1. A senator and a member of the house get togather and write a bill.
Dream on! Bills are written by industry group (read: cartel) and corporate lawyers. Many congressmen/women don't even read texts of the bills they vote on, at least as far as I know.
We actually need to encourage people to sit around and watch television? Come on....
I was wondering myself: Microsoft patents IE pop-ups on TV - does this count as "progress of science" or "useful arts?" Can someone patent a pop-up blocker for TV too? Ohhh, wait a minute, I'll be back...
OK, I think you are right, but to clarify - Sveasoft still distributes even the subscription code under the GPL and NOT under their own license. This, then, is in compliance with the GPL. Whether Sveasoft decides to continue or cancel your subscription has no effect on the GPL compliance.
I should have been more careful when replying the first time.
If you do not distribute this software (IOW, don't invoke the GPL), then we will give you free upgrades in advance.
The "problem" is not you, the user, redistributing - it's Sveasoft's redistribution under the terms that are not allowed by the GPL. So, the GPL is already invoked once they distribute the software to you; and putting additional restrictions on that transaction is not allowed by the GPL. They can either distribute under the GPL, or not distribute at all. Distributing under different terms would be a copyright violation.
It cannot be, because it's not all their code. If it was all their code, they could offer it under 100 different licenses and nobody would care.
GPL controls
distribution, not use. Now, you can have the software distributed to you under the terms of sveasoft... [emphasis mine]
This, in and of itself, is already a GPL violation: Sveasoft cannot redistribute the software under their own license; no matter what "goodies" they offer you in return.
GPL requires that modifications be redistributed under GPL also - this does not mean it's OK to offer them under different licenses as long as you get your users to agree to something different.
you can choose to continue to follow the Seavsoft license, which will get you access to future revs of the code
Maybe I am not getting this right - how can you "choose" a license that Sveasoft does not have a right to offer the software under? If Sveasoft license != GPL (or compatible) then they are violating the GPL!
If you are going to tell people that the press is misrepresenting the case, make sure that you truely understand all of it.
SCO's press releases and public statements are not necessarily all true facts set in stone. Just because SCO issues 100 press releases and interviews claiming Linux "infringement" it does not give the mainstream press an automatic excuse to not follow up on facts - i.e. publicly available records of their court cases.
If you want to call it "misrepresenting" go ahead, but make sure you don't misrepresent me in the process because that's not what I said. My gripe is that they are turning it into sensationalistic reporting, sidestepping the facts. Show me one mainstream article stating it clearly that SCO did NOT allege any copyright infringement against any Linux user, and I'll show you 10 that either imply that SCO did just that, or completely sidestep the issue to create more sensation.
IANAL, but I don't think it's necessarily a precedent. Remember, that all SCO's cases so far are contract-related. SCO did not claim anywhere any copyright violations. Since all contracts are different and have their specific clauses that SCO can argue were violated, they may have their case heard.
The annoying thing is how mainstream press translates this into - "Linux allegedly violating Unix copyrights" sensationalistic reporting. I bet they are generating more hits that way. What you would hope for is that press gets its facts straight and cut down on "OMG -- you HAVE TO read this!!!" type articles.
The question you have to ask, is "Are you entitled to privacy in the middle of a public street?"
The answer is obviously - NO. So, from now on, you'll be implanted with a GPS-transmitting device, an RFID tag, and a small camera on your forehead. Every time you go outside of your house, all of these devices will automatically be activated and all data transmitted will be directly piped to local police, FBI, and Homeland Security. All commercial and residential buildings will contain an RFID scanner to track you when you are inside (except when you are home).
If you don't plan on doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about. The only people that would be concerned and opposed to this are thieves, murderers, and terrorists.
99.9% of people think of Asimov as "The robot guy."
And rightfully so! I mean the guy literally defined the field. Next time you think of "Robotics" and you don't associate it with Asimov right away, you should be... shot^H^H^H^H... hung^H^H^H^H... ashamed of yourself.
It
has great package managment, no dependencies, swift upgrades, simplistic interface, doesent use some obscure packaging format or anything like that either, just plain tar.gz =)
May be funny (ha ha), but not accurate. First of all, tar.gz is not a package management system. And second, just because you compile from source doesn't mean you have "no dependencies." The dependencies are the same - the difference is instead of clicking on a pre-compiled RPM binary, or typing apt-get command, you have to locate and download the source.tar.gz of the dependency in question, then compile, install and configure it yourself. Not that this is wrong thing to do, but don't confuse it with "package management, no dependencies."
Hopefully other distros will start using and improving YaST - it's an extremely valuable tool that used to be SUSE's exclusive advantage; hopefully, not anymore in the future.
That section only clarifies that you do no have to agree to the license, but does not state that you can use the software without a license.
To reiterate, you cannot use computer software without some license. You can choose not to agree to the GPL (or any other license), but then you cannot legally copy, download or load that software.
No! To reiterate, you don't need a software license to use software under the GPL. In fact, the GPL does not cover any aspects of software use (other than warranty disclaimers) - only modifications and redistributions. Much like you don't need to agree to any redistribution license to read a book, watch a movie, or visit someone's website, you don't need to agree to the GPL to use software covered by it.
I am guessing that either you are from the BSA or have been properly brainwashed by them to believe that you somehow are required to accept all kinds of draconian EULA terms to simply use a piece of copyrighted work.
IANAL, but this French license isn't compatible with the GPL in the true sense.
Article 3 - ACCEPTANCE
The Licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the occurrence of the following events:
- (i) loading the software by any or all means, notably, by downloading from a remote server, or by loading from a physical medium; - (ii) the first time the Licensee exercises any of the rights granted hereunder.
The (i) is incompatible with the GPL where you are not required to accept or agree to any license if you are not redistributing it. The above is an additional restriction that you cannot tack onto the GPLed programs.
Also, the statement about patents in Article 5 is not compatible with the GPL:
Otherwise, the Licensor grants to the Licensee free of charge exploitation rights on the patents he holds on whole or part of the inventions implemented in the Software.
Further, I did not see any point in mentioning Rights of Use in Article 5.1 and limiting those rights with those 3 bullet points. Maybe there's some legal justification for it.
Basically 5.3.4 says that if you have a GPLed code that is included or you want to include in the software covered by this license, you can then redistribute this software under GPL. So, does that make it "compatible?"
RIAA is not a monopoly - you are right; they are a cartel. RIAA members do not fix prices for consumers - they don't sell directly to consumers (unless you are a part of some "11 CDs for the price of 1 plus 'shipping'" club). RIAA and its members fix wholesale prices to stores - i.e. they are not competing against each other on the pricing basis. One of the reasons, as I understand it, is that they want to keep more small stores on par with big businesses so they can have more outlets for their products while reeling in more cash. I don't know what the actual numbers are but the cartel controls most (nearly all) of the market by both units sold and sales amounts; so they are in a position to do this with their non-compete agreements amongst each other.
This actually makes more sense if you consider that RIAA member companies are also part of or own other media channels like broadcast media and movie production; in which they also hold majority shares. The media outlets that they do not directly control, they have asked (read bribed) the Congress to enact legislation to help them out: indefinite extension of copyrights, broadcasters/webcasters fees, taxes from sales of consumer products that can copy content, DMCA, as well as newly proposed acts like INDUCE act, CBDTPA, etc. This is generally bad for consumers as it prevents true competition in the industry by guaranteeing revenue models for the cartel members; mostly non-competitive state of the industry also prevents any innovation in the type of content, its price and its delivery methods.
Such behavior is not only bad for consumers, it's also bad for artists; but I'll let you figure that out yourself since I gotta sleep now.
To complicate things even more, look at whois info for 3actil.com. First of all, it's an (almost) empty web page, but the info says the domain is registered to
TACTIL GROUP LTD 16F STANDARD CHARTERED BANK BUILDING 4-4A DES VOEUX ROAD CENTRAL HONG KONG, 00000
Sounds extremely fishy; seems like they couldn't throw a phony website together for the OS.
Yes, it's better for a competing OEM companies to be free to pick what they believe best serves and suits their customers than an abusive monopolist forcing their hand. Competition is definitely better than monopolies in most cases, for both consumers and the industry.
If there was, for practical purposes, only 1 OEM with over 95% market share, then yes, it wouldn't be any better. But the fact is, there are a lot of OEMs that compete against each other in the open market that should be able to make their own choices regarding what's best for their products; and not have their arms twisted by a convicted abusive monopolist.
You can obviously write whatever "execute any bash shell script" program you please but that doesn't mean that any major Linux distros, or Apple, or Microsoft, or any other OS distributor should include your program with their software and configure it as a helper application in the OS by default. AFAIK, the flaw is in how the helper app processes the request passed by the browser; all Mozilla could do by this "fix" was to block the helper altogether. The "fix" was to disable the feature that was supported and advertized by the OS.
Note that MS attempted to fix the helper application in question with Windows XP SP1 but failed. Windows XP SP2 looks like it contains the fix to disable the helper app.
Assuming it's all cash and the license fees do not exceed the actual amount of the denominations, the loop would be infinite but the amount would have a limit. Hmm... that's oversimplified too. Anyway, back to work.
Yeah right. This guy has obviously never tried installing windows on a linux machine.
Forget that. The guy never even tried installing Linux. You can tell from the quote you gave because at least SUSE (out of the distros he "tried") does ask you if you would like to resize Windows partitions during installation.
You can basically ignore the rest of the article as a manufactured lie.
The point is, EVRYBODY is biased. Everybody has opinions, beliefs, and life experiences, and filters all knowledge through what they have already learned.
You are right. But there's more if you are talking about the political bias, especially in the U.S., people are biased because politicians and government want them to be that way. They don't want people to be actually involved in politics, but rather simply follow and accept what they are told.
This simplistic imaginary liberal-conservative spectrum is a good example of that. This black and white one-dimensional view helps keep people away from actually thinking for themselves, and into meaningless but time-consuming carriers of redundancy.
So, yes:
- Is the glass half empty or half full? - Are you a liberal or a conservative? - Are you a democrat or republican? - Is it heads or tails? - Is it good or bad?
So, that's how everyone is "trained" - make sure you hear both sides of the issue before you make up your mind because, you know, there are always two sides to any story. That's the real bias.
You cannot add a non-commercial clause to a GPLed program - that would be incompatible with (and in violation of) the GPL. You cannot create a GPLed program with that type of restriction on Visual Studio Express.
Anyway, the joke is not on any single restriction, but the whole concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Dream on! Bills are written by industry group (read: cartel) and corporate lawyers. Many congressmen/women don't even read texts of the bills they vote on, at least as far as I know.
I was wondering myself: Microsoft patents IE pop-ups on TV - does this count as "progress of science" or "useful arts?" Can someone patent a pop-up blocker for TV too? Ohhh, wait a minute, I'll be back...
OK, I think you are right, but to clarify - Sveasoft still distributes even the subscription code under the GPL and NOT under their own license. This, then, is in compliance with the GPL. Whether Sveasoft decides to continue or cancel your subscription has no effect on the GPL compliance.
I should have been more careful when replying the first time.
And I replied to him as well with my comment.
The "problem" is not you, the user, redistributing - it's Sveasoft's redistribution under the terms that are not allowed by the GPL. So, the GPL is already invoked once they distribute the software to you; and putting additional restrictions on that transaction is not allowed by the GPL. They can either distribute under the GPL, or not distribute at all. Distributing under different terms would be a copyright violation.
It cannot be, because it's not all their code. If it was all their code, they could offer it under 100 different licenses and nobody would care.
This, in and of itself, is already a GPL violation: Sveasoft cannot redistribute the software under their own license; no matter what "goodies" they offer you in return.
GPL requires that modifications be redistributed under GPL also - this does not mean it's OK to offer them under different licenses as long as you get your users to agree to something different.
Maybe I am not getting this right - how can you "choose" a license that Sveasoft does not have a right to offer the software under? If Sveasoft license != GPL (or compatible) then they are violating the GPL!
SCO's press releases and public statements are not necessarily all true facts set in stone. Just because SCO issues 100 press releases and interviews claiming Linux "infringement" it does not give the mainstream press an automatic excuse to not follow up on facts - i.e. publicly available records of their court cases.
If you want to call it "misrepresenting" go ahead, but make sure you don't misrepresent me in the process because that's not what I said. My gripe is that they are turning it into sensationalistic reporting, sidestepping the facts. Show me one mainstream article stating it clearly that SCO did NOT allege any copyright infringement against any Linux user, and I'll show you 10 that either imply that SCO did just that, or completely sidestep the issue to create more sensation.
IANAL, but I don't think it's necessarily a precedent. Remember, that all SCO's cases so far are contract-related. SCO did not claim anywhere any copyright violations. Since all contracts are different and have their specific clauses that SCO can argue were violated, they may have their case heard.
The annoying thing is how mainstream press translates this into - "Linux allegedly violating Unix copyrights" sensationalistic reporting. I bet they are generating more hits that way. What you would hope for is that press gets its facts straight and cut down on "OMG -- you HAVE TO read this!!!" type articles.
The answer is obviously - NO. So, from now on, you'll be implanted with a GPS-transmitting device, an RFID tag, and a small camera on your forehead. Every time you go outside of your house, all of these devices will automatically be activated and all data transmitted will be directly piped to local police, FBI, and Homeland Security. All commercial and residential buildings will contain an RFID scanner to track you when you are inside (except when you are home).
If you don't plan on doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about. The only people that would be concerned and opposed to this are thieves, murderers, and terrorists.
And rightfully so! I mean the guy literally defined the field. Next time you think of "Robotics" and you don't associate it with Asimov right away, you should be... shot^H^H^H^H
May be funny (ha ha), but not accurate. First of all, tar.gz is not a package management system. And second, just because you compile from source doesn't mean you have "no dependencies." The dependencies are the same - the difference is instead of clicking on a pre-compiled RPM binary, or typing apt-get command, you have to locate and download the source.tar.gz of the dependency in question, then compile, install and configure it yourself. Not that this is wrong thing to do, but don't confuse it with "package management, no dependencies."
Hopefully other distros will start using and improving YaST - it's an extremely valuable tool that used to be SUSE's exclusive advantage; hopefully, not anymore in the future.
No! To reiterate, you don't need a software license to use software under the GPL. In fact, the GPL does not cover any aspects of software use (other than warranty disclaimers) - only modifications and redistributions. Much like you don't need to agree to any redistribution license to read a book, watch a movie, or visit someone's website, you don't need to agree to the GPL to use software covered by it.
I am guessing that either you are from the BSA or have been properly brainwashed by them to believe that you somehow are required to accept all kinds of draconian EULA terms to simply use a piece of copyrighted work.
IANAL, but this French license isn't compatible with the GPL in the true sense.
Article 3 - ACCEPTANCE
The Licensee shall be deemed as having accepted the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the occurrence of the following events:
- (i) loading the software by any or all means, notably, by downloading from a remote server, or by loading from a physical medium;
- (ii) the first time the Licensee exercises any of the rights granted hereunder.
The (i) is incompatible with the GPL where you are not required to accept or agree to any license if you are not redistributing it. The above is an additional restriction that you cannot tack onto the GPLed programs.
Also, the statement about patents in Article 5 is not compatible with the GPL:
Otherwise, the Licensor grants to the Licensee free of charge exploitation rights on the patents he holds on whole or part of the inventions implemented in the Software.
Further, I did not see any point in mentioning Rights of Use in Article 5.1 and limiting those rights with those 3 bullet points. Maybe there's some legal justification for it.
Basically 5.3.4 says that if you have a GPLed code that is included or you want to include in the software covered by this license, you can then redistribute this software under GPL. So, does that make it "compatible?"
RIAA is not a monopoly - you are right; they are a cartel. RIAA members do not fix prices for consumers - they don't sell directly to consumers (unless you are a part of some "11 CDs for the price of 1 plus 'shipping'" club). RIAA and its members fix wholesale prices to stores - i.e. they are not competing against each other on the pricing basis. One of the reasons, as I understand it, is that they want to keep more small stores on par with big businesses so they can have more outlets for their products while reeling in more cash. I don't know what the actual numbers are but the cartel controls most (nearly all) of the market by both units sold and sales amounts; so they are in a position to do this with their non-compete agreements amongst each other.
This actually makes more sense if you consider that RIAA member companies are also part of or own other media channels like broadcast media and movie production; in which they also hold majority shares. The media outlets that they do not directly control, they have asked (read bribed) the Congress to enact legislation to help them out: indefinite extension of copyrights, broadcasters/webcasters fees, taxes from sales of consumer products that can copy content, DMCA, as well as newly proposed acts like INDUCE act, CBDTPA, etc. This is generally bad for consumers as it prevents true competition in the industry by guaranteeing revenue models for the cartel members; mostly non-competitive state of the industry also prevents any innovation in the type of content, its price and its delivery methods.
Such behavior is not only bad for consumers, it's also bad for artists; but I'll let you figure that out yourself since I gotta sleep now.
To complicate things even more, look at whois info for 3actil.com. First of all, it's an (almost) empty web page, but the info says the domain is registered to
TACTIL GROUP LTD
16F STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
BUILDING 4-4A DES VOEUX ROAD CENTRAL
HONG KONG, 00000
Sounds extremely fishy; seems like they couldn't throw a phony website together for the OS.
Yes, it's better for a competing OEM companies to be free to pick what they believe best serves and suits their customers than an abusive monopolist forcing their hand. Competition is definitely better than monopolies in most cases, for both consumers and the industry.
If there was, for practical purposes, only 1 OEM with over 95% market share, then yes, it wouldn't be any better. But the fact is, there are a lot of OEMs that compete against each other in the open market that should be able to make their own choices regarding what's best for their products; and not have their arms twisted by a convicted abusive monopolist.
You can obviously write whatever "execute any bash shell script" program you please but that doesn't mean that any major Linux distros, or Apple, or Microsoft, or any other OS distributor should include your program with their software and configure it as a helper application in the OS by default. AFAIK, the flaw is in how the helper app processes the request passed by the browser; all Mozilla could do by this "fix" was to block the helper altogether. The "fix" was to disable the feature that was supported and advertized by the OS.
Note that MS attempted to fix the helper application in question with Windows XP SP1 but failed. Windows XP SP2 looks like it contains the fix to disable the helper app.
Assuming it's all cash and the license fees do not exceed the actual amount of the denominations, the loop would be infinite but the amount would have a limit. Hmm... that's oversimplified too. Anyway, back to work.
Forget that. The guy never even tried installing Linux. You can tell from the quote you gave because at least SUSE (out of the distros he "tried") does ask you if you would like to resize Windows partitions during installation.
You can basically ignore the rest of the article as a manufactured lie.
Nothing like Al Lowe and Sierra skipping Leisure Suit Larry version 4 (LSL4).
True.
No, companies want to control their revenue sources.
No, zealots want to control freedom of their code and the code that is based on or extends it.
You are right. But there's more if you are talking about the political bias, especially in the U.S., people are biased because politicians and government want them to be that way. They don't want people to be actually involved in politics, but rather simply follow and accept what they are told.
This simplistic imaginary liberal-conservative spectrum is a good example of that. This black and white one-dimensional view helps keep people away from actually thinking for themselves, and into meaningless but time-consuming carriers of redundancy.
So, yes:
- Is the glass half empty or half full?
- Are you a liberal or a conservative?
- Are you a democrat or republican?
- Is it heads or tails?
- Is it good or bad?
So, that's how everyone is "trained" - make sure you hear both sides of the issue before you make up your mind because, you know, there are always two sides to any story. That's the real bias.
You cannot add a non-commercial clause to a GPLed program - that would be incompatible with (and in violation of) the GPL. You cannot create a GPLed program with that type of restriction on Visual Studio Express.
Anyway, the joke is not on any single restriction, but the whole concept.