constitution.
If trolling was all you wanted to do, why take me through this whole discussion? And then simply say "bad analogy" to everything, even when explained its relevance?
Unfortunately, that's not true, however. P2P technology is completely legal as it stands.
I'm not sure whose ADD you are talking about since you have forgotten the P2P analogy I gave with regards to wi-fi access points; even in the post that directly replied to it.
I see no further ways I can contribute my thoughts since they are not taken seriously. Have fun!
I don't see the relevance of payment to a hosting provider. Any website content could be password-protected, or otherwise secured, just like a wi-fi access.
You seem to have dodged the entire P2P analogy. So, with that logic all Kazaa [or other P2P network] users would be committing illegal acts by not assuming that the content they've found on said network must not have been meant to be shared. The whole P2P software usage then, as it exists today, is largely an illegal activity (for reasons totally unrelated to what RIAA or any similar entity might say).
You are spinning the same wheel; if
Nonsense. No law requires me to obtain authorization to use P2P network from other P2P users. You entirely fail to understand the argument I'm making then. You are simply repeating your old statements.
"Juvenile delinquent" aside, I think both demonstrate the same intent.
I disagree. It's just as easy, if not easier to set up a website than a wireless router. All you need is a few clicks with some hosting providers and you are set. You need to know exactly nothing about DNS, domains, HTML, or anything else. You can also argue that purchasing a router, plugging it in, setting it up for your wireless devices is just as, if not more, involved.
Cracking someone's username/password, however common the combination, is not part of the discussion, as that would be a secured network. That's a big difference.
In this example, you added an extra dimension, somewhat unrelated, to the original issue. The existence or discovery of [what you reasonably believe is] confidential private information, whether on the web, elsewhere on the Internet, or physically printed on the paper, is separate from this issue. Either way, in such cases, you should definitely exercise your good faith and report the error to the related party, or, at the very least, don't act on the information in any way.
This is largely unrelated to the original issue of whether you can use the provided, advertized, or broadcasted service - that's a separate matter altogether.
Well, here you seem to be in agreement with me. If you feel Kazaa, or router manufacturers, for that matter, did not do an adequate j
Statement of existence is the broadcast signal itself. Whether the access is protected or open to public is a sign of whether the said service is available to public or not. Protected/secured broadcast signals "say" that the service is not available to everyone, only to selected users. Open networks broadcast otherwise.
This is a bad argument. If you follow through with this, it would be illegal to access someone's website without their permission, even though port 80 is open and there's no authentication since they haven't expressly granted you access to their "equipment".
It would also be illegal to use any P2P application, especially if the owner of the "equipment" is not fully aware of what sharing means. Obviously, you would have to err on the side of the owner doesn't want to share? Even when the signal they broadcast says otherwise? That's the responsibility - are you responsible what you broadcast from your property/equipment? Yes, because I don't see many people saying P2P should be illegal in this manner too.
Well, go back and read my posts. That's exactly what I am saying as well, just from different standpoint. SCO can distribute the disputed code until the matter is resolved in courts, but they have no rights to distribute the rest of the kernel. They are in clear violation there.
If I was disputing copyright of 1 song from RIAA, this does not give me free ride to distribute and sell the whole CD with 15 other songs included copyright RIAA.
Look up any of the cases against "pirates". Most of them are being prosecuted first before any civil matters/actions against them. Mostly because after they have been convicted, civil lawsuits are much easier to prove.
I don't know these details, but if police department heard about shooting in the news, they wouldn't wait for someone to call in for help, would they? SCO's violations are literally in the news every week. I'm sure Adobe doesn't tip off all "pirates" to the FBI either. They don't have to - FBI has its own investigative teams that have more powers than Adobe, and they do their own investigations - that's their job.
Well, that's what I'm hoping too. But I was also hoping that FBI or other law enforcement authorities would lauch their own investigations as well. I don't know why when someone infringes Adobe's copyrights it's a clear-cut case, but when SCO does the same to Linux it's a "reach". I think they are exactly the same. I also don't think IBM is the right party to file the complaint since they are in civil contractual dispute with SCO. Linus, or any other major contributor(s) unrelated to SCO or their contracts would have a perfect case for themselves. And, here I am assuming that nobody has done that already.
So, can you sue someone for trespassing for seeing a sign "open house - come in anytime" in front of your property, and entering your yard and knocking on your door, assuming that you forgot about the sign and inadvertently left it outside? Broadcasting such a signal does constitute an electronic "sign" that the network is open and available. You may say the analogies suck, but your argument places 0 responsibility on the network owner.
Should network owner be responsible for what they broadcast to public from their property? 100%, unless they get hacked by malicious attacker, or similar cuircumstance. They don't know is a good excuse (after the fact), but default responsibility is theirs with regard to their broadcast signal.
Unfortunately, PDF format is not designed to be edited very efficiently. It is designed to store formatting, but editing it presents a problem. If your intention is to send a well-formatted document and you need to make sure that's exaclty how the recipient will see it, PDF is a good way to go. But for document storage that need to be revised by multiple parties and readily, quickly and easily edited, PDF has a big disadvantage against MS Office or OpenOffice.org formats.
Interesting post up to that point. The main reason being that you can't view community as a single entity. The Linux "community" you are speaking of includes millions of Linux users worldwide. You can't judge everyone under one "community" umbrella. Obviously, by the virtue of the size of the "community", if you listen, you will hear almost all kinds of opinions - some of which you agree with, some of which you may view as disappointing or even annoying and irrational. And, in my opinion, that should be expected. What would you have otherwise? That everyone had a single voice? Only one type of opinion on everything? That's not only unrealistic, it's outright bad.
The growth of Linux users will only result in more diversity in what you refer as "community", and that's a good thing (tm). Sure, some attitudes are annoying, some opinions stupid, others are clever and reasonable; yet others flaming everyone else in sight. It's exactly the same as in every other "community" of sufficient size, Mac, Linux, Windows, or anything else.
Yeah, well you are making a good point there. My question to that reasoning is - how much responsibility does one have for broadcasting a signal from their property? Do they have 33% responsibility shared with hardware and software providers? 50%? I say, unless they have been "cracked" and intentionally compromized, they have 100% responsibility of what they broadcast. They are responsible to set up and operate the hardware and software, again, to their control, responsibly.
Compare this to P2P networks - some may claim that they installed Kazaa to download stuff but never knew they were sharing. Someone downloads an ISO off of that person's PC - who's responsible for bandwidth charge to the sharer for that download? I would say it's the person who shared, not the person who downloaded, because the "sharer" installed and advertized shared files to other connected individuals. What would you say?
Well, my point was - does broadcasting an open wireless network constitute an offer to use that for internet access? As I said, you can list numerous cases when that's exactly the case, such as in airports, and various commercial or residential neighborhoods.
I don't quite see this analogy, however. I think a closer analogy would be, if you posted a sign saying "house for sale - open house - come in anytime", and then sued everyone for trespassing when they entered your yard and knocked on your door, would that be right?
You have a point in terms of the costs. But what I am saying is that if you are billed per minute/byte to use your Internet connection, you shouldn't be broadcasting an open invitation publically for everyone to use that service. There is a point there that people may be inadvertently broadcasting the signal, i.e. without their knowledge. That's a viable reasoning, but my belief is everyone should be responsible to what they broadcast from their property too - it's a 2-way street - make sure you don't broadcast an "open offer" to me, and I will make sure I won't "break into" your property; kind of like the "open house" sign.
Otherwise, it's a TWO WAY, but a reasonable process - owner broadcasts availability of the service to any member of public passing by; and, people passing by take advantage of that service. Again, all the above points taken into account.
You are making a good point, and I agree - sharing may be inadvertent on the part of the owner, so there's some validity to what you are saying.
The TV analogy was with respect to broadcast signal - i.e., if you broadcast a wireless signal, whether it's TV, radio, or invitation to use free Internet access, then you cannot accuse anyone of stealing that signal. Unless you consider broadcasting such an open invitation to everyone as an offer to use that service, then no, you don't have any rights to use someone else's property.
But there's another side to this too, that there are a lot of places where such signal is made available, by local businesses, people in the neighborhood, etc., for that specific purpose of sharing connection. In that case, and quite often when there's no visible posted sign, does such signal constitute an offer for that service? Could it be considered as an electonic means of boradcasting an offer for the said service? If you could post a sign saying "free wireless internet access" vs simply broadcast the equivalent, what would be the difference? You could have put up a sign inadvertently too, or you forgot about the sign you put up completely. If the physical sign and broadcast singal are offering the same, then I think the question comes down to - are you responsible for whatever you broadcast from your property? I think the answer is yes.
I fail to see the analogy between stealing someone's property and using the broadcast signal. Was the [alleged] victim telling everyone who passed by, or yelling out loud (broadcasting) that anyone could have her purse if they wanted to? Then it would not be stealing if someone took her up on her offer.
Tell me about it, maybe they'll bring U.S. marshalls with them too a la BSA.
If there's a sign saying "free electricity for neighbors" then yes. Even without the sign, when you are at a public place such as airports, you are allowed to plug in your laptop to an outlet; a lot of airports even have free wireless networks you can use for your e-mail and web access. Just because you don't have a written signed permission from an airport official, does not mean you are committing a crime when using their free wireless internet access.
You have a point that Wi-Fi sharing may be inadvertent, but also consider the following:
The reasoning is that the sharer is broadcasting free access to the internet in public. I am not stealing the TV signal - it's broadcasted to me through airwaves. I am not stealing the radio signal the same way. Those are more appropriate analogies than electricity and gas, since the latter two are not being broadcasted. It's closer to having a big sign saying "open house - come in any time" on the house - i.e., broadcasting the "signal", and charging people for trespassing if they enter the gate and knock on the door.
Again, point taken that in the Wi-Fi case the sharing may be inadvertent.
See the above example.
If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public. That's what all these insecure (read: open) networks are - they are public. i.e., if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.
There are a lot of open wireless networks like that that are meant to be used by public; some have posted signs saying so, some don't. there is no way for anyone to tell what the intention of the owner of the network is - share it publicly, or keep it private - unless that network owner requires authentication or otherwise locks his network down. Only then you will have an argument that the network was "broken into" and connection "stolen".
Well, that's not a viable defense. Can I go around and claim Windows XP is also public domain and sell bootleg ISOs legally? Can I claim all RIAA songs are public domain, and sell bootleg CDs that way? That's no "defense" - that's a crime by today's laws.
As far as courts, I also disagree. SCO vs. IBM is a civil contractual dispute - i.e. the judge in that case will rule on that subject matter - their contract. The case may be appealed numerous times or maybe even settled out of court. The judge may never rule on GPL at all - so it wouldn't make sense to wait for that trial when SCO is in criminal violation right now towards unrelated parties. Law enforcement does not usually wait for civil cases to end before charging someone with a crime; on the contrary, it's usually the other way around.
That is not really an assumption but rather an observation. They can prove me otherwise by going after SCO and branding them as "pirates" too.
The scope of the violation or the crime also has to be considered. If they can track down few bootleg ISOs of Adobe's software and prosecute the "pirate" they should definitely investigate SCO's criminal copyright infringement on behalf of hundreds (if not thousands) of organizations and individuals.
Well, the situation being so public and so persistent, it doesn't take a magician to figure that out. Authors filing complaints would be nice but is not required. Justice department's IP lawyers would be literally blind and deaf not to have heard about SCO vs. IBM and related facts. It is their job to investigate, charge, and prosecute.
Szulik is spewing nonsense. What's so difficult about plugging in the USB camera: if it's mass storage, the icons shows up on the desktop - you click it and see all your pictures. Then use your favorite album/file manager to handle them. If it's not a mass storage camera, it will be automatically detected by a camera app like gtkam, digikam, etc.
He is simply saying that because RH will not be providing average user product anymore, so he has to justify that direction.