I was sufficiently concerned about this to contact an acquaintance of mine who practices law, specializing in labor law.
He's unaware of any provision in Federal or (Kentucky) State Law requiring exempt employees to be paid anything more than their salary, regardless of how many hours they work.
Got a cite to the US Code (or DOL regs) for that? I've never heard of it before, never been paid that way before (although I won't swear that I ever billed more than 45 hours/week), and (more importantly) don't pay that way in my wife's business (and she's salaried and typically works more than 45 hours/week, so I'd really like to find out exactly what you're talking about so the Feds don't pay me a nice visit....)
Not to mention, for us "exempt" employees, we still get paid our hourly-rate for hours worked over 40 (as long as it is 45 hours or more), just not at the overtime rate.
What country/company is this? Certainly not IBM US....
At IBM, not billing the suggested amount of overtime (10% in my division) leads to bad performance reviews (hence lower bonuses), raises that are even less frequent than presently (which is pretty damned infrequent), and eventual discharge.
Fran and Philippa are on record as saying that Tolkein's Faramir was not believable. Having just re-read the series, I still think this is the most harmful change that they made.
I felt the same way until I saw the extended cut of The Two Towers.
I think the familial tension that scene establishes not only makes Jackson's treatment of Faramir forgiveable, it makes it better than Tolkien's original.
The Supreme Court also has a long history of inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
The idea that "inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" is somehow beyond the pale is directly contradicted by the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment.
Auckland itself is a good-sized city, comparable to Chicago, I'd say
Wiki says Auckland's population is 1.3 million. That makes it comparable to metro Louisville, not Chicago (3 million in the city/9.7 million in the MSA)...
Could you have created a binary compliant with the covered software's ABI without either the inclusion of the header files within the precompiler's output [and thus the compiler's input]?
Of course. All I would have had to do is write my own header files. If we restrict ourselves to C (rather than C++), the only things that absolutely have to be duplicated are the external symbols (function names).
I'll certainly grant that an effective argument can certainly be made both ways -- but I can nonetheless see the FSF's point of view.
I agree, and I can also understand the reasons they hold their position. (I don't necessarily agree with it....) I just wish they'd 'fess up to what case law they're using to support it....
Agrees that writing software against a different program's API implies derivation?
Yes.
Moreover, structures and values from the API's header files are copied into your source during precompilation.
I'm not distributing the API's header files. It doesn't matter that I make a copy in RAM on my machine. (They had to tweak copyright law sometime in the 1980s because technically any time someone ran a program they were in violation of copyright by virtue of the fact that the OS had to make a copy of the program in RAM. It's now explicitly OK to make such copies if they're a necessary step in use of something you legitimately possess. I legitimately possess the header files, and making that copy during precompilation is a necessary step in using them, Your Honor....)
the reason there is relatively little case law regarding the FSF's interpretation of their licenses is that offending parties whom the FSF has communicated with almost universally settle.
I am sorely tempted to offend so that they will deign to explain their legal theory of derived works to me. They don't seem interested in doing so otherwise, which strikes me as curious if it were such an unassailable position...
it's very clear that they'll take you to court if you violate what they deem a derived work. My hunch is that their definition of infringement is vastly looser then any court in the U.S. would ever interpret it to be.
I agree.
As their definition is vastly looser then any standard definition used by a court, it's not like the court will use a stronger interpretation. It is also very difficult for someone to argue that they felt in compliance of the license, while using a different definition of "derived work".
I disagree.
If I create a non-GPL'd program that dynamically links to a GPL'd (not LGPL'd, GPL'd) library and I distribute that non-GPL'd program without the GPL'd library, I am not distributing the GPL'd library and so the legal proscriptions against distributing someone else's copyrighted work do not come into play.
I also do not need to accept any terms of the GPL in order to distribute my non-GPL'd program because I am not doing anything with the GPL'd library (the work to which the GPL applies) that I have to accept the GPL in order to do - I am not distributing the GPL'd library, or a modified version of it.
The only question is whether I have to accept the GPL in order to distribute my non-GPL'd program because my non-GPL'd program constitutes a derived work according to the legal definition of "derived work". I don't have to use the FSF's broader definition because unless the courts agree that my non-GPL'd program is in fact a derived work I am not doing anything that is prohibited by copyright law, and all the GPL does is give me additional privileges that would otherwise be disallowed by copyright law.
I think if the law and case history were anywhere near clearly supportive of FSF's position on this, they would plaster citations all over their website. AFAIK they don't, and they don't seem particularly eager to defend their legal theory concerning derived works.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. (Sets laser to "cynical" femtoseconds.) Zap!
Well, I found the section in the Texas Labor Code that regulates the minimum length of hoe handles (52.021)...
I was sufficiently concerned about this to contact an acquaintance of mine who practices law, specializing in labor law.
He's unaware of any provision in Federal or (Kentucky) State Law requiring exempt employees to be paid anything more than their salary, regardless of how many hours they work.
Got a cite to the US Code (or DOL regs) for that? I've never heard of it before, never been paid that way before (although I won't swear that I ever billed more than 45 hours/week), and (more importantly) don't pay that way in my wife's business (and she's salaried and typically works more than 45 hours/week, so I'd really like to find out exactly what you're talking about so the Feds don't pay me a nice visit....)
What country/company is this? Certainly not IBM US....
At IBM, not billing the suggested amount of overtime (10% in my division) leads to bad performance reviews (hence lower bonuses), raises that are even less frequent than presently (which is pretty damned infrequent), and eventual discharge.
I'm a member of the union, you insensitive clod, and the dues are $10 flat per month, you ignorant clod...
The stock's down, what, 75% for the year? The stockholders have been selling...
I haven't seen the "extended" versions. Is this scene there at all?
No, alas.
I felt the same way until I saw the extended cut of The Two Towers.
I think the familial tension that scene establishes not only makes Jackson's treatment of Faramir forgiveable, it makes it better than Tolkien's original.
The idea that "inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" is somehow beyond the pale is directly contradicted by the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment.
Good.
The filibusterer is Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, and he's filibustering so that the bill granting retroactive immunity won't be passed...
Wiki says Auckland's population is 1.3 million. That makes it comparable to metro Louisville, not Chicago (3 million in the city/9.7 million in the MSA)...
Of course you won't. We call it Silicon Holler....
For an example of macro-evolution in action, wiki ring species.
--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sorry, you'll have to wait until 11...
The Ivy league prohibits athletic scholarships.
(Brown, class of 1984)
Lubricant for the warp drive....
Would "British values" be "American values" on the wrong side of the road?
Administered by Natalie Portman wearing nothing but hot grits....
That explains why the man who sold the Virginia Tech shooter his guns is currently in jail.
Oh, wait....
Of course. All I would have had to do is write my own header files. If we restrict ourselves to C (rather than C++), the only things that absolutely have to be duplicated are the external symbols (function names).
I'll certainly grant that an effective argument can certainly be made both ways -- but I can nonetheless see the FSF's point of view.
I agree, and I can also understand the reasons they hold their position. (I don't necessarily agree with it....) I just wish they'd 'fess up to what case law they're using to support it....
Yes.
Moreover, structures and values from the API's header files are copied into your source during precompilation.
I'm not distributing the API's header files. It doesn't matter that I make a copy in RAM on my machine. (They had to tweak copyright law sometime in the 1980s because technically any time someone ran a program they were in violation of copyright by virtue of the fact that the OS had to make a copy of the program in RAM. It's now explicitly OK to make such copies if they're a necessary step in use of something you legitimately possess. I legitimately possess the header files, and making that copy during precompilation is a necessary step in using them, Your Honor....)
the reason there is relatively little case law regarding the FSF's interpretation of their licenses is that offending parties whom the FSF has communicated with almost universally settle.
I am sorely tempted to offend so that they will deign to explain their legal theory of derived works to me. They don't seem interested in doing so otherwise, which strikes me as curious if it were such an unassailable position...
I agree.
As their definition is vastly looser then any standard definition used by a court, it's not like the court will use a stronger interpretation. It is also very difficult for someone to argue that they felt in compliance of the license, while using a different definition of "derived work".
I disagree.
If I create a non-GPL'd program that dynamically links to a GPL'd (not LGPL'd, GPL'd) library and I distribute that non-GPL'd program without the GPL'd library, I am not distributing the GPL'd library and so the legal proscriptions against distributing someone else's copyrighted work do not come into play.
I also do not need to accept any terms of the GPL in order to distribute my non-GPL'd program because I am not doing anything with the GPL'd library (the work to which the GPL applies) that I have to accept the GPL in order to do - I am not distributing the GPL'd library, or a modified version of it.
The only question is whether I have to accept the GPL in order to distribute my non-GPL'd program because my non-GPL'd program constitutes a derived work according to the legal definition of "derived work". I don't have to use the FSF's broader definition because unless the courts agree that my non-GPL'd program is in fact a derived work I am not doing anything that is prohibited by copyright law, and all the GPL does is give me additional privileges that would otherwise be disallowed by copyright law.
I think if the law and case history were anywhere near clearly supportive of FSF's position on this, they would plaster citations all over their website. AFAIK they don't, and they don't seem particularly eager to defend their legal theory concerning derived works.
Says the FSF. Which Federal Court agrees with them?