Yes. They are free to have their restrictions. Nobody denies that. But to claim that they are now compliant with the 'open source' philosophy is incorrect.
If I hadnt' already posted,I'd mod this way up. Well written, good ideas, and he puts a lot of things into words that I've been trying to express for years now.
I can't shake the feeling I know this guy from the writing.. who is it? (I'm serious..... email me or something..)
In one respect.. it's nothing new... none of us 'own' the internet, and private networks are free to set routing policy however they want for whatever reason they want. And none of us should have any problem with that.
What we SHOULD have a problem with is places that offer 'Internet' access, but then proceed to screw people over based on bandwidth usage and/or content usage. If joe average purchases a connection, he should have a fair idea of what that means, not simply 'oh.. it's so I can surf the web'. I'm tired of @HOME's 'no server' policy. If it's bandwidth they are worried about, put a surcharge on the bandwidth in question. THAT is fair. THAT let's people undersand the resources in volved, and ultimately, what they are paying for. Joe average doesn't understand? He damn well SHOULD! Network technology is the way of the future.. it's better that the public gets involved and leaves their ignorance behind.
Except... from an idealistic technical point of view, (as in, how we did it in the old days) you found things by watching ftp sites... so.. if mandrake 7.1 is appearing on mirrors, and you want to bitch about people announcing this fact before mandrake does... if mandrake or the mandrake mirror community cared, they would have a different way of mirroring things, whereby you couldn't actually see things until the transfer is complete.
Oh.. and as for/.ing it... I bet a lot of people don't rush out to download mandrake 7.1 immediately....
Though I'm sure the courts would disagree.. selling napster t-shirts is not really dilution. They are note not in any way diluting napster's right to call it's product napster, or to refer to it as napster, or have it know by napster.
Offspring are clearly selling shirts with logos that refer TO napster, they do not pretend napster is theirs or anything. The real issue is copyright.. the napster logo is not theirs to sell on shirts.
I can see how morally, there is some wierd stuff going on here.. and we would all hope that the ISP would try to.. But, like most business, they probably reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This is not 'censorship'. This is not 'discrimination'. It kind of sucks.. but... Why should a business (that operates on slim margins as it is) jeopardize it's entire business and everyone's job (not to mention internet access for thousands of people) when removing one person can solve the problem?
I encourage you to use cash for your transactions. I try to do this, and it is becoming increasingly difficult.
When the electric company guy comes to the door saying that it's time to pay the bill on the spot or get disconnected, he informs me that he 'cannot accept cash, only cheque or credit card'. The telephone company office is the same way.. they won't accept cash at their head office.
Many hotels and motels, especially (strangely) some cheap ones won't let you stay without a credit card. You can't rent a car without a credit card.
Let's look at the hotel too... I find it funny. If you stay at the hotel.... they get your credit card presumably so they can 'charge' you for things you might otherwise not pay for. Well.. surprise surprise.... they can't really do this ultimately. Whether it's cash or charge, your agreement is absolutely *required* in order to pay. Just like fine print on porn sites.. if they have deceptive agreements, you can dispute it at the credit company.
As part of society, privacy in relation to commerce should be EXTREMELY important, so much that I bet the founding fathers would have insisted on it had they envisioned the world as it is today. Such information sharing was not possible in the past.
Privacy/Commerce laws seek to ensure that people's personal information does not become a negotiable item, a commoddity. It's not supposed to be. It's wrong.
If you give your name at Blockbuster.. they have the right to know some things about you. Specifically, your name and address and other proof of identification so they can find you when you dont' return their property. This is fine.. nboody disputes this. But.. when you give them this information, you naturally assume that this is the only reason you are giving them this information. (well.. today people assume other things.. but they have been brainwashed into thinking this is acceptable). Under EU privacy laws, such information gathered in order to complete a business transaction may *not* be used in *any* way other than to complete the sale at hand. This is great.
Libel isn't the problem. If the guy is publishing hateful or false statements about people they can sue for libel.
The problem is this kid is being treated like a criminal, put in juvie, etc, simply because he published statements. People SHOULD sue him for libel if they really feel so hard done by.. but he should not have a criminal record because of it.
Because.... to most companies that use it, outlook is about a lot more than just email. Believe me... if it were only about email, it would be easy to switch away.
Mailing appointments to each other, public folders... things like this.
IT's typical MS. They write apps to give users a bit more flexibility to design their own solutions to their IT problems, which sort of routes things away from the concept of a central IT dept designing proper, custom solutions.
I'm sure most of us know that 4 or 5 of us linux/unix types could revolutionize a company in terms of productivity. Seriously. A company should use web based, or java based mail... X based solutions. MOst employees, though they like all the 'neat' things they can do with windows, do not need to do any of those 'neat' things to do their jobs. X desktops would make it much easier to keep everyone on the same path.
Users don't *have* to understand linux.. not one little bit, to do this right. Workstations can sijmply act as extensions of a single, unified system, with the IT Dept. experts and servers at the center. The users simply use the machines in the manner they are supposed to.
I've been thinking of moving a company away from ms office. Risky move... especially since they are already using it. SO.. I haven't done it yet... but I've put a lot of thought into it. One thing I've noticed is that, although everyone tends to say that they need office so they can read documents from 'other' people.... 99% of those documents originate within the company. Exchange with outside companies can be handled by some kind of conversion process if necessary. Really.. the one big thing that keeps me from using staroffice is the fact that it's email package does not support imap. If it only did this, I would be oh so happy..... I could offer a really cool desktop.
The GPL says you must make source available upon request for a period of 3 years, or to avoid this, ship source with binaries.
I would venture to say that, if it is available from gnu, and it is totally unmodified, that is fine. If GNU becomes unavailable, then MS would have to provide it themselves.
Good that they are mad! They should be! And they should also realize that, under the law, they are no different than you or me. They are not 'law enforcement'. They are parliament. So.. if they think they have the right to chose what to see and read.. so does the rest of the country!
It seem simple to me. If you intentionally write software that's purpose is to spread without the users knowledge and/or control and/or permission, and intentionally release it in such a manner that it would begin to spread in this manner, then you ARE doing something that has no useful purpose in society, and hence, wasting others time.
Can't.. charge.. for.. broadcasting. They can charge for encoding... and perhaps decoding..but I fail to see how sending the mpeg stream itself is a patent violation. Just as with the gif issue.. software that implements the codec is at issue, but I fail to see how they can enforce the use of the data itself..
That is patently rediculous. What a bunch of tards. Are they too damn stupid to see that breaking up MS is a great thing to do? For shit's sake... the canadian government would be less eager to regulate microsoft than the US, and microsoft needs a spank!
Oh.. on another note.. this doesn't save them from the US courts at all. I mean, the US courts can just as easily forbid the import of MS stuff.
I believe this is not for terraforming.. The mars reference mission includes sending unmanned craft ahead, including craft that will land and, using solar power & a few stored chemicals, turn carbon dioxide from mars atmosphere and turn it into both oxyjen and some kind of alcohol (rocket fuel). It will store these in large tanks. The idea is that this is much less costly than shipping the required oxygen ahead, as the mass is much lower.
If someone violates the GPL, it does *NOT* mean that they *MUST* release their code. There are other remedies, including NOT RELEASING THE CODE ANYMORE.
Because. The fact that you may own the CD, and hence, have the right to make a copy of that CD does *NOT* imply (though it sounds bizarre) that you have the right to copy it from another source (ie: napster). Also, as the person offering the file for download is doing so illegally, any download you make of it would also be illegal, as you are participating in an illegal transaction.
The fact that you cannot send info faster than c has not been proven, it is a theory (or whatever the term is..). There is no proof yet.
As for speed, it is distance / time only in a pure newtonian sense. It works fine that way for figuring out how fast the train is going, but falls apart completely in relativity.
Actually, this is mere conjecture. I don't believe we have ever tested the 'speed' of gravity, or detected the 'graviton', or anything else. Due to gravity being the weakest force we know, coupled with our inabiltiy to make large amounts of mass just appear and disappear....
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. They are free to have their restrictions. Nobody denies that.
But to claim that they are now compliant with the 'open source' philosophy is incorrect.
And it's certainly not free software.....
If I hadnt' already posted,I'd mod this way up.
Well written, good ideas, and he puts a lot of things into words that I've been trying to express for years now.
I can't shake the feeling I know this guy from the writing.. who is it? (I'm serious..... email me or something..)
'sides.. he reads Space Moose.....
Actually, switchblades are illegal to own anywhere in the us.. unless the federal switchblade act has been repealed...
In one respect.. it's nothing new... none of us 'own' the internet, and private networks are free to set routing policy however they want for whatever reason they want. And none of us should have any problem with that.
What we SHOULD have a problem with is places that offer 'Internet' access, but then proceed to screw people over based on bandwidth usage and/or content usage. If joe average purchases a connection, he should have a fair idea of what that means, not simply 'oh.. it's so I can surf the web'.
I'm tired of @HOME's 'no server' policy. If it's bandwidth they are worried about, put a surcharge on the bandwidth in question. THAT is fair. THAT let's people undersand the resources in volved, and ultimately, what they are paying for. Joe average doesn't understand? He damn well SHOULD! Network technology is the way of the future.. it's better that the public gets involved and leaves their ignorance behind.
Except... from an idealistic technical point of view, (as in, how we did it in the old days) you found things by watching ftp sites...
/.ing it... I bet a lot of people don't rush out to download mandrake 7.1 immediately....
so.. if mandrake 7.1 is appearing on mirrors, and you want to bitch about people announcing this fact before mandrake does...
if mandrake or the mandrake mirror community cared, they would have a different way of mirroring things, whereby you couldn't actually see things until the transfer is complete.
Oh.. and as for
They are. for $15, they will make and send you a T-shirt (not a napstser product) with the Napster(tm) logo on it.
They are in no way infringing on napster's trademark. Napster does not own a trademark in the shirt making industry.
Though I'm sure the courts would disagree.. selling napster t-shirts is not really dilution. They are note not in any way diluting napster's right to call it's product napster, or to refer to it as napster, or have it know by napster.
Offspring are clearly selling shirts with logos that refer TO napster, they do not pretend napster is theirs or anything.
The real issue is copyright.. the napster logo is not theirs to sell on shirts.
Personally, napster losers should be honored.
I can see how morally, there is some wierd stuff going on here.. and we would all hope that the ISP would try to..
But, like most business, they probably reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
This is not 'censorship'. This is not 'discrimination'. It kind of sucks.. but...
Why should a business (that operates on slim margins as it is) jeopardize it's entire business and everyone's job (not to mention internet access for thousands of people) when removing one person can solve the problem?
And this is why we make laws. to better people!
People come first. Business exists to serve people.
Laws exist for the betterment of society, not for the betterment of business.
I encourage you to use cash for your transactions. I try to do this, and it is becoming increasingly difficult.
When the electric company guy comes to the door saying that it's time to pay the bill on the spot or get disconnected, he informs me that he 'cannot accept cash, only cheque or credit card'.
The telephone company office is the same way.. they won't accept cash at their head office.
Many hotels and motels, especially (strangely) some cheap ones won't let you stay without a credit card. You can't rent a car without a credit card.
Let's look at the hotel too... I find it funny.
If you stay at the hotel.... they get your credit card presumably so they can 'charge' you for things you might otherwise not pay for. Well.. surprise surprise.... they can't really do this ultimately. Whether it's cash or charge, your agreement is absolutely *required* in order to pay. Just like fine print on porn sites.. if they have deceptive agreements, you can dispute it at the credit company.
As part of society, privacy in relation to commerce should be EXTREMELY important, so much that I bet the founding fathers would have insisted on it had they envisioned the world as it is today. Such information sharing was not possible in the past.
Privacy/Commerce laws seek to ensure that people's personal information does not become a negotiable item, a commoddity. It's not supposed to be. It's wrong.
If you give your name at Blockbuster.. they have the right to know some things about you. Specifically, your name and address and other proof of identification so they can find you when you dont' return their property. This is fine.. nboody disputes this.
But.. when you give them this information, you naturally assume that this is the only reason you are giving them this information. (well.. today people assume other things.. but they have been brainwashed into thinking this is acceptable).
Under EU privacy laws, such information gathered in order to complete a business transaction may *not* be used in *any* way other than to complete the sale at hand. This is great.
Libel isn't the problem. If the guy is publishing hateful or false statements about people they can sue for libel.
The problem is this kid is being treated like a criminal, put in juvie, etc, simply because he published statements. People SHOULD sue him for libel if they really feel so hard done by.. but he should not have a criminal record because of it.
Because.... to most companies that use it, outlook is about a lot more than just email.
Believe me... if it were only about email, it would be easy to switch away.
Mailing appointments to each other, public folders... things like this.
IT's typical MS.
They write apps to give users a bit more flexibility to design their own solutions to their IT problems, which sort of routes things away from the concept of a central IT dept designing proper, custom solutions.
I'm sure most of us know that 4 or 5 of us linux/unix types could revolutionize a company in terms of productivity.
Seriously. A company should use web based, or java based mail... X based solutions. MOst employees, though they like all the 'neat' things they can do with windows, do not need to do any of those 'neat' things to do their jobs.
X desktops would make it much easier to keep everyone on the same path.
Users don't *have* to understand linux.. not one little bit, to do this right. Workstations can sijmply act as extensions of a single, unified system, with the IT Dept. experts and servers at the center. The users simply use the machines in the manner they are supposed to.
THanks for listening.
I've been thinking of moving a company away from ms office. Risky move... especially since they are already using it. SO.. I haven't done it yet... but I've put a lot of thought into it. One thing I've noticed is that, although everyone tends to say that they need office so they can read documents from 'other' people.... 99% of those documents originate within the company. Exchange with outside companies can be handled by some kind of conversion process if necessary. Really.. the one big thing that keeps me from using staroffice is the fact that it's email package does not support imap. If it only did this, I would be oh so happy..... I could offer a really cool desktop.
The GPL says you must make source available upon request for a period of 3 years, or to avoid this, ship source with binaries.
I would venture to say that, if it is available from gnu, and it is totally unmodified, that is fine.
If GNU becomes unavailable, then MS would have to provide it themselves.
Good that they are mad! They should be! And they should also realize that, under the law, they are no different than you or me. They are not 'law enforcement'. They are parliament.
So.. if they think they have the right to chose what to see and read.. so does the rest of the country!
Actually, it is an illegal binary rip of MS binaries.. not 'created from their source code'.
It seem simple to me. If you intentionally write software that's purpose is to spread without the users knowledge and/or control and/or permission, and intentionally release it in such a manner that it would begin to spread in this manner, then you ARE doing something that has no useful purpose in society, and hence, wasting others time.
Can't.. charge.. for.. broadcasting.
They can charge for encoding... and perhaps decoding..but I fail to see how sending the mpeg stream itself is a patent violation.
Just as with the gif issue.. software that implements the codec is at issue, but I fail to see how they can enforce the use of the data itself..
That is patently rediculous. What a bunch of tards. Are they too damn stupid to see that breaking up MS is a great thing to do? For shit's sake... the canadian government would be less eager to regulate microsoft than the US, and microsoft needs a spank!
Oh.. on another note.. this doesn't save them from the US courts at all. I mean, the US courts can just as easily forbid the import of MS stuff.
I believe this is not for terraforming..
The mars reference mission includes sending unmanned craft ahead, including craft that will land and, using solar power & a few stored chemicals, turn carbon dioxide from mars atmosphere and turn it into both oxyjen and some kind of alcohol (rocket fuel). It will store these in large tanks. The idea is that this is much less costly than shipping the required oxygen ahead, as the mass is much lower.
If someone violates the GPL, it does *NOT* mean that they *MUST* release their code. There are other remedies, including NOT RELEASING THE CODE ANYMORE.
Because.
The fact that you may own the CD, and hence, have the right to make a copy of that CD does *NOT* imply (though it sounds bizarre) that you have the right to copy it from another source (ie: napster). Also, as the person offering the file for download is doing so illegally, any download you make of it would also be illegal, as you are participating in an illegal transaction.
The fact that you cannot send info faster than c has not been proven, it is a theory (or whatever the term is..). There is no proof yet.
As for speed, it is distance / time only in a pure newtonian sense. It works fine that way for figuring out how fast the train is going, but falls apart completely in relativity.
Actually, this is mere conjecture. I don't believe we have ever tested the 'speed' of gravity, or detected the 'graviton', or anything else. Due to gravity being the weakest force we know, coupled with our inabiltiy to make large amounts of mass just appear and disappear....