What's happening is wrong... The GPLv2 is a mature stable license, that has been proven.
The GPLv3 is a relative newcomer, bleeding edge.
With fundamental problems for some the GPLv2 did not have.
Samba never should have moved to GPLv3. They should have either forked, or closed shop and started a new GPLv3-based project.
The GPLv2 ought to be considered the stable license... the GPLv3 ought to be considered experimental, regardless of whatever the FSF says, it's just not proven -- it's a new animal, like Vista was a new animal.
And it breaks compatibility with the GPLv2, being a major new release.
Existing projects should not undercut their users by migrating to the v3.
GPLv3 should be something used by completely new software projects, if it is studied carefully and meets the developer's needs and the community's needs.
I'm not saying the Samba community should cater to Apple... but Apple is not alone in their GPLv3 concerns, and there are likely other Samba sponsors this would have impacted.
Upping to GPLv3 mid development is like changing the deal, especially when other companies have helped assist with or fund Samba development.... now if GPLv3 makes it unusable to them, they don't benefit from what they gave the community.
It's legal, but it's kind of like stealing. The community members being disrespectful to business participants by mucking with the deal (?)
This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it.
They are obviously doing this as a symbolic gesture against the GPLv3.
Since Samba on MacOS... well.... MacOS allows you to run arbitrary applications, so there's no GPLv3 problem...
Either that or Apple is planning to lock down MacOS like they've locked down the iPhone, with cryptography, and not allow users to install/modify their own software without Apple's say so....
Just because GPL imposes restrictions does not mean GPL software is not free.
It turns out the restrictions it imposes are restrictions against restricting freedom.
What's not free is proprietary platforms... such as the iPhone. You cannot even run your own applications (they have to be approved by Apple). GPL is the carrot that will allow Apple to partake of it, when they stop blocking users' freedom.
I don't mean to get pedantic in saying this, but it is a serious problem for a lotta folks, a lot of it is waste, and there is no tenable solution except to keep driving further and further away from the sprawl.
Sure there are solutions......
How about an ordinance making it mandatory that no cars be on the road except police/emergency workers, and the local power utilities shutdown all access to commercial power and stop delivering to residences and businesses every day between the hours of 1 and 3 AM, except when the sky is fully obscured by clouds, it is raining, or an immediate life-threatening situation that electricity can mitigate exists (then the absolute minimum power to the minimum locations necessary to do so may be delivered 24/7)?
Any lighting during that time would have to be battery powered; meaning, probably absolutely essential, if people are taking that expense.
And it would provide an observable sky 3 hours a day during a time when the majority of the people are asleep, so the loss of light is no inconvenience.
Perhaps this could be spun as a public safety issue. Cities being lit at night would make them easier for a fleet of enemy aircraft or extraterrestrials to attack at night. They could follow the light to a big city and more easily find their target... by eliminating light pollution, they will need something more complex like a map, or GPS which is easily jammed.
So, keep your light out of my sky, and I'll try to avoid rattling you out of bed with Wagner (possibly as performed by Bugs Bunny) turned up to 11.
The sky is not yours (or anyone else's); just because it's visible from your property doesn't mean it belongs to you or that you have any control over it. Waking people up by playing loud music is a disturbance of the peace; people shining lights around (as long as they don't illuminate your little piece of land, which is a mere spec when seen from the sky) is not.
To weed out light pollution we would need something like a giant veil to cover earth in, because the moon and other astronomical bodies project plenty of light pollution into your precious sky, as well.
If you believe turning night into day is a good idea, go live with others who feel the same.:-)
Sigh... if you want to live in darkness, I suggest you move to the north pole, where you can experience Polar night
And there are few people to disturb your 4,464 hour nights by lighting up the skies, because there are no massive cities.
Just find a nice cave, during the 4,464 hour day that follows; you can find darkness without having to try and impose it on other people.
Let's worry about how much our next next motherboard will cost.
Just remember what you said in 6 months, when you need a new motherboard, because one of yours is damaged or something,
and you go to a store for a new one, only to find the cheapest motherboards are priced starting at $9,999.
The problem is people feel safer if they can see the source of the light rather than just the effects.
So piggyback a proper light source they cannot see with an independent, low-intensity "feel good" light source that they can see of one wavelength of a high-energy frequency that will be attenuated by the atmosphere over a short distance?
Yes... light is important for warding off Grue infestations.
For this purpose a backup generator is recommended, as Grue can get indoors easily.
Another technique is to get a Wumpus, because Wumpus' eat grue.
The problem with that strategy though, is Wumpus eat neighbors too... so you better have them in fenced-in yards, and be sure to pack plenty of spare arrows.
It sounds like the judge agreed with this objection and indicated that the deal might work if authors needed to opt-in rather than opt-out. Under an opt-in system, authors could opt-in to a competitor's service as well as Google's.
Sounds like the Judge's ruling could be overturned on appeal.
Google's competitors are not party to the class action suit.
The court is to accept the settlement if it is fair and equitable to members of the class suing.
The quotation is problematic
rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.”
The court is concentrating on the settlement containing a "reward" for Google.
But it is not unusual, when parties settle, for the agreement to contain terms that reward both parties.
In this case it is not a zero sum game -- Google's "wholesale copying" is beneficial to the settlement class, if only, Google can compensate them, and the legal action is Google's only opportunity to do so.
Google basically gambled that they could violate copyright on all books and get away with it. Rather than lobbying to make some sane changes to copyright law, they want copyright to remain overly strict, but to just apply to everyone except them. One law for Google, one law for everyone else. Of course, it's okay because Google isn't evil...
Actually... it could pave the way to changes to the law.
Despite it is not perfect, I like that it is better than the current circumstances.
It would be beneficial for the deal to go through It would be an improvement to the current situation.
It creates other problems that are not as severe as the current situation, and that can still be addressed.
If Google were to get this deal, it could set a precedent. Other companies that wanted a similar deal would then
just have to follow in Google's footsteps, take the same risks, and go through the exact same proceedings.
Once this happened... other people would be able to go to their legislators and tell them about how this is unfair,
and the result could be some compulsory licensing rules published for "out of print works" or "unused copyrights";
for example, by setting up a government-administered royalty pool.
This would supercede Google's deal. Google could be required to pay into said pool also.
Right now the case against Google is with Oracle. All these Linux matters are being brought up as FUD.
Oracle? Oracle has about as much right to slam Google of violationg the GPL as Satan would have slamming St. Peter for allegedly having coveted his neighbor's Xbox 360.
When it comes to Open source development, Oracle is akin to the planet killer from the StarTrek season 2, episode #35 The Doomsday Machine.
As in... Oracle is a giant open source project eater. They buy out valuable open source sponsors, and spit out s****.
Look at their track record: Sleepycat Software (BerkelyDB), Innobase (InnoDB), Sun (Java, OpenSolaris, MySQL, Glassfish)
What do we have to show for it? Open source projects vanishing or perverted. In all likelihood these will all soon show to be abandonware or obsoleted.
Hell... OpenSolaris is already dead not just in theory.
And Java is on its way out, due to the way Oracle's f"""cking up suing folks over adapting Java to their needs.... (what happened to 'open source'... 'community'?)
Sun forums going away..... Oracle not talking to the community, except in marketing faux blogs.
Translation; Oracle.......... "Open source community"; except the community's being taken out, oh, and by the way, the source / development isn't open anymore.
but if you ever visit a gated community with proper lighting you can see that traffic areas (walkways, streets, etc) are well lit and very safe, but the sky is still quite dark.
Because gated communities pay the high-priced lighting design experts, due to wanting it to be aesthetically perfect, and have the money to pay for that?
Lights pointed to the sky tend to cause glare, which is not all that aesthetically pleasant in a nice gated community area.
Why are parking lot lights often aimed at a 30* angle, emitting much or most of their light skyward?
Probably something about using as few lights as possible. If they pointed them straight down, a lot more lights would be required to achieve the same illumination. If they put them closer to the ground, the lighting would be easily blocked,
or people would have to contend with the lights being distracting.
Why are huge flood lights used to illuminate flags and signs, when a small spotlight would be more environmentally friendly and more efficient?
Because this was done by the lowest bidder? The businesses owning the parking lots spent as little in the design of lighting as possible, and want good safety margin to ensure the flag/sign will be lighted; even when some worker or bad whether dicks up the position of the flag or light a bit?
I think the only way though to counter the tightly-nit group who wants to call it "light pollution" is to start a group that wants to do the polar opposite.
Ensure the safety of citizens and reduce crime rates by generating at much night-time light as possible.
Perhaps some tax credits for property owners releasing at least 1000 lumens in the aggregate over at least 50 outdoor lights.
180 degree coverage angle required by the collection of lights with concentrated light beams projected no lower than 90 degrees above nadir.
I use solar-powered security lights which turn on at night . This helps with safety and security, and the benefits far outweight the cost.
The article is misleading, and referring to night-time illumination as "pollution" is derogatory and disingenuous.
If you feel light except starlight is unwanted, then get a parcel of sufficient forested property, and don't cut down your trees,
so you can take a walk far enough from civilization to see what you want.
You chose to live in a population concentrated, civilized, area, so you have to deal with the fact that humans are active at night, or concerned about other humans active at night who might be up to no good, and need light to see, protect, and safely move about.
His opinion on this matter is the opinion of one man. And his opinion's in no way privileged.
He's definitely not the sole copyright owner of Linux rights, so Linus is unable to make a statement
about the disposition of Google's activities that would be binding on all the copyright owners.
Last I checked Torvalds was a Software engineer/Hacker not a legal scholar or lawyer with tons of experience with the GPL and Intellectual property law.
Not to discount Linus, but I think RMS or FSF lawyers would be more qualified than Linus to speak on this particular area.
Because whether Google could be held in violation of the GPL or not is ultimately going to be up to the lawyers,
and the question will only really even be raised if a copyright owner is raising a stink and intends to seek legal remedy.
I agree with your words but not your sentiment. He'd be arguing for wireless transmission. However, that's not able to be metered, so until the government provides power for free, we'll not see it.
What do you mean not able to be metered ?
Load can be metered at the receiver.
Much like load is metered at the receiver today.
I assume the high voltage transmissions would not be suitable for being picked up by handheld devices; so you'd need to power your cell phone from a base station you plugged into the larger high-voltage receiving station controlled by your power company.
Or you could just use wireless transmission as a technology for transmitting the product from the power plant to regional stations.
That way it would be less subject to hacking.
Hacking electrical distribution usually doesn't get attempted, because there is a deterrant in that if you slip up, you electrocute yourself.
Tesla would want to know why the heck we're still using wires for long distance electric power transmission, when all this should be wireless transmission through the air by now.
They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere.:P
They're legally required to maximize shareholder value. That means either spending the money efficiently on profitmaking, or returning the money to sharholders.
Slashdot Mirror
What's happening is wrong... The GPLv2 is a mature stable license, that has been proven. The GPLv3 is a relative newcomer, bleeding edge. With fundamental problems for some the GPLv2 did not have.
Samba never should have moved to GPLv3. They should have either forked, or closed shop and started a new GPLv3-based project.
The GPLv2 ought to be considered the stable license... the GPLv3 ought to be considered experimental, regardless of whatever the FSF says, it's just not proven -- it's a new animal, like Vista was a new animal. And it breaks compatibility with the GPLv2, being a major new release.
Existing projects should not undercut their users by migrating to the v3.
GPLv3 should be something used by completely new software projects, if it is studied carefully and meets the developer's needs and the community's needs.
I'm not saying the Samba community should cater to Apple... but Apple is not alone in their GPLv3 concerns, and there are likely other Samba sponsors this would have impacted.
Upping to GPLv3 mid development is like changing the deal, especially when other companies have helped assist with or fund Samba development.... now if GPLv3 makes it unusable to them, they don't benefit from what they gave the community.
It's legal, but it's kind of like stealing. The community members being disrespectful to business participants by mucking with the deal (?)
This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it.
They are obviously doing this as a symbolic gesture against the GPLv3. Since Samba on MacOS... well.... MacOS allows you to run arbitrary applications, so there's no GPLv3 problem...
Either that or Apple is planning to lock down MacOS like they've locked down the iPhone, with cryptography, and not allow users to install/modify their own software without Apple's say so....
You're either for personal freedom or you're not. Civil rights stop me from enslaving people, therefore I'm not free.
Yeah.... civilizations are not free.
We lock up people who try to steal things. How is that free? You can't steal things and kill people who say things you don't like? Geez.....
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.
Your claim is a false dichotomy.
Just because GPL imposes restrictions does not mean GPL software is not free. It turns out the restrictions it imposes are restrictions against restricting freedom.
What's not free is proprietary platforms... such as the iPhone. You cannot even run your own applications (they have to be approved by Apple). GPL is the carrot that will allow Apple to partake of it, when they stop blocking users' freedom.
I don't mean to get pedantic in saying this, but it is a serious problem for a lotta folks, a lot of it is waste, and there is no tenable solution except to keep driving further and further away from the sprawl.
Sure there are solutions......
How about an ordinance making it mandatory that no cars be on the road except police/emergency workers, and the local power utilities shutdown all access to commercial power and stop delivering to residences and businesses every day between the hours of 1 and 3 AM, except when the sky is fully obscured by clouds, it is raining, or an immediate life-threatening situation that electricity can mitigate exists (then the absolute minimum power to the minimum locations necessary to do so may be delivered 24/7)?
Any lighting during that time would have to be battery powered; meaning, probably absolutely essential, if people are taking that expense.
And it would provide an observable sky 3 hours a day during a time when the majority of the people are asleep, so the loss of light is no inconvenience.
Perhaps this could be spun as a public safety issue. Cities being lit at night would make them easier for a fleet of enemy aircraft or extraterrestrials to attack at night. They could follow the light to a big city and more easily find their target... by eliminating light pollution, they will need something more complex like a map, or GPS which is easily jammed.
So, keep your light out of my sky, and I'll try to avoid rattling you out of bed with Wagner (possibly as performed by Bugs Bunny) turned up to 11.
The sky is not yours (or anyone else's); just because it's visible from your property doesn't mean it belongs to you or that you have any control over it. Waking people up by playing loud music is a disturbance of the peace; people shining lights around (as long as they don't illuminate your little piece of land, which is a mere spec when seen from the sky) is not.
To weed out light pollution we would need something like a giant veil to cover earth in, because the moon and other astronomical bodies project plenty of light pollution into your precious sky, as well.
YOU are the one who suggested not living in a populous area. I took that advice ages ago, but it didn't really work, now did it?
Something crucial you may have missed... make sure the area stays non-populous.
There are various ways of doing that. The simplest way is to own at least 20000 acres, and live somewhere in the middle.
If you believe turning night into day is a good idea, go live with others who feel the same. :-)
Sigh... if you want to live in darkness, I suggest you move to the north pole, where you can experience Polar night
And there are few people to disturb your 4,464 hour nights by lighting up the skies, because there are no massive cities. Just find a nice cave, during the 4,464 hour day that follows; you can find darkness without having to try and impose it on other people.
Let's worry about how much our next next motherboard will cost.
Just remember what you said in 6 months, when you need a new motherboard, because one of yours is damaged or something, and you go to a store for a new one, only to find the cheapest motherboards are priced starting at $9,999.
The problem is people feel safer if they can see the source of the light rather than just the effects.
So piggyback a proper light source they cannot see with an independent, low-intensity "feel good" light source that they can see of one wavelength of a high-energy frequency that will be attenuated by the atmosphere over a short distance?
Don't forget the grue issue.
Yes... light is important for warding off Grue infestations.
For this purpose a backup generator is recommended, as Grue can get indoors easily.
Another technique is to get a Wumpus, because Wumpus' eat grue.
The problem with that strategy though, is Wumpus eat neighbors too... so you better have them in fenced-in yards, and be sure to pack plenty of spare arrows.
It sounds like the judge agreed with this objection and indicated that the deal might work if authors needed to opt-in rather than opt-out. Under an opt-in system, authors could opt-in to a competitor's service as well as Google's.
Sounds like the Judge's ruling could be overturned on appeal. Google's competitors are not party to the class action suit.
The court is to accept the settlement if it is fair and equitable to members of the class suing. The quotation is problematic
The court is concentrating on the settlement containing a "reward" for Google. But it is not unusual, when parties settle, for the agreement to contain terms that reward both parties. In this case it is not a zero sum game -- Google's "wholesale copying" is beneficial to the settlement class, if only, Google can compensate them, and the legal action is Google's only opportunity to do so.
Google basically gambled that they could violate copyright on all books and get away with it. Rather than lobbying to make some sane changes to copyright law, they want copyright to remain overly strict, but to just apply to everyone except them. One law for Google, one law for everyone else. Of course, it's okay because Google isn't evil...
Actually... it could pave the way to changes to the law. Despite it is not perfect, I like that it is better than the current circumstances. It would be beneficial for the deal to go through It would be an improvement to the current situation. It creates other problems that are not as severe as the current situation, and that can still be addressed.
If Google were to get this deal, it could set a precedent. Other companies that wanted a similar deal would then just have to follow in Google's footsteps, take the same risks, and go through the exact same proceedings.
Once this happened... other people would be able to go to their legislators and tell them about how this is unfair, and the result could be some compulsory licensing rules published for "out of print works" or "unused copyrights"; for example, by setting up a government-administered royalty pool.
This would supercede Google's deal. Google could be required to pay into said pool also.
Right now the case against Google is with Oracle. All these Linux matters are being brought up as FUD.
Oracle? Oracle has about as much right to slam Google of violationg the GPL as Satan would have slamming St. Peter for allegedly having coveted his neighbor's Xbox 360.
When it comes to Open source development, Oracle is akin to the planet killer from the StarTrek season 2, episode #35 The Doomsday Machine.
As in... Oracle is a giant open source project eater. They buy out valuable open source sponsors, and spit out s****. Look at their track record: Sleepycat Software (BerkelyDB), Innobase (InnoDB), Sun (Java, OpenSolaris, MySQL, Glassfish)
What do we have to show for it? Open source projects vanishing or perverted. In all likelihood these will all soon show to be abandonware or obsoleted.
Hell... OpenSolaris is already dead not just in theory.
And Java is on its way out, due to the way Oracle's f"""cking up suing folks over adapting Java to their needs.... (what happened to 'open source'... 'community'?)
Sun forums going away..... Oracle not talking to the community, except in marketing faux blogs.
Translation; Oracle.......... "Open source community"; except the community's being taken out, oh, and by the way, the source / development isn't open anymore.
but if you ever visit a gated community with proper lighting you can see that traffic areas (walkways, streets, etc) are well lit and very safe, but the sky is still quite dark.
Because gated communities pay the high-priced lighting design experts, due to wanting it to be aesthetically perfect, and have the money to pay for that? Lights pointed to the sky tend to cause glare, which is not all that aesthetically pleasant in a nice gated community area.
Why are parking lot lights often aimed at a 30* angle, emitting much or most of their light skyward?
Probably something about using as few lights as possible. If they pointed them straight down, a lot more lights would be required to achieve the same illumination. If they put them closer to the ground, the lighting would be easily blocked, or people would have to contend with the lights being distracting.
Why are huge flood lights used to illuminate flags and signs, when a small spotlight would be more environmentally friendly and more efficient?
Because this was done by the lowest bidder? The businesses owning the parking lots spent as little in the design of lighting as possible, and want good safety margin to ensure the flag/sign will be lighted; even when some worker or bad whether dicks up the position of the flag or light a bit?
I think the only way though to counter the tightly-nit group who wants to call it "light pollution" is to start a group that wants to do the polar opposite.
Ensure the safety of citizens and reduce crime rates by generating at much night-time light as possible.
Perhaps some tax credits for property owners releasing at least 1000 lumens in the aggregate over at least 50 outdoor lights. 180 degree coverage angle required by the collection of lights with concentrated light beams projected no lower than 90 degrees above nadir.
but also everyone else because of wasted energy.
I use solar-powered security lights which turn on at night . This helps with safety and security, and the benefits far outweight the cost.
The article is misleading, and referring to night-time illumination as "pollution" is derogatory and disingenuous. If you feel light except starlight is unwanted, then get a parcel of sufficient forested property, and don't cut down your trees, so you can take a walk far enough from civilization to see what you want.
You chose to live in a population concentrated, civilized, area, so you have to deal with the fact that humans are active at night, or concerned about other humans active at night who might be up to no good, and need light to see, protect, and safely move about.
His opinion on this matter is the opinion of one man. And his opinion's in no way privileged. He's definitely not the sole copyright owner of Linux rights, so Linus is unable to make a statement about the disposition of Google's activities that would be binding on all the copyright owners.
Last I checked Torvalds was a Software engineer/Hacker not a legal scholar or lawyer with tons of experience with the GPL and Intellectual property law.
Not to discount Linus, but I think RMS or FSF lawyers would be more qualified than Linus to speak on this particular area.
Because whether Google could be held in violation of the GPL or not is ultimately going to be up to the lawyers, and the question will only really even be raised if a copyright owner is raising a stink and intends to seek legal remedy.
Good luck spending $10 million protecting the copyright on a book you can't get anyone to print even for a fee any more.
If enough of them opt out, they could form their own association and sue Google again.
First, we need a volunteer to pig-latinize all chinese characters...
You mean all chinese tokens of utterance?
Phone conversations are spoken not printed :)
I agree with your words but not your sentiment. He'd be arguing for wireless transmission. However, that's not able to be metered, so until the government provides power for free, we'll not see it.
What do you mean not able to be metered ?
Load can be metered at the receiver.
Much like load is metered at the receiver today. I assume the high voltage transmissions would not be suitable for being picked up by handheld devices; so you'd need to power your cell phone from a base station you plugged into the larger high-voltage receiving station controlled by your power company.
Or you could just use wireless transmission as a technology for transmitting the product from the power plant to regional stations. That way it would be less subject to hacking.
Hacking electrical distribution usually doesn't get attempted, because there is a deterrant in that if you slip up, you electrocute yourself.
etslay tartsay ay rotestpay
Tesla is giggling in his grave
Tesla would want to know why the heck we're still using wires for long distance electric power transmission, when all this should be wireless transmission through the air by now.
They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere. :P
They're legally required to maximize shareholder value. That means either spending the money efficiently on profitmaking, or returning the money to sharholders.
Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.
Why do you say that it's "worth it"? "App Store" is just a name. Amazon (or Apple) could use another name instead that would be less generic.