They may have bought a book with a free DVD. They may have bought a CD or DVD set. They may have had it installed by a friend or family member. They may have downloaded an ISO and burned it to disk and then installed it themselves.
However, being able to do any of that, including download an ISO and burn it to CD, does not imply being able to write code or having the cash to pay someone to modify code.
Another dumbass who thinks the only in violating licenses.
How about the fact that one would not be including unlicensed copies if one had a proprietary license because that is what the license is for? Oh wait, that would blow your stupid argument right out of the water wouldn't it.
Maybe you should stop trying to use the false dilemma of having to violate either the GPL or a proprietary license.
No, because the risk comes from misunderstanding the GPL or from trying to game the GPL.
Your analysis is flawed because you think that someone who would violate the GPL would also violate a proprietary license. However, the opposite is true.
But, I shouldn't expect you to actually understand that because you are a fanboy.
If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money.
And what if they don't have the money because they spent it on salaries, hardware, paying investors, etc?
Next, you assume that the only choices are "Use GPL software" and "Violate proprietary license". You completely skip over the obvious option of "Pay proprietary license fee."
Except that 99% of those users don't have the skills and/or resources to exercise any other maintenance options.
Sounds like the argument against estate tax "Everyone will be able to benefit from getting rid of this tax, even if only 1% of the population actually have ability to benefit from it."
What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.
The part where the company wants to develop a proprietary system, hardware or software, and sell it. You know, the part that bit TIVO in the ass.
What you forget is that one can license proprietary software and keep one's code closed.
The whole point of the article, which you completely managed to miss, is that if one uses GPLv3 software, one may very well have to open up one's code and hardware, which might result in loosing a lot of money.
The reason the GPLv3 seems less risky to you is because you are not trying to sell software and hardware that uses it.
Please explain in detail the problem with record companies actually owning the rights to the works for hire for which they have paid.
Removing the ability to transfer rights would fundamentally change copyright law and would result in every created work being licensed and not sold. Paintings, software, music, books, and possibly other things like clothing.
First sale doctrine would become moot because no one would be able to transfer rights, and thus there would be no ownership of the copy.
That is not what I am seeing now, especially with H1B visa workers and college students. I work with many Indians and that is what almost all of them have planned. Work in the US for a few years, then move back to India.
I think both the President and Congress have the ability to declare emergencies, though I believe Congress can override a Presidential declaration while the opposite is not true.
Note that you are incorrect. The same effect with alcohol was achieved with the Volstead act, which made illegal the "manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act", before the 18th Amendment went into force.
Also, the Volstead act defined "intoxicating liquor" something the 18th Amendment does not do.
Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Congress is empowered to make laws concerning the general welfare of the nation, and the control of certain substances is in the interests of the general welfare of the nation.
Well, the government gets to say if something is an emergency, so it is a matter of the fox guarding the hen house.
And, remember, your favorite congresscritter can declare just about anything a matter of national security and thus classified. That is how a lot of stuff is kept secret in DC.
i was thinking more of an applicable emergency, not a semantic one. See, you are thinking like a normal person instead of a politician. I know it hurts, but you have to think like a politician.
And, IIRC, they had over-stayed their student visas.
Slashdot Mirror
They may have bought a book with a free DVD.
They may have bought a CD or DVD set.
They may have had it installed by a friend or family member.
They may have downloaded an ISO and burned it to disk and then installed it themselves.
However, being able to do any of that, including download an ISO and burn it to CD, does not imply being able to write code or having the cash to pay someone to modify code.
Except if one uses DRM to prevent running modified OSS software on one's proprietary hardware. TIVO anyone?
Your second statement is irrational.
Yes, and their paychecks are not paid by the software they write but by the profits of the proprietary software written by others in the company.
Another dumbass who thinks the only in violating licenses.
How about the fact that one would not be including unlicensed copies if one had a proprietary license because that is what the license is for? Oh wait, that would blow your stupid argument right out of the water wouldn't it.
Maybe you should stop trying to use the false dilemma of having to violate either the GPL or a proprietary license.
Yeah, right, good luck with that.
No, because the risk comes from misunderstanding the GPL or from trying to game the GPL.
Your analysis is flawed because you think that someone who would violate the GPL would also violate a proprietary license. However, the opposite is true.
But, I shouldn't expect you to actually understand that because you are a fanboy.
First off, your own words:
And what if they don't have the money because they spent it on salaries, hardware, paying investors, etc?
Next, you assume that the only choices are "Use GPL software" and "Violate proprietary license". You completely skip over the obvious option of "Pay proprietary license fee."
Are you actually trying to be stupid?
Except that 99% of those users don't have the skills and/or resources to exercise any other maintenance options.
Sounds like the argument against estate tax "Everyone will be able to benefit from getting rid of this tax, even if only 1% of the population actually have ability to benefit from it."
No. The problem is that you can not read.
The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users.
RMS (you know who that is right?)has stated that very thing in almost as few words.
It is a shame you are not one of them.
If all software is free, who will pay the programmers' salaries? How will programmers make a living?
The part where the company wants to develop a proprietary system, hardware or software, and sell it. You know, the part that bit TIVO in the ass.
What you forget is that one can license proprietary software and keep one's code closed.
The whole point of the article, which you completely managed to miss, is that if one uses GPLv3 software, one may very well have to open up one's code and hardware, which might result in loosing a lot of money.
The reason the GPLv3 seems less risky to you is because you are not trying to sell software and hardware that uses it.
I have no idea how you got modded insightful.
/., often with glee, as he stated in his article.
He talks about things and mentions court cases that have been discusses on
Either you have lied about reading the article, are purposely misconstruing the article, or you have incredibly poor reading comprehension.
Please explain in detail the problem with record companies actually owning the rights to the works for hire for which they have paid.
Removing the ability to transfer rights would fundamentally change copyright law and would result in every created work being licensed and not sold. Paintings, software, music, books, and possibly other things like clothing.
First sale doctrine would become moot because no one would be able to transfer rights, and thus there would be no ownership of the copy.
I was unaware that FaceBook maintained an office in Canada.
Oh wait, they don't.
I don't think they will have standing because Facebook operates under U.S. rules.
That is not what I am seeing now, especially with H1B visa workers and college students. I work with many Indians and that is what almost all of them have planned. Work in the US for a few years, then move back to India.
I think both the President and Congress have the ability to declare emergencies, though I believe Congress can override a Presidential declaration while the opposite is not true.
I point you to the other thread about who gets to say what constitutes an emergency.
Note that you are incorrect. The same effect with alcohol was achieved with the Volstead act, which made illegal the "manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act", before the 18th Amendment went into force.
Also, the Volstead act defined "intoxicating liquor" something the 18th Amendment does not do.
The Congress is empowered to make laws concerning the general welfare of the nation, and the control of certain substances is in the interests of the general welfare of the nation.
You fail.
Actually, that has not been the case for a while now.
The big trend has been to come to the U.S., get an education, save up some money, go home and buy some land and live well.
Well, the government gets to say if something is an emergency, so it is a matter of the fox guarding the hen house.
And, remember, your favorite congresscritter can declare just about anything a matter of national security and thus classified. That is how a lot of stuff is kept secret in DC.
And, IIRC, they had over-stayed their student visas.