Alternately, what if BlogThis! goes away-- or worse, requires you to view an ad before it'll open? This seems like the more likely scenario, because in this case the targeted audience isn't the people reading the blogs (think about it, how many hits does Aunt Mabel's Church Society blog really get?) but rather the people writing the blogs. Fill out a survey when you sign up and you too can blog for the low low cost of nothing plus time to read the same advertisement for scotch tape that you've read on every other site!
Considering Google's track record, this seems highly unlikely. Google has found that targetted text ads to the side of the page work much more effectively than popups or annoying banner ads.
Another quote to ease the minds of Canadians;
Canadian legal experts say similar suits would be harder to win here mainly because Canada's copyright law permits people to make copies of music for personal use. A levy is included in the price of CDs which is supposed to cover royalties for copying.
US case law says it is legal to make copies of music for personal use. The DMCA says it is illegal if there is any sort of copy protection. However, I am inclined to believe that case law preempts the DMCA in this case.
Those are the opinions of Hatch and of Wired, but that doesn't make them right.
For instance, it is not the responsibility of a web browser to rate the content that it is showing to the user. Nor is it the responsibility of the people who wrote the HTTP specification.
Now, I realize that HTML can easily show a page saying that something is "adult material" or whatever, but there's no reason that can't be put in the info for a file.
Yes, but if it's GPL, they must make it available by other means, as well (which they dont't)
Did you even read my comment? The GPL says that if you give someone a binary, you must also give them access to the source code. They do not have to provide anything for free on their website--after all, bandwidth is expensive.
Not really - it would be better to compare it to a religion than a company since the 'Open Source Movement' is more of an ideology than anything else.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Nobody generalizes about the beliefs of Christians after observing KKK members. And nobody should generalize about Muslims because of a what they know of Al-Qaeda.
The problem with the Rutan SS1 Design (Which I like btw) is that it is sub orbital. It may get the altitude but it does not have the velocity to get itself into orbit.
Well, the X prize goal is for suborbital space flight.
The US Constitution is very specific in not granting many rights to citizens that it doesn't also grant to the people -- about the only exception is participating in federal elections.
Not even that--it is states who put the citizenship requirement on voting (they just happed to all do the same thing).
Well, if you're using the OGL, you cannot use trademarks in any way without permission. If you're using the d20, you can use the D&D trademark, but you have to live with worse restrictions. If you're not using either license, you can say "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" without restriction (provided it's clear that the owners of the D&D trademark do not endorse your product).
If you own a store and someone shoplifts from you, you have lost a good and the shoplifter has gained a good. If you share music online, the downloader has gained a song, and you have not lost anything--the only person out money is the copyright holder (and even that's arguable).
And I believe the word you're looking for is more like "perpendicular".
Clarification--it is rather vague as to where they got the artwork from. If it was his site, they should have gotten permission first. If it was on the street, my point stands.
He should be happy he is finaly being credited for all the hard work he has done in making the city a less pleasurable place to live in.
He's suing because he's not being credited.
Fair is fair. If it is his work they are using, they should have asked him beforehand. And they have to compensate him in some way.
So did he leave his name and number at every place he vandalized? Take Two, in this instance, must assume that the "copyright holder" either didn't care or would step forward later and ask for money. If he didn't step forward to Take Two and Take Two didn't have any way of finding him, then I can't see this case being sustained for long.
And one of the definitions of public benefit is that the vast majority of the public can use it without a mess of stupid regulations that do nothing to enhance it's value and only serve to exclude large numbers.
Did you even read the post you're replying to? He said radio operators are expected to provide communication in times of crisis, and this is much easier if every radio operator knows morse code.
Even my watch -- with the built in cell phone, personal oraganizer, digital recorder, digital camera, and 10 fairly lame video games is more complex. I don't see a need for draconian license requirements for that.
And in times of crisis, your watch's cellphone--which depends on a centralized service--may not work as a communications device.
And radios aren't going to be used by the general public--as you said, computers are infinitely more powerful. And the few people who would want a radio license would certainly be willing to learn morse code.
With P2P you really don't know what you're getting. You may think you're downloading The Lion King but you may end up with Debbie Does Dallas.
On the web, sites are required by law to warn users before they can enter an adult site. Those that don't comply can be thrown in jail and/or fined.
P2P has NO SUCH MECHANISM to warn users about what they may actually be getting. Since the sharers have NO MEANS AVAILABLE to warn users what they're sharing then it's reasonable that the app itself must.
I believe the app may be required to provide a mechanism to allow sharers to rate their files, but it is not the requirement of the makers of the p2p program to rate files. You wouldn't expect the writers of HTTP or IE/Moz to be required to rate sites, would you?
Right. However, OpenOSX is not required to abide by their own license (as in they are not going to sue themselves for violating the terms of their license).
Source code of the original library, and object files (read: binaries) of the linked code. You do not have to release the source of the code you wrote that is linked to the LGPL'd code. For goodness sake, that's the point of the LGPL!
Assuming they don't provide a way to download the source, you are correct that they don't meet the requirements of the GPL. But Bochs is released under the LGPL.
As I said, read the GPL FAQ before complaining about them not releasing their project freely.
I must merely assume that the source is included with the binaries, or there is an option to download it later. But then, by licensing the distribution of your products to others (which is what the GPL does), you are not limiting the rights of yourself. Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to.
Slashdot Mirror
News flash: slashdot is a blog.
emacs is better!
Just kidding. I prefer emacs, but vi is a close second.
Those are the opinions of Hatch and of Wired, but that doesn't make them right.
For instance, it is not the responsibility of a web browser to rate the content that it is showing to the user. Nor is it the responsibility of the people who wrote the HTTP specification.
Now, I realize that HTML can easily show a page saying that something is "adult material" or whatever, but there's no reason that can't be put in the info for a file.
And according to Seinfeld, those elderly women love to shoplift batteries.
Well, if you're using the OGL, you cannot use trademarks in any way without permission. If you're using the d20, you can use the D&D trademark, but you have to live with worse restrictions. If you're not using either license, you can say "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" without restriction (provided it's clear that the owners of the D&D trademark do not endorse your product).
Thank you. I was rather confused as to why people would keep using the d20 license if they didn't like it.
It seems like people should avoid using both licenses now.
If you own a store and someone shoplifts from you, you have lost a good and the shoplifter has gained a good. If you share music online, the downloader has gained a song, and you have not lost anything--the only person out money is the copyright holder (and even that's arguable).
And I believe the word you're looking for is more like "perpendicular".
I don't understand--we use flat out lies to sue the fuckers, and they still don't buy our music.
Clarification--it is rather vague as to where they got the artwork from. If it was his site, they should have gotten permission first. If it was on the street, my point stands.
I've had nothing but problems with Steam. If I'm forced to use it to play HL2 online, I'm not going to buy the game.
And radios aren't going to be used by the general public--as you said, computers are infinitely more powerful. And the few people who would want a radio license would certainly be willing to learn morse code.
Right. However, OpenOSX is not required to abide by their own license (as in they are not going to sue themselves for violating the terms of their license).
Source code of the original library, and object files (read: binaries) of the linked code. You do not have to release the source of the code you wrote that is linked to the LGPL'd code. For goodness sake, that's the point of the LGPL!
Assuming they don't provide a way to download the source, you are correct that they don't meet the requirements of the GPL. But Bochs is released under the LGPL.
...and pay for the bandwidth for others to download it freely. Why pay for that on top of the $25?
As I said, read the GPL FAQ before complaining about them not releasing their project freely.
I must merely assume that the source is included with the binaries, or there is an option to download it later. But then, by licensing the distribution of your products to others (which is what the GPL does), you are not limiting the rights of yourself. Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to.