Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 2
What's your point? You seem to be trying to sound brilliant while stating the obvious.
No matter what view you take, you need to be able to protect your rights by force, if they're threatened.
Either you believe that rights are inherent in us all as some natural thing a priori, and that we can make others respect them through force (if they're violated). Or you believe that we only have those rights we can defend, and if we can't defend them, we don't have them. It doesn't matter from a practical point of view: rights either don't exist or are meaningless if you can't (ultimately) defend threats to them via force.
My idea is quite simple. In modern society, if you don't want to respect other's rights, fine. But then no one else should be required to protect yours. In other words, the government wouldn't protect "violations to your rights" if you choose not to respect other's rights as a lifestyle.
Wrong, Kasparov had no choice but to accept the terms, or else he would have looked weak and cowardly, justifying Fischer's criticisms that the chess champions never put anything on the line.
If he refused the terms, IBM would have set out to slander him, calling him a coward and whatnot, in front of the public.
Btw, they never said they would reprogram it between matches. And its never been proven that the machine didn't have human help. I personally think it was Fischer playing the games Deep Blue won.
Ah, I see your point. You view it as equivalent to tresspass (i.e., parking your car in my drive-way).
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 2
Interesting, though obvious point. Obviously, we have only those rights we can defend. I may say I have the right to life, but if I have no right to protect myself, and if my murderers or attempted-murderers are not punished, then my right to life is meaningless.
Yes, we have only those rights we can defend. Yes, we do impose on others that they respect our rights, in return for us respecting their's. It is not, however, me forcing my will on anyone else -- it's me preventing them from forcing their will on me. In other words, modern rights are defensive, not offensive. They're used as a shield, not a sword. The rights in primitive and barbaric countries (or times) were used as a sword (i.e., the right to beat one's wife), but such offensive rights have been undone.
I never said that rights are a natural a priori thing. They are not a natural property of human beings, as is (for example) the ability to communicate through higher language, and the ability to use and make tools.
Maybe...for those of us who don't believe in human rights, and don't want to respect anyone else' rights, fine. They can do so. But then their rights need not be respected either. They should wear a large red O (outcast) on their clothes, so that everyone who sees them knows that they respect no one's rights and that no one need respect their rights.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 2
Gee, what's so horrible about a society where people do what they will so long as they don't violate other people's rights, as defined by law? Victimless "crimes" such as prostitution, drug-use, non-procreative sex, masturbation, etc. should not be illegal, because they violate no-one's rights.
The entire purpose of government is to protect our rights, nothing more. Any additional services should be voluntary, not mandatory. People work for their money and shouldn't have to pay taxes if they don't want to; however, if they don't pay taxes, they aren't protected by the government (i.e., no right to file complaints in courts, gov't doesn't protect their rights, etc), so that provides sufficient motivation to pay taxes. Additional things beyond protecting our rights should be voluntary, and only those who pay the extra taxes for them should receive the unconditional benefits they offer (i.e., roads...those of us who pay taxes for roads would be able to travel them freely, other's would have to pay periodically via some mechanism).
You make it sound as if rights principles are an unworkable thing. They're not. They are the basis for any civilized society. Indeed, the best possible society would be one where everyone's free to do as they will so long as they don't violate other's rights, and where no one does in fact violate other's rights.
A society based around the principle that nothing should be illegal so long as it doesn't violate other's rights would work. You and other so-called "moderates" (and I'd say there's nothing moderate about defending abridgements of our rights) may think its untenable. But the rest of the world thought the US was nuts back during the revolution. Another, intermediate position, would be to say that the government should engage in the minimum beyond protecting our rights. That is, they should do the minimum to hold society together beyond protecting our rights: i.e., maintain roads and traffic lights, and other such trivial things.
Irrelevant. I didn't give them permission to waste my precious resources on their crap. If my computer is older and slower, such crap can freeze it. Even if not, why should I have to be slowed down because some jerk off wants to sell me "penis enlargement" devices which don't work?
Fact is, my resources are being stolen. I am denied the use of them while these fuckwits use them to display their tacky ads. Its like you stealing my car, using it for an hour, then returning it. Sorry, that's still theft and you should go to jail for it. Irrelevant of how small the theft, it still violates my rights.
Property rights need to be ask-first. That is, you can't just steal my property and then compensate me. You have to ask me if X would compensate me fairly for my property. I'm not making this argument eloquently, but Lessig does.
This guy's obviously a crook. Kicked out of his previous profession for illegal behaviour. Sorry, what he does is not legal -- its stealing. He steals MY bandwidth, which I paid good money for. I have to download his crap mail wasting MY TIME and MY BANDWIDTH. But the solution to this is simple: make a comprehensive e-mail address list of all people you know, and have your e-mail program delete (or download only the header of) anything which isn't from someone you know.
As for pop-up ads and other crap, you can prevent that by a host file. I currently have images.slashdot.org on my hostfile, along with the locations of other sites that slashdot banners come from. I see no ads on Yahoo, CNET, DOWNLOAD.com, WSJ.com, MSN.com, etc. Other things to do are to disable playing sounds or animations, and to remove Flash from you're computer. As a last resort, you can just disable images altogether.
The technology that this crook described which would flash pop-ups to people connected to the internet is also illegal -- it steals MY resources (my RAM, my CPU time, my GPU power, etc). The way to stop that is to refuse non-requested pop-ups or other such information, to close off ports, and to install a firewall.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 2
A rather long rant. Just because people don't have these absurd religious morals which ban everything which is pleasurable and harmless, doesn't mean they don't have morals.
That said, I myself don't see the need for morals. Society does not need morals. What society needs is some kind of universal agreement among its members as to what behaviour is to be allowed. I'll refer to Rawl's position here, and say that such principles should in principle be determined a priori with each person considering what is necessary.
Reduced down the most universal component, most poeple would agree upon the following general principle to govern all of society:
You can do anything you want so long as you don't violate other people's rights. As a corallary, nothing should be illegal unless it violates other people's rights.
Then all that's left to do is negotiate what rights we all think we need. Most people would agree that (in addition to the meager set of rights provided by the Amendments), the following additional rights should be explicitly granted (those who don't can live in some other tyranical society):
1. The right to sexual freedom. People should have the right to engage in any form of mutually consentual sex they like, so long as it does not violate the right of another person*.
2. The right to privacy (not explicitly granted by the Amendments).
3. The right to one's body. We shall have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies so long as we don't violate other people's rights. This means that laws illegalizing prostitution, drugs, stripping, sodomy, etc. would be unconstitutional.
4. The right to freedom of religion. As a corallary, the right of freedom from religion.
5. The right to freely share information. A corallary to the right to freedom of speech. As a corallary to the right to freedom of speech, also the right of freedom from speech (that is, we shouldn't be forced to listen to what other people have to say). While freedom of speech demands the possibility to be heard (that is, anyone who wants to listen can), it does not demand that one necessarily be heard.
As a qualifier, since I believe in the right to keep one's earned money, I do not support forced taxation. However, those who do not pay taxes should not receive the benefit of them.
Thus, since I believe that the only things which should be illegal are those which violate other person's rights, I don't think that biotech, nanotech, gene-therapy, genetic engineering, etc. research should be banned or prohibited, or even regulated beyond mandating that the research not violate anyone's rights (i.e., it shall not be done on non-willing "volunteers"). If people choose to volunteer for such research, that's their choice. As for safety matters (i.e., a contamination spreading), these should be regulated by direct responsibility. If you're doing research on a potentially deadly virus and the virus infects (and kills much of) the general population due to your negligence, you should be directly responsible -- that is, trialed for murder.
So, I would propose no regulations on new technologies. I only propose that people be held accountable for their actions, and have no shield from liability.
How does research into nanotechnology, biotechnology, gene therapy, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. violate your rights? It doesn't. It only bothers you because you find it disturbing, because you think its playing god. If that's so, fine, don't do it. But you have no right to force your morality on others.
* Person -- a human being that has been born.
P.S.: Morality is a meaningless thing, since what is considered moral in one nation is considered immoral in another, what is legal here may be illegal not less than a mile from here. The simple fact is, we made this morality bullshit up. We also made up human rights, but at least they serve a practical purpose of allowing us all to go about our own business with minimal interference from others. But this morality nonsense does nothing but make life miserable. "Morality" is the reason why children feel guilty about masturbation, a harmless activity. It's why women were burned at the stake for "being witches". It's why people feel compelled to be ashamed of consentual and harmless sexual activities (such as prostitution, homosexual sex, non-procreative sex, etc). And I don't think the religious right has any monopoly on stupidity. There's plenty of nutcase fanatics on the left to. A prime example is these PETA nutcases, who seem to think that society should alot a rat the same rights it alots a person. In fact, the PETA nutcases remind me of the foetus freaks: breaking into buildings and blowing them up because of their "beliefs". Terrorists.
Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Most all technologies hold great potential to do good. The reason they're banned is because of paranoid religious zealots. "Its playing god," "It's dangerous," "It'll be misused," wah wah wah.
We should be embracing the future and figuring out how to use new technologies to our advantage. Not avoiding the inevitable (i.e., human cloning, gene therapy, nanotech, biotech, etc). New technologies will come and be used whether we like it or not. Cloning will occur whether we ban it or not. The only question is if we're going to be left in the dark -- in a relative middle ages -- because of our own irrational fear and paranoia.
Some jelly bottles now say "free of genetically modified organisms". That's nice, considering genetically modified organisms aren't necessarily any worse or better than natural ones -- just different. Also, nice to know there might be millions of natural deadly bacteria in it. Sort of like the "all natural" bullshit -- shit is natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it.
Hey, fuckwit, the FBI is supposed to be dealing with serious crime -- serial killers, serial rapists, rapists, killers, terrorists, child molesters, etc. Not busting some schmuck for uncapping a cable modem. Fucking moron. The state should not waste valuable resources enforcing contracts. That money should be spent stopping real crime. Enforcing contracts should be the last priority. And when we do use the state to enforce them, there's no need for the FBI to get involved. Since when has violating a contract been a criminal offense? Sorry, but if you put a device in my home and I pay for it, I'm going to take the liberty to do whatever the fuck I want with it; if that violates some contract, its hardly a criminal matters. If you don't like it, you can cancel the contract.
Rather than simply cancelling these guys service, this ISP had to make a mountain out of a molehill and waste our taxpayer dollars arresting people for something which isn't even as bad as speeding (when you speed 60mph down a local street, someone can get killed; who exactly can get killed by uncapping a cable modem?).
Copyright, patent, trademark, trade-secret, and defamation laws are just tools for the rich and powerful to use against the poor and powerless; they've been corrupted from their original intent, in which they were to be of sparse scope and duration and used only to promote progress, to some idiotic theory that people have the right to own information. All current IP laws are unconstitutional, as are the retroactive extensions of copyright. These laws should be rewritten to drastically scale back both their scope and duration. 90% of the things which are patented today, for example, shouldn't be because they are trivial non-sense. Organisms shouldn't be patentable, nor should genes, nor anything having to do with life. Business methods or models shouldn't patentable. And many "inventions" simply shouldn't get a patent because they're useless or because they're trivial modifications of existing technology.
We all know that the BS you hear MS spewing about wanting a healthy competitive market is non-sense. Quite frankly, they don't want any competition at all, nor do they even want their competitors to be able to compete. They want to lock people into using MS Office because they need it to use.doc files.
Every time MS has been faced with an opportunity to promote a uniform standard between different OS' and different word-processors, they've balked. Why? Because this would allow people to freely and easily switch from MS Windows and MS Office to Linux and OpenOffice, or Mac and OpenOffice, or BeOS and whatever.
Just goes to prove my point that MS is really like a drug dealer, except they're not selling drugs, they're adding them to their products: they work hard to create dependencies on MS Office and MS Windows (i.e., not supporting standards, introducing changes in the doc format to prevent others from developing interoperability).
Any time you here a company talking about how they want alot of competition and want what's best for the consumer, you can rest assured they're full of shit. All that any company wants is to maximize profits using any legal means, and any illegal one's they can get away with. Sure, there might be a few exceptions like RedHat, but those are far and few between.
Re:Deep blue was a bagel toaster
on
Behind Deep Blue
·
· Score: 2
Wow, that was along ramble wihch missed the point.
No one's saying that IBM intended to be a long-term player in the chess arena. That still doesn't justify their underhanded tactics in denying Kasparov or anyone else a rematch.
The simple fact is, this match was so unfairly biased against Kasparov from the start that its completely meaningless. The only significant outcome of this match is that Kasparov's ego took a big hit, as can be observed in Kasparov v. Kramnick.
As you mentioned, Kasparov wasn't given enough resting time between each match. This puts him at an unfair disadvantage, as computers need no rest. He wasn't given any time to prepare against Deep Blue by playing practice games against it: IBM denied him that. Deep Blue was modified between matches and designed with Kasparov's style of play in mind. In short, there was no doubt that Kasparov would lose this match because he suffered every possible disadvantage a human opponent could suffer.
Thus, Kasparov v. Deep Blue was nothing but a meaningless farce.
Too bad IBM dismantled the computer before he could ask for a rematch. IBM refused him a rematch.
IBM also sternly INSISTED on their terms, which meant no preparation time for Kasparov. If Kasparov didn't agree, there would have been no tournament. IBM was stiff-arming him to put themselves in the most favorable position possible, giving their program several unfair advantages.
The simple FACT of the matter is that Deep Blue had three unfair advantages over Kasparov which most chess players never have against their opponent: (1) Built to play Kasparov specifically; (2) Reprogrammed after each match (cheating); (3) Well-prepared for Kasparov, but Kasparov wasn't allowed to prepare against him. You cannot possibly call this a fair match, no matter what Kasparov agreed to. The only reason Kasparov agreed to it is because he had no choice: IBM was not accepting reasonable terms.
Here's a summary: IBM stacked the deck against Kasparov. It's that fucking simple. Got it? Just because Kasparov agreed (because if he didn't, there would be no match) doesn't mean this match was fair. It was set up to give the computer every possible advantage. You will notice that in the recent match between Kramnick and Fritz, Kramnick was allowed prep-time, and Fritz wasn't reprogrammed after each match; also, Fritz was designed as a general-purpose chess-machine, not a machine specifically to play well against Kramnick. In other words, it was obvious that looking back the chess match was so unfairly stacked against Kasparov that he had no way of winning.
Like I said, all that match proves is that even a weaker opponent like Deep Blue can beat a vastly superior one like Kasparov if its given every possible unfair advantage. Just a ploy by IBM to make money.
Fischer may be somewhat justified in saying that modern chess is all predetermined anyways. In the case of Kasparov v. Deep Blue, he's most certainly right.
Try reading about the history of something before saying a computer program has really beaten a human.
Even Deep Fritz hasn't truely beaten (or really tied) Kramnick. Kramnick resigned a game he could have easily drawn, the result of a draw would be that Kramnick would have won the match. And there's plenty of evidence suggesting that despite Kasparov's collapse against Kramnick, he's still a better player than Kramnick (Kasparov recently beat Kramnick in a blitz-tournament). Kasparov's poor performance against Kasparov can be explained by a few things: (1) His ego was shattered 5 years earlier in the unfair match against Deep Blue; (2) Personal problems; (3) He was ordered not to play well (under penalty to his relatives) to advance the career of a favored up-and-coming star (this is the Fischer-theory).
In short, no computer has yet equaled the best chess player in the world to my satisfaction, nor to grandmaster's opinions. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but I think it'll still be a while. And of course, once we switch to playing Fischer-random chess, computers will be set back another 40 years, because there will be no "opening theory".
Most of you here don't know this, but the match of Deep Blue v. Kasparov was extremely unfairly tilted against Kasparov.
1. IBM specifically built Deep Blue to play Kasparov, not to be a general-purpose chess machine. 2. Deep Blue was reprogrammed between matches. Again, extremely unfair. As if normal opponents can "reprogram themselves" between matches. This is the equivalent of switching opponents in the middle of a chess match. 3. Fischer was not allowed to study any of Deep Blue's previous games, or to play matches against Deep Blue to familiarize himself with Deep Blue, yet Deep Blue was given extensive knowledge of Kasparov's styles specifically. In fair tournaments, each player has the opportunity to study the other. Kasparov did not have that opportunity.
In short, this was one of the most unfair matches in chess history. All IBM proved is that if you cheat enough and put the other player at enough of an unfair disadvantage, you can win, even if they are the second greatest ever (Fischer is the greatest ever). This was nothing more than a publicity stunt by IBM to get more recognition and money, and they did it by mandating that Kasparov agree to a fundamentally unfair match.
It is interesting that in the game in which Kasparov won, he played anti-chess, using very unorthidox "non-best" moves. Interestingly, this is what its rumored that Fischer is doing now-a-days in his annonymous online blitz games, starting out with very unorthidox openings (i.e., moving all pawns forward).
The best games of the last century were played by Fischer and Kasparov. The thing that we're looking for this century is Fischer v. Kasparov, the match the chess world deserves to see.
Written specifically to beat Kasparov. In other words, it can't really play chess at a top level except against Kasparov's style. It was also helped by Kasparov's collapse, in which he stopped playing his game and tried to play everything to put the computer at the greatest disadvantage. In other words, the cards were stacked against him.
They even reprogrammed it in the middle of the tournament, as they noted flaws or different tactics by Kasparov. Again, stacking the deck against Kasparov.
Then they wouldn't allow a rematch. Yes, indeed, why would they want to allow a rematch, or anyone else to play Deep Blue? That would've proven that Deep Blue was a fraud, which couldn't beat Kasparov a second time around (once he'd learned from his mistakes) or any other top player.
Exactly what point did IBM prove? That when they cheat and manipulate the situation to put the opponent at an unfair disadvantage, they can win? Kasparov wasn't even allowed to play practice games against Deep Blue, or analyze Deep Blue's previous games, but the developers of Deep Blue considered Kasparov's games in detail when making it. If for nothing else, the situation was certainly unfair, as Kasparov couldn't even analyze his opponent before the game, while his opponent (Deep Blue) was built with great consideration of all of Kasparov's games and his playing style.
In short, Deep Blue v. Kasparov was anything BUT a fair competition. It was one of the most pre-arranged, unfair, manipulated match in chess history. IBM proved nothing, except that by cheating they can win. I could have done that too, without spending billions to make a super-computer. Sure, if you cheat enough, create an unfair enough advantage for yourself, you win.
Deep blue was a fraud
on
Behind Deep Blue
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As much as I like IBM for their support of GNU/Linux and other Free/Open-Source Software, Deep Blue is just a fraud.
The fact is, the machine was reprogrammed DURING the chess match. Gee, go figure. The people at IBM built it SPECIFICALLY to beat Kasparov, and it was promptly dismantled after the game, leaving Kasparov with no opportunity for a rematch. Also, who else did this Deep Blue play that was any good? More proof that it was designed to play against Kasparov's style.
Sorry, but there was heavy and reasonably criticism of Deep Blue, and IBM didn't alleviate matters by having it dismantled before a rematch could be worked out, or before any other top players could have played it.
Um, I don't know, the inner city? Smart drug dealers offer great deals on drugs (or free) to new customers. Once they get addicted and have no choice but to use drugs, the prices skyrocket.
You've foolishly overlooked a few key important points.
1. MS isn't going to offer this software to India for free forever. As soon as MS deems that they can suck India dry, they'll start charging. Now, they're simply trying to make India dependant on Microsoft, so that people there have to use MS Windows and MS Word. Later on, they'll start charging outrageous prices. Just like what drug dealers do: free to try, addictive, and then you get to pay through the wazoo.
2. Substantial costs of using Windows such as security, downtime, etc have been ignored.
3. The cost of dealing with the BSA and paying them off of they threaten to sue has been ignored.
4. If India needs Windows to do something it doesn't do, they're screwed. If they use Linux, all they have to do is hire a few programmers.
For what the government needs to do, Linux is fine -- perfect, in fact. It can install on many standard types of hardware, and it has some good GUI defaults (i.e., KDE/GNOME) along with good windowmanagers (i.e., WindowMaker). Office suites like OpenOffice are quite easy to use. If they really want MS Office, they can use CrossOver Office.
The most important point here is #1. MS is like a drug-dealer. Sure, they'll give stuff to you for free in hope of making you dependant on it. Then once they're sure you're dependant on it (and they'll do things to make you dependant on it through their updates), they start charging. Sort of like the MP3 FRAUD: let them use MP3's for free, then when everyone's using it and it'll be difficult to switch to something else, suddenly introduce royalty payments. THESE FRAUDULENT FUCKS ARE NO BETTER THAN DRUG DEALERS.
Why are people coming up with all these irrelevant analogies?
The other companies in question chose to allow company X to integrate its code with theirs. Its code happened to be integrated with GPL'ed code, which means that anything it MUST be released under the GPL, as MUST anything else it integrates with (ref. to GPL). The other companies had the obligation to make sure that company X didn't have any GPL'ed code. They didn't do that. THEIR FAULT. Now they pay the price. They are OBLIGATED to distribute their code under the GPL because they "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the code they were merging with had GPL'ed code in it". In other words, the burden is on them.
These other companies seem to be claiming that "they didn't know the code they were merging with was GPL". This seems like turning a blind eye to the problem. If you merge code with someone else, its your responsibility to look over their code and make sure you won't be violating any licenses by doing so. In other words, these other companies were in a situation where they said "don't ask don't tell". They willed themselves to be ignorant of any problems. THEIR FAULT.
WRONG. The FSF doesn't have the power to do anything with your license. The GPL just says "version X.x of the GPL OR any later version". In other words, the USER GETS TO CHOOSE which one to follow, according to the FSF. That's better, as it gives the user more FREEDOM. Thus you're concerns and those of Linus are completely unwarranted on this matter. The end-user being able to choose which version of the GPL gives the end user more FREEDOM. Also, note, that the copyright author not the GPL grants the user the right to choose which version of the GPL to use. I.e,. the author can say "version 3" which means version 3, or they can say "version 3 or later," which means version 3 or any later version, at the user's choice. The GPL itself does not say "you may abide by this version of the GPL or any later version at your choice" (Though I'd argue it should, since this gives the user more freedom).
As I also said, I think that you should give co-ownership to any organization which stands up for the freedoms you want to protect, including the FSF, OSI, EFF, etc. This way, there is no single point of failure.
Big big difference here, in that these other corporations ALLOWED their code to be incorporated into the code by this other company. If they wanted their code not to be GPL'ed, they had the OBLIGATION to make sure that that other company wasn't integrating/mixing their code with GPL'ed code in a way in which the GPL doesn't allow (unless you distribute it under the GPL). Again, THEIR responsibility.
If this person distributes the code under the GPL, then these other companies can sue this company for fraud and misrepresentation, and get compensation for the value of their software lost.
But the code is now out there, incorporated with GPL'ed code. That means it has to be distributed under the GPL, and anything else is a violation of the GPL. We have the right to distribute it under the GPL.
You obviously misunderstand the concept of human rights. Human rights means you can do something and be free of punishment from the government for doing it. I take a slightly different view on it, and say that human rights are absolute: they exist; either government's recognize them or they don't. Those that don't are illegitimate in that area. If Fischer plays chess in nation X and the US arrests him for that when he comes to the US, then the US is violating his rights, refusing to recognize them.
No, we as a nation (a people) do not have the right to violate the rights of any individual citizen. Btw, that is NOT the will of this entire nation. Take a poll, and I doubt you'll find many people who think B. Fischer should be in jail for violating "economic sanctions" or whatever other bullshit it was by playing chess in some other country.
I'm not trying to justify B. Fischer's racism. I simply gave a likely explanation for why he felt that way. Btw, how has his racism harmed anyone? Haven't heard about him tying a rope around a Jewish person's neck and dragging hiim behind a car until his head falls off, have you? As offensive as his opinions may be, they're harmless.
My whole point isn't that Fischer should be exempt from US laws. Its that some US laws are simply unconstitutional violations of US citizen's rights; such is the case with the law which would forbid him to play chess in nation X. These laws should be ignored and actively disobeyed, and struck down by the courts.
Btw, how does the "red threat" have anything to do with Fischer? As I mentioned, Fischer hates Russians and also hates communism.
There are other circumstances involved here, namely that these companies weren't necissarily aware that the code was GPLed due to the deceptive practices of a third party.
Irrelevant. Its their responsibility to determine what license the code is under. Such finger-pointing routines wouldn't work if you gave me a piece of EULA'ed code under a "deceptive practice" and led me to believe it was public domain. I'd still have to (once informed it was EULA'ed) comply.
Why even bother trying to negotiate with them? Just release everything under the GPL. The GPL gives you the right to release their code under the GPL, as they based their code around modified GPL'ed code, or added their code to GPL'ed code to make a product. Thus, the GPL gives you the right to distribute that code under the GPL.
If they decide to sue, use the GPL as a defense. They had no right to release their code under a EULA in the first place if they based it around GPL'ed code. They may try to sue you for violating their EULA or intellectual property or whatever, but you can use as a valid defense that they never had the right to release the code under that license in the first place, because of the GPL.
This is not the problem of the person who submitted this article. He's doing everything by the book. This is the problem of greedy or negligent corporations which are now whining because they have to comply with a license they had gotten away with violating.
Bullshit. They may have the copyright to their work, but they can don't get to choose whether or not to GPL their software (if its based on GPL'ed software). They can choose to distribute it and GPL it, or not to distribute it at all.
Once they've distributed it, that choice is over. If they distribute it and don't GPL it, they're in violation of the license, and can be forced to release it under the GPL. The people who've already bought it have the right to see the source, as that code is based around GPL'ed code.
You can't "take back" a distribution once you've released it into the world or on the net. Thousands of people have already bought it, and thus will have the right to see the source, as the GPL grants.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? You seem to be trying to sound brilliant while stating the obvious.
No matter what view you take, you need to be able to protect your rights by force, if they're threatened.
Either you believe that rights are inherent in us all as some natural thing a priori, and that we can make others respect them through force (if they're violated). Or you believe that we only have those rights we can defend, and if we can't defend them, we don't have them. It doesn't matter from a practical point of view: rights either don't exist or are meaningless if you can't (ultimately) defend threats to them via force.
My idea is quite simple. In modern society, if you don't want to respect other's rights, fine. But then no one else should be required to protect yours. In other words, the government wouldn't protect "violations to your rights" if you choose not to respect other's rights as a lifestyle.
Wrong, Kasparov had no choice but to accept the terms, or else he would have looked weak and cowardly, justifying Fischer's criticisms that the chess champions never put anything on the line.
If he refused the terms, IBM would have set out to slander him, calling him a coward and whatnot, in front of the public.
Btw, they never said they would reprogram it between matches. And its never been proven that the machine didn't have human help. I personally think it was Fischer playing the games Deep Blue won.
Ah, I see your point. You view it as equivalent to tresspass (i.e., parking your car in my drive-way).
Interesting, though obvious point. Obviously, we have only those rights we can defend. I may say I have the right to life, but if I have no right to protect myself, and if my murderers or attempted-murderers are not punished, then my right to life is meaningless.
Yes, we have only those rights we can defend. Yes, we do impose on others that they respect our rights, in return for us respecting their's. It is not, however, me forcing my will on anyone else -- it's me preventing them from forcing their will on me. In other words, modern rights are defensive, not offensive. They're used as a shield, not a sword. The rights in primitive and barbaric countries (or times) were used as a sword (i.e., the right to beat one's wife), but such offensive rights have been undone.
I never said that rights are a natural a priori thing. They are not a natural property of human beings, as is (for example) the ability to communicate through higher language, and the ability to use and make tools.
Maybe...for those of us who don't believe in human rights, and don't want to respect anyone else' rights, fine. They can do so. But then their rights need not be respected either. They should wear a large red O (outcast) on their clothes, so that everyone who sees them knows that they respect no one's rights and that no one need respect their rights.
Gee, what's so horrible about a society where people do what they will so long as they don't violate other people's rights, as defined by law? Victimless "crimes" such as prostitution, drug-use, non-procreative sex, masturbation, etc. should not be illegal, because they violate no-one's rights.
The entire purpose of government is to protect our rights, nothing more. Any additional services should be voluntary, not mandatory. People work for their money and shouldn't have to pay taxes if they don't want to; however, if they don't pay taxes, they aren't protected by the government (i.e., no right to file complaints in courts, gov't doesn't protect their rights, etc), so that provides sufficient motivation to pay taxes. Additional things beyond protecting our rights should be voluntary, and only those who pay the extra taxes for them should receive the unconditional benefits they offer (i.e., roads...those of us who pay taxes for roads would be able to travel them freely, other's would have to pay periodically via some mechanism).
You make it sound as if rights principles are an unworkable thing. They're not. They are the basis for any civilized society. Indeed, the best possible society would be one where everyone's free to do as they will so long as they don't violate other's rights, and where no one does in fact violate other's rights.
A society based around the principle that nothing should be illegal so long as it doesn't violate other's rights would work. You and other so-called "moderates" (and I'd say there's nothing moderate about defending abridgements of our rights) may think its untenable. But the rest of the world thought the US was nuts back during the revolution. Another, intermediate position, would be to say that the government should engage in the minimum beyond protecting our rights. That is, they should do the minimum to hold society together beyond protecting our rights: i.e., maintain roads and traffic lights, and other such trivial things.
Irrelevant. I didn't give them permission to waste my precious resources on their crap. If my computer is older and slower, such crap can freeze it. Even if not, why should I have to be slowed down because some jerk off wants to sell me "penis enlargement" devices which don't work?
Fact is, my resources are being stolen. I am denied the use of them while these fuckwits use them to display their tacky ads. Its like you stealing my car, using it for an hour, then returning it. Sorry, that's still theft and you should go to jail for it. Irrelevant of how small the theft, it still violates my rights.
Property rights need to be ask-first. That is, you can't just steal my property and then compensate me. You have to ask me if X would compensate me fairly for my property. I'm not making this argument eloquently, but Lessig does.
This guy's obviously a crook. Kicked out of his previous profession for illegal behaviour. Sorry, what he does is not legal -- its stealing. He steals MY bandwidth, which I paid good money for. I have to download his crap mail wasting MY TIME and MY BANDWIDTH. But the solution to this is simple: make a comprehensive e-mail address list of all people you know, and have your e-mail program delete (or download only the header of) anything which isn't from someone you know.
As for pop-up ads and other crap, you can prevent that by a host file. I currently have images.slashdot.org on my hostfile, along with the locations of other sites that slashdot banners come from. I see no ads on Yahoo, CNET, DOWNLOAD.com, WSJ.com, MSN.com, etc. Other things to do are to disable playing sounds or animations, and to remove Flash from you're computer. As a last resort, you can just disable images altogether.
The technology that this crook described which would flash pop-ups to people connected to the internet is also illegal -- it steals MY resources (my RAM, my CPU time, my GPU power, etc). The way to stop that is to refuse non-requested pop-ups or other such information, to close off ports, and to install a firewall.
A rather long rant. Just because people don't have these absurd religious morals which ban everything which is pleasurable and harmless, doesn't mean they don't have morals.
That said, I myself don't see the need for morals. Society does not need morals. What society needs is some kind of universal agreement among its members as to what behaviour is to be allowed. I'll refer to Rawl's position here, and say that such principles should in principle be determined a priori with each person considering what is necessary.
Reduced down the most universal component, most poeple would agree upon the following general principle to govern all of society:
You can do anything you want so long as you don't violate other people's rights. As a corallary, nothing should be illegal unless it violates other people's rights.
Then all that's left to do is negotiate what rights we all think we need. Most people would agree that (in addition to the meager set of rights provided by the Amendments), the following additional rights should be explicitly granted (those who don't can live in some other tyranical society):
1. The right to sexual freedom. People should have the right to engage in any form of mutually consentual sex they like, so long as it does not violate the right of another person*.
2. The right to privacy (not explicitly granted by the Amendments).
3. The right to one's body. We shall have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies so long as we don't violate other people's rights. This means that laws illegalizing prostitution, drugs, stripping, sodomy, etc. would be unconstitutional.
4. The right to freedom of religion. As a corallary, the right of freedom from religion.
5. The right to freely share information. A corallary to the right to freedom of speech. As a corallary to the right to freedom of speech, also the right of freedom from speech (that is, we shouldn't be forced to listen to what other people have to say). While freedom of speech demands the possibility to be heard (that is, anyone who wants to listen can), it does not demand that one necessarily be heard.
These principles are in short a summary of the Libertarian Party Platform.
As a qualifier, since I believe in the right to keep one's earned money, I do not support forced taxation. However, those who do not pay taxes should not receive the benefit of them.
Thus, since I believe that the only things which should be illegal are those which violate other person's rights, I don't think that biotech, nanotech, gene-therapy, genetic engineering, etc. research should be banned or prohibited, or even regulated beyond mandating that the research not violate anyone's rights (i.e., it shall not be done on non-willing "volunteers"). If people choose to volunteer for such research, that's their choice. As for safety matters (i.e., a contamination spreading), these should be regulated by direct responsibility. If you're doing research on a potentially deadly virus and the virus infects (and kills much of) the general population due to your negligence, you should be directly responsible -- that is, trialed for murder.
So, I would propose no regulations on new technologies. I only propose that people be held accountable for their actions, and have no shield from liability.
How does research into nanotechnology, biotechnology, gene therapy, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. violate your rights? It doesn't. It only bothers you because you find it disturbing, because you think its playing god. If that's so, fine, don't do it. But you have no right to force your morality on others.
* Person -- a human being that has been born.
P.S.: Morality is a meaningless thing, since what is considered moral in one nation is considered immoral in another, what is legal here may be illegal not less than a mile from here. The simple fact is, we made this morality bullshit up. We also made up human rights, but at least they serve a practical purpose of allowing us all to go about our own business with minimal interference from others. But this morality nonsense does nothing but make life miserable. "Morality" is the reason why children feel guilty about masturbation, a harmless activity. It's why women were burned at the stake for "being witches". It's why people feel compelled to be ashamed of consentual and harmless sexual activities (such as prostitution, homosexual sex, non-procreative sex, etc). And I don't think the religious right has any monopoly on stupidity. There's plenty of nutcase fanatics on the left to. A prime example is these PETA nutcases, who seem to think that society should alot a rat the same rights it alots a person. In fact, the PETA nutcases remind me of the foetus freaks: breaking into buildings and blowing them up because of their "beliefs". Terrorists.
Most all technologies hold great potential to do good. The reason they're banned is because of paranoid religious zealots. "Its playing god," "It's dangerous," "It'll be misused," wah wah wah.
We should be embracing the future and figuring out how to use new technologies to our advantage. Not avoiding the inevitable (i.e., human cloning, gene therapy, nanotech, biotech, etc). New technologies will come and be used whether we like it or not. Cloning will occur whether we ban it or not. The only question is if we're going to be left in the dark -- in a relative middle ages -- because of our own irrational fear and paranoia.
Some jelly bottles now say "free of genetically modified organisms". That's nice, considering genetically modified organisms aren't necessarily any worse or better than natural ones -- just different. Also, nice to know there might be millions of natural deadly bacteria in it. Sort of like the "all natural" bullshit -- shit is natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it.
Hey, fuckwit, the FBI is supposed to be dealing with serious crime -- serial killers, serial rapists, rapists, killers, terrorists, child molesters, etc. Not busting some schmuck for uncapping a cable modem. Fucking moron. The state should not waste valuable resources enforcing contracts. That money should be spent stopping real crime. Enforcing contracts should be the last priority. And when we do use the state to enforce them, there's no need for the FBI to get involved. Since when has violating a contract been a criminal offense? Sorry, but if you put a device in my home and I pay for it, I'm going to take the liberty to do whatever the fuck I want with it; if that violates some contract, its hardly a criminal matters. If you don't like it, you can cancel the contract.
Rather than simply cancelling these guys service, this ISP had to make a mountain out of a molehill and waste our taxpayer dollars arresting people for something which isn't even as bad as speeding (when you speed 60mph down a local street, someone can get killed; who exactly can get killed by uncapping a cable modem?).
Copyright, patent, trademark, trade-secret, and defamation laws are just tools for the rich and powerful to use against the poor and powerless; they've been corrupted from their original intent, in which they were to be of sparse scope and duration and used only to promote progress, to some idiotic theory that people have the right to own information. All current IP laws are unconstitutional, as are the retroactive extensions of copyright. These laws should be rewritten to drastically scale back both their scope and duration. 90% of the things which are patented today, for example, shouldn't be because they are trivial non-sense. Organisms shouldn't be patentable, nor should genes, nor anything having to do with life. Business methods or models shouldn't patentable. And many "inventions" simply shouldn't get a patent because they're useless or because they're trivial modifications of existing technology.
We all know that the BS you hear MS spewing about wanting a healthy competitive market is non-sense. Quite frankly, they don't want any competition at all, nor do they even want their competitors to be able to compete. They want to lock people into using MS Office because they need it to use .doc files.
Every time MS has been faced with an opportunity to promote a uniform standard between different OS' and different word-processors, they've balked. Why? Because this would allow people to freely and easily switch from MS Windows and MS Office to Linux and OpenOffice, or Mac and OpenOffice, or BeOS and whatever.
Just goes to prove my point that MS is really like a drug dealer, except they're not selling drugs, they're adding them to their products: they work hard to create dependencies on MS Office and MS Windows (i.e., not supporting standards, introducing changes in the doc format to prevent others from developing interoperability).
Any time you here a company talking about how they want alot of competition and want what's best for the consumer, you can rest assured they're full of shit. All that any company wants is to maximize profits using any legal means, and any illegal one's they can get away with. Sure, there might be a few exceptions like RedHat, but those are far and few between.
Wow, that was along ramble wihch missed the point.
No one's saying that IBM intended to be a long-term player in the chess arena. That still doesn't justify their underhanded tactics in denying Kasparov or anyone else a rematch.
The simple fact is, this match was so unfairly biased against Kasparov from the start that its completely meaningless. The only significant outcome of this match is that Kasparov's ego took a big hit, as can be observed in Kasparov v. Kramnick.
As you mentioned, Kasparov wasn't given enough resting time between each match. This puts him at an unfair disadvantage, as computers need no rest. He wasn't given any time to prepare against Deep Blue by playing practice games against it: IBM denied him that. Deep Blue was modified between matches and designed with Kasparov's style of play in mind. In short, there was no doubt that Kasparov would lose this match because he suffered every possible disadvantage a human opponent could suffer.
Thus, Kasparov v. Deep Blue was nothing but a meaningless farce.
Too bad IBM dismantled the computer before he could ask for a rematch. IBM refused him a rematch.
IBM also sternly INSISTED on their terms, which meant no preparation time for Kasparov. If Kasparov didn't agree, there would have been no tournament. IBM was stiff-arming him to put themselves in the most favorable position possible, giving their program several unfair advantages.
The simple FACT of the matter is that Deep Blue had three unfair advantages over Kasparov which most chess players never have against their opponent: (1) Built to play Kasparov specifically; (2) Reprogrammed after each match (cheating); (3) Well-prepared for Kasparov, but Kasparov wasn't allowed to prepare against him. You cannot possibly call this a fair match, no matter what Kasparov agreed to. The only reason Kasparov agreed to it is because he had no choice: IBM was not accepting reasonable terms.
Here's a summary: IBM stacked the deck against Kasparov. It's that fucking simple. Got it? Just because Kasparov agreed (because if he didn't, there would be no match) doesn't mean this match was fair. It was set up to give the computer every possible advantage. You will notice that in the recent match between Kramnick and Fritz, Kramnick was allowed prep-time, and Fritz wasn't reprogrammed after each match; also, Fritz was designed as a general-purpose chess-machine, not a machine specifically to play well against Kramnick. In other words, it was obvious that looking back the chess match was so unfairly stacked against Kasparov that he had no way of winning.
Like I said, all that match proves is that even a weaker opponent like Deep Blue can beat a vastly superior one like Kasparov if its given every possible unfair advantage. Just a ploy by IBM to make money.
Fischer may be somewhat justified in saying that modern chess is all predetermined anyways. In the case of Kasparov v. Deep Blue, he's most certainly right.
Try reading about the history of something before saying a computer program has really beaten a human.
Even Deep Fritz hasn't truely beaten (or really tied) Kramnick. Kramnick resigned a game he could have easily drawn, the result of a draw would be that Kramnick would have won the match. And there's plenty of evidence suggesting that despite Kasparov's collapse against Kramnick, he's still a better player than Kramnick (Kasparov recently beat Kramnick in a blitz-tournament). Kasparov's poor performance against Kasparov can be explained by a few things: (1) His ego was shattered 5 years earlier in the unfair match against Deep Blue; (2) Personal problems; (3) He was ordered not to play well (under penalty to his relatives) to advance the career of a favored up-and-coming star (this is the Fischer-theory).
In short, no computer has yet equaled the best chess player in the world to my satisfaction, nor to grandmaster's opinions. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but I think it'll still be a while. And of course, once we switch to playing Fischer-random chess, computers will be set back another 40 years, because there will be no "opening theory".
Most of you here don't know this, but the match of Deep Blue v. Kasparov was extremely unfairly tilted against Kasparov.
1. IBM specifically built Deep Blue to play Kasparov, not to be a general-purpose chess machine.
2. Deep Blue was reprogrammed between matches. Again, extremely unfair. As if normal opponents can "reprogram themselves" between matches. This is the equivalent of switching opponents in the middle of a chess match.
3. Fischer was not allowed to study any of Deep Blue's previous games, or to play matches against Deep Blue to familiarize himself with Deep Blue, yet Deep Blue was given extensive knowledge of Kasparov's styles specifically. In fair tournaments, each player has the opportunity to study the other. Kasparov did not have that opportunity.
In short, this was one of the most unfair matches in chess history. All IBM proved is that if you cheat enough and put the other player at enough of an unfair disadvantage, you can win, even if they are the second greatest ever (Fischer is the greatest ever). This was nothing more than a publicity stunt by IBM to get more recognition and money, and they did it by mandating that Kasparov agree to a fundamentally unfair match.
It is interesting that in the game in which Kasparov won, he played anti-chess, using very unorthidox "non-best" moves. Interestingly, this is what its rumored that Fischer is doing now-a-days in his annonymous online blitz games, starting out with very unorthidox openings (i.e., moving all pawns forward).
The best games of the last century were played by Fischer and Kasparov. The thing that we're looking for this century is Fischer v. Kasparov, the match the chess world deserves to see.
Written specifically to beat Kasparov. In other words, it can't really play chess at a top level except against Kasparov's style. It was also helped by Kasparov's collapse, in which he stopped playing his game and tried to play everything to put the computer at the greatest disadvantage. In other words, the cards were stacked against him.
They even reprogrammed it in the middle of the tournament, as they noted flaws or different tactics by Kasparov. Again, stacking the deck against Kasparov.
Then they wouldn't allow a rematch. Yes, indeed, why would they want to allow a rematch, or anyone else to play Deep Blue? That would've proven that Deep Blue was a fraud, which couldn't beat Kasparov a second time around (once he'd learned from his mistakes) or any other top player.
Exactly what point did IBM prove? That when they cheat and manipulate the situation to put the opponent at an unfair disadvantage, they can win? Kasparov wasn't even allowed to play practice games against Deep Blue, or analyze Deep Blue's previous games, but the developers of Deep Blue considered Kasparov's games in detail when making it. If for nothing else, the situation was certainly unfair, as Kasparov couldn't even analyze his opponent before the game, while his opponent (Deep Blue) was built with great consideration of all of Kasparov's games and his playing style.
In short, Deep Blue v. Kasparov was anything BUT a fair competition. It was one of the most pre-arranged, unfair, manipulated match in chess history. IBM proved nothing, except that by cheating they can win. I could have done that too, without spending billions to make a super-computer. Sure, if you cheat enough, create an unfair enough advantage for yourself, you win.
As much as I like IBM for their support of GNU/Linux and other Free/Open-Source Software, Deep Blue is just a fraud.
The fact is, the machine was reprogrammed DURING the chess match. Gee, go figure. The people at IBM built it SPECIFICALLY to beat Kasparov, and it was promptly dismantled after the game, leaving Kasparov with no opportunity for a rematch. Also, who else did this Deep Blue play that was any good? More proof that it was designed to play against Kasparov's style.
Sorry, but there was heavy and reasonably criticism of Deep Blue, and IBM didn't alleviate matters by having it dismantled before a rematch could be worked out, or before any other top players could have played it.
Um, I don't know, the inner city? Smart drug dealers offer great deals on drugs (or free) to new customers. Once they get addicted and have no choice but to use drugs, the prices skyrocket.
Duh, its a pretty obvious business tactic.
You've foolishly overlooked a few key important points.
1. MS isn't going to offer this software to India for free forever. As soon as MS deems that they can suck India dry, they'll start charging. Now, they're simply trying to make India dependant on Microsoft, so that people there have to use MS Windows and MS Word. Later on, they'll start charging outrageous prices. Just like what drug dealers do: free to try, addictive, and then you get to pay through the wazoo.
2. Substantial costs of using Windows such as security, downtime, etc have been ignored.
3. The cost of dealing with the BSA and paying them off of they threaten to sue has been ignored.
4. If India needs Windows to do something it doesn't do, they're screwed. If they use Linux, all they have to do is hire a few programmers.
For what the government needs to do, Linux is fine -- perfect, in fact. It can install on many standard types of hardware, and it has some good GUI defaults (i.e., KDE/GNOME) along with good windowmanagers (i.e., WindowMaker). Office suites like OpenOffice are quite easy to use. If they really want MS Office, they can use CrossOver Office.
The most important point here is #1. MS is like a drug-dealer. Sure, they'll give stuff to you for free in hope of making you dependant on it. Then once they're sure you're dependant on it (and they'll do things to make you dependant on it through their updates), they start charging. Sort of like the MP3 FRAUD: let them use MP3's for free, then when everyone's using it and it'll be difficult to switch to something else, suddenly introduce royalty payments. THESE FRAUDULENT FUCKS ARE NO BETTER THAN DRUG DEALERS.
Why are people coming up with all these irrelevant analogies?
The other companies in question chose to allow company X to integrate its code with theirs. Its code happened to be integrated with GPL'ed code, which means that anything it MUST be released under the GPL, as MUST anything else it integrates with (ref. to GPL). The other companies had the obligation to make sure that company X didn't have any GPL'ed code. They didn't do that. THEIR FAULT. Now they pay the price. They are OBLIGATED to distribute their code under the GPL because they "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the code they were merging with had GPL'ed code in it". In other words, the burden is on them.
These other companies seem to be claiming that "they didn't know the code they were merging with was GPL". This seems like turning a blind eye to the problem. If you merge code with someone else, its your responsibility to look over their code and make sure you won't be violating any licenses by doing so. In other words, these other companies were in a situation where they said "don't ask don't tell". They willed themselves to be ignorant of any problems. THEIR FAULT.
WRONG. The FSF doesn't have the power to do anything with your license. The GPL just says "version X.x of the GPL OR any later version". In other words, the USER GETS TO CHOOSE which one to follow, according to the FSF. That's better, as it gives the user more FREEDOM. Thus you're concerns and those of Linus are completely unwarranted on this matter. The end-user being able to choose which version of the GPL gives the end user more FREEDOM. Also, note, that the copyright author not the GPL grants the user the right to choose which version of the GPL to use. I.e,. the author can say "version 3" which means version 3, or they can say "version 3 or later," which means version 3 or any later version, at the user's choice. The GPL itself does not say "you may abide by this version of the GPL or any later version at your choice" (Though I'd argue it should, since this gives the user more freedom).
As I also said, I think that you should give co-ownership to any organization which stands up for the freedoms you want to protect, including the FSF, OSI, EFF, etc. This way, there is no single point of failure.
Big big difference here, in that these other corporations ALLOWED their code to be incorporated into the code by this other company. If they wanted their code not to be GPL'ed, they had the OBLIGATION to make sure that that other company wasn't integrating/mixing their code with GPL'ed code in a way in which the GPL doesn't allow (unless you distribute it under the GPL). Again, THEIR responsibility.
If this person distributes the code under the GPL, then these other companies can sue this company for fraud and misrepresentation, and get compensation for the value of their software lost.
But the code is now out there, incorporated with GPL'ed code. That means it has to be distributed under the GPL, and anything else is a violation of the GPL. We have the right to distribute it under the GPL.
You obviously misunderstand the concept of human rights. Human rights means you can do something and be free of punishment from the government for doing it. I take a slightly different view on it, and say that human rights are absolute: they exist; either government's recognize them or they don't. Those that don't are illegitimate in that area. If Fischer plays chess in nation X and the US arrests him for that when he comes to the US, then the US is violating his rights, refusing to recognize them.
No, we as a nation (a people) do not have the right to violate the rights of any individual citizen. Btw, that is NOT the will of this entire nation. Take a poll, and I doubt you'll find many people who think B. Fischer should be in jail for violating "economic sanctions" or whatever other bullshit it was by playing chess in some other country.
I'm not trying to justify B. Fischer's racism. I simply gave a likely explanation for why he felt that way. Btw, how has his racism harmed anyone? Haven't heard about him tying a rope around a Jewish person's neck and dragging hiim behind a car until his head falls off, have you? As offensive as his opinions may be, they're harmless.
My whole point isn't that Fischer should be exempt from US laws. Its that some US laws are simply unconstitutional violations of US citizen's rights; such is the case with the law which would forbid him to play chess in nation X. These laws should be ignored and actively disobeyed, and struck down by the courts.
Btw, how does the "red threat" have anything to do with Fischer? As I mentioned, Fischer hates Russians and also hates communism.
Give the FSF co-ownership of your copyright. This way, they can enforce it or you can enforce it, and both they and you can negotiate with violators.
This way, you still own the copyright, but if you're somehow unable to defend it, the FSF can do so.
There are other circumstances involved here, namely that these companies weren't necissarily aware that the code was GPLed due to the deceptive practices of a third party.
Irrelevant. Its their responsibility to determine what license the code is under. Such finger-pointing routines wouldn't work if you gave me a piece of EULA'ed code under a "deceptive practice" and led me to believe it was public domain. I'd still have to (once informed it was EULA'ed) comply.
Why even bother trying to negotiate with them? Just release everything under the GPL. The GPL gives you the right to release their code under the GPL, as they based their code around modified GPL'ed code, or added their code to GPL'ed code to make a product. Thus, the GPL gives you the right to distribute that code under the GPL.
If they decide to sue, use the GPL as a defense. They had no right to release their code under a EULA in the first place if they based it around GPL'ed code. They may try to sue you for violating their EULA or intellectual property or whatever, but you can use as a valid defense that they never had the right to release the code under that license in the first place, because of the GPL.
This is not the problem of the person who submitted this article. He's doing everything by the book. This is the problem of greedy or negligent corporations which are now whining because they have to comply with a license they had gotten away with violating.
Bullshit. They may have the copyright to their work, but they can don't get to choose whether or not to GPL their software (if its based on GPL'ed software). They can choose to distribute it and GPL it, or not to distribute it at all.
Once they've distributed it, that choice is over. If they distribute it and don't GPL it, they're in violation of the license, and can be forced to release it under the GPL. The people who've already bought it have the right to see the source, as that code is based around GPL'ed code.
You can't "take back" a distribution once you've released it into the world or on the net. Thousands of people have already bought it, and thus will have the right to see the source, as the GPL grants.